Why isn't there a knight core class in Conan?

[Mark Dunder]

Barbarian - Barbaric fighter
Soldier - Civilized Fighter
Nomad - Nomadic fighter
Pirate - Sea master
Borderer- Land master
Noble - Social and political controler
Scholar - Knowledge and magic user
Theif - Sneak attacker and Skills master
Temptress - Rebel manipulator
Commoner - heavy worker

In my game Barbarian, Nomad, Borderer, Noble, Commoner are simply the Background for your PC. Soldier, Pirate, Scholar, Thief, (Temptress?) are the Vocation your PC chooses to pursue.

A Noble (a Commoner could be Knighted) would be your Background, and a Knight would be your Vocation.

I'm just curious as to why Priest is not one of your Core classes?

 

[Foxworthy]

Well Priest is a background for Scholar.

 

[Damien]

In these times the strong "houses" formed armies, and i think that those armies began using roman tactics like the "warrior on horse"

The Romans based their horsemen on other cultures'. The people you're talking about were not Nordic - they were the Goths, and they were already horsemen before their encounters with the Romans.

Does the hyborian world really need more classes?

Technically, the Hyborian world doesn't even need all of THOSE classes. The Pirate is no more -necessary- than the Knight. What Hyboria 'needs' depends on the group.

I can define which class is a knight. I traditional Sir type knight is a noble. Nothing more nothing less.

I thought you said he was a soldier?

So which is he - a soldier or a noble?


I'll point out here that a straight 1-20 Noble is a very bad option to play a knight. He's not nearly as martially inclined as a real knight would be. Doesn't have the best attack bonus, and his special abilities do not include nearly enough things that have combat applications. The knight is one of the supreme fighting men of the early Middle Ages - and so it's unreasonable to think that a class without a strong martial focus could begin to portray him.

Look at the Bossonians. Should they have an Archer class?

They do. Look at the Borderer. Take a Bossonian and give him Borderer with the Archery combat style. Ta-da - that's an archer. The Borderer seems specifically designed to serve as an excellent archer. The soldier, however, is not specifically (or perhaps even adequately) designed to function as a good knight.

Can it? Sure. I never said it CAN'T be a knight, though. I just said that there's enough about the knight that makes it unique which makes it qualify for either its own class or a variant multiclass. As a matter of fact, I believe Vincent Darlage did exactly that -- the Cavalier in Hyboria's Finest?

And I challenge you to make a noble with the scholar. Good luck getting all the martial and armor feats with Scholar. They aren't anywhere near the same class.

You're not paying attention. I didn't say you can make the Noble Class with the Scholar Class. I said you can easily create A NOBLE with the Scholar Class. The fact that you can do this, by your own logic, makes the noble class superfluous.

Take the scholar class - give him a background of nobility. Use his feats to gain some social and some martial abilities.

You might say "but now he's not as effective in combat" and I'd say - sure - you can multiclass with the soldier if you want a noble that's also a good combatant.

You see? If there was no noble class, you could still technically make a noble character. Does that mean the noble class doesn't need to exist?

And Soldier aren't people who fight for a lord, they are trained warriors. Mercenaary companies aren't always ran by a lord.

Trained soldiers fight for whoever pays/conscripts them. King, baron, mercenary leader.. these are all lords.


Definition 5 from Dictionary.com: Lord:
A man of renowned power or authority.

Borderers aren't trained warriors they are woodsmen.

They are a martial class. They are, indeed, trained warrios. The fact that they don't fight in formations with other borderers under a flag is irrelevant. They're a martial class.

A knight is a noble. Plain and simple.

Except that the Noble class makes an astoundingly poor knight.

They have Prc for Knights

First of all, I strongly dislike Prestige Classes. And further, there's no functional reason why you cannot start out as a knight. A knight is trained from childhood. If you're playing a character that's 20 or older, he's a knight, not a "waiting to be a knight - noble."

is there really a need for a core class?

Yes. Or a multiclass variant like those in Hyboria's Finest or The Free Companies - which I've stated like five times in as many posts.

 

[Foxworthy]

I can define which class is a knight. I traditional Sir type knight is a noble. Nothing more nothing less.

I thought you said he was a soldier?

So which is he - a soldier or a noble?

Here we go, here is my first post on the topic...

A.) Would a knight class enhance your game?
B.) Are there enough differences between a knight and soldier to be able to build an entirely new class without the one stepping on the other's toes.

Well I'd answer both as a no. Borderers, Barbarians, Nomads are core class cause they reflect a lifestyle different then Soldier. Of course I've always thought Noble modeled knight fine seeing as it even gives options to increase ride skill and what not.

And giving a bonus to a mounted charge is asking for trouble. Spirited Charge seem enough to give any horse mounted knight an advantage if they want to take the feat.

If you read it you'll notice I said Knight was a noble.

Then I said the Soldier class was made for all types of "warriors" then cited examples none of which was a knight. I can see where you think at that point I was saying that a knight was a noble, because an implication can be drawn. I then went on to explain how a NOBLE models a knight class. I was using Archers, Pikemen and what not as an example of why we don't need more classes.

I'll point out here that a straight 1-20 Noble is a very bad option to play a knight. He's not nearly as martially inclined as a real knight would be. Doesn't have the best attack bonus, and his special abilities do not include nearly enough things that have combat applications. The knight is one of the supreme fighting men of the early Middle Ages - and so it's unreasonable to think that a class without a strong martial focus could begin to portray him.

Yeah I was really off the mark when I said you wanted to power game it? AT twenty level a Hyborian knight has a penalty of one base attack point using a Lance or Broadsword. At that one point is then made up because the character is mounted. I don't see how he's not as martially inclined. Maybe because he doesn't have all those neat feats and noble abilities.

Look at the Bossonians. Should they have an Archer class?

They do. Look at the Borderer. Take a Bossonian and give him Borderer with the Archery combat style. Ta-da - that's an archer. The Borderer seems specifically designed to serve as an excellent archer. The soldier, however, is not specifically (or perhaps even adequately) designed to function as a good knight.

Actually while Borders can be Archers, they are still woodsmen, Bossonians have Soldier as a favored class cause it makes for better archers. Cause soldiers models... well soldiers.

Can it? Sure. I never said it CAN'T be a knight, though. I just said that there's enough about the knight that makes it unique which makes it qualify for either its own class or a variant multiclass. As a matter of fact, I believe Vincent Darlage did exactly that -- the Cavalier in Hyboria's Finest?

I'm not arguing against mutliclass and variant rules, I'm saying it shouldn't be a core class.

And I challenge you to make a noble with the scholar. Good luck getting all the martial and armor feats with Scholar. They aren't anywhere near the same class.

You're not paying attention. I didn't say you can make the Noble Class with the Scholar Class. I said you can easily create A NOBLE with the Scholar Class. The fact that you can do this, by your own logic, makes the noble class superfluous.

Take the scholar class - give him a background of nobility. Use his feats to gain some social and some martial abilities.

You might say "but now he's not as effective in combat" and I'd say - sure - you can multiclass with the soldier if you want a noble that's also a good combatant.

You see? If there was no noble class, you could still technically make a noble character. Does that mean the noble class doesn't need to exist?

Class in Conan are more lifestyles, the lifestyle of a Knight is a noble. That's why Noble is a martial class. That's why Skill Focus ride is available as a feature for nobles. Scholars can be nobles, using the noble blood feat, which would work well to fill the role of a second son of a lord who followed the path of a priest. But you can't make the Noble class using a scholar. Noble class for Conan is for Martial Nobles. The debate on whether they need a non martial noble class is on these boards because of that.

And Soldier aren't people who fight for a lord, they are trained warriors. Mercenaary companies aren't always ran by a lord.

Trained soldiers fight for whoever pays/conscripts them. King, baron, mercenary leader.. these are all lords.


Definition 5 from Dictionary.com: Lord:
A man of renowned power or authority.

I thought you meant lord as in a noble lord... but since you want to go the dictionary route...

knight

n 1: originally a person of noble birth trained to arms and chivalry

Dictionary says the Knight is a noble... guess I win.

A knight is a noble. Plain and simple.

Except that the Noble class makes an astoundingly poor knight.

Not at all. One BAB over 20 levels as a Hyborian Noble. That's horrible.

They have Prc for Knights

First of all, I strongly dislike Prestige Classes. And further, there's no functional reason why you cannot start out as a knight. A knight is trained from childhood. If you're playing a character that's 20 or older, he's a knight, not a "waiting to be a knight - noble."

Well take your first level as Noble... and the title Sir... Eureka you're a knight! The Prestige Class actually mirrors an elite order of knights. I was just pointing out that their is a knights class.

is there really a need for a core class?

Yes. Or a multiclass variant like those in Hyboria's Finest or The Free Companies - which I've stated like five times in as many posts.

No need for a core class. None at all. Nothing about a knight makes it need a core class over a Noble. Nothing. You can post as many times as you want but it won't change that fact. Just because DnD has paladins doesn't mean Conan needs them. Do wee need a Bard Class? Monk (I've seen the S&P, I think it's stupid.)? Core classes are the basic social roles, which is why certain cultures favor certain classes. Knight isn't a basic social role.

 

[Taharqa]

In these times the strong "houses" formed armies, and i think that those armies began using roman tactics like the "warrior on horse"

The Romans based their horsemen on other cultures'. The people you're talking about were not Nordic - they were the Goths, and they were already horsemen before their encounters with the Romans.

Depends on your definition of Nordic, I suppose. The gothic tribes were an offshoot of the Gaets from the area that is now Sweden. And my understanding is they learned horsemanship from other groups, such as the Sarmatians.

 

[Taharqa]

Seems like everyone agrees that a multiclass option works best. Issue resolved.

I understand your point about the arbitrariness of core classes, Damien, but it is a slippery-slope argument. Ultimately, any class-based game has to draw a line. I think most people here prefer parsimony - achieving enough diversity with a small number of classes.

 

[Damien]

Depends on your definition of Nordic, I suppose. The gothic tribes were an offshoot of the Gaets from the area that is now Sweden.

But the Goths themselves, whom I assume the poster was referring to, were not Nordic people except by ancestry. It's like a man born in the U.S., whose father and mother were born in the U.S., claiming to be Italian. By strict ancestry he may be, but he's not anymore. Does that explain it?

And my understanding is they learned horsemanship from other groups, such as the Sarmatians.

"They" the Goths, or "They" the Romans? I'm not sure which group you're referring to here.

If you read it you'll notice I said Knight was a noble.

As you said -- it was a lingual misunderstanding. I took your post to say that a knight is a type of soldier... and then to say he's a type of noble. Hence my confusion and assumption that you were sort of contradicting yourself.

Yeah I was really off the mark when I said you wanted to power game it?

Me? Try paying attention to the thread you're in. It isn't mine. I didn't start the thread. I'm simply saying that it's a valid idea that the OP put forth.

Secondly, stop being so damned snide. It isn't necessary at all.

AT twenty level a Hyborian knight has a penalty of one base attack point using a Lance or Broadsword.

We're not talking about level 20. We're talking about the entire 'life' of the class. A class is not simply defined by what it can do at level 20.

Not to mention that a knight should be effective with many weapons, not just his broadsword and lance. So not only is the soldier all around a better fighter, but he really outshines the knight by level 20 if the knight is caught without his 'pet weapons.'

But again, it's immatieral. The point is that the Soldier has the best progression and the Noble doesn't. Therefore the Noble is not the best way to represent a type of warrior who is incredibly focused on martial pursuits. Essentially, your knight is -less- of a warrior than some mercenary crossbowman of equal level. The knight should be at least on par with other professional soldiers (he actually should be better, but that would, indeed, be unbalanced).

The desire for a class that is focused almost solely on warfare to have the best BAB progression is not powergaming - it's common sense.

I don't see how he's not as martially inclined. Maybe because he doesn't have all those neat feats and noble abilities.

He's not martially inclined because:

1.) He doesn't have the best BAB progression.
2.) He doesn't have the best Parry progression.
3.) He doesn't have the best Defense progression.
4.) He gains no bonus feats as a class feature with which to increase his martial prowess.
5.) Your typical knight wouldn't have even half of the 'Social Abilities' the Noble gets. He should replace at least one or two of these with something martial.

The Noble is a second-string fighter. Knights were first-string fighters. The knight, therefore, more closely resembles the Soldier than the Noble. But rightly, the knight is a combination of both.

Actually while Borders can be Archers, they are still woodsmen, Bossonians have Soldier as a favored class cause it makes for better archers. Cause soldiers models... well soldiers.

I wouldn't know. I don't play archers. But if the Soldier does well at modelling the archer - what exactly is your position? That because the Soldier can handle Archers, then the Noble can handle Knights? That doesn't make much sense. Just because X+Y=Z does not mean that A+B also equals Z.


The point, in any event, is that there is already something that does extremely well at modelling the archer. My point is only that the Soldier and Noble, each individually, do not adequately model the Knight. Together, they do - as I have said numerous, numerous times.

I'm not arguing against mutliclass and variant rules, I'm saying it shouldn't be a core class.

I don't see much difference. In order for you to argue against a base class, you're arguing that the Noble functions exactly as a knight needs to... so that opinion would -preclude- you from agreeing that a variant multiclass would work well, because your opinion is that the Noble, as is, works excellently.

Class in Conan are more lifestyles, the lifestyle of a Knight is a noble.

Actually, the lifestyle of a knight was that of a professional soldier. It wasn't until well into the 15th century and after that knights even began to become as much, or more, about pomp than about warfare.

That's why Noble is a martial class.

But it's not. It's a second-string martial class with a large majority of abilities in no way tied to combat. That is NOT the definition of a 'martial class.'

The Soldier and Barbarian are martial classes, the Noble is not. Although it's certainly MORE martial-inclined than, say, the Scholar.

But you can't make the Noble class using a scholar

Do you have a literacy problem?

Let me quote exactly what I said to you, bolding some text for your convenience, because I really don't get why you keep saying that:

You're not paying attention. I didn't say you can make the Noble Class with the Scholar Class. I said you can easily create A NOBLE with the Scholar Class. The fact that you can do this, by your own logic, makes the noble class superfluous.

Take the scholar class - give him a background of nobility. Use his feats to gain some social and some martial abilities.

You might say "but now he's not as effective in combat" and I'd say - sure - you can multiclass with the soldier if you want a noble that's also a good combatant.

You see? If there was no noble class, you could still technically make a noble character. Does that mean the noble class doesn't need to exist?

Dictionary says the Knight is a noble... guess I win.

Again, stop being snide. I used the dictionary to provide you with the information that 'Lord' does not necessarily refer to a landholder like a king or baron. It was for ease of communication - not to 'win.'

In any case, your quote is still pointless. Show me the dictionary quote where it says that "The Knight uses the Conan RPG Noble class" and then you "win."

Not at all. One BAB over 20 levels as a Hyborian Noble. That's horrible.

Without any of the combat focus a professional warrior should have - a BAB that is consistently lower than that of 'lesser fighting men' and only a decent BAB at level 20 if you're using one of two specific weapons.

Well take your first level as Noble... and the title Sir... Eureka you're a knight! The Prestige Class actually mirrors an elite order of knights. I was just pointing out that their is a knights class.

First level as Noble? I'd prefer to take my first level as Soldier and just call myself a Knight - and then multiclass between Soldier and Noble over 20 levels. That's what -I'd- do. But this thread isn't about what I would do, it's about what the OP wanted to do, which was find a way to define the Knight as separate from just grunt soldiers or pink-handed nobles.

No need for a core class. None at all. Nothing about a knight makes it need a core class over a Noble.

Except desire on the Player and GM's part.

'Course, nothing about the Pirate makes it require its own class, but it has one. The Nomad doesn't really -need- a class either. They're all just as much variations on a theme as the knight would be.

All you're effectively saying is that because it ISN'T a base class, there's no reason that it SHOULD be. That's not really very good logic.

Just because DnD has paladins doesn't mean Conan needs them.

Who said anything about Paladins in Conan?

Do wee need a Bard Class? Monk (I've seen the S&P, I think it's stupid.)?

A bard? Nope - because it's a spellcasting class. Do you need minstrels? Sure - but that's more of an NPC thing.

Monk? Well, you obviously saw the S&P, so enough people thought it might be a good idea. Which simply proves that because -you- don't think it's a good idea doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.

'Course, I never said anything about bringing ANY D&D classes into Conan, so I'm not sure where all this is coming from.

Core classes are the basic social roles

Really? What 'social role' is Pirate, or Nomad? Or how about Soldiers - what 'social role' are they? They're not social roles. There is no 'serf' class, there is no 'merchant' class.

Show me the line in the Atlantean Edition where it says that classes represent social roles.
I can show you an opposite quote: "Your character class is your vocation; it determines your strengths, your training and more." Page 38, under "Character Classes."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
Since you said "you win" earlier, I'm going to be just a bit playfully snide and say -- you lose.


Since a character class represents training and vocation... well, that sounds ideal rationale for saying the Knight is intrinsically different from the Noble and from the Soldier. Enough to warrant either a class or a variant multiclass option.

 

[Foxworthy]

You know I was going to address everything but I realized something, their is no point. The only thing I can see coming about from this is this thread being locked like other threads where people butted heads. I'm bowing out of this thread before this gets too heated.

 

[Banite]

A classical knight in training learns about alot more than fighting. A great deal of their time could be spent learning proper etiquette, matters of faith, and other skills useful in courtly intrigue. I mean, classical knights spent several years as a page, several as a squire, and were then knighted; So the short answer to what class is a classical knight is, to me, no class at level 1.

In my opinion a warrior-knight would be a mix of noble and soldier, with base level as noble for the funds and title, which could be used towards heavy armour and crap his family would gift to him - the martial expertise could come later with soldier levels. Sure, he's not as good at courtly matters if you emphasize soldier, and sure his combat ability suffers if you choose to use a greater number of noble levels, but to me thats the fair representation of nobody being perfect at everything.

And sure, you could use variant rules or prc's, but I'm not overly fond of them either, but at the same time I think the tools your given work to make almost any concept;

Nord warrior who relies on sheer strength and armour to outbash his opponents? Take heavy armour feat as a barbarian.

Abandoned brat related to some noble bloodline? Take noble later in the campaign, just clear it with a dm first.

Really, off the top of my head thats all that comes to mind ;p All these variant rules, extra classes, prc's remind me of kits in 2nd edition - a nightmarish collection of rules that if anything restricted interpretations of the role base classes could serve in. Imo, of course.

I mean, of course we could go the other way. Now someone start working on my Minstrel (Pc) Class! I demand satisfaction! ;p

 

[Mark Dunder]

Nobles and Priests made good Scholars, but Scholars didn't always make good Priests.

Main reason Knights had to be nobles, or have a very wealthy patron, is that armor, horses, and everything else needed to be a Knight, cost a lot of.. well, whatever went for money. The Nobles collected taxes, warred on each other, and if they won, the Knights had the right to pillage. They had to. They weren't paid out of the royal treasury, because they basically were the treasury.

Lots of Knights (well maybe not lots), came from the illegitimate sons of the nobles and knights. I think the term was... it started with a B. Something had to be done about all those Bast- nice boys.

Those poor little rich boys, had a lot to live up to. Most never had a chance at really getting anywhere in life, so becoming a Knight, fit the bill. One of the toughest jobs on the planet was being a Squire. The Squire, you must feel sympathy for, because the Squire had to clean out the armor of the Knight. You see, Knights did not always remove their armor to perform natural bodily functions! Horrifying! Not something anyone might role-play, unless you are a real sicko!

Well, there you have it. The Squire is the Core Class, and the Knight just follows.

 

[René]

I'm bowing out of this thread before this gets too heated.

Me, too, but other reason: posts get too long for my gusto (I know, my problem).

 

[Yogah of Yag]

The Squire, you must feel sympathy for, because the Squire had to clean out the armor of the Knight. You see, Knights did not always remove their armor to perform natural bodily functions! Horrifying!

Ick! :?
I hoped they would have used knight-nappies.

 

[Mark Dunder]

from the Yaggite

Ick! :?
I hoped they would have used knight-nappies.

You can buy them for your favorite knight at the better Inns and Taverns.

 

[Mark Dunder]

LOL! knight-nappies! I just got it. Boy, I'm just a little slow at times. How much have I missed? Can you guys repeat all the better ones?

 

[Damien]

Knights did not relieve themselves in their armour. That's ridiculous. Some people like to believe that people who lived 400 years ago were somehow less than us -- subhuman. They weren't. A knight in 1456 would have considered it just as uncomfortable to walk around with crap in his pants as a high schooler in 2005 would. No one wants to walk around in their own excriment.

That myth probably stems from the fact that the human body 'relieves' itself upon death. And squires -would- sometimes be required to clean out the armour of vanquished foes whose armour that knight had taken from the field. Not a fun job.




Back on Topic:


If one were to make an alternate class or multiclass there are certainly lessons to be taken from the Poitainian Knight Prestige Class in Aquilonia.

The first thing that strikes one is that the Poitainian Knight PrC directly contradicts itself. You can't even take it until 6th level, at the earliest. However, the flavour text keenly describes that a knight is young -- learning all about his vocation when he is a CHILD.

So unless you're playing a CHILD, there's really no reason you can't start as a knight. I don't think anyone contested that, though.


Now, none of the Poitainian Knight PrC's abilities really strike me as 'prestige.' Meaning, they're just abilities that could just as easily be assigned to a lower-tier character.


Born To The Saddle: This is one of those fun, but really not-all-that-important abilities. There's nothing about this ability that makes it too powerful for even a first level character. As a matter of fact - the Nomad base class gets a better version of this ability at 1st level.

Horsemanship: Scaling bonus to attacks, handle animal and ride checks. Nothing huge about that either. If spread out enough, this ability could just as easily be used in a base class. Perhaps once every five levels the bonus increases.

Armour Tolerance: I love abilities like this and they really do fit a character type that is intrinsically supposed to wear armour all the time (knights were quite literally trained to sleep, eat, and live life in their armour if need be). But really, it's just a scaling bonus that increases Max Dex and reduces Check Penalty. It's not a very powerful ability, all things considered. This could easily start at level 2 of a base class and scale as the character gains levels.

Lance Charge: Small damage bonus (max = +2) to lance charges. Scales. Good higher-level ability, I think.

Improved Heavy Cavalry: Ability that ties in with the heavy cavalry formation. Cool beans. Not really very powerful. Good mid-level ability.


Really.. that's all the PrC is. If anything, I would say it's on the lower end of the power scale. A 5th level Soldier/10th level Poitainian Knight probably isn't even nearly as overtly powerful as a 15th level Barbarian.

So I think those abilities are a good gauge of what a Knight base class or multiclass option should be able to do. But I'm still waiting to see how multiclass variant options are handled, as I don't have any of those books yet (I'm waiting for my copy of Hyboria's Finest, it should be here, hopefully, in a week or two, depending on how fast FRP Games ships it).

 

[Mark Dunder]

Knights did not relieve themselves in their armour. That's ridiculous. Some people like to believe that people who lived 400 years ago were somehow less than us -- subhuman. They weren't. A knight in 1456 would have considered it just as uncomfortable to walk around with crap in his pants as a high schooler in 2005 would. No one wants to walk around in their own excriment.

Some of the Knights had armor that you had to get screwed into and it was nearly impossible to get out of without help. Knights did not, as a rule, go in their armor on purpose. It did happen, and it was the squire's job to clean it out. You can believe it or not.

Some people like to believe that people who lived 400 years ago were somehow less than us -- subhuman.

Actually, I think that some people 200 years ago were subhuman. Particularly those people who thought slavery was ok.

Besides, after the first time you messed in your armor, I'm sure you would make sure to go to the privy right before the battle. But after about two hours and having quaffed a lot of ale and water previously, so as not to die of the heat, and not seeing a privy real handy, and not wanting the other knights to laugh at you, and figuring you will dry out real fast in that armor, and knowing you have a squire (main point), well, when you gotta go you gotta go.

 

[Damien]

Some of the Knights had armor that you had to get screwed into and it was nearly impossible to get out of without help.

Which is what the squire is for. I have never seen any period armour, in any museum, ever, where the plates or pieces around the pubic area could not be removed or displaced in a relatively quick fashion if need be.

What you're saying is no different from saying that, right now - a United States soldier is 'messing' himself while shooting at Fundamentalists -- because "when you gotta go - you gotta go?"

That's incredibly silly.

You can believe it or not.

It's not correct. It's not a matter of belief - it's a matter of fact or fiction. You are reciting fiction, not fact.

Actually, I think that some people 200 years ago were subhuman. Particularly those people who thought slavery was ok.

So anyone with different beliefs than you is sub-human? That must be an interesting life. (I'm not defending slavery, but calling people subhuman for believing it was okay is too extreme for my tastes.)

But after about two hours and having quaffed a lot of ale and water previously, so as not to die of the heat, and not seeing a privy real handy, and not wanting the other knights to laugh at you, and figuring you will dry out real fast in that armor, and knowing you have a squire (main point), well, when you gotta go you gotta go.

That's one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard and there isn't a single grain of truth to it.


What the hell do you even need a privvy for when you're out at tournament or on the battlefield? You remove your codpiece and let 'er rip right there. We're men - we can do that with ease.

And, I repeat, medieval people were not subhuman. They had concepts of cleanliness, they disliked being uncomfortable.. etc. And standing in your armour that's full of feces would be very unclean and very uncomfortable. No one is going to even want to try to fight in such a position. Period.


Stop being silly.

 

[Raven Blackwell]

Way I ran it a while back was this: the Knight was a Noble/Soldier- but since Noble has to be the first level that level was his 'Squire' phase. Nobles have all the training with weapons and armor a Squire would gain and the skill points that represent the schooling in they would receive which is much higher than a mere Soldier would have. Knowledge [history] and [nobility] and a musical based Perfom skill were common skills to have ranks in at first levels representing the training a Squire would receive in the courtly 'arts' as it were. At second level they took Soldier. From that point on whether a knight would take a level in Noble or Soldier depended on what they had been doing at the time. Knights more interested in running the estates and jockeying for power had more Noble levels. Knights who spent their time in the field fighting a war gained levels in Soldier.

Another option was the landless knight- one who was so far down the line of inheritance all they got was a nearly worthless rank and the right to bear arms. They usually became knights because they had no other chance at power or glory. They are represented by Soldiers taking the Noble Blood Feat from The Scrolls of Skelos sourcebook.

 

[Mark Dunder]

And, I repeat, medieval people were not subhuman. They had concepts of cleanliness, they disliked being uncomfortable.. etc. And standing in your armour that's full of feces would be very unclean and very uncomfortable. No one is going to even want to try to fight in such a position. Period.

Medieval people were pretty filthy from what I have ever read. One of the reasons the Black Plague got so much steam.

And normally it was after the battle when you had the crap knocked out of you, that you had to clean up (by you, I mean the squire, poor chap).

To comment on Raven's post, Squires frequently fought right beside the Knight, they got a lot of OJT.

 

[Damien]

Medieval people were pretty filthy from what I have ever read.

A Victorian-era myth. Of course, they were pretty dirty -by our standards- but then we have a lot of things they didn't - like plumbing and easy access to medicines. But it's important to separate the kind of 'dirty' that comes from not having plumbing or health care, from the kind of 'dirty' that would allow someone to walk around covered in their own excriment.

Huge difference.

Medieval people had a flea and lice problem (which is what caused the Black Plague - rats carried fleas, and fleas carried the plague). They did not relieve themselves in their clothes. Medieval people threw excriment and trash into the gutters of the streets, however they also bathed regularly.


I'm just saying - don't espouse a bunch of stuff unless you're sure about it. It's a matter of respect. I think most people with an interest in the field (myself included) would take affront to the suggestion that knights walked around crapping in their armour just for the hell of it. Ya know?

To comment on Raven's post, Squires frequently fought right beside the Knight, they got a lot of OJT.

Quite true. Squires, in their various incarnations, often served as light cavalry or even infantry if need be (often mounted infantry). It was also common practice for a squire to ride a 'safe distance' behind the knight in battle to give him a fresh horse if his fell or grew too weary. Of course, there is no real 'safe distance' in warfare, so even squires in that position would see a fair bit of combat.