Anyways, both of the players want to be a Solamnic Knight if their characters die, but one has chosen the Crown order and the other the Rose order. They would start out around 9th level, if something were to happen. So they both could theorectically be part of their orders all ready. I'm not sure if my one player could have a level in the Rose PrC yet, but even if she didnt I would have her be a Rose Knight who just hasnt gained the PrC level yet, so its no problem.
Anyways, after multiple talks I've been trying to figure out more and more of the knighthood. And while talks about each order being seperate but equal is nice, I dont think its quite that simple. Obviously the Rose knights are there to be the "leaders". Now the question is.. what does that mean? Could a Knight who had a lower "rank" and is a Rose be able to give orders to a Crown who was higher "rank? I'm not talking about any kind of orders that are "evil" or "bad", I'm talking regular, everyday good intentioned orders. It seems to me that throughout most books that detail the Knighthood, chain of command is very important? But what exactly is that chain of command? Does each order have ranks, and regardless of what Order you are in, you only command lower ranking knights? What happens if a Crown and Rose are the same "rank"? I realize that the rank names within the different Orders might not be the same, but I'm talking about being the same "level". So like a Corporal and Knight-Marshal may be different names, in Crown a Corporal is 3 ranks up and a Knight-Marshal is 3 ranks up in the Rose, would Rose trump the Crown by virtue of being a Rose? With Roses being touted as the "leaders", then I dont see how this wouldnt be the case. They are bred for this sort of thing, so for me, I am of the belief that Rose trumps all, unless that person in a different Order is of a very sufficient rank. What rank would that be... I dunno..I guess one higher for practical reasons.
Also, are orders considered to be adhered to no matter what? In Chronicles. Derek gave Sturm a direct order and Sturm refused by saying he wasnt a Knight. Would a Knight be expected to jump at an order because of Derek's rank and being a Rose? I can see if they were sent ona mission together with clear lines of authority, or in war where everything is spelled out. But I'm tlaking about in wanderings, would Knights be expected to jump at an order? Personally, I'm of the belief that a superior "officer", or someone who has highter rank, can "commandeer" a knight and order them to do something
What would happen if a knight is put in a position where he is told to do an evil act? My take is to refuse, but what do you do after that? Would it be the right thing to do to turn the offending knight in for a trial? Would you request one? And if so, how would you make sure the Knight would even ever go there to stand trial? Granted if he didnt, eventually people would wonder why he hasnt shown up.. but couldnt that be a stalling tactic? You cant exactly just subdue the guy and bring him in and say "I've chained him because he said he wanted me to do evil" I dont think you could just attack a knight, even non lethally, and get away with it. Of course, witnesses would be key here, but what kind of witnesses would be needed? Obviously Laurana was a key witness for Sturm, but how many PC's would have this option?
I dunno, I'm sure there are more questions I have, I'm just curious to see other people's opinions on some of the topics. Unfortunately, the Measure and even the Knighthood has not been fleshed out very well. We get little snippits that DM's are left to try to figure out what is right and wrong. Its not so bad though because it leaves room for interpretation, which is a neat thing in itself.
I'll leave the post with this, remember that no matter what Sturm was like, even if he was a good guy, he disobeyed a direct order and would have been put to death for it. If Derek would have prevailed, he would have died a shameful death. To people who think he did right, what happens if your military leaders under you decided on their own when they would follow your orders and when they wouldnt? Do you think your army would last long? Some people say "But he knew they would die..", thats all well and good, but what would have happened if something bad would have happened tot he dragonarmies the night before? Say Kitiara was assassinated, or there was a raid on by a guerilla army, etc and the army was in disarray and the Knights actually mulled them down? Sturm would have died because he refused a direct order. Hindsight is 20/20 and to look back and say Sturm did something wonderful..is kind of biased, or at least I think it is. The guy was a great person and a wonderful man in the books, but I wonder if his example is what causes there to be more knights who seem to be on the edge and do what they perceive is right. While this is good in many ways, it can also be bad in many ways also.
The Sword Knights are the spiritual backbone of the Orders, blessed with minor powers of foresight and healing which they use to support their comrades. You didn't rise in the ranks of the Order of the Sword if you didn't also demonstrate the sort of monastic piety that was frequently assigned to such historical real-world orders as the Knights Hospitaller and Knights Templar.
The Crown Knights are the Order you end up in if you don't display a lot of spiritual talent and you're not exactly of high birth. Crown knights are expected, as they gain higher rank, to be more used to the mundane affairs of the Orders, such as maintaining estates, organizing the troops, serving as garrison commanders, and so forth. They are more worldly, although they are still knights so they are afforded a great deal of respect (in eras where the knights aren't villified).
Who you can command is based on how you are assigned by the Lord Knights and their command structure. It isn't based wholly on your rank, or your Order. You are more likely to be placed in command of another knight if you are a Rose knight or more experienced. But, even if you're a newly-invested Crown knight, you could be placed in charge of an experienced Rose knight if the Lord Knight felt it was necessary. This is also where being an honorary knight, which Tanis was, can come in handy. The honorific satisfies the requirements of the Measure that the commander be a knight, and the commanders can place the honorary knight in charge of actual knights without loss of honor.
So. If three knights show up on a field and they all shout commands at you, you might be forgiven if you listen to the Rose Knight and not the Sword or Crown Knight. However, it is more likely that you should listen to the knight that is a member of your Order (and seems more experienced or has higher rank). That's always a safe bet.
Cheers,
Cam
This includes the level titles of 1st edition, which can help out where ranks are concerned.
One question though-since when were the different orders of the Knights rivals??? Caergoth didn't want to send reinforcements right away because it might cost him too much?? WTF? Let them handle themselves for a while?
Doesn't sound like a LG protector of the people to me...
One question though-since when were the different orders of the Knights rivals??? Caergoth didn't want to send reinforcements right away because it might cost him too much?? WTF? Let them handle themselves for a while?
This rivalry seems to be a feature of their current state. They may have been rivals in other eras, too, although during most of the Age of Despair there weren't enough of them to really allow that sort of thing to develop.
I would also hesitate to call Caergoth an actual knight of Solamnia (or even lawful good), by the way. He's definitely a noble, but doesn't seem to be cut from the same cloth as Thelgaard or Solanthus.
Cheers,
Cam
One question though-since when were the different orders of the Knights rivals???
I'm sure there has been some rivalry between the orders in the past. That being said, there has been a little...redefinition in this novel. See the thread on Lord of the Rose for more info.
Caergoth didn't want to send reinforcements right away because it might cost him too much?? WTF? Let them handle themselves for a while?
Doesn't sound like a LG protector of the people to me...
All of the dukes in Lord of the Rose are corrupt and on du Chagne's payroll. Not a one of them has the beating heart of a knight. The only Solamnic character in the book who seems to is Selinda du Chagne.
I would also hesitate to call Caergoth an actual knight of Solamnia (or even lawful good), by the way. He's definitely a noble, but doesn't seem to be cut from the same cloth as Thelgaard or Solanthus.
All three of them, as well as du Chagne, are just nasty. They may be nobles and knights by birthright, but they don't possess the heart of a true knight by any means.
All three of them, as well as du Chagne, are just nasty. They may be nobles and knights by birthright, but they don't possess the heart of a true knight by any means.
This all sounds like business as usual for the knights of Solamnia, I'm afraid.
Cheers,
Cam
Even during pre-WotL I don't think a Rose knight would decline to help another member of the knighthood. Not even Derek Crownguard.
This all sounds like business as usual for the knights of Solamnia, I'm afraid.
I don't mind the characters so much, though I find Duke Crawford to be a bit silly with the "Evil Ones". du Chagne is an okay villain, though his fascination with gold over steel is mind-boggling. The duke of Solanthus is a decent villain, as is the duke of Thelgaard (even if he is a buffoon).
Where Liam Ehrling is in all of this is unknown, though I believe Niles suggested that he might be in Sancrist.
Anyway, there's already a thread on Lord of the Rose, so it would be best to continue discussion of the book there, and of the hierarchy of the knighthood itself on this thread.
I understand in a given mission or battle, a clear leader will be given and you would go up the chain of command. Thats not hard to figure out or implement. My main question is what happens if you run across a Knight, or group of Knights, and they want to comandeer you for a mission? Obviously one of the Crown's main virtues is loyalty, but does that mean he needs to follow the orders from a Knight.. who technically has never been given "command" of him? What part does Rank play in all this? A higher rank means more authority... but is it only over specific people given to you..or everyone in the Knighthood. While Tanis was an honorary Knight, he was never given a "command".. but he still outranked the other knights by age. What part does age play in it? If he was never in "charge", how was he able to order to be the one who took on Lord Soth? Is it because he ended up having higher rank? If thats the case, than its like what I thought.. where higher rank can order a lower rank, unless that lower rank was specifically placed in command of the higher rank.
I still maintain there needs to be diversity between the Orders. I'm not such a big fan of seeing Rose as the "elites" and the Crown as where you end up if you dont have much spirituality or arent highborn. Because the Knighthood has updated, somewhat. They let non nobles in, females, and even half-elves. If Rose is still the highborn, would a nonnoble basically have to do soemthing extraordinary to get into the Rose? Or does the order open up now to all people who they see as can fit in this role.
I dont like the Crown's looking like the rejects of the bunch. I've been trying to figure out how exactly to make them more of a unique order that people actually *want* to stay in. I dont want hundreds of Crowns being Crowns just because "eh I couldnt get any higher...". I want Crowns to be those knights who love war, battleing, being the main driving force behind the armies. They are the warriors, the backbone. Let Swords have their cleric spells and spirituality, let the Rose's have their leadership and worrying about what and who goes where, the Crown's are those soldiers who are told to do battle, and they do it well. And when they arent told about battle, they go where its needed. I dunno, I just wish more was expanded upon.. because you can't really say well Crown's are the warriors, because so are the Roses.. actually they are probably better warriors because it takes a lot to get to the Rose stage.
Again, what do you do about a "rogue knight" who you think is basically doing wrong or something against the Measure? Do you ride off and try to report him, try to talk to him and probably be rebuffed, or subdue him and take him back? Personally, I think laying your hands on another Knight without some proven guilt would look really really bad, and you would need lots of witnesses to justify it. But if you dont take him back, what do you do? report him? How long will that take..
Another problem I have is exactly how to deal with rank and PC adventuring. Over time the PC Knight will become a powerful person, with many levels. How do you assign rank to them? I'm of the mind a PC knight really wont go up rank much just because he's not exactly doing things within the Knighthood, he's mainly serving the Knighthood by going out and battling evil on his own, unless he is called upon. But I can see how it would be kind of annoying to be 15th level, taking orders from a 6th level captain, but it happens. But would the Knight at least gain some recognition for the various deeds he has done throughout his life? I dunno, its another little murky situation. I guess I'd rather "reward" a Knight who dedicates his life to the Knighthood, thus gaining rank, than have a PC just going about his business being awarded praise and title priviliges. Of course, who knows if the PC can just purchase "titles" heh, with a constant income.. or hopefully constant income from adventures :D
I'm all in favor of a Knight sourcebook, but personally I would have loved a few pages dedicated to the Knights in the DLCS or somewhere else just as much. There needs to be an overview of exactly what goes on within their structure and how they react to things. Clearing up chain of command would be nice too. I dont exactly need a whole book dedicated to the Measure, but just an overview.
Dragonhelm, I have those titles already in the War of the Lance sourcebook from way back. And while they were good at the time, it doesnt basically fit anymore. You almost cant just assign a rank to a level. It is nice to have the different ranks though, I'd add a few more though, just doesnt seem like enough.
My main question is what happens if you run across a Knight, or group of Knights, and they want to comandeer you for a mission? Obviously one of the Crown's main virtues is loyalty, but does that mean he needs to follow the orders from a Knight.. who technically has never been given "command" of him? What part does Rank play in all this? A higher rank means more authority... but is it only over specific people given to you..or everyone in the Knighthood.
The simple implementation is to say that the players meet a knight of higher rank and authority and that he invokes a clause in the Measure to commandeer the knight for a mission.
Granted, this doesn't give specifics, but I don't know that you would actually need anything more than that in game play.
I still maintain there needs to be diversity between the Orders. I'm not such a big fan of seeing Rose as the "elites" and the Crown as where you end up if you dont have much spirituality or arent highborn.
I don't see it that way. That train of thought also gives you the idea that Sword Knights aren't noble enough.
The way I view it is akin to the military. Crown Knights are sort of your enlisted men. Not every enlisted man becomes an officer, nor do they want to. Rose Knights, then, are your officers. While this isn't exactly correct, it gives a basic foundation.
I dont like the Crown's looking like the rejects of the bunch. I've been trying to figure out how exactly to make them more of a unique order that people actually *want* to stay in. I dont want hundreds of Crowns being Crowns just because "eh I couldnt get any higher...". I want Crowns to be those knights who love war, battleing, being the main driving force behind the armies. They are the warriors, the backbone.
That's how I view them.
Again, what do you do about a "rogue knight" who you think is basically doing wrong or something against the Measure? Do you ride off and try to report him, try to talk to him and probably be rebuffed, or subdue him and take him back? Personally, I think laying your hands on another Knight without some proven guilt would look really really bad, and you would need lots of witnesses to justify it. But if you dont take him back, what do you do? report him? How long will that take..
It depends on the situation. The knight must act on what the Measure tells him. Proof must be there before accusation. If it is a suspicion, perhaps a word of concern to your commanding officer. Again, though, proof would be helpful.
But I can see how it would be kind of annoying to be 15th level, taking orders from a 6th level captain, but it happens.
How many career military sergeants who are older take orders from a young officer just out of college? Surely, the sergeant would have more "levels". It's annoying, but it happens.
Dragonhelm, I have those titles already in the War of the Lance sourcebook from way back. And while they were good at the time, it doesnt basically fit anymore. You almost cant just assign a rank to a level. It is nice to have the different ranks though, I'd add a few more though, just doesnt seem like enough.
The level titles are also in the World Book of Ansalon in the Tales of the Lance boxed set.
Level titles don't work anymore due to the structure of multiclassing in 3e. A knight may very well multiclass into other classes to gain more of a specialty. For example, Sword Knights could take more cleric levels, or a knight may take dragon rider levels. Their character level is still up there, but they may not have as many levels in the KoS PrCs. That wouldn't necessarily prohibit the knight from obtaining a higher rank.
I do think the KoS level titles are good flavor text, but are best presented in 3e as ranks that you obtain through role-playing. I would like to see them included in the knights sourcebook as flavor text with some guidelines on progressing through the ranks.
With the knighthood, it seems like everyone says if you want something to happen, just say there's a clause in the measure. But this will also set precedence. If a Knight came along and said "Hey you need to help me, according to the clause in the Measure, etc etc" they will be like ok... and then ask me.. is this based on rank? Are they able to order me because I'm lower rank? So I cant just give obscure stuff like that to them because they are very big in understand things. Also what if another Knight came along.. and the PC thought they really needed their help and the PC was higher rank.. they might invoke that clause, etc. This is one of the reasons why I'm curious about how "ordering" exactly works in the Knighthood.
We've had different instances of things happening. Derek gave orders to Sturm, that Sturm ignored and could do so because he wasnt technically a Knight. Now was Derek able to give orders because of being a Rose knight, was high rank, or because he was the "leader" of the mission? Or all three? Obvisouly Sturm wasnt part of the "mission", so why was Derek giving orders?
Then we have the instance of Tanis declaring that according to the Measure he is the eldest and the other knights need to follow his orders because he is technically a knight. What part does age play in this? I find it hard to believe that because a person is really old, they would have automatic command over people. Rank has to be in there somewhere... but how much does age factor in then?
We are told that each Order is seperate and has their own ranks, and can be higher than a person in a "higher" order. So a Crown could order a Rose in the right instance.. well when exactly is that instance? Does a Crown have to be put in command of a Rose.. or would a high enough rank be sufficient enough to order a person around?
How exactly would rank work... is rank givin as you go on in life.. as in its a guarantee that you will raise in rank through your life? Or is it something that is earned? Are there a lot of knights out there that have no rank.. and are regular knights? I think more along these lines. Thats one of the reasons I didnt like the old rank alongside the class levels. because ovbiously just because youa re 15th level, it doesnt mean you're a Marshal.. or something else.
When I talk about a Knight who is doing something "wrong", I'm talking about a PC knight sees another Knight do something. They arent exactly around Solamnic circles. So what do you do in this situation? If its something small, do you say something tot he Knight and hope it gets through? probably the guy would just be annoyed ands say mind your own business, but maybe the guy just didnt know better. What happens if its a grave injustice against the Measure? Do you just ride off and report him in like a tattle-tale? I mean granted you want to inform your superiors, but do you ride the whole way there to tell them "Uh he did wrong"..and then they have to try to track him down? Do you subdue him and bring him in? I would think thatw ould catch a lot of flack to subdue a knight who hasnt been found guilty. I would think you better have a lot of witnesses to the horrible act. And ones that are a little bit revered or popular.
Obivously the Measure could never be put down in a book, that doesnt bother me. But a lot of times if I tell one of my players "Its in the Measure" they will ask me to expand and explain the situation and what the Measure says about the stuff. I have a big idea of how I interpret the Knighthood and the Measure, and most of the stuff is already decided in my campaign. But I'm always looking to see others opinions and see how they handle stuff. A campaign can always get better.
The Crown Knights are the Order you end up in if you don't display a lot of spiritual talent and you're not exactly of high birth. Crown knights are expected, as they gain higher rank, to be more used to the mundane affairs of the Orders, such as maintaining estates, organizing the troops, serving as garrison commanders, and so forth. They are more worldly, although they are still knights so they are afforded a great deal of respect (in eras where the knights aren't villified).
Cheers,
Cam
Great. My character has just taken her first level of Crown Knight, and cause I don't have a high enough widsom to take any cleric levels, I can't become a sword or a rose knight. My character so far is a noble 3/fighter 2/KoC 1. I was going to progress as a Crown Knight only but the way you describe it, anyone who stays as a Crown Knight is a bit of a loser.
I guess I'll have to find some item or something to raise my wisdom from 10 to 12.
I was going to progress as a Crown Knight only but the way you describe it, anyone who stays as a Crown Knight is a bit of a loser.
I'm not sure why you think that. Crown knights are still knights. They aren't paladin-like knights, and they aren't elite noble-like knights, but they are still knights in the very truest sense of the word, doing what knights do, leading bands of warriors, fighting against injustice, upholding the good, charging about on horseback, managing their lands and acting in service to their Lord Knights.
If I've given the impression that because they don't cast spells or they are not high-born elitists that they're somehow losers, then I apologize. You should consider them to be the first thing you think of when you think about Knights of Solamnia.
Cheers,
Cam
If I've given the impression that because they don't cast spells or they are not high-born elitists that they're somehow losers, then I apologize. You should consider them to be the first thing you think of when you think about Knights of Solamnia.
Cheers,
Cam
no probs Cam, I spose "losers" was a poor choice of words from me....
I'm still excited about becoming a Crown Knight