Are there any requirements (such as certain faith, clan, ect.) for a fighter to be considered a knight? Or do they have to send in an application? Or can they simply RP it? I got thinking about it and had to ask. Thanks.
Tavik
Fighters and Knights
-
Mingus
Talking medieval wise, If a lesser noble pleged his feilty to a higher noble, king, or emperor you were granted a piece of land and the title knight. More improtant was the piece of land... In times of war you had to lend your sword arm the your lord, what ever the cause. Here though, WD is not a monarchy, neither is ZK... Silverymoon and Berdusk have a each a queen but since they belong to the Lord Alliance, I don't think they rule like one. Hartsvale is the only true monarchy/autocracy that I can think of thats in game. The rest are quasi republics. Or atleast from what I've read and seen, there are no serifs. So, Who do you pledge you feilty to, a god don't count cause they can't grant you title or LAND only the owner of the land(king, lord, monorch) can grant you title and land, my guess it be one of the Lords alliance if you're of the goodly kind, or Zhents (manshoon, fzoul and/or sememon) if you're of the not so goodly kind. 
If you're not a lord or sone/daughter of a lord yourself, I would guess to go above and beyond the call of duty to get recognition from the rest of the common soldiers. I'd say evil has better chance to achieve noble stature since failure means death and that lessens the competition. You just got to be the lucky one that doesn't fail. But in any case being of noble stature would grant you the oppertunity to become a knight, again that means pledging loyanty/feilty to the king or owner of the land. Better than that, carve out your on little kingdom out of the wilderness be the king and hire your own knights... 
...to do you dirty work.
Now the other knights in the game, Paladins are an entirely different game. They only have what the church gives them. The church not being the wealthiest(land wise) entity and only having land given to them by a monarch they can't go by giving since they don't actually own it. So like the Templars and other holy orders during the crusades the only way to get land and recognition(title) was to go and take it. Here, no crusades, so no land and title only with in the church.
What does all this mean? Title means nothing with out the land, so I suggest getting yourself a dwelling then calling yourself a knight
...Or better yet king! 
If you're not a lord or sone/daughter of a lord yourself, I would guess to go above and beyond the call of duty to get recognition from the rest of the common soldiers. I'd say evil has better chance to achieve noble stature since failure means death and that lessens the competition. You just got to be the lucky one that doesn't fail. But in any case being of noble stature would grant you the oppertunity to become a knight, again that means pledging loyanty/feilty to the king or owner of the land. Better than that, carve out your on little kingdom out of the wilderness be the king and hire your own knights... ...to do you dirty work.Now the other knights in the game, Paladins are an entirely different game. They only have what the church gives them. The church not being the wealthiest(land wise) entity and only having land given to them by a monarch they can't go by giving since they don't actually own it. So like the Templars and other holy orders during the crusades the only way to get land and recognition(title) was to go and take it. Here, no crusades, so no land and title only with in the church.
What does all this mean? Title means nothing with out the land, so I suggest getting yourself a dwelling then calling yourself a knight
...Or better yet king! 
There are a few Knightly ORDERS, but those themselves do not entail any special abilities. Cormyr has Knights, Silverymoon as the Knights of Silver, etc. The biggest difference in knights is that Paladin Orders are of the Diety when terming yourself as a Knight of the Merciful Sword everyone knows you are a Paladin of Tyr. When you term yourself a Knight of Silver everyone knows you are some Fighter type class be it Fighter -OR- Paladin that works for Silverymoon. The regional Knighty Orders are best Roleplayed out.
-
Andreas
- Sword Grand Master
- Posts: 720
- Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 4:55 am
- Location: Mobile, Alabama
- Contact:
Re: Knights
There's a LOT more to becoming a knight than just pledging fealty. And knights can be entitled without land (Sir Anthony Hopkins... Sir Arthur Conan Doyle... Sir Lawrence Olivier...).
Evermeet is an elven monarchy. Cormyr is a monarchy. Calimshan is an autocracy that is shaping up to a return to functional imperial monarchy in the bloody footsteps of Syl-Pasha Ralan el Pesarkhal. Tethyr was a monarchy, had a decade-long civil war, and returned to monarchy. However, the country is still in a state of unrest. Damara is a monarchy. Mithril Hall and the Great Rift are both dwarven monarchies. Impiltur is a monarchy. Rashemen is a merger between monarchy and magocratic gynarchy. Sespech is a feudal barony with an elected baron. And there's lots more, but I think I've made my point on the availability of monarchies or feudal governments available in the Forgotten Realms.
At the beginning of the Medieval Age (c. 800 A.D.), as European society struggled to rise from the Dark Ages, the rough framework of the nobility began to take form. During the high Medieval Ages (c. 1,000 A.D. - c. 1500 A.D. Athough the exact dates of this period are still hotly debated) the system of titles, privileges and courtesies was refined, along with the very intricate chivalric codes. The greatest effect of the ages of chivalry was a loose unification of Europe. Despite all the political unrest, it was widely known and accepted that a knight was a servant of God and King and expected to uphold certain ideals, no matter what his nationality.
Some excellent references on knighthood and the general state of politics during the Medieval and Renaissance time periods are as follows:
"The Medieval Warrior" - Paul LaCroix & Walter Clifford Meller
"What Life Was Like In The Age of Chivalry" - Time-Life Books
"The Age of Chivalry" - National Geographic Society
"Elizabeth and Essex: A Tragic History" - Harcourt Brace
"Blood Royal" - Mollie Hardwick
"The Princess in the Tower" - Elizabeth Jenkins
"The Hiram Key" - Christopher Knight & Robert Lomas
"The Second Messiah" - Christopher Knight & Robert Lomas
"Pillars of the Earth" - Ken Follet
"Cantebury Tales" - Geoffrey Chaucer
*GRIN* And just so y'all know what a sap I really am... Johanna Lindsey and Catherine Coulter are two of my favourite romance authors. They have done some fantastic research and written books set in numerous historical time periods with actual historic figures in the novels.
If you're more of a movie fan...
"Excalibur" - *DROOL* Classic Arthurian legend at its best!
"Elizabeth" (1998) - A very realistic look at the difficulties Queen Elizabeth faced in taking up the throne of a country in turmoil.
"A Knight's Tale" - Rags to riches story and the hero gets the girl. Although there are many period anachronisms, it does go into surprising detail about the required Patents of Nobility. Very obviously set during the high Medieval Ages as it features Edward, the Black Prince of Wales (1330-1376) as one of the pivotal characters. And a good example of a landless knight
Any Robin Hood movie - explains a lot of the politics during the period.
"Braveheart" - Another brutally realistic look at feudal society and some historical facts of life that... well... frankly... aren't very pretty by today's standards. Also some excellent medieval tactics and war cinematography.
The Discovery Channel has TONS of shows about history and politics during the Medieval and Renaissance ages. I can't even begin to list all the ones I've seen. It's one of my favourite resources.
Also, try looking into the SCA (Society for Creative Anachrosim, Inc.) for historic references to nobility, knighthood, combat and politics.
Helm keep thee.
-
Mingus
The knights of Myth Dranor come to mind, though since its an actual entity in the game you got to join rather an RP that you are one. I remeber the medallions of Harts vale conveyed in your title that you were a knight from the Vale, if you worn one. I sill thought Tethyrs dynasty was nilled and a counsil of nobles was set up? My mistake. Yes basically all the demihumans have have autocracies From hobbits with thier sherifs to to orcs and their dictitorial war boss. But those are exclusive to those races only, ie a human can't become a knight(beserker) of the Bloodyblade Orc clan, only orcs can. The only exception is or was the late kingdom of Myth Dranor and its failed experiment of sharing title with non-elves.
Of what Andreas said... Today title is worth more than the land if would have granted, because you can go buy land yourself and the English monarchy has non to give away anyhow, since its more of national emblem than a governmental power. If tomorrow all the of the royal household dies in a firey plan crach and the monarchy disolves the english governent and its people will still be fine and go on as normal, morning but normal. The tiles of now are as worthless as a honorary Doctorate, looks good on your resume but meaningless in the real world. And the reason they don't convey feilty is because they don't convey land. Why are you gonna fight for something if you have no stake in. Patriotism goes just so far...
The code of chivalry worked on a one-on-one basis, in the kings court or on duel. You could even see it influence in the 19th century with gentlmen duals. On the other hand on a battlefield no one is going to see a knight strike another knight from the rear knocking him down and killing unfair like, especially if his side wins. When Wallace was made protectorate(don't remeber real title) after defeating the English,(in what ever title he defeated them in) in a loose form he was made a knight and noble and I am sure that title granted him land, if he used it or not, wanted it or not , thats another story. When at his end, do you think the knights that took him showed any sort of chivalry, no they gut and hanged him.
What ever title you hold in the court from baron to Archduke you will still be a knight of that court. The title knight all is saying that you're a member now, whether you gain higher title or rank you'll still be a knight. Now upto the late 19th century, land was seen at title to citizen with the right to vote if you were in a democratic/republic government. it convayed taxes but also other rights. Anything else was considered a second class citizen or worse. Some societies didn't allow women to hold title to land, and hence they could not vote. So land was key, especially in the dark ages, where the only landlord was the king. Just think, after the sons of Maximillion split the Roman Empire and especially they died, the hole of Europe suddenly lost all knowlege and wisdom of the old empire. From one day to the next almost. Where in the empire, a one could be a citizen, one would most likely know how to read and write and have a loose say in the govenment. Then suddenly are thrust in a feudal system where someone tell you what to do, you can't go anywhere cause you're not a citizen, and you don't know any better cause any knowlege is word of mouth and that art was lost when during th e empire people took up reading and writing instead.
Now fielty means nothing without the land, why would you risk bodily harm for protecting some one elses holdings. Thats why the successful kings learnt that if you give a little bit away they will stay faithful. And in larger kingdoms the knights would act in behalf of the crown. Acting on behalf of the crown, thats was the other duty of knight. You could look at it threw the aurthurian perpective as going out and undoing the wrongs. Or as in Monty Pythons Holy Grail lampoon, where half the time you're not righting anything but just serving yourself. Both made up stories with a little bit of trueth to make them more enjoyable. Remeber this is not a Paladin, where they up hold the power of the church and the word of God and doing right by the eye s of God. All you have to uphold is that of your soverien, if he/she stays in power, you stay in power. And it does not need to be the ultimate ruler in the land, it can be one of his barons; Though you pledged loyalty to the baron, he inturn did the same to the king and in the end that made your pleged lthe king even though you serve the baron. God plays into this much like in a football game, you give a battle cry to rally the troops but intrun the other sde is doing the same thing. Here you can certainly uphold the virtues of you god but for title and right your king comes first. Put Jone of Arch on one end of a scale and El Cid on the other and you decide where you fall in between.
The other thing I would add, the title Knight would not convey from one kingdom to the next. Unless your are some kind of envoy or embassador. So being a knight of Silverymoon would mean very little in ZK and would most likely aslo mean accomedations at the dungeon while Silverymoon paid your ransom if found out as such.
As far as all those countries listed, since nothing in Cormyr is not in game but on the map that would be a most likely choise. But I would think you'd need to app@fk to be part of the nobility like making a noble drow from a commoner. Calimshan, though technicaly not a monarchy you could still RP to be a memeber or a royal guard of one of the ruling houses. A Pasha is a counts equivlent I think with the Emir being the ruler, so I don't really know the title you'd hold but it be like that of a knight. As for the rest, If they fall out of the map and don't have governmental ties with any within the map, you can certaintly say your a knight of so and so but you would not get the repect you think you deserve and in some ports it could mean a temporary sentence, or at least that would be how I would RP it out if I was running ZK or Calimshan. And to finish off, knight is not a title only given to fighters. In the Haluran/Thayan society a Mage in all likely hood might be the knight.
Of what Andreas said... Today title is worth more than the land if would have granted, because you can go buy land yourself and the English monarchy has non to give away anyhow, since its more of national emblem than a governmental power. If tomorrow all the of the royal household dies in a firey plan crach and the monarchy disolves the english governent and its people will still be fine and go on as normal, morning but normal. The tiles of now are as worthless as a honorary Doctorate, looks good on your resume but meaningless in the real world. And the reason they don't convey feilty is because they don't convey land. Why are you gonna fight for something if you have no stake in. Patriotism goes just so far...
The code of chivalry worked on a one-on-one basis, in the kings court or on duel. You could even see it influence in the 19th century with gentlmen duals. On the other hand on a battlefield no one is going to see a knight strike another knight from the rear knocking him down and killing unfair like, especially if his side wins. When Wallace was made protectorate(don't remeber real title) after defeating the English,(in what ever title he defeated them in) in a loose form he was made a knight and noble and I am sure that title granted him land, if he used it or not, wanted it or not , thats another story. When at his end, do you think the knights that took him showed any sort of chivalry, no they gut and hanged him.
What ever title you hold in the court from baron to Archduke you will still be a knight of that court. The title knight all is saying that you're a member now, whether you gain higher title or rank you'll still be a knight. Now upto the late 19th century, land was seen at title to citizen with the right to vote if you were in a democratic/republic government. it convayed taxes but also other rights. Anything else was considered a second class citizen or worse. Some societies didn't allow women to hold title to land, and hence they could not vote. So land was key, especially in the dark ages, where the only landlord was the king. Just think, after the sons of Maximillion split the Roman Empire and especially they died, the hole of Europe suddenly lost all knowlege and wisdom of the old empire. From one day to the next almost. Where in the empire, a one could be a citizen, one would most likely know how to read and write and have a loose say in the govenment. Then suddenly are thrust in a feudal system where someone tell you what to do, you can't go anywhere cause you're not a citizen, and you don't know any better cause any knowlege is word of mouth and that art was lost when during th e empire people took up reading and writing instead.
Now fielty means nothing without the land, why would you risk bodily harm for protecting some one elses holdings. Thats why the successful kings learnt that if you give a little bit away they will stay faithful. And in larger kingdoms the knights would act in behalf of the crown. Acting on behalf of the crown, thats was the other duty of knight. You could look at it threw the aurthurian perpective as going out and undoing the wrongs. Or as in Monty Pythons Holy Grail lampoon, where half the time you're not righting anything but just serving yourself. Both made up stories with a little bit of trueth to make them more enjoyable. Remeber this is not a Paladin, where they up hold the power of the church and the word of God and doing right by the eye s of God. All you have to uphold is that of your soverien, if he/she stays in power, you stay in power. And it does not need to be the ultimate ruler in the land, it can be one of his barons; Though you pledged loyalty to the baron, he inturn did the same to the king and in the end that made your pleged lthe king even though you serve the baron. God plays into this much like in a football game, you give a battle cry to rally the troops but intrun the other sde is doing the same thing. Here you can certainly uphold the virtues of you god but for title and right your king comes first. Put Jone of Arch on one end of a scale and El Cid on the other and you decide where you fall in between.
The other thing I would add, the title Knight would not convey from one kingdom to the next. Unless your are some kind of envoy or embassador. So being a knight of Silverymoon would mean very little in ZK and would most likely aslo mean accomedations at the dungeon while Silverymoon paid your ransom if found out as such.
As far as all those countries listed, since nothing in Cormyr is not in game but on the map that would be a most likely choise. But I would think you'd need to app@fk to be part of the nobility like making a noble drow from a commoner. Calimshan, though technicaly not a monarchy you could still RP to be a memeber or a royal guard of one of the ruling houses. A Pasha is a counts equivlent I think with the Emir being the ruler, so I don't really know the title you'd hold but it be like that of a knight. As for the rest, If they fall out of the map and don't have governmental ties with any within the map, you can certaintly say your a knight of so and so but you would not get the repect you think you deserve and in some ports it could mean a temporary sentence, or at least that would be how I would RP it out if I was running ZK or Calimshan. And to finish off, knight is not a title only given to fighters. In the Haluran/Thayan society a Mage in all likely hood might be the knight.
-
Mingus
Definition from the Webster's Dictionary:
Knight 1. in the Middle Ages, a military servantof the king or other feudal superior; tenant holding land on the condition that he serve his superior as a mounted man at arms
Vassal 1. in the Middle Ages, a person who held land under the feudal system, doing homage and pledging fealty to an overlord, and performing military or other duties in return for his protection; feudal tenent
Autocracy 1. govenment in which one person has absolute power
Monarchy 1. Rule by one person
Quote: “Since when doesn't a title carry outside of your own country? The Queen of England comes to the US and is properly deferred to and addressed as "Majesty" by the President and everyone else. And when Mr. President travels abroad, he is treated with the respect due to him as the elected leader of the United States government. The Prime Minister of Japan doesn't shuffle the President off to a cheap hotel down in Shinjuku just because his silly ol' American title doesn't carry any weight in the Empire of the Rising Sun. ” - Andreas
Japan gave a constitutional surrender at the end of WWII since then we've occupied that island; no, they are not a terratory or a colony but we still have plenty of solders stationed there. Why bacause they don't have an army of there own, one of the point in the surrender, and there for they can't defend themselves from aggressive china or N. korea. So I doubt that would ever happen. Second, Since WWI we've(America) been close allies of England, with the threat of the communist we made the NATO pact. When the Queen comes here, she's not on a trip to shop at the Gap, she is here as a reprisentative of her govenment and since her government recognizes her as the queen we do too. Before 9/11 The Taliban was the prime governmental agency in Afganistan, did the US or its allies recognize that governement? NO. Do you think if their leader was to come to the US, would he have been presented to the president as leader of the taliban of Afaganistan? NO. The day the government of england dissovel the monarchy completely and the king comes here, we too will not recognize him as king as Mr. <what-ever-his-name-is> In FR as much as you want to believe ZK to be courtious of other govenments, they are not. Much like Cyric doesn't recognize other faiths. Nor would they recognize a leader or a noble from them, only as an enemy of the state and to be arrested or killed on sight. The lords of Water Deep would recognize the lords of Baldurs Gate cause they are allies in the same alliance, But in turn they would not recognize the Captains of Luskan cause they are bitter enemies. Let alone a lowly knight... Whomever is the king of Cormyr, I think Azoun died, would sill see Fzoul, Manshoon and Semmemon as petty tyrants and leaders of the Zhentarim, the current occupiers of ZK(or Rather what ever ZK was named before hand) As for the Cormyrian court acknowleging other courts? Only if they've had formal communications between each other. I doubt some German count cared or even knew of some pasha in the middle east. Same thing applies here. If they are not neighbors or are in some sort of pact or alliance, I doubt they would recognize a noble of a far off kingdom unless sent formally. They may know of some far off island of elves but that might be it. And knights/nobles enemies like ZK or Thay even with formal arrangements would probably not be welcomed or given court(not recognozed) and given warrning if not off the Cormyrian kingdom by sunset they will be hunted down and jailed. ZK on the other hand would not give you a warning and jail you automaically.
Quote: “Nobles frequently held more than one title and some in more than one country! Especially with all the intermarriages that happened during the Medieval/Renaissance.” - Andreas
Of course that was happening till modern times. the Kieser in WWI was apprehenatious of bombing london with zepplins cause Elizabeth was his Great Aunt. All of Europe was had intermarriges. Thats the only way they kept the peace. The only reason for WWI was the Germans went for what they thought as an easy land grab and it got out of hand. The reason Napoleon was let loose on the world is that Loui had his head choped off a few decades(fussy on the dates, so don't quote me specifics) earlier and there was no relatives in france to qualm the little general.
Quote: “All demihuman socities are autocracies???? *BOGGLE* WHAT have you been reading?” - Andreas
I've been reading the dictionary, If you read above there's the definition of an autocracy. Clearly a monarchy falls with in that, as too a theocracy. Hence the vatican and the Pope. One Pope one ruler and yet another form of an autocracy. Even the drow, though they say many houses rule, we all know that it the main house the lays down the law, hence that matron mother is the one ruler. Ironmaster, I'm not sure what govenment they have, but if its anything like the rest I'm sure they have a king as well. Halfling, gnomes, they ar all the same, all under a feudal system of one ruler.Whether a sheriff or priest for the halflings its still an autocracy because its one ruler absolute. If gnomes follow the way of their dwarven cousins, King/monarchs- one ruler absolute. I gotta take your word about the elves cause in truth I have no idea. Though to think, they have lived the longest and kept their society from deteriorating, they would be the ones to have discovered the benifits of a republic or a democracy by now. Silly Elves.
What you have faild to understand is that land was not distributed equally in medieval time. No on the contrary, the KING had all rights and title to all the land in his kingdom, you as a knight would be given land for your fealty. At your death the land was not inherited by your kin but reverted back to the king. Yes, sucks for you children and widow. It was bound to happen that it was easier to pass title to the eldest heir rather than to go look for an other knight to take the place of the fallen. But like the father so too the son pledge feilty, and was allowed to keep the lands bestowd by the title(duke, count , baron, ect) You can also convey(sell, gift, gamble) the land while you are alive to someone else but at your death it reverts back to the king. The knights of the vale aren't landless or they would not be living there. Even if it doen't seem so, they do have a small plot somewhere in there. Now the builder didn't bother to put every little detail in there to conserve space in the servers HD but if he wanted too, you'd see that each one, if he is knight, would posses land. Maybe its loophole in the system and a PC can wrangle a dwelling off of buffy for free if you app@fk that you are a knight of Hartsvale, the only drawback is you'r stuck in hartsvale cause the queen is not about to let one of her guard take a vacation.
I think you're confusing knights with the templars and like orders during the crusades. El cid is a perfact example the knights didn't follow that code you wrote of. He was a merc by all definition but he attaind knighthood non the less. He worked both end to his gain and if the shoe was on the other foot he would have sided with the Moors. Jone of Arch is one that fits your standard but what do you say about the knights that captured here and later saw her to her burning. Ideals are grand but human nature usually wins. The Crusades were nothing more than a land grab, every inch of Europe was in possession by some lord or another and if you wanted your one plot with out the resposibilities of a vassal the crusaddes were just that oppertunity. As for the Turk being heathens, just propaganda by the catholic chuch that also wanted more land. The turk were actually quite goot uptill then to the cristian and jewish communities living under their rule. Actually the were probable better off under them than those in Europe. And I think they were still miffed at the turks for the sacking of Constantinople. An other example of an evil knight would be that of Vlad the impaler. Awarded a counts title and land from the pope for his desisive defeats of turkish armies. And the little ritual of impaling the turk on pikes. He later turned on his people, piking them, and the knights under him followed suit. This were we get the count dracula story. But RL if more gruesom than the later fiction.
Remeber, Arthur Camalot and the round table, Prince Valiant, and robin hood were all fiction and any code of conduct or implide duty said there in was only to move the story along. If this was the fantasy of the pesants in the middle ages What do you think reality was? Not the same bed roses, most likely a bed of thorns. Tyrant kings ruling the land, his knights enforcing his tyrant rule, it wasn't as pretty as you picture it.
If you see how fractured England is now, how the proper English are hated and lothed by the Welsh, Scots and Irish(the other three hate each other aswell) how do you think it was when France, Italy Germany and the rest of Europe was fractured the same way. Worse even. Church and state went hand in had cause that was the easiest way a Monarch could keep a hold on his servants,(serfs) “follow my tyrant rule or go to hell.” What better way to keep the ignorant masses in line? As for the church? They like a knight, got a plot of land and protection during war. So it made a nice marrige, that is till the renaissance, when people started to learn more, could read and write and wern't so dependant on a the monarch. eg Henry wanted a divorce(beheading the wives got too dull) the catholic church would give it, so he disolved the church in his kingdom and set his own Christian religion. Did the mases revolt? no, they were still under the kings rule and they got a replacement church that stated "follow the king or goto hell, but if you want a divorce thats fine from now on.” Did the knights(nobles) rebel cause the king changed the church? No. He could have changed it to Hindi and they would have been fine with it cause they kept their land and they had no physical ties with the church.
I did mean all of them, You'd have to invite not just the former heirs but williams brothers and sister the their broods, And the deceased queen sister's family as well(I think she had only one)... The queens brother denounced the thrown to marry that divorced Amercan so I don't think his heirs count.... all on a jumbo jet to the bahamans and loose them in the bermuda triangle... Then you have no monarchy... A true loss to that country cause that the biggest tourist trap on those islands...think of all that revenue gone from turist visiting Monacco instead to catch a glimps of thier Monarchs. And the changing of their guards Besides the north atlantic, thats probabley the biggest money draws England has...
You saw the quote from the dictionary and I repeate again. A knights title conveys land. I'm not talking about the present but in medieval time, the same time that presumably FR is taking place. For the land and title, the new noble pledges fealty to the feudal lord. Be that a baron, duke or the king himself, just knowing that the baron pledges fealty to a count, the count to a duke and the duke to the king. In the end you are are giving service to the king in exchange for land and protection. Service is to police the kingdom and to engage its enemies. Simple. These knights are not paladins. they do not give fealty to a god or a church but to the one that conveys land onto them. When policing the state, it did mean that the knight was somethimes defferd to as judge jury and sometimes executioner.(remember that awful stallon movie, Judge Dread..)
Knight 1. in the Middle Ages, a military servantof the king or other feudal superior; tenant holding land on the condition that he serve his superior as a mounted man at arms
Vassal 1. in the Middle Ages, a person who held land under the feudal system, doing homage and pledging fealty to an overlord, and performing military or other duties in return for his protection; feudal tenent
Autocracy 1. govenment in which one person has absolute power
Monarchy 1. Rule by one person
Quote: “Since when doesn't a title carry outside of your own country? The Queen of England comes to the US and is properly deferred to and addressed as "Majesty" by the President and everyone else. And when Mr. President travels abroad, he is treated with the respect due to him as the elected leader of the United States government. The Prime Minister of Japan doesn't shuffle the President off to a cheap hotel down in Shinjuku just because his silly ol' American title doesn't carry any weight in the Empire of the Rising Sun. ” - Andreas
Japan gave a constitutional surrender at the end of WWII since then we've occupied that island; no, they are not a terratory or a colony but we still have plenty of solders stationed there. Why bacause they don't have an army of there own, one of the point in the surrender, and there for they can't defend themselves from aggressive china or N. korea. So I doubt that would ever happen. Second, Since WWI we've(America) been close allies of England, with the threat of the communist we made the NATO pact. When the Queen comes here, she's not on a trip to shop at the Gap, she is here as a reprisentative of her govenment and since her government recognizes her as the queen we do too. Before 9/11 The Taliban was the prime governmental agency in Afganistan, did the US or its allies recognize that governement? NO. Do you think if their leader was to come to the US, would he have been presented to the president as leader of the taliban of Afaganistan? NO. The day the government of england dissovel the monarchy completely and the king comes here, we too will not recognize him as king as Mr. <what-ever-his-name-is> In FR as much as you want to believe ZK to be courtious of other govenments, they are not. Much like Cyric doesn't recognize other faiths. Nor would they recognize a leader or a noble from them, only as an enemy of the state and to be arrested or killed on sight. The lords of Water Deep would recognize the lords of Baldurs Gate cause they are allies in the same alliance, But in turn they would not recognize the Captains of Luskan cause they are bitter enemies. Let alone a lowly knight... Whomever is the king of Cormyr, I think Azoun died, would sill see Fzoul, Manshoon and Semmemon as petty tyrants and leaders of the Zhentarim, the current occupiers of ZK(or Rather what ever ZK was named before hand) As for the Cormyrian court acknowleging other courts? Only if they've had formal communications between each other. I doubt some German count cared or even knew of some pasha in the middle east. Same thing applies here. If they are not neighbors or are in some sort of pact or alliance, I doubt they would recognize a noble of a far off kingdom unless sent formally. They may know of some far off island of elves but that might be it. And knights/nobles enemies like ZK or Thay even with formal arrangements would probably not be welcomed or given court(not recognozed) and given warrning if not off the Cormyrian kingdom by sunset they will be hunted down and jailed. ZK on the other hand would not give you a warning and jail you automaically.
Quote: “Nobles frequently held more than one title and some in more than one country! Especially with all the intermarriages that happened during the Medieval/Renaissance.” - Andreas
Of course that was happening till modern times. the Kieser in WWI was apprehenatious of bombing london with zepplins cause Elizabeth was his Great Aunt. All of Europe was had intermarriges. Thats the only way they kept the peace. The only reason for WWI was the Germans went for what they thought as an easy land grab and it got out of hand. The reason Napoleon was let loose on the world is that Loui had his head choped off a few decades(fussy on the dates, so don't quote me specifics) earlier and there was no relatives in france to qualm the little general.
Quote: “All demihuman socities are autocracies???? *BOGGLE* WHAT have you been reading?” - Andreas
I've been reading the dictionary, If you read above there's the definition of an autocracy. Clearly a monarchy falls with in that, as too a theocracy. Hence the vatican and the Pope. One Pope one ruler and yet another form of an autocracy. Even the drow, though they say many houses rule, we all know that it the main house the lays down the law, hence that matron mother is the one ruler. Ironmaster, I'm not sure what govenment they have, but if its anything like the rest I'm sure they have a king as well. Halfling, gnomes, they ar all the same, all under a feudal system of one ruler.Whether a sheriff or priest for the halflings its still an autocracy because its one ruler absolute. If gnomes follow the way of their dwarven cousins, King/monarchs- one ruler absolute. I gotta take your word about the elves cause in truth I have no idea. Though to think, they have lived the longest and kept their society from deteriorating, they would be the ones to have discovered the benifits of a republic or a democracy by now. Silly Elves.
What you have faild to understand is that land was not distributed equally in medieval time. No on the contrary, the KING had all rights and title to all the land in his kingdom, you as a knight would be given land for your fealty. At your death the land was not inherited by your kin but reverted back to the king. Yes, sucks for you children and widow. It was bound to happen that it was easier to pass title to the eldest heir rather than to go look for an other knight to take the place of the fallen. But like the father so too the son pledge feilty, and was allowed to keep the lands bestowd by the title(duke, count , baron, ect) You can also convey(sell, gift, gamble) the land while you are alive to someone else but at your death it reverts back to the king. The knights of the vale aren't landless or they would not be living there. Even if it doen't seem so, they do have a small plot somewhere in there. Now the builder didn't bother to put every little detail in there to conserve space in the servers HD but if he wanted too, you'd see that each one, if he is knight, would posses land. Maybe its loophole in the system and a PC can wrangle a dwelling off of buffy for free if you app@fk that you are a knight of Hartsvale, the only drawback is you'r stuck in hartsvale cause the queen is not about to let one of her guard take a vacation.
I think you're confusing knights with the templars and like orders during the crusades. El cid is a perfact example the knights didn't follow that code you wrote of. He was a merc by all definition but he attaind knighthood non the less. He worked both end to his gain and if the shoe was on the other foot he would have sided with the Moors. Jone of Arch is one that fits your standard but what do you say about the knights that captured here and later saw her to her burning. Ideals are grand but human nature usually wins. The Crusades were nothing more than a land grab, every inch of Europe was in possession by some lord or another and if you wanted your one plot with out the resposibilities of a vassal the crusaddes were just that oppertunity. As for the Turk being heathens, just propaganda by the catholic chuch that also wanted more land. The turk were actually quite goot uptill then to the cristian and jewish communities living under their rule. Actually the were probable better off under them than those in Europe. And I think they were still miffed at the turks for the sacking of Constantinople. An other example of an evil knight would be that of Vlad the impaler. Awarded a counts title and land from the pope for his desisive defeats of turkish armies. And the little ritual of impaling the turk on pikes. He later turned on his people, piking them, and the knights under him followed suit. This were we get the count dracula story. But RL if more gruesom than the later fiction.
Remeber, Arthur Camalot and the round table, Prince Valiant, and robin hood were all fiction and any code of conduct or implide duty said there in was only to move the story along. If this was the fantasy of the pesants in the middle ages What do you think reality was? Not the same bed roses, most likely a bed of thorns. Tyrant kings ruling the land, his knights enforcing his tyrant rule, it wasn't as pretty as you picture it.
If you see how fractured England is now, how the proper English are hated and lothed by the Welsh, Scots and Irish(the other three hate each other aswell) how do you think it was when France, Italy Germany and the rest of Europe was fractured the same way. Worse even. Church and state went hand in had cause that was the easiest way a Monarch could keep a hold on his servants,(serfs) “follow my tyrant rule or go to hell.” What better way to keep the ignorant masses in line? As for the church? They like a knight, got a plot of land and protection during war. So it made a nice marrige, that is till the renaissance, when people started to learn more, could read and write and wern't so dependant on a the monarch. eg Henry wanted a divorce(beheading the wives got too dull) the catholic church would give it, so he disolved the church in his kingdom and set his own Christian religion. Did the mases revolt? no, they were still under the kings rule and they got a replacement church that stated "follow the king or goto hell, but if you want a divorce thats fine from now on.” Did the knights(nobles) rebel cause the king changed the church? No. He could have changed it to Hindi and they would have been fine with it cause they kept their land and they had no physical ties with the church.
I did mean all of them, You'd have to invite not just the former heirs but williams brothers and sister the their broods, And the deceased queen sister's family as well(I think she had only one)... The queens brother denounced the thrown to marry that divorced Amercan so I don't think his heirs count.... all on a jumbo jet to the bahamans and loose them in the bermuda triangle... Then you have no monarchy... A true loss to that country cause that the biggest tourist trap on those islands...think of all that revenue gone from turist visiting Monacco instead to catch a glimps of thier Monarchs. And the changing of their guards
Besides the north atlantic, thats probabley the biggest money draws England has...You saw the quote from the dictionary and I repeate again. A knights title conveys land. I'm not talking about the present but in medieval time, the same time that presumably FR is taking place. For the land and title, the new noble pledges fealty to the feudal lord. Be that a baron, duke or the king himself, just knowing that the baron pledges fealty to a count, the count to a duke and the duke to the king. In the end you are are giving service to the king in exchange for land and protection. Service is to police the kingdom and to engage its enemies. Simple. These knights are not paladins. they do not give fealty to a god or a church but to the one that conveys land onto them. When policing the state, it did mean that the knight was somethimes defferd to as judge jury and sometimes executioner.(remember that awful stallon movie, Judge Dread..)
Last edited by Mingus on Wed Aug 27, 2003 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Andreas
- Sword Grand Master
- Posts: 720
- Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 4:55 am
- Location: Mobile, Alabama
- Contact:
Nobility etc. in Forgotten Realms and RL
The Knights of Myth Drannor is the name of an adventuring group based out of Shadowdale. The elected Lord of Shadowdale conferred the title upon the members of the group in honour of their efforts to protect the surrounding area from the demons, phaeriim and other nasties in/around the ruins of Myth Drannor.
Since when doesn't a title carry outside of your own country? The Queen of England comes to the US and is properly deferred to and addressed as "Majesty" by the President and everyone else. And when Mr. President travels abroad, he is treated with the respect due to him as the elected leader of the United States government. The Prime Minister of Japan doesn't shuffle the President off to a cheap hotel down in Shinjuku just because his silly ol' American title doesn't carry any weight in the Empire of the Rising Sun.
Nobles frequently held more than one title and some in more than one country! Especially with all the intermarriages that happened during the Medieval/Renaissance. The highest title takes precedence then all the lesser titles fall into line. A good example of this would be the future King of England, His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, KG, KT, GCB, OM, AK, QSO, PC, ADC, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland. And to kill off the monarchy of England, you'd have to do a lot more than just get Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince Henry. You forget, there are FOUR royal houses of England and numerous sucessors to the throne. It would be a bloodbath and frankly, I'd rather not contemplate it.
I suspect that a title granted by one recognised government in Faerun would be acknowledged and respected by another. King Azoun (or Queen Regent Alusair) never denies the nobility of Queen Amlaruil of Evermeet or Lord Manshoon of Zhentil Keep and vice versa. Knight of Hartsvale and Knight of Alaron are both landless titles, allowing said personage noble status (just barely) within their realm and possibly beyond depending upon politics. However, just because a person is a noble (by blood or by deed) doesn't mean they can carry on however they wish. Commit a crime and do the time. While Cormyr does seem to have a higher view of diplomatic immunity (I believe this was mentioned in "Murder In Cormyr") most governments will either cheerfully try and convict a criminal, even one of noble status, or exile them.
All demihuman socities are autocracies???? *BOGGLE* WHAT have you been reading? Two of the largest dwarven societies in Faerun are monarchies. Evermeet has become a monarchy while the mainland communities have a variety of governmental styles. Orcs range from tribal to monarchal governments. Lurien (92% halflings) is a theocracy.
The code of chivalry worked on a LOT more than just a one-to-one basis.
"The code of the medieval knight was founded on respect for his engagements, which led him to loathe a lie... The high moral character - which is characterized by an absence of deceit and lying - is well expressed by a ballad of Eustache deschamps: 'You who would (take upon you) the order of knighthood, It is fitting you should lead a new life; Devoutly watching in prayer, Fleeing from sin, pride and villainy. The Church you must defend And succor the widow and orphan; Be bold and guard the people; Loyal and valiant (knights) taking naught from others, Thus should a knight rule himself. He should have a humble heart, should work always, and follow deeds of chivalry; Loyal in war, and a great traveler He should frequent Tournaments and joust for his lady love. He must keep honor with all So that he cannot be held to blame Nor cowardice be found in his doings. And above all he should uphold the weak. Thus, should a knight rule himself. He should love his rightful lord And above all guard his domain, Have generosity, be a faithful judge, so Seek the company of valiant knights, Harkening to their words and learning from them.'"
The Medieval Warrior - p. 52
A knight was accountable to ALL for his actions. Knighthood was a solemn vow made not only between men, but between man and God. Knighthood was far more than patriotism. A knight would live and DIE for his liege, with or without land. I know it seems hard to fathom in today's jaded society, but the belief that God, THE highest power, had ordained so-and-so with the soveriegn right to rule meant everything to the knight. To fly in the face of the King was to defy God and Church and risk eternal damnation. Church and state were NOT separate entities. Excommunication was a terrible threat and it would strip a man from the church AND from society as all his wealth, lands and titles would be forfeit. Needless to say, knights toed the line and made sure not to risk the wrath of their lieges no matter what!
fealty - n. 1. The fidelity owed by a vassal to his feudal lord. 2. The oath of such fidelity.
Hmm... no mention of land there. So yes, fealty could and was pledged without land or any other tangible wealth being involved. One of the greatest encouragements to become a brave and valorous knight was the possibility of gaining wealth (tournament losers had to forfeit their arms, armour and horses to the victor) and land grants! The Crusades saw many knights ride off to battle with King Richard III, The Lionheart, not only to wage holy war against the heathen Saracens (not my personal view, the espoused view of the time period) but also for the reputed riches to be found in those foreign lands or even a grant of land to hold there!
It is impossible to apply modern values to the Medieval model of knighthood upon which the game paladins are based. As for Knights of Hartsvale and Alaron? I suppose other governments would recognise them as honorary landless titles conveying no exceptional privileges. This, of course, is only my opinion on how to deal with those titles than can be earned by anyone who completes the autoquests for them.
Helm keep thee.
-
Andreas
- Sword Grand Master
- Posts: 720
- Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 4:55 am
- Location: Mobile, Alabama
- Contact:
RE: Knights
Big political treatises aside, you are missing the main point: A person doesn't lose their title simply because they go to another country. Read some of the Forgotten Realms novels, or even the campaign material, and you'd understand that this holds true in Faerun as well, regardless of the government's personal feelings toward the title holder.
Definitions? Ooooh, I LOVE vocabulary!
knight - n. 1. Abbr. Knt. or Kt. A medieval tenant giving military service as a mounted man-at-arms to a feudal landholder.
2. Abbr. Knt. or Kt. A medieval gentleman-soldier, usually high-born, raised by a sovereign to privileged military status after training as a page and squire.
3. Abbr. K. A man holding a nonhereditary title conferred by a sovereign in recognition of personal merit or service to the country.
4. Abbr. Knt. or Kt. A man belonging to an order or brotherhood.
5. A defender, champion, or zealous upholder of a cause or principle.
The devoted champion of a lady.
6. Abbr. Kt or N Games. A chess piece, usually in the shape of a horse's head, that can be moved two squares along a rank and one along a file or two squares along a file and one along a rank. The knight is the only piece that can jump other pieces to land on an open square.
Hmmm... no mention of land there.... let's continue.
fealty (this obviously needs revisiting) n. 1. Fidelity to one's lord; the feudal obligation by which the tenant or vassal was bound to be faithful to his lord; the special oath by which this obligation was assumed; fidelity to a superior power, or to a government; loyality. It is no longer the practice to exact the performance of fealty, as a feudal obligation. --Wharton (Law Dict. ). Tomlins.
2. Fidelity; constancy; faithfulness, as of a friend to a friend, or of a wife to her husband.
He should maintain fealty to God. --I. Taylor.
Makes wicked lightnings of her eyes, and saps The fealty of our friends. --tennyson.
Swore fealty to the new government. --Macaulay.
Note: Fealty is distinguished from homage, which is an acknowledgment of tenure, while fealty implies an oath.
The Columbia Encyclopedia explains the historical development of knighthood here:
http://www.bartleby.com/65/kn/knight.html
The title of knighthood originally denoted a mounted warrior. At one point, it also came to be synonomous with landholder. But, as land became scarce, the title reverted back to being that of only a mounted warrior who owed service to his liege lord. Now, it is even less, being only a title conferred upon a person for "civil or military achievments." So, we can have a knight who can swear fealty to a lord without the need for land to be involved. Historically, the population of landless knights far outstripped that of landed knights and other landed nobles. The most basic tenet of knighthood was that the knight would fight for his liege and was required to maintain himself, his horse, his arms and armour in such condition as to always be ready to serve in this capacity.
Yes, the Crusades was a great piece of Church propaganda AND a huge "land grab" which was exactly WHY so many knights wanted to go (not to mention failure to go would consitute treason). All those landless knights hoped to win fame, fortune and LAND in their service to the king.
autocracy - n. 1. Government by a single person having unlimited power; despotism.
2. A country or state that is governed by a single person with unlimited power.
I suppose in a way a monarchy COULD be considered an autocracy. But monarchy more often engenders a picture of a hereditary monarch with the government supported by the population. An autocracy doesn't quite observe all of those niceties. Also note that autocracy is more closely defined as despotism than monarchy. Drow are very clearly NOT a monarchy/autocracy. Drow society (for the most part) is governed by theocracy since it is Lloth and the drow priestesses who hold ultimate power. Lurien is also a theocracy. Mithril Hall might be a monarchy, but King Bruenor also maintains a council of trusted advisors. The same for Queen Amlaruil and one might even consider her government to be a gynocracy as she takes advise from the Council of Matrons. I'm not refuting your definition of autocracy, but to use it in that sense, that would mean that the U.S. goverment is, technically, an autocracy since, at the very bottom rung of it all, we rule ourselves and our households.
All definitions take from http://www.dictionary.com
Both the SCA and the Renaissance Pleasure Faire Company, Inc. follow historically accurate models of the feudal and tititular systems found in Europe from the Iron Ages through the Renaissance. Some of my fellow re-enactors have been everything from Viking Jarls to Dukes in the court of Queen Elizabeth (Tudor) I. I trained with the SCA and worked for the Renaissance Pleasure Faire Company of Southern California, Inc. as a Lady in Waiting to the Queen, member of the Guild of the Distilled and lastly member of Spyder's Crewe. While I've worked Ren Faire's across the US, I'd have to say that RPFI has the most stringent rules and training available. I was required to have a working knowledge of current (read: Elizabethan Renaissance) history and politics in order to perform and work with the public. While Lady in Waiting paid the best, I just COULDN'T take the heat in all that silk, velvet and brocade!!!! I'm now an independent with my persona based upon Grace O'Malley, but I mostly attend the Faires just for my own enjoyment
I also worked with a consulting firm that specializes in Iron Age, Medieval and Renaissance history. Oh the things they don't teach in high school!!! ROFLHelm keep thee.
-
Mingus
Tenant 1. a person who pays rent to occupt or use land, a building, ect. 2. an occupant or dweller of a specific place 3.a personwho posese lands, ect by any kind of title. —vt. to hold as a tenant, occupy.
Despot 1. orig., a title meaning “master”, applied to certain classes of rulers as Byzantine emperors, bishops of the Greek chruch. ect. 2.An absolute ruler; king with with unlimited powers; autocrat.
Monarchy 2. government or stateheaded by a monarch: called absolute whenthere is no limitation on the monarchs power, constitutional when there is such a limitation
The British crown: constitutional, the magna carta took care of that
the Jordanian crown: absolute
Auto- 1. of or for oneself; self 2. by oneself or itself
-cracy {Gr. -kratia, rule < kratos, rule, power} a terminal combining form meaning a (specified) type of government.
I knew I should have put this in the first one...
No they don't loose the title, but is it recognized in the new court? It all depend on the relation between the two courts. If they go back to their home court they still have title...But we're talking about kingdoms other than the home one.
“I'm not refuting your definition of autocracy, but to use it in that sense, that would mean that the U.S. goverment is, technically, an autocracy since, at the very bottom rung of it all, we rule ourselves and our households. ” — Andreas
No, we give up a great deal of power to the government, local and federal. If your statement held true, we could commit murder and nothing would happen as far as justice or criminal proceedure. The first definition stands “Power absolute” what better describes a monarchy. What? that there will be a hier afterwards. A despot, emperor, and all other tyrants had heirs; a king is no differant from them, rule by tyrany. As for fot the theocracy, just look at the vatican and how it works, sure there are bishops working under the Pope but its not ruled by a counsil of bishhops but by the Pope himself. Menzo is ruled a counsil of priestesses or it there just one priestess(matron mother) dictating the word of Lloth. All rulers have there councils esp. the as bigger the state gets.
“The knight was essentially a military officer, although with the growth of feudalism the term tended to denote the holder of not only a position in the ranks of nobility but also in the ranks of landholders.” — Columbia encyclopedia.
Landless knight, still a military officer. general, field marshal, lieutenant. But not of the noble cast.
OK I'll give you this one... But at what stage of feudal development is FR in? (or better yet FK) Remeber all the communities are still city states and their power wanes farther from the city walls as you go. So taking from RL history, FR is still pretty young in the feudal system. And as from you definition, landless knights are less frequent since they came towards its end since almost no land could be granted and all the land hasn't been taken up in FR yet.
Despot 1. orig., a title meaning “master”, applied to certain classes of rulers as Byzantine emperors, bishops of the Greek chruch. ect. 2.An absolute ruler; king with with unlimited powers; autocrat.
Monarchy 2. government or stateheaded by a monarch: called absolute whenthere is no limitation on the monarchs power, constitutional when there is such a limitation
The British crown: constitutional, the magna carta took care of that
the Jordanian crown: absolute
Auto- 1. of or for oneself; self 2. by oneself or itself
-cracy {Gr. -kratia, rule < kratos, rule, power} a terminal combining form meaning a (specified) type of government.
I knew I should have put this in the first one...
No they don't loose the title, but is it recognized in the new court? It all depend on the relation between the two courts. If they go back to their home court they still have title...But we're talking about kingdoms other than the home one.
“I'm not refuting your definition of autocracy, but to use it in that sense, that would mean that the U.S. goverment is, technically, an autocracy since, at the very bottom rung of it all, we rule ourselves and our households. ” — Andreas
No, we give up a great deal of power to the government, local and federal. If your statement held true, we could commit murder and nothing would happen as far as justice or criminal proceedure. The first definition stands “Power absolute” what better describes a monarchy. What? that there will be a hier afterwards. A despot, emperor, and all other tyrants had heirs; a king is no differant from them, rule by tyrany. As for fot the theocracy, just look at the vatican and how it works, sure there are bishops working under the Pope but its not ruled by a counsil of bishhops but by the Pope himself. Menzo is ruled a counsil of priestesses or it there just one priestess(matron mother) dictating the word of Lloth. All rulers have there councils esp. the as bigger the state gets.
“The knight was essentially a military officer, although with the growth of feudalism the term tended to denote the holder of not only a position in the ranks of nobility but also in the ranks of landholders.” — Columbia encyclopedia.
Landless knight, still a military officer. general, field marshal, lieutenant. But not of the noble cast.
OK I'll give you this one... But at what stage of feudal development is FR in? (or better yet FK) Remeber all the communities are still city states and their power wanes farther from the city walls as you go. So taking from RL history, FR is still pretty young in the feudal system. And as from you definition, landless knights are less frequent since they came towards its end since almost no land could be granted and all the land hasn't been taken up in FR yet.
-
Andreas
- Sword Grand Master
- Posts: 720
- Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 4:55 am
- Location: Mobile, Alabama
- Contact:
RE: Knights in Faerun
I'm glad we could FINALLY agree that a person can be awarded the title of knight or pledge to serve a liege without land being included in the deal!
Cormyr a city-state? Geez, I'd hate to tell that to the Crown... The country was founded in the year 26 D.R. by the Obarskyr family who continues to rule through hereditary monarchy to the current day.
Granted, much of the Realms is comprised of independent city-states, so there is always the possibility of someone going out somewhere and setting up housekeeping and king or lord thus-and-such. After that, it becomes a matter of gaining recognition as a legitimate government. There's numerous references in the FR novels to small villages and towns that have sprung up (especially in the Silver Marches and North) where people have gathered together and formed a community out of necessity for safety in numbers.
Menzoberranzan is ruled by a council of eight Matron Mothers. Those Matron Mothers are selected by the will of Lloth. Thus, Menzoberranzan is a theocracy.
Actually, I would consider Faerun to be at the end of the feudal system. There are very few countries that yet have laws of serfdom (people are owned by the crown and bound to the land). Europe saw the end of serfdom come with an enlighting discovery - people were more productive if they felt they were controlling their own destinies!!!! Free people = happy people = more productive people = more taxes paid! Yay for the people!
Helm keep thee.
-
Mingus
You clearly know more about FR than I, so I'm not gonna hang myself trying to compete with your knowlege. Thanks, this has been fun. With out your(mine too) “dang-nabit! I'm right and your wrong” determination made this trip worth while. Hope to disagree with you in the future, if not atleast we should put as much gump if we agree.
Thank you.
Thank you.
-
Andreas
- Sword Grand Master
- Posts: 720
- Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 4:55 am
- Location: Mobile, Alabama
- Contact:
RE: Knights in FR
It was an interesting discussion
Hopefully everyone learned a little bit in the process.Helm keep thee.
Fealty and such
I really did like both points of view, guys... and was wondering if anyone had read a book by Larry Niven giving a sort of modern-day type view of fealty.. called of course.. "Oath Of Fealty" It takes a sort of modern-day/near future type of look at this subject.. and also makes for a good read....
What the Mind of a man can conceive, the Will of a man can achieve.
-
Lukian
Ok, heres a good one for ya...We all know knighthood is unlikely given the circumstances, so lets say I'm a fighter....an elven fighter...there are circumstances of part of my RP that may or may not place me into knightlyhood, but in light of the rarity of such a case, I may or may not send an app for that, so for now, and maybe forever, I was hoping some of you intelligent beings could help me on some words for a "knight for the greater good" with a good connotation. Mercenary would be good, if not for the connotation. ect. so....I look forward to some cool words P.S. In expectation, I am aware of the elven word for Fighter, and as soon as I follow my faith (YAY!!!) I'll be adding that to mky title.
P.S. In expectation, I am aware of the elven word for Fighter, and as soon as I follow my faith (YAY!!!) I'll be adding that to mky title.-
Lukian
Aww....no one got back to me 
Well... Anyhow. If anyone happes to have any info reguarding my last post, you can Email it to Lordgoatman@hotmail.com Thankies :
~Lukian~
Well... Anyhow. If anyone happes to have any info reguarding my last post, you can Email it to Lordgoatman@hotmail.com Thankies :~Lukian~
-
Andreas
- Sword Grand Master
- Posts: 720
- Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 4:55 am
- Location: Mobile, Alabama
- Contact:
RE: Niven & Knight-like titles
Oy... more books for me to buy! I'm a Niven fan! *GRIN*
As for knightly type titles....
http://www.thesaurus.com
I live and die by that site
Helm keep thee.
-
Lukian
-
Andreas
- Sword Grand Master
- Posts: 720
- Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 4:55 am
- Location: Mobile, Alabama
- Contact:
RE: FK Sage
Blah, no. While I appreciate the compliment, I'm well aware of my strengths and weaknesses. I have a tremendous collection of FR campaign material and a very eclectic set of personal skills, but there are definitely others here who know more on some subjects than I. Orcs? Yes, I own the books, but go ask Gruumsh or one of the regular orc players. Dwarves? Again, I have the books and a pretty good understanding of dwarven behaviour, but you'd probably do better to talk to Feindra about that stuff.
Elves and historical knightly figures (Arthurian legends, the Crusades, Vlad Dracul and Vlad Tepes... I could go on and on...) are two of my favourite subjects and I happen to have a strong knowledge base on them. What I don't know off the top of my head, I can research or ask someone else. I'm just happy to be able to help out and add something (hopefully) meaningful to the roleplay on the MUD.
Helm keep thee.