Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen
And, finally, a knight does have some level of Legal Immunity - let's call it the 10-point level.
|
Knights did not have legal immunity, knights could be charged with crimes by commoners. However, it was much easier for the knight to prove his innocence given his higher status. One set of laws said that a knight could prove his innocence against a commoner by getting 4 other knights to swear that he had not willingly broken the peace. That said, he would have to get 4 knights to swear to that, so if he did not have at least 4 friends willing to lie for him, he was out of luck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen
Let's assume a knight is Status 2 - that's the lower level suggested by both the Basic Set and Banestorm. They should have Feudal Rank 1, I'd say (squires are effectively Feudal Rank 0). Plus, a knight will typically be well-off. Wealthy is suggested.
...
But for that, the knight gets to exert substantial influence on everyone of Status 1 or lower, gets to directly command squires, ordinary militia, and other people at Feudal or Military Rank 0, has the benefits of being wealthy, and is immune to a lot of the laws that "common folk" have to deal with. I'd say that's worth 40 points, yeah
|
Why only Feudal Rank 1? It seems to me that, in such a case, a knight would be subject to the command of a commoner with Rank 2. Or since these are parallel rank structures, should the Rank 2 commoner not have any authority over anyone with Feudal Rank, but someone with Feudal Rank lower than his also would not be able to issue him orders? If that is the case, shouldn't the regular military rank lack dominance and only be worth 4 points/level?