Knighthood Advantage?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

Going back to 2nd edition, medieval knights had Status 2 if they were unlanded retainers to a lord and Status 3 if they were landed. It was common for them also to have a Patron in their order (if any) and a Duty to same.

3rd and 4th edition make it potentially more complicated with Law Enforcement Powers, Military rank, and such, but the Knight-Errant template from Banestorm p 208 is clear - a knight has Status 2.

I wouldn't generally give a medieval knight Military Rank, because rank in medieval armies was far from formalized; it was more a by-product of Status—you'd better not put a baron in command of a duke, or a commoner in command over any noble. I have the impression that our concept of rank emerged partly from the command arrangements of mercenary forces.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I wouldn't generally give a medieval knight Military Rank, because rank in medieval armies was far from formalized; it was more a by-product of Status—you'd better not put a baron in command of a duke, or a commoner in command over any noble. I have the impression that our concept of rank emerged partly from the command arrangements of mercenary forces.

I wish I still had the notes at hand (they're probably somewhere), but back when I was designing a quasi-medieval Fantasy setting, I opted to have Rank in play, but it had the caveat that, regardless of relative Rank, someone of lower Status could not give orders to someone of higher Status. Similarly, while their nominal Status was only a smidgen higher than an equivalent noble, members of the royal family could not be ordered around by anybody who wasn't also a member of the royal family. Of course, high-Status, low-Rank individuals could be advised by others that had lower Status but higher Rank, and the smart ones knew to listen to the voice of experience (Rank in that setting was mostly merit-based), not unlike how a competent Third Lieutenant (essentially a deployed officer trainee) in Starship Troopers would listen to the advice of his Sergeant. So while a Duke General (Status 5, probably Rank 5 or 6) couldn't give orders to a Highborn Lord (Status 2, +1 Courtesy Status, Rank 0 or maybe 1 - a Lord is an officer without a command, because all Nobles and Royals who are in the military are automatically officers), the latter would be well-served taking the former's advice and requests to heart. One could argue that Royals should have a further Advantage of some flavor to represent the fact they can't be ordered around by non-Royals, but I didn't bother... in no small part because I never intended for being a Royal to be an option for PC's (the Commoner/Noble split was represented mechanically - the highest Status a Commoner could achieve would be Status 1 + Courtesy Status 1, for a non-noble knight* - Status 1 for being an affluent commoner, Courtesy Status 1 for having been knighted - while the lowest-Status Noble would be Status 2).

*I don't know if historically there were cases of commoners remaining as commoners after being knighted, but at least in that setting, it was an option. It was actually fairly common for a commoner in that setting who proved himself worthy of knighthood to also be boosted to Status 2 as a Baronet, a non-hereditary noble (the hereditary version was simply the Baron IIRC; the big advantages of becoming a Baronet was that you could become an officer in the military and you or one of your family - you could essentially transfer this right but not your title - gained the right to marry into a noble family).

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I wouldn't generally give a medieval knight Military Rank, because rank in medieval armies was far from formalized; it was more a by-product of Status—you'd better not put a baron in command of a duke, or a commoner in command over any noble. I have the impression that our concept of rank emerged partly from the command arrangements of mercenary forces.

Our concept of rank has a lot to do with the fact that from the early modern period well up into WWI, it was common to become a captain by being a gentleman and mustering your own unit. The USA didn't have a firm professional hierarchy until the American Civil War.

I think for powerful medieval armies, Rank would apply. It's just that there are stronger social assumptions about who can acquire rank and how. A squire or "lord" could be Status 1 and still be in military command, albeit at most a minor rank. A lot of modern ranks (like commander) originated as terms of address for knights. Whereas a Duke without combat experience might have little more than Courtesy Rank... yes, they receive complete deference notionally, but on the battlefield, they are likely to be ignored whenever necessary, particularly if the lighting is bad.

The main difference would be that a Baron or Duke might, in many or most cases, be the legitimate political leader of a band of men. But that wouldn't give them a rank with respect to other bodies of fighters. Certainly, a peasant would not permit a Duke to enter a restricted area if their commander had already said otherwise.

A knight's military Rank might be incidental to their general Social Status... but a commander might enjoy the +1 Social Status that comes with higher Rank.

[Anthony]

In the end, status can be thought of as a measure of resources you control, and rank as a measure of personnel you control. A politician may not be personally wealthy, but their favor or disfavor can still affect how a quite large amount of money is spent. A military officer doesn't have a lot of direct employees, but a lot of people still answer to their commands. As such, in a less formalized military, I'd just give rank based on the forces under your command (possibly based on some measure like TS, rather than raw numbers).

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by whswhs

It might promote you to a certain Status, perhaps Status 3 or thereabouts. But in more recent societies, I'd call it a perk amounting to Courtesy Status. GURPS Social Engineering, p. 79, calls it Honorary Title.

For a modern knighthood, I'd call it no more than a perk, which gets you a nice shiny official way to call attention to your Reputation (for whatever earned you the knighthood). The equivalent of a medal, really.

[Donny Brook]

To significantly simplify the official Order of British precedence (admittedly anachronistic but still official):

SS1 - landed gentry (entitled to armorial bearings), barristers, certain crown officials

SS2 - Knights (all grades), baronets

SS3 - Barons, Viscounts

SS4 - Earls

SS5 - Marquesses

SS6 - Dukes (all grades)

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by RyanW

For a modern knighthood, I'd call it no more than a perk, which gets you a nice shiny official way to call attention to your Reputation (for whatever earned you the knighthood). The equivalent of a medal, really.

Modern knights :

-Knight in a mundane brotherhood or lesser order : perk, at best.

-Hereditary Knighthood (nobility title, usually quite low): status +1, depending on the country, perhaps more depending on the family wealth.(not cumulative if multiples titles, and not if there is an higher title)

-Knight in a prestigious order (OBE, Légion d'honneur,...): perk on top of an pre-existing +1 Reputation (or more !)

-A justice Knight of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta : religious vows, duty and some serious influence required. Maybe some rank instead/on top of status ?

[Pursuivant]

Keep in mind that in many cases, Knighthood doesn't confer social advantages, it confirms them.

For example, a famous British actor who collects a high-level OBE already has Contacts, Reputation, Status and Wealth. Their Knight/Dame status merely confirms their lifetime achievement. In that case, as others have pointed out it's Courtesy Rank, a Perk or a minor boost in Reputation or Status.

In other cases, knighthood confers access. Conferring a knighthood on a rich merchant who "donates" money to the crown or a physician who saves the king's life sends the message, "this isn't just any grubby tradesman, he's one of us" where "us" means the upper crust of society. The newly minted knight might face snobbery from their social superiors, but brings access to aristocratic customers or patients for the knight and his family. If played right, it allows the knight and his descendants to rise socially.

Other folks have talked about medieval knighthood and enfeofment, which was a whole bundle of advantages and disadvantages. By the later Middle Ages, wealthy men-at-arms tried to avoid knighthood because it was nothing more than a Duty to the king.

[Dalillama]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I wouldn't generally give a medieval knight Military Rank, because rank in medieval armies was far from formalized; it was more a by-product of Status—you'd better not put a baron in command of a duke, or a commoner in command over any noble. I have the impression that our concept of rank emerged partly from the command arrangements of mercenary forces.

Depends on when specifically and in what context again; at the beginning of the Middle Ages, a knight was literally just a soldier who owned one or more horses, and after the introduction of the stirrup fought mounted, thus terms like chevalier, caballero, and ritter in various Continental languages. Knight originally meant youth, then servant, I'm not certain why English used that in place of rider. Successful mounted soldiers got land from the King, which is when knight came to be a social status, and (in English), mounted troops who hadn't any land became "men-at-arms", and knights who had fiefs were divided into Knights Bachelor, who served under someone else's command, and Knights Banneret, who were commanders of others. So that's getting close to being Military Rank at least, because it wasn't necessarily connected to the size of the fief. Then you have the religious orders of knighthood (Templars, Hospitallers, etc.), where knight-brothers are divided from Sergeant-brothers by Status, but further divided by rank, with Knight-Commanders above Knight-brothers and so forth up to the Grand Master. That's definitely a structure that would use Rank in GURPS.

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by Dalillama

Depends on when specifically and in what context again; at the beginning of the Middle Ages, a knight was literally just a soldier who owned one or more horses, and after the introduction of the stirrup fought mounted, thus terms like chevalier, caballero, and ritter in various Continental languages. Knight originally meant youth, then servant, I'm not certain why English used that in place of rider.

I suspect it was a carry-over from hearthband status - much like samurai also has its roots in a word for service - the title emphasised that you were the retainer of a magnate and thus a man good enough at fighting for it to be you livelihood. Of course to be paid for fighting and not be a retainer made you a solidarius (from the gold solidius coin of the late Roman empire) and had overtones of the later term "mercenary".

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Our concept of rank has a lot to do with the fact that from the early modern period well up into WWI, it was common to become a captain by being a gentleman and mustering your own unit. The USA didn't have a firm professional hierarchy until the American Civil War..

Depends where you are - in the UK that sort of thing was pretty much knocked on the head along with purchase of commissions by the Cardwell reforms IIRC, but earlier than that? Totally a thing, going back to the feudal system where anyone of consequence was expected to have a material answer to the question "you and which army"?