Orders of Knighthood - help/discussion request

[S'mon]

This came up in the 'land for new noble' thread - I was wondering if anyone can help:

A feature of my campaign world are the Orders of Knighthood, the way they've developed they're kinda midway between historical Crown Knights (Order of the Garter, Order of the Bath etc) and the Religious Orders (Knights Templar, Teutonic Knights, etc) - they swear allegiance to the King or Lord who heads the Order, but they also have a religious element. Eg the Thrinian Knights are dedicated to the war-god Thrin, there are Chapters of the Thrinian Knights in various realms, in the Overkingdom of Imarr the Thrinian Knights are headed by Archduke Ulfius of Colladel, who encourages the nobles of Colladel to join the Order - thus increasing his own power and the power of the Order. The nominal head of all the Thrinian Knight chapters is the King of the country of Thrinia, King Hansor, so it's also a trans-national body. In a war between the Overkingdom of Imarr and the Kingdom of Thrinia, the Colladel chapter would almost certainly side with Thrinia, so this Lawful-Good order are regarded by the Overking as potential traitors (albeit useful ones).

The Overking of Imarr has his own order of militant knights, the Imperial Knights Bloodhammer, dedicated to the gods Odin-Olorun & Ksarul, who are both a military asset and a way to centralise his own power. Other realms' kings are developing orders of knighthood based on this model that fuses church & state power, eg the Kingdom of Trafalgis' Raven Knights (dedicated to Odin & King Sigurd).

I was wondering if anyone has useful source material I could read up on re anything historically similar? I have the problem that these Orders are clearly not monks/priests like the Templars, but they clearly share many Templar characteristics. I'm thinking Teutonic Knights would be closest?

 

[MonsterMash]

Major problem looking on the web is that there is a load of garbage about the military orders (pseudo-mystical claptrap springs to mind), especially about the Knights Templar.

Using the power of Google-Fu this site http://www.the-orb.net/encyclop/religion/monastic/milindex.html looks useful and is an actual edited academic resource so probably less mythology there.

 

[S'mon]

gizmo33
>>1. I can't image a king hosting a military order within his kingdom headed by another king. I can't think of a RL precedent for that. I think the risks outweight the advantages.<<

Indeed - but this is the situation that has developed in-play. Overking Tarkane of Imarr is a usurper who originally became King of Imarr 15 years ago partly through the assistance of Ulfius and his Thrinian Knights in overthrowing the Albine colonial rulers - Ulfius is extremely powerful personally, he wields the Bloodhammer, a legendary artifact. Tarkane has used Ulfius & the Thrinians to destroy his enemies and expand his power - without Ulfius the Overkingdom would have not been nearly so successful in expanding over the past 15 years. Tarkane made Ulfius Archduke of Colladel to get the Thrinians away from the centre of power. He definitely recognises Ulfius as a threat, Ulfius and Tarkane don't like each other, but neither is strong enough to move openly against the other. They have each attempted to assassinate the other but failed (so far) - Tarkane wants the Bloodhammer (legendary weapon of the ancient Kings of Imarr), Ulfius wants to become Overking.


>>2. I don't know what similarities would be significant with RL orders of knighthood. One feature of the RL versions, for instance, is that they seemed to get kicked out of places and fought with various kingdoms over power. But in your campaign it seems that heads of kingdoms are, in fact, heads of these fighting orders. That would closely tie the policy of the order with the policy of the kingdom - making them identical. And so the fighting orders would not have their own political identities. <<

Yes - the Thrinian Knights _in Thrinia_ embody the State; as do Tarkane's Imperial Bloodhammer Knights in the Overkingdom of Imarr.

>>3. So given #2, I would move the heads of the orders to be relatives/allies of the heads of state, giving them natural alliances but leaving room for intrigue and seperate policies for the fighting orders.<<

Things could develop that way, but why would a King want to give up that power?

>> This way if the King of Imarr ticks off Odin, the fighting order can register it's displeasure. Where the knights of the RL orders vassals of kingdoms? Seems to me that even that would lead to conflicts of interest. If the highest goal of the Knights of Odin is to fight for Odin, you would think that membership in the order would trump all other allegiances. If not, you're not doing the will of Odin.<<

The Imperial Bloodhammer Knights & Overking Tarkane their leader have a dual allegiance to the gods Odin and Ksarul. However their greatest allegiance of the IKB is to the Overking. If either Odin or Ksarul withdrew their favour from the Overking, most IKB would reject that deity and stick with Tarkane and the 'loyal' deity.

The Thrinian Knights are harder to pin down - I'd say Ulfius' Thrinian Knights' chapter in Colladel primary allegiance was to Ulfius, and the Thrinian Knights in Thrinia's primary allegiance was to King Hansor of Thrinia, but if the god Thrin withdrew his favour from Ulfius or Hansor the knights would accept a new leader.

kigmatzomat:
>>1. I can't image a king hosting a military order within his kingdom headed by another king. I can't think of a RL precedent for that. I think the risks outweight the advantages.

Depends on if the are blurry alliegances at play. The various forces funded by the Vatican have often been examples of "aid sent by your kindly religious sovereign" that kings had to put up with. <<

Yup, it's like that with the Thrinians in the Overkingdom IMC.


>>Quote:
But in your campaign it seems that heads of kingdoms are, in fact, heads of these fighting orders. That would closely tie the policy of the order with the policy of the kingdom - making them identical. And so the fighting orders would not have their own political identities.

That's temporary. Wait until the fighting order becomes associated with a family that ceases to be the ruling class. You end up with the Royal Knights that have no love lost to the King.<<

That could happen - say Ulfius eliminated Tarkane and became Overking of Imarr, the IKB would likely have no love lost for the new king, indeed there could be civil war in the Overkingdom.

 

[S'mon]

Thanks MM, I'll have a look.

 

[gizmo33]

He definitely recognises Ulfius as a threat, Ulfius and Tarkane don't like each other, but neither is strong enough to move openly against the other.

What about the Thrinnian knights on the side of Ulfius? Are there significant vassals on either side with mixed allegiances? It would seem to me that since both are heads of their respective states (the duchy seems virtually independant) they could fight each other with impunity. Perhaps one force that would keep it secret would be that the King would be afraid of alienating rival dukes. But introducing these other significant centers of power would require that you define their beliefs and allegiances as well. It all seems very delicate - which it seems was your intention.

Yes - the Thrinian Knights _in Thrinia_ embody the State; as do Tarkane's Imperial Bloodhammer Knights in the Overkingdom of Imarr.

I made an assumption of a certain level of power held by the gods - and it seems that is not the case in your campaign. Neither of the gods (through their priesthoods) seems to drive the policy of their fighting orders. So as far as I can tell, it seems that both your knightly orders are really extensions of the collective state - and by my half-baked DnD theories, I would think it would be hard to apply RL religious fighting orders to either group.

>>3. So given #2, I would move the heads of the orders to be relatives/allies of the heads of state, giving them natural alliances but leaving room for intrigue and seperate policies for the fighting orders.<<

Things could develop that way, but why would a King want to give up that power?

Well, exactly. And not only do the Kings recognize the significant powers of their own fighting order, but they would recognize the power of other king's as well. I don't think it would be unreasonable that eventually membership to a fighting order would be equated with membership to a state - and so membership in a rival knightly order might be equivalent to treason - especially as the role of the gods in their policy seems somewhat remote. WHen I said "move the heads of the orders" I meant to do so as a DM - depending on how permanent of a design decision this was in your campaign.

If either Odin or Ksarul withdrew their favour from the Overking, most IKB would reject that deity and stick with Tarkane and the 'loyal' deity.

On what basis to Odin and Ksarul align? Is it possible that both define a consistent set of beliefs/policies that could be treated as a whole? The priesthoods of these gods seem to be of little consequence, as I have mentioned. That's unorthodox (pardon the pun) compared to what I'm used to. Have you made a concious decision to limit the political power of clerics in your campaign?

Depends on if the are blurry alliegances at play. The various forces funded by the Vatican have often been examples of "aid sent by your kindly religious sovereign" that kings had to put up with.

To me, the extremely signifcant attribute of the Pope in Medieval Europe was the he was the head of "Christendom". This theoretically put him at the top of the power heirarchy. He also had a tremendously strong religious and moral authority - excommunication was like a high level meteor swarm. Kings put up with him for that reason - IMO they were essentially his vassals - but very rebellious ones. When that situation changed (think Protestants) then I think that is a good example of actual religious differences - and in the case of Europe they were extremely violent. It's the Protestant vs. Catholic situation in Medieval Europe that I think resembles your campaign more than the situation of a Universal Church - but of course I could have misread some details due to the complexity of your campaign.

That's temporary. Wait until the fighting order becomes associated with a family that ceases to be the ruling class. You end up with the Royal Knights that have no love lost to the King.

In a "typical" kingdom that I envision, the former ruling family must have commanded some measure of loyalty that would make them extremely dangerous to whoever took over power. IMO former ruling families (and all identifiable decendants) would all be killed as first order of business by a new king, and any personal centers of power would probably have to be destroyed in order for the new king to be legitimately considered the head of the kingdom. So it's difficult for me to imagine the circumstances under which a former ruling family would be allowed to continue to operate a fighting order within a kingdom that they formerly ruled. I supposed if they were voted out by Electors, but then I'd imagine that the new king would have to nerf their power as a matter of self preservation.

 

[S'mon]

What about the Thrinnian knights on the side of Ulfius? Are there significant vassals on either side with mixed allegiances? .

Yes - the Thrinian Knights are pretty much all loyal to Ulfius, if they weren't and preferred Tarkane they'd be Bloodhammer Knights instead - the Bloodhammer Knights are about 4 times larger than the Colladel chapter of the Thrinian Knights, but not all so loyal,
eg King Sigurd of Trafalgis (18th level PC) is nominally an Imperial Knight Bloodhammer as well as ruler of a state allied to the Overkingdom, pretty much a client state. The Overking recently tried to get Sigurd to assassinate Ulfius during a Tourney, Sigurd ignored the request and told Ulfius - Sigurd much prefers Ulfius to Tarkane.

 

[S'mon]

What about the Thrinnian knights on the side of Ulfius? Are there significant vassals on either side with mixed allegiances? It would seem to me that since both are heads of their respective states (the duchy seems virtually independant) they could fight each other with impunity.

Both sides know it could tear the Overkingdom apart and allow mutually hostile forces to triumph. Tarkane wants to keep his kingdom intact, Ulfius (who is pretty much a secondary PC, Upper_Krust often plays Ulfius as well as his primary PC the god Thrin himself) wants to become Overking of an intact Overkingdom - and Thrin wants _a_ Thrinian, Ulfius or another, to become Overking of an intact Overkingdom, in fact Thrin has probably done more than any other god to influence events to encourage the growth of the Overkingdom.

 

[S'mon]

I made an assumption of a certain level of power held by the gods - and it seems that is not the case in your campaign. Neither of the gods (through their priesthoods) seems to drive the policy of their fighting orders. So as far as I can tell, it seems that both your knightly orders are really extensions of the collective state - and by my half-baked DnD theories, I would think it would be hard to apply RL religious fighting orders to either group.

Yes, that's my conclusion to some extent after looking at the page MonsterMash referenced. However the gods IMC are highly active - Thrin is a PC, others like Odin and Ksarul are NPCs but certainly they and their priesthoods are powerful influencers of events. Thrin totally drives the policy of the Thrinian Knights, The IKB are more complex because Tarkane uses the rivalry between the churches of Odin & Ksarul, and between different factions within the Church of Ksarul, to play off against each other and keep the real power for himself in a way that Ulfius, as a pawn of Thrin, doesn't really have. In metagame terms Odin & Ksarul are more hands-offish deities anyway (much older than Thrin) and using the Worship Points System both benefit from Tarkane so neither want him removed. Thrin is a liegeman of Odin BTW, being in the Asgard pantheon.

 

[S'mon]

>>So as far as I can tell, it seems that both your knightly orders are really extensions of the collective state - and by my half-baked DnD theories, I would think it would be hard to apply RL religious fighting orders to either group.<<

Yes - thinking about it yesterday, the closest real-world parrallel I came up with was the Nazi Waffen SS, based on the concept of the medieval religious order but in fact an arm of state power.

>>Well, exactly. And not only do the Kings recognize the significant powers of their own fighting order, but they would recognize the power of other king's as well. I don't think it would be unreasonable that eventually membership to a fighting order would be equated with membership to a state - and so membership in a rival knightly order might be equivalent to treason <<

Yes - in the country of Thrinia itself, I don't have the social setup fully developed - I left it largely to Craig/Upper_Krust and he focussed mostly on the areas of interest to him like the high level NPCs' combat stats - but it seems like most of the rural landholding nobility are or will eventually be Thrinian Knights. Thrin is a war god and will presumably seek to maintain the martial requirements of membership. In the Overkingdom of Imarr I think either IKB or Thrinian Knights will be dominant in the end, one absorbing or destroying the other, or else the kingdom will split.

>> especially as the role of the gods in their policy seems somewhat remote. WHen I said "move the heads of the orders" I meant to do so as a DM - depending on how permanent of a design decision this was in your campaign.<<

This has all been developed in play over the past 12 years or so real-time, so it's an existing situation in-game. I have PCs at all levels in the campaign world from 3rd through 18th to Deity (40+), all with their own agendas.

>>On what basis to Odin and Ksarul align? Is it possible that both define a consistent set of beliefs/policies that could be treated as a whole? The priesthoods of these gods seem to be of little consequence, as I have mentioned. That's unorthodox (pardon the pun) compared to what I'm used to. Have you made a concious decision to limit the political power of clerics in your campaign?<<

Hmm - the relation between Ksarul & Odin is mysterious and uncertain, shall we say, but certainly they seem to be discrete entities - Thrin certainly thinks so, he chats with Odin regularly - "What do you see in that Tarkane, anyway?"
The priesthood of Odin isn't very powerful or consequential, Odin gets most of his Worship Points from the actions of rulers like Tarkane & Sigurd. The priesthood of Ksarul is powerful but internally divided between different factions - the Ndalu radicals have the powerful Clerics, but the Blue Light moderates include Queen-Empress Zalindra, who is a powerful figure in her own right.

>>To me, the extremely signifcant attribute of the Pope in Medieval Europe was the he was the head of "Christendom". This theoretically put him at the top of the power heirarchy. He also had a tremendously strong religious and moral authority - excommunication was like a high level meteor swarm. Kings put up with him for that reason - IMO they were essentially his vassals - but very rebellious ones. When that situation changed (think Protestants) then I think that is a good example of actual religious differences - and in the case of Europe they were extremely violent. It's the Protestant vs. Catholic situation in Medieval Europe that I think resembles your campaign more than the situation of a Universal Church - but of course I could have misread some details due to the complexity of your campaign.<<

I think you're right to a degree, but being a polytheistic setting it's arguably more like devotees of different Saints. The churches of Odin & Thrin are allied - actually 'church' isn't even really a good word to describe the priests of Odin, they're not that organised. There is religious rivalry between Thrinists & Odinists on the one hand and Ksarulists on the other but Tarkane insists that he reveres both Odin & Ksarul equally.

>>In a "typical" kingdom that I envision, the former ruling family must have commanded some measure of loyalty that would make them extremely dangerous to whoever took over power. IMO former ruling families (and all identifiable decendants) would all be killed as first order of business by a new king, and any personal centers of power would probably have to be destroyed in order for the new king to be legitimately considered the head of the kingdom. So it's difficult for me to imagine the circumstances under which a former ruling family would be allowed to continue to operate a fighting order within a kingdom that they formerly ruled.<<

Maybe in some kind of peaceful transition? Certainly in a violent coup one side will want to wipe out the other. Talking to Craig yesterday he/Thrin wants to 'corrupt' Tarkane's newborn son to Thrinism somehow to gain power peacefully when the son inherits.

>> I supposed if they were voted out by Electors, but then I'd imagine that the new king would have to nerf their power as a matter of self preservation.<<

Electors is a thought, the Overkingdom of Imarr is partly based on the Holy Roman Empire. Do you know any references that give synopses of how the Elector system developed? Currently I have what looks like a first-generation dictatorship, Tarkane obviously wants his son to succeed him without fuss.

 

[S'mon]

What about the Thrinnian knights on the side of Ulfius? Are there significant vassals on either side with mixed allegiances? It would seem to me that since both are heads of their respective states (the duchy seems virtually independant)

Tarkane made Ulfius an Archduke and gave him a huge swathe of territory north of Imarr (Colladel) officially in recognition of his services, but also to get him away from the centre of power. Ulfius pretty much rules Colladel, sending the standard 20% Salt Tax to the Overking. Although Colladel is big, it's not really defensible vs the rest of the Overkingdom (flat, with a long land border to the south; the Overkingdom could attack anywhere along it) so a civil war would be inherently unstable situation, one side would eventually win.