Paradox Develpers. Who do Lowborn Characters represent?

[riknap]

Lesser nobles are represented by the "invite young noble" option.

Lowborns are the talented or fortunate people who happened to get into the king's/noble's goodbooks and were subsequently granted land and a coat of arms as a reward.

except they don't have a coat of arms (in-game)
which again begs the question: so who are they "supposed to be"

of course, we can also assume that they do have coat of arms, but are not "important enough" for us, the omnipotent-spirit-guardian-of-a-specific-dynasty, to see and know via the game.

that sight, an interesting thing to note is the flavor text in the Legacy of Rome random-eunuch generation event.
Specifically, the tooltip for the last choice say something like "A knight named Isuxyoarse appears in your court."
Since the random eunuch is a lowborn, we can assume that the castrati who showed up is thus a knight, and thus some of the lowborns represents knights. That said, when giving these lowborns lands of baronial tiers and above, they become important enough that their "coat of arms in the game universe" suddenly become "something relevant" that the player can now "see them" with our ethereal eyes...

... I read too many bad light novels :laugh:

 

[Kaiser Ludwig]

for us, the omnipotent-spirit-guardian-of-a-specific-dynasty

I'm liking that characterization, actually...

 

[FieserMoep]

Well, I am thinking of them as very low vassals though not important to slow the game down by generating CoAs for hundreds of unimportant people. ATM my save-files seem to be extremly big in late games. xD

 

[Talq]

Lowborn are not nobles, and thus are enobled (and get a dynasty & shield) when given land. Town mayors were frequently non-noble (and in any event, because the mayoralty is rarely dynastic, the game would lose track of which houses had mayors when) - although they frequently were rich & in some places nobility could be purchased (or being rich was nobility, like Italy). Bishops tended to be from noble families, especially for the important sees (which would be the ones in the game), although non-nobles were not unheard of.

In most of Europe, all nobles are knights by default (and thus are expected to go to war etc etc). Retinue leaders being lowborn is a bit...odd (although the retinue would be professional soldiers funded by the noble, the leader would probably have come from the lesser nobility).

 

[StephenT]

In the early part of of this period, knights weren't nobles. They were the armoured, mounted soldiers of a noble's retinue. They generally lived at his castle, ate at his table, and wore the clothes he gave them; in return they escorted him around the countryside, beat up recalcitrant peasants, and fought in his wars.

When you build certain buildings in your fief, you see how a number for "heavy cavalry" pops up? Those are your knights. I suspect the 'light cavalry' , in many cases, are also knights who can't afford a decent warhorse or proper armour.

Later on, knighthood became fashionable. People told stories about Charlemagne and his Paladins, or King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table. All sorts of customs and traditions started to grow up around knighthood - winning your spurs, being dubbed on the shoulder by a more senior knight, the bath and vigil the night before, and so forth. The formal rules of heraldry were invented - some time between 1100 and 1130, apparently. At this point, nobles became knights too. Even kings would be knighted.

In the mid game, any male noble character with a portrait is probably a knight.

By the end of the period, knighthood had gone out of fashion again. All those fancy ceremonies were expensive. It didn't help that some kings had started levying special taxes on knights, or putting heavy military obligations on them: so not getting knighted was a benefit to you financially. It got to the point that some governments actually started making it compulsory to get knighted if you held more than a certain amount of land, to crack down on tax-dodgers.

In the late game, any male noble character with a portrait and a low 'stewardship' score is probably a knight. The ones with high stewardship have managed to avoid being knighted.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

You are a knight. (If you aren't king or above)

Actually it'd be pretty much unheard of for a King not to have been knighted at some stage (and often multiple times, by various brother kings and princes). As the very apex of the chivalrous system in Feudal times, it was expected of them to be the flower of knighthood.

 

[Mixxer5]

I thougth Knights were born in mail?

This

No it's rather about... Well they don't do anything. They resemble nobles from XVII/XVIII century rather than knights.

 

[yourworstnightm]

Lowborn characters are people who are not nobles but one way or another has infiltrated the court (wealthy merchants etc.) At least that's how I see them.

 

[Prime624]

Actually it'd be pretty much unheard of for a King not to have been knighted at some stage (and often multiple times, by various brother kings and princes). As the very apex of the chivalrous system in Feudal times, it was expected of them to be the flower of knighthood.

Good point.

Why do people keep trying to answer these two questions? Many people (including myself) have answered them clearly.

 

[Prime624]

Here are the answers to both questions.

Lesser nobles and commoners that stumble upon a title/importance are synonymous in this game. The lowborn are basically anyone important enough to represent with a character but not important enough to make a new dynasty shield, name, etc.

Knights were the armored horse rider that fought in jousts. They also managed their realm and vassals and served their lord. All male nobles are knights. That's why nobles have a martial skill and lead armies. That's why there are tournaments.

You are a knight.

 

[Agrippa43]

Okay, so once again we have all these theories about lowborns but no response from Paradox.

Do the developers read the forums?

 

[Velorian]

Okay, so once again we have all these theories about lowborns but no response from Paradox.

Do the developers read the forums?

More than most companies, but not all threads all the time. It also kind of seems to me that all these theories are rather similar.

 

[Trunting]

Okay, so once again we have all these theories about lowborns but no response from Paradox.

Do the developers read the forums?

The second thread^^. But I agree, the lowborns are currently the biggest issue in the game.

 

[Cuthuthulu]

Another interpretation I like is if a lowborn is a complete imbecile they happen to be a favoured servant of the ruler. Who better to talk to about your plots to take over the realm than someone too stupid to ever remember any of them.

 

[Vasious]

In the early part of of this period, knights weren't nobles. They were the armoured, mounted soldiers of a noble's retinue. They generally lived at his castle, ate at his table, and wore the clothes he gave them; in return they escorted him around the countryside, beat up recalcitrant peasants, and fought in his wars.

When you build certain buildings in your fief, you see how a number for "heavy cavalry" pops up? Those are your knights. I suspect the 'light cavalry' , in many cases, are also knights who can't afford a decent warhorse or proper armour.

Later on, knighthood became fashionable. People told stories about Charlemagne and his Paladins, or King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table. All sorts of customs and traditions started to grow up around knighthood - winning your spurs, being dubbed on the shoulder by a more senior knight, the bath and vigil the night before, and so forth. The formal rules of heraldry were invented - some time between 1100 and 1130, apparently. At this point, nobles became knights too. Even kings would be knighted.

In the mid game, any male noble character with a portrait is probably a knight.

By the end of the period, knighthood had gone out of fashion again. All those fancy ceremonies were expensive. It didn't help that some kings had started levying special taxes on knights, or putting heavy military obligations on them: so not getting knighted was a benefit to you financially. It got to the point that some governments actually started making it compulsory to get knighted if you held more than a certain amount of land, to crack down on tax-dodgers.

In the late game, any male noble character with a portrait and a low 'stewardship' score is probably a knight. The ones with high stewardship have managed to avoid being knighted.

Brilliant

 

[Spartanlemur]

except they don't have a coat of arms (in-game)
which again begs the question: so who are they "supposed to be"

Ah, sorry, I forgot to specify that I meant those talented commoners who have caught the eye of the king enough to come to his court but have not yet been elevated (and may never be). You can, however grant them lands and change that, giving them a dynasty.

 

[Martinus]

There was no uniform "knight" caste in medieval Europe that could be used as a model in all Christian countries (contrary to, say, clergy, which was pretty universal, thanks to the Catholic Church influence).

The "knights of the Roundtable" style chivalric caste who participated in jousts is a late middle ages/early renaissance cultural phenomenon, that was limited to France and England (with some monarchs in other countries aping it as a fashionable entertainment) and was non-existent through most of the CK2 period.

"Knights" in Spain were minor landholding barons (who are already in game), "knights" in Germany were actually "ministerials", that were little better than serfs, in Eastern Europe there were personal retinues of the monarch or powerful lords that served a similar role; in Italy, you had either mercenaries or military-trained children of aristocracy; Byzantium had something similar to a standing army. Etc.

 

[Mixxer5]

There was no uniform "knight" caste in medieval Europe that could be used as a model in all Christian countries (contrary to, say, clergy, which was pretty universal, thanks to the Catholic Church influence).

The "knights of the Roundtable" style chivalric caste who participated in jousts is a late middle ages/early renaissance cultural phenomenon, that was limited to France and England (with some monarchs in other countries aping it as a fashionable entertainment) and was non-existent through most of the CK2 period.

"Knights" in Spain were minor landholding barons (who are already in game), "knights" in Germany were actually "ministerials", that were little better than serfs, in Eastern Europe there were personal retinues of the monarch or powerful lords that served a similar role; in Italy, you had either mercenaries or military-trained children of aristocracy; Byzantium had something similar to a standing army. Etc.

You're totally right (probably ) but knights were important part and symbol of middle ages. Shamefully as most of things in game they exist but are very, very neglected. Playing as eastern Europe country is almost absolutely the same as playing western or even Byzantium- apart from geographical circumstances. Realm names are only difference between them, rules are the same (keep vassals loving you and everything will be ok). Game is still great but absolutely not unique. Player is almost always successful and his only problem is broken faction system (which is problem of most of world).

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Good point.

Why do people keep trying to answer these two questions? Many people (including myself) have answered them clearly.

Because people often have a style of answering questions they know themselves, before finding out if others have already done so. Allow me my little vanities good sir/madam(oiselle).