Background: Knight seems to take away from great RP opportunities.

Knight
You have successfully completed your training as a
squire and earned yourself the title of knight.



Again something easily changed campaign to campaign, but having it in the base background really seems to take away from the Roleplaying opportunities of characters actually earning their Knighthood.  
Yes it does.  It means they'll have some other roleplay opportunity.
Yes it does.  It means they'll have some other roleplay opportunity.



Well, start with a different background and earn it in game.  Something like this?

Squire 
You have pledged your honor, protect and serve a titled knight,
learning the responsibilties, rights and code for a person of 
your soon-to-be station.  You might be sworn to a noble house,
or not yet in a knight's employ, or wandering the land after
losing your master. 
Skills: Animal Handling,  Societal Lore, Spot.
Trait--Squire's Manners: When dealing with landed nobility
and royalty, you naturally know the proper etiquette. You can
expect respectful treatment, food and accomodation for yourself
and your adventuring companions.

Yadda yadda...  
Squire doesn't really make sense for an adventurer. As a squire you served and attended a knight, so I don't know how you're going off on your own adventures constantly.

Also given the starting age is generally 16-18 or so, you'd generally be a knight by then. Squires were boys.

Now, you may be a great hero and earn knighthood, but that's for people of common blood. Nobles just go to be knights by birthright, that's how it worked.
Squire doesn't really make sense for an adventurer. As a squire you served and attended a knight, so I don't know how you're going off on your own adventures constantly.

Also given the starting age is generally 16-18 or so, you'd generally be a knight by then. Squires were boys.

Now, you may be a great hero and earn knighthood, but that's for people of common blood. Nobles just go to be knights by birthright, that's how it worked.



Yah, the details aren't important to me.. I'm just saying that the Background system makes it pretty easy to write whatever backstory you want! Pretty cool, IMO.

I think the most organic/fun way to pick a Background would be to simply write your backstory (if you are a player that enjoys such things) and read it with your DM to see what skills make the most sense  
Not everyone becomes a knight through being a squire.  

And sometimes you want the players to earn these things.  But with this, anyone can start out right away as a knight as a core rule.

I can see it, the GM wants to start everyone out pretty basic.  The players get the rule book out, and the one see it and says, I'm going to be a knight.  GM says, no we're not going to have anyone starting out that way.  Player, but the basic rules allow for it... yadda, yadda, upset player, upset GM...

Starting out Noble or a Knight seems like great flavor for optional rules, but not as basic core rules. 
There is always room for advancement. If the player starts as a knight, he becomes a baron or daimyo or some noble lordly equivalent.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
when i look at it i find it a good choice to go with knight.

as a knight is a independent unit, a squire is to tightly bound to a knight ( NPc ?) to alouw full roleplay freedom.
from the same design standpoint things like aprentice should be avoided.
Yes it does.  It means they'll have some other roleplay opportunity.



This.

Alternately, play with the rules of knighthood. My Paladin is not yet a full knight; he is kinda a knight-errent, but he needs to finish his errentry before he can become a full knight.

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
There is always room for advancement. If the player starts as a knight, he becomes a baron or daimyo or some noble lordly equivalent.



But again, it doesn't mean its necessary for it to be a core starting point. 

Yes it does.  It means they'll have some other roleplay opportunity.



This.

Alternately, play with the rules of knighthood. My Paladin is not yet a full knight; he is kinda a knight-errent, but he needs to finish his errentry before he can become a full knight.



The knight-errant path is the best way to deal with it in game, imho. You've been through your path to get you this far, and you just need to go a little farther and truly prove yourself to become a full-fledged knight.

I still have no problem with the 'spoiled noble' type character, though, and they can add a lot of flavor to a campaign.  Many times they are simply not to be landed nobles because they aren't the first-born, or whatever, so they try to adventure to gain something for themselves. The possibilities are endless for any path with knight or noble, if you look at them.

You could even claim 'Knight' only to play a character like Sturm from DragonLance.  He's not REALLY a knight, but he lives that way and is highly respected because he does. He acts more like a knight than many in the order itself do, and will always live like that.  Technically he should take the 'knight' background, because that is what he knows. Just change the fluff ability to better reflect the altered form you are using. Backgrounds are the most mutable part of the character.
And as always, a good response to the "the core rules say..." argument, is that the "rules" are a guideline for the DM's own game. as they always have been
And as always, a good response to the "the core rules say..." argument, is that the "rules" are a guideline for the DM's own game. as they always have been



Which is a cop-out when we're looking at play testing the next rule edition. 

And as always, a good response to the "the core rules say..." argument, is that the "rules" are a guideline for the DM's own game. as they always have been



Which is a cop-out when we're looking at play testing the next rule edition. 




I think since the system is open and gives you easy ways to create your own backgrounds there's enough room for everyone to get what they want.  People who want to earn their Knighthood can take another background or create their own.

Vampire Class/Feat in 2013!

I prefer Next because 4E players and CharOpers can't find their ass without a grid and a power called "Find Ass."

I am torn on this one. In one sense, I like that the game currently offers some basic background concepts that serve more as a guide for creating your own backgrounds rather than trying to present an exhustive yet limiting list. In my play tests we have come up with several of our own backgrounds without to much toruble (I just started a level one wizard whos background is "clone," he is a clone of a 3.5 wizard I played a long time ago who got to level 17 and made clones of himself that never got used for anything in that campaign. Pretty easy to cherry pick some skills and make up "past memories" trait, for advantage on checks to recall historical lore). 

At the same time, I like the idea of rolling for random backgrounds (as an option for those who like such things), and picking up adidtional background options to reflect how your character grows. Maybe you picked soldier for your fighter at level one, but by level 7 he has become popular with the nobelity and the purple dragon knights who offer him a  place amongst their ranks. Well, at this point he should be able to pick up the knight trait.

I guess the question is, do we really need rules for the second option? I am thinking that we don't I kind of perfer backgrounds to be something that, for players who are interested, are worked out with the DM during character creation to help tie the character to the campaign. Form this play test I get the feeling the backgrounds are meant to exist in a kind of "mess with them as you like" feel to accomidate the creativity of the mutual story telling aspect of DnD. It is one of the more exciting aspects to DnDN for me. 
Here's a hastily slapped together idea:
What about making Backgrounds changeable through character advancement and giving certain ones level requirements.  Yes, you can take Squire at level 1, but you can trade it in later for Knight.  It might be a good idea, it might be terrible, or it might be somewhere in between.  I'm cooking while I do this so I didn't think it full through.
Thoughts?
Humm, I think instead of level requirements I would rather have role playing requirements. So, to become a knight, you would actually need to find a lord to knight you. Ultimately, it could be up to the DM to approve backgrounds or decide if they need to be picked up later on. I can see both the "start as a knight"" and "earn knighthood" as making fun subplots in a campaign. I think keeping it flexible is what will keep it appealing to the most people. Avie wast, that's my guess.