I was playing around with what NPC's have as a daily income which I think I have worked out but I found an interesting fact based on rules as writen. The rules define an unskilled hireling as an NPC without proficiency in a skill. Without this proficiency, they would be seen as an unskilled hireling, meaning they get paid 2 sp per day based on rules as written. 

In the monster manuals, the NPC's that have no skills are commoner, bandit, tribal warrior, berserker, and knight.

The knight stands out due to the others are often seen as uneducated or wild people.  So my question is how does this reality shape the role of a knight and even more so the fact that based on rules as written they don't count as a skilled hireling. The noble knight apparently does not get paid as much as gets status. Being a knight of the realm they tend to have no issues finding a place to stay and often travels with an entourage that includes squires and hirelings who are commoners. It has been just fun thinking of what the knight not having skills means.

So what are your thoughts?

Quote from masterwitchpoly >>

 So my question is how does this reality shape the role of a knight and even more so the fact that based on rules as written they don't count as a skilled hireling.

 

 it doesn't imo.  if you were to try to reconcile every statement in the official docs and fit them all together, you'd never get past the PHB when you try to figure out how much a ration weighs.

There's a term RL term to describe the social class knights were associated with "landed gentry."  You don't need a trade if you have wealth (in this case the resources of land that's probably leased by your people in one way or another).  Knights aren't mercenaries, they don't fight for money, they fight out of political allegience.  Read the second book of The Once and Future King and you'll see the difference between knightly warfare and the common soldier.  It's hyperbolically polarized but not inaccurate.

D&D doesn't have a formula necessarily (though Colville's Strongholds and Followers may lean this way) but it works like this:  Most people work for money and resources.  Noble people are entitled to it, literally.

A knight getting paid 2 silvers a day isn't going to be able to afford a retinue, unless they're independently wealthy and didn't need the 2 silvers in the first place. Assuming a knight who needs those 2 silvers for living expenses, they're pretty much just someone with a title and apparently no liege lord they owe fealty to who would provide an income.  

Being a knight would almost always mean you do have skills though, just maybe not something that directly translates to a skill proficiency in mechanical terms. Knights get educated and serve as squires before being knighted, and they're usually from an influential family. The most obvious exception would be a battlefield promotion, a commoner receiving a knighthood for acts of valour and bravery in service of a lord - but then we're looking at one of those other NPC types, just with "knight" plastered over it.

this may be a moot point but you could always do a little combining of things. For instnace, based on those npc's you mentioned:

bandit, tribal warrior, berserker, and knight could all be considered skilled if you think of them as variantions of the Soldier background.

bandit and tribal warrior could be variations of the Outlander background

commoners could be hermits, urchins, sailors (pressganged individuals) guild artisans (merchants) and criminals

knights are a variation of the Noble background

so based on those you could assign a background with its associated skill proficiencies to any hirelings and move them from unskilled to skilled.

When it says unskilled, it means they don't have have production skills in my mind. All the examples listed have combat skills/proficiencies. This is reflected by the fact that they have a proficiency bonus added to their attribute modifier to make their weapon attacks.

If you hire a Knight as a blacksmith's apprentice, you pay him 2 sp. If you hired him to kill the troll outside town, you better buck up.

A Unskilled Knight who was down on their luck might well take a couple silvers to do a chores for a day.  One who was flushed with cash would find it insulting to be offered money in any amount, but if they felt the cause was just and they were able to help, they might do it for free.  They might not have any listed skills because the stat blocks are for combat, and "Calligraphy" isn't all that helpful in a fight.

You can roleplay pretty much any way you wish.  "Unskilled Knight" implies all sorts of things.  The word "Knight" implies nobility, but doesn't have to.  They could be just starting out, eager for any hint of adventure, and more a "Knight" in their own mind than anything.  They could be an older Knight who never was much for the social graces and stuck purely with battle, although their stats would need some explaining.  They could have been wounded, perhaps.

I feel that we've skipped the fact that we have skilled and unskilled reversed.

It's much less about what they can do, and much more about what you're asking them to do. "Carry my stuff and watch my horse." Is unskilled. "I need you to dismantle that trap." Is skilled.

A knight might do unskilled labour, but don't expect them to ever fight for you.

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

There's a term RL term to describe the social class knights were associated with "landed gentry."  You don't need a trade if you have wealth (in this case the resources of land that's probably leased by your people in one way or another).  Knights aren't mercenaries, they don't fight for money, they fight out of political allegience.  Read the second book of The Once and Future King and you'll see the difference between knightly warfare and the common soldier.  It's hyperbolically polarized but not inaccurate.

D&D doesn't have a formula necessarily (though Colville's Strongholds and Followers may lean this way) but it works like this:  Most people work for money and resources.  Noble people are entitled to it, literally.

 

To be a little fair, nobles typically had ancestors that fought or otherwise earned enough to supply their families for generations. However history is nevertheless filled with noble houses that go broke simply because, somewhere down the line, too many generations took it too far for granted and stopped contributing enough to sustain it.

To the point where a modern Knighthood is pretty much just honorific with no real financial benefits. Lordship, on the other hand, does still exist as well in the UK and does actually entitle you to a seat in the House of Lords and a stipend. But it is no longer hereditary as of 1999.

Landed nobles were generally dependent upon their land for their wealth, too.  That meant that if something changed, their fortunes could easily collapse- a vineyard could be rendered worthless if better quality wine suddenly became easier to import or a copper mine could dry up.  Then you'd have nobles who were landed paupers.