I like this discussion Karver, not sure why though 
The thing with knights, as you have mentioned in your original post, is that they are far from stereotypical and actually have a lot of depth or ways to play. In the most basic sense, knighthood was a position of the lower nobility or a title conferred by a greater level of nobility.
So there is automatically a distinction between soldier and knight before we even get into the concept of codes of honour. So from that perspective there is nothing wrong with the unromantic but probably more realistic concept of a dirty, violent and immoral fighting man who happens to be a knight. Hell, Game of Thrones has that sot of knight in spades.
So an Orsimer warrior in service to the king of Orsinium could definitely be considered a knight when the role of that warrior is translated and explained to a Breton noble. Whether the orcs of Orsinium do have a social structure which include levels of nobility is probably another topic. The orc may not refer to himself as a knight but might pick up the title and be referred to as such in the larger world.
Of course, it is often more rewarding to play a knight character with strict ethical codes or simply abiding by the code of chivalry and the knight as a fantasy archetype has run with that portrayal often at the expense of others. This is mainly because it creates restrictions for the player that they may not normally have and therefore knights in TES have a reputation as being a "beginner's roleplay class." Yet the subjects you raise indicate they have more depth than that.
One of the best books to come out of ESO, imo, is The Knightly Orders of High Rock by the shrew of Taneth. Definitely worth a read if you haven't already. The idea of a knight having to be pious is largely because of social acceptance rather than because of dictated code. So one thing to bear in mind is that a knight could be of minor nobility or have the title awarded, could be devout or completely atheist. As a class it has many ways of being interpreted, including weapon choice. You'll have to renind me but iirc in TES IV there was no such thing as one handed or two handed skills. A knight trained in the Blade skill would be just as good with a greatsword as with a dagger, the only difference being the damage the weapon can inherently deliver.
Overhate, you can associate all you want but a knight is a martial class and as such is proficient with a wide array of weapons. I think the Knight class in Skyrim actually has Two Handed as a skill, while the Warrior or House Carl class uses One Handed and shields.
Now Crusaders on the other hand are a different kettle of fish. Any peasant with a degree of magical talent and a good heart can call himself a crusader. Ironically, a selfish and tyrannical monarch could see a crusader as a threat and dispatch a knight to slay the offending crusader. My take on such a battle is that the knight would posses more martial skill and would probably be victorious at melee range, but he would have to make his way through the crusader's spells first.
I like this discussion Karver, not sure why though The thing with knights, as you have mentioned in your original post, is that they are far from stereotypical and actually have a lot of depth or ways to play. In the most basic sense, knighthood was a position of the lower nobility or a title conferred by a greater level of nobility.
So there is automatically a distinction between soldier and knight before we even get into the concept of codes of honour. So from that perspective there is nothing wrong with the unromantic but probably more realistic concept of a dirty, violent and immoral fighting man who happens to be a knight. Hell, Game of Thrones has that sot of knight in spades.
So an Orsimer warrior in service to the king of Orsinium could definitely be considered a knight when the role of that warrior is translated and explained to a Breton noble. Whether the orcs of Orsinium do have a social structure which include levels of nobility is probably another topic. The orc may not refer to himself as a knight but might pick up the title and be referred to as such in the larger world.
Of course, it is often more rewarding to play a knight character with strict ethical codes or simply abiding by the code of chivalry and the knight as a fantasy archetype has run with that portrayal often at the expense of others. This is mainly because it creates restrictions for the player that they may not normally have and therefore knights in TES have a reputation as being a "beginner's roleplay class." Yet the subjects you raise indicate they have more depth than that.
One of the best books to come out of ESO, imo, is The Knightly Orders of High Rock by the shrew of Taneth. Definitely worth a read if you haven't already. The idea of a knight having to be pious is largely because of social acceptance rather than because of dictated code. So one thing to bear in mind is that a knight could be of minor nobility or have the title awarded, could be devout or completely atheist. As a class it has many ways of being interpreted, including weapon choice. You'll have to renind me but iirc in TES IV there was no such thing as one handed or two handed skills. A knight trained in the Blade skill would be just as good with a greatsword as with a dagger, the only difference being the damage the weapon can inherently deliver.
Overhate, you can associate all you want but a knight is a martial class and as such is proficient with a wide array of weapons. I think the Knight class in Skyrim actually has Two Handed as a skill, while the Warrior or House Carl class uses One Handed and shields.
Now Crusaders on the other hand are a different kettle of fish. Any peasant with a degree of magical talent and a good heart can call himself a crusader. Ironically, a selfish and tyrannical monarch could see a crusader as a threat and dispatch a knight to slay the offending crusader. My take on such a battle is that the knight would posses more martial skill and would probably be victorious at melee range, but he would have to make his way through the crusader's spells first.
