So, the party is building nicely, and the Monk wants a monastery, which I allowed to be built using the cost for a temple. Of course he is too low level for the leadership feat. The wizard wants to own the magic shop, same complication. Big issue, neither are in town sometimes for a week, two and occasionally three at a time.
Monk specialized in bow and wants to found an order obsessed with the bow.
It wasn’t really a problem with the fighter/blacksmith because the fighter is not in a field that requires high level NPC’s to operate. So he is the owner of the smithy and directs production somewhat when he is in town. I figure a 2nd or 3rd level skilled commoner is there the rest of the time. The worst that has happened is some cold steel arrows that he could have obtained through Oleg’s anyway.
Do I give them powerful but independent underlings/partners? Other solutions?
Considering the players can build those buildings and they work just fine without the PCs involvement at all, I don't see why them being there for a week at a time is a problem.
Thanks for the reminder, there is a monastery, the party did 'build it' in the sense of allocating BP, BUT they did not pay for it. Someone else did. I had somehow missed that point. The fighter did pay a fair amount for the smithy when it was set up.
So, while the party as rulers may have influence over the structures being built at some level, the party members did not pay for the structures and do not own them. I like it much more that way.
I put an ancient horror (more Cthulhu then inferred by the module) festering under the island that had the Will-O-The Wisp problem. The monastery is being built to train new monks, but also contain the potential 'things man was not meant to know' problem. So, the Monk found an order of monks, perhaps those who trained him, convinced them to build and has a role in the monastery as a member of the ruling counsel, but does not own the monastery. Ditto the wizard, that works very well for both PC’s in my campaign.
|
...IF your PCs adopt a legal code that says they own everything in their demense. If their legal code revolves around the principle of private property, then no, they don't.
Not that most players will bother writing their kingdom's legal code or even elaborating the underlying principles. In by far the vast majority of games such things will go implied.
|
|
Not necessarily. Let's put aside the issue of alternate property regimes and just assume we're dealing with private property. If the state builds a building with its own tax revenue, on land on which it has the right, somehow, to build, and does not sell it, it would own the building. If the state builds a building with revenue invested in it by private persons (read: bonds) on land on which it has the right, somehow, to build, and does not sell it, it would own the building. If the state creates a corporation to build a building and grants it the right to build that building, on land where the state has both the right to build and the right to transfer that right, that building would be owned by the corporation. If the state transfers the right to build on land where they have the right to build to a private citizen, and the private citizen builds a building, the private citizen would own that building.
The thing is, spending BP to create a building is not the same thing as the state laying out funds to build a building. BP is not how many liquid assets the kingdom has; it's a measure of economic activity. "Spending" BP, and the state's inflated role in that spending, is a game mechanic abstracted out of the "economy" in the interest of letting players have fun with the system. Even the marxists among us don't actually believe that the PCs' kingdom runs on a command economy and that the state is responsible for all the investment we see, unless there's some serious social engineering done in Stolen Land and the early part of Rivers Run Red in a given specific game.