Here's the scenario: A mercenary army that the PCs freelance for was hired by a city-state to defend them from an invading force. The mercs successfully defend the city, but when the merc leader goes to collect the army's pay the city leaders renege on the contract and decide they're not going to pay up. The merc leader, extremely angry but not wanting to sack the city, comes up with a different plan: Put together a small commando force to penetrate into the city and abduct the leaders, who will then be held hostage and threatened with execution if they don't honor the contract. Maybe kill one of the city leaders just to show them that the merc leader means business.
1. Obviously, the commando force would be the PCs, except one of them is a paladin. Kidnapping isn't very compatible with the paladin's code of ethics, so I'm trying to think if there's another way to keep the character involved so the player isn't sitting around bored while the other PCs get to play the game.
2. Even if I can find something acceptable for the paladin to do, I wonder if this whole business still isn't too far toward the evil end of things that he wouldn't just leave the army anyway, even if he wasn't involved in the kidnapping in any way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno. You could make the argument that the Paladin is forcing them to uphold the law and their agreement, which makes the kidnapping okay. as well as THREATENED execution.
If he actually goes through with the murder or torture however, I say make him fall like a ton of bricks.
Note: By "goes through with" I mean "actively participates". If he's there, trying to convince his companions to not do it but they go behind his back (or in front of his front) and do it anyway, I say it's not his fault so long as he tried to stop them (and not half-heartedly either). I wouldn't say he has to attack his companions if they do so, except maybe to cock a mailed fist to the jaw of whoever did it and making it clear that any further actions of the same kind will result in the Wrath of Gods falling down on his puny head.
As a GM if a paladin were to join in on a conspiracy to kidnap and ransom anyone, for any reason, I would warn the player that he is playing with fire.
If I am playing the paladin I would take a more direct approach, including, but not restricted to, threatening to enact justice on the evil-doer directly. Pay me or pay the consequences.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No no, it's okay, this is totally good kidnapping and murder.
The main issue for the paladin would be that doing this would probably result in innocent casualties. There is a very good chance that innocent guards are going to be defending the captains and that your strike force is going to have to hurt and possibly kill them. Even if the group comes up with a plan to avoid this, there is still a risk of it.
This is actually why the marshal (The leader of the mercenary army) wants to avoid sacking the city. A precision strike will do a lot less collateral damage than an invasion.
The Paladin should definitely try to talk to the city leaders and convince them to honor their debt though.
Unfortunately that won't work.
Congradulations, you have a scenario designed to more than offend a paladin. WWCAD? (what would captain america do?)
1) Talk down his mercenary captain. Kipnapping does not resolve the situation, endangers the captain's soul and would give them a bad reputation.
is there some sort of mercenary guild in your campaign world in order to seek redress?
2) Go and negociate with the leaders. They are shortiung thge mercenaries they needed to defend them. Obviously, they needed help to defend themselves. Plus, word is now getting out that they renege on payments due, so who will fight for them now?
1) PC is certainly welcome to try. The marshal is very angry about this situation and is in a tough spot. The kidnapping plot seems the least bad of a set of bad choices.
Since the city-state is a sovereign entity, there isn't anyone to appeal to.
2) Negotiation has already occurred. The city leaders are basically calling the marshal's bluff.
In general though, my primary interest in this potential scenario is making sure the paladin's player isn't left out if the other PCs are infiltrating the city. If I can't come up with something for the paladin to do I'll have to scrap the scenario and come up with something else. I don't want anyone to be left out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scrap the thing. A paldin should not only fall for taking part in any of that he should start seeking Atonement for not actively fighting agaisnt the plan.
If you want, I have an idea that would not only get the mercenary company their money, deal a crushing blow to the invaders, be paladin friendly and be totally awesome for the players, it would also show the merc leader as a master tactician.
Scrap the thing. A paldin should not only fall for taking part in any of that he should start seeking Atonement for not actively fighting agaisnt the plan.
If you want, I have an idea that would not only get the mercenary company their money, deal a crushing blow to the invaders, be paladin friendly and be totally awesome for the players, it would also show the merc leader as a master tactician.
I dunno... Paladins have to respect legitimate authority, but the authority must be just as well.
The mercenary group was hired to defend the city, but the city is going back on their agreement here. In a way, I'd think that the Paladin would be going Lawful here and want to help with getting the mercenaries paid. The methods are questionable, but the intent is just and lawful.
Where it me, I'd have the Paladin to go in and act as a diplomat, see if he can convince the government to resolve the situation, otherwise there will be consequences for cheating the mercenary group (as there should be). As for what happens after that, I don't think I could say. Executing city leaders over something this comparatively minor seems like possible grounds for a fall... maybe call in reinforcements from his Paladin order to help the situation?
Murdering these guys would definitely be going too far. Kidnapping them is borderline, but given the explicit aim of extortion and threat of bodily harm I'd say the Paladin cannot be involved in this.
Were I running a Paladin NPC in this situation, he would be actively opposed to this plan and at very minimum would cease association with the mercenaries if they carried it out.
Scrap the thing. A paldin should not only fall for taking part in any of that he should start seeking Atonement for not actively fighting agaisnt the plan.
If you want, I have an idea that would not only get the mercenary company their money, deal a crushing blow to the invaders, be paladin friendly and be totally awesome for the players, it would also show the merc leader as a master tactician.I dunno... Paladins have to respect legitimate authority, but the authority must be just as well.
The mercenary group was hired to defend the city, but the city is going back on their agreement here. In a way, I'd think that the Paladin would be going Lawful here and want to help with getting the mercenaries paid. The methods are questionable, but the intent is just and lawful.
Where it me, I'd have the Paladin to go in and act as a diplomat, see if he can convince the government to resolve the situation, otherwise there will be consequences for cheating the mercenary group (as there should be). As for what happens after that, I don't think I could say. Executing city leaders over something this comparatively minor seems like possible grounds for a fall... maybe call in reinforcements from his Paladin order to help the situation?
See these two words?
KidnapMurder
Right in the thread title. Torture has also been mentioned by the OP. This is how you know a paladin should have none of it. The first is bad enough but the second and third would make you fall fast enough that you would leave a crater.
When in doubt between doing Good and being Lawful a paladin should always choose Good. The intent maybe lawful but isn't good, and even if the intent was good a paladin should know that the ends DO NOT justify the means.
You last paragraph I can totally agree, he should try acting as a diplomat, but Xexyz already said diplomacy hadn't worked. And bringing the church on the matter might be a good idea, depending on the country the church might be able to sway the town leaders, I like that idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why exactly DOESN'T the merc company want to just sack the city and be done with it? Seems to me like that would
1) Be a lot easier and more straightforward, since the city couldn't defend itself in the first place.
2) Be good way to let other potential employers know that they expect to get paid.
3) Be a good way to collect some "interest" on the wages that they have not received (in the form of extra plunder).
Considering all of this, I think your scenario might be a little too contrived. Why not just have the mercs mention their grievance to the PCs, and let them come up with their own solution?
Alright, after some consideration I've thought of a way to change the scenario to make things to make them more palatible for the paladin (and other good aligned PCs):
They are shortiung thge mercenaries they needed to defend them. Obviously, they needed help to defend themselves. Plus, word is now getting out that they renege on payments due, so who will fight for them now?
Spoilered for length:
Obviously, if the city holds firm and denies payment they'll never be able to get any mercenaries to defend them again, since they're known squelchers. So instead of kidnapping and extortion, the marshal is so bewildered by the non-payment that the PCs are sent to infiltrate the city and find out if there's more going on behind the scenes. And it turns out, there is: Kurmunian agents have infiltrated the leadership and are driving the non-payment decision so that the city will not ever be able to hire protection in the future - leaving it easy pickings for a future invasion. If the PCs can get to the bottom of this and the Kurmunian agents' influence is removed the city leaders will pay as agreed.
PCs don't have a lot of time to get this accomplished, of course, since in the mean time the marshal has to use all her influence and leadership to keep her mercenary army from sacking the city to get their pay one way or another - and she may not be able to keep them held back for very long...
Why exactly DOESN'T the merc company want to just sack the city and be done with it? Seems to me like that would
1) Be a lot easier and more straightforward, since the city couldn't defend itself in the first place.
2) Be good way to let other potential employers know that they expect to get paid.
3) Be a good way to collect some "interest" on the wages that they have not received (in the form of extra plunder).Considering all of this, I think your scenario might be a little too contrived. Why not just have the mercs mention their grievance to the PCs, and let them come up with their own solution?
This is a very good point. The marshal (the merc army commander) is the one who doesn't want to sack that city because extracting payment that way is a lot more bloody and destructive and she wants to spare the citizens from the consequences of their leaders' greed if possible. Of course, it's just as you said: her generals will likely favor sacking the city if it's the only way to get any sort of compensation. Your points 2&3 are satisfied with the kidnapping extortion solution, hence why she favored it over sacking the city. (Marshal's alignment is neutral, BTW.)
Anyway, I'm probably going to change the scenario to what I laid out in my above post so I'm not causing a problem for the paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the scenario: A mercenary army that the PCs freelance for was hired by a city-state to defend them from an invading force. The mercs successfully defend the city, but when the merc leader goes to collect the army's pay the city leaders renege on the contract and decide they're not going to pay up. The merc leader, extremely angry but not wanting to sack the city, comes up with a different plan: Put together a small commando force to penetrate into the city and abduct the leaders, who will then be held hostage and threatened with execution if they don't honor the contract. Maybe kill one of the city leaders just to show them that the merc leader means business.
1. Obviously, the commando force would be the PCs, except one of them is a paladin. Kidnapping isn't very compatible with the paladin's code of ethics, so I'm trying to think if there's another way to keep the character involved so the player isn't sitting around bored while the other PCs get to play the game.
2. Even if I can find something acceptable for the paladin to do, I wonder if this whole business still isn't too far toward the evil end of things that he wouldn't just leave the army anyway, even if he wasn't involved in the kidnapping in any way.
I'm going to be the Devil's Advocate here and say that it is totally legitimate for the Paladin to do this.
You aren't "Kidnapping" anybody. You are "arresting" him. He ripped you off. If somebody broke a contract and was arrested by the paladin and forced to pay up, it would be legitimate if the paladin were acting on the part of a third party, it is legitimate here.
Yes the commando thing is mildly dishonorable. But it just needs pointed out to the Paladin that any more direct method will lead to much greater innocent casulties, and just make sure you do your best not to kill anybody. You have the resources of the Mercenary army at your disposal, the party should be able to equip itself for the situation.
It's not ransom. You have arrested him, and you are holding him until he pays his debt. Put this into perspective. If you were to do this to anybody else, for the same reason it would be legitimate.
Let's create a simular story. A merchant rips off his supplier and refuses to pay on delivery of goods. So the supplier approaches the paladin to get his money. The paladin arrests the Merchant and forces him to honor the contract or be hung. The merchant being arrested has no real power to do this, so it will fall upon his family to pay the paladin the money in order to secure the release of the merchant. All of this is perfectly acceptable behavior for the paladin. But, if you look at it out of context it is kidnapping and ransom.
Sunaj, if the paladin in question has the authority to detain and imprison someone and to enforce payment of debts, then it is "justice" by definition. It is not "kidnapping and ransom" when the state arrests, imprisons and sets fines for people.
If the paladin in question does not have the authority then it is kidnapping and ransom.
There is no subjectivity involved. It comes down to whether the paladin has the authority to do it.
That makes it a unlawful act, not a evil one.
The paladin was only working for the town leader because he was hired by a mercenery, by lawful contract. That the leader failed to hold his end of the bargain on. I don't think that being a leader of a town makes you immune to the conditions of your own laws.
While the action is unlawful because he is acting against a legal authority. It's only mildly so because it is that exact legal authority that broke his own lawful contract. And ruling that a paladin can never break any law regardless of the circomstances and must never act against a legal authority ever is well beyond the scope of the lawful alignment.
I never said that this is the most good, and noble action that could ever be done, I simply said that it was legitimate and wouldn't break alignment if done correctly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You aren't "Kidnapping" anybody. You are "arresting" him. He ripped you off. If somebody broke a contract and was arrested by the paladin and forced to pay up, it would be legitimate if the paladin were acting on the part of a third party, it is legitimate here
The kidnapping on its own isn't enough, I'd agree (though we're in borderline territory here). It's the threat of violence and extortion that pushes it decidedly into "no-go" territory for the Paladin.
The paladin arrests the Merchant and forces him to honor the contract or be hung
Paladins must tread very carefully with summary justice. If they go too far it can very easily degrade into the sort of vigilantism I'd expect from chaotic neutral characters. Arresting someone for committing a crime is perfectly okay, but enacting some sort of punishment requires careful consideration. First of all, is the Paladin the right person to be performing this judgement? Does he have proper jurisdiction and authority to do so? Second, is his decision just and proportionate to the crime at hand?
In the case of your merchant example, the Paladin may well have proper authority to proceed with some sort of punitive measures, but execution is wholly disproportionate retribution to a reneged contract. In the case of the OP's example, the matter is complicated by the fact that the Paladin is not a neutral party to the dispute and that people he's "arresting" are themselves the lawful authority of their own city.
Paladins and Adventuring parties in general wander around dispatching justice all the time assuming they are the best ones for the job. And calling any paladin in any campaign a vigilante wouldn't be inappropriate unless the entire campaigin is about following orders from a king all day. A Paladin is not powerless to act unless there is a lawful authority behind him. In most campaigns he will be the best man for the job because there is nobody better, or just nobody else around.
As far as execution being dispropotionate, that depends. So far it sounds like the lord just decided not to pay because he didn't feel like it. The Lord continuing that after being arrested would be something to get executed for. You have a army of hundreds of merceneries that came to the town to kill his enemies because of promises he broke. Many of these soldiers are supporting families that won't be able to eat this winter. Him not paying is a death sentence for them.
A death sentence for the crime is proportionate given the situation, and it is under the assumption that he still refuses to pay after being arrested. Other information could come up later that could make it much less so.
Paladins and Adventuring parties in general wander around dispatching justice all the time assuming they are the best ones for the job. And calling any paladin in any campaign a vigilante wouldn't be inappropriate unless the entire campaigin is about following orders from a king all day. A Paladin is not powerless to act unless there is a lawful authority behind him. In most campaigns he will be the best man for the job because there is nobody better, or just nobody else around.
As far as execution being dispropotionate, that depends. So far it sounds like the lord just decided not to pay because he didn't feel like it. The Lord continuing that after being arrested would be something to get executed for. You have a army of hundreds of merceneries that came to the town to kill his enemies because of promises he broke. Many of these soldiers are supporting families that won't be able to eat this winter. Him not paying is a death sentence for them.
A death sentence for the crime is proportionate given the situation, and it is under the assumption that he still refuses to pay after being arrested. Other information could come up later that could make it much less so.
The bolded part is very true, in a sense. Many of the soldiers in this mercenary army are former slaves who joined when they were liberated by the army's actions; many of them literally have no where else to go because their homelands were conquered and their families killed or enslaved.
It's why it's such a grave situation. This isn't a case of a band of mercenaries wanting to fill their own coffers; the marshal has to be able to feed, pay, and supply over 5000 troops. Not getting paid means the army stops functioning. When that happens, you go from an organized, disciplined fighting force to a chaotic, violent horde.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the mercs...every one knows that if you are in that high of a demand, you get your pay in advance. Or at least half of it. Their present situation is their personal Idiot Tax.
Yet another good point. This is why I like to bounce scenarios out here, so weak reasoning and logic holes get pointed out for me to fix before they hit the gaming table.
Sorry...the paladin should not only not be part of such a plan,he should refuse to be in the company of anyone who did.
As for the mercs...every one knows that if you are in that high of a demand, you get your pay in advance. Or at least half of it. Their present situation is their personal Idiot Tax.
If you wanna be that way the "Idiot Tax" easily takes the form of the morons of this government, who are apparently regularly besieged by a Hobgoblin empire, refusing to pay a mercenary band that saved their asses.
They've got this coming.
Any Good-aligned character should have serious issues with this course of action, not just paladins.
All that needs to be said.
How is that inherintly a "better" decision than arresting him and forcing him to pay.
Really a blockade is likely to end in many more innocent deaths than going in with a percise strike to extract the leader. This also could take months with the mercenaries still not paid, which won't help with any of their immediate problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any Good-aligned character should have serious issues with this course of action, not just paladins.All that needs to be said.
I don't see how this is evil. The most that has been proven is that it could be considered chaotic.
If there really was a contract and the city state's leaders broke that contract bringing them to justice is a lawful act for me.
The Paladin should make a deal that they arrest the leader (kidnap is clearly the wrong word) and bring him to the next temple sacred to a god with the law domain (or to be save the next non evil temple) where a trial can be held.
A cleric should be the judge and what he decides will be done.
On this basis it should be no problem for the paladin to join in.
Personally, I'd go with send the PC's in to investigate rather than kidnap. During the investigation, they discover that the Kurminians are involved and are blackmailing the leaders...who ASK to be kidnapped so they can't be forced to destroy there own city. It also adds bonus quest - Stop the Blackmail. Leadership stills gets grabbed, but in a Paladin friendly way.
|
Simple its not kidnapping the mercs are arresting the highest rep of a government who has broke faith with them. Don't have the party kill him drag him back for trail before a military tribunal. If the city doesn't pay the price the leader gets to work off his cities debt. Now your not kidnapping your playing guardsman and enforcing the law. How many peoples family's will go hungry cause the city didn't pay.
This is why I'm lawfull evil lol
It's kidnapping. It could be arresting IF the paladin had any sort of authority or jurisdiction in the situation (He would need to check with his church to confirm) and IF he was an independent third party. Any Lawful legal sistem points that an involved part cannot be a direct part of the justice sistem, i.e. a cop that has a family member robbed cannot participate in the case of said theft.
So it's not a lawful act and it was never a good act in the first place. And I mantain that in the case of a conflict between Lawful and Good the pally should ALWAYS choose Good.
PALADINS SHOULD KNOW THAT THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. THE ROAD TO A FALL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any Lawful legal sistem points that an involved part cannot be a direct part of the justice sistem, i.e. a cop that has a family member robbed cannot participate in the case of said theft.
That is just wrong.
Just because some legal systems nowadays have that rule does not mean that a system where this is not the case can't be lawful.The legal system in parts of europe during the middle ages was very much lawful but had no such rule.
The problem a lot of people have with paladins is that they use our modern law- and morale system to judge them.
But unless you play a modern day pathfinder that's not a good thing to do.
In a fantasy setting the approach should be more:
Only lawful good followers of gods who are either lawful or good can be paladins. They are to some degree representatives of his church.
So they represent law and should be able to act as the arm of law bringing is suspects so that a judge can hold a trial. If no judge is present the paladin himself can hold the trial and enact justice.
Should he do this to further his own interests not to do what is right he will be punished by his god.
Any Lawful legal sistem points that an involved part cannot be a direct part of the justice sistem, i.e. a cop that has a family member robbed cannot participate in the case of said theft.That is just wrong.
Just because some legal systems nowadays have that rule does not mean that a system where this is not the case can't be lawful.
The legal system in parts of europe during the middle ages was very much lawful but had no such rule.The problem a lot of people have with paladins is that they use our modern law- and morale system to judge them.
But unless you play a modern day pathfinder that's not a good thing to do.In a fantasy setting the approach should be more:
Only lawful good followers of gods who are either lawful or good can be paladins. They are to some degree representatives of his church.
So they represent law and should be able to act as the arm of law bringing is suspects so that a judge can hold a trial. If no judge is present the paladin himself can hold the trial and enact justice.
Should he do this to further his own interests not to do what is right he will be punished by his god.
That is why I said he could do that IF he was a third party. Since he is part of the mercenary band, if he did kidnap the guys it would be on his interest rather than for justice.
And I think you all are forgetting one important difference. Kidnap would involve a commando squad going in and capturing by force or stealth. Arresting would need the paladin to first have his authority recognized as above the town leader authority, then go to the town leaders by the proper channel and tell them to comply or be arrested and then use force only if they continue to refuse, no commandoing involved. If he doesn't do the whole procedure by the book then it's kidnapping, which is both unlawful and evil.
It's the old problem about: Can a paladin do something against an evil and corrupt leader?
By the definition of lawful he can not, because if the ruler makes killing, raping and stuff like that legal it would be unlawful to stop this.
Some D&D source (don't remember wich) had this dilemma solved by giving the paladins the option on going on vacation. So every year hundreds of paladins joined and went to the neighboring evil kingdome on vacation, laying siege to some part of the kingdome. After their vacation was over they returned home and once again respected the evil ruler as the proper authority.
Another approach would be to act on the laws as laid down by his own church and to declare everything that is contrary to that law unlawful. In my opinion this solution makes more sense than just accepting that an evil ruler has evil laws but every gm has to interpret the rules for his game.
This aside: Just by calling it kidnaping and murder you've chosen your side.
It's the old problem about: Can a paladin do something against an evil and corrupt leader?
By the definition of lawful he can not, because if the ruler makes killing, raping and stuff like that legal it would be unlawful to stop this.Some D&D source (don't remember wich) had this dilemma solved by giving the paladins the option on going on vacation. So every year hundreds of paladins joined and went to the neighboring evil kingdome on vacation, laying siege to some part of the kingdome. After their vacation was over they returned home and once again respected the evil ruler as the proper authority.
Another approach would be to act on the laws as laid down by his own church and to declare everything that is contrary to that law unlawful. In my opinion this solution makes more sense than just accepting that an evil ruler has evil laws but every gm has to interpret the rules for his game.
This aside: Just by calling it kidnaping and murder you've chosen your side.
He can. Good trumps Lawful. But in this case the rulers made an unlawful decision, but not an evil one. Reneging a contract is not evil.
Also, look at the thread title. Kidnap and murder. The OP said it.Arrest needs legal procedure, else it's just kidnapping and ransom.
Any kill not in active combat is murder. Especially killing a prisoner.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any kill not in active combat is murder. Especially killing a prisoner.
Tell that to the US legal system.
Unless I am mistaken, our legal system is not run by Paladins...
Any kill not in active combat is murder. Especially killing a prisoner.Tell that to the US legal system.
Expand so I can respond to the right thing. Are you talking about death penalty?
I would remind you that most states don't have it. A majority of countries are also against it. Most of the ones who have it are the ones under dictartoships or ruled by fanatical religious leaders.
Paladins are not obliged to respect laws that promote evil. If he is in a position to make a difference, he is obliged to do so.It's the old problem about: Can a paladin do something against an evil and corrupt leader?
By the definition of lawful he can not, because if the ruler makes killing, raping and stuff like that legal it would be unlawful to stop this.
In regard to this particular city (that I'm still conceptualizing) it has de jure rule of law, but the leaders are wealthy and powerful enough to ignore laws they find inconvenient from time to time. Since the city is a sovereign state, there's no higher authority to appeal to for redress against the breach of contract.
It was mentioned that the paladin would possibly be able to appeal to his church; I'll have to check out his character sheet to see who his patron god is. There are two gods in my pantheon in particular that would take issue with this breach of contract: Aerinis, the Goddess of Justice and Righteousness, and Pelaris, the God of Law and Civilization. Both are lawful good gods and if the paladin worships one of those two his church would definitely protest the breach of contract. I however would need to determine how much influence those two faiths actually have in the city, because that would determine how much help they could provide.
I think the relevant question is, what reason did the city give for not paying the mercenaries? Did they say they didn't do their job well enough, failed to protect X important personage or Y essential building? Did they say "We were desperate which is why we hired you, but we don't have any money left to pay you, or if we did pay you the money we owed you, we couldn't feed our starving children, but we will gladly pay you some years in the future when we get back on our feet?" Or was it "Hah-hah! We decided we're not going to pay you because we like money more than honor, and what are 5000 hungry armed men going to do against a war-ravaged city that didn't have enough of its own troops and so had to hire mercenaries?"
I understand that there were wicked agents of some wicked power that wanted the city to stiff the mercenaries for purposes of general wickedness, but that said, they'd still have to give some logical explanation, even if the entire city council was charmed.
I'm also not certain why there needs to be some elaborate business with kidnapping/arresting a city official and holding them for ransom/payment when it would seem more expedient to just go after the city treasury and physically take the money owed. Yes, there will be innocent guards, but it's always possible to do subduel damage or just intimidate them into cooperation. And the paladin should probably be down with this plan since it spares the ugliness of the troops rioting and taking their pay by the obvious means of looting the poorly guarded city.
I think the relevant question is, what reason did the city give for not paying the mercenaries? Did they say they didn't do their job well enough, failed to protect X important personage or Y essential building? Did they say "We were desperate which is why we hired you, but we don't have any money left to pay you, or if we did pay you the money we owed you, we couldn't feed our starving children, but we will gladly pay you some years in the future when we get back on our feet?" Or was it "Hah-hah! We decided we're not going to pay you because we like money more than honor, and what are 5000 hungry armed men going to do against a war-ravaged city that didn't have enough of its own troops and so had to hire mercenaries?"
I understand that there were wicked agents of some wicked power that wanted the city to stiff the mercenaries for purposes of general wickedness, but that said, they'd still have to give some logical explanation, even if the entire city council was charmed.
Yes, this is the biggest weakness in the scenario's premise. If I can't come up with a solid, logical reason for refusing payment I'll probably scrap the whole thing and think of something else. The best I've come up with so far is the scheme I mentioned in that post I spoilered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, looking closely at your scenario, and your Kurmunian agents, here's what I would do if I were them and how I'd get the city over a barrel with the mercenaries.
Mercenaries need to be paid in coin. Not IOUs, not a single valuable magic item, but coin that can be divvied up fairly among 5000 mercenaries with a few bonuses for valor and whatnot.
The city leaders--who have been infiltrated by the aforementioned Kurmunian agents, possibly by marriage but more likely by getting appointments or however the city leaders are chosen--had wisely set up a war chest so they would have the coin to pay the mercenaries at the end of the war. They raised it by taxes, donations, selling war bonds, all the usual, so they could save the city. The war chest was entrusted to someone. Let's call him Councilor Linchpin. Either Councilor Linchpin was one of the Kurmunian agents, in which case he can skip town with the money and leave the city to deal with the problem, or he was actually a trustworthy sort who the Kurmunian agents have murdered, but framed things to look like he ran off with his mistress and the money--the mistress being one of the Kurmunian agents who was under deep cover and was probably the assassin herself. The city council is of course scandalized by this, but is keeping it hushed up because not only is it awful for their city, but it will ruin the social standing of Councilor Linchpin's family. Worse, Councilor Linchpin's widow is insisting that her husband was utterly true to her and must have encountered foul play--and she will not allow her family honor to be sullied by such a rumor, and more than that, she will not pay a penny more for another war chest. And this isn't just principle--her husband, patriot that he was, donated every bit of their liquid cash to the war effort. They even hocked some of their family heirlooms to the pawnbrokers. And the pawnbrokers are pretty cash poor too. They weren't that patriotic, but they were willing to give up all their cash in exchange for shiny baubles.
So the town council's only real option at this point is diplomacy and stalling. And in the end a choice between stiffing the mercenaries with no explanation and stiffing the mercenaries and leading to the downfall of one noble house in town and likely more, because Councilor Linchpin's widow has threatened that if they breathe any of these awful lies about her husband running off with a mistress, she will tell enough horrible true things to ruin have the other families in town.
If you want to make this more fun for the party, make it so that Councilor Linchpin's body and the war chest have both been stashed somewhere in town, since the "mistress" hasn't figured out how to sneak a chest of loot out past 5000 armed men eager for their pay.
