We got into a discussion about ‘adventurers’ the other day.
Basically the definition boils down to people out looking for trouble. That is a pretty fine distinction from causing trouble. They’re basically unfocused vigilantes. How many cultures, enduring societies, or successful communities have encouraged or worked with vigilantes? Not many that I can think of.
Even Batman, Superman, and Spiderman had to hide their identities since they were not working from within the system.
Think about it from the perspective of the authorities who supposedly work with, hire, are beholden to, or at least run the community that the adventurers are operating within/near. The is virtually never any real upside potential for the authorities.
At worst, these ‘adventurers’ will kill him for being a tyrant. (Whether he really is a tyrant or not is sometimes a subject poorly considered by adventurers.)
At the absolute best, everyone in the community will be asking why he let things get so bad that someone from outside had to come in and save them. Why are you in charge then? Why are we paying taxes for the guards and constables that didn’t take care of us?
Really, everything in between those extremes will still be bad for him.
Any authority with more than a couple of synapses firing will try to run any adventurers out of town ASAP.
About the only way it could possibly be a positive is if the situation is so incredibly bad that he has absolutely nothing to lose. There is about to be a revolt which will succeed or he will soon be killed himself. Other than that he won’t chance it. He has no reason to.
Maybe, just maybe, a politician might secretly work with an ‘adventurer’ if he can blame any problems they cause on some opponent. But then he probably won’t want them around afterward for any truth telling. (So really an ‘adventurer’ should be completely paranoid about any authority figure that is willing to work with them.)
Think about any town/city/country you can imagine. Let’s say that a group of outsiders with no portfolio walks into any police station/mayor’s office/presidential palace and says “You seem to have a drug/gang/criminal problem. We are adventurers that will take care of it for you for X amount of cash!”
Can you imagine any of them being hired? No! They will be thrown out, lucky to not be arrested, will at least be followed by authorities (waiting for them to start something so that they can be arrested). They certainly aren’t going to be sanctioned and paid.
Maybe it’s just me, but I always get a mental twitch when the party spokesman openly says “We’re adventurers here to take care of your problems!” clearly expecting cooperation and admiration. I actually feel like I have to meta-game pretty severely to not have them clapped in irons and locked up for societies protection.
I don’t know, anyone else sometimes feel like that?
I look at it like some fantasy novels. Many kings or kingdoms will hire outside "mercenaries" to take care of extremely nasty things or things they just don't want to bother with. Other times, the authorities will be completely oblivious or just not care what is happening out in the countryside or to their peasants, like said Tyrant, but said Tyrant may not be as bad as his predecessor and so the people are just glad they have someone who doesn't go out of his way to make their lives worse. It really depends on the fantasy society and what the practices are. You really can't compare it to real life, because, who knows what would change in "real" life with the addition of magic? What if the particular kingdom doesn't have the right mix of specialists to take care of a problem themselves? It's back to the hiring of outsiders. What about particularly badly warped areas that are too far away from a city for the local magistrate to be able to handle? There are many reasons why adventurers would be acceptable.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming the ruler is not completely incompetent, adventurers are the perfect tool for them. They offer heavy artillery firepower, are willing to go places no normal person would go and do things others shudder to consider, and all for a few gold, a couple of minor accolades, and being told they "did a good thing".
The main advantage for a ruler in having adventurers around is that they can hire them to do things for the kingdom, which satisfies the populace that they are responsive, but still maintain plausible deniability if the adventurers over-reach or go outside the bounds of acceptable social choices. Plus the #1 rule for kings is always keep a level of scapegoats between yourself and any potential sticky situation. Adventurers are prime choices for scapegoats and sacrificial lambs to feed to the wolves known as the masses.
If you are the GM, just make sure your rulers set things up so they can throw the party under the bus easily. Or alternatively frame things so that even the dumbest villagers can figure out who the "bad guy" is if things go wrong, even if they are reaching a false conclusion.
Cormyr from the old Forgotten Realms setting is a perfect example of how to use adventurers properly. Register and license them in a gun-control-type fashion so you can keep track of them and monitor their activities and usage, keep them around as handy go-to fixers, but clearly label them in a way that keeps them as outsider/pariah types in relation to the established autority/nobility of the kingdom.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, and hiring outside adventurers means you aren't losing tax paying citizens or having to sacrifice soldiers that you put time and money into training and gearing. Adventurers are relatively cheap compared to a standing army.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...who knows what would change in "real" life with the addition of magic?
If magic suddenly existed in "real life" I don't think we'd last very long. Some fool would dabble where he (or she, as the case may be) shouldn't, release something that he couldn't control (be it an entity or power), and there wouldn't be enough of us skilled enough to counter it.
Cue footage of Krypton exploding, or that scene from the first Hellboy movie when we are seeing his "destiny" with a devastated Earth and the tentacles dangling from the red clouds in the sky.
As to the OP, in a society where the laws are harder to strictly enforce, people can get away with a lot more. It falls to the powers what is to find specialists to handle things, as they may not have the specialized resources to devote to whatever specific problem may come up.
Everybody needs help now and then.
Note I didn't actually say "Suddenly" real life had magic. I meant, what would our lives be like if there actually was magic all along and everyone grew up knowing this. ;) But yeah, I agree with the suddenly thing. :D
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bounty hunters are still a thing, despite the existence of police.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So are Mercenaries - AKA Private Security Firms
Ok, some of that I can buy.
I can see hiring mercenaries as bodyguards or to fight another kingdom. After all, that actually happened.
But hiring someone completely unknown, to operate within your territory, uncontrolled, with no supervision, outside the law? I can't see it. Why would you give them that kind of power? Why would you reward them if they did it without sanction?
The scapegoats concepts is workable and believable. And gets back to my thought that any 'adventurers' should be paranoid about anyone that wants to work with them.
Hiring adventurers based on the modules I've seen is substantially more expensive than hiring and equipping a standing army (ok, maybe not for 1st and 2nd level, but after that).
Certainly much more expensive than a few peasants that are paying a few gold a year in taxes.
I can see the reasoning behind the specialists or to far away. But how does he know they have the right skills? How does he control them far away? How does he know they aren't working for the problem? How does he know the will solve things in a way that won't make him look worse?
Politicians (even with magic) are all about control and risk aversion. Not doing what's right or best for the people.
I've seen nothing in any published module or AP (or even many homebrews) about the authorities checking up on, controlling, or vetting the PC's.
Although there have been a few where they tried to betray the PC's.
I don't agree that you can't compare to real life. But even given that you are right, compare it to other fantasy genre works. Most sci-fi or fantasy novels or movies would agree. Very few authorities would work with someone unknown that labeled themselves as an adventurer.
Also, I think if you check, you will find most authorities hate and will not work with bounty hunters and private security firms if they can find any possibly way to avoid it.
The basic premise of so much of the RPG genre just doesn't work with the way people think and behave. It's really not a major deal. Just requires a bit more suspension of disbelief on my part (and probably an eye roll) to keep going. I mostly just wondered if anyone else saw things the same as me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is one thing you are leaving out of this. What if the Authority is a god? A god can keep an eye on what the adventurers are doing, punish them for going off the track, pull them back on the track by throwing things in their way, reward or help them if they need/deserve it.
Applying that to our world doesn't work so much because any "gods" in our world are way less active than those in almost any fantasy world. So maybe the authorities are trusting in their god to make sure the adventurers behave? And who said the Kings were equipping the adventurers? No, they're hiring them as is and might give them a reward at the end, but might just throw a bag of gold at them and be done with it. The Adventurers are in charge of gearing themselves, which is what makes them cheaper.
And do you know how much a standing army costs to upkeep? Just look at the American military and apply that (albeit in smaller doses) to a fantasy kingdom. They not only have to equip them, they have to train them, pay them wages, sometimes supply food and housing, supply healers, pay people to keep track of things.. It's prohibitively expensive.
Edited to add:
Oh, and in most fantasy settings the soldiers aren't being trained to wield armored vehicles or machine guns or grenades (close counts). They are usually using Swords and shields and horses and it takes a lifetime to master the use of a sword. A sword is much more accurate and takes better aim than a gun, not to mention the up-close-and-personal aspect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you ever want a pretty good example of the expense of keeping a standing army vs. hiring mercenaries in a fantasy world read Oathbound, Oathbreakers and By the Sword by Mercedes Lackey. Some really good information in those about what it takes to keep and run a standing army vs hiring mercenaries and why mercenaries can be a better option rather than conscripting farm boys for your army.
Good point! I almost forgot about those pirates given carte blanche (sp?) with enemies of the crown.
Er.. Sorry, Privateers ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the orginal post - in a modern, contemporary society the premise makes sense. The problem is that it is an alternate fantasy realm.
Ignoring contracted mercenaries, bounty hunters, privateers and such, a modern industrialized nation usually frowns on rogue armed protectors. In places of political instability, such people might be all too common. This is in our contemporary world.
Superhero fiction does have sanctioned heroes (Marvel's avengers have or had UN peacekeeping status, Justice League has similar diplomatic status of sorts). Still, that is superhero fiction and is an entirely different conversation.
In Fantasy, it really depends on the lands and kingdoms. In European middle ages, commoners were usually not allowed to arm themselves unless conscripted into an army. Anyone armed was usually a noble of some sort, and law was usually do as I say. That sort of thing isn't very fun for players that want escapism. Most players have a real life where they don't face life or death decisions all the time (gamers in the military or first responders being a notable exception). They don't want to play characters that could be beheaded because they failed to bow before a travelling noble at the drop of a hat.
With this said, fantasy communities vary widely in their laws and customs. It makes sense to have heroes of the day in a world that breeds numerous alpha predators like dragons, oozes, colossal insects, demons, and even animated clothing that strangles people. In such a bizarre world, I would certainly encourage others to face such hazards rather than risk my own neck. Of course, some areas might be more tightly controlled and restrictive than others.
Certainly, troubleseekers (adventurers) should be somewhat rare since it is a suicidal lifestyle. On the other hand, not all civilized areas would dismiss them. Also, compare them to the American western frontiers of the nineteenth century. Immigrant-descended people were regularly armed, wandered a wilderness in the hopes for land ownership and possible wealth. Native people were constantly threatened with extinction and were being pushed out of more and more territory. Sounds like adventurers to me for both sides of the land rush.
|
That's a pretty big problem to have with this type of game. Would you prefer the PCs arrive asking for the nearest lumber mill or plow field. Wait until something adventurous happens and then volunteer to help with that?It's only a problem if your game requires the PCs to wander around and run into random different problems.
If the PCs have goals and plans, whether their own character driven ones or AP style plots to thwart, then it isn't an issue at all. They go to do what they need to do and there are obstacles in their way.
The "We're adventurers, looking for adventuring jobs" is only necessary for a certain very limited style of game.
I wouldn't say a "very limited style" of game but agree its a separate style of game.
So when Bill Oreilly says we should hire mercenaries to take care of our troubles overseas... the problem is he means we should recruit pc's?
I can definitely see the trouble now.
If you ever want a pretty good example of the expense of keeping a standing army vs. hiring mercenaries in a fantasy world read Oathbound, Oathbreakers and By the Sword by Mercedes Lackey. Some really good information in those about what it takes to keep and run a standing army vs hiring mercenaries and why mercenaries can be a better option rather than conscripting farm boys for your army.
I own nearly that whole series of books. They are some of my favorite. I am not saying the army is cheap.
I'm saying the city (or whatever) already has that expense. And it is still usually less than what the 'adventurers' are being paid. In most modules they are being paid many times the yearly income of the city. In addition, most of the low and mid level modules are tasks the city guard should be doing and arguably could do the job better or at least within the law.
.
.
Letter of Marque - A real-world example of "adventurers."
Privateers are an excellent example. And it actually proves my point. Privateers were authorized to work in someone else's part of the world. From what I read that was actually one of the major reasons they were issued the Letters. To get them in another part of the world, away from your own people.
They generally got little pay or equipage from the authorities.They got their income from looted material.
They were definitely sacrificial scapegoats if necessary.
They were generally dislike and distrusted by the authorities on both sides.
They were used in places, against foes, and in situations where the authorities had nearly nothing to lose, and nothing could come back on them.
I don't think they were ever highly paid, to work outside the law, within the territory of the authorities that issued the letter.
.
.
... Superhero fiction does have sanctioned heroes (Marvel's avengers have or had UN peacekeeping status, Justice League has similar diplomatic status of sorts). Still, that is superhero fiction and is an entirely different conversation. ...
Agreed. There are some examples in fiction. But even then, that is a quasi-government/military semi-sanctioned organization. Some still consider them very nearly as bad as the ones they are fighting.
Not a wandering band of unknown adventurers lauded as heroes and paid a fortune.
... In Fantasy, it really depends on the lands and kingdoms. In European middle ages, commoners were usually not allowed to arm themselves unless conscripted into an army. Anyone armed was usually a noble of some sort, and law was usually do as I say. That sort of thing isn't very fun for players that want escapism. Most players have a real life where they don't face life or death decisions all the time (gamers in the military or first responders being a notable exception). They don't want to play characters that could be beheaded because they failed to bow before a travelling noble at the drop of a hat. ...
Agreed. this is escapism for most of us. I haven't made a huge deal of it with anyone I game with, I still play as often as I can manage, and I don't hassle the PC's about it when I GM. (Well unless they get too stupid about it.)
... With this said, fantasy communities vary widely in their laws and customs. It makes sense to have heroes of the day in a world that breeds numerous alpha predators like dragons, oozes, colossal insects, demons, and even animated clothing that strangles people. In such a bizarre world, I would certainly encourage others to face such hazards rather than risk my own neck. Of course, some areas might be more tightly controlled and restrictive than others. ...
Ok, I can easily buy that. Legends are rife with examples of that plotline. The dragon/chimera/giant/whatever is NOT something the local authorities can be expected to deal with. Putting out the call for anyone to do something does make sense in that case.
But most published material (and even most homebrews I've seen) are not that. Or at least the authorities don't know it is some big bad awful at the time they are hiring the PC's.
... Certainly, troubleseekers (adventurers) should be somewhat rare since it is a suicidal lifestyle. On the other hand, not all civilized areas would dismiss them. Also, compare them to the American western frontiers of the nineteenth century. Immigrant-descended people were regularly armed, wandered a wilderness in the hopes for land ownership and possible wealth. Native people were constantly threatened with extinction and were being pushed out of more and more territory. Sounds like adventurers to me for both sides of the land rush.
Agreed. And it again proves my point. The authorities in the civilized east actively encouraged the 'adventurers' to go away and cause trouble in some other area where they really didn't care what happened.
..
That's a pretty big problem to have with this type of game. Would you prefer the PCs arrive asking for the nearest lumber mill or plow field. Wait until something adventurous happens and then volunteer to help with that?
Nope, it is a most a minor irritation.
But none of my characters would ever describe themselves as an 'adventurer' and expect to welcomed with open arms. (Well, one time I did have a teenage idiot PC that was entranced by mythology novels he had read.)
For example:
Bob is a vigilante. He hunts and destroys undead. With or without the cooperation of the locals. He rarely tells anyone that is what he is doing. He travels posing as a minor religious functionary of Sarenrae and a skilled healer. He knows he is causing disruptions and difficulties for the local authorities. He doesn't care. He feels that if they had done their job and stopped the undead before they became a huge problem, he wouldn't have needed to step in and mess things up.
Gronreg is a out of work guard. He has experience as a watch officer. He's trying to build up enough of a stake to start a fairly reputable specialized merc company. So he takes whatever odd jobs he comes across to build up his funds. When he is working with the authorities he will suggest they hire him into the guard, then set him on an independent task so they get the accolades and still have control of the situation. He also doesn't trust the authorities and expects to be cheated or even betrayed.
.
.
As I said, it's not a major issue. I mostly wanted to see if anyone else views the 'adventurers' the same way I do. Apparently not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Authorities in fantasy universes need adventurers. Because, as a rule, they are straight up better than regular soldiers.
When an orc band attacks a village, if the king doesn't send the army the village dies, because an orc band will destroy a villages police/militia. So if adventurers appear and say "You seem to have a orc/drow/hobgoblin problem. We are adventurers that will take care of it for you for X amount of cash!" the mayor is likely to sing allellujah and pay extra. Better than being killed together with his village.
When a dragon shows on the country side, armies die. Ten thousand arrows from ten thousand soldiers tickle Smaug. The very few people with enough power to take on a dragon usually have better stuff to do, are to afraid of trying to do it alone, or just don't care about your kingdom. So when a roaming bunch of adventurers shows up wanting to fght your dragon or, better yet, already famous for killing dragons, you promise them as much money as they want. If they die you don't lose anything. If they win, you would have to be a special kind of stupid to refuse paying or send assassins against people that can kill dragons.
And if they are calling adventurers for something, like in published material, it is usually something where normal resources have already failed, so they are calling in the specialists. And it doesn't matter what sort of problem you think you have, you pay the specialist rates. If you call the best law firm available for a shut case, you still pay the price for the best law firm. If you hire a five star chef for a night and ask him to make a grilled cheese, you still pay the cost of five star chef. If you hire a team of high risk mercenaries to kill dire rats, you still pay the cost of a team of high risk mercenaries.
And any politician that tries to make disappear the group of well trained, well equiped and well prepared adventurers that just did something his usual teams of assassins and soldiers couldn't, well... He deserves what happens when said group of well trained, well equiped and well prepared adventurers comes after his head.
Treating adventurers as vigilantes or outlaws only gets you outlaws that can break castle walls, kill armies, control the elements, summon the forces of hell, turn nobles into tadpoles, raise armies of the dead and other really unpleasant things. Better pay them to do 'adventuring' where the good and neutral ones can kill the more evil ones, than turn them all against you. Some long forgotten king must have realized that it's best to divide and conquer, than to unite and lose.
...Authorities in fantasy universes need adventurers. Because, as a rule, they are straight up better than regular soldiers.
When an orc band attacks a village, if the king doesn't send the army the village dies, because an orc band will destroy a villages police/militia. So if adventurers appear and say "You seem to have a orc/drow/hobgoblin problem. We are adventurers that will take care of it for you for X amount of cash!" the mayor is likely to sing allellujah and pay extra. Better than being killed together with his village.
When a dragon shows on the country side, armies die. Ten thousand arrows from ten thousand soldiers tickle Smaug. The very few people with enough power to take on a dragon usually have better stuff to do, are to afraid of trying to do it alone, or just don't care about your kingdom. So when a roaming bunch of adventurers shows up wanting to fght your dragon or, better yet, already famous for killing dragons, you promise them as much money as they want. If they die you don't lose anything. If they win, you would have to be a special kind of stupid to refuse paying or send assassins against people that can kill dragons.
And if they are calling adventurers for something, like in published material, it is usually something where normal resources have already failed, so they are calling in the specialists. And it doesn't matter what sort of problem you think you have, you pay the specialist rates. If you call the best law firm available for a shut case, you still pay the price for the best law firm. If you hire a five star chef for a night and ask him to make a grilled cheese, you still pay the cost of five star chef. If you hire a team of high risk mercenaries to kill dire rats, you still pay the cost of a team of high risk mercenaries.
And any politician that tries to make disappear the group of well trained, well equiped and well prepared adventurers that just did something his usual teams of assassins and soldiers couldn't, well... He
Yeah, yeah, I forgot to put RPG in front of the fantasy in my first line, that invalidates my whole argument.
Sieg hail, mein grammar fuhrer.
I own nearly that whole series of books. They are some of my favorite. I am not saying the army is cheap.I'm saying the city (or whatever) already has that expense. And it is still usually less than what the 'adventurers' are being paid. In most modules they are being paid many times the yearly income of the city. In addition, most of the low and mid level modules are tasks the city guard should be doing and arguably could do the job better or at least within the law.
Actually, most Cities can't afford to keep a standing military. Maybe the really big ones, but what about the small ones that only have a volunteer militia? And wow you must pay your adventurers well! Whenever a group of mine has "worked" for a city or village, we get paid maybe a year's wages similar to what a soldier would get, per person. As our groups tend to be between 6 and 8 people, that's a whole hell of a lot less than it would cost to keep a standing army.
The only real cities I know of that have standing armies are the capitals (like Haven). And Valdemar is one of those "Ideals" for a country. Most don't have what Valdemar does, Heralds who are the law keepers and a standing army that is (mostly) scattered around the country in those <insert word I cannot for the life of me remember> that Mags is first taken to when he's chosen. Later, after By The Sword, you get a company of mercenaries that have their own little town and work for the Queen.
The only really huge standing army is from the Eastern Empire and that place can be considered a Military State. It's mandatory to serve in the military for all male children when they reach a certain age and they have to serve for a certain number of years before they can make their own living.
So, what do those smaller cities do when their militia can't handle it and the Capital can't or won't send them an army? Also, what if the army from the capital can't get to you in time? You wait and possibly die from that barbarian invasion, or you take help from whatever source presents itself.
I do see your point about the wandering adventure band, and I guess I've never really had that problem with our groups. They have generally been hired by someone or have formed a small mercenary company of their own and take commissioned jobs. They don't just go out and look for trouble to get treasure. I've never played in a game where the group didn't have some kind of motivation other than "make money wandering around the countryside killing every monster we can find and looting their lairs".
In fact, the current AP I'm in right now, we'd been hired by this guy named Shadow Wolf to take care of a problem with the south freezing DURING summer and we managed to close the portals, but had to do that from the other side, so we ended up in this perpetual land of winter and we managed to get ourselves geased by a knight of some sort to go help the Baba Yaga. We're not just a band of adventurers out for adventure, we have a job to do that no one else can.
I own nearly that whole series of books. They are some of my favorite. I am not saying the army is cheap.I'm saying the city (or whatever) already has that expense. And it is still usually less than what the 'adventurers' are being paid. In most modules they are being paid many times the yearly income of the city. In addition, most of the low and mid level modules are tasks the city guard should be doing and arguably could do the job better or at least within the law.
Actually, most Cities can't afford to keep a standing military. Maybe the really big ones, but what about the small ones that only have a volunteer militia? And wow you must pay your adventurers well! Whenever a group of mine has "worked" for a city or village, we get paid maybe a year's wages similar to what a soldier would get, per person. As our groups tend to be between 6 and 8 people, that's a whole hell of a lot less than it would cost to keep a standing army.
...
So, what do those smaller cities do when their militia can't handle it and the Capital can't or won't send them an army? Also, what if the army from the capital can't get to you in time? You wait and possibly die from that barbarian invasion, or you take help from whatever source presents itself.
...
In fact, the current AP I'm in right now, we'd been hired by this guy named Shadow Wolf to take care of a problem with the south freezing DURING summer and we managed to close the portals, but had to do that from the other side, so we ended up in this perpetual land of winter and we managed to get ourselves geased by a knight of some sort to go help the Baba Yaga. We're not just a band of adventurers out for adventure, we have a job to do that no one else can.
Most of the published materials or home brew that I've seen seem to use a rough hire in the ballpark of 1k gold per APL just at a rough guess. Why? Because PC's are so rich that a reasonable wage would not interest them. Even that wouldn't be enough to get them moving if they didn't also believe there would be much more loot available.
I can maybe see the mayor of a town with no local military force, hiring a bunch of mercs in extremis. (Then I have to ask how such a town is managing to survive.) But even that is going to be a problem for him.
First, how does he pay them. Is he not sending the taxes to the capitol? That will get him in real trouble. Second, that would probably be seen as implying that the ruler above him wasn't doing his job. (Which is true but no noble wants that pointed out.) Third, you now have armed mercs in the area that are apparently more powerful than any local force. Historically, those tended to stick around causing trouble and being little better than brigands themselves, until they got a new gig somewhere else. Sure the PC's are heroes that won't do that. But how does mister mayor know that?
Still that's an organized profession independent military unit. Some that calls themselves an adventurer is pretty much not professional, organized, reliable, well known, etc... At least not at first.
Ok, after several levels you could say they have a reputation that may indicate they are reliable, not destructive, capable, and all the rest. But at low levels when they are unknown and introduce themselves as adventurers. Doesn't make sense to me.
We will be starting that same AP in the near future. I am still working out the details of my winter witch's personality and motivations. I think this one's going to be kind of an insulting jerk. (Mainly because my last one was such a nice guy most of the time.) I need to do some re-reading of the ISWG to finalize his motivations. His obvious profession is probably going to be a traveling fortune teller. But very bad at it so no one takes him seriously.
Hmm...
To clarify. I'm not saying all published material or every group is at issue.
But many published modules have a premise that doesn't make sense. Especially the low and even a lot of the mid level ones. Authorities are hiring relatively unknown bands of wandering trouble seekers to solve problems that they should be able to handle internally. Or at least the problem that they know about should seem like it can be handled internally. If they are so incompetent that they can't, why would they be taken seriously as an authority? Apparently they instead start trying to hire adventurers before their own people will even consider the issue.
Many PC groups introduce themselves very specifically as 'Adventurers' in the same tone of voice and attitude as others would use the terms saints or saviors. And they expect (since they said they are adventurers) to be treated as saviors. Allowed to do anything they want, be accepted as heroes, paid outrageous sums, and acknowledged as capable. All on the basis of that title.
To me it seems much more likely that almost every authority figure would treat adventurers as a trouble makers to be gotten rid of as quickly as possible. I also think and authority figure would associate with them only as an absolute last resort.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We got into a discussion about ‘adventurers’ the other day.
Basically the definition boils down to people out looking for trouble. That is a pretty fine distinction from causing trouble. They’re basically unfocused vigilantes. How many cultures, enduring societies, or successful communities have encouraged or worked with vigilantes? Not many that I can think of.
Adventurers would be Knights errants or Bounty Hunters. In a area "outside the pale" they would BE the law.
Pretty common in medieval societies for nobles, knights, etc to have the Right of Low, Middle and High justice.
Inquisitors, Paladins, Clerics would all be in this category.
In other medieval areas, they would hire "hermandades".
Per wiki "From about 1500, private watchmen were funded by private individuals and organisations to carry out police functions. They were later nicknamed 'Charlies', probably after the reigning monarch King Charles II. Thief-takers were also rewarded for catching thieves and returning the stolen property."
Our modern idea of a paid professional "Police" did not form until 1667 thru 1797. Even so the "Privately funded police' existed until well unto the 19th and 20th centuries, and there are even a few today.
"The Constables" as you say would likely only keep peace inside a town.
Bounty Hunters & Thief-takers were active up thru the 19th century and even beyond.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In this vein, I'm speaking strictly in regards to my own homebrew world, but it may or may not apply to others' or to published settings as well. YMMV.
At least in my own campaigns, which are set in a homebrew world of my and my players' devising, people can look back through history at "adventurers". The world's past is dotted with the exploits of small handfuls of exceptional individuals who changed history on a dime. Looking at the (constantly under revision) timeline our setting has, we have Kingmaker, War of the Burning Sky, Rise of the Runelords, Council of Thieves, Hell's Rebels, Mummy's Mask, Curse of the Crimson Throne, Savage Tide, Second Darkness, Age of Worms, Iron Gods, and a handful of homebrew stories scattered throughout as historical waypoints. The primary link in the chain between all these major, remarkable events is that a small group of heroes has been (or will be, in the case of the ones we haven't played yet) the driving force in changing everything.
That sets up a pretty strong tradition. When the history of your world can be traced less by military battles and large-scale international conflicts and more by the fantastical actions of 3-6 exceptional individuals singlehandedly surmounting overwhelming odds and tearing down entities of near-godlike power, it's going to change how those small individual groups are perceived. I've pointed out to my players on numerous occasion that when PCs pass around level 6 or 7, they start being looked at the same way people look at these people in historical record - they may be unpredictable, but there is no doubt that these people are exceptional and unusual, and bound to change the world, for good or for ill; and even at lower levels, the fact that they have the guts to do things like this is going to earn them some respect from people, especially in the frontier areas, dangerous regions, or shady locales where APs tend to be set.
Will armies still be kept? Obviously, because for one you can't guarantee that one of those sets of 3-6 heroes are going to ride to your rescue at any given moment, and because against the majority of threats, traditional means will suffice. But at least in my experience, most of the "we need adventurer help!" plot hooks seem to hint, assume, or outright state that traditional methods - sending in town guards, militia, local bounty hunters, armies, or other such things - have been tried and failed. And the few that don't, the danger is clearly something that is already outside those group's purview - something like "there's a freakin' dragon demanding tribute" or "our graveyard is full of zombies" or "an ancient fey debt has come due and the collectors are en route".
When you can pick up any history book and these sorts of things are always solved by a handful of roving mercenaries or vagrant do-gooders, rather than traditional military force or political diplomacy, it's pretty easy to understand why an allowance might be made for those who claim to be modern-day variants of this historical precedent. And certainly there would be bandits, extortioners, and such like who would take advantage of this assumption, yes... which might be a fine plot hook in and of itself, for real heroes to arrive to a town being held at metaphorical gunpoint by "adventurers" who are supposedly hired to deal with extreme local problems but are really just here to bleed the town dry slowly.
But IMO at least that doesn't take away from the fact that in a world where this sort of thing happens regularly, it goes a long way toward making people a lot less gunshy about picking up the tab. Just looking at Golarion and the APs alone, Rise of the Runelords came out in 2007, two APs are released each year, and the APs are timed to advance relatively equally with real-world time. Up to Iron Gods, that's 14 APs in 7 years. Assuming you stick with the dates provided in the APs, in 7 years, Golarion has had 14 - FOURTEEN - incidents where (sticking with the Iconics) a group of four lone vagrants has singlehandedly undone the mastermind plots of wizard overlords from ancient civilizations, planar threats up to and including a demon lord, a fey incursion, an undead cult or two, a resurrecting god, and countless other major events that are (with the POSSIBLE exception of Skulls and Shackles given its distance from the rest of the plots, and maybe Council of Thieves because it's small-scale and Cheliax might cover it up as an embarrassing situation) going immediately into historical record.
And this is all just assuming that prior to Karzoug starting to wake up, this sort of thing never happened at all. If that's not true, then stuff like this likely happened at similar rates previous to Rise, making these 14 events in 7 years merely the most recent of an apparently-ongoing cycle of chaos.
Maybe it's just me, but I think after 7 years of this happening every few months, I'd start to reconsider my position on these kinds of people.
But many published modules have a premise that doesn't make sense. Especially the low and even a lot of the mid level ones. Authorities are hiring relatively unknown bands of wandering trouble seekers to solve problems that they should be able to handle internally. Or at least the problem that they know about should seem like it can be handled internally. If they are so incompetent that they can't, why would they be taken seriously as an authority? Apparently they instead start trying to hire adventurers before their own people will even consider the issue.
So you would prefer modules that have a valid reason for the party ending up where they are and not just getting hired randomly? I can understand that. I usually make up my own reasons if the module doesn't have it. A module I made recently has the level 5 PCs getting kidnapped by a powerful cleric to Calistria who is intent on teaching them a lesson about their sins. So basically, random people who have been tossed together because they have some sort of weakness to one of the seven deadly sins. They don't know each other, each of them has a small background explaining who they are and why they were selected by this Cleric. So, they aren't exactly adventurers, they have some sort of profession and they were just shanghaied and pretty much forced to endure these trials with strangers. Of course, it's also not an AP, but a one shot module with pre-made characters for a con. So I can get away with some of the type of things that are not appropriate for a campaign.
That's the basic problem with published modules intended to fit into an ongoing campaign. The hooks have to be very generic, since you don't have any idea what will motivate the actual characters.
You'll notice APs rarely rely on the "authorities hire the wandering adventurers" trope. Even some first level modules give more specific set-ups, since the PCs can be assumed to be just starting. (Crypt of the Everflame starts as a coming-of-age...
I agree. You can't really get too specific with modules meant to fit into a campaign. Mine aren't really meant for that although I could write them so that they could be fit into a campaign. In fact, I have an idea of a starting point for the Seven Sins module that would fit nicely into a campaign and I might just change my whole starting point because reading all of these just made my imagine churn and start spitting out ideas. :)
In fact, it would make things much easier on me as far as coming up with generic backgrounds... Hmmm.
While I can't say I've ever felt directly as the OP has, I do get where he's coming from.
I am reminded of a quote from China Mieville's Perdido Street Station.
"There were three of them. They were immediately and absolutely recognizable as adventurers; rogues who wandered the Ragamoll and the Cymek and Fellid and probably the whole of Bas-Lag. They were hardy and dangerous, lawless, stripped of allegiance or morality, living off their wits, stealing and killing, hiring themselves out to whoever and whatever can. They were inspired by dubious virtues. A few performed useful services: research, cartography, and the like. Most were nothing but tomb raiders. They were scum who died violent deaths, hanging on to a certain cachet among the impressionable through their undeniable bravery and their occasionally impressive exploits."
It's something to consider: Do adventurers exist as a concept in one's campaign world? And if so, how are they treated?
My DM's world doesn't really have 'adventurers' as a worldwide concept. We have travelled to a lawless region where they do sort of exist as specialist mercenaries. Though it seems they're treated like the dirty murderhobos they are there. Our starting adventures have usually involved different setups instead of "Oh, you're a group of adventurers? Go do X for a wad of gold."
Strangely, I don't recall a lot of setting where adventurers are treated like heroes and celebrities. I've seen quite a few where adventurers are treated like they're two steps removed from dirty criminals and tomb robbers. (Or treated like they are dirty criminals and tomb robbers.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's something to consider: Do adventurers exist as a concept in one's campaign world? And if so, how are they treated?
As I elaborated on above, at least in my own setting, yes. As for how they're treated, that varies.
Some people see them as the next inheritors of what is clearly a long-running social tradition, especially once the party hits the mid-levels where they're above the majority of NPCs. Hard to avoid when you can point back at every large-scale crisis in history and say "this was solved by a small group of exceptionally talented individuals" and now you have a group of similar folks right in front of you.
Some people see them as ticking time bombs, as Adventurers are by and large drawn to areas of chaos and catastrophe, and some people would be worried their very presence would attract such.
Some people, particularly the smug noble types that the players are usually intended not to get along with, look down on them as vagrant mercenary thugs. Yet when crunch time comes, they're usually either fleeing with their tails between their legs or coming begging the Adventurers to help.
I would say overall though that most people are ambivalent, at least until the party hits those impressive higher levels. Prior to that, most people probably look at them as something between wild daydreamers and suicidal adrenaline junkies, then brush them off as "Well if you can take care of the problem and not cause too much havoc in the process and come back alive, sure we'll pay you. If not, your funeral."
There's also individual traits to consider. Mages are probably going to be either respected or feared, or both. Fighters, Barbarians, etc. on the other hand are going to be considered brutes and thugs until they can prove themselves either tactically capable or just plain good enough to be something more. Divine casters' receptions will vary greatly depending on their patrons. Magic-using classes are more likely to receive immediate respect than non-magic-users, because - until the Fightery type character proves himself something above and beyond the norm somehow - everyone's going to assume s/he's just another mercenary or soldier, while playing hopscotch with physics is something people just don't see every day unless you live near a magical academy.