| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From my understanding of civil forfeiture, the law set in the book is somewhat different to that. The guards are supposed to be only taking an amount of goods/money from the offending parties equal to or less than the amount of money that would be the fine for the crime, as opposed to civil forfeiture where the police take possessions from suspected criminals until they are able to prove that those possessions are not related to the crime.
Edgewatch's requisitioning here is supposed to be the punishment for the crime committed, whereas civil forfeiture is separate to any punishments the crime would normally warrant and can be arbitrarily much greater than the scale of the crime. A closer comparison to Edgewatch's policy might be traffic tickets that are paid on-the-spot.
The guards’ only actual means of earning liquid cash is by requisitioning possessions and money from any criminals they catch breaking major laws—no trial required. All findings are to be meticulously catalogued so as to prevent abuse of power, and any confiscated goods with identifiable owners must be returned. Absalom’s Grand Council insists that once the festival is over it will revise the budget and convert the Edgewatch to a normal pay structure.
I can agree that this system is definitely open to some pretty clear avenues of corruption because of how it directly lines the guards' pockets and how there is no trial, but that partially depends on how "meticulously" those requisitions are documented and audited. If there is genuine care put into making sure the guards that are enforcing this law are staying just, then this system doesn't seem that inherently awful.
And there is also the supposed intentions of the Council to change the pay structure with time, though it sounds suspiciously like that might take a while (if ever).
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
From my understanding of civil forfeiture, the law set in the book is somewhat different to that. The guards are supposed to be only taking an amount of goods/money from the offending parties equal to or less than the amount of money that would be the fine for the crime, as opposed to civil forfeiture where the police take possessions from suspected criminals until they are able to prove that those possessions are not related to the crime.
I mean, on the most technical level sure, but on a technical level individual police officers don't keep assets seized with civil forfeiture either. The issue is not the precise details, it's cops taking as much money as they want from people with no trial or ability for those people to do much about it.
Edgewatch's requisitioning here is supposed to be the punishment for the crime committed, whereas civil forfeiture is separate to any punishments the crime would normally warrant and can be arbitrarily much greater than the scale of the crime. A closer comparison to Edgewatch's policy might be traffic tickets that are paid on-the-spot.
It's not, because there's no actual procedure. Also, as the treasure entries themselves indicate, the standard amount of a 'fine' seems to be 'as much as the Guards feel like taking' since basically every entry just lists what the criminal has on them and suggests that the PCs take it all.
'Give me all the money you've got on you' is not a traffic ticket equivalent, it's a mugging.
I can agree that this system is definitely open to some pretty clear avenues of corruption because of how it directly lines the guards' pockets and how there is no trial, but that partially depends on how "meticulously" those requisitions are documented and audited. If there is genuine care put into making sure the guards that are enforcing this law are staying just, then this system doesn't seem that inherently awful.
It really does. All that's required is for the cop to lie, and no matter how meticulous the documentation, the documents will back them up since they are based on their reports. That's true of other things the police can do to people as well, of course, but few have this much obvious incentive to cause them to lie.
And even leaving lies aside, the listed fines are in many cases egregious and exploitative in their own right. The listed appropriate fine for getting in a bar fight is 'everything on you', which in the case of the adventurers you wind up dealing with is almost certainly basically 'all your worldly possessions'. Which is deeply messed up. The PCs can be merciful and not take all of those, but there is literally no incentive not to.
And there is also the supposed intentions of the Council to change the pay structure with time, though it sounds suspiciously like that might take a while (if ever).
'There is nothing so permanent as a temporary measure'.
But more seriously, given that this is clearly a metagame conceit to allow standard looting, it's not gonna be fixed during the AP, so this is kind of not a factor in my own thinking on the issue.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haha. Just to make it more awkward, I had the adventurers beg the PCs to let them keep their gear, so they could keep adventuring. But at that point, they were in full mugging mode, and denied them.
Yeesh. Yeah, that's sort of the issue in a nutshell.
It's really something that needs changing. I can't just throw out all loot and give them money, because finding stuff is fun, but they can't be good guards and merciless muggers at the same time.
Honestly, I think having them get 'bounties' of some sort on completion of a mission/job/case is probably the happy mid-point. It's not finding stuff per se, but quest rewards are very in genre, too.
Yeah, I definitely agree that its mostly just to keep the standard system of looting around and that switching the whole mechanism out for a bounty system makes sense. And that the likely-hood of this measure being actually phased out without some serious protesting or shakeup of government is vanishingly small.
I also see how the potential for falsifying reports to justify taking whatever the guards find would be a very tempting one, but there could be some difficulty in this with the expected 3 partners and the perpetrators counter-testimony if they felt like the fine/requisition went too far. Also, there is the core assumption that the party shouldn't be playing corrupt guards. Having PCs with difficulties accepting how they're supposed to get paid could make for some interesting roleplay as they rise in the organization, maybe eventually working to instate a more typical method of pay.
I'm not as convinced that its a huge problem with the first few encounters being fines "only up to whatever they're carrying". From my reading it seems like there is a standard-ish fine that just "happens to be" about what these particular folks are carrying on them (for meta reasons), and that perpetrators would either pay that original fine or up to whatever they have on them. It seems like that is supposed to be an upper limit to avoid over-punishing the poor.
And I don't think there's enough information to say that the ~8ish gp per adventurer fine amounts to "all of their worldly possessions".
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The loot section literally says the adventuring group as a whole have 17 GP and their weapons and armor, and basically encourages the PCs to take it all.
So no, that's very specifically everything they have on them. Unless these novice adventurers have a savings account or something (a vanishingly unlikely event), it's literally all they have in the world.
17 GP is also almost literally a year's wages for a level 0 character in a normal job (who make 5 CP a day, generally speaking, and would thus take 340 days of actaul work to earn that), and none of the NPCs involved are higher level than that.
So we're talking the equivalent of more than a $10k fine (probably more like $20k including the gear) for a bar brawl, which the cops then pocket. On top of damages (which the book says they pay before this money comes into play). That's really awful in just about every way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's definitely true if they're working day jobs, but the book has them described as adventurers that have made a successful run in a dungeon. So it seems probable that in exchange for their highly-dangerous profession, they make considerably more than the average individual at level -1.
And I don't think it's that unreasonable that these people might have more possessions than what they carried into the bar with themselves. There's no mention of their life beyond this one encounter with them that I see, so maybe they do have homes, possessions, and wealth outside of their pockets.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's definitely true if they're working day jobs, but the book has them described as adventurers that have made a successful run in a dungeon. So it seems probable that in exchange for their highly-dangerous profession, they make considerably more than the average individual at level -1.
Sure, if they have armor and weapons. You take those (which, I just checked, are worth about 27 GP total...so the fine is 44 GP and something like three years of work, so at least $20k in fines). My point was also to highlight the sheer amount of money we're talking about and how unreasonable the fine in question really is.
And I don't think it's that unreasonable that these people might have more possessions than what they carried into the bar with themselves. There's no mention of their life beyond this one encounter with them that I see, so maybe they do have homes, possessions, and wealth outside of their pockets.
This is not typical of adventurers. Specifically, the way adventuring groups usually get started is they save up the money for gear, use most of their savings to acquire said gear, then go out adventuring. These people came back from their first attempt at adventuring, and immediately went to a bar to celebrate, bringing their loot with them. It is that loot, and the tools of their trade, that you are taking from them.
So they might have a bit of money from before becoming adventurers stashed away in theory, but it's probably not much, and almost certainly not enough to re-equip so they can adventure again. Meaning we're back to them working for 6 months at whatever menial jobs they can scrape by in and saving their money to try and be adventurers again, all in order to line the pockets of the guards.
That's definitely true if they're working day jobs, but the book has them described as adventurers that have made a successful run in a dungeon. So it seems probable that in exchange for their highly-dangerous profession, they make considerably more than the average individual at level -1.Sure, if they have armor and weapons. You take those (which, I just checked, are worth about 27 GP total...so the fine is 44 GP and something like three years of work, so at least $20k in fines). My point was also to highlight the sheer amount of money we're talking about and how unreasonable the fine in question really is.
Ah, scale vs splint mail got me there.
And I don't think it's that unreasonable that these people might have more possessions than what they carried into the bar with themselves. There's no mention of their life beyond this one encounter with them that I see, so maybe they do have homes, possessions, and wealth outside of their pockets.This is not typical of adventurers. Specifically, the way adventuring groups usually get started is they save up the money for gear, use most of their savings to acquire said gear, then go out adventuring. These people came back from their first attempt at adventuring, and immediately went to a bar to celebrate, bringing their loot with them. It is that loot, and the tools of their trade, that you are taking from them.
So they might have a bit of money from before becoming adventurers stashed away in theory, but it's probably not much, and almost certainly not enough to re-equip so they can adventure again. Meaning we're back to them working for 6 months at whatever menial jobs they can scrape by in and saving their money to try and be adventurers again, all in order to line the pockets of the guards.
I guess I'm not sure about a "typical" group of adventures in this case. In my understanding, a typical group of adventures would go and find some other (probably cheaper) weapons and armor and go recoup their losses with more adventure.
My understanding is that most NPCs don't carry their entire net wealth on them at all times. Adventures definitely would be the exception, but that seems mostly because they make so much wealth for their level that they get careless. I don't see where it says that they went straight from adventuring to the bar without dropping off some of their treasure, but it's possible.
|
In my understanding, a typical group of adventures would go and find some other (probably cheaper) weapons and armor and go recoup their losses with more adventure.With what money?
I don't see where it says that they went straight from adventuring to the bar without dropping off some of their treasure, but it's possible.
The book makes no mention of them having a permanent residence and with them being adventurers this is purely an assumption with nothing to back it up.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I'm not sure about a "typical" group of adventures in this case. In my understanding, a typical group of adventures would go and find some other (probably cheaper) weapons and armor and go recoup their losses with more adventure.
The thing about that is that, Splint Mail aside, they have about the cheapest gear load-out possible to still be effective. Even replacing that with Chain Mail leaves them in need of a solid 20 GP to replace their gear. As mentioned above, that's 400 days of income at their level, assuming they can even get jobs (most could probably manage, but Bolar might have trouble). That's at least 4 or 5 months of work for each of them (assuming they get weekends off) just getting back the basics.
That's a ruinous fine to levy on top of paying for damages (which, once again, it says they do before getting to the money in question).
My understanding is that most NPCs don't carry their entire net wealth on them at all times. Adventures definitely would be the exception, but that seems mostly because they make so much wealth for their level that they get careless. I don't see where it says that they went straight from adventuring to the bar without dropping off some of their treasure, but it's possible.
I rather think this depends on the kind of people they are. We have no evidence that these adventurers have permanent homes or anything of the kind, so I'd generally say the likelihood is small. And even if they do, most people who go out to celebrate a major windfall of cash bring the cash with them. That's certainly consistent with the unusually high amount of cash on the adventurers, and their demonstrated collected lack of impulse control.
The assumption that the happy, flush, arrogant with success, and entirely Chaotic-aligned group went and stored their valuables responsibly somewhere before going on their bender seems entirely unwarranted and pretty far-fetched to me.
I don't see where it says that they went straight from adventuring to the bar without dropping off some of their treasure, but it's possible.The book makes no mention of them having a permanent residence and with them being adventurers this is purely an assumption with nothing to back it up.
I mean, it's an assumption based on the idea that NPCs don't carry everything they own on their person. The contrary would also be an assumption in the same vein because tbe book doesn't say they either way. I would argue that if this was the case then the book would put a mention about how the party might plead with the guards to keep some of their gear at the least.
It seems like the argument is that a ~10 gp fine for breaking stuff in the bar and assaulting other patrons is too far. This would be a pretty crazy fine for most level 1 PC adventurers, let alone a group of level -1 adventurers.
But it's the decision of the guards to decide what an appropriate fine should be in each specific case. The book says they don't have to take every copper these folks are carrying on them, they can talk to them and decide what feels fair. Their incentive to not take everything would be because they believe it is too steep or otherwise unjust.
The rest of the encounters in the book are a bit clearer that taking the treasure wouldn't be leaving the perpetrators destitute. And leaving behind some of the potential treasure in this case won't break the wealth by level.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, it's an assumption based on the idea that NPCs don't carry everything they own on their person. The contrary would also be an assumption in the same vein because tbe book doesn't say they either way. I would argue that if this was the case then the book would put a mention about how the party might plead with the guards to keep some of their gear at the least.
Both are assumptions, but the encounter is clearly intended to reference how many PC groups act in bars and treat the city guard, it's a role reversal thing. And most 1st level PC groups have the money on them and nothing else. I see no reason to go woth the assumption that wildly goes in the face of the rest of the encounter.
It seems like the argument is that a ~10 gp fine for breaking stuff in the bar and assaulting other patrons is too far. This would be a pretty crazy fine for most level 1 PC adventurers, let alone a group of level -1 adventurers.
That's pretty much the argument, yes. It's a ruinous amount of money. Just beyond punitive.
But it's the decision of the guards to decide what an appropriate fine should be in each specific case. The book says they don't have to take every copper these folks are carrying on them, they can talk to them and decide what feels fair. Their incentive to not take everything would be because they believe it is too steep or otherwise unjust.
And yet there's no encouragement or reward for being nice or merciful, and a very real one to take literally everything they have on them. The game incentivizes behavior by what it rewards, and it rewards taking twice as much from these people with twice as much stuff and no penalties of any sort.
That's messed up, and not behavior I want to encourage in my supposedly heroic and incorruptible PCs. It is, in fact, corruption...and yet is not called out as such, punished, or even mentioned. It is instead rewarded. That's bad.
The rest of the encounters in the book are a bit clearer that taking the treasure wouldn't be leaving the perpetrators destitute. And leaving behind some of the potential treasure in this case won't break the wealth by level.
'They don't put people out on the street' is a really low bar for making mugging someone acceptable, and that's what they are: Muggings. In all of them the PCs are encouraged to take basically all the cash there is on hand from the person in question. Sure, most of them are criminals, but this establishes a pattern of behavior that is horrifying when examined and I both want no part of, and don't think is consistent with the messaging of the rest of the AP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, I find PCs to be the exception to every rule of characters in-universe. Not sure that I would change it up here just to draw some parallels.
From my reading of the encounter, the adventurers made more than this much money in a single day adventuring. Sure, if they decide to stop adventuring because they had their equipment taken away then they'll have to spend a lot of time working day jobs. But I think it would be more reasonable to assume that they'll find a quicker, more dangerous way to rearm themselves befitting the fact they carried 3 years worth of average wages on them. Its definitely high if the guards decide to take everything, but I don't agree with the idea that it is a "ruinous amount of money" for adventurers to pay.
The idea of a fine that is based on the wealth of the perpetrator seems like a relatively fair one, as long as it's only up to a reasonable standard. So maybe the fine for doing what these adventurer's did would be around 15 gp each and the "only up to what they're carrying on them" idea prevented them from being thrown in jail for not being wealthy enough to afford the fine. This does rely on a particular interpretation of the "up to what they're carrying on them" clause that might not be correct.
If the alternative is true where criminals are always fined for exactly the amount they have on them regardless of the crime committed, then that would certainly be an awful lot like a mugging.
For the later criminals who offer up their money to the guards as bribes if the guards don't take it as a fine, it's a bit of a different story. These criminals want the guards to take a fine so they can avoid any other punitive action that might involve having their businesses closed. They would prefer to pay a substantial fine than have that happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I think it would be more reasonable to assume that they'll find a quicker, more dangerous way to rearm themselves befitting the fact they carried 3 years worth of average wages on them.That's a bad thing.
It's more-so that they're adventurers and that even if they if they lost their gear they'd continue to pursue a dangerous line of work with huge profits.
|
|
It's more-so that they're adventurers and that even if they if they lost their gear they'd continue to pursue a dangerous line of work with huge profits.But I think it would be more reasonable to assume that they'll find a quicker, more dangerous way to rearm themselves befitting the fact they carried 3 years worth of average wages on them.That's a bad thing.
That’s still bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, I meant that they would probably search for a quest/job that might partially award them in advance with some basic gear, and that they would recoup their losses by pursuing the highly dangerous and rewarding path of adventuring.
Probably didn't word that clearly enough because I assume you're not arguing against adventuring in general.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, I find PCs to be the exception to every rule of characters in-universe. Not sure that I would change it up here just to draw some parallels.
Other adventurers have shown up in plenty of other products. Most carry their money on their person in one way or another. This was also generally true of mercenary soldiers in real life throughout most of history, making it even more likely to be true in this instance.
But even if it happens to not be...the text is pretty clear that the PCs don't need to ask or care if it is. They can take everything these people have on them even if it's all they have in the world and nobody will stop them, since they're the law.
From my reading of the encounter, the adventurers made more than this much money in a single day adventuring. Sure, if they decide to stop adventuring because they had their equipment taken away then they'll have to spend a lot of time working day jobs. But I think it would be more reasonable to assume that they'll find a quicker, more dangerous way to rearm themselves befitting the fact they carried 3 years worth of average wages on them.
Effectively forcing people to risk their lives (which is what you're doing if you're forcing them to adventure with sub-par equipment) so as not to be impoverished by your theft of their property is actually an awful thing to do to another person. Trying to justify it gets ugly real fast.
Sure, they're adults and can make their own choices, but the more you circumscribe those choices by stealing their way to make a living, the more you're responsible for what results.
Its definitely high if the guards decide to take everything, but I don't agree with the idea that it is a "ruinous amount of money" for adventurers to pay.
It's ruinous because it deprives them of the ability to make more. You are stealing from them the tools of the trade that allow them to earn a living. It's like stealing the car of someone who drives professionally and doesn't have the spare money for a new one.
Even if that car was a limo and they made lots of money every day driving it, the second they don't have a car they don't have the ability to use it to make that money any more.
It's also ruinous because the amount is vastly out of proportion with the crime in question (which amounts to drunk and disorderly with a side of destruction of property).
The idea of a fine that is based on the wealth of the perpetrator seems like a relatively fair one, as long as it's only up to a reasonable standard. So maybe the fine for doing what these adventurer's did would be around 15 gp each and the "only up to what they're carrying on them" idea prevented them from being thrown in jail for not being wealthy enough to afford the fine. This does rely on a particular interpretation of the "up to what they're carrying on them" clause that might not be correct.
There is no standard fine, and even the 'all the money on them' thing is not enforced by law. Indeed, the text clearly states you can arbitrarily fine them as much more than that as you like, the other guards will just frown on it.
If the alternative is true where criminals are always fined for exactly the amount they have on them regardless of the crime committed, then that would certainly be an awful lot like a mugging.
That's not actually mandated, but the setting, NPCs, and text all treat it as the expected result, and with good reason. If given a choice between less money and more money, most people will take more money. Laws delineating specific fines for things exist so that there will not be this kind of perverse incentive for the people fining to always fine as much as they think they can get away with.
Any system that lets people in authority decide arbitrarily how much they take from people who commit any offense they see, no matter how minor, and then keep it for themselves, is morally bankrupt from the start and will only encourage them to behave like highway robbers, stealing whatever they like from whoever they like whenever they like on the slightest pretext.
And that's exactly the system presented.
For the later criminals who offer up their money to the guards as bribes if the guards don't take it as a fine, it's a bit of a different story. These criminals want the guards to take a fine so they can avoid any other punitive action that might involve having their businesses closed. They would prefer to pay a substantial fine than have that happen.
By criminals, do you mean the storekeepers who get into a fight and you can then fine both of for all their cash, including the victim for having the audacity to fight back? And who almost certainly don't want to press charges against each other in the first place? And the AP treats taking everything from both like it's expected?
Those criminals?
Because I have a variety of things to say about that situation, and none of them are 'This is an okay and reasonable thing for cops to be doing.'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would throw in assault for the adventurers as they bloody the nose of at least Pratchett.
And I'm still not convinced that the system presented in the book is supposed to be read "take whatever they have regardless of the crime's severity" as opposed to "don't fine them more than they have for a misdemeanor".
The AP treats it like the guards will gain the treasure from those later criminals because they are written to try and give it to the guards if they don't take it themselves.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would throw in assault for the adventurers as they bloody the nose of at least Pratchett.
Possibly. He didn't stick around to press charges, though. And that should be specific to whoever threw the mug that hit him, not everyone in the adventuring party.
And I'm still not convinced that the system presented in the book is supposed to be read "take whatever they have regardless of the crime's severity" as opposed to "don't fine them more than they have for a misdemeanor".
It really doesn't matter how its intended. I don't think anyone at Paizo set out to write a seriously abusive system that encourages the Edgewatch to behave like muggers and just take as much money as they like from whoever they like as long as they have some slight excuse.
But that's still what happened. All the incentives are towards doing exactly that, there are no consequences for doing exactly that, and there are no rewards for not doing that. Which results in a system that is deeply messed up and counter to the message of the rest of the AP.
The AP treats it like the guards will gain the treasure from those later criminals because they are written to try and give it to the guards if they don't take it themselves.
Yes, they are. And what exactly makes someone who is the victim of a crime (as one of the goblins clearly is) so desperate to ingratiate themselves with the authorities that they offer every cent they have? And what kind of authorities accept that kind of offer from a victim once it is made?
The answer to the first is someone who is desperately afraid that their livelihood will be taken away even though they aren't at fault. The answer to the second is not complimentary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I'm still not convinced that the system presented in the book is supposed to be read "take whatever they have regardless of the crime's severity" as opposed to "don't fine them more than they have for a misdemeanor".It really doesn't matter how its intended. I don't think anyone at Paizo set out to write a seriously abusive system that encourages the Edgewatch to behave like muggers and just take as much money as they like from whoever they like as long as they have some slight excuse.
But that's still what happened. All the incentives are towards doing exactly that, there are no consequences for doing exactly that, and there are no rewards for not doing that. Which results in a system that is deeply messed up and counter to the message of the rest of the AP.
What I was arguing here was the intended meaning of the statement, not the intent behind writing the statement. That I read it as meaning one thing ("don't fine them more than they have for a misdemeanor") while you're reading it as another meaning ("take whatever they have regardless of the crime's severity").
The AP treats it like the guards will gain the treasure from those later criminals because they are written to try and give it to the guards if they don't take it themselves.Yes, they are. And what exactly makes someone who is the victim of a crime (as one of the goblins clearly is) so desperate to ingratiate themselves with the authorities that they offer every cent they have? And what kind of authorities accept that kind of offer from a victim once it is made?
The answer to the first is someone who is desperately afraid that their livelihood will be taken away even though they aren't at fault. The answer to the second is not complimentary.
I don't see the part where an innocent goblin is supposed to be fined, where is that?
And from what I see in the later encounters, I feel a lot more strongly that the people who would be fined aren't carrying their lives' savings on them. That any fee would be a bit of recent income for their business, not enough to make them destitute. Assuming otherwise without the book specifically calling it out feels wrong to me.
I feel that there are too many unknowns about the setting in the city to say that this system of fines is so horrible. I think that if this system was so problematic in-universe, there would be some degree of complaining or pleading for the people experiencing it written into the adventure.
What I'm trying to say here is that it can be interpreted as a cruel and unfair system but that it doesn't have to be. If assumptions are made to the contrary of expected income for NPCs and instead that these people are financially secure enough to handle these fines, and that they aren't being arbitrarily levied simply to satiate the guards' greed, then it doesn't have to be that terrible.
But at the end of the day, it does seem like just an excuse to do the standard form of wealth progression despite the fact that the PCs are guards and not adventurers. So maybe just leaving it at that would be best rather than debating the ethics of the whole thing.
|
|
And even leaving lies aside, the listed fines are in many cases egregious and exploitative in their own right. The listed appropriate fine for getting in a bar fight is 'everything on you', which in the case of the adventurers you wind up dealing with is almost certainly basically 'all your worldly possessions'.
In the case of adventurers it’s not just “all your worldly possessions,” it’s also “the tools by which you make your living.” None of those adventurers were monks. Without gear they aren’t going to be able to adventure.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, ran game three last night, and the players went to the Pagoda.
My party reached the Pagoda tonight. “Ama can provide a useful blueprint of the structure” reads the adventure. Useful indeed, for one of my players looked at it and asked “what’s the Climb DC to get to that second floor from the side?
The adventure notes that guards are stationed on the first floor balconies, but there’s no one outside the shrine on the second floor, so my party climbed up, bypassing all of the first floor, and negotiated the release of the hostages with Skerix.
That was probably an entire session’s worth of combat bypassed. I gave full XP for all the bypassed encounters and traps. Encouraging lateral thinking and non-violent encounters seems especially important in this AP.
Edit: Apparently C11 is both the first and second floor of the veranda, which I failed to understand when prepping the adventure. Area C10 speaks of “the two kobolds in area C11” rushing in to join the fray, which made me think they were both nearby rather than one being nearby and another up two flights of stairs. Oh well, better to err in the players’ favor.
Edit: Is Rekarek not supposed to know Common? Her listing only shows Draconic. My party may be the only one to ever not know Draconic, so I just had Doopa translate.
The Kobold Warrior entry in the Bestiary also doesn’t include Common, though the Scout and Dragon Mage both do.
|
|
I feel that there are too many unknowns about the setting in the city to say that this system of fines is so horrible. I think that if this system was so problematic in-universe, there would be some degree of complaining or pleading for the people experiencing it written into the adventure.
You mean the system that was just made for this AP in order for PCs to maintain WBL and that the designers didn’t see as that much of a problem to implement?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I was arguing here was the intended meaning of the statement, not the intent behind writing the statement. That I read it as meaning one thing ("don't fine them more than they have for a misdemeanor") while you're reading it as another meaning ("take whatever they have regardless of the crime's severity").
I'm not reading that as the intent of what's being said, I'm reading it as the result. Both in terms of what will happen in-universe, what the game incentivizes, and what most PCs will do.
I don't see the part where an innocent goblin is supposed to be fined, where is that?
To quote, emphasis mine:
Grunka and Pelmo each have 15 gp in their respective cashboxes. If the guards decide to fine the goblins for their antics, they can claim that money, or the goblins may offer it as a bribe to keep the Edgewatch from shutting down their stalls.
Note the word 'each' and note that all references to fining them use the plural (always 'goblins', never 'goblin' singular). The assumption is clearly that you will fine both or both will attempt to bribe you.
And from what I see in the later encounters, I feel a lot more strongly that the people who would be fined aren't carrying their lives' savings on them. That any fee would be a bit of recent income for their business, not enough to make them destitute. Assuming otherwise without the book specifically calling it out feels wrong to me.
Again, I don't disagree with this. You are not, with the exception of the adventurers, fining them all the money they have in the world. But muggers don't steal all the money someone has in the world either, that doesn't make what they do somehow okay.
The situation with the adventurers is especially egregious, but it's the whole system that is really ugly and awful when examined.
I feel that there are too many unknowns about the setting in the city to say that this system of fines is so horrible. I think that if this system was so problematic in-universe, there would be some degree of complaining or pleading for the people experiencing it written into the adventure.
The system that was, in universe, just instituted a few weeks ago specifically for the Radiant Festival? There hasn't been time yet for people to actively start complaining en masse. As for complaining to the guards while they're taking things from you...that's one of those things very few people do when confronted with armed thugs who can legally demand as much money from you as they like, and throw you in jail to boot if they feel like it. After all, they might be offended and do worse to you than what they already had planned.
Expecting people to complain about this to the cops robbing them is rather deeply naive and unrealistic.
What I'm trying to say here is that it can be interpreted as a cruel and unfair system but that it doesn't have to be. If assumptions are made to the contrary of expected income for NPCs and instead that these people are financially secure enough to handle these fines, and that they aren't being arbitrarily levied simply to satiate the guards' greed, then it doesn't have to be that terrible.
Yes it does have to be cruel and unfair, or at least it does for the world to make any sense. Even if your PCs do not abuse it, it is rife with potential for abuse and the adventure itself notes that there are corrupt members of the Edgewatch and the Absalom guard in general.
But many PCs absolutely will abuse it, because that's where all the incentives are. They are rewarded for abusing the system to the greatest degree possible and never punished in the least. They are instead punished (by receiving less gold) for not abusing it.
And honestly, if it's somehow not cruel and unfair for some unrealistic reason involving the cops being perfectly fair angels, that's even worse from a real world perspective, as it is effectively and by implication saying that cops would never be unfair or abuse the law, and that things like civil forfeiture are totally reasonable and would never be abused. That's terrible messaging that makes me feel dirty, and I have no desire to play any game with that messaging even for a moment.
But at the end of the day, it does seem like just an excuse to do the standard form of wealth progression despite the fact that the PCs are guards and not adventurers. So maybe just leaving it at that would be best rather than debating the ethics of the whole thing.
No. Hard no, in fact. The fact that this was done for OOC reasons, and that Paizo didn't do it maliciously, is obvious. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise.
But what message we get from media matters. The fact that this AP sets up the police officer heroes to casually rob people guilty of only minor offenses at swordpoint and accept bribes and treats these things as a 'cost of doing business' is really bad and no matter how accidental it is, it makes some people very upset and unhappy.
This messaging hurts people, emotionally speaking. It makes them feel like their real, lived, experience with how awful corrupt police are and what it's like to have them just take money from you for no reason, are being ignored and don't matter. It may even feel like gaslighting, with their experiences being shown by the game to be invalid or unreasonable when, in fact, they are very much not.
Now, I really like Paizo as a company, and the people there mostly seem extremely nice and well intentioned. And I have been accused on these forums, no few times, of being on the 'Paizo Defense Force', for believing that very thing. I have not a single doubt that all of that last two paragraphs are a tragic mistake on their part, an error they did not entirely think through the implications of, not some intentional act of malice. But mistakes still hurt people, and we do not and should not let something like that pass unremarked.
I actually like this AP and, wealth gain system aside, think that it even presents a good and appropriate portrayal of heroic police officers doing the right thing. It encourages nonlethal conflict resolution and deescalation, and helping people. The messaging is actually very good aside from this one glaring omission. And the glaring omission is actually easy enough to fix...we have WBL tables for a reason, and can have the PCs paid in some other way easily enough (I've suggested at least two methods in this very thread).
But none of that makes this system of wealth acquisition remotely appropriate or okay, and I will not remain passively uninvolved while people try to defend it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been relentlessly referring to the pay structure of Edgewatch as the "Adventurer's pay scale" because I think it helps to highlight/lampshade exactly how piratical your typical adventurer is.
Its obviously bad when its cops doing it, but it tends to get overlooked when its the apparent "heroes" doing it as vigilantes. I'm hoping that my players are a bit more aware going forward in future campaigns, the next time they kill a bunch of intelligent "monsters" and are surveying their pile of treasure.
I'll likely minimize the "taking directly from the badguys" angle as we progress, because it doesn't really sit well with us... though, there's something to be said imo about making it clear how uncomfortable that behavior is.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and again they already said they had messed up before the book had even came out at this point the dead horse has been beaten well beyond the point any breath of life spell could bring it back.
Heck I agree the wealth thing is bad but to quote a gentelman from the RPG.net forum "the problem isn't that there is too much police culture in the Pathfinder Adventure, but too much Pathfinder culture in the policing adventure"
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been relentlessly referring to the pay structure of Edgewatch as the "Adventurer's pay scale" because I think it helps to highlight/lampshade exactly how piratical your typical adventurer is.
Its obviously bad when its cops doing it, but it tends to get overlooked when its the apparent "heroes" doing it as vigilantes. I'm hoping that my players are a bit more aware going forward in future campaigns, the next time they kill a bunch of intelligent "monsters" and are surveying their pile of treasure.
I'll likely minimize the "taking directly from the badguys" angle as we progress, because it doesn't really sit well with us... though, there's something to be said imo about making it clear how uncomfortable that behavior is.
I feel like it's sincerely less bad when most PCs do it. For one thing they're often not in a civilized settlement with proper laws for that sort of thing, meaning there's literally no proper procedure to abide by, and for another they're very rarely shaking people down for money at all (there's almost never people offering to pay you not to hurt them or punish them, and when there are you're usually expected to refuse).
They're certainly not taking money from anyone who's just being a public nuisance or getting in bar brawls. The people they take things from are usually dead, and were not killed to rob them but in self defense or defense of others.
You certainly don't wind up taking things from the victims of crime unless they offer it as a reward, and unlike police officers it was very rarely literally the PCs job to save them, so taking it is ethically acceptable in a way it's not for cops.
There's certainly also an element of acceptability that has to do with not being officers of the law, but really what most PCs do in the way of looting is also substantively different from the AoE pay structure in a way that I, at least, find much less distasteful.
|
|
and again they already said they had messed up before the book had even came out at this point the dead horse has been beaten well beyond the point any breath of life spell could bring it back.
Heck I agree the wealth thing is bad but to quote a gentelman from the RPG.net forum "the problem isn't that there is too much police culture in the Pathfinder Adventure, but too much Pathfinder culture in the policing adventure"
They addressed the brutality issue to an extant with the Player’s Guide and going over non-lethal damage (kinda hit and miss there, since non-violent resolution would be best and that is actually played out somewhat in the AP, save for the Revolt).
The loot problem is a not a dead horse yet since as I pointed out above we’ll have to deal with it over all 6 Issues of this AP, that’s a big problem.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The loot problem is a not a dead horse yet since as I pointed out above we’ll have to deal with it over all 6 Issues of this AP, that’s a big problem.and again they already said they had messed up before the book had even came out at this point the dead horse has been beaten well beyond the point any breath of life spell could bring it back.
Heck I agree the wealth thing is bad but to quote a gentelman from the RPG.net forum "the problem isn't that there is too much police culture in the Pathfinder Adventure, but too much Pathfinder culture in the policing adventure"
Yeah and as KrispyXIV has pointed out it's a potential problem with all adventures it just happens to be particularly noticble here.
The reason I agree very much with the to much pathfinder culture in the policman adventure is that pathfinder is a game system that assumes the characters are generally adventurers and is based on a wealth by lvl table to match but at the same time if you dont have them be adventurers things start to get very odd (Someone mentioned that the adventuring party in this book has the equivilent wealth of 3 years of work from a commoner now I assume a watchman gets a bit more than a commoner but at the same time pc adventurers are expected to have more wealth than NPC ones)
The problem is simply that paizo came at this at the angle of a game engine/mechanics problem (Ie how do we maintain the wealth by lvl of a party that arent adventurers without breaking how the wealth/earnings for Npc's is supposed to work)rather than as a Setting/story problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I was arguing here was the intended meaning of the statement, not the intent behind writing the statement. That I read it as meaning one thing ("don't fine them more than they have for a misdemeanor") while you're reading it as another meaning ("take whatever they have regardless of the crime's severity").I'm not reading that as the intent of what's being said, I'm reading it as the result. Both in terms of what will happen in-universe, what the game incentivizes, and what most PCs will do.
Hmm, I'm trying to say that I disagree with your interpretation of what that "guard etiquette" means in-universe. Intent seems to have been the wrong word to say that clearly.
I don't see the part where an innocent goblin is supposed to be fined, where is that?To quote, emphasis mine:
Grunka and Pelmo each have 15 gp in their respective cashboxes. If the guards decide to fine the goblins for their antics, they can claim that money, or the goblins may offer it as a bribe to keep the Edgewatch from shutting down their stalls.Note the word 'each' and note that all references to fining them use the plural (always 'goblins', never 'goblin' singular). The assumption is clearly that you will fine both or both will attempt to bribe you.
Yeah, I thought you were referring to that encounter but I can't find anything suggesting that either of them is less than an enthusiastic participant in the firefight.
I feel that there are too many unknowns about the setting in the city to say that this system of fines is so horrible. I think that if this system was so problematic in-universe, there would be some degree of complaining or pleading for the people experiencing it written into the adventure.
The system that was, in universe, just instituted a few weeks ago specifically for the Radiant Festival? There hasn't been time yet for people to actively start complaining en masse. As for complaining to the guards while they're taking things from you...that's one of those things very few people do when confronted with armed thugs who can legally demand as much money from you as they like, and throw you in jail to boot if they feel like it. After all, they might be offended and do worse to you than what they already had planned.
Expecting people to complain about this to the cops robbing them is rather deeply naive and unrealistic.
Yeah, arguing about the fairness of a law to the guards enforcing it isn't what I was expecting. More that there would be any mention of folks feeling like it was unfair or unjust, or that there would be some indication supporting that idea. From the text, I haven't found any reference to feelings either way about the recent change in procedure.
What I'm trying to say here is that it can be interpreted as a cruel and unfair system but that it doesn't have to be. If assumptions are made to the contrary of expected income for NPCs and instead that these people are financially secure enough to handle these fines, and that they aren't being arbitrarily levied simply to satiate the guards' greed, then it doesn't have to be that terrible.Yes it does have to be cruel and unfair, or at least it does for the world to make any sense. Even if your PCs do not abuse it, it is rife with potential for abuse and the adventure itself notes that there are corrupt members of the Edgewatch and the Absalom guard in general.
I think this all ties into the first point, a disagreement about what the guard etiquette means. I completely agree with what you're saying if the etiquette means that it's supposed to be alright for guards to fine perpetrators equal to whatever they have on them, regardless of the crime. But I read that statement as meaning only "don't fine people more than they have on them", an upper limit to avoid leaving them destitute. That doesn't work if they're carrying their entire life's savings on them, but handling cases like that should be called out in the text and would be part of the guards' responsibility to take into account.
If your argument is that the system is bad because the fines collected go directly into the pockets of the guards, then I would also agree with you. Giving guards that much incentive to fine people for committing crimes is a guarantee for corruption. I think any system other than a gradual granting of items by a neutral party to match up with expected WBL would have this issue to some degree.
But from experience playing in games with similar alternate methods of wealth progression previously, I think that system just wouldn't be as much fun as gaining treasure in the traditional fashion. Players are forced to do a lot more work picking their items than a standard adventure, and they don't get the feeling of finding some exciting piece of treasure after a tough encounter. I know some of my players despise the shopping aspect of the game and prefer to just find interesting items as part of the journey.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
A long while back, when I started running Rise of the Runelords, I told my players that I wanted them to feel it was okay for their PCs to give money to NPCs, and to not get every possible penny of rewards from the adventure. And that I had a wealth-by-level chart, and I would ensure that they had the appropriate wealth as they leveled up, cutting back if they got too much or adding more if they got behind. But that if they acted like heroes and made friends and did the right thing, there would be (at least) intangible rewards of allies and informants and friends among the NPCs.
With that promise, a group who had previously been very video-gamist about looking for every coin, suddenly became very willing to let "nice NPC" foes keep their stuff. They gave money to the old lady in town who previously tried to beat up the PC barbarian with her purse. They donated to rebuild things, and otherwise became model citizens. It was awesome!
So for any GMs who are trying to solve the whole Civil Forfeiture issue - just eliminate it. Give the PCs bonuses, rewards, and HQ-sponsored equipment upgrades. Maybe there's a "slush bin" of items recovered from criminals, which are impossible to reunite with their original owners due to there being no way to identify those owners. Maybe there's a high-ranking person in the government who likes to "award" accomplished constables with special gear that will help them deal with dangerous situations. Let the PCs make a "wish list" of items they want, and those just happen to be available in some sort of weekly equipment swap between patrol HQs ("Hey, we've got a couple of Striking Longswords, you got any officers who need one?"). Whatever it takes to justify, but keep the PCs appropriately equipped for their level - and make sure the players understand that's how it works and they won't get any benefit whatsoever from trying to filch additional items from the citizens they interact with. And if they do the right thing by NPCs during their patrol duties, by all means, have those same NPCs come to them with tips about issues they're dealing with; bring them rumors; and otherwise make it obvious that they are trusted and respected by the community because of specific things they've done to earn that trust and respect.
Here's something I don't want to see lost in the shuffle:
For those GMs running this by milestone leveling, you are not supposed to hit level 5 by the end of this book! In fact, based on book 2, this AP looks like it might be on the much more complicated side when it comes to milestone progress.
Are the GMs who are running it now using milestone?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So for any GMs who are trying to solve the whole Civil Forfeiture issue - just eliminate it. Give the PCs bonuses, rewards, and HQ-sponsored equipment upgrades.
So, I got to reading, and beyond my approach actually being a whole lot of "leave it as mostly is, because this is neoliberalism taken to its utmost level and doesn't reflect our world", I have toyed a lot with an Honour System. Give the opportunity to confiscate what isn't there's, to fine excessively or solve problems with force. However, the more they lean into that the more they'll lose Honour and become notorious in the neighbourhood. Leads will dry up, civilians will be unhelpful and problems will arise if it sinks low enough. On the inverse, if they are friendly, live off the wage more than via fines and don't take bribes, then their reputation will proceed them in the same way other authorities of the area's reputations proceed them. Muckruckers are notorious for corruption, like Sally Guards are known for their prestige, so why not approach the Edgewatch in a similar way? Maybe even more so as they're a new group and have a lot of empty space to fill with a reputation.
I am wary of this as it could lead to a lot of GM-projection of what is good/bad and Extinction Curse actually left a bad taste in terms of extraneous mechanics (the rest of the AP is pretty damn good, but yeah, the circus thing feels like a lead weight), but it would also mean turning this big criticism of the AP (i.e. police corruption) back on the players. Needless to say, this would need to be matched with a wage, that isn't so high that if they do end up corrupt they break the game with sheer fortune, but maybe every so often the watch gets a donation from the Council if the work is good which can be used to buy equipment?
I still have a good few months to plan this out, but that's my general approach to the chaos that has rampaged in this thread. I still think it's a pretty damn fantastic AP and would rank it above Age of Ashes and Extinction Curse if we did a Book 1 comparison across the board. It's just an amazing job.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, I'm trying to say that I disagree with your interpretation of what that "guard etiquette" means in-universe. Intent seems to have been the wrong word to say that clearly.
Even assuming the 'guard etiquette' is a hard rule, that only makes it very slightly better. It's a single very minor upside in a whole sea of badness.
Yeah, I thought you were referring to that encounter but I can't find anything suggesting that either of them is less than an enthusiastic participant in the firefight.
They absolutely both were, but defending yourself from physical violence with physical force is not a crime. Whichever was the one attacked is a victim, not the perpetrator of a crime (at least not when the PCs first arrive on the scene they're not), and yet the AP makes no distinctions at all between the two in terms of punishment.
Yeah, arguing about the fairness of a law to the guards enforcing it isn't what I was expecting. More that there would be any mention of folks feeling like it was unfair or unjust, or that there would be some indication supporting that idea. From the text, I haven't found any reference to feelings either way about the recent change in procedure.
Right, but the AP is written almost exclusively from the PCs perspective, and they're guards not civilians. Additionally, as noted, this is likely because this began as a metagame way to have 'normal loot' in the AP. They probably just didn't consider the implications or how in-setting people would feel about it when writing it.
I mean, that seems like the most logical explanation, both for the lack of in-setting commentary, and for how this issue slipped by the folks at Paizo in the first place.
I think this all ties into the first point, a disagreement about what the guard etiquette means. I completely agree with what you're saying if the etiquette means that it's supposed to be alright for guards to fine perpetrators equal to whatever they have on them, regardless of the crime. But I read that statement as meaning only "don't fine people more than they have on them", an upper limit to avoid leaving them destitute. That doesn't work if they're carrying their entire life's savings on them, but handling cases like that should be called out in the text and would be part of the guards' responsibility to take into account.
Even were this true, it's a very minor reduction in how bad the law is. The law directly incentivizes the guard taking as much money as they can whenever they can. That's terrible. It's a perverse incentive of the worst sort.
The more limits there are on what they can take the less bad it is, but we're talking a very minor reduction in badness, not making it remotely acceptable.
If your argument is that the system is bad because the fines collected go directly into the pockets of the guards, then I would also agree with you. Giving guards that much incentive to fine people for committing crimes is a guarantee for corruption. I think any system other than a gradual granting of items by a neutral party to match up with expected WBL would have this issue to some degree.
Yes, exactly. I have no actual objection to the PCs, as officers of the law, fining people for breaking the law. I object to them being incentivized to fine everyone as much as possible because they get to keep the money. That's messed up.
But from experience playing in games with similar alternate methods of wealth progression previously, I think that system just wouldn't be as much fun as gaining treasure in the traditional fashion. Players are forced to do a lot more work picking their items than a standard adventure, and they don't get the feeling of finding some exciting piece of treasure after a tough encounter. I know some of my players despise the shopping aspect of the game and prefer to just find interesting items as part of the journey.
I feel like this is an easily solvable issue without resorting to this, though.
Basically all the 'interesting items' belong to people who are almost certainly going to prison. As I mentioned previously, having them sold by the city to pay those people's fines and legal fees, and allowing the PCs to pick those up for fair market price from said sale (they certainly have an in to know where and when such items will be sold, after all), pretty much solves this problem in many ways (basically in all ways a lot of the time...nobody is gonna object to them using the item while still trapped in the dungeon, it's only afterwards that they need to turn it in and eventually re-buy it).
Alternatively, though a bit more work for the GM, you could just have them given (or, I suppose, technically loaned) equipment from the Watch itself, in which case they can be as surprised by what you give them as they would be by what they find.
But really, there are a lot of solutions that don't hit the problem of basically endorsing specific varieties of police corruption that this particular version does.