Why Hire Adventurers?

[Grim Portent]

Don't leave out the Hobbits. Frodo is landed gentry, Sam is his batman, Peregrin is directly related to and later takes the title of, the Thaine of the Shire (who is at least master of the moot and captain of the shire armies) and Merry becomes Master of Buckland and Warden of the Westmarch, which are at least noble-ish titles.

Frodo, Sam and Pippin are also all distantly descended from Bullroarer Took if I remember correctly, an ancient hobbit war hero.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ronin, Cossack, and Cowboy, for example, can all be considered proxy terms for 'adventurer.' However these are indeed born out of specific historical conditions.

I've see a few articles comment on the similarity between the adventure in D&D and 'the wild west' genre (movies and TV shows) of the 50's and 60's. Any number of oaters involved 'finding that chest of gold' with The Good, the Bad and The Ugly being an over the top example.

The big one is actually a surplus of soldiers.

And with the original game, the bulk of the PCs would often be Fighting Men.

Seven Samurai is a very good example of this {snip} - Conan, rather famously, jumps back and forth across it on a whim.

Magazine / pulp serial stories are really good as a genre foundation, more than full length novels, in that the episodic nature of the adventures fits the serialized stories better. (And short stories tend to make better movies than novels - Elmore Leonard's short stories // novellas have been made into a number of good films over the years).

However, one of the issues with this sort of thing is that the existence of adventurers, as a group large enough to represent a social class, tends to be temporary, lasting at most a few decades.

This is the part where the genre becomes a parody of itself. Adventurers as a social class seems to fit into Victorian and Early 20th century tropes, and they are wealthy dilettentes (really, I am an archeologist!) as often as not. (Lara Croft? Indiana Jones? Allan Quartermain?). That's a far reach from 'need to keep adventuring to get by' along the lines of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, or the Thieves World stories, or the episodic trials and adventures of Cugel.

While I have played in campaigns where 'the adventurer' is an aspect of the world's social structure, it rarely works as well in the game as a world where "the A Team" (TV Show ref) is a 'for hire' group of trouble shooters. They are rare, almost unique: almost nobody in the world is an adventurer, and their reputation is that they cause as much trouble as they solve. That maintains a certain amount of tension between the adventurers and the world that I find preferable. (Phoenix's world is one of the few where I found the structure, which he has grown organically with his game world over the years, of adventurer guilds and where they fit in society to be coherent).

Also: nice observation on the termination point and Kingmaker.

But the Fantasy literature genre is full of over titled ninja squads {snip} But it’s very common in fantasy for the best ninjas to also be highly entitled.

Yes, back to my "rich people looking for dangerous and thrilling things to do that isn't climbing Mount Everest." Fuse that with a small spec ops team (Guns of Navarone) and you get the range of D&D adventures which are all piled on top of archeology with swords. (Digging through ruins, hunting for treasure).

Also the literature is also full of the noble administrator Handwavium the third who looks after the land in the lords absence. .

The Crusades were, from one point of view, grand adventures undertaken by nobles for extended periods, while the seneschal, family, or wife looked after the estates. (Recently read a bio of Edward I which reinforced this idea), and are of course concurrent with the pseudo medieval setting of D&D as originally imagines. But D&D in its current form struggles with how to handle battles (which maybe is OK, at some point a different tool is needed for that job).

I find a party's starting point that isn't "someone hires freelancers" usually more satisfying. Something is wrong/weird as a preface, and "how did we all end up in this tavern/boat/town" leading to "who will bell the cat (displacer beast?)" arrives at a group of people who end up bonding over the course of an adventure and find that they make a good team. In the best campaigns/worlds, odd and strange things keep cropping up that they choose to investigate/hunt for/take on ...

[Tanarii]

Don't leave out the Hobbits. Frodo is landed gentry, Sam is his batman, Peregrin is directly related to and later takes the title of, the Thaine of the Shire (who is at least master of the moot and captain of the shire armies) and Merry becomes Master of Buckland and Warden of the Westmarch, which are at least noble-ish titles.

Yeah, it's pretty funny how the common analysis is that Tolkien intended the Hobbits to be a common Everyman.

[Eldan]

Yeah, it's pretty funny how the common analysis is that Tolkien intended the Hobbits to be a common Everyman.

Presumably common to his own class.

[Mike_G]

Yeah, it's pretty funny how the common analysis is that Tolkien intended the Hobbits to be a common Everyman.

I think Sam clearly is. And he is the most heroic character of the Fellowship, really.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think Sam clearly is. And he is the most heroic character of the Fellowship, really.

And note that he only becomes this significant figure after the adventure is over. His success is the "success of the Everyman". If he'd been the fancy dude with the fancy title at the beginning of the adventure, his character would have been quite different.

And that's the thing. If adventurers are all landed nobles or the equivalent from the beginning, then you get a very different aesthetic than one where they might become such when the adventure is mostly over[1]. And in my eyes, that's an aesthetic that removes the best part of the game, the middle "not liable to die to a housecat, but not a world-renowned hero" part. The part before you get those fancy titles or the duties that go along with them.

And there's a reason that the whole "name level" thing got dropped--it wasn't how most people wanted to play. It basically bifurcates the game--those who want to do the strategic layer don't have the opportunity until very high levels (and so miss out on that during the first half or more); those who don't get bored at high levels. As it turned out, the latter dominated.

Any answer that removes the possibility to do 90+% of the printed modules isn't a good explanation for that system. It might be great for a different system, and might be fun to play, but it's not a good fit. Especially when there are plenty of perfectly good answers that do fit that play-style.

[1] How many games really played the name level like expected, where the name-level character is basically retired?

-------

I have adventurers in a few modes.

1. In one area, it's a formalized system that replaces most of the standing armies and acts as an international "police" force. And is enforced by international treaty. Basically no traditional feudal societies there anyway. But the scaling and diminishing returns[2] means that yes, most people only adventure for one or two main things. They find a treasure and retire. Or die. And many of the lowest-scale adventurers are little better than bandits, although the formalized system keeps the worst of that in check by requiring adventurers to register with nationally-sponsored Companies that take responsibility for their actions.

As a note, the whole formalized system also accounts for why adventuring-facing prices are so weird--it's a literal system of price controls. Merchants make a contract with the central Guild (a misnomer but a historically-contingent one) to buy and sell to adventurers at a fixed scale of prices. And the guild ensures they'll turn a profit, rebuying and reselling the stuff. The Guild makes its money mostly off of a monopoly on an instant-travel portal network. And is backed by all the big name former adventurers and their allies.

In this part of the world, nobles (such as they are) don't have more than house guards. There's only two nations (in this compact) with any kind army, and they're kinda sus from everyone else's point of view. One's a theocracy, the other is struggling to disband their military-industrial complex after 90+ years of existential warfare against an outside force. Militias exist, but they're for local point defense anyway and expect to be backed up by adventurers.

2. In a different part of the world, adventurers and adventuring isn't a social class at all. They're mercenaries, doing odd jobs. Usually hired more for the plausible deniability than any other factor. People become adventurers when they really don't have much else available. And they're mostly only even partially welcome on the frontiers. There again there aren't large "feudal" systems--that area is ruled by a collection of noble houses who (by mutual agreement/law) can only field a small number of troops each. Which are used as the personal guards and the "police" (as it were) for the major cities. The Second Families (the noble-adjacent clans and families that are most of the large landowners) have to hire mercenary groups and are strictly regulated by the First Families. Except in the colonies, where it's basically a free-for-all.

The current set of PCs there are
* A paladin of an order, acting "under-cover".
* A runaway wizard (running away from his family who was quite controlling).
* An itinerant dragon knight (of one of the Free Brothers, the knights who are not tied to a flight of dragons) and his bonded companion. He's the most really mercenary of the group, having worked as one for a few years. Mostly doing bounty-hunting work solo.
* A "lost child" looking for his(?) past and doing odd jobs to survive.
They all knew each other from school and were vectored into the current events by the master of that school who is notorious for sticking his nose into everything and meddling. And they've not been hired for any job since their first (rats in a sewer), where they were hired precisely as the fall-guys for some political bad blood. Which ended up backfiring, as usual.

[2] Each person has a certain amount of potential, a "soft cap" as it were. A point at which making the next substantial gain starts requiring exponentially more time and risk. For most of the world, that's sub-level 1. Even for those who can reach PC-equivalent status, the diminishing returns start to really bite around level 5-ish. Level 11+ is Legendary status. PCs are special in that they're some of the few with unknown potential. Wherever the campaign ends, that was (in retrospect) their personal cap. So a retired PC (as a living world, there are lots of those) doesn't get any stronger once they retire. One of the major figures running around is this bard who, by divine blessing, is ageless. But he's a level 4 bard. So he really just does a lot of running away. Has blackmail on (or is related to) just about everyone that matters, so that's where his power comes from. Not personal spell-casting or otherwise ability.

[Satinavian]

D&D started out as a strictly postapocalyptic scenario with ruins full of treasure and old forgotten magic and monsters, outposts near them with a gold rush economy and playable treasure seekers with no further motivation.

But it branched out fast. And hardly anyone plays the above nowadays. Trying to tell people to restrict themself to a certain oldfashioned adventurer esthetic in their wordbuilding because this was the proper way to do D&D is nonsense.



As for the old versions where you get keeps and retainers and stuff, we didn't play that much AD&D2, but that was always seen as a cool thing.

[Stonehead]

I wanna add some things I haven't seen mentioned here.

First, the big one, is that hiring a squad of adventurers to deal with a short-term problem is a lot like hiring some temps or contractors for small-medium sized projects in the modern day. In my profession at least, I can attest that hiring contractors for projects is fairly common. Even when the company has staff that would theoretically be capable of doing that work, they're just busy with other things. Maybe there are an average of 12 goblin raids per year, and so the King has enough knights to handle roughly 1 a month. What do you do when, just by chance, no goblins attack in January, but two raiding parties attack in February? You hire a temp adventurer.

I'm pretty sure most stores hire temp workers around the holidays, and only a few of them stay on into the next year. Same idea. There's a temporary surge in demand.

My favorite answer though is that the king will just post a bounty, rewarding whoever turns in the heads of the monster, instead of hiring a specific group of adventurers. The story of The Beast of Gévaudan is the closest we've come to a DnD game in the real world. Basically, there was a huge wolf or bear (or maybe a monster) that was terrorizing trails in France, so the King posted a bounty to be given to whoever killed the beast. So there's real life precedent for rulers posting bounties for adventurers hunters to handle dangerous problems instead of sending the army to do it.

One advantage of posting a bounty for the King is that you can get several different groups all trying to kill your enemy, but you only need to pay the one who succeeds. One advantage of posting a bounty for the DM is that it puts a soft time-limit on each quest, as if the party spends a week drinking in the tavern, someone else will cache in the bounty. It even gives some good rp opportunities when they run into other competing bands of adventurers.

Here's a great podcast about the The Beast of Gévaudan if anyone's interested. It's a pretty cool story IMO.

[Satinavian]

I wanna add some things I haven't seen mentioned here.

First, the big one, is that hiring a squad of adventurers to deal with a short-term problem is a lot like hiring some temps or contractors for small-medium sized projects in the modern day. In my profession at least, I can attest that hiring contractors for projects is fairly common. Even when the company has staff that would theoretically be capable of doing that work, they're just busy with other things. Maybe there are an average of 12 goblin raids per year, and so the King has enough knights to handle roughly 1 a month. What do you do when, just by chance, no goblins attack in January, but two raiding parties attack in February? You hire a temp adventurer.

Yep. The easiest reason to hire adventurers is "The regugar troops are not available" for which many possible reasons exist. Adventurers are always a good second choice.

My favorite answer though is that the king will just post a bounty, rewarding whoever turns in the heads of the monster, instead of hiring a specific group of adventurers. The story of The Beast of Gévaudan is the closest we've come to a DnD game in the real world. Basically, there was a huge wolf or bear (or maybe a monster) that was terrorizing trails in France, so the King posted a bounty to be given to whoever killed the beast. So there's real life precedent for rulers posting bounties for adventurers hunters to handle dangerous problems instead of sending the army to do it.

But i don't think this example fits too well.

First, that was absolutist France, not really feudal in any significant way.

Second, the army, specifically the dragoons, were indeed sent out first. Only after they failed, professional hunters were hired for the occassion.

Third, after the adventurous professional hunters failed as well, the King sent them away and appointed a courtier, the royal gun bearer and lieutenant of the hunt.

And fourth it seemed to be finally have been killed by locals in a hunt organized by a local noble.


But yes, in the real world with its lack of monster attacks and most aremd conflicts being regular wars, it is probably one of the closest fits.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm pretty sure most stores hire temp workers around the holidays, and only a few of them stay on into the next year. Same idea. There's a temporary surge in demand.

When I worked retail in the 70's, mostly they just paid more overtime. But I guess bigger chains now plus up for a few weeks by rounding up college students on winter break?

My favorite answer though is that the king will just post a bounty, rewarding whoever turns in the heads of the monster, instead of hiring a specific group of adventurers. The story of The Beast of Gévaudan

And if not the king, the Baron, Duke, Marchioness, Lady of the Manor, Burgermeister, local rich merchant whose trade routes have been compromised, etcetara.

[Stonehead]

But i don't think this example fits too well.

First, that was absolutist France, not really feudal in any significant way.

Second, the army, specifically the dragoons, were indeed sent out first. Only after they failed, professional hunters were hired for the occassion.

Third, after the adventurous professional hunters failed as well, the King sent them away and appointed a courtier, the royal gun bearer and lieutenant of the hunt.

And fourth it seemed to be finally have been killed by locals in a hunt organized by a local noble.


But yes, in the real world with its lack of monster attacks and most aremd conflicts being regular wars, it is probably one of the closest fits.

That's true, the closest we've come to DnD irl isn't that close, I bring it up because I think it's a cool story. Still though, posting a bounty for the head of a monster in general doesn't suffer from any of those problems. I can't remember the name, but an American town put a bounty out for a mountain lion that was supposedly attacking people and dogs. "Wild West" outlaws usually had bounties on their heads, despite law enforcement being a very significant force.

Granted, none of these examples are from medieval Europe specifically, but the factors that lead to them would still apply there. Thousand year old records haven't survived as well, so I'm not as familiar with any specific examples, but I have my doubts that bounties were never put out for criminals/monsters, despite there being a significant standing army. I'm not a historian so I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem unrealistic at all.

[Mechalich]

That's true, the closest we've come to DnD irl isn't that close, I bring it up because I think it's a cool story. Still though, posting a bounty for the head of a monster in general doesn't suffer from any of those problems. I can't remember the name, but an American town put a bounty out for a mountain lion that was supposedly attacking people and dogs. "Wild West" outlaws usually had bounties on their heads, despite law enforcement being a very significant force.

In the American West, from roughly 1850 - 1950 there was a very good chance that wherever you happened to be, there was an active bounty on wolves and freelance individuals, such as cowboys, but also surveyors, railroad crew, and so forth, could and did make every effort to kill wolves whenever the opportunity presented both to make a quick buck and because they believed wolves were a genuine menace. Noted conservationist Aldo Leopold was among these persons, and documented his great regret regarding the policy later in life. Such bounties were much less common, and if still active mostly relics, east of the Mississippi not because the people there had any different feelings about wolves, but because all the wolves had already been exterminated decades or centuries earlier.

Since fairly similar fates were common to large predators almost everywhere they were encountered (ex. leopards), we can extrapolate this with regard to fantastical monsters. Essentially, if civilization has the ability to suppress 'dangerous' presences it will do so. Monster hunting will therefore be relegated to the frontier, wherever that happens to be, or will turn towards monsters capable of operating within the boundaries of civilization - ex. vampires and werewolves. Now, because fantasy monsters have a significantly higher upper limit on their capabilities than Earth-based animals it may be significantly more costly to suppress them, and therefore the boundaries of civilization are likely to be significantly more compact in a fantasy setting, since it will be much more costly to develop marginal agricultural land.

[Tanarii]

When I worked retail in the 70's, mostly they just paid more overtime. But I guess bigger chains now plus up for a few weeks by rounding up college students on winter break?

Seasonal workers from TG to the new year are a retail industry standard in the US. Often the same folks year to year.

In the American West, from roughly 1850 - 1950 there was a very good chance that wherever you happened to be, there was an active bounty on wolves and freelance individuals, such as cowboys, but also surveyors, railroad crew, and so forth, could and did make every effort to kill wolves whenever the opportunity presented both to make a quick buck and because they believed wolves were a genuine menace.

Does this mean it's time for the argument about if D&D is a western or not again?

[Eldan]

D&D started out as a strictly postapocalyptic scenario with ruins full of treasure and old forgotten magic and monsters, outposts near them with a gold rush economy and playable treasure seekers with no further motivation.

But it branched out fast. And hardly anyone plays the above nowadays. Trying to tell people to restrict themself to a certain oldfashioned adventurer esthetic in their wordbuilding because this was the proper way to do D&D is nonsense.



As for the old versions where you get keeps and retainers and stuff, we didn't play that much AD&D2, but that was always seen as a cool thing.

From what I remember reading, the first D&D (ish) scenario was actually infiltrating a castle during a siege, where a team of elite warriors was going in through a trapped secret entrance in the dungeons.

[Composer99]

I'm going to step out of the in-fiction scenario presented in the OP, because I don't really see the point of engaging only in the in-fiction framing in an RPG discussion forum.

This topic comes across as the GM-side equivalent of the "how to motivate players to pick up on hooks". It's a category error, IMO, to try to resolve such questions at the "in-fiction" level, both for PCs and NPCs. (*)

For the most part, NPCs who might be inclined to hire the PCs to do stuff (even if most of the compensation is "keep the loot") should do so not because you, the GM, feel obliged to think of some valid reason why they would do so in the fiction, but because that's what you and your (I hope!) friendly acquaintances/friends are sitting down today to undertake for fun/enjoyment/satisfaction.

If you're sitting down with your players to play "The Goblin Raids of Namthros" specifically, then you as GM should be ensuring NPCs are putting the adventure before the PCs, because if not, there goes the game session for tonight.

If you're playing in more of a sandbox-style game, then goblin raids in a region will likely be something that the PCs decide to look into on their own, in which case, sure, it makes more sense if the noble NPC isn't immediately on board with retaining them to do it. Ultimately, though, since the game is still about the PCs and their adventures (**), if that's the hook the players decide to pick up on, then IMO it's on the GM to run with it.

All that is to say that as GM if I have to make sacrifices of my world-building sensibilities for the sake of gameplay, I will.

If, however, you (in the general sense, not the OP specifically) as GM would prefer to prioritise world-building/setting considerations, well and good. (Just make sure your players are onboard.) If those are your preferences, that's when it's time to turn to the in-fiction framing. If you can find an answer to your satisfaction, then the noble NPC will seek out the PCs to deal with the goblins. If not, the NPC won't (but even so might be persuaded to retain the PCs to deal with the goblins if the PCs approach them in audience and can convince the NPC via in-character discussion and maybe some good rolls). If it's the case that you wouldn't want to make sacrifices of your world-building sensibilities, then just make sure that you have adventure content for the PCs to engage in that doesn't run up against those sensibilities - or play a different game where there is less conflict in the fiction between the typical PC activity and your sensibilities on the topic.

---

(*) At least in a game such as D&D. I'm led to understand such questions would be far more effective in certain PbtA games, where disputes between PCs are more smoothly integrated into the gameplay. In such games if you're not sure an NPC would hire the NPCs, though, I think it's resolved more as a question of gameplay than something you as GM have to decide in advance during prep. That is, you don't have to decide up front whether a noble NPC would hire the PCs. Instead, that question will likely be answered during gameplay.

(**) Even in a game where the PCs aren't exceptional/extraordinary/special in any particular sense, they are still the "POV" characters in the setting and are the most important from the perspective of gameplay precisely because they are the ones being run by the players.

[Stonehead]

I'm going to step out of the in-fiction scenario presented in the OP, because I don't really see the point of engaging only in the in-fiction framing in an RPG discussion forum.

This topic comes across as the GM-side equivalent of the "how to motivate players to pick up on hooks". It's a category error, IMO, to try to resolve such questions at the "in-fiction" level, both for PCs and NPCs. (*)

For the most part, NPCs who might be inclined to hire the PCs to do stuff (even if most of the compensation is "keep the loot") should do so not because you, the GM, feel obliged to think of some valid reason why they would do so in the fiction, but because that's what you and your (I hope!) friendly acquaintances/friends are sitting down today to undertake for fun/enjoyment/satisfaction.

If you're sitting down with your players to play "The Goblin Raids of Namthros" specifically, then you as GM should be ensuring NPCs are putting the adventure before the PCs, because if not, there goes the game session for tonight.

I agree that the players should generally follow plot hooks because without that, there's no game, but I'm not sure that's what the original question was about. I read it more as a way to achieve logical consistency. I can enjoy a movie or book with some plot holes or logical inconsistencies, but in general, I like stories more without them.

To that end, I think it's a pretty good use of time to try to figure out what makes sense as plot hooks. You don't need to, just like you don't need to think up compelling motivations for your villains, but it usually makes the game more interesting if you can.

Plus if the npcs act consistently reasonable, it's easier for the players to make informed decisions, with some knowledge about the expected outcomes.

[Bohandas]

But the Fantasy literature genre is full of over titled ninja squads
LotR: Leaving out Gandalf and the hobbits. Aragon - king; Legolas - Prince; Gimli - member of the Dwarven Royal family and first cousin once removed of King Balin, so a Duke or Marquess in modern terms; Boromir Eldest son of the Steward Denethor and next in line to that title, so effectively a prince.
That’s a ninja squad of a king, 2 princes and a duke.

The Belgariad is another example of a ninja squad full of princes, imperial princesses, dukes and earls.

My mind personally went to Discworld, Star Wars, and Dune

In Discworld, look at the Ankh Morpork watch. Vimes marries into one noble family and is also the heir of another noble family that was deposed, Carrot is heavily implied to be the rightful prince of Ankh, and Angua is a mamber of an Uberwaldian noble family who she doesn't talk to because they're rich weirdos who hunt people for sport.

In Star Wars, we've got Luke and Leia who are both the children of a non-hereditary queen and of the second most powerful man in the galaxy. Leia is also seperately the adopted daughter of King Bail Organa.
And Rey is the emperor's granddaughter.

Dune, of course, revolves around Paul Atreides, whose father is a Duke, and whose mother is in the Illuminati

[Sapphire Guard]

Historical parallels only take us so far. In this kind of gameworld, random gangs of adventurers tend to have a lot more personal combat power, and there's no such thing as goblins.

What seems to be happening here is metagaming halfway and then stopping. If the goblins are going to treat adventurers the same way they do knights, then why would they need adventurers? They wouldn't. But why would these goblins do that?

If the goblins could take the local knights in straight battle, they would be holding land, not raiding. So they obviously know they can't take the knights in battle. Ergo, they're not going to try and take the local knights in battle, they will fight if cornered, but have no interest in fighting at all just to provide there enemies free xp.

Why would they fight adventurers? The shortest answer would be that they think they can take them. That might seem unlikely, but how many overconfident beginner adventuring parties have the dice go against them and end up like Episode 1 of Goblin Slayer?

If we're going full meta, then because the DM makes it happen, of course.

[Alcore]

I am only answering the OP here;


You have basically set up a classic medieval situation. In fact you make it possible that the goblins are not even real; certainly not real to me (the noble). So we have a bit to unpack.


Militia are, usually, untrained commoners given gambison (padded armor; which is far better protection than leather historicly) and a pike/spear. Since times are good I can probably splurge and give them wooden shields. They are used best by smashing them together into murderballs with spears pointed out. This is because they were often so bad at combat giving them room to dodge and fight actually hurts their chances against experienced fighters.

Then we have knights… which have lands of their own. Certainly capable fighters. Still not suitable for what amounts to gorilla warfare…

What about my footman? Or my huntsman (which can be conscripted easily into archer/ranger groups)? The huntsman are just what I need. Are my holdings in the plains or is it primarily wooded? Hope its not plains or I’m probably finished before I begin.


—————


Now we come to the goblins; who have been sacking these other lands also filled with knights, footman, archers, guards and possible militia…

Worse yet you describe it as though only a fraction of the people are surviving and spreading almost histerical accounts of mythical creatures.

Apparently I’m next.

Why on earth would I hire them? The King has obligations to protect ME. My course of action is to send a runner to the king while I grab every able bodied man to fortify my home; perhaps build a palisade. I would shelter as many peasants as possible but most I would send deeper into the kingdom. My advisor is nuts if four random bums (who apparently WALKED in) can do better than dozens of knights and hundreds of footman already dead by this unstoppable menace.


I pray to survive the first night so that I can know what I’m fighting.

[Bohandas]

I pray to survive the first night

Which is going to make the wanderer who seems to have a direct line to god look even more plausible

[Tanarii]

My advisor is nuts if four random bums (who apparently WALKED in) can do better than dozens of knights and hundreds of footman already dead by this unstoppable menace.

In a world where four random bums might be powerful enough to obliterate an army by themselves, have spent all their wealth on personal power in the form of magic items, are willing to work for a fairly small stipend and a chance at magical loot and a noble quest, and still (for some reason) haven't established themselves as rulers in their own right ... the advisor might be far more sane than a ruler who doesn't listen to said advisor.

Four low level / power bums (or in a world where adventurers aren't eventually demigod-hobos) are a different matter. They're probably worth sweeping up when you're desperately hiring mercenaries suicidal enough to go scout and find out what this world ending "goblin" menace really is all about tho.

[Alcore]

Which is going to make the wanderer who seems to have a direct line to god look even more plausible

Depending on demographics I have, always on hand, a half dozen adepts of god who can do the same thing. Likely in a variety of gods at that. They will not have the class features but they are divine casters.

In a world where four random bums might be powerful enough to obliterate an army by themselves, have spent all their wealth on personal power in the form of magic items, are willing to work for a fairly small stipend and a chance at magical loot and a noble quest, and still (for some reason) haven't established themselves as rulers in their own right ... the advisor might be far more sane than a ruler who doesn't listen to said advisor.

Four low level / power bums (or in a world where adventurers aren't eventually demigod-hobos) are a different matter. They're probably worth sweeping up when you're desperately hiring mercenaries suicidal enough to go scout and find out what this world ending "goblin" menace really is all about tho.

Your first paragraph proved my point. If they can obliterate an army a “fairly small stipend” for them is outside my price range. People of such caliber don’t just wander anymore into random villages. So they are here for this apocalypse level event (at least in a scale of my holdings) and are waiting for the goblins to come to them. It is possible they are here on an unrelated matter so when a literal portal to hell opens I know the situation is well in hand.

Low level? My own forces are better suited and are more likely to return alive. Still, I can hire them to send word to the king; they have a better chance of getting especially if I give each a horse. Mid level? Not only can I afford it but is actually a happy medium. Still we are talking of a highly mobile force so my plans remain unchanged; hunker down. (Maybe hire the adventurers as additional footman/knights.)

Also hire a new advisor; he seems out of touch with reality.



Everyone keeps answering “why hire adventurers” A.K.A. “Why be a patron”. While I haven’t read more than the first and second page none seems to directly address the setup. I assume the OP is the DM and has built this.

Like I said; there is a bit to unpack here. I’ve definitely scratched the surface.



Each holding burned and looted likely had their own nobles. Each holding, while belonging to the king, are separate entities loosely joined by feudalism. Each noble with land that contains a village or town should have his own court. A court mage, a high priest, a chancellor*, a warden and more. Times were peaceful so levels were low but nobles are still rich and expected to serve in war; even at level 1 I should have full plate with a good warhorse.


These things are decimating villages that should have their own personal low level adventurer squads. Footman numbering a dozen and occasional knight (at least 1 knight per nearby thorp; more if they are landless and supported by the noble directly).



If he built this I feel he needs to tone down how extreme, and rapid, the threat it. This sounds like a job for level 11+ PCs; well outside the pay range for a lowly baron like me.


*who is my advisor in question. I will forgive him for being out of touch with reality. He is likely an expert of first or second level who has never left the village. Unlike me who, as an aspiring first level aristocrat, had to tour the kingdom serving as some more important noble’s paige for a few season/years per noble. Why I might of served the king once or twice as an errand boy.

Surely someone of my station would know if goblins are real, right?

[Tanarii]

Your first paragraph proved my point. If they can obliterate an army a “fairly small stipend” for them is outside my price range. People of such caliber don’t just wander anymore into random villages.

Clearly you haven't played WotC D&D. That's pretty much the premise, adventurers keep adventuring through level 20 for meagre quest rewards that any local baron could afford, or even no reward at all, merely for the shot at loot.

Since you've talked up this to be an apocalyptic threat, even the highest level adventurers would be interested.

Low level? My own forces are better suited and are more likely to return alive.

I thought this was an unknown apocalyptic threat (disguised as "goblins") and you're cowering behind your defenses, desperately snatching up all able bodied men? Low level adventurers are uniquely suited to act as small force patrols / scouts, and poorly suited to being part of a concentrated force of arms. So it only makes sense that now they're part of "your own forces" they'd end up as one of the scout details you're (hopefully) sending out to find out what's going on.

[Satinavian]

Each holding burned and looted likely had their own nobles. Each holding, while belonging to the king, are separate entities loosely joined by feudalism. Each noble with land that contains a village or town should have his own court. A court mage, a high priest, a chancellor*, a warden and more. Times were peaceful so levels were low but nobles are still rich and expected to serve in war; even at level 1 I should have full plate with a good warhorse.

I think you are slightly exaggerating.

There are reports of raided villages. Not of raided towns nor castles or even only towers. The goblins have not even attacked anything fortyfied yet and likely choose the most remote and weakest defended targets possible. It is unlikely they have ever faced more than a single knight who also was unprepared, if any at all. Not every village has a knight let alone a court. What kind of court do you imagine can be supported by a village ? They have not yet faced what a baron let alone a count could muster. But they are about to because your subjects turned to you (per opening post a baron). That here is literally the first instance a noble with a higher rank than knight hears about it and contemplates doings something about it.

[Alcore]

Clearly you haven't played WotC D&D. That's pretty much the premise, adventurers keep adventuring through level 20 for meagre quest rewards that any local baron could afford, or even no reward at all, merely for the shot at loot.

Since you've talked up this to be an apocalyptic threat, even the highest level adventurers would be interested.

Heh… at my table if your level 11 and still looking in taverns in villages in the middle of civilized lands for your quests you’re either A) ran out of narratives in towns and cities that appealed to you and are hunting for a specific hook to strike your fancy or B) something somewhere went horribly wrong and your too horribly underequipped to handle encounters at your APL*

If its B go back to your mother, you milk drinker


And I am not talking it up; I am using what little data is given.



*which, unless everyone made a gish, is partially my fault. Either way the party did not stop in at the noble; he’s been labeled unimportant by the party.

[Alcore]

I think you are slightly exaggerating.

There are reports of raided villages. Not of raided towns nor castles or even only towers. The goblins have not even attacked anything fortyfied yet and likely choose the most remote and weakest defended targets possible. It is unlikely they have ever faced more than a single knight who also was unprepared, if any at all. Not every village has a knight let alone a court. What kind of court do you imagine can be supported by a village ? They have not yet faced what a baron let alone a count could muster. But they are about to because your subjects turned to you (per opening post a baron). That here is literally the first instance a noble with a higher rank than knight hears about it and contemplates doings something about it.

Who do you think runs these villages? It can’t be just me or it is WAY too much land for a baron. The opening post set the tone; which isn’t the same tone as dungeons and dragons if you read it. And while the titles are exaggerated an equivalent title and person should be is residence; it’s not like the OP said thorp or hamlet or we are dealing with a larger number of people than you are thinking.

[Satinavian]

Who do you think runs these villages? It can’t be just me or it is WAY too much land for a baron. The opening post set the tone; which isn’t the same tone as dungeons and dragons if you read it. And while the titles are exaggerated an equivalent title and person should be is residence; it’s not like the OP said thorp or hamlet or we are dealing with a larger number of people than you are thinking.

Per opening post it is a baron under a count under a king who has some knights serving him. That is as archetypical as it gets. We have nothing to assume that this is not just some bog standard barony and while that still allows quite some variety, there is unlikely to be anything that has any form of court below it.

And yes, you would likely be able to get everywhere in this typical barony in a single day. Though the worse the land for agricultulture, the bigger it might be. But with you yourself and your knights, that is all the administration needed. Or affordable.

[Eldan]

Which is going to make the wanderer who seems to have a direct line to god look even more plausible

That's another factor I'm not sure has been mentioned much. In 3.5 spellcasters are reasonably common. If Baron von Backwater has 200 peasants and militia under him, he has a spellcaster or two. But in other editions, nevermind other systems, magic is rare. And here's a wizard and a cleric, already friends and experienced fighters. You've only heard of either in legends. Of course you beg them to help.

[Thunder999]

The militia or similar raised as needed forces are easily discarded as an option, they're adequate for facing an army of similar composition, but not individually talented fighters and pulling them away from their usual work has consequences.

Knights are likely on par with adventurers, both being professional fighters, though while I say knights any fantasy setting probably has mages in a similar social and military role either in addition to armoured cavalry or entirely replacing them: expensive to train elite soldiers who likely have a somewhat higher social standing.
Explaining why you don't send these guys is where things like expendability, being busy, wanting to keep them close to defend you etc. turn up and if none of those extenuating circumstances apply there's actually not much reason to hire them.

[Beleriphon]

So here's a thought about why our erstwhile baron (Baron Erstwhile?) needs to hire adventurers to protect the Erstwhilia Barony.

Baron Erstwhile has a retinue, but he needs them to protect him in case "goblins" decide to attack the town/fortified village he lives in (The Witcher 3 has a pretty good example of what might look like with Crow's Perch). He's responsible for the surrounding villages, and if they're lucky they have a knight that has feudal obligations to Baron Erstwhile. Ser Dandypants and his ilk have to be available to protect their villages if the "goblins" attack them. Which could be any time now.

Now, the question is how many knights does Baron Erstwhile have available? More than twenty and it stops being a barony and becomes and honour (at least in England), and since we don't get a mention of a caput baroniae (again England via Latin) that means there isn't a major castle in the barony. Based on a bit of quick internet research (the first top three answers Google could provide) it turns out that ten knight fees was the average, and each knight fee was associate with manor. So, well say that Baron Erstwhile has ten knights, and given that this id D&D it is evenly split between men and women for the purposes of silly naming conventions when I get to my reasoning.

Goblins aren't the brightest creatures around, but they aren't stupid, and are more than capable of watching a knight and some fighters ride off and then raid that village at night. The whole point here is that nobody knows where the goblins are going to raid next, or where they're even coming from. Since Baron Erstwhile, Ser Andy Dandypants, Ser Borel Plimpbottom, and Lady Charlotte Nugglewuggle have obligations to protect their holdings they can't just ride off into the country side trying to find something. I mean Plimpbottom is already a bit behind on tax collection, it should be fine if the harvest is good like expected, but he can't just leave the Tangledirt, Dirtwaffle, and Flimflam villagers without any protection from (maybe) goblins!

Now, lets pretend for a second that each knight has a between five and a dozen members of their own retinue. On average they have lets say seven. So, the baron calls up his knights, after sending messages to all them which probably on takes a few days, and they all show up at Ersthollow. Baron Erstwhile has seventy members of the various knights retinues, along with ten knights, and lets say ten more of his own personal retinue to send on out. He makes either a veteran of his own group, or the most capable of the knights the leader. That's a ninety strong force, which is not exactly inconsiderable, or stealthy. Where are the goblins? Can all eighty of them effectively engage the goblins in battle? What happens if even ten percent of them die or are seriously injured? What happens if the villages, which now have only villagers, to protect them are attacked?

Baron Erstwhile can call up only some of the knights, but that leaves their estates unprotected and they'll be pissy about it next time. So, who does the Baron choose? Ser Andy and Lady Charlotte don't like each other, they were both squires under Count Twaddlethumbs, so picking just one of them means you really upset the other, and then you'll really hear it since Charlotte is the Baroness' second cousin and Ser Andy is the Count's third nephew. Plus, you're pretty sure that Plimpbottom's (good chap BTW!) new squire is the King's fourth son, and the only reason he's even in Erstwhilia is because everybody thinks the place is safe and the kid is rumoured to be rather... dull.

A ragtag group of magicked up murder-hobos that have nothing else to do but cause trouble start looking pretty good when you take into account more than the just the feudal obligations of the knights. Besides, they might very well just hire the murder-hobos rather than show up themselves! As long as somebody shows up representing the knight there isn't much you can do about it.