[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] A later thought
Celebrim, you've gone to great lengths to point to the AD&D DMG about how hiring hirelings should go. Yet, your game does not follow the DMG at all. Hirelings are 0 level Men at Arms, but, apparently, these don't exist in your game world. So, which is it? Should we be discussing D&D or Celebrim D&D?
We should always be talking about the rules that are operative at a given table. Particularly in the 1e era, these were almost always different. Even in the 3e era, these are often different. I didn't cite the 1e DMG as rules, since I'm obviously not playing 1e AD&D. I cited it for two purposes. First to discuss the genesis of my rules. And second to note that it was unlikely I was the only one belonging to the same cultural paradigm.
As a point of fact though, if you were talking to me in the early '90's, the mercenaries would have been 0 level fighters straight out of the DMG. All my assumptions about level demographics would have corresponded to those of Gygax as described in the DMG. However, even then I would have told you that those weren't rules but merely guidelines, and I would have directed you to the preface of the book and tried to explain the difference between rules (the action resolution system) and guidelines (someones suggstions for the way things should usually work if you want to maximize fun).
Obviously, zero level fighters don't exist in my game world because its 3e based and 0th level is not now a standard paradigm. Well, ok, technically they do exist because its 3.0e based but 0th level characters are only used for apprentices. So, you might find a 9 year old 0th level fighter, but that is also an interpretation of the 3e rules that is probably not standard. (This is me actually establishing backwards compatibility with the old 1e Grayhawk idea of 'apprentice levels', see the Grayhawk hardcover or the rules for the 1e Cavalier.)
In 3e RAW according to the standard guidelines, backwards compatibility with the notion of the 0th level fighter and of the humanoid monster with HD rather than levels was provided with the idea of the 'warrior'. That allowed people who were playing under the monster HD paradigm and the 0th level fighter paradigm to have an easy thing to understand and grab on to to continue their way of playing the game. But, as I have been trying to explain, my way of playing the game was evolving even back in the 90's. In particular, I'd begun to drop the idea that goblins, hobgoblins, etc. were best described in terms of monster HD and had instead began describing them in a way that was much more 3rd edition like - by giving them classes and levels. So goblins were no longer 1-1 HD monsters. They were 0th level fighters with low con. And as such, thier leaders weren't 1HD monsters, but 1st level fighters. Goblins in fact had become a PC race in my game. As such, when I moved my game and gameworld from a more 1e paradigm to a more 3e paradigm, I didn't really see a lot of need for warriors. If a Goblin 'Shram' (that is, a member of the warrior caste) had been established as a 1st level fighter, I didn't see a reason to make them a 1st level warrior. Moreover, there was a natural progression between a 0th level fighter and a 1st level fighter. There wasn't a progression between a 1st level warrior and a 1st level fighter. It didn't make sense to me that anyone would take levels in warrior by choice. I could see that you might gain levels in warrior because of a lack of training, but not why a professional would lack that training or experience. So, I generally just ignored the warrior class.
I'm not sure where you are going with this. You seem to be trying to play some sort of 'gotcha' game. I've never played at a table that played RAW. At some level it becomes very difficult to even say what the RAW is. For example, is Complete Adventurer part of the RAW by default or excluded by default? I bet you'll find tables that disagree on that. Others will even include particular Dragon articles as part of their rules yet believe that they are playing by RAW. Does it count if you merely extend the rules or only if you ammend them, and at what point does an extension of the rules become effectively an ammendment? And, are things like level demographics and the treasure gained in a particular encounter actual rules or merely guidelines?
After all, if you're going to quote rules, shouldn't you also be following those rules? And, if you're not, why would you argue with someone who was?
Again, I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. When I quote something like:
"Employment must be a matter of offer and acceptance, and each player character must do his own bargaining...The likelihood of encountering any given type of mercenary is strictly up to you as DM...Expert hirelings are generally not available for periods of less than one or more months...They recognize hazardous duty, and the cost per day is the same as per month. The supply of such men-at-arms willing to work day to day is strictly limited, so if the PCs lose them adventuring, more will not be likely to be found."
I don't even feel like I am quoting rules. I'm quoting what I feel Mike Carr is describing as, "plenty of suggestions on all aspects of Dungeon Mastering" and what Gygax calls "a framework around which which individual DMs construct thier respective milieux" I'm trying to describe how my world was formed and why. Likewise, I don't see how I'm arguing over a rules matter at all.
