Looting and the State

[Jürgen Hubert]

Hardly. This assumes that the PCs have enough items to feed everybody all the time, and that everybody will be satisfied with the bland tasteless pap an everfeeding spoon supplies, both of which strike me as unlikely. All these items will do is remove the spectre of starvation.

What do you think people ate back in the Middle Ages? "Bland, tasteless pap" sounds as accurate a description as any other, especially since few could afford seasoning from far-off lands. If poor people - i.e., the majority of the population - can save some money by eating this stuff, they will.

Thus, demand for agricultural produce will plummet.

Even if this is so, I've simply raised them into a higher slot technologically. Hardly 1 person in 100 is a farmer today thanks to farm machinery, yet the world's population is not unemployed now, is it? The lowered demand for farmers in real life let people develop art and technology, in DnD it frees up more people to do other interesting things, such as research more powerful magics (Even if they're level 1, having 75 adepts doing aid another on their knowledge:Arcana checks should do something impressive), become legendary artists, invent new gadgets, etc. Basically freeing up the farmers means a brief period of turmoil followed by the Renaissance.

But that "brief period" is going to be nasty. Modern-day society is sustained by a well-educated and well-trained work force. The system to create such a work force has been developed over centuries - and so did the jobs that such people can work in. In this scenario, you simply don't have the infrastructure to give so many people gainful employment.

You can observe a similar problem with modern-day food programs for Third World countries - sure, you can stave off the starvation for the time the program runs, but it does nothing for the local economy.

 

[VirgilCaine]

Actually killing a state is pretty easy. Chop the king to pieces, and give a stern lecture to his heir about respecting his betters, and the state will likely be singing a new tune real quick.

"You can't fight ideas with bullets."

The English Civil War and the French Revolution both contradict your idea, lots of people fought hard for their monarch to get the throne back (successfully or unsuccessfully as the case may be). I'm sure there's lots of other examples.

Also, the French Republic was attacked by most of Europe because the republicans killed the French king and the revolution was a bad example for their populations. That puts a damper on taking over a country easily by killing the king and changing everything when the country will suffer for your actions--and other countries will have their own heroes and magic items...

Remember that there's no single almighty dark-ages Catholic church but rather a whole lot of competing gods here, and the gods are quite real with their own agendas.

Nothing in the RAW says the deities compete for worshippers at all.

 

[Sejs]

Taxing adventurers is doable, it just takes a certain degree of finesse. You do not hire people to resolve dangerous situations with cunning and violence, only to tell them when they come out "now give me a chunk of what you recovered or I'll #$%^ing spank you". You hired these people to be cunning and violent; threaten them and you run the risk of them becoming cunning and violent towards you. You don't want that.

Brute taxation requires two things: accountability and enforceable penalty. Difficult when it comes to adventurers. You don't have the information structure in place to have external accountability - you'd pretty much have to rely on them declaring what they got (...but they're cunning). And we all know how enforceable penalty goes (...and violent). That's where the finesse comes in.

You don't tax adventurers on a raw percentage of treasure gained. You tax them in more subtle ways.

Provide patronage, lisencing and marque. Nominally this provides them with more flexible rights when it comes to certain laws, ensures the adventurers a degree of support and hospitality, etc. A guild hall where they can rest up if they don't mind sleeping in dormatories, 10% discount for certain services such as armor repair at associated trades guild smithy, etc. In return, this costs the adventurer an annual fee. Possibly make it a tiered system if you're feeling fancy. Put it to the tune of something along the lines of 10 gold per quarter, and you're already looking at a decent tax income per head. Much better than a peasant'll generate, and they're itching to pay it because they think its to their benefit.

Second thing you can do: grant title, especially to underdeveloped or frontier lands. These cunning and violent people will pump their own money into developing your kingdom, and will gladly turn over taxes on their lands when the time comes. Make them an asset.

Ultimately, don't be adversarial and it's easy to tax adventurers. Just don't make it look like you're doing it, that's all it takes.

 

[Moonstone Spider]

"You can't fight ideas with bullets."

The English Civil War and the French Revolution both contradict your idea, lots of people fought hard for their monarch to get the throne back (successfully or unsuccessfully as the case may be). I'm sure there's lots of other examples.

Also, the French Republic was attacked by most of Europe because the republicans killed the French king and the revolution was a bad example for their populations. That puts a damper on taking over a country easily by killing the king and changing everything when the country will suffer for your actions--and other countries will have their own heroes and magic items...

Nothing in the RAW says the deities compete for worshippers at all.

Hmm, I'll agree that the rules don't explicitly say dieties compete for worshippers. Still, there are several adventure seeds and similar items that point in the direction of proselytes and conversions, including forced conversions like the divine brainwashing spell that sparks so much debate in the Book of Exalted Deeds.

The English and French wars don't fit the DnD model particularly well. Firstly because higher-level adventurers will always be more skilled than lower level NPCs. The fifth level Aristocrat might seem like a really charismatic, diplomatic guy. . . until the 12th level bard walks by radiating such charm that the king suddenly looks like a leprosy victim in comparison. When you further consider that the team of 4 12th level adventurers can quite literally take on half an army and survive the comparison gets even weaker. When you next consider that the former king was apparently tax-happy (Else the PCs would not have taken him out) while the PCs have instead abolished all taxes, it's going to be hard to argue that the commoners are going to wish they could still pay brutal taxes to see King Ugly on the throne instead of these awesomely powerful demi-gods who have instituted a national health-care program, fixed the roads, and built these nice churches and city walls everywhere.

And stating that France came under attack from all of Europe because they executed King Louis is overstating the case significantly, remember that all of Europe fought each other all the time at that point in history over any excuse at all. If France hadn't had a revolution there would have likely been a war over a minor religious dispute, or the price of woven cloth, or some petty political offense nobody even remembers anymore. And the fact that France managed to somehow win against the entire rest of Europe, and take hefty chunks of it for themselves, says something about the coalition's awesome determination to punish the regicides there.

What this really proves, of course, is that a game designed to handle squad-level combat first and foremost has a lot of trouble when it tries to handle politics, which isn't surprising. My toothbrush makes a lousy hammer but it's still a great toothbrush.

 

[Rassilon]

This has been my party's experience - your campaign assumptions may vary. The party has levelled from 1 to 8 in the Forgotten Realms North, but "my" realms, and I make NPC level assumptions a bit differently. Firstly, NPCs do gain levels, and levels 1 to 3 are considered apprentices. Most experienced professionals (in any profession) are levels 4 to 6, with plenty of level 1 to 3 newbies, and a more rarified strata from 7 upwards. Basically 4 to 6 is 'competent', 7 to 9 is premier or boutique, and up is powerful advisors, rulers, or superstars / celebrities etc. Not to say that there can't be a second level baker, soldier, noble, or King, but they would be young, and considered inexperienced enough to need trainer wheels until they learned a bit more. I say all of this to highlight one concept frequently mentioned that doesn't apply in my campaign - that PCs of medium level can just use force to not pay the 'cost' of society (being loosely defined as any group of people that identify as being a group) whilst getting the 'benefit' (even if it is ony a bunch of people to talk to, trade with, and give meaning to why the PCs are doing something).

So, the force the town guards bring to bear may be more of a consideration in my campaign for longer than 'default' D&D - even if I freely admit that my level 8 PCs, with their far superior equipment, classes, and stats can slay twice their number of 'average' town guard without a loss.

If one factors in 'special' units - the 12 level adventurers related to / allied with / just plain old friends with the local authority, enforcing the authority's will is not such a problem.

The PCs have adventured in only 2 (!) environments - 2 villages / frontier style areas, and one Metropolis (Waterdeep - Yay!). In the metropolis they were very much "off the wire". They lived as much in secret or as anonymously as they could, conducted running battles with a criminal organisation, did not come to the attention of the authorities, and participated almost exlcusively in the black market - taking gear from the dead, and selling it quickly for cash around the city. They did however become aware that others (especially property / business owners) paid taxes, that there was a 1 gp tax on all swords sold, and were taxed directly when entering the city with a cart.

In the village / wilderness situations, the PCs were much more in contact personally with the local authority. They paid tax - throughout the less developed North the 'rule of war' applies: any adventurers or other commission style expeditionaries pay 10% of the market value of what they take as booty to the village or town. This may be in addition to being paid, i.e. you get paid 100gp each to defeat the goblins, and 10% of what you find goes to the town; or it may be a true commission - we need the goblins taken out - if you do it you can keep 90% of their gear (which they took from us or travellers in the first place). This assumes that the area or problem being looted by the PCs is at least nominally recognsed as being 'the athority's', either by convention or law.

The 10% is calculated as a matter of honour, not bean counting. Both the PCs and the ruler eyeball the gear, agree to it's rough worth, and the party give gear worth 10% of the total to the rulers. (Out of character the players often work out the amount to the copper, but in character the principle applies).

The fact that the system is just accepted by all the NPCs that the party meets, and the rulers don't even 'demand' 10% - it's simply understood that they get it, means that the party, whilst it looks whistfully at the money going out the door, accept that this is just how the world works - much like we accept that our employer taking tax from our pay to send to the government is just how our world works.

Of course, the feudal nature and personal interaction inherent in society does have an effect, and produces some specific benefits for the authority, and the PCs.

The authority gets problems solved, either for free, or for an amount subsidised by the taxes. In the process of getting problems solved the authority acquires wealth! This can be used for fortifying the castle walls, feeding the people, or just a fancy new magical feather duster. The authority also enriches some powerful allies, who if the relationship progresses well, feel inclined to support or defend the authority.

The adventurers get massively enriched - they might be losing 10%, but they gain 90% - without having to argue about it, fight to keep it after fighting to get it, or be expelled or shunned - or kill good people just doing their job (the guards - if good ). They also usually gain the favour, the real, heartfelt grateful favour, of an important person in the region, who relies on them, trusts them, and supports and defends them.

In game, in the current village/ town, the PCs started with a semi hostile relationship, and have brought in such money whilst solving such problems (and being generally nice, even though they were boorish initially) that the ruler and they have a great and friendly relationship, and they can count on the ruler's support, protection etc.

So, to get back to the point - yes, my PCs, in the right circumstances pay taxes, and all of the guff above was trying to point out that it is not so crazy that they do so, and that players can accept it, and get more fun from the game sometimes from the implications of paying taxes.

 

[S'mon]

"When you further consider that the team of 4 12th level adventurers can quite literally take on half an army and survive the comparison gets even weaker. "

Best IRL comparison there would be the Spanish conquest of the Aztec empire, where a hundred or so conquistadores defeated an army of ca 50,000 Aztec warriors (unlikely even in 3e!), killing around 8,000 of them and capturing the god-king Montezuma.

For late medieval Europe, even high level 3e PCs in most campaigns will not have the same preponderance of force over the State that Cortez had over the Aztecs, and you could easily get a 'French Revolution' type situation, with loyalist elements & outside powers banding together vs the upstart usurpers. France conquered most of Europe because of a highly motivated citizen army & Napoleon, your PCs may be comparable to Napoloeon in military skills, or they may not be.

 

[Maldor]

i see a lot of you talking about force against higher level partys and my anwser is why bother fighting at all just teleport to somewhere else its not like they can put out a APB there are no camras DNA and a drawing is only a polomorph away


P.S. who was the aduiter that had to fallow the PC's into the hell hole of no return is the middle of the swamp of painful death to find out about the loot in the frist place

 

[sckeener]

Real world issue....I remember reading in the Houston Post (back in the late 80s) about a guy that claimed to have found a Spanish galleon. The Texas historical society knew there was one in that area and was greatly interested. Artifacts from it occasionally washed up after storms. The guy wanted a finders fee. At the time the rule was everything went to the state. I think the rule has been changed to 80/20 with 80 going to the state now, but back then the guy told them to forget it.

so the spanish galleon just sits there decaying under the waves.....

 

[Nightfall]

*has decided the state has no rights* Anarchy forever!

 

[Rothe]

What is "the state" and what is a "right"? Those sound like terms from modern political science, whereas most D&D settings (published and homebrau) are based on medieval or dark age models (with a few asiatic settings thrown in as well). Most of the governments supposed in those settings are feudal monarchies, with a smaller number being primitive autocracies. Since the plundered treasure exists outside the web of reciprocal obligations I doubt that any monarch or lord will lay claim to it.

.....
Anyway, in a setting like the Dark Ages (which is what a lot of fantasy settings resemble), is anybody really going to be concerned if you went into an old Roman ruin and dug up a bunch of coins? Probably not, I would think.

Actually, the King laying claim to treasure hoards found within the boarders of the Kingdom was the norm, i.e., it is the common law and still is. Look up the common law on lost items, abandoned items and treasure. Those Roman coins would have belonged to the King in the Dark Ages. Taxes and fees in the medieval world were rampant, and the lower down the social order the more you paid. Dark age rulers were intimately concerned with getting revenue and accounting for it, as they were always desperately short of it.

Monopolies also abounded, many held by the King. You want to sell goods or even vegetables, you have to do so at the King's market and pay a fee. Mill grain, you have to use the King's mill, and pay a fee. A place to sleep at night, you need to have a license from the King to set up an inn. Conduct almost any craft, you have to be a memeber of a guild and you better not charge or even accept more money for a job than the rates proscirbed by the king (mostly late middle ages). You want to spend money, only coins of the realm are legal tender, all other coins must be exchanged for a fee. (we still have this one ). Medieval societies were anything but free markets with a respect for a person's personal property rights.

Loot from battle is another matter, but medieval law did not give troops a right to loot or keep it, rather kings normally let troops keep loot since it could be hard to take away and they probably already owed them back wages. Deficit spending is certainly not a modern invention.

So the view that the king wouldn't or couldn't rightly take the treasure you found is the modern one.