Why would the local lord even hire adventurers at all when he has an entire army full of men-at-arms at his disposal?
Why would the local lord even hire adventurers at all when he has an entire army full of men-at-arms at his disposal?
Why would the local lord even hire adventurers at all when he has an entire army full of men-at-arms at his disposal?
Don't cause a fuss by moving government money for personal reasons.
This, and also adventurer deaths won't cause him any problems. If he sends fifty men at arms out on a mission then there's a very good chance that some of them aren't coming home. That would cause a lot of economic and political problems for the lord over time, especially if it was happening as regularly as adventures come around in the average fantasy world. Much better to throw a few gold coins at a couple of out-of-towners who won't be missed if they don't come back out of the dungeon.
The men at arms are already effectively babysat, while adventurers aren't.
Because the men-at-arms have better things to do?
>I think I shall send 50 of my finest soldiers in full harness out into the woods for a week to track down some goblins that the peasants have been complaining about. This will surely be cheaper and more efficient than throwing a handful of coins at some rueful, so-called adventurers.
>At once, milord.
What better things to do?
By sending their personal soldiers it shows the people that the lord is willing to help and increases their loyalty toward him. It gives his soldiers additional training and real world experience that many of them probably lack as well.
... and by sending random strangers he achieves the exact same thing at fraction of price, without getting anyone's father or husband dead
Training, patrolling, guarding, taking care of bigger threats...you know, the usual.
What better things to do? What better things to do? How about defending yourself against invaders? Manning the garrisons and fending off the beasts that attack the villages and eat women and children? Searching for the last regiment you sent after the witch in the woods? Instead, you have them jerking off together in Camelot as your own hitsquad while your country burns. Frick this, I'm defecting to the desert invaders. This post is dedicated to the brave mujahideen fighters of Nodarabia.
Also, don’t forget that the Goblins might be trying to draw out the men-at-arms to leave the fiefdom’s defenses weakened so they can Roman roughshod over the lands.
Exactly. He wouldn't. That's why all so-called "adventurers" are in fact fraudulent scalliwags and ne'er-do-wells, fit only to be strung up from the neck by the local lord's grim and imposing executioner.
>implying that the local lord is a French monarch and not some baron whose "men at arms" are his sons and brothers
Albrecht is a Cleric (First Estate). He answers to the Bishop of Six Falls.
Louis is a Knight (Second Estate). His is the vassal of Baron Summerland. Louis holds the grant of a very small farm.
Honorius is a Wizard (Third Estate). He is also the vassal of Baron Summerland because his family grew up on the Baron's land.
Gwendolyn is a Thief (Outlaw). She answers to nobody.
Standard Method (core D&D):
The group hears rumours of a dungeon in the wilderness. They march off, loot it, and return to town with 100gp each. They spend the loot on potatoes, coffee, books, and plate armor. Everything is fine.
Feudal Method:
The group hears rumours of a dungeon in the wilderness. Louis asks around and finds that the area is owned by Baron Greenfield, who is an ally of Baron Summerland, but whose seat of power is far from the dungeon. The players safely loot the dungeon and return to town with 100gp each. They spend the loot on meat, horses, and donations. Baron Summerland hears that his vassals have far too much money during peacetime. He shows up with a bunch of knights and interrogates them. While Louis and Albrecht are spared torture, Honorius is beaten nearly to death (below the waist, because he's a wizard), and Gwendolyn is hung from the nearest tree. The Baron finds out about the dungeon and the looting. Fearing war with Baron Greenfield, he revokes Louis' grant and title, and sends him with an armed escort to Baron Greenfield's seat of power to be tried and executed as a commoner. Honorius is kept as a battlefield mage and never trusted again. Albrecht is dispatched to the Bishop of Six Falls who severely chastises the poor priest and threatens to defrock him.
The only issue here is
>men-at-arms
>vs 1 wizard
Unless he has a more reputable wizard that one magical homosexual will send them all running with one small fireball.
It's a low magic system, wizards need hours-long rituals to do stuff like divination and low-level demon summoning.
>hears his vassals have too much money
That isnt a crime, nor is the dungeon neccessarily his property, and if theyre vassals and he randomly rocks up and tortures them then he has either broken his feudal obligation and upset all of his other vassals and possibly the king or duke, or incurred the wrath of their patrons (bishop), especially if the cleric is a priest, he may be exommunicated or have his lands placed under interdict.
What would really happen, were he upset, is he'd send a reeve around to demand a cut of the loot according to the ancient customs of the area, then if they refuse they either just leave or he arrests them and fines them.
>Honorius is beaten nearly to death (below the waist, because he's a wizard)
>And that was how the land got cursed.
If you want to do medieval fantasy, you have to actually go wild west-like with adventurers doing their thing, OR Arthurian fantasy, with spellcasters being rare, respected, and feared.
The local lord cares about his men
Wouldn't a local lord's army primarily consist of mostly untrained peasants? I'm obviously not a history buff but that was the impression I always got from feudal armies.
The local lord's army would primarily consist of trained peasants.
Doubtful. Peasants would have largely been stupid and out of shape. No way they could be trained to be effective combatants. It'd be like trying to turn the average American into a good soldier.
>Peasants would have largely been stupid and out of shape
Neither of these is true. They worked outside all the time doing physical labor, they would've been in good shape, and moreover they weren't dumb, they just didn't receive a formal education.
Along that line, reminder that most peasants, in England at least, could spell phonetically. They could write their name in the dirt with a stick if you asked and read some basic written English. They couldn't read any books, because most books were written in Latin or rarely Greek.
It’s even debatable if they could be called uneducated. The reason why medieval literacy rates were recorded as so low is because one’s literacy was determined if they could read and write LATIN, not necessarily their national language and tongue.
While more politically intriguing that latter scenario sounds boring as frick to actually “play” and just seems like a DM being a petty butthole.
No. There would be a mix, which would vary according to the individual. He could have knights at his command, or non-knight but professional fighting men. The most numerous element would most likely be peasants who live on his estate who would provide armed service in lieu of labor/rent, but they would not be untrained, and would be using actual weapons, not just pitchforks and table legs.
There could also be free militias of landed commoners who are not directly under him, but who have potentially made agreements to be under his command in times of crisis, or who have sworn allegiance to him.
The local lord's army would be 5 dudes and said dudes' buddies and family members.
A local lord's men at arms would pretty much consist of his landless adult sons, the bailiff, and maybe some hired soldiers if he had enough into to be able to pay them (this was far from a certainty). In the event of an actual war the bulk of his army would be peasant conscripts. On a semi-related note, there was no chance in hell he'd be able to afford a proper castle and would be living in a heavily built manor house with arrow slits instead of windows.
What do you even mean by this? Define “local lord” your local lord could be a count with dozens of knights.
>no chance in hell he'd be able to afford a proper castle and would be living in a heavily built manor house with arrow slits instead of windows.
I understand what you're trying to say, but a castle, literally, is a fortified house. That's it. That's all that means.
Peasant levies were outrageously rare and basically only ever used in the event of catastrophy and a battle or war that was already lost. Peasants weren't trained to fight and had no equipment, so it'd be kind of pointless to throw them into battle. Especially because their farming knowledge and value as workers was arguably greater than a soldier. You can't wage war if your army starves to death since you threw every single person producing food into the meat grinder.
The nobility were the main dedicated fighting force in feudal society. The entire point is that feudal lords, like Knights, swore fealty to a progressive hierarchy of lords. In exchange for land for their peasants to work, they swore to provide their military service when needed. So they would have dedicated soldiers that could be readied when necessary. Importantly, they had a vested interest in ensuring their peasants didn't die because those peasants were the direct source of their wealth and actual power. And the peasants offered their labor in exchange for the land and the promise of protection. The feudal system is basically just a hierarchy of land provided for service and the promise of military protection in a few different directions. The leadership and nobility enjoyed its privilege entirely because they were expected to protect and fight for their vassals when needed.
This post is wrong doe. Peasants fought in every war, but they had armor, weapons and training. It was literally the law that you had to own a helmet, a spear, some body armor, and attend training, and the majority of the fighting forces were trained peasent levies. It’s just that it wasn’t like in movies where it’s a bunch of toothless idiots wearing torn up rags and using pitch forks.
But yeah the nobility are the people who actually decided who was going to win, while the peasant levies were a distraction and a meat shield
>It was literally the law that you had to own a helmet, a spear, some body armor, and attend training, and the majority of the fighting forces were trained peasent levies.
Google the shire levy
That’s interesting but how is that sustainable. Their were later medieval battles consisting of tens of thousands of men, and we’re to believe every single one of them was a land owning noble? And weren’t their tons of men at arms; non land owning non noble infantry too that followed and were employed as retainers to lords and knights
And where there really so many landed noble men in European countries that they could each support armies of 20,000 noblemen in the 14th century battles in the Hundred Years’ War
This seems unbelievable to me that every soldier was a noble, let alone a land owning noble!
>Their were later medieval battles consisting of tens of thousands of men, and we’re to believe every single one of them was a land owning noble?
Keep in mind this included minor nobility who would be quite poor even by today’s standards, as well as mercenaries. Many land-owning nobles weren’t even guys with castles, they were just people with regular houses. At various times the nobility could even comprise up to 20% of the population in places like Poland.
Very interesting. The fact. 20% of Poland was noble is insane, what century?
Wouldn’t men-at-arms be an example of a commoner fighting in war? Those guys weren’t noble or land owners usually,
>Wouldn’t men-at-arms be an example of a commoner fighting in war? Those guys weren’t noble or land owners usually
Not necessarily, it’s in debate but historians aren’t sure about whether men-at-arms would’ve been all nobles or not.
Also important to consider that feudal society was based around the idea that the nobility would protect the commoners by fighting on their behalf, justifying their rule. If the commoners also have to fight, that whole system breaks.
Men-at-arms were typically knights or gentry, or rich burgomeisters or, rarely, professional commoner soldiers, often yeomen, who had acquired the wealth and skills to fight as one, having often had experience as mounted infantry/archers, or light cavalry. Men-at-arms is increasingly used as knighthood ceases to become a universal term for a class of soldier and instead becomes a social title with specific obligations, which were often expensive and many gentry or even noble families avoided knighthood as a consequence, Edward III had to threaten hundreds of landowning families with seizure if they refused to accept knighthood (and an obligation of military service in France).
I guess it depends on what you're considering peasants. I was thinking in the level of serfs, which was pretty fricking rare to have muster for war. Commoners, yeomen, and freemen were much more likely to fight or be called to war because there was the general expectation that they would be ready for defense if needed, both by training and owning their own equipment.
It wasn't a case of nobles sending hordes of unwashed, unfortunate souls out to get slaughtered. Because that would be ignoble, pointless, and then basically throwing away money for no reason. W very obvious comparison would be the American Civil War. The south pretty obviously had a huge group of indentured laborers, but they sure as frick didn't use them for warfare. It would be an absurd waste of money and value for no real return because they'd likely just die or desert, and didn't have equipment. It's much better to have free soldiers, especially because part of the reason they enjoy their rights and privilege is because of the promise of service.
So I guess more specifically I should have said that serf levies were outrageously rare and basically a disastrous last resort. Lots of people just see all peasants as basically being on the level of serfs. The toothless idiots in rags using clubs and pitchforks, yeah.
There’s actually a bit of historical debate around this about whether the levy was all fighting age males or just landowning nobles. However, given that monarchist societies generally tend to be pretty pacifistic, especially European ones, it’s likely the case that it was only the nobility fighting.
Not all landowners were nobility. We aren't talking about a uniform time/place, but regarding Medieval Europe in general, the majority of the land was owned by nobility, but the majority of land owners were not noble.
I never said they were. Landowning nobility is a distinct category. I didn’t say landowners. I didn’t say nobility. I said landowning nobility. As in nobles who are also landowners.
No.
A feudal army has;
The Lord's personal retinue, consisting of household retainers and landed retainers.
These retainers can be Knights, squires, and yeomen, but also any landowning or tenant farmer, the percy and neville families dragged in all of their (quite willing) tenant farmers into their feuds, who often kept arms and armour for such eventualities, although they were in northumberlan, which was a more violent border region, used to being raided, and raiding themselves.
There would also be the arriere-ban (in France), or the national levy (in England), which the King or a Royal official (usually a local magnate, marshal, or duke) might call, which would consist of all of the nobility/gentry as well as, in England, a number of men from every hundred to be armed and paid at the Hundred's expense, as well as specific arrangements with the burgomeisters of cities, who would usually provide a larger body of men, unless they had other exemptions relating to naval duties. In France there was a seigneural rather than public system of civil authority, therefore the numbers produced by an arriere ban could depend on local obligations and enthusiasm as much as actual royal expectations, nonetheless the system was similar to that in England. In France there was the added distinction of royal villes and ordinary towns/cities, ones under royal patronage would have independence from the authority of the local seigneur but would owe a larger levy for military service directly to the French crown.
If the king wished for a campaign he would often summon mercenary captains to assemble a company to join his campaign, great dukes would often do likewise, in England there was a system of contract mercenaries, usually from the gentry and yeomanry, who would enlist for campaigns and would often be associated with the retinue of a lord or the king, and consistently recruit from a local area. In England cheshire had a particular culture of service as mercenary archers.
A medieval European Lord's army would always consist of trained man at arms. Of he's a local ruler that's not that important that doesn't change, only how many of those guys he'd have access to. While a King or Duke might be able to call upon hundreds of men at arms (that might be independent mercenaries working full-time for him or landed knights sworn to him) a poorer noble might have his younger brother, a couple knights and maybe a mercenary working for him. A real poorgay might not have a single man at arms to his name and have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to pay a Merc to stand in for him. This is the retinue.
Whatever the case these guys, no matter how many or few of them there are, are going to be responsible for security and enforcement, ranging from tax collections and settling disputes to crushing bandits and protecting their borders. They'd also be responsible for organizing (and sometimes training) the free men of the land the noble they serve rules into fighting formations that could be called upon to serve during war. These men were usually expected to provide their own equipment and would be compensated during service in accordance to the quality of that equipment, thou this money was usually just enough to cover expenses related to maintaining the equipment during campaign, nobody would get rich off payments (unless they were mercs working under contract), riches would be gained through plunder.
Very few forces in Europe at the time were standardized and had reliable access to a determined number of men at any given equipment level, but overall the common soldiers would be generally well equipped and trained, at least as far as the economic situation of their lands allowed.
What you're describing are peasant levies, and while they did happen pretty often it was usually in very small numbers and those untrained men were expected to serve in a support capacity, basically labor.
It should be noted though that because the urban cities tended to be vastly wealthier than the surrounding rural countryside, it was fairly common for the citizens of the cities to be expected to partake in the city militia, keeping the peace, practicing drills, and defending the city walls as part of a regular rotation. This allowed cities to field disproportionately large armies relative to their populations.
True, and that wealth could also be geared to getting foreign mercenary aid whenever their ambitions (and pockets) outweighed their already disproportionate manpower. Another thing is that since cities are already food-insufficient the loss of workforce by putting people in the army wouldn't be as damaging to them, as long as their supply lines remained viable; cities are used to importing food and are capable of paying for that, the countryside isn't.
We all know the local lord's armies would primarily comprise of thousands of trained men-at-arms in full harness.
For the same reason why there are PMCs now?
So adventurers = mercs?
Always have been
I can see it
Because he doesn’t have an entire standing army of men-at-arms you moron. The medieval period which D&D in its original form was meant to roughly emulate (very very roughly emulate) was one that was basically postapocalypse. The giant world spanning empire (Rome IRL, usually some magitech elven one in D&D) fell. Towns they were once on busy trade roads are now isolated hamlets with no infrastructure or support. Anything you could generously call a governing body is basically just the local warlord with as many of his violent buddies he can get to cooperate, squatting in an old fortress he’s claimed as his own. The world is now a lot more dangerous, and in lieu of regular supply lines or legitimate authority, the people must turn to wandering adventurers that will help them for coin.
The further you stray from this type of setting while trying to tell the same kind of story, the weirder things are. Either embrace the chaotic postapoc or update ALL parts of the setting and make it quasi-modern across the board; if the local lord has a standing army of well-equipped and well-trained men, the the PCs are probably a part of that army (albeit as irregulars, specialists, and troubleshooters given a lot of discretion on how to complete their orders, so the players don’t feel stifled).
The dark ages were just a short sub-period of the middle ages.
The dark ages didn't have actual goblins, orcs, and fricking dragons shitting things up constantly.
>Moving troops around is never a good political sign
>Man at Arms are extremely expensive and risking them when you can pay some random frickos to die for you is cheaper.
>If the adventurers die you don't have to pay them, however if your men at arms die you have to hire new ones.
>The problem isn't large enough for a military intervention.
>You need something handled by a 3rd party.
>You need something done behind closed doors.
OP use your brain for a single second you moron. Inb4 this is b8 (It probably is)
You don't need an army. If you had 4 or 5 of your men go out and do their thing they'd be just as good as adventurers. They'd be like what, CR2 or 3 each? That'd be more than enough to handle some goblins or bandits.
Why would the president send the police force or army to deal with domestic and/or national problems? He’s got perfectly good secret servicemen right there with him
Because the average NPC doesn't have any class levels, at all. A literal house cat could reliablely kill them, and even then an NPC guard wouldn't beat a Player the majority of the time all else being equal. Adventurers as roleplayed are often circus strongmen in armor, doctors, and experienced security consultants by real world comparison. They are actionable independents you could theoretically throw under the bus if something were to go wrong. They're the smart choice. You rival over the way sees you moving platoons of troops around and you'll make people nervous.
In previous editions it was because past rusty shanktown, enemies had fast healing, regeneration, damage reduction, or immunities that meant even thousands of peasant levies or hundreds of trained knights were completely immune to their attacks and could easily slaughter them, necessitating Heroes or Brave Adventurers (TM) willing and able to slay the beasts.
In 5e the answer is "they have no reason to care about adventurers when a CR1/2 thug has twice the attacks of a fourth level fighter and 32 goddamn hit points (an adult red dragon has 256, so ten street muggers is more meat than a fricking dragon)"
which is yet another reason why 5e is a shitty roleplaying game with awful verisimilitude and immersion.
Because of the high chance of death. If their own men keep dying then they will get a bad reputation.
because neither the local lord nor his army of men-at-arms exist in my non-feudal setting
nope
Because you never have enough meat for the meat grinder, and money can buy more meat than loyalty could. Historically, if a noble could pay to dodge being drafted to war he would and his liege would prefer the money. Nobles also were a bit of homosexuals who captured each other most of the time for ransoms. Funnily enough to cherry-on-top your shitty thread, plenty of adventurers, aka mercenaries, were men-at-arms.
This remains one of the shittiest forced memes.
Also posted by the redditor puckee21 who spams his art weekly here
Frick off, Satan.
Standing armies were not a thing. You had a small retinue but you want to keep them out of trouble and close to you.
Yeah seems like a really bad move to send your retinue into a dungeon to kill some creatures or alone into the woods to fight bandits because if they die, you’re out a fricking shit load of money and the best of your best fighting men are gone and aren’t easily replaced
They wouldn't. Adventurers would be unreliable, likely getting killed by whatever they were sent to do. That's why the local lords would hire professionals.
>professionals
Wasn't a thing back then
>people that get paid to do a job didn't exist
big if true
Professional soldiers as we understand them today didn't exist in Medieval Europe (as in, given standardized training and equipment at the expense of a centralized state), but there were still professional fighting men.
Most were mercs
Perhaps his men at arms are busy and he is unable to deal with the current problem with the men he has? Perhaps his men at arms lack the expensive or difficult to find skill set for this particular problem? Perhaps the job is a test to see if the PCs are worth recruiting on a full time basis? Think about why do priviate individuals and big companies today hire temps or short term agency workers for one off jobs? A lord hiring some dragon killers to to kll a wandering dragon is no different from you hiring a plumber to fit a new boiler.
For the same reason you don't send your CFO out to get you coffee. They'd be insulted at such a bullshit task and likely turn on you.
And what would you call the men-at-arms specifically hired to do adventures?
Because it's much more convenient.
>Depending on what kind of adventurers and their quality it's like sending a small team of independent professionals you don't have to plan for or organize
>Don't have to provide (specialized & traveling) gear
>Don't have to provide food
>Don't have to provide training (they have to prepare themselves if it's a specific threat)
>If they die don't have to deal with contacting anyone or compensating families (if that is a thing)
>If they die it won't affect the place you rule over as much, morally with the families still living there and mourning, question of security of your holdings if your soldiers failed and of course physically by the soldiers not being there in anymore to secure it
>If they die don't lose any of the "investment" in soldiers like training, gear, payment etc.
>And the best thing - only need to (fully) pay them if they succeed
>needing an army of men-at-arms
Pathetic, a real lord would possess the prowess to single handily slay a balrog
He needs someone to find out why all the other adventurers avoid his domain like plague.
A full soldier party wouldn't do well. Adventurer bands tend to have arcane and divine magic, a rogue, and a warrior. That can cover more bases than merely four soldiers. And there is no way in hell you're getting the court mage or court high priest to go into a grimy dungeon.
There's no bases to cover. Just kill.
You're going to wish you hired adventurers when your soldiers come back and say they got stuck on a locked door.
If you can't destroy a locked door then you'd be even more fricked against monsters.
>blah blah too dangerous for limitited fuedal retinue
>blah blah men at arms too good
Here’s the real question, why doesn’t the local lord petition to his own liege lord and ask for help? Sure he shouldn’t send his own men, but the core basis of the feudal system is that you pledge vassalage to people who can protect you, and in exchange you help protect them and govern their lands that they give to you.
The local lord should be able to ask his liege, the Count, to send enough men to deal with whatever issues hit little barony or hamlet is happening, and if he doesn’t, that would cause great unrest and even revolts potentially, not to mention a local lord may not have the means to hire mercenaries to deal with orcs in the woods.
What’s your answer to this? I just debunked all adventuring
>Call in favors, or risk your own valued men whom losing would diminish your capabilites as a ruler
>Hire four chucklefricks to deal with the problem, risking nothing on failure and some gold on success
Discretion and cheap payments.
To send an "adventurer", an Agent or whatever name you wanna use for a sacrificial lamb, a Lord will spend very cheaply on equipping and, at worst, briefly train them for an operation that require discretion and the danger of causing a great debate that could fall onto a full war.
A Man-at-Arm could do the job, a battalion if MaA even better, but they would immediately track the assault onto the Lord that hired and authorized the attack and operation, their equipment and actions would be easy to spot on a battlefield or beyond enemy lines; some Agent with minimal equipment and freedom of action will blend better in enemy territory, and if they die, they will be no great loss and a new one can be sent.
Maybe even more cheaply depending where one died the last time.
Typically because he doesn't. Local lords probably don't have standing armies. More than 80% of the population works in agriculture. The Feudal system existed because labor was the primary form of capital. If you have someone sitting around being "at your disposal," then you have work that isn't being done. Knights and other trained soldiers aren't waiting around to soldier. They're working in shops and fields or overseeing shops and fields. They have important jobs.
The local lord has gout and his only retainer is a portly, demented sergeant who manages a squad of village idiots for the defense of his "keep", really just a manor falling apart from disrepair.
The man you want to see is the alderman, a brawny, wise old nut with strong popular acclaim and a keen sense of justice. He can send out one of the lads, all raised up strong like him because of years of farming, laboring, and training to fend off goblins and vikings.
D&D is just the Far West cosplaying as the middle age. The local Sheriff gives you 100$ if you can take care of Billy the Squid, quickest mindflayer in Arizona.
Dragon Warriors adressed the issue directly: if you had a Lord, you were supposed to show him your loots and he could choose from it. Cheat at your own risk because reputation is a thing in this world and it travels fast.
If you didn't have a Lord, don't get caught pillaging old tombs near his domain. Your head could fall. The best course of action would be to inform him and promise some of the loot, as above. He would go as far as sending a few of his men to watch over you, I mean help you.
>when he has an entire army full of men-at-arms at his disposal?
Because he doesn't. Nobody had standing armies after the fall of Rome, the most men he had really to fight at a moment's notice were the knights of his own personal retinue. Any other fighting men had to be called up, which included them supplying their own gear (which wasn't much if they were serfs) and often some rudimentary training, which could take months altogether. It was also temporary, these levied soldiers will only be sticking around until the harvest comes in, after that they will frick off back to their homes.
Because his troops are all tied up with doing their regular duties?
Because the local lord wants this operation to be “off the record” for whatever reason (there’s many)?
Because there’s some intrigue-shit going on and needs people that are not wrapped up in it?
For “plausible deniability” purposes if shit goes south?
Because the job in question is seemingly too small to justify sending troops to deal with and “low level” adventurers are cheap and have nothing better to do?
Because he doesn’t trust his own soldiers for some reason?
Take your pick.
> Because the job in question is seemingly too small to justify sending troops to deal with and “low level” adventurers are cheap and have nothing better to do?
Man, that would be a hell of a blow to a PCs ego.
“I’ve summoned you because you’re the cheapest adventures in the realm and my own soldiers have more important things to do”
Because you only have to pay the adventurers if they succeed, and their losses are not your problem.
Imagine something like a troll terrorizing a town of yours. You know that if you send a bunch of men to slay the troll, you will probably succeed but its going to be an extremely bloody battle and a lot of people will die doing it. Trolls are not easy to bring down.
If you send 20 men at arms to take care of the problem, you will succeed but you'll probably have 10 or more of them dead or maimed by the end. Thats a substantial investment of time and resources that have been lost in the undertaking to take down a single enemy.
If you post a bounty on the troll and let adventurers take care of it, however, you don't care how many adventurers die in the attempt. The first 12 guys who attempt it call all be slaughtered and it costs you nothing, you don't pay dead men. Eventually, someone kills the troll and you pay them for their trouble and they leave. A very simple transaction.
This is especially useful of the local lord wants to preserve his fighting forces because he has his eye on other threats. If a neighboring kingdom might be invading soon, the lord has a good reason not to risk losing any of his men at arms on troll duty right now, he needs them later. But he also can't afford to let the troll run amok. So he posts a bounty.
Plausible deniability if shit goes south.
The majority of the military back in those days were mercenaries, why would you NOT rely on them?
It could be a time of war, and he doesnt want to send men from his retinue off on a dangerous but unimportant errand. He may not afford to keep a large retinue, but can afford to promise a small upfront payment and loot he doesnt have. The local gentry, burgomeisters and peasants may be reluctant to obey a feudal summons, may have already given 40 days service, or are arguing over paying for it, or dont view it as important enough. Or everyone there views the task as suicidally dangerous and refuse to undertake it. Or the area has been ravaged by war, and there are few men left, while monsters start to encroach on abandoned and corpse strewn lands.
He needs those guys to defend his local lands.
>84 posts and 5 image replies omitted
>For stale 3 year old bait
I hate this place. You aren't clever for replying. You're as much of a homosexual as the OP
at least sage for fricks sake
This place deserves it for not doing something about it. Secondaries, AI gays, all of it. Nobody creates, or is scared to.
W-what are you guys talking about??
>tfw for most of history you had to be sufficiently rich just to participate in a war
God that’s so lame
Its not lame when theres a real chance of death, and if you are captured then your local community will have to pay your ransom, or not. If the levy was called then you could be chosen by your community, your chances were probably higher in a town/city which contributed proportionally more men as they could afford the expenses, if you really wanted to go. If you really wanted to fight you could join a retinue or sign up with a mercenary company, or become a sailor and get involuntarily drafted along with all of the men of your community into sailing and fighting at sea.
Because high level adventureres can solo armies of low level men-at-arms. It's the same reason cops can't arrest superman.
Plausible deniability, also you don't have to pay adventurers who don't make it back.
>cost-efficiency when having a bunch of minor problems that need to be addressed
>access to specialized skillsets when facing a larger and more complex threat
>frees up your troops to focus on other things, like that pesky neighbor you have
>increases the number of armed individuals at your command
>you simply have more money than manpower to throw at problems
>gives you plausible deniability whenever you need something sketchy done
You're right OP, there's just no reason at all for something like that.
He's an old adventurer himself who became a lord through all his exploits, hiring adventurers is more expensive sure, but it makes him smile seeing so many young folk take up the mantle and it reminds him of his glory days
Based and bound to die heroically to buy more time for the younger generation-pilled
Nah he'll die when a threat's so big the adventuring party needs to team up with other parties and at the end he'll show up in his old (now upgraded) armour (which was hinted at by paintings of young him in his mansion) for ''one final score''
Wholesome
Because the cost for military and monster hunter campaigns have soared so many are slacking and avoiding service and thus he's forced to rely on paid soldiers.
Stop shilling your shitty art
have a nice day homosexual