Food for Powder, Food for Worms

The abusive behaviour of most players towards hirelings is well known in the community, with most DMs noting ruefully that while player characters may survive a dungeon, NPC men-at-arms and hirelings usually don't.  This is part due to the weakness of non-levelled characters lacking in hit points, but it's also because players tend to consider hirelings and followers as material to be spent rather than a resource to be preserved.

There are a number of reasons for this, beginning with the poor fighting quality and usefulness of men-at-arms, who are barely able to fight one-on-one with a lowly orc, what with penalties to hit and low hit points.  Both DMs and players running men-at-arms also set them up to die, having them rush directly into combat, traps, ambushes and what not, so that they are more like budgies in a coal mine than combatants.  Practically no effort is made to give a man-at-arms as much personality as the local grocer has, so that these persons are easily expendable in that they are faceless, replaceable fodder.  As such, many players don't see the point ~ men-at-arms are going to provide much benefit and they're just a pain to maintain or keep track of.

These issues evaporate in a grittier system, as players begin to understand that hirelings are highly needed in support roles, to carry gear, to hold the light sources, to drag the wounded out of combat and to serve as a last-ditch reserve when the combat goes sour.  Rather than sending in the fodder first, the support team of men-at-arms holds the rear while the main body takes the front blow.  To make this work, however, there have to be things for a man-at-arms to do.  If there are no encumberance rules, no wounds to bind, no attention paid to light sources in game and no chance of the party ever losing a combat, then they're right ~ a man-at-arms is useless.

Therefore, it's not surprising that the "reward" of retainers at a given level is often looked at by players as a hindrance rather than a boon.  They may be useful at some point, but probably not on the next adventure, where probably half of those or more that we brought along would be dead.  Better to record their number and leave them safe at home, where they can push around our peasants and make sure the taxes are paid.  And this is what my players have almost always done once my characters obtained retainers, for years and years.

My perspective is different now.  It wouldn't be enough any more to simply reach name level and expect 160 retainers to "show up."  A character would have to be a resident, would have to prove themselves deserving of local recognition, would have to receive some sort of recognition from the higher lords as well, for why should they part with some of their lands for the sake of interlopers?  I can see the players ingratiating themselves to a prince or a duke, but that would have to be role-played in a manner that impressed the upper noble.  The players could dive into the deep wilderness, trying to find themselves a piece of tillable land that no one else had thought to clear and plant on, but again, there'd have to be a reason why strangers would show up and seek to serve.  Providing land for them is a start.  If one were in America or the African colonies, a boatload of slaves or deportees might provide the basis of a retinue, if they were freed or otherwise granted status that won them over.  Whatever the method, the "adventure" would include demonstrating that the players deserved the retinue that turned up, by the way they played, by the choices they made as characters and by the arrangements they made with other NPCs, but below and above them.

Moreover, none of that needs to wait until name level, not in my game.  As far as I'm concerned, a 1st level party can strike out for some part borderland, arrange to purchase or "claim" land, build a farm, gain followers, build small scale fortifications, clear the land, wipe out some vermin or worse residents, adventure a little for a stake, build relationships with the local magistrate, then the baron, bey or rajah of the region, perform some services, gain more followers, pick up some henchmen, increase the number of their hirelings, gain permission to posses a heraldic sign through some deed, work their way up through levels and have the whole infrastructure perfectly in place so that, upon hitting 9th level, royalty or what similar force that exists would finally get wind of the situation and send out 150 soldiers or like supporters on cue.

And no, I don't see this as limited to some classes.  Why shouldn't a Bard establish a college, or a druid a gathering of forestals?  Why shouldn't a mage or illusionist establish a thaumaturgical school, with a set number of fresh new students being enrolled, who then become an important alumni?  Why shouldn't a paladin gain a pack of crusaders?  Why these classes, but not all the classes?

Obviously, I don't think that every class should get a raft of soldiers.  The cleric should get less soldiers and more zealots and believers, but probably this was a bit creepy for the 1979 company.  I'm not limited by such prejudices.  I can cheerfully allow an "evil" cleric player character to gain eighty or so deranged, murderous thuggees ready to konk women unconscious and burn them alive in monthly festivals ... because I just don't care.  This was done in reality, once; no reason it shouldn't be done in a player's imagination.

It would really be something to concoct 80 meaningful personalities for these retainers ... and I'm not talking about some silly list where "pious" or "slothful" count as a personality description.  I mean names, habits, persons you'd like to have with you in a given circumstance ... and 80 random collections of six stats that YOU, as player, would have full access to, so that you could choose the one with three 17s and a 16 to join you on your raids, while assigning the fellow with no stat greater than 10 to manage the gong pit.  You'd have full control; these are your retainers.  I think watching you manage them, get to know them, figure out how to delegate them into tasks and expand your personal control over a small fief (made of a number of hides, which could expand into a hundred), sounds like great fun as a DM.  And meanwhile, the ranger is managing a different crew, the paladin another, the mage another and the thief still another.  Crazy, wild, engaging stuff.

It doesn't sound like work.  It sounds like perhaps the best campaign I ever had.

It's nice to have friends.  Try to bring most of these back alive, hm?

Retinue vs. Followers

I'm sure most of my readers will remember that old D&D included the concept of reaching "name level," where the players were supposed to settle down, build castles and such, and gain "retainers."  What some like to call the End Game ... though I don't see how this ends anything having to do with play.  The only thing that seems odd about it is that Gygax and others proposed it ~ since nothing they did or wrote as far as real game material seems to have taken that into account.

Perhaps I'm wrong.  Can anyone recall a module written for 10+ level characters that begins, "An emissary approaches the party while they're hanging out in their castle," or, "After you've assigned persons to look after your lands and fortifications, you set out for the adventure."  Anyone?

I couldn't find the comment where someone lately asked me about retainers.  I thought I'd begin with discussing what retainers are and how they differ from followers, hirelings and henchmen.  I another post, I'll talk about how one gets them.  Please don't expect me to follow the guidelines established in early D&D.

The word relates to "retinue," which is an old French word meaning a group of followers or a state of service.  The concept is that the followers are taken into feudal service, and thus "kept" or "retained" through the granting of lands on condition of services.  It isn't that the character suddenly gets a mess of instant obedient followers ~ it is, rather, a contract.  You provide the land, they provide the service ... not as serfs, but as men-at-arms or as knights.  The number of "hides" that they're given (see the previous post depends on their status and the landholder's generosity.  It's not really clear in wikipedia, but every five hides could be expected to provide a soldier in times of war.  Nothing about feudalism ever worked out that sure, but it's a guideline.

The retinue did not consist of only soldiers, as the old DMG suggests, but also of servants, artisans, professionals, estate officials, treasurers, stewards, lawyers and generally all that was needed by the normal operation of society.  And, as the lord grew in status, so did the retinue; so that a sort of "bastard feudalism" developed, in which middle ranking figures under a king or major noble would compete for money, offices or influence.  This is how the French court of the 17th century grows organically out of the more rural France of the 12th and 13th centuries.  The collective name for these retainers was "affinity," which also happens to be a word that began in c. 1300 as "relation by marriage."  In a sense, the retinue were "kin," or part of the "neighbourhood," words that have developed other meanings over time.  For this post, we'll go on using the word retinue and retainer, but try to keep affinity in mind.

Prestigious items such as the Dunstable Swan Jewel above
were given to highly important persons within the lord's
retinue.  Jewels such as the above are rare.  I find it likely
that many were melted down in times of crisis.

To identify the relationship between the lord and the retinue, often livery badges were bestowed upon the various retainers; these were heraldic badges or devices that granted status and some legal protection for the wearer, while advertising the power of the lord.  The appearance of hundreds of such badges, given out for a variety of reasons, would quickly establish the lord's importance in an area, while at the same time producing opportunities for rivalry with other retainers wearing another lord's badges.  We need only think of Liverpool and Manchester football to gain a clear idea.

Many of the symbols we recognize began this way; the Lancaster or York roses, the Prince of Whales's (er, Wales's) emblem, the boar, the lion, the Maltese cross, etc., all started as this sort of "advertising," or team making, among nobles and other like authoritarians.

Obviously, this would mean that many persons outside the retinue, would always be seeking to be a part of it, if they had no affinity of their own.  This meant that outside the retinue were an amorphous group of general supporters and contacts, most of them completely unknown to the lord, but known to the various members of the retinue.  Thus, even a minor lord could potentially affect hundreds, even thousands of persons, simply by their existence at the heart of his or her retinue.  This made political maneuverings and the raising of an huge army a realistic possibility, as the War of the Roses proved, as Henry the VII was able and again as Cromwell demonstrated.  In D&D, we tend to think that to raise an army, we need to scatter out agents and interview people.  In fact, the more likely truth is that there would be large numbers predisposed to our cause; we would need only to canvas our own connections, gain the support of other nobles and let them canvas their connections, and thus through specific persons already in our employ, we would dredge up the very people we needed from both our lands and from those wanting to be part of our lands.  Thus, every war begins with a promise of land ~ which we will naturally take from the losers, when we win.

All this makes the retainer far, far more valuable than the follower ~ though, it must be said the retainer has less reason to be directly loyal.  Ultimately, the retainer serves the office, not the individual.  A lord is sure to be surrounded by trusted, reliable followers and henchmen, the "inner circle," while sorting out the trusted members of the retinue from those not quite so trusted.  In general, the retinue is expected to fall in line because the lord has the retinue's general welfare at heart; if the lord fights to preserve the lord's lands, he or she also fights to preserve the retinue's lands.  So all join together in the common cause.

The complexity of this is doubtlessly beyond the tenacity of DMs and Players who are only interested in adventuring ... but I find the concept utterly fascinating, myself.  And I positively adore the idea of building a system of land ownership and management of such persons in a way that would empower me to influence the actions of a very large kingdom, such as Sweden or Poland, even if I am not the king and have no interest in deposing the king.

I am far more excited by this sort of thing than I am by disarming another trap.