[Social Engineering / Basic Set] Doubling hireling pay increases loyalty by too much

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

From a medieval - or at least a "Dark Ages" standpoint this might not be too far off: someone who has a reputation as a "lavish man, a ring giver" can expect to attract and retain loyal men to his warband - and a housecarl was meant to be loyal to death, intended to either bring his master back from battle or die beside him.

That's built into the base pay for a huscarl - it's part of the job (supposedly).

[Willy]

As far as i understand it, you get only than penalities for hirelings duties, if they aren´t part of the normal job description. A fighter has to fight, as long as it´s considered a normal fight. A dragon would give penalities for sure. But let a fighter do a job for which he wasn´t paid, and thinks it to be a inferior duty like cleaning the toilet, you get the penality for sure. On the other hand a non fighter will have problems with combat, but routine jobs are just that ordinary tasks. More money helps a lot of course. I have worked in a couple of low income jobs, and it s really shocking what so called normal people are willing to do, if the boss pays a few bucks more than usual. A good deal of them is willing to risk there lives ignoring job safety measures, or violating other standards that were meant to protect them. For a very little extra that was sometimes less than a days pay, if you calculate it for a month.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Willy

I have worked in a couple of low income jobs, and it s really shocking what so called normal people are willing to do, if the boss pays a few bucks more than usual. A good deal of them is willing to risk there lives ignoring job safety measures, or violating other standards that were meant to protect them. For a very little extra that was sometimes less than a days pay, if you calculate it for a month.

When you are paid the bare minimum anything extra makes quite a difference to your ability to buy anything past the minimum to get by.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Rupert

When you are paid the bare minimum anything extra makes quite a difference to your ability to buy anything past the minimum to get by.

I can certainly see that. For someone who makes a million dollars a month, making two million dollars a month probably doesn't have a huge impact on quality of life. For someone who is only making enough to keep him/herself comfortably fed, clothed, and sheltered, doubling that may well allow keeping a spouse and a child fed, clothed, and sheltered as well, which is huge. An even larger jump is when someone who isn't making enough to keep him/herself comfortably fed, clothed, and sheltered actually becomes capable of doing so. +10 seems rather excessive, however, in no small part because having one worker who is fanatically loyal is generally going to be more advantageous than having two workers who see it as just another job (or even as a somewhat-crappy job, as that's good enough to turn Loyalty 9 - upper end of Poor - into Loyalty 19 - lower end of Excellent). Sure, a single craftsman theoretically produces at half* the rate of two, but not needing to worry about him/her stealing from you, slacking off, cutting corners you don't want cut (or balking at cutting the corners you do want cut), etc is generally going to largely make up for that, and being able to count on the worker as an informant, a gopher, some extra muscle if you need it, etc will more than make up for the difference.

*Some work, of course, largely requires multiple people, or at least takes more than twice the time if you have half the optimal number of workers. In those cases, having half the optimal number of extremely-loyal workers may well be worse than having the optimal number of neutrally-loyal workers... but having a full complement of extremely-loyal workers is still better than having twice as many neutrally-loyal ones.

[Willy]

Of course you need also to consider the actual job situation. Because if you can fire someone and workers of all kinds are in great demand, so that he can go to the company next door and is hired anyway, even with very poor job qualifications and bad reputations, that would lower the hirelings loyality. In such a situation even if you pay well, it will have less impact than the other way around. For this consider a high rate of people without a job even if the would work in any job the are qualified for. There are so much more people out of work that the are a multiple of the available jobs, in such a situation even a boss who pays his hirelings standard or less can await a highly motivated and loyal hireling. Just because if he fires him he will be out of work for a very long time. A weak social net enforces this even more.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Willy

Of course you need also to consider the actual job situation. Because if you can fire someone and workers of all kinds are in great demand, so that he can go to the company next door and is hired anyway, even with very poor job qualifications and bad reputations, that would lower the hirelings loyality. In such a situation even if you pay well, it will have less impact than the other way around.

Ah, but in such a situation, workers will be demanding higher pay, so the 'base' pay will be higher, and thus paying the 'standard' rate means you're actually underpaying your workers which is why their loyalty is low.

If they can ask 150% of the 'normal' rate and get it, then that's the actual 'base' pay, and you need to pay double that (300% of the supposed normal rate) to get the +10 bonus.

For this consider a high rate of people without a job even if the would work in any job the are qualified for. There are so much more people out of work that the are a multiple of the available jobs, in such a situation even a boss who pays his hirelings standard or less can await a highly motivated and loyal hireling. Just because if he fires him he will be out of work for a very long time. A weak social net enforces this even more.

And in such a situation the actual base rate for the time and place is obviously lower than what the rules might say, due to an over-supply of labour compared to the default assumptions.

[Stormcrow]

I wonder if the +1 per 10% rule is only meant to be interpreted in the context of a specific monthly job. The rule does say that the bonus persists for one extra month after the increase ends, which implies that we're talking about hirelings paid by the month, not, say, mercenaries hired to guard your rear in a dungeon expedition.

So let's say you hire a blacksmith to maintain your party's weapons and armor all month while they do the dungeoneering. Normally, he would have neutral loyalty (10), but you pay him double the normal rate, giving him excellent loyalty (20). "The NPC worships the PCs or their cause, works incredibly hard, puts the PCs' interests ahead of his own at all times, and would even die for them."

So the PCs' cause is going down into dungeons and getting their weapons and armor all dinged up, and the blacksmith wholeheartedly encourages them in their endeavors. He spends all day with their stuff and honestly does the very best job he can for them.

When the village is raided by fearsome monsters and the PCs bravely run away, telling the blacksmith to hold off the monsters ("Because after all, we pay him double, so he's willing to die for us!"), the blacksmith will abandon them, because he's only willing to die for them in the performance of his blacksmithing duties.

If, on the other hand, the blacksmith has been working so hard that his known heart condition might kill him, well, he IS willing to die for them, so he'll keep working, because, darn it, he's not going to pass up the money. If he weren't willing to risk his life, he wouldn't have taken the job in the first place.

In other words, if you aren't willing to die for your employer for double monthly pay, you're not going to take the job in the first place. Or, if the PCs try to increase your pay to get you to risk your life, you decide whether you're willing to be that loyal BEFORE you accept the pay.

So I think I can accept the by-the-book rule this way. Doubled pay isn't like a button the PCs can push on you to force you to be loyal to them. Doubled pay is an offer for your loyalty, and if you aren't willing to be loyal, you don't take the job.

[Polkageist]

That's hitting the nail on the head!

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

So I think I can accept the by-the-book rule this way. Doubled pay isn't like a button the PCs can push on you to force you to be loyal to them. Doubled pay is an offer for your loyalty, and if you aren't willing to be loyal, you don't take the job.

Of course you might run into naieve or Greedy employees who take the money regardless of the obvious real demands of the job... and then split when the going gets tough. Or at least strongly consider it. If splitting isn't an option, frex someone on an oil rig or a huskarl of an adventurer who's decided this dungeon full of Elder Things From The Outer Dark is just not worth it, motivation may become a problem.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Of course you might run into naieve or Greedy employees who take the money regardless of the obvious real demands of the job... and then split when the going gets tough. Or at least strongly consider it. If splitting isn't an option, frex someone on an oil rig or a huskarl of an adventurer who's decided this dungeon full of Elder Things From The Outer Dark is just not worth it, motivation may become a problem.

I wouldn't consider normal hazard pay to be the same as doubled wages: you've got to double that to really offer the loyalty gig.