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

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Black Leviathan

Now throwing down your life for your employer is hard to imagine, but would you be willing to take some risks to keep getting that paycheck? Would you be willing to compromise your ethics a bit? Can you see how that kind of loyalty becomes more palatable?

Would you worship your employer or his cause? Would you be willing to die for him? That's what the reaction table says you'd do if you got double your paycheck, and you wouldn't even get a roll to avoid doing it.

The ±1 per 10% and the worship and willing to die rules have been around at least since the third-edition days (Basic Set, p. B204–5). I wonder if it's been noticed before.

[Polkageist]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Would you worship your employer or his cause? Would you be willing to die for him? That's what the reaction table says you'd do if you got double your paycheck, and you wouldn't even get a roll to avoid doing it.

The ±1 per 10% and the worship and willing to die rules have been around at least since the third-edition days (Basic Set, p. B204–5). I wonder if it's been noticed before.

I mean... yeah.

Again, not in a vacuum, and it's not a hard line rule of behavior for the NPCs. It illustrates the level of commitment, but doesn't dictate the methods of that commitment.

Worship implies a cult, but could also mean a full-bore commitment to the PC as their liege (fantasy), as their asset (spy games) and conducts themselves that way.

Willing to die, yeah, not a meaningless death or laying down their life on a whim. This isn't Thulsa Doom saying "come to me my child" and splat.
More like, "Men, that keep is infested with monsters led by a dark necromancer. We will likely all die in the assault, but if we succeed then all our loved ones will be saved."

[Icelander]

I prefer this progression:

+20% = +1
+30% = +2
+50 = +3
+70% = +4
+100% +5
+150 = +6
×3 = +7
×5 = +8
×7 = +9
×10 = +10

[Hide]

Originally Posted by FezzedOne

Under Loyalty Checks on page B519, it says that hirelings get a +1 to loyalty for every 10% by which their pay exceeds what's normal. This presents a problem, since if you pay your hireling double the normal pay for their job, their loyalty will increase by +10. If their loyalty was, say, Neutral, that means it will now be Excellent and the NPC will be willing to die for their employer. The same problematic rule is reiterated on page 39 of Social Engineering. I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed this issue and how people go about fixing it (or ignoring it).

Did not you know? This is the method The Empire employs with Stormtroopers!

But seriously, where is the problem? If you are a player character and decide to hire an NPC, you’ve got to keep a wallet full of money and ponder whether it is for you or for someone else.

Dungeon Fantasy wise, if you hire a single 125 CP henchmen for one month that will be at least $ 1,500 (x1.5 your TL3 starting money) and if you want to pay double, then it is $3,000 (x3 your TL3 starting money), not to mention henchmen require a reimbursement for goods expended and have random traits.

You will probably have to spend your own CP in advantages such as wealth or sacrificing your quirks (DFRPG) to earn an extra coin, which ultimately reduces the budget and capabilities of your PC.

The trade-off seems quite fair; but at this point I would rather get an ally tailored by myself instead of hiring a random guy.

If you are thinking of mid-game or end-game situations, things might be a little different. But I still believe you will have to think twice before choosing between buying an epic plate armor or hiring a 125 CP NPC.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Polkageist

Willing to die, yeah, not a meaningless death or laying down their life on a whim. This isn't Thulsa Doom saying "come to me my child" and splat.
More like, "Men, that keep is infested with monsters led by a dark necromancer. We will likely all die in the assault, but if we succeed then all our loved ones will be saved."

Note that if you hire people at the going rate for a job like 'mercenary soldier' they are expected to be willing to risk their lives (if not certain death) as part of the job even if their loyalty is average.

As for the extra pay only somewhat balancing bad treatment, well in the RAW double pay balances out -10 worth of poor treatment, and that's a pretty hefty negative.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Rupert

As for the extra pay only somewhat balancing bad treatment, well in the RAW double pay balances out -10 worth of poor treatment, and that's a pretty hefty negative.

"I mean, he eats babies for breakfast, but just look at what he's paying".

[Sam Baughn]

While I find doubling an existing employee's pay to get fanatical loyalty to be a bit unlikely, it does seem at least somewhat plausible that using double pay to have the pick of the most loyal employees might produce that kind of result, assuming you have a method of identifying them reliably and their fanatical loyalty doesn't extend to never leaving their current employer for better offers.
Alternatively, I guess you could see it not as simply higher wages, but additional expenses for running your organisation as a cult rather than a business.
But the best solution is probably to re-write the rules so that there is some kind of non-linear progression of results for money, whether that is using the S/S/R table, doubling the bonus required for each step (+10%, +20%, +40%...), a Fibonacci style progression, compounding multiplication (110%, 121%, 133%, 146%, 161%...), or whatever. Simply capping the bonus for extra pay at +3 and requiring different methods for better results also seems fairly believable to me.

[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.

The actual flavour, I guess, depends on your campaign - if you play it like the Dark Ages, your character is engaged in a gift and obligation relationship with a retainer, if you prefer dungeonpunk you're simply paying a hardhead enough that he knows to come to you first. As Tyrion Lannister put if "if someone pays you to betray me, come to me first - I can always pay you more not to".

[Polkageist]

Of course, if you pay TOO much then you get the situation in Goodfellas...

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by FezzedOne

Under Loyalty Checks on page B519, it says that hirelings get a +1 to loyalty for every 10% by which their pay exceeds what's normal. This presents a problem, since if you pay your hireling double the normal pay for their job, their loyalty will increase by +10. If their loyalty was, say, Neutral, that means it will now be Excellent and the NPC will be willing to die for their employer. The same problematic rule is reiterated on page 39 of Social Engineering. I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed this issue and how people go about fixing it (or ignoring it).

I have noticed the bonus but haven’t really worried about players going for a +10 bonus. I use GURPS 3rd Edition and for me, the relevant references would be: B195 Loyalty of Hirelings and its sidebars Loyalty Checks and Changes in Loyalty; B204 NPC Reactions; & B205 Reaction Table.

There is a difference in wording between B195 and B204. B204 says “+1 for every 10% the PCs offer above the going pay rate” while B195 Changes in Loyalty says “add 1 to the hireling’s loyalty for each 10% by which his pay exceeds his true worth” and also notes “loyalty persists for a month after the extra pay ceases.” I would exploit the difference in wording. A hireling whose loyalty jumps to 19 or 20 is working incredibly hard, putting your interests ahead of his own and willing to die for you and that makes the double pay his new “true worth.” If the PCs were very clear about the temporary nature of the pay increase and tell him to sit back, take it easy and look to his own interests at the very start of the month’s loyalty persistence, then they’re probably okay, but only probably.

If they muck it up by taking advantage of the month of loyalty persistence, things go downhill rapidly. First, the hireling knows his true worth and that he’s not getting it. The very first thing to happen when he gets his reduced pay packet is that he takes a -5 to Loyalty since B204 also says “-1 for each 10% the PCs offer below the going pay rate” and he just took a -50% hit to pay for the same work ethic he put in the month before. Second, I’d tend to treat the loss in pay, without warning, as a question about his employers’ competence dropping his loyalty by a further 1, as if the PCs had botched a mission/adventure. The hireling will slack off to his new loyalty level of Bad and be a sluggish worker but should return to Neutral the next month. If the PCs insist that he perform to Neutral standards now, then he will, but he takes a further -1 to Loyalty each month that he is required to perform “above and beyond”. Further, restoring the hireling to double pay now only cancels the -5 for a pay cut but the hireling will not be willing to die for the PC(s) and may not be willing to put their interests ahead of his own unless that’s part and parcel of the job itself (like the fiduciary duty of an accountant or a lawyer). To get those benefits, the hireling requires buying his loyalty with increased pay and the 10% is 10% of his now doubled pay, not his former pay.

Regardless, knowing what he’s really worth, the hireling will be easy to hire away from the PCs if they are not paying him his true worth or not utilizing him to the fullest extent of his abilities and more so if both conditions are true.

There is also a question as to whether money will have any effect on the hireling. Wealth level helps here. While there aren’t terribly many Filthy Rich hireling jobs, those that do exist (say Batman’s Alfred Pennyworth) can by Filthy Rich’s definition buy almost anything they want without considering the cost. You can’t really buy up Loyalty with someone like that, even if you’re offering Multimillionaire as an incentive. Studies have shown that past a certain point, increased monetary compensation doesn’t have much effect on employees. While that point may well be below Filthy Rich in GURPS, Filthy Rich and above wealth levels are definitely there. Wealthy and Very Wealthy might be eligible for having “bought” Loyalty but the can the PCs afford it? “Bought” Loyalty should always be dubious. I would cap "bought" Loyalty as unable to exceed Loyalty 19, i.e. you can buy Excellent reaction Loyalty but you can’t buy “passes all Loyalty checks automatically”.

A couple of other points, buying Loyalty up neither negates nor removes any penalties to Loyalty rolls, they offset them. Also, since a couple of reactions indicate that the loyalty may be to the job (Good reaction) or to the cause (Excellent reaction), rather than to the PCs, the GM should determine where the Loyalty is based (possibly rolling for Loyalty again) and rule accordingly.

I'd also rule that based on expectations, any bonus that lasts in excess of three months becomes "the norm" for that hireling, no longer giving a loyalty bonus but giving a penalty to loyalty for less than the "going rate" if the bonus then vanishes. If you want to increase Loyalty again, you need to buy it up from the new normal.