Perk: Noble Titles

[Alcamtar]

I am contemplating running Fantasy Hero, and have a player who is almost certain to take some sort of nobility perk. I think he sees it as a cheap (2-3 points) powergaming way to greatly increase his character's power. I tried this once before with him and he was trying to do things like

 

-- ordering commoners to fight for him

-- ordering people to surrender

-- ignoring laws by being above them, and being immune from punishment

-- license to kill; to render low justice on the spot

-- getting bonuses to presence, influence, negotiations, etc.

-- probably lots more...

 

Anyway I think the perk is way too cheap to give all that. Also I think I don't know nearly enough about nobility to really run it effectively, with the proper responsibilities and limitations and stuff.

 

So, how to you do it? How much privilege should be granted by this perk, and how much should you have to buy? I'm thinking that things like "license to kill" and "low justice" should be bought separately, even if they are normally automatic with a noble title; likewise for PRE bonuses and stuff.

 

I don't want to categorically disallow it, but I don't want to be a pushover. He'll probably take "filthy rich" too, since that's another source of incredible power for relatively few points.

 

Looking for help and suggestions here. Do you even allow these? If so how do you handle them?

 

Mike

[The Mad GM]

If you look through Fred at the perks section, you'll see that "Low Justice" and "License to Kill" are their own perk. "Diplomatic Immunity" is also a seperate perk.

 

As far as nobility goes - yes, you get posh treatment, and people give you the benefit of the doubt. But in general, anyone with a fighting skill is in someone's chain of command, and they wouldn't follow some stranger's orders just because they're noble. He couldn't, say, tell a city guard to imprison someone for no good reason. At most the guard would prevent that other person from attacking the noble until he could figure out what the problem was. Serfs might respond to such a command, but they have no skill, and might simply run away if facing a significant threat.

 

Also remember that there are other nobles, who hold authority over wherever the character might be, and they might object to his overstepping the bounds. He might bluster his way to special treatment, but it will eventually catch up to him. Even nobles had to obey some laws, and if he wants immunities, let him pay for them.

[eepjr24]

Rank has it's limits...

 

Most nobility is not free to wander the countryside. They have land and people that they have to care for and have responsibilities to (fealty works both ways). Even a tyrant has to be around to make sure that the troops are paid, etc.

 

I would let him know that regular adventurers could not be landed nobility and expect to keep their land if they flit off all the time. And non-landed nobility seldom have low justice and the like. If he wants to order people about, buy presence for "Noble Manner" and Oration. That will frequently get that done. Nobility also has to answer to those above them, just like supers answer to the police. Noble is as noble does.

 

As to the "filthy rich" perk, I don't allow that one for starting FH characters (or Wealthy for the most part). Anything above Middle Class requires GM approval, and I have actually run games where I upped the disad for "Poor" or "Destitute" by 5 points each. This is usually combined with "Compulsive Gambler" or "Lush" or some other method that the character regularly flushes money away.

 

I allow Well Off if the character is a 3rd son of a large noble family, rich merchants daughter or the like. She has a stipend that she can count on, influence with relatives, friends who are wealthy and do favors, etc. Consider that FH (pg 317) suggests that this perk gives x7 normal income. Anything greater than that has a HUGE impact on the campaign.

 

I usually don't allow "License to Kill" unless they are a Paladin in a chruch state or have some other moral code that restrains them and will bring them to justice if abused.

 

All in all, it is best to nip it in the character creation stage. As always, YMMV.

 

- Ernie

[Alcamtar]

Re: Rank has it's limits...

 

Originally posted by eepjr24

Most nobility is not free to wander the countryside. They have land and people that they have to care for and have responsibilities to (fealty works both ways). Even a tyrant has to be around to make sure that the troops are paid, etc.

 

I would let him know that regular adventurers could not be landed nobility and expect to keep their land if they flit off all the time.

 

Do you have any more information on this? I suggested this previously, and he argued that he'd appoint a steward to manage his estate in his absence, so that he could wander at will. All he'd need to do was go home every now and then to collect his income, or just write letters of credit to be charged to his estate. Of course the GM can have all sorts of fun with dishonest stewards, incompetent stewards, and so forth, but is there anything that would outright prevent this, like having your title revoked; is there some reason you *need* to be around? Any historical precedents or sources? After all it's easy to say but to enforce it in the game a GM needs believable facts and arguments, or the players will cry foul.

 

(I could say I don't know enough to GM it effectively, so pick something else. But if I can wing it with a few rules of thumb that would be better.)

 

Mike

[eepjr24]

Deposed...

 

Well, the quick example I found was Henry IV deposing Richard:

 

"Taking advantage of the King’s absence in Ireland, Henry landed on July 4, 1399, at Ravenspur, near Bridington, where he was soon joined by the northern nobles who were unhappy with the policies of the monarchy. By the end of the month Henry and his followers had raised an army and marched to Bristol. When Richard returned in August, the royal army started to desert; Henry claimed the throne for himself, and on August 19 he captured Richard near Conway. He then went with his prisoner to London and there, on September 29, Richard abdicated the throne. On October 13 Parliament formally deposed Richard and transferred the crown to Henry. This parliamentary action had constitutional importance, since it revived the claim that Parliament had the power to create monarchs. Prior to his coronation, Henry condemned Richard to imprisonment, where the deposed monarch soon dies, possibly due to starvation."

 

Link: http://www.123student.com/biographies/376.shtml

 

Personally, though, I would ask the player to back up his claim that this is a common practice among royalty in either RL or fantasy literature. HE needs to do the work if he wants this character, not you. Think about this. In fantasy, when do you see a ruler travelling? Diplomacy, perhaps, or it's cruder cousin war. Or maybe in a fight to restore himself to his seat?

 

If he wants a steward, a capable one of royal blood (perhaps a bastard brother), he better buy a follower or come home to be deposed. If the steward is not capable, then he will be ruined. If he is not of royal blood, why would people listen to him? If he is the type to order peasants about (especially into combat) you can expect that they will revolt as soon as they see a chance like this.

 

- Ernie

[bjbrown]

The way you limit abuses for title perks is merely to always remember that there are consequences for actions.

A noble can order people all he wants, but when he asks people to do things like risk their lives or something else they really don't want to do, they will refuse or hide at the first instance or otherwise not do what they were ordered. If the noble develops a reputation for such behavior, the commoners are going to organize and sabatoge or kill him. (Remember, that's how revolutions are started- the commoners get fed up with the nobles and organize to do something about it.)

The ability to administer low justice usually comes from some higher authority, and if the character abuses it, the higher authority will take away the right to administer low justice and possibly punish the character. Low justice doesn't confer the privilige to ignore or make law, but to act as the judge and executioner, so to speak, to enact existing law. Knights who could adminster low justice were still bound by moral codes and fealty to the king in exercising that justice. In short, low justice isn't carte blanche to kill for fun or profit. License to kill is similar; Bond doesn't have a license to kill for the fun of it, he has a license to kill in the course of fulfilling his duty to his country.

Being above the law again has limits. As long as there are higher ranking nobles, they will reign in a character who embarasses them by flaunting their laws. You also have the same problem with disgruntled commoners; if a noble doesn't have to follow the law, then surely the commoners don't.

An order to surrender is useless in combat- when an opponent's life and liberty is at stake, following someone else's chain of command isn't particularly important.

Diplomatic immunity doesn't fully insulate a character from the law. While diplomatic immunity can save a character from prosecution from a specific crime, he can be kicked out of the host country. For a particularly awful crime, the character's native country might waive the character's diplomatic immunity and allow him to be tried in the host country anyway, to avoid an international incident.

A lot of these abuses are dealt with by simply remembering that those of lower rank have minds and emotions, and those of higher rank have an interest in maintaining order. An out-of-control noble is going to make a lot of enemies among the commoners, and is a threat to the upper nobility's chain of command. Both groups will act accordingly.

Small bonus to PRE-related abilities, and PRE attacks, are appropriate in certain situations. Being a noble definitely has to help in the High Society situation, for example. Noble rank might help with that order to surrender, if used in an appropriate fashion. "Surrender because I'm a noble," shouldn't work, but "If you surrender, I can guarantee you safe passage out of the country," could work (assuming the character has a reputation for being honest). PRE bonuses from noble rank should be treated like any roleplaying-based modifier- it only helps if the GM thinks it's used appropriately.

Since it seems that characters eventually become filthy rich over the course of adventuring in my Fantasy Hero campaign, I don't see that perk being much of a problem. A filthy rich character would have easy access to standard equipment, might get bonuses to Bribery rolls, and he could hire normal people to hold his codpiece. Money still doesn't buy things like magical items in my campaign, won't buy a follower, and regardless of Bribery, most important people are motivated by things other than money. So in my game, filthy rich wouldn't be a game-breaker.

[bjbrown]

I meant to add to my last post- surely a noble could hire a steward to manage his estate while he's off adventuring. Nothing guarantees the steward's competence and honesty, however, and the adventurer may return home to find that it's all squandered.

[Fitz]

There's also this to consider: many medieval noble families made the Sopranos look like solid upright citizens. If this character is in the habit of absenting himself from his estates, you can guarantee there's going to be some dastardly brother/sister/cousin/uncle in the wings just itching for the chance to depose him and take over. Even if that's not the case, his neighbours and court rivals aren't going to miss the opportunity to snaffle some or all of his lands to add to their own. A hell of a lot of medieval skullduggery got done in the law courts, and the easiest way to manage that was to initiate the proceedings when the victim wasn't around to defend the case.

 

Alternately, you could have the situation as it existed in France and Germany for much of the medieval period (and later) where princes were a penny a bushel. The way estates were broken up due to the laws of inheritance meant that there were plenty of supposedly landed nobles around who had less land, and thus less income, than an average villager. In fact in Germany there was even a class of serf-knights -- genuinely noble by birth, but also bound to their land in exactly the same way as common serfs.

[sbarron]

In a lot of games, going around barking orders at people "because I'm the Earl of Hogshead and could buy and sell this villiage 100 times over" would be a magnet for kidnappers and robbers alike. Unless he is going to take a bodyguard with him wherever he goes, his wealth might be more trouble than its worth. Like you said, as GM, you have the power to make these worth exactly as much he paid for them.

[AnotherSkip]

How about these:

 

The king _expects_ his Ducal entourage to be where he can put his hands on them. When he needs an army he usually needs it right away. And the Nobility usually wins or loses the battles.

 

how about treating the nobility perk as a type of VPP? This is reasonable for certain types of games and the less points he spends on it the less the "pool" does for him.

 

have him buy his Right to "order serfs around" as a SFX for summon.

 

ooooh have him "Go to War" and then directly link his fortunes to the survival rate of his troops. As well as for all of the the other Nobles as well.

something akin to "well, only 25% of your troops survived since you hid behind them. Now your desmene can only produce 25% as much. lessee, that means out of the 15 points you spent on Wealth now you only get the benefit of 3, oh heck ill be nice 4 points"

 

letters of credit could be only good with nobility. that means resupplying at essentially your rivals locations.

 

Other nobles _ARE_ your rivals, see book 3-4 of "George the Dragon Slayer"

 

Offer him a Rivalry, Dark Secret, Watched or Hunted. Or if you are really evil put it in the "limitations" of the Nobility ranking system or give him a "rebate" on his character. These can repersent an "evil" nobleman who of course covets the "property owned by the Hero.

 

GTG

[Willis]

here's my advice. it comes from quite a bit of gm experience. the most important thing you can do is know how to say "no" to players. if you think something is unbalancing or could take away from the fun of the game, don't allow it. it's that simple. and it's not that hard....say it with me...."no".

 

hope that little tid-bit helps you

 

Willis

[OddHat]

While I fully agree with the poster who told you to just say "no" to this player, I'd also suggest looking over the list of perks. If he wants low justice, license to kill, diplomatic immunity, wealth, etc. make him pay for every one of them. If he just buys a title, he's a landless younger son of a noble family, at best entitled to a comfy bed from other nobles as he passes through or some minor extra politeness from local officials.

 

Not having him in the campaign at all is also an option.

[Qamar]

Re: Perk: Noble Titles

 

Originally posted by Alcamtar

I tried this once before with him and he was trying to do things like

 

-- ordering commoners to fight for him

-- ordering people to surrender

-- ignoring laws by being above them, and being immune from punishment

-- license to kill; to render low justice on the spot

-- getting bonuses to presence, influence, negotiations, etc.

-- probably lots more...

 

I'd go ahead and let the guy spend points on the power with the understanding that he can only do these acts on his own land. Then I'd have the adventure take place elsewhere...

[Earen]

Re: Perk: Noble Titles

 

My original idea was to allow it with the caveat that the character's lands were X and the benefits would only work in his own lands ... then let all the adventuring take place in Y. But let's take a look at these point-by-point and see how we can have fun with them ... that's what GMing is about right?

 

Originally posted by Alcamtar

I am contemplating running Fantasy Hero, and have a player who is almost certain to take some sort of nobility perk. I think he sees it as a cheap (2-3 points) powergaming way to greatly increase his character's power.

 

The first thing to do is to not let him play ... I had two powergamers of this sort in my original FH campaign. (Examples included the character who wanted "Distinctive Features: No eyelids" ... as a negative points version of the Lightsleep talent as well as extra Fear PRE attacks, etc ... until I told him that he'd be blind. Or the character that wanted the wild magic talent of a spell that could kill pretty much anyone or anything in the campaign, but required 5 hours of preparation in total darkness, 8 specially-prepared black candles and could only be done on the new moon ... until I told him that if he lit the candles, it wouldn't be total darkness anymore ... and that a 5 hour ritual didn't sound like "wild magic" to me. But I digress ...) It was so bad that the campaign never really got off the ground ... each session devolved into arguing some point or another. Getting rid of problem players is one of the talents of good GMing. But let's see if we can devise ways to "encourage" this one to go his own way...

 

Originally posted by Alcamtar

-- ordering commoners to fight for him

 

His Commoner: "You have a whole army to do that for you ... and to protect me ... I'm not going to fight for you, I work your land!" Serfs in feudal times got taken fairly good care of actually ... much better than is typically depicted in movies. They got a plot of land to work ... a house to live in ... and food to eat. Oh, and they had an army to protect them from bandits and such. And if things got really bad during a war ... they could go stay at the castle until it blew over.

 

Someone else's commoner: "'Oo the 'ell are you to order me around? I'm no knight you daft bugger! And even if you wuz to makes me one on the spot I sure as 'ell wouldn't run off to fight for a bloke 'oo can't tell the difference between a serf and a knight! Daft noble-borns ... always ordering you around (mutter mutter as he wanders off)"

 

Originally posted by Alcamtar

-- ordering people to surrender

 

(Peals of laughter as if you were in the worst dive in town and you just blushed because the barmaid showed a little cleavage.)

 

Originally posted by Alcamtar

-- ignoring laws by being above them, and being immune from punishment

 

(Knights arrest the "noble" in question ...)

"Unhand me at once you vile knave! Don't you realize who I am? I am Baron Percy VIII!"

"Yes, your honor, we realize that. Duke Charles III ordered you placed into the stockade for a week for sending the serfs of Baron Timothy I, Baron Leopold III, and Baron Stephen IV into war without their leige-lords' permission ... and this I don't mind telling you for free ... that you sent them into battle against a lord that the good Duke was secretly supporting. So I doubt that you'll be released promptly ... it's the clouds this time of year, you know, hard to tell if it's been a week or a fortnight if you can't see the sun!"

 

And as a historical note ... there is always someone higher up the food chain. In the scenario above, if the Barons Percy, Timothy, Leopold and Stephen are the only vassals of the good Duke Charles ... well ... since it's obvious that Percy has managed to upset the other three vassals ... I seriously doubt that Percy's punishment would end at the stockade. Most likely, the other three Barons would require remuneration for the serfs they lost in the war that Percy ordered them to fight. So ... now Baron Percy is a Baron without lands, or serfs, or income from taxes ... and everywhere he goes he's laughed at ... "Baron Percy the Daft" they whisper as he walks by in his clothes that are in tatters because he can't afford any new ...

 

But I hope you get the point ...

 

Basically, what it boils down to is that you're the GM. As the saying goes, "It's your world." You run the world ... he doesn't. And if he tries to bully you into things (which it sounds like he's doing) then don't be afraid to use the entire world you've created to bully back. You run the game world ... he doesn't. He can have anything he wants for a character ... and you can spend the first few game session showing him the error of his ways. Some of your other players may applaud you for it...

[wlfjstr]

Your problem I think is a matter of three things. The first being that a charachter should be built with a concept and be built to show it. The second is the rules tell approximately how they should be handled. Thirdly, it looks like the particular issue shows he is trying to get more than the points allow for.

 

I would suggest putting together packages for types of charachters you expect. It allows players to see what is involved with being a certain class. With the noble example they would probably have higher EGO and PRE scores because of their background. They should have several supporting skills like High Society and Conversation, in addition to KS's. They might have a required disadvantage, such as Vassal to Lord. They may well have several contacts. If you know what it is that the players will be playing you can make story lines around it.

 

The Fifth Ed. and Fantasy Hero explain how Perks are handled and why the costs are so low. In the Fifth it states that most Perks can be nullified through play without the points being returned (effectively making them Independent). Also that a Perk comes with advantage and disadvantage. "being a member of a group means the character also has responsibilities to that group (as reflected by related Disadvantages...)" Hero System Fifth Edition pg 58. In Fantasy Hero it goes on to list the responsibilities of a lord on page 99.

 

To be a full Lord you must spend more than just three points to gain all of the advantages you listed. To have that kind of power you are looking at High King or Emperor (20 points). Let's look at each item.

 

"-- ordering commoners to fight for him"

 

Commoners might fight if the enemy was also threatening his livelihood but are just as likely to flee in terror. Judge the situation and determine what their reaction would be. A lord should already have a standing army of some sort to do that sort of thing. Maybe he should buy a follower and have it changeable to any nearby loyal commoner.

 

"-- ordering people to surrender"

 

I don't understand the problem here. If they are committing some crime where he will punish them if they surrender, then they won't.

 

"-- ignoring laws by being above them, and being immune from punishment"

 

He should be able to do this in his own area, although, that's a sure way to make sure that there is some sort of rebellion from the masses no matter how high his rank.

 

"-- license to kill; to render low justice on the spot"

 

He should be able to do this in his own area, although, that's a sure way to make sure that there is some sort of rebellion from the masses no matter how high his rank.

 

"-- getting bonuses to presence, influence, negotiations, etc."

 

These could be possible depending on situation.

 

 

 

I hope this helps.

[Alcamtar]

Thanks everyone for your responses.

 

A quick point of clarification; the player is not being overtly abusive. He loves to play noble and wealthy characters, but he was tending to just put a few points into perks to be a duke or archbishop-inquisitor or whatever, and then spending *everything* else on adventuring skills. He was expecting to get a lot of mileage out of his status and wealth. This was as much my fault as his, for failing to lay down the ground rules. He's a good player, he just needs clear parameters and a firm/fair GM.

 

About the "ordering commoners to fight" and "ordering surrender" he wasn't being abusive so much as he was relying solely on his perks to play a persuasive, overbearing, arrogant noble. He was getting free labor, pressing city guards into service, cowing people into surrender in exchange for leniency, that sort of thing. I wasn't sure if he had the right to demand favors, render justice, and extend leniency to another man's subjects. Since he seemed to know more than I did (he's good at bluffing), I let it slide and vowed to do my homework next time. :-)

 

Anyway this is lots of good suggestions and info. He just needs to pay fairly for his character concept and abilities. I need to define the world's sociopolitical structure more clearly. I think I'll write up some sample nobles.

 

 

Thanks,

Mike

[Roland]

Re: Deposed...

 

Originally posted by Alcamtar

Of course the GM can have all sorts of fun with dishonest stewards, incompetent stewards, and so forth, but is there anything that would outright prevent this, like having your title revoked; is there some reason you *need* to be around? Any historical precedents or sources?

 

In Western Europe, the nobles typically held their titles by a combination of hereditary right and oaths of fealty to superior nobles. Once the heir to a title had taken the oath and been confirmed in his title and lands, the title was normally his for life.

 

It was much different in the East. Under both the Arabs and the Russians, for example, titles of nobility were handed out by the ruler (Caliph or Tsar) and could be taken back at any time (at least in theory). Nobles were sometimes transferred from one location to another, either as a sign of promotion (or demotion) or to keep a potentially troublesome noble from consolidating power in a given location.

 

 

Originally posted by eepjr24

Think about this. In fantasy, when do you see a ruler travelling? Diplomacy, perhaps, or it's cruder cousin war. Or maybe in a fight to restore himself to his seat?

 

Or to go on a pilgrimage. A devout or adventurous ruler might go on a pilgrimage voluntarily. A bad ruler might be sent on a pilgrimage as penance.

[Roland]

Originally posted by bjbrown

Small bonus to PRE-related abilities, and PRE attacks, are appropriate in certain situations. Being a noble definitely has to help in the High Society situation, for example.

 

Gosh, with his Nobility bonus, Søren's functional PRE might be almost average!

 

Since it seems that characters eventually become filthy rich over the course of adventuring in my Fantasy Hero campaign, I don't see that perk being much of a problem.

 

We're filthy rich? Since when?

[johnflang]

I am playing a noble in a current campaign. In the campaign world the oldest son inherits the tilte of the father. Other sons are given a title one rank below. In my case I have no lands. Due to my families business interest I do have a point of wealth. The group I am adventuring with knows I am a magician. I dress well. They currently do not know that I am noble. I am imagine the first time they find out is when I feel it necessary to be identified as a noble. Otherwise I am a magician with money.

 

The point is most of the stuff mentioned early about being noble, I did not think about until I read this post. Thanks for the info, I will make sure not to abuse my 4 point perk Baron.

[badger3k]

Some literary sources

 

Here's a few books I recently read that has some good info on how medieval villages and manors were (well, English ones at least):

 

Life in a Medieval Village, Frances and Joseph Gies, Harper

 

Life in a Medieval Castle, same authors and publisher

 

The books contain much that has been gone over already. Especially on the rights and responsibilities of both noble and villager. The serf had a lot more than movies (and most games) portray, as had been pointed out.

[Guest Celt]

Re: Some literary sources

 

Originally posted by badger3k

Life in a Medieval Village, Frances and Joseph Gies, Harper

 

Life in a Medieval Castle, same authors and publisher

 

Frances and Joseph Gies have a load of books they've written on the Middle Ages, making life in those times accessible to the average reader. They've explored villages, cities, castles, nobility, serfs, merchant classes, women's lives, technology, warfare and on and on. I can't recommend them highly enough, both for general research and for good reads.

 

Any of the nobility specific ones will be useful in giving someone who wants to play a noble character an excellent overview of their rights and responsibilities, as well as giving the GM hooks to drag the player around.

[KA.]

I just wanted to chime in and agree with those saying that the player can have whatever he wants, as long as he pays for it! With Character Points!

 

So far, he sounds like he is expecting:

 

Prince Narcissus

 

Player:

 

Val	Char	Cost
10	STR	0
10	DEX	0
10	CON	0
10	BODY	0
10	INT	0
10	EGO	0
20	PRE	10
10	COM	0
2	PD	0
2	ED	0
2	SPD	0
4	REC	0
20	END	0
20	STUN	0

6" RUN02" SWIM02" LEAP0Characteristics Cost: 10

 

 

 

Cost	Skill
3	Bureaucratics 13-
3	Conversation 13-
3	High Society 13-
3	Oratory 13-
3	Persuasion 13-
3	PS - Diplomat (PRE-based) 13-
3	Riding 11-
3	Seduction 13-
3	Trading 13-

Skills Cost: 27

 

Cost	Perk
7	Contact (Contact has access to major institutions, Contact has significant Contacts of his own, Contact has: very useful Skills or resources, Good relationship with Contact) 11-
7	Contact (Contact has access to major institutions, Contact has significant Contacts of his own, Contact has: very useful Skills or resources, Good relationship with Contact) 11-
7	Contact (Contact has access to major institutions, Contact has significant Contacts of his own, Contact has: very useful Skills or resources, Good relationship with Contact) 11-
20	Follower (x10, 0 Base, 0 Disad)
22	Fringe Benefit: License to Kill, Local Police Powers, Low Justice: Character has the right to mete out justice., Member of the Aristocracy/Higher Nobility, Right to Marry: Can perform the marriage ceremony, Weapon Permit (where appropriate)

Perks Cost: 63

 

 

 

Total Character Cost: 100

 

Val	Disadvantages
0	Normal Characteristic Maxima

Disadvantage Points: 0

 

Base Points: 75

Experience Required: 25

Total Experience Available: 0

Experience Unspent: 0

 

 

Hope he has the points, and doesn't want to buy much else.

KA

[PhilFleischmann]

There's another issue, mentioned in FREd IIRC, that no one has mentioned here: If he's already a filthy rich noble, why would he ever want to go adventuring? Risk being eaten by a troll or lounge around in your palace with your servants bringing you good eats, drinks, and merries. How long does it take to make this choice? You want the legedary Ring of Hufarb? Hire some adventurers to go questing for you!

[Earen]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

If he's already a filthy rich noble, why would he ever want to go adventuring?

 

The examples of filthy rich people not being content to just sit at home and to go on adventures in both literature and history are many.