Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tywyll

Tithing and Magic items

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, ChalkLine said:

In RQ3 1L per day was a poor man's worth

Yes, that means 242L per year for poor, as a free (not poor) RQG man is 60L per year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ChalkLine said:

In RQ3 1L per day was a poor man's worth

in RQ3, 1 penny per day was a poor man's worth. In RQ3, a broadsword was 175p. In RQG, a broadsword is 50L. So that gives about a 3½:1 ratio from RQ3 pennies to RQG Lunars, although other prices will give a very different ratio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we played high-level RQ2, we were all Rune Lords, Rune Priests,  or Rune Lord-Priests/Rune Priest-Lords, so we were the heads of the cults. Some of us even became High Priests.

So, we had a convention that we gave magical items to the Cult and were immediately given them back on a permanent loan. So, they belonged to the cult but we could use them as if they were our own.

It helped that we could reasonably expect to challenge any cultists who disagreed with our approach. 200% Bastard Sword tends to help in disagreements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RQG p.281 (1st printing): Rune Lords do not, by default, have a specific amount of time which must be dedicated to the cult (unlike Rune Priests, which require 9/10ths). They must come when the cult calls, but otherwise have "a fair measure of independence under normal circumstances." So, get to do what you want--but when you get work, it's the hardest work.

9/10ths "income" is gonna require GM interpretation. I'd personally rule any "cash" goods after divided by the adventuring party. I like @soltakss's solution to magic items, for ones powerful enough to interest the cult. If a bigger, badder RL/Hero wants it, tough luck.

It also looks like a RL's profession is considered as Noble, beyond just the Vasana example. "The Rune Lord is trained for free in their cult skills. They gain seasonal checks for the Noble occupational skills" (Ibid).

Do other GM's anticipate making POW purchaseable by their parties? I feel like @Kloster's 200L/POW makes sense in context, but I'm currently not thinking that POW will ever be available to buy in the same way that spells as a service are. In my Glorantha, that's going to be something the players have to do themselves, or earn as a reward for substantial task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Crel said:

 

3 hours ago, Crel said:

Do other GM's anticipate making POW purchaseable by their parties? I feel like @Kloster's 200L/POW makes sense in context, but I'm currently not thinking that POW will ever be available to buy in the same way that spells as a service are. In my Glorantha, that's going to be something the players have to do themselves, or earn as a reward for substantial task.

IMO that's not "buyable POW," but pricing on enchantments that require POW,

So at 200L/POW, an item that takes 15 POW to create costs 3000L.

And I tend to agree that it's not just an open market -- the caster creating the item needs to believe the buyer deserves it!  For smaller items, a strong reputation might suffice.  For substantial items, the caster will likely demand a substantive service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kloster said:

It's even worse: 60L is 1 full year of income, not 1 season.

I would argue better, much, much better. The economics of an average (let's pick our fave whipping boy) D&D game boggle my mind and I am not an economist.Wasn't there a crusade IRW that cost a purse of silver to mount?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2019 at 8:28 AM, Tywyll said:

Nowhere is there any suggestion that magic items or even coins and valuables gained from adventuring are subject to the 20 / 30 / 90 percent 'income' taxes. That could certainly be assumed, but then it would seem odd that there are detailed rules for how occupation income must be taxed and not a word about spoils of adventuring or war. If you take enemy weapons and armor do you have to pay for those? Gifts from other party members or inheritance from family?

 

Good question

I was just thinking about this as related to another matter when I saw your question. That is, The rules as written or what makes for a good fun story (the closer these are the better the rules imo). But there is another set of factors: The players and the referee  (I will use this name for the example). Though the rules do not state it, what if the tax overseer was crooked (as if) just a little and decided to include that silver and pile of baubles in the taxable income.

"Your lordship, how could such as these, have such riches. They say they killed a giant but... I say they sold some cattle and forgot to pay the just taxes."

The rules say he can not but, the story would benefit from a plot twist thrown in by an enterprising referee, and the players have an excuse to have an conflict with an evil bureaucrat (and maybe win).
Now that's high adventure <gr>!

Nothing is perfect but a good referee with a set of patient (as if<gr>) players and a well written set of rules should help create a fun evening.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, g33k said:

IMO that's not "buyable POW," but pricing on enchantments that require POW,

Yes, exactly. This is what we've ruled.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2019 at 9:27 AM, CBDunkerson said:

Read the example. It answers every one of those questions. Or: 'yes', 'yes', 'no'.

Don't have the product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2019 at 10:44 PM, Bill the barbarian said:

Good question

I was just thinking about this as related to another matter when I saw your question. That is, The rules as written or what makes for a good fun story (the closer these are the better the rules imo). But there is another set of factors: The players and the referee  (I will use this name for the example). Though the rules do not state it, what if the tax overseer was crooked (as if) just a little and decided to include that silver and pile of baubles in the taxable income.

"Your lordship, how could such as these, have such riches. They say they killed a giant but... I say they sold some cattle and forgot to pay the just taxes."

The rules say he can not but, the story would benefit from a plot twist thrown in by an enterprising referee, and the players have an excuse to have an conflict with an evil bureaucrat (and maybe win).
Now that's high adventure <gr>!

Nothing is perfect but a good referee with a set of patient (as if<gr>) players and a well written set of rules should help create a fun evening.

I always assumed failing to pay your tithes resulted in visits from Spirits of Reprisal, so clearly if you aren't being hounded by a demon, you must have filled out your tax forms correctly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Tywyll said:

I always assumed failing to pay your tithes resulted in visits from Spirits of Reprisal, so clearly if you aren't being hounded by a demon, you must have filled out your tax forms correctly

That would take care of one's religious duties. I would image more mundane and less dogged tax collectors would be utilized by more mundane leaders. Less mundane and more determined overlords might have more exotic means to track down malefactors The lunars used to have tax demons, I believe.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tywyll said:

I always assumed failing to pay your tithes resulted in visits from Spirits of Reprisal, so clearly if you aren't being hounded by a demon, you must have filled out your tax forms correctly!

That would imply that illuminates could worm their way out of tithing - something Bolthor Hairybreeks appears to have been unable to do, despite massive exposure to Nysalorean riddles from his treaty wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joerg said:

That would imply that illuminates could worm their way out of tithing - something Bolthor Hairybreeks appears to have been unable to do, despite massive exposure to Nysalorean riddles from his treaty wife.

If an illuminate lied to his temple about his earnings and hid his loot, a Divination would not reveal their deception. But if the priest found out through mundane means, cultural rules still apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×