There are rich pirates in D'Hara

[egamma]

It is not, and never has been, intended that nobles could carry around thousands and thousands of gold without a unit with no risk.

Are the risks different for priests versus other solo nobles?

[Anaris]

Are the risks different for priests versus other solo nobles?

Yes.

[Penchant]

Yes.

What's the reasoning that priests deserve to lose their gold more often?

[BardicNerd]

What's the reasoning that priests deserve to lose their gold more often?

I think the risks are less for priests than other solo nobles.

[Penchant]

I think the risks are less for priests than other solo nobles.

which brings me to my next question that I should have asked first what is in the risks compared to other nobles?

[Chenier]

which brings me to my next question that I should have asked first what is in the risks compared to other nobles?

Compared to a noble with a unit, I would add, as priests can't hire anything to improve their protection...

[Penchant]

Compared to a noble with a unit, I would add, as priests can't hire anything to improve their protection...

I mean are the odds better or worse for a priest compared to othe unitless nobles with this feature? I apologize if my typing isn't the greatest as I am getting used to doing typing on a mobile device.

[Chenier]

I mean odds better for a priest or worse for this feature?

A priest has less odds of this happening to him than a unitless noble, from experience. But as traders now work in bonds, only stupid nobles carry large sums of gold without a unit.

[Penchant]

One possible solution would to make a way for priests to get to hire body guards that are specialized against thievery and cost 50 gold a week. It will be spendy (50*52=2600 gold a year just to defend from pirates) though maybe it should only be 25 gold per week.

[Kwanstein]

Better yet, allow a priest to hire burly commoners to accompany him. They could not only help protect him from highwaymen, but from unruly mobs and soldiers attempting to capture him as well. Of course, merely being mercenary thugs their loyalty should never extend too far, and so they should be unable/unwilling to ever fight a pitched battle. I see this working best as a substitute unit that's always neutral.

Or another idea - give priests a travel option similar to those that adventurers have (eg hire ferry) except call it "hire escort" and have it drastically reduce the odds of being robbed when used.

Both options could be rather pricey, to discourage overuse.

[Indirik]

Actually, that's an interesting idea. An extra travel option that costs gold, and reduces the chance of theft. Like hiring a one-time escort. Make it pricey, and not always available. 25 gold for a one-region move. Too much to use routinely, but perhaps there when you really need it? Shuffling gold across the continent, say 12 regions away, would cost 300 gold.

[Chenier]

Actually, that's an interesting idea. An extra travel option that costs gold, and reduces the chance of theft. Like hiring a one-time escort. Make it pricey, and not always available. 25 gold for a one-region move. Too much to use routinely, but perhaps there when you really need it? Shuffling gold across the continent, say 12 regions away, would cost 300 gold.

The lowest-income class should have to pay ten times more than the normal-income class just to get the same protection?

[Indirik]

This has nothing to do with income.

If you're ferrying around in excess of 8,000-10,000 gold, you can afford to pay for some protection.

And if you really are the poor priest, with the lowly income, who can't afford to pay, then you don't need to pay, and can ignore it.

[Vellos]

This has nothing to do with income.

If you're ferrying around in excess of 8,000-10,000 gold, you can afford to pay for some protection.

And if you really are the poor priest, with the lowly income, who can't afford to pay, then you don't need to pay, and can ignore it.

It should be pretty regularly available if you are carrying significant sums of gold.

It should also be calibrated in size to give it a neutral expected return at some "big but not insane" threshold; say 2,000 or 3,000– so if you're carrying less than that, it's "not worth it" unless you're relatively risk-averse, and if you're carrying more than that, it is worth it.

I think calibrating it to 8k or 10k would be excessively expensive, but calibrating it to 2k or 3k might make sense.

[Geronus]

The lowest-income class should have to pay ten times more than the normal-income class just to get the same protection?

Lowest income? Don't know about you but my priest is quite rich. He has no expenses you see.