Home and Sanctuary

[mica]

Despite running the campaign for years now, the subject of sanctuaries has just cropped up in earnest largely on account of the characters stopping in Esgaroth.

The book states that this is a starting sanctuary for characters.

This issue is - characters have retired, others have joined. One of which is a ranger.

So the ranger starts with Esgaroth as a sanctuary? As would a bunch of hobbits starting a campaign around Bree?
Should this be updated to reflect the expanding environment. Maybe choosing a starting sanctuary should be part of forming the initial fellowship.

In our game a fellowship opened a number of sanctuaries (back in the day when there were few undertakings). Since then some of have retired and new fellowship members joined.
So, which is true:
Replacement characters automatically get the sanctuary despite not being part of the opening ceremony.
The sanctuary requires the whole fellowship to again open it.
The characters who do not have it as a sanctuary need to open it individually.
The sanctuary is only considered a sanctuary for some of the characters.

The RAW is very specific - Company repairs to a Sanctuary or Company disbands and characters go home. This seems at odds with the opening statement that a fellowship can be taken anywhere.
Can we presume:
No sanctuary bonus unless the entire company repaired to the same sanctuary. The idea that sharing time together is what makes this superior to just going home or staying in local lodgings for a few weeks.

[zedturtle]

A more complete answer will have to wait but as far as Esgaroth being a Sanctuary for Rangers or Bree-hobbits, Lake-town is about the only place that when someone sees a stranger, they try to sell them something instead of shun them.

[Fatpob]

In your game Mica I would suggest allowing the new fellowship members to take on the Sanctuaries already opened by the current fellowship. It's like a right of passage - your in our gang, and as such you are excepted here.

A possible exception maybe to say if a member of the fellowship hasn't been to the sanctuary for some time, it's probably no longer a sanctuary, especially if no-one from the original fellowship is present.

I also believe Sanctuaries (and standing) should be an in play reward based on your actions and heroic works with the folk of the Sanctuary. It seems somehow absurd that after defending a location from almost certain destruction, for it not to be a Sanctuary seems churlish and the whole location should get a misdeed.

Treasure points are more less meaningless, magic items practically impossible to come across, so this seems a decent reward mechanism.

[mica]

I suppose it comes down to how you view undertakings.

If you see 'opening a sanctuary' as a chore for which you are 'sacrificing more lucrative' undertakings then I understand your point. If however you see 'opening a sanctuary' as spending weeks to months following the event getting to know people, breaking bread and becoming good friends with the community then having it as an undertaking makes perfect sense.

Opening a sanctuary changes the companions' status from paid mercenaries who the community are probably thankful to see the back of now that the danger has passed to welcome heroes and good company full of tales from afar. From a film perspective I suppose you could consider it a montage scene where the characters feast, attend marriages and funerals, help dig and plant, collect fruit, flirt, help herd cattle in storms and drive off wolves through the changing seasons before ending in the characters packing and the tearful scene come spring.

It is always helpful to try to see what the mechanics are attempting to achieve and represent rather than 'cost vs reward'.