Who was right

[DMReckless]

Honestly DMReckless, I gave all but gave up on this argument and stopped trying to read every post. I didn’t read yours and as such didn’t respond. But I guess I will now.

You make a good argument about the loot of the bad guys belonging to the people of the town who had their “lives” sundered. But honestly, most parties never go that far. Its always assumed the bad guys loot belongs to them. I know its sounds greedy, which most people are accusing me of being, but that’s how most parties do it. They split the bad guys loot amongst themselves and “maybe” some of the more noble ones will make a small donation to the town.

So honestly the townspeople didn’t factor into it. Sadly they rarely do. It was assumed, as is usually always the case, that the loot belonged to the members of the party. And the argument was about rather one member of the party disserved a bigger share of the loot to make up for his great sacrifice in obtaining it.

Thank you for responding.
So, now, can you see where your party's expectations were that the loot would be split evenly among everyone? What most people responding here were trying to get across (in my opinion) was that the party, by historic precedence(which is what you're citing above,) had an expectation going in to the fight, of equal and full shares of the "loot". They took an equal and fair share of the risk by entering the fight (as is evidenced by the Monk's loss.) Since the party had this expectation going into the fight, they are not wrong to have it coming out of the fight. This is the same precidence that says the spoils are not given to the townsfolk except by individual choice AFTER the spoils are split evenly among the party. That said, I think most groups would find it acceptable to give the Paladin 25000 gold and then split the other 65000 between the other 4 members (16250 each instead of 18000 each, not too much of a sting, really.) That both groups see each other as being greedy now is the route of the conflict. If the Paladin is demanding Shield replacement AND his share of the loot afterwards, he is being greedy by most peoples' standards, because it is beyond a reasonable expectation that a 20% share suddenly becomes a 42% share due to a risk everyone took equally by entering the battle.

Now, the "Paladin" thing to do (ie Lawful Good) is to insure that, in the future, this issue is made into a clear expectation going into a fight. In other words, "I am sorry that you do not feel that my shield is as important to future endeavors as I do. However, I feel that it is important that we clear up, and decide, right now, what will happen in future encounters where a party member looses a major investment. My belief is that that loss should be reimbursed, if possible, before any goods or money are divided as spoils of victory, in order to insure the safety and efficiency of each individual and our group as a cohesive whole. Can we agree to this?"

Then, if the party agrees, it is an expectation going into battle, and you and anyone else would have a fair expectation of recompense should something so vital be lost.

 

[Maggan]

I know its sounds greedy, which most people are accusing me of being, but that’s how most parties do it.

Sure, but you were arguing a course of action that goes against what most groups do, at least in my experience.

I wager that most groups don't compensate other member's loss of equipment out of the loot pile in the way that you were arguing. So the "most groups do this" argument is not very relevant here, as if you had followed that course, your paladin certainly wouldn't have had a case for claiming compensation.

You appealed to logic, so your claims were judged on logic.

I dont mind a confrontation with the DM. There are guys in this group I have known for over 14 years and we have had more arguments in that time than any human can reckon. We alwasy get things resolved and underway... eventually

If your group can take a discussion in this manner and emerge a more content and stronger group, that's a good thing. I suggest not to pursue a new shield, if the sundering is not accepted as a fair rule by the group, but to ask the DM to work a different "compensation" into the deal.

I strongly advice against trying to get the compensation out of your fellow players' characters' pockets. It wouldn't be fair to demand that they take the brunt of your DM's call.

/M

 

[mmadsen]

Honestly DMReckless, I gave all but gave up on this argument and stopped trying to read every post.

You started a thread asking for advice, and you didn't bother to read the responses? I can see why playing a selfless Paladin might not work for you...

 

[Set]

This is like some sort of twisted faerie tale.

A *Paladin* arguing about not returning stolen loot to it's rightful owners, and how the rest of his traveling companions need to pay for his gear if it gets damaged.

Wow. The Blackguard class was *made* for this character.



This thread will be bookmarked and become reason #258 why we don't allow Paladins. 20+ years of D&D, and I've yet to see an Assassin, Death Master or Necromancer turn on their party as fast as a Paladin, or have as many excuses for why they were justified to do so.

 

[Will]

Well, for what it's worth, I play a very nice paladin tabletop.

I paid my OWN money to liberate slaves. Of course, we then went and massacred the (illegal) slavers, so it was more of an investment than expenditure.

Our group regularly loans each other money when someone wants something they are a little short on.

While my character is the obvious moral compass of the party, he is very diplomatic and tries to persuade (rather than threaten) the party into doing things. When necessary, he will make concessions and compromise (though generally it doesn't take a lot of compromise).

It's very fun playing a worldly but moral character, and it's nice that we've managed to talk our way out of several problems. Not always, of course; another party member tried rather unsuccessfully to talk our way past a vampire in a tomb, but he at least delayed the vampire a bit.

I _would_ say that I'd suggest reserving paladins for players who are charismatic and/or well-spoken, because it converts the difficulties of the class into positive coolness.

 

[Grazzt]

In traditional sword and shield based societies, your enemy's loot is yours by right of arms, whereas stealth is still stealth. And you cannot sue someone for damages caused in combat. Assuming your character is lawful and believes in something approximating Roman honor or medieval chivalry, he is owed nothing for his shield.

Im gonna agree with this one I believe.

Hell, no way a character would successfully argue the 'shield thing" in my party (or the party I DM for). And if they did....I don't see any of the players in either group doing anything more than either ignoring the argument or going "yeah right. Ok...so remember back when we had that fight with [insert big bad evil item destroying monster] and I lost my [insert prized magic item]. When do I get comp'd for that?"

 

[Will]

Some notes:
A tower shield can't be mithral because a tower shield is made of wood.

+5 tower shield is Hardness 15, 70 hit points. This is one reason why sunder is a bit daft; if your enemy could deal out 70+ hit points of damage on a successful hit, wouldn't he be a LOT better served doing it to the PC? Plus, the enemy wants to loot that super-expensive shield! Smacks of BS/fiat.

If for some reason the DM DID let you have a mithral +5 tower shield, we're talking Hardness 25, 80 hit points. Which means the mace would have had to deal 85 or more hit points of damage.

Although I suppose the target could sunder several times, battering down the shield. But see point about 'don't you want to be killing your target??'

 

[Sparafucile]

Honestly DMReckless, I gave all but gave up on this argument and stopped trying to read every post. I didn’t read yours and as such didn’t respond. But I guess I will now.

This thread just gets funnier and funnier.

Seriously though, I would question the DM regarding the actual rolls and damage accrued to your shield. Before the actual damage/hardness, etc. rules were brought up, I assumed that the developments came to pass based on die rolls. If it's anything else, then maybe your group is just not communicating well with each other.

Don't get me wrong. I don't believe that a game of D&D should be "just." I don't think it should be RAW. I just think it should be FUN. that said, having a fellow human being look you in the eye and allow something harmful to happen to your character, disrupting your whole MO without a die roll (when it isn't inherently helpful to the story), is just not fun.

Maybe your sense of entitlement towards a new shield (which I disagree with), is actually displaced frustration because of how capriciously your shield was destroyed. that's something I can get behind.

 

[Switchblade]

Funny thing with shields, they always were expendable in the same way as arrows etc. I (dimly) remember a documentary on shields called Decisive Weapons (I think) following the development of shields etc. In saxon duels the fighters were each allowed to take in 3 shields, as it was expected each would be broken. Likewise the dane axe was pretty much used to smash shield walls by breaking through them. Sundering your way though shields was a very valid tactic.

Plus hitting something the size of a table is a lot easier than hitting the person behind it, especially when they are actively trying to put the shield in the way of the weapon.

Not so much in DnD but still worth assuming your shield isn't going to last long but every blow that hits it rather than you is one more potentially lethal blow diverted.

Not worth getting attached to any one item or putting all your eggs in one basket.

 

[Switchblade]

No sympathy from me.

I'd happily vote against you. No matter how you slice it (haha), demanding recompense out of the gross receipts *IS* greedy and does impact one's fellow adventurers.

And if the group wanted to get rid of you for the way this is all going down (the demands, the selfishness, the 'taking it to a message board'), then I have already set my own precedence in voting to remove such individuals.


I'm very curious, by way of a real world example here. If you're SCA and your weapons or armor get broken in combat, can you go after the other party for it? Or is it, as I suspect, just part and parcel of the game and your own tough luck?

Not sure about SCA in the US but I've never heard of that happening in LRP in the UK, weapon/shield breakages happen and people except that. If you are going to swing things at people you have to expect them to break/airblade sometime (the sword, not the person) Fortunately rarely unless you are an archer (arrows don't last long apparently)