Burial Rights for Adventurers

[Sir Whiskers]

When you say "once he died, all his rogues possessions were fair game and he refused to return them" are you talking the player did or the character did? because to be honest if such reactions were appropriate to the kind of rogue he was playing, then he was just roleplaying, which wouldn't really be "understandable" for not playing with him again. If however the player was obvisouly running his own aggenda and such action was totally out of character then I agree not playing with him again was totally understandable. Though i'd have likely called for GM intervention.

Though to be honest if he was dead, what he thought should or should not happens to any items on his corpse is fairly moot, his character is dead after all. I personally strongly discourage dead PC's offering any opinions IC or OOC as they're dead, and typically dead folk dont hold conversations unless they're undead LOL.

I'd have just told the rest of the party I was getting my items which were loaned to him in the first place back from his character, made sure the GM knew and then left it at that. If the rogue got raised he'd be raised without the items in question.

You raise some good points. Some more info:

I'd played with this player before, and that was his modus operandi. He was one of those players who is always out for himself. He never understood why trust between characters (and players) was an issue. This episode was just the last straw for me.

As for getting the stuff back, it would make sense from my rogue's point of view. From a player's point of view, however, I just don't play in campaigns where PC's kill each other - we're supposed to be a party that works together, trusts each other, and so on. Also, this was the first session of a new adventure the GM was running, so it was easier to drop out than pursue the issue.

Bottom line for me: it's a game. If some people can't play well with others, I don't waste my time with them.

 

[el-remmen]

I don't understand why anyone would assume that their new character would just be handed over anything that belonged to the former character, or anyone else for that matter.

Borrow? Perhaps.

Given as a gift once he/she has proven his worth? Perhaps.

But that kind of meta-game thinking that is required b/c of all the crap "standard" characters carry around is what it the problem with 3E.

 

[Gnimish88]

That's kinda the point. A set of good stuff is buried so that the new PC can come in to play with a set good stuff tailored to his class and choices, without bringing in more equipment than a group of that level should have. It's a choice to keep things balanced. Of course if the corpse happened to carry something important to the quest / campaign, that is transferrable.



Of course the Paladin wouldn't say anything like that. In-game the Paladin would see that the body is buried with it's belongings, or that they are sent to the dead PCs relatives, or something like that. In meta-game, the stuff is never seen again in any case.



With our way the new guy comes into play with equipment normal to his class & level. The party is free to give him "hand-me-downs", but the new PC wouldn't really need them.

Hobviously my way seems completely wrong to you, but all kinds of rules can work given my first rule: don't play with wankers (courtesy of .. um, was it hong?). My players don't try to undermine this so-called testament rule, because they're quite happy to bring in new PCs with approppriate equipment. (Instead of getting hand-me-downs from the other PCs, which consist of the dead wizards stuff even if the new PC is a rogue).

And really, none of my players like it when someone adds insult to injury when they 10 secs after beloved PCs death start calling dibs on the equipment.

It seems very odd to state from the beginning of the campaign that you may not take take equipment from the bodies of companions or, if you choose to do so, they will be punished by having the replacement character start with no equipment. IMNSHO, I think it is best to let the characters do what they will, and to balance out treasure from the other side of the screen if they get over-powered because of it. It isn't like the treasure given for an standard anyway. Now, if it is well justified in the context of the game, that is one thing, but to simply say that as a ground rule just feels wrong.

Out of curiousity, what is your problem with taking equipment from fallen party members, your opinion on the topic seems awfully strong to be just one of treasure balance.

 

[Ferox4]

"What's he got?" is the mantra of the survivors.

 

[The Goblin King]

Its never come up. Any character that has died has been rezed, the equipment was lost, or was just one out of a TPK. I think when I run my world I will make it so that any items you are buried with appears with you in the underworld. If you loot the body you are going to have an unhappy former teammate after you. It would make tomb raiding a lot more hazardous if the original owners were violently opposed to you taking thier stuff.

 

[hong]

Que? Didn't the wizardry games force you to carry the corpse of a dead character around until you either rezzed them or replaced them?

So you never, in fact, buried them at all?

Because, you know, there's nothing better than carrying a corpse around.

It makes it a little odd when the PC's are forced to discard perfectly good gear regardless of the individual character personality due to a rules decided at the beginning of the campaign.

"This stash is major, Ripley. I mean really major. You gotta go with its energy. Since you are a survivor of the encounter that resulted in his unfortunate demise, your percentage will naturally be some serious, serious money."

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Its never come up. Any character that has died has been rezed, the equipment was lost, or was just one out of a TPK. I think when I run my world I will make it so that any items you are buried with appears with you in the underworld. If you loot the body you are going to have an unhappy former teammate after you. It would make tomb raiding a lot more hazardous if the original owners were violently opposed to you taking thier stuff.

That's great. Angry former teamates persuing you from the afterlife. I like it a lot

 

[Numion]

It seems very odd to state from the beginning of the campaign that you may not take take equipment from the bodies of companions or, if you choose to do so, they will be punished by having the replacement character start with no equipment.

Punished? It's not a punishment. A character and it's stuff are just mostly inseparable.

IMNSHO, I think it is best to let the characters do what they will, and to balance out treasure from the other side of the screen if they get over-powered because of it. It isn't like the treasure given for an standard anyway. Now, if it is well justified in the context of the game, that is one thing, but to simply say that as a ground rule just feels wrong.

It's just one problem eliminated in my view. Party treasure isn't increased by bringing in the equipment of new PC in addition to the deceased PCs stuff. You see how the groups wealth could increase this way if one was playing a very lethal adventure (say, RttToEE, when this rule was taken in to use).

Out of curiousity, what is your problem with taking equipment from fallen party members, your opinion on the topic seems awfully strong to be just one of treasure balance.

I've already explained that. It's a question of party treasure balance. And since the players like this rule (which isn't problematic at all in use), I really don't see it as "awfully strong".

 

[Gnimish88]

Punished? It's not a punishment. A character and it's stuff are just mostly inseparable.



It's just one problem eliminated in my view. Party treasure isn't increased by bringing in the equipment of new PC in addition to the deceased PCs stuff. You see how the groups wealth could increase this way if one was playing a very lethal adventure (say, RttToEE, when this rule was taken in to use).



I've already explained that. It's a question of party treasure balance. And since the players like this rule (which isn't problematic at all in use), I really don't see it as "awfully strong".[/QUOTE

Oops, attributed something someone else said to you. Sorry about that.

The main point I am trying to make is that someone's character dies, the party makes a good faith effort to bring them back, when that fails, they split his/her gear. I have never been in a game where this has brought about hard feelings. If in doing this, you say that the person's new character can only start with first level equipment, then they are in essence punished twice: They have to make a new character AND they get no good equipment. You have to bear in mind that in the campaign I am currently playing in, when your character dies, you come in a level lower, just like being raised. Also, we tend to loose equipment in combat, esp. magic swords (stupid sundering fiendish treants) so that the total party treasure tends to stay fairly static.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

This is one reason I prefer less stuff-dependent games, like d20 Modern, or low-magic fantasy with a dash of Four Color to Fantasy. You just don't have to deal with these kind of issues.