Looting and the State

[S'mon]

Is it really worth a dozen guardsment to get the stuff? Nah. Let them keep their stuff - untill they sell it to one of the local shops, for a low price. That shop will sell it for twice as much - and pay taxes to the royal treasury for it. Those adventurers will also buy stuff in my nation (doing wonders for the local economy) and probably blow lots of money on booze, beds and brothels. And who's getting taxes from those? Right!

Yup - this is how a sensible, free market sort of place like the Free City of Greyhawk runs it. 5% of retail value from shop tax on the wand of fireballs is much better than losing half the city guard while attempting to exercise 'eminent domain'.

I do like the 'treasure trove belongs to the State' confiscation idea for a Lawful Evil realm like the Great Kingdom or European Union, though.

I mean a fantasy European Union...

 

[S'mon]

Incidentally, this whole 'treasure trove' setup requires either:

1. The King is taxing dungeon loot as imports (hence my EU quip, just been lecturing my E-Commerce class & I discussed the EU VAT regime levied on goods imported from outside the EU, eg USA). or

2. The King says the dungeon & its contents are already part of his domain, like mineral rights & gold/silver treasure trove under UK law.

Both of these have serious legal implications re the status of the dungeon & its denizens. Is it a foreign power? Are goods in it res nullius or res delicta? Are its inhabitants subjects of the King? Outlaws?

As noted, a typical feudal set-up is unlikely to be engaged in this sort of tax attempt, feudal and early modern states lacked the infrastructure to pursue mobile high-value goods and preferred to tax visible things - like windows!

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I would not make a legal issue of it without warning the players at the outset of the campaign, and making sure to adjust CRs appropriately to their newly nerf wealt by level expectations.

What I would be far more likely to do is to occasionally put a moral dimension into it. I'm reminded of an old X Men comic where they had daqken over the HQ of a world spanning group of theives and murderers. They found the group's treasure trove, and Longshot, who had an ability to pick up empathic resonances in objects was overwhelmed by the feelings of loss attached to the items. They ended up using his impressions from the items and a convinently world spanning computer network to track down the orriginal owners of much of the loot, keeping the cash and items which couldn't be traced. If there was a way to give one or more PCs a similar sensitivity to items, I would use it to present a moral and skill based challange to them.

There's also the possibility that the +2 flaming sword you picked up in that dungeon is the royal sword of the middle kingdom, lost generations ago and now the object of a paladin's quest as it is the only thing that can defuse the impending succession war. Give it freely, demand payment, hold it out of pique?

 

[mmadsen]

The Spanish conquistadors, who were almost perfect analogs of D&D adventurers, were expected to set aside "the King's fifth" from any loot they collected.

 

[balterkn]

For simplicity, the fact that characters generally sell treasure for 50% of value, can be considered to be the party's take after taxes, fees, and the like. Same goes for gems and jewelery, if sold at less than full value (normally through a jeweler/money changer) - although these can be given at full value as "in-kind" currency for transactions (not everything has to be sold for coin before trading).

If a character is willing to put up with black markets, and other underground elements (likely to involve a bit of city adventure), then I'd probably let them keep higher proportions of their treasure (based on their skill checks and success/failure in dealing with the underworld elements). Of course, failure can result in unpleasant things. So far, no players have tried this option.

For readily convertible goods (trade goods) that sale at their full value, generally PCs don't have enough of these to warrant consideration of taxes and thus also not enough to warrant considerations of mercantile supply and demand. If the party rolls into town with wagons full of trade goods, then I'd probably look at a short interaction with the village/town leaders (for smaller settlements) or the merchant's guild (for large towns and up) to determine how much they can sell their good for. This case is kinda rare and only normally comes up if the players are experimenting with merchant trade in addition to their adventuring profession. Hence, there is some buy-in from the players that this is some of the interaction they would want on their travels. Several groups have tried it, mostly in support of long overland treks - level of detail varied depending on the group's interest - from "let's buy stuff to trade" to "looking at the good produced here and what will be needed there, we'll buy this specific stuff, oh and also stock up on these other specific good to trade at these settlements en-route").

Large amounts of trade good in treasure from an adventure would have to depend on the nature of "large" (compared with the GP limit of the settlement). If generally below the GP limit, then the influx is not really noticed. Beyond the GP limit, then I'd handle it as above.

 

[Banshee16]

In the old days, they used to place more emphasis on characters being taxed on entrance into cities, or having tax collectors who come by dungeons to tax PCs coming out all loaded down with loot.

I would think that in some settings like Eberron or Iron Kingdoms, where there appear to be strong, established governments, and an emphasis on political power, even among villains, rather than just monster bashing, this would be par for the course. If a dungeon lies within someone's property, adventurers going down into the depths would keep a "finder's fee" or something, and be forced to hand over the rest of the gear to the person who owned that place.

Unfortunately, given 3E's stance on magic items and such, and how much they are factored into a character's power, I don't think it would work, because if you've got PCs giving up 60% of what they earn, they'd be severely underpowered for their level.

I happen to like PCs having far less magic than they do currently, but it's not how the game was designed, and making them give up items will in the end cause other longterm effects, I'm thinking.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

Yup - this is how a sensible, free market sort of place like the Free City of Greyhawk runs it. 5% of retail value from shop tax on the wand of fireballs is much better than losing half the city guard while attempting to exercise 'eminent domain'.

I do like the 'treasure trove belongs to the State' confiscation idea for a Lawful Evil realm like the Great Kingdom or European Union, though.

I mean a fantasy European Union...

This is one reason the paradigm of having adventurers able to slaughter armies is kind of silly. How do you make the law apply to someone so far above everyone else that they can never conceivably be held to the same standards that bind everyone else in that society?

I think Raymond Feist's novels actually deal with the topic in some ways, with the best magician in the world still being expected to serve his king.....and when he decides not to, it causes major ripples. Sure, the king is limited in what he can do about it. He's not going to give up an entire army to make the magician bend.....but at the same time, that magician might be cut off from resources within those lands etc. and at the very least, he's not very welcome.

Banshee

 

[Doghead Thirteen]

Baaaaad idea. Any player I've ever met (me included) would rapidly start plotting to destroy the in-game government, and players have a habit of pulling off that sort of campaign-trashing scheme.

Besides, the PC's in a lot of campaigns are functioning outside the law in the first place.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

Depends on the strength of the local authorities. If their piddly militia couldn't be bothered to hack through a monster-infested cavern, but some small band of "heroes" did, they're more than welcome to try and take it.

 

[Numion]

In order to tax a treasure trove, two conditions need to apply:

a) The taxer needs to be aware of the treasure

AND

b) The taxer should be capable of collecting the taxes (as in defeat the adventurers if they refuse paying

Now if a) and b) both apply, the lord or whoever could go collect the treasure himself. If only a) applies, the lord is going to get pwned and lose face. If only b) applies, the lord has hard time proving where the treasure came, and even knowing who to ask.