Looting and the State

[Jürgen Hubert]

Let's say the party goes delving into some dungeon. They slay some monsters, and find some magic items. So it's obvious that these items are legally theirs once they emerge from the dungeon.

Is it?

"Finders, Keepers" might be an acceptable solution for wilderness areas with plenty of monsters where the local lords are so glad to see some monsters gone that they ignore the wealth adventurers gain from going into the dungeons. But what about more civilized nations? Will they just let some dirty adventurers walk away with powerful magic items or large amounts of gold looted from their land if they catch wind of it? What gives the adventurers the right to simply take these items?

I see several possible solutions here:

- Everything is confiscated outright.
- Everything is confiscated, but the adventurers get a "finder's fee" or possibly get these items at very reduced prices (unless, they are powerful artifacts, in which case the government will not give them back without a very good reason).
- The adventurers hide their loot from the government. Somewhat risky if found out, but usually possible until the items in question can be identified by third parties (items of historical significance, for example).

Have you dealt with such situations in your campaign?

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Tax 'em to death, and local lords have the power to declare 'eminent domain' over especially useful items (eg the are is plagued with trolls, and the party finds a flaming sword of troll slaying). Generally, though, it's hard to enforce. Parties tend to be mobile and cantankerous about surrendering their loot. I've used it as a plot hook for low/mid level parties, but never as a regular feature of a campaign world.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Never tried anything like that to the players. Even if they're sanctioned adventurers, the adventuring contract involves a "finders keepers" line.

I think that the state won't want to get on the wrong foot with those adventurers: So they're walking away with tons of loot that lay in that dungon. Why are they doing this? Because they were able to get into that dungeon and take the loot from whoever - or rather, whatever - had the stuff at the moment. It was in that dungeon for a reason: every previous attempt to retreive that stuff were unsuccessful, and those who initially brought it in often didn't intent to die in there; the dungeon's denizens convinced them otherwise.

So what government will sent a couple of lowly guards to pester these guys? They might still be edgy and grumpy from the crappy food, bad sleeping conditions, generally unhealthy environment down there and, well, the fact that they were knee-deep in the blood of their enemies (and some of their own) most of the time. I know that if I were still covered with whatever it is those buggers bleed, the cut that nearly severed my arm only just healed by a priest, I would get ironic at some nightwatchman who told me I had to give that artifact to him or there'd be trouble.

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!

There, the coffers are filling nicely, and no guard needs to bother those adventurers and lose stuff they'd rather hold unto for some time (and might be useful for keeping the peace)

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

So what government will sent a couple of lowly guards to pester these guys? They might still be edgy and grumpy from the crappy food, bad sleeping conditions, generally unhealthy environment down there and, well, the fact that they were knee-deep in the blood of their enemies (and some of their own) most of the time. I know that if I were still covered with whatever it is those buggers bleed, the cut that nearly severed my arm only just healed by a priest, I would get ironic at some nightwatchman who told me I had to give that artifact to him or there'd be trouble.

The problem here is that this sends a message that the government is unwilling to enforce the law against a certain segment of the population - and one of the most dangerous segment at that. This might cause other citizens to wonder why they have to pay taxes...

A parallel in today's world would be the treatment of mercenaries. Some poor, desperate Third World nations might be willing to ignore mercenaries as long as they don't make too much trouble - but how many rich nations are willing to ignore them just because they are "dangerous"?

Normally, governments need to prove that they are capable of wielding more force than anyone else around. Otherwise, they will loose their legitimacy.

 

[GlassJaw]

Well you could look at what happens when someone discovers a shipwreck full of gold. I'm sure you could do some research on Mel Fisher. I think it really depends on where the treasure is found and who has claim to the land or waters.

In any event, I think something like this would be rather difficult to enforce given the "economy" of standard D&D. This would definitely makes sense in a lower-magic/power or more realistic fantasy setting.

 

[wayne62682]

I think it's only "legal" in D&D because otherwise it would really anger the players for the DM to screw them over by taking away their loot, no matter how realistic or logical that reason would be. I know if I was playing in a campaign and the DM pulled some crap like that, I wouldn't be too happy with him. Keeping the loot is the reward for going there and risking your neck in the first place -- if you have to give half of it back then why bother at all?

Hell, I've had players balk at returning the item they were hired to retrieve because they figured that they could sell it on the black market for a lot more than their employer was offering them to find it.

 

[Falkus]

The problem here is that this sends a message that the government is unwilling to enforce the law against a certain segment of the population

That's only if there is a law concerning the taxation of adventurers gathering loot and killing monsters. It could conceivably be viewed as a form of public service, with the loot being their reward (after all, monsters represent a security risk to the kingdom).

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Well you could look at what happens when someone discovers a shipwreck full of gold. I'm sure you could do some research on Mel Fisher. I think it really depends on where the treasure is found and who has claim to the land or waters.

I was also going to suggest this - take a page from the salvage rights precedent. I believe that for the most part you can keep what you find in the real world, assuming the treasure is "abandoned."

I'm playing in a Victorian England D&D game right now, and its taken some adjustment to think of how real-world issues affect the kill-and-loot philosophy of D&D.

 

[Kapture]

A parallel in today's world would be the treatment of mercenaries. Some poor, desperate Third World nations might be willing to ignore mercenaries as long as they don't make too much trouble - but how many rich nations are willing to ignore them just because they are "dangerous"?

A better paralell might be european nations looting the tombs of the rest of the world during the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. Europeans took home lots of artifacts, often into personal collections. They donated them to their home states afterwards. Most of the municiapl museums were started from personal collections, I think. When did this stop happening?

I doubt that any civilization with a less than modern setting would have the rules, force, or desire to stop competant adventurers from walking away with minor items, might try to draft moderate items that they had a particular use for, and would desire to take hold of major items if they could... the if-they-could being unlikely.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Normally, governments need to prove that they are capable of wielding more force than anyone else around. Otherwise, they will loose their legitimacy.

Exactly, this question will have a different answer from every DM and possibly in every campaign. Before anything else you need to answer for yourself certain questions.
1.) How large are governments?
2.) How much power is at their disposal?
3.) How far does their physical enforcement reach and how widespread is it?

Depending on the answers it may be reasonable for the fantasy governments in your setting to do such things. In mine I purposely model it on the early bronze age city-state model and the answer is that governments are few, far between, and their reach is short. They aren't modern and they don't have a monopoly on force thus in the face of powerful individuals they aren't going to cause more trouble than the effort will gain them as their already too precarious to risk that.