Looting Dead Comrades

[Sejs]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but in the absense of a will or stated request from the deceased, how does the guy's family necessarily come before the man's comrades-in-arms? You know, the people who fought, bled, and struggled along side him. The people in whom he entrusted his life, and whom entrusted him with theirs.


*shrug* Of course, you could always just break out some Speak with Dead (assuming there's a cleric) and simply ask the guy himself what he'd like done with his possessions.

 

[Sejs]

Oh, right, the actual question itself. Heh, knew I missed something.


Nah, totally kosher as far as the Paladin's code is concerned. There's no stricture as to "Thou shalt not distribute items where they might be needed", and doing so certainly isn't evil by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Aaron L]

And after reading that description of the characters history, it sounds like a perfectly in character decision, as well. Certainly not a bad thing to not let valuable resources go to waste. Ive always hated the idea that you should bry a dead PC with all thier equipment, its just wasteful! Making use of a dead comrades items doesnt have to be a disrespectful "loot the body" (LTB) it can be a way to honor his memory, IE:

"this is old Marmo's shield, and it always makes me feel a little better to think that he may be up there, looking down on me, lending my shield arm a little extra strength now and then when I really need it."

or

"Here is Marmo's sword. I think he'd want you to have it now, Katey. May it continue to fight for Lord Arius."

 

[diaglo]

What does the Paladin's code say about taking the stuff from his fallen foes? Is that any different? Heck, it might even be worse as the valuables a foe has were likely gained as a result of evil acts. Should the paladin be able to benefit from another's evil?

the old paladin's code would certainly have made him return the items he could to their rightful owners without asking recompensation or at least attempting to find the true owners.
and barring that giving them to his church as a tithe.


it also meant he couldn't use or own many items too.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

the old paladin's code would certainly have made him return the items he could to their rightful owners without asking recompensation or at least attempting to find the true owners.
and barring that giving them to his church as a tithe.


it also meant he couldn't use or own many items too.

Heh, I remember that old code. A paladin in an old party was slowly turned into a horse by his god for constantly ignoring that aspect of the code - he was a walking Wal-Mart.

 

[Hammerhead]

the old paladin's code would certainly have made him return the items he could to their rightful owners without asking recompensation or at least attempting to find the true owners.
and barring that giving them to his church as a tithe.


it also meant he couldn't use or own many items too.

It also made him much more powerful compared to the party fighter. Now, they're probably equal in power (but I'd give the edge to the Fighter). Yet another example of why Third Edition is the only true edition of D&D, and all else is pale imitation.

If the guy doesn't have some kind of will, either a document or verbal agreement, then the party gets to loot him clean. I don't think a paladin would have a problem with that. That's why my characters generally have a will of some kind.

 

[Xath]

In the one game I've played in where this was particularly important, the player had had his character write up a will. All of the character's equipment was sold, and the money was used to build a temple to his god.

 

[Janx]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but in the absense of a will or stated request from the deceased, how does the guy's family necessarily come before the man's comrades-in-arms? You know, the people who fought, bled, and struggled along side him. The people in whom he entrusted his life, and whom entrusted him with theirs.

Because culturally, there is a common law precedence that says by default, your relatives get your stuff. This is the ways things have been done for thousands of years, and it stands to reason, that if the GM hasn't defined it differently, it works the same in the game world.

So, unless you say where you want your stuff to go, your friends are stealing from your family.

What this means:
if the party is idly standing around your body, wondering what happens next, your stuff technically belongs to your next of kin. In most cases, the only way next of kin will get the stuff is if the party delivers it (or news of it)

if the party is idly standing around your body, wondering how they'll beat the evil Lichymandius, they should take your holy sword and layeth the smack down.

if the party is idly standing around your body, wondering what your stuff will go for when they get back to town, then you're family is being robbed. You can hope your next PC, brother of DeadBob hears of this.

There's probably a big difference in ethics on the matter, if your taking an item to help in against an immediate threat (like versus the same thing that got a party member killed), versus wanting the dead PC's stuff because of greed.

Given that a normal party has everbody equipped appropriately, in theory, nobody NEEDs the dead guy's gear. If you take it and sell it before the replacement PC comes in, then you've got no gear to equip the new guy (especially dangerous if the DM does not give the new PC any starting money, but does give him a similar level).

Additionally, would you want your PC to be stripped down by your vulturous friends?

Janx

 

[Quickbeam]

Did the adventure take place in Detroit?

Cause otherwise the dead guy gets no vote.

I'm not sure what good a contract would do if you're not alive to file a grievance.

Hey, say that to my face!!
Just because the weak are killed and eaten here in Detroit, and the Phoenix Suns bash our city during pre-game basketball intros, you've got no cause to attack our election process. Chicago has a much longer history of that than we do!

As for the topic at hand, unless the paladin's code addresses such issues, I can easily see justification for redistribution of the fallen PC's gear to help in the ongoing battles against evil and tyranny.

 

[the_mighty_agrippa]

It really depends. I think the paladin was probably in the clear here, especially if the items were going to be put to immediate use smiting evil. In my RTTOEE campaign, there was a standing in-party rule that those who died would have bequeath their goods to the party until the adventure was concluded. That could have been a big problem, since people kept getting killed and one character kept ending up with a lion's share of the loot, generally from battles they lost.

It's a DM balancing act.