Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sejs" data-source="post: 2714314" data-attributes="member: 4910">(Boards ate my first attempt at this post.  Let's give it another go.) Heh, the first thing that popped into my mind when you bring up "common law precedence" is Common-Law, rather than a precedence in law that is common.  Which has me thinking along the lines of family law, which, thinking about it, is rather relevent. Allow me to submit that the situation be looked at like so:  Speaking generally, of course, but in divorce, assuming all things are equal and there's no need to balance finances to make up for a difference in income and so on.  Assuming all things are equal, if you have something that is your sole possession from prior to the relationship and was not considdered communal property in same relationship, then when the distribution of property comes around, those things are are solely yours are not put on the block.  If it belongs to just you, always did belong to just you, and wasn't used for the benefit of the couple at any time, then when the distrubution takes place, the other party has no claim to it what so ever.Same deal here, just instead of divorce, it's the death of a party member, and instead of distribution between spouses, it's distribution between the surviving party members.The other thing to considder, when it comes to inherritance, the only family the law is talking about is your immediate family - your spouse and children.  They have claim.  Unless you expressly state in your will something to the contrary, no other family member - parrents, siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, etc - none of them get anything that was yours.  Oh, no, granted.  I don't think anyone's saying that if there's an immediate need for something that's vital to the party's success that they should just pitch it aside.  No argument there.  Well, again, as stated above, Brother of Dead Bob has no claim.  He was never robbed - it was never his to begin with.  Now Son of Dead Bob is another matter.  Legally speaking, of course.   Also of course, considder that for the most part, most adventuers won't have any spouse or children.  It's not often that the lifestyle lends itself to settling down.  It's certainly not unheard of, but it's a far sight from common.As for being robbed - what about the people that had a stake in the acquisition of said items in the first place?  They have more claim to them than someone who never participated at all, shouldn't they?  The immediate threat issue nobody's arguing.  But what about the extended threat issue?  Joe Partymember has far more use for Dead Bob's ring of resistance +2 because he's out adventuring, putting his life on the line, than does little Bobby Joe the two year old estranged son who lives in safety spending most of his time playing in the sand box.  Is the extended threat issue strictly avarice? I submit that it's not.  Little Bobby Joe has absolutly no need for that wand of fireballs.  I do.  Well, that's an issue that'll vary from DM to DM, though it can be a sticky one.  If the new character comes in nude, what happens if he's a different characer than the previous one? My old fighter's platemail +1 isn't going to do my new wizard any good at all.  On the other hand, if the new guy comes in with level appropriate gear, then a PC dying is a free lunch.  *shrug*  Like I said - that one'll differ depending on how the individual DM wants to handle things.  They're my friends.  I would much rather see my possessions help them to survive and prosper than I would see them sitting around collecting dust on some mantle or sitting with me in a coffin where they're doing no good to anyone.</blockquote>

Verification