Who was right

[Maggan]

Yes. We are saying that he doesn't owe you. We are also saying that just because someone owes you money does not me that their money is yours.

Which leads me to another thought; let's say that the bad guy owes money for equipment broken.

Who has first claim on the money? If the money comes from the village burnt, then the bad guy would owe the village the money. So laying claim to that money just because you've got it laying in front of you and the village people are some other place, would be wrong, because it is rightfully not the bad guy's money. It is the villagers money. the bad guy owes them.

So if one would accept that the bad guy owes money to people for equipment destroyed, then in this case what is happening is that the party is stealing money that belongs to villages plundered before they came on the scene.

According to the logic presented to justify the claim.

EDIT: Or to put it another way. The paladin is pointing at the pile of gold saying "25k of that is mine, we split the rest". If we follow that logic then he should be saying "All of that belongs to the viilagers, we take nothing". Especially since it's the paladin doing the talking.

/M

 

[Maggan]

The end result is the same as what I have been arguing.

Well, excluding the 10 000 necklace or whatever it was but ...

Yes, the net outcome is the same. But it is the same by arrangement and party consensus, and the party acting according to the charter.

I'm all for that. It's not the result that people are debating, it's your justification of the result.

/M

 

[Crothian]

I also notice that almost every post against me is based is saying that the party doesn’t owe me anything or that I shouldn’t take from party gold. None of these arguments are valid. I never said the party owed me gold. I am not saying that the party should give me 25,000 gold of their treasure. I am saying that the 25,000 gold is mine and not theirs. I hope you can see there is a difference here. I am not asking for what is theirs but what is mine. Even if you don’t believe the 25,000 gold is mine the point is that my side of the argument has never been that the party should give anything to me but that the party should not take anything from me.

I like your DM.

Unless you are going to post all the relevant laws of the setting you are using we cannot judge what is Lawful.

There is no right and wrong here. But if you were a member of my Party I'd have voted against you because you demanded more treasure and then took the argument out of game and posted it on some message board. I would not look kindly on someone who aired our dirty laundry in public. If you would have been nice about it or better yet said nothing more then likely I would have found a way to get that cool shield back for you.

 

[Maldor]

I think we can call the argument closed. Not because I think one side has won but because of something the DM said.

I had a really cheesed out AC. My AC was 36, 38 against evil. In my defense my character was a one trick pony, and AC was that trick. The DM was always frustrated that his uber beefed up monsters would miss me a little over half the time. When talking about my sundered shield he said. “If you are going to build an un-hittable character, I am just going to sunder your armor.” That quote sealed the deal on this character. He told me that if I play a turtle the he is just going to smash my shell. Replacing the shield is pointless when he has implied he intends to keep smashing it. I personally think the sunder ability is a rotten deal. I am not up on 4th edition knowledge but I am willing to bet sunder is out. Its one of those things like instant death attacks that everyone agrees is broken and wrong and the D&D system has been trying to get rid of those types of things since the start of 3.0

this explaned alot to me i wonder how the guy sndered such a tough item i mean 10 hardness 70 hp and you can't crit it plus you draw a AoO from attacking it but now i understand the DM handwaved it so the corract action in my view is to toss the cheating DM on his ear. and all you other whinny DM that want to say DM can't cheat are wrong DM's can get away with cheating but it is still cheating and i don't stand for it i don't cheat they don't cheat. otherwise they are not the DM.

 

[Vaslov]

I am saying that the 25,000 gold is mine and not theirs. I hope you can see there is a difference here.

If I am reading this correctly with this you are still defining the means of wealth distribution. What is party treasure vs. individual treasure. All I am saying is your approach is not the only possible approach. There is a variety of economic models, not just one and plenty of advocates of what the most "fair" option would be.

Good gaming to you!

 

[jensun]

I always thought D&D was a game of heroism and daring deeds against hopeless odds, you seem to be turning it into an exercise of tedious accounting.

Also, stuff breaks, lean to live with it.

You cant prove you are right or wrong in this case, it is entirely dependant on how your game world has been set up and what agreement you have within the group. Neither side is right or wrong in any objective sense.

Trying to bring in real world analogues is pointless. You could just as easily claim that actually your possessions are foreited to the families of the people you killed as weregild for their deaths or that all of their possessions go to their heris and if you want to make a claim on them then you must go through the lawful court process first.

Somehow I doubt the rest of your party would be entirely keen on those options.

 

[jensun]

I gave my most expensive magical item in pursuit of these villains. The rest of the party got away with a few bruises that were healed in the morning by the party cleric. My sacrifice outweighs what the party gave in this battle, or in all other battles combined. So should I not be compensated?

Reading this, I am really not sure Paladin is the class for you.

 

[roguerouge]

I think we can call the argument closed. Not because I think one side has won but because of something the DM said.

I had a really cheesed out AC. My AC was 36, 38 against evil. In my defense my character was a one trick pony, and AC was that trick. The DM was always frustrated that his uber beefed up monsters would miss me a little over half the time. When talking about my sundered shield he said. “If you are going to build an un-hittable character, I am just going to sunder your armor.” That quote sealed the deal on this character. He told me that if I play a turtle the he is just going to smash my shell. Replacing the shield is pointless when he has implied he intends to keep smashing it. I personally think the sunder ability is a rotten deal. I am not up on 4th edition knowledge but I am willing to bet sunder is out. Its one of those things like instant death attacks that everyone agrees is broken and wrong and the D&D system has been trying to get rid of those types of things since the start of 3.0

Yeah, I'd be reluctant to fund you under those circumstances as well. It be like going against the DM, and this indicates that I'd rather have DM antipathy focused on you, not me.

If the first time a sunder effect occurs is this late in the campaign, it's perfectly natural for a player to feel a sense of injustice, although you were expressing that badly and towards the wrong parties (the opponent in game and the reluctant players.) Sunders need to be used early on, to show players not to put their eggs in one basket and establish their validity as a COMMON melee tactic, or not at all.

 

[Fifth Element]

Why would the money belong to you rather than the village that was burned? The villagers had stuff "broken" as well.

I must say, your character is really not much of a paladin. Paladins are not "me first" types.

 

[roguerouge]

Out of curiosity, how are you splitting treasure:

Greatest good to the greatest number?
Whomever's lagging in wealth picks first?
Random lottery?
Dibs?
First pick to the players that contributed the most in getting said loot?

I'd think that would influence how I treated a request for danger pay.