Who was right

[Mark]

Does anyone still agree with the logic of the party?

Their logic has not been presented. You have presented your logic in favor of your case and your logic against their case (assuming their case, which is not actually presented, is basically that the treasure from the encounter should not be lessened by the amount it would cost to replace your shield).

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

I cant present the logic of the party because the party didnt actually use any logic to defend their case. They just said anything on the bad guys was party treasure. They didnt make one argument in their defense. Not one analogy or legal reference. Just a, "It works this way because I say so" argument.

 

[Mark]

I cant present the logic of the party because the party didnt actually use any logic to defend their case. They just said anything on the bad guys was party treasure. They didnt make one argument in their defense. Not one analogy or legal reference. Just a, "It works this way because I say so" argument.

How many of the party agree with you and how many do not?

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

Also remember that you all are probably seeing this issue from the point of the view of the party, which may cloud you judgment. The party wants to believe that the line of logic that puts more money in their pockets is the true one. Their greed blinds them to what is right.

They are greedy because they want “More” More then what they have, the want their coin purses to grow fat. I am not greedy because I am not asking fore more; I just want what was taken from me rightfully returned. And if I was offered a copper more than 25,000 gold I would refuse. I simply want what was taken from me. It’s a lot like that movie Payback with Mel Gibson.

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

As for who agrees with me.

The fighter obviously agrees because he gave the monk and me a chunk of gold to make up for what we lost. Also the fighter got a 36,000 gp item off the guy who broke my shield so maybe he feels a bit bad.

The monk somewhat agrees because he spent 10,000 gold to get a spell permanently cast on himself, which was dispelled by the evil wizard. I defended the monks right to 10,000 gold from the bad guys as well. I don’t know why people tend to think I wouldn’t defent someone else who was wronged in the same way I was. I am definitely no hypocrite.

That makes half the party I believe. The other half just want their gold. And the DM, the tiebreaker, isn’t on my side. So that’s how things stand so far

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Ummm ... no. If I were player in your party I definitely would not accept your logic. What's your group's usual procedure for splitting treasure? And why would the DM have a say? This is usually negotiated out between players.

 

[Umbran]

The court logic fails on one basic point - you didn't use the courts. You cannot expect to gain the benefits of court procedure without also taking the work or detriments involved.

There are many logics you could apply here:

For example - did you get the 25,000 GP for that shield all by yourself, or was it bought with shares of party treasure? If the latter, there's the argument that it, and all items ever acquired using party treasure are all really party property. You were chosen to manage some share of the treasure, and you bought the shield. It's gone now. It is not your loss, but the party's. What to do about that is still a party decision, not yours alone.

For another example - if instead everyone considers it to be your own item, you still may not have much ground to stand on. If you were alone, and the item were stolen or broken, and you needed help recovering it from the criminal who took it, would anyone risk life and limb to help you for free? No. You'd have to pay them. Much the same here - the party all took risk, all put forth effort. You don't get to recoup your personal losses using their effort for free.

The partys I like to play with are all usually team-oriented. We'd replace major items off the top of the treasure pile, and split up the rest. On the other hand, nobody in the party would demand that of his fellows. They might ask, politely. But that isn't what you did, and that might be part of your problem, now.

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

Like I said before, most of you see this issue from the point of the view of the party, an you must understand this. The logic of the party is clouded by greed. No one is going to side with me when siding with me means less money in their pocket.

If a law was passed tomorrow that said all brown eyed people get $1,000 from the government for being so cool, every brown eyed person in the country would run to get their money and lash out at anyone who opposed this new law. You see how greed can cloud your mind and cause you to think illogically.

I can list a few examples of games where this very group got screwed over, and even lost party members, because they let greed guide their judgments. In one of the last major games we played, a party members greed let one of the major bad guys escape capture. He came back to hurt us too.

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

I might be able to end this argument. By proving over half the players at the table agree with me.

The fighter gave the monk and me gold to make up for what we lost. Proving he is on my side.

By accepting this money the monk proves he believes what I am saying to be right. If he took money he did not think he was owed then he would no longer be lawful and could not advance as a monk.

I obviously agree with my logic because I presented it.

That’s 3 players, at a table with 5. The other 2 are against paying back me and the monk and the DM, who someone mentioned should not get a say, is the loudest voice against me.

 

[Mark Chance]

...clouded by greed....
...greed can cloud your mind....
...they let greed guide their judgments...

Your protestations against greed would ring more true if you weren't trying to glom 25,000 gp at the same time.