Who was right
- Thread starter Moff_Tarkin
- Start date
- Status
roguerouge
First Post
There's something to be said for compensating melee combatants for item breakage at the mid to low levels. Yes, wizards CAN get stuff broken, but it happens to them much less frequently in melee combat because they do everything they can to avoid that happening.
Now, if you're willing to pay for the wizard's spell book when it gets dumped in water or when he gets hit with a disjunction at high levels, then it's a fair procedure, if everyone's on board with that. If you make arguments that you shouldn't pay because he didn't pay for backups, well, then he could say the same thing about your shield.
Now, if you're willing to pay for the wizard's spell book when it gets dumped in water or when he gets hit with a disjunction at high levels, then it's a fair procedure, if everyone's on board with that. If you make arguments that you shouldn't pay because he didn't pay for backups, well, then he could say the same thing about your shield.
theredrobedwizard
Explorer
Assuming that prior to this your group had a verbalized agreement to split treasure evenly amongst the party members - you are actually being *unlawful* by going against this prearrangement.
You also mentioned something about drug dealers not getting repaid for illicit goods. That's fine, except that drug dealers aren't necessarily evil. What they are is unlawful.
Demon Summoners are evil, but not necessarily unlawful. In fact, most demon summoning cults are extraordinarily lawful.
So what you're basically saying is that the principle of equal treatment under the law doesn't apply to unlawful people. According to that logic, you can murder any chaotic (or even neutral) person without fear of repercussion.
According to that logic, your paladin is Lawful Evil.
Enjoy your lack of class abilities.
Back to the specific matter at hand, it's up to each individual party member whether or not they believe they should chip in for your lost shield. Do you regularly chip in for Diamond Dust for the Wizard's Stoneskin spells? What about paying for scrolls of Remove Curse that the Cleric has to use in order to keep the party from being Mummy Rot'd? How about each +1 Arrow that the Ranger uses? Those are magic items being destroyed due to the expected usage thereof.
Your argument is very much the definition of greed ("Replace what's mine at the expense of everyone else."). The communal life style of most adventuring parties (each gets their own equal share) is exactly at odds with your stated belief. If the entire party believes that what you're demanding is correct, then by all means go ahead and take your money off the top. If even *one person* decides that they believe your claim is unright or unjust, then no. You get your share and the other members of the party can donate some to you if they feel the need to do so.
tl;dr - You're tottering towards LE, mate.
-TRRW
You also mentioned something about drug dealers not getting repaid for illicit goods. That's fine, except that drug dealers aren't necessarily evil. What they are is unlawful.
Demon Summoners are evil, but not necessarily unlawful. In fact, most demon summoning cults are extraordinarily lawful.
So what you're basically saying is that the principle of equal treatment under the law doesn't apply to unlawful people. According to that logic, you can murder any chaotic (or even neutral) person without fear of repercussion.
According to that logic, your paladin is Lawful Evil.
Enjoy your lack of class abilities.
Back to the specific matter at hand, it's up to each individual party member whether or not they believe they should chip in for your lost shield. Do you regularly chip in for Diamond Dust for the Wizard's Stoneskin spells? What about paying for scrolls of Remove Curse that the Cleric has to use in order to keep the party from being Mummy Rot'd? How about each +1 Arrow that the Ranger uses? Those are magic items being destroyed due to the expected usage thereof.
Your argument is very much the definition of greed ("Replace what's mine at the expense of everyone else."). The communal life style of most adventuring parties (each gets their own equal share) is exactly at odds with your stated belief. If the entire party believes that what you're demanding is correct, then by all means go ahead and take your money off the top. If even *one person* decides that they believe your claim is unright or unjust, then no. You get your share and the other members of the party can donate some to you if they feel the need to do so.
tl;dr - You're tottering towards LE, mate.
-TRRW
Satori
First Post
Moff_Tarkin,
What was the grand total of the haul after the battle?
Are we talking 200K+ worth of gold?
What was each party member's share of the gold?
---
Currently, you're presenting your case without context. Until we can see and compare what type of sacrifice you're expecting from your group, it's difficult to determine whether your party members are acting like jerks or not.
i.e. Asking for 25k from a haul of 400k is NOT a big deal...but asking everyone to cut their winnings in half for your shield makes you the jerk.
Also, what is the alignment bend of the group? If, for example, everyone is good...then I think the DM would be hard pressed to allow willful ignorance of this issue while still maintaining that everyone is acting in accordance with their alignments.
What was the grand total of the haul after the battle?
Are we talking 200K+ worth of gold?
What was each party member's share of the gold?
---
Currently, you're presenting your case without context. Until we can see and compare what type of sacrifice you're expecting from your group, it's difficult to determine whether your party members are acting like jerks or not.
i.e. Asking for 25k from a haul of 400k is NOT a big deal...but asking everyone to cut their winnings in half for your shield makes you the jerk.
Also, what is the alignment bend of the group? If, for example, everyone is good...then I think the DM would be hard pressed to allow willful ignorance of this issue while still maintaining that everyone is acting in accordance with their alignments.
I heard it was an intelligent shield and when the executor of it's estate contacted it in the afterlife he was directed to bring civil suit against Moff for reckless endangerment. Moff will not only have to pay for the shield's revival, but lawyer fees and pain and suffering. Shame he couldn't get more than the 25k gp. I heard the local magic arm's agents were taking him off to debtor's prison.
Moff, is what you purpose fair? Something others would be willing to agree to? That's up to you all, not some law. Unless the party created some sort of contract you are out of luck. My guess is all of the party members where just free agents who happened to have common goals. At best any agreements made before hand were probably verbal. If you were hired out well just add it as a line item on your billing statement. Would I agree to it? Depends on my character. In the real world it would come down to the fun of contract negotiation.
This reminds me of an old story. A guy was running a project for the government over seas. During the project he looses his hat. He loves having a hat so he buys a replacement and puts it on the monthly billing statement. Uncle Sam denies the charge. When he submitted the next billing statement he added a yellow sticky noting "try and find the charge for the hat now!"
Moff, is what you purpose fair? Something others would be willing to agree to? That's up to you all, not some law. Unless the party created some sort of contract you are out of luck. My guess is all of the party members where just free agents who happened to have common goals. At best any agreements made before hand were probably verbal. If you were hired out well just add it as a line item on your billing statement. Would I agree to it? Depends on my character. In the real world it would come down to the fun of contract negotiation.
This reminds me of an old story. A guy was running a project for the government over seas. During the project he looses his hat. He loves having a hat so he buys a replacement and puts it on the monthly billing statement. Uncle Sam denies the charge. When he submitted the next billing statement he added a yellow sticky noting "try and find the charge for the hat now!"
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
The bad guy owes you something? If you're fighting and trying to kill him, it's rather his job to try to mess you up. He owes you nothing, particularly if you killed him. If he's dead, what does he owe you? Nothing. You would have to try to get that out of his family. Good luck trying to get it out of the campaign's civil courts.
The party owes you nothing for getting an item destroyed in combat. That's one of the risks of combat. The only way they would owe you a replacement is if you had some kind of charter already laid out in advance that put that obligation on them.
That said, a party that actually cooperates should reasonably compensate you for your loss by giving up some portion of their equal treasure shares to replace the item.
That seems to me to be the answer to the matter.
The party owes you nothing for getting an item destroyed in combat. That's one of the risks of combat. The only way they would owe you a replacement is if you had some kind of charter already laid out in advance that put that obligation on them.
That said, a party that actually cooperates should reasonably compensate you for your loss by giving up some portion of their equal treasure shares to replace the item.
That seems to me to be the answer to the matter.
Michael Silverbane
Adventurer
The 'loot' of the 'evil bad guys' that you were fighting belongs to the ruler of the realm in which you were doing the fighting. If you were lawfully carrying out the will of that ruler, I can see how he might be inclined to reward you with some monies in return for this service. Otherwise, your 'loot', too, is likely forfeit to that ruler, as well as your lives, for slaying the citizens over which he governs.
Also, the 'bad guy' that sundered your shield showed remarkable restrain in attempting to defend himself without taking a life. You, on the other hand, have shown very little restraint or respect for life in your wanton slaughter and barely disguised lust for money and power.
Later
silver
Also, the 'bad guy' that sundered your shield showed remarkable restrain in attempting to defend himself without taking a life. You, on the other hand, have shown very little restraint or respect for life in your wanton slaughter and barely disguised lust for money and power.
Later
silver
Moff_Tarkin
First Post
One thing killing my argument is the terminology we are using. The argument is being presented as me asking the party to give up their gold to replace my shield. That’s not exactly right. I am not saying that the party should give me 25,000 gold out of party treasury. I am saying that 25,000 gold in that big pile is actually mine and does not belong to the bad guys.
The bad guy does owe me. It is not just combatants doing their job. He instigated this fight by wiping out our home village with an army of undead. Just like a guy who robs a liquor store would be responsible to for any property damage or injury during the course of the crime he instigated, the guy who sundered my shield is likewise responsible.
So he owes me 25,000 gold for breaking my shield. That means that 25,000 gold that he is holding in his lair is not his. It belongs to me. The party is throwing my gold into the pile with the other treasure and dividing it all up.
I don’t get the problem. If he owed me 25,000 gold isn’t that just like saying 25,000 of his gold is actually mine.
What part are you all disagreeing with? Are you saying that he doesn’t owe me or that just because he owes me 25,000 gold doesn’t mean that 25,000 of the gold on him is rightfully mine. I would like to hear a better defense for both those arguments.
The bad guy does owe me. It is not just combatants doing their job. He instigated this fight by wiping out our home village with an army of undead. Just like a guy who robs a liquor store would be responsible to for any property damage or injury during the course of the crime he instigated, the guy who sundered my shield is likewise responsible.
So he owes me 25,000 gold for breaking my shield. That means that 25,000 gold that he is holding in his lair is not his. It belongs to me. The party is throwing my gold into the pile with the other treasure and dividing it all up.
I don’t get the problem. If he owed me 25,000 gold isn’t that just like saying 25,000 of his gold is actually mine.
What part are you all disagreeing with? Are you saying that he doesn’t owe me or that just because he owes me 25,000 gold doesn’t mean that 25,000 of the gold on him is rightfully mine. I would like to hear a better defense for both those arguments.
- Status
