Who was right

[Kalis]

Another thing I don’t think anyone is getting is that I am not being greedy here. I defended the monk getting paid back for his lost enchantment. And if any player has a valuable magical item destroyed in a future fight I will gladly defend the party using some of the bad guys treasure to compensate him. You are all arguing the assumption that I am a hypocrite but I have and will continue to defend the same rules for all members of my party. Not just for me when my stuff gets broken.

Greed is thinking about yourself. I defend this policy for everyone. So no greed involved.

Again, I don't care if you argue it for everybody or just for yourself. If my magical dagger was sundered in combat, it is my own fault, not the sunder-ers. If I had been more skilled, it would have survived. I'm not going to hold my comrades responsible for it by extorting them for a piece of their share to replace it.

It isn't punishment, as even if one had thrown down his weapon and genuinely wanted to repent you would have killed him because he helped destroy your village. Thus it is vengeance.

PS. Last meal for the troll thread

 

[pawsplay]

Assuming you even manage to stake a claim you were deprived of your shield, can't your party turn around and sue you for negligence in allowing it to be destroyed, incurring the cost of the replacement?

 

[FalcWP]

Actually, I think most courts would find that, through assumption of risk, your opponents were not liable for any damages you incurred. A reasonable person would know that, when entering combat, there is a distinct threat to life, limb, and property, particularly when said property is being deliberately placed in front of oncoming weaponry. As a Paladin, a melee-class used to combat, your character was well aware of this.

Secondly, the cult may or may not be liable for the actions of the sunderer. If they are not (really depends on how the cult is organized, where liability is placed under any charters and contracts, etc.), then you could at *most* recover the personal property of the sunderer.

Third, the debt the party owes you is entirely based off your adventuring charter. If you did not think to draw one up, one can be derived from either the previous actions of your party - is there generally a fair split? Have other expenses incurred by individual members been taken care of by the group before treasure was divided or after? - or the actions of similar parties in the world. For instance, if the majority of parties tend toward an even split of the treasure, and your party has generally done so as well, leaving such expenses as healing, spell components, and the purchase of new equipment to an individual after treasure was split, any reasonable court would find that that should be the case here.

Does that mean the party cannot or should not help you recover? No, and in fact many, but not all, Good-aligned parties would. However, they do so not out of any legal or contractual obligation, but of their own free will. That does not mean that a party that will not help you recover is not Good, however - if they use the treasure they recovered to do good and combat evil, they are doing Good, just the same as you would if they spent that money on a shield. They may even do more good than you would, but that's difficult to measure.

Chalk me up as saying, "No, you are wrong". Next time, get an adventuring charter written up. Otherwise, you're assuming all the risk for your personal items.

As a note: You *may* be able to legally sue for a remedy from any employer who sent you on that mission. If they made any form of a contract, such as 'Defeat the cult and I'll give you 10,000 gold', then you were given a legal duty. However, that again would depend on the terms of the contract and any general laws and traditions regarding such contracts in the nation the contract was signed. Your character may wish to contact an attorney.

 

[Satori]

The party lost a 25,000 gold shield and made 90,000 gold from the battle.

This is the problem.

You pulled in 90,000 gold worth of stuff from that battle.

90,000 divided by 5 = 18,000 per person.

90,000 - 25,000 = 65,000 divided by 5 = 13,000 per person.

You want every other person to give up 5,000 gold for your PC's shield...that equals roughly 28% of their winnings to further your PC's Armor Class.

The bottom line is that your "share" would be 38,000...while everyone else would get 13,000. You, individually, would get 2.9 times more treasure than anyone else.

---

Now, before you attempt to turn this into a "Group Decision"...I have to assume that you, the player, chose to equip your PC with skills and a concept that included a Tower Shield. In furthering your particular character build and concept, you invested or discovered/claimed a +5 Tower Shield to further your view of your character.

I highly doubt that the other party members held a meeting, declared a party president, then voted on a bill that would decide the build of your character.

"We, the party heretofore referred to as 'Team 1', hereby vote that the party Paladin, heretofore referred to as 'Mr. Shiny Pants', shall forever after specialize in the Tower Shield. Majority vote gained. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned."

I'm sure this didn't happen. You, the player, decided to use a Tower Shield...when, instead, you could have chosen a two handed weapon...

...or invested in an Adamantine Tower Shield to avoid this from happening.

But you didn't.

---

Now, if the requested sacrifice was minimal, then I (as a fellow PC) would have probably pitched in. Heck, if my PC was of Good alignment, I would have pitched in anyway.

However...in the metagame/legality scenario, you don't have a case.

 

[Numion]

I'd try to factor in two things to my decision:

1) Meleers get a disproportionate amount of their stuff broken in combat, when compared to archers or mages. If they are not compensated somehow, playing a meleers will be loser deal.

2) There should be an incentive for the meleers to try to keep their un-broken. Otherwise you'll just charge sunderers willy-nilly in the future too.

So:

I don't think you're owed 25k off the top. It would remove any incentive for you to try to not get your stuff sundered. And that would create unnecessary waste. However, even if you tried to keep your gear in running order, it's harder for a meleer than long-range combatants, for example.

So, I'd rule that the selling price of your shield, 50%, should be compensated to you before the rest is divided. I think this decision encourages people to avoid situations where they lose / get stuff broken, while doesn't make playing a melee combatant a bad deal.

As a side note: Once, as a player of an archer we made a party charter. Everyone agreed that healing came from each individual PCs pocket. I still wonder why the melee characters agreed to the idea or why they continued to absorb the damage for the rest of us

 

[S'mon]

Your party don't owe you 25,000 gp. They have every right to laugh at you.

 

[Scarbonac]

I'd still pay good money, GOOD MONEY, to see this on Court TV.

I'd like to see someone do a mock news report, with sketches of "court proceedings" of this situation and put it up on Youtube.


"And now we go to Mike Vulcan, on the steps of The Courthouse of Non-Existent Places. Mike?"

"Thanks Chet. Mike Vulcan here. On the fifth day of the month of Newhon, year of the Bulette, Adventurer Paladin Von Paladin, of the Celestial Vandals Free Company (LLC), had his expensive and very magical shield sundered by Lord Acrimonious, Master of the Plundered Soul Horde. After slaying the fiend, PVP insisted that his damaged gear be replaced out of the phat lewt found in Lord L's sugar-bowl. The CVFC (LLC) disagreed. PVP then took the extraordinary (but not supernatural) step of taking his erstwhile comrades to court. We now await Judge Dwalimor Omen's ruling."

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

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

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

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.

 

[Maggan]

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.

I like this viewpoint. The bad guys must have stolen their stuff from somewhere, so redistributing it to the rightful owners would be a lawful thing to do.

If we appeal to the party then I as a party member (if I was one) would want to analyse the situation and find out at least two things:

1. Did the player by playing well do everything he could to avoid the sundering happening?
2. Did the shield raise the survival rating of the party significantly?

If 1 or 2 are answered in the negative, then tough luck. If 2 is valid, then I could consider pooling resources to get a replacement shield, if the DM ruled that such as shield could be found.

I would not just hand over 25k saying "oops, here's some money to make you feel better". All players lose stuff over the span of their characters' careers, some lose equipment, some lose levels, some lose their lives. If that loss can be recouped and it fits with the story, the setting and the survival capabilities of the party, then I'm all for pooling resources.

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

Nope, i can't see the difference, cause the net result is the same. You end up with 25k more than the rest. The words around it are just packaging to me.

But I should also say that whatever floats your groups boats is ok. If you all decided that you are to be compensated for loss of equipment, then go for it. But be prepared for repercussions when the rest of the gang picks up on this, and starts compiling lists of compensations for items lost.

/Magnus