As a DM I have had to deal with that one person that wanted to keep any and all weapons and armor that the party found for themselve. I came up with an interesting way of dealing with that person by way of a cursed item. I will discribe it below. I wanted to see how everyone else deals with those pesty equipment hogs.
Circlet of Canine Senses
This simple circlet is made of iron and has the head of a dog etched into the center with 2 rubies on either side. This circlet first came into existence when the ruler of Uruz commissioned a Gnome Wizard to create an item to help the city guards protect the city from the Orc and Goblin tribes that wanted the city and mines for themselves. The Gnome got the inspiration for the circlet from his loyal dog, and decided that it would be better if the guards could sense the intruders before they got to close to the city.
When worn the circlet gives the wear a +6 to all sense checks, Search, Spot, Listen as well as the scent ability.
Unknown to the Ruler of Uruz, the Gnome had a rather odd sense of humor. If worn for more than 6 hours, the circlets true powers come to the surface. The first thing that happened is the wearer goes color blind and can only see in black and white. Then the wearer will start to pick up over dog like habits such as chasing after sticks and balls when thrown, and burring bones, even trying to scratch behind there ears with there feet. The wearer will even believe that their behavior is normal and won’t think anything of it. Lastly the wearer loss the ability to speak normal language but instead will be able to speak with any canine.
Once the 6 hours have passed and the additional affects start to take affect the only way to remove the circlet is with a remove curse spell. The spell will only allow the circlet to be removed, the same thing will happen if the circlet is worn for another 6 hours.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
While I love your in-game solution, sometimes you need to speak with a player in private about their behavior and how it effects the other players and the game experience as a whole. If you are opposed to crossing this line right away, you might find that everything the character gets needs to be cursed before he gets the message. It would be interesting to see what happens if someone else were to wear the circlet. Perhaps if the curse only works on this particular player he'll get the hint quicker.
|
1. Institute carry rules
--You can only carry so much at any one time.
2. Normal or exceptional Wear-and-Tear rules
-- eventually everything breaks or just stops working.
3. Multi-use rules
--you can only use so many items at any one time, together, consecutively, or sequentially.
4. Usability Fiat rules
--for reasons known only to the DM, sometimes the item just doesn't work ("This Ring of True-Seeing has no effect when I put it on!"), or doesn't work the way you want ("Man, this sword is beautiful, but the balance sucks! I keep missing my the opponent!").
Additionally, you might offer the PCs more opportunities to get rid of stuff. There are any number of ways you can creatively encourage selling, donating, or trashing items.
While I love your in-game solution, sometimes you need to speak with a player in private about their behavior and how it effects the other players and the game experience as a whole. If you are opposed to crossing this line right away, you might find that everything the character gets needs to be cursed before he gets the message. It would be interesting to see what happens if someone else were to wear the circlet. Perhaps if the curse only works on this particular player he'll get the hint quicker.
This player was talked to about at the start of the campaign right after she said she was like that. All she had to say after the talk was if someone needed somthing she would "loan" it to them. She was a cleric so I also practiced the old rule about them not being allowed to own more than they need, and she had to give her "extra" gear to the church.
How would I deal with equipment hogs? Two words. Ethereal Filcher. :P
|
How would I deal with equipment hogs? Two words. Ethereal Filcher. :P
That and the Armoury of Castle Thaket: A castle full of Paladins decide that they want you to surrender all your realy powerful magic weapons to their Armoury so they can arm their Paladins with Magic.
"Surrender thine Mystical Arms and armour or Perish 'neath the Hammer of Lawfulness and Goodness!"
They then take those weapons and smelt down the magic items and make Magical Warhammers.
I've got a good group that doesn't take crap off each other.
And they play either morally-ambiguous characters (neutral or worse), or one guy who likes Lawful Good with a strongly-developed sense of justice and retribution -- so dealing with offenders can be severe.
Worst case: they played a party of orcs, once. They woke up to find that one player had eaten another (I forget why).
In other words, my group polices itself :)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Some random thoughts :
Yeah, as I was reading this thread, I was shaking my head. Where are the other PC's in all this? Doesn't the equipment hog sleep?
If the character is "willing to 'loan'" items to other players, and that's just an excuse for letting other players use the equipment, then we're all well and good. The fighter uses the magical shield, which technically belongs to the cleric.
I suppose it might be fun to impose a karmic backlash in-game in the form of the King's Guards, who show up, recognize soom of the party's loot as items pilfered from a royal, sacrosanctum, and demand "who dares lay claim to the burial weapons of King Mosath?!" and all the PC's turn slowly and point at the cleric.
The Circlet of Canine Senses sounds like a fun cursed item, but:
(1) consider giving a Will saving throw to resist the mind-influencing behavior side-effects, (2) for your purposes any cursed item will do, (3) this one might be more humiliating -- particularly once your player realizes you're creating it yourself, and you're intending for this particular PC to be affected by it, and (4) this won't solve your problem, do you think?
|
|
There is, IMO, a fairly easy solution here:
1. Enforce carrying capacity if you haven't already.
2. If he's Mongo, and has strength out of this world, there's still the question of where all the gear goes. If he doesn't have a bag of holding, he's going to have to pack it all. While I don't think backpacks are described with a maximum capacity, there's no reason they shouldn't. Same thing goes for a belt pouch. The issue here is whether he's simply playing through a loophole in the rules or roleplaying. Make him describe how he's carrying everything.
I wouldn't penalize his packrat mentality just because it's tiresome. I'd enforce the rules that are already there and supplement them where they are not.
Note that in d20 Modern - a backpack that is 3 lbs carries 60 lbs. of gear (and adds +1 equipment bonus to Str for carrying capacity). The daypack, D&D's 2 lb weight equivalent, only carries 8 lbs. These are some good starting points.
Hope that helps.
With how many people suggested carrying capacity, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm the only one who actually uses it regardless. o.O?
Drac said that the player openly admitted to being a item hog. Personally, I think that the OP is justified with the use of a cursed item or twelve.
Save for EXTREME role-play purposes, there is absolutely NO justifiable reason for a cleric to be as such. I'm all for a player that wants to make use of items and collect on found treasure/gear, but when done out of sheer greed like this, I draw the line.
Were I the DM, that player would be looking at ever-worsening conditions. Grave-robbing charges, cursed items, hauntings, city thieves/bandits coming in the night... I could go on.
Might I suggest a tweak to your cursed item though? Have the cursed item make her act like a pig instead of a dog. Utter neglection of personal hygene, rapidly developing narcissism, and eventaully squealing instead of talking.
To justify the item's creation (if utter malice isn't enough), let it be the creation of a somewhat "off" ruler who found a new use for criminals/slaves. Pig-minded jesters for his court.
-Kurocyn
|
Director of Narrative
|
There’s something to be said for gleaners and dungeon salvagers.
Adventurers leave behind heaps of useful and profitable things behind after they kill all the dangerous critters and move off in search of whatever it is they were searching for. Hell, most adventurers make a special point to go through the whole place killing and disabling anything remotely dangerous. After they are done, they do gleaners a favor by going back to town spending their good loot and bragging about their exploits. A canny group of folks could make good money following an adventuring party around.
All you need, pretty much, is a cart or two, a few good oxen and some laborers to carry things out. Do you know how much a nice antique cherrywood armoire is going for these days? Or steel doors?
I do use carying capacity, but I also allow all my players to have a lesser bag of holding as part of there basic gear. I love the idea of making the circlet make them act like a pig, that would be just funny. She has already been permently delt with though, everyone just got sick and tired of her so they had a group vote and we killed off her char and kicked her out of the group. She was causing alot more problems then just being a equipment hog.
With how many people suggested carrying capacity, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm the only one who actually uses it regardless. o.O?
Drac said that the player openly admitted to being a item hog. Personally, I think that the OP is justified with the use of a cursed item or twelve.
Save for EXTREME role-play purposes, there is absolutely NO justifiable reason for a cleric to be as such. I'm all for a player that wants to make use of items and collect on found treasure/gear, but when done out of sheer greed like this, I draw the line.
Were I the DM, that player would be looking at ever-worsening conditions. Grave-robbing charges, cursed items, hauntings, city thieves/bandits coming in the night... I could go on.
Might I suggest a tweak to your cursed item though? Have the cursed item make her act like a pig instead of a dog. Utter neglection of personal hygene, rapidly developing narcissism, and eventaully squealing instead of talking.
To justify the item's creation (if utter malice isn't enough), let it be the creation of a somewhat "off" ruler who found a new use for criminals/slaves. Pig-minded jesters for his court.
-Kurocyn
She has already been permently delt with though, everyone just got sick and tired of her so they had a group vote and we killed off her char and kicked her out of the group. She was causing alot more problems then just being a equipment hog.
Good ridance to bad rubish. Well done.
See my post before yours. I'm big on encumbrance. In fact, I don't buy that whole "first set of clothing doesn't have weight" crud. I Don't buy it.
Finally, others that agree with me! ^ ^ I personally enjoy keeping tabs on my gear's location/condition. It helps me get a better feel for the character and reinforces my knowledge of what my PC can do.
There are few things more annoying that players who don't even know what their PCs are carrying, let alone how they can make use of it.
On the topic of weight, does anyone else factor in/penalize PCs for the ammount of coin they carry? In my last game, I started seeing money changers before we'd leave town/as we came into town. 20 PP is much easier to handle that 200 GP. Is there a decent ruling on check penalties for this? Or does anyone else do this ammount of book-keeping?
-Kurocyn
She has already been permently delt with though, everyone just got sick and tired of her so they had a group vote and we killed off her char and kicked her out of the group. She was causing alot more problems then just being a equipment hog.Good ridance to bad rubish. Well done.
See my post before yours. I'm big on encumbrance. In fact, I don't buy that whole "first set of clothing doesn't have weight" crud. I Don't buy it.Finally, others that agree with me! ^ ^ I personally enjoy keeping tabs on my gear's location/condition. It helps me get a better feel for the character and reinforces my knowledge of what my PC can do.
There are few things more annoying that players who don't even know what their PCs are carrying, let alone how they can make use of it.
On the topic of weight, does anyone else factor in/penalize PCs for the ammount of coin they carry? In my last game, I started seeing money changers before we'd leave town/as we came into town. 20 PP is much easier to handle that 200 GP. Is there a decent ruling on check penalties for this? Or does anyone else do this ammount of book-keeping?
-Kurocyn
I actually do keep track of comdition of weapons and armor and my players know it, thats why they make sure to state that they are repairing badly damaged weapons and armor after a bad fight, they even salvage the armor from whom ever they fight for useable pieces. I also keep track of how much wieght in coins they are carring. But do to the fact that they dont always have the option of going to a money changer, I created the coin purse of holding. A smaller version of the bag of holding, a small belt pouch that could hold up to 5lb worth of coins.
Don't you enforce equitable splitting of treasure? I don't even understand how such a situation can arise - the PCs should be given items in line with a fair split of value.
I try to allow the player to split up the treasure the best way they can think of on there own which isnt a problem, the problem comes when she gets upset cause she doesnt get everything she wants.
|
Don't you enforce equitable splitting of treasure? I don't even understand how such a situation can arise - the PCs should be given items in line with a fair split of value.
It's not the DM's job to oversee treasure-splitting. It's the players' (or rather, their PC's, in-game). You cant have the clouds part, the heavens open and The Voice of the DM booming "HOW DARE YOU! I placed that treasure for the benefit of the NEW members!"
That said; the question still applies. Whyever did the other PCs let it get to that point?
If the PC is a scout, who goes through an area first and pilfers things in secret, then, yes, it may be in character, but they have to find some way to offload this gear to a fence (possibly for a LOT less than book value), since they can hardly pull it out to use in view of their fellow party members without revealing their deception.
|
|
Well, OK - so is it a problem, then? If the PCs don't mind, arguably it isn't. If they do, they should resolve it by demanding to own the treasure most relevant to them. Booby-trapping the treasure will probably hit them all equally - they won't trust the items.
I guess by "enforcing" I meant that there is an agreed method for splitting the treasure. My guys go on a "first pick" basis which rotates rather than a strict monetary value. But if someone was hogging the treasure, there would probably be nasty scenes in and out of game. If this isn't happening, I suggest you don't rock the boat - it is easier as DM if there is no argument about treasure (or anything) than if there is.
As for the player getting upset - <shrug> she needs to grow up and learn to share. My seven-year-old nephew can do that, so why can't she? That is an out-of-game issue, and should be dealt with as such. Irrespective, PCs should have roughly the same amount of treasure and gear, as the game assumes as much. EDIT - ah, I see you have dealt with this out-of-game already.
|
|
One possibility I can see, which doesn't depend on unequal shares, and which happened to me, is the situation when a PC dies.
Usually, the other PCs divide their stuff, and a new PC is rolled up to replace him. However, many DMs don't like equipping the new PC with a full set of gear, since it means the party is overall profitting from getting people killed. I can see these DMs' point, since I have actually heard players (in print, on boards, and in person) discussing ways to break the game by deliberately creating a PC with all his wealth invested in one or two items, just to get him killed, and those items be inherited by another PC, on top of their other stuff.
The intent of the DMs is that the surviving PCs will adopt the new guy, and equip him from the spare gear they already hold. However that doesn't always happen. Admittedly, sometimes it's because the new PC is a totally different class and/or race than the old one, and why shouldn't he be? If your last PC died, it could be that the concept didn't work, so why go down that road again?
But other times, the old PCs simply keep quiet about their gear, or flat-out refuse to share, which makes it more likely that the new guy will die, the old PCs take his stuff, refuse to share with the new guy, who dies, etc, in a vicious cycle.
This was a BAD problem in a Freeport campaign I played in, and it was made worse by the fact that PCs had started dying because of the utter cowardice of the equipment-hog. Despite having the best AC, best hp, and best attack bonus, he insisted on playing a spring-attacker, who would hide behind PCs with half his AC, and a level lower, making it impossible to defend an area and ensuring we were constantly flanked in every combat. He would also refuse to follow a plan, or meet at a rendevous point, using other PCs as decoy bait, while having a solo session around the now emptied objective. The DM cancelled the campaign, as this behaviour simply made the game unplayable. However, I am told this pattern continued with all his other PCs in other games.
The only way to deal with players like that is to refuse to play with them. Thankfully, the majority of other players in my town have come to see this person as the utter dick he is. But for some time, it created a split in the local community, as otherwise-great players would not be available, as they were in denial, and had committed to games he was in.
This was a BAD problem in a Freeport campaign I played in, and it was made worse by the fact that PCs had started dying because of the utter cowardice of the equipment-hog.
Are we talking about 'sneaky games' here?
|
|
One method, if a bit heavy handed, is have a thieves' guild hear of this character that carries a lot of valuables all the time, and take interest in that character. If the party gets into an open conflict with the guild, it makes sense that the guild would target the one with all the treasure over the rest of them in combat; and if you can kill that one party member, then its up to the rest of the party to resurrect them. At that point, the problem then solves itself.
"Well, Joe's dead, so we can either work on bringing the jerk back, or split his gear and call it a day..."
|
|
On the topic of weight, does anyone else factor in/penalize PCs for the ammount of coin they carry? In my last game, I started seeing money changers before we'd leave town/as we came into town. 20 PP is much easier to handle that 200 GP. Is there a decent ruling on check penalties for this? Or does anyone else do this ammount of book-keeping?
-Kurocyn
50 coins = 1 lb. I'm pretty anal about coins, too.
I try to allow the player to split up the treasure the best way they can think of on there own which isnt a problem, the problem comes when she gets upset cause she doesnt get everything she wants.
Therein lies the heart of the issue - you have a player that demands all found significant equipment and throws a fit if she doesn't get it.
Several angles:
1. Encumbrance: Track not just weight, but bulk, as mentioned in previous posts; this character will eventually be too burdened to be effective in tactical situations.
2. Division of wealth: Did this character give up her share of coins and gems just so she could have first dibs on adventuring gear, weapons, armor and such? Is the party protesting the uneven distribution, or is she intimidating them into complicity? If so, this stops becoming a character/player issue and the DM needs to say something out of gametime.
3. Player attitudes: No player should be able to intimidate or coerce other players, or worstly, the DM, into getting her way. That player doesn't stay at anyone's table very long. If your circumstances dictate that you cannot remove a player for whatever reasons, simply enforce the DM's will - which every D&D player knows is the last word on any dispute, and allocate the gear as you see proper.
If the player is going to be miserable simply for not getting their way, you will be maintaining peace at your table by eventually motivating the offending player to leave the game.
Good luck.
50 coins = 1 lb...
While a decent baseline for handling the weight, that's still 50 coins though. And last time I had 50 coin in my pocket, it wasn't exactly covert.
Drac's implementation of the magical coin-purse does solve the problem, but I personally wouldn't just hand out such items. Issues like this are ideal situations to see how a PC/player would solve the problem in-character.
Are they the pack-rat scout that already has 80 (if not more) concealed pockets and pouches? The full-plate clad fighter who wears nothing under his armor save for a sackcloth tunic and a loin cloth? Or perhaps the seductive female bard that wears more clothing when she's swimming?
Different types of PCs would deal with the problem differently. (Personally, my PCs almost always match with my first example, but that's just me)
-Kurocyn
|
|
This was a BAD problem in a Freeport campaign I played in, and it was made worse by the fact that PCs had started dying because of the utter cowardice of the equipment-hog.
Are we talking about 'sneaky games' here?
Are we ever...with Mr 'I Love Sneaky Games, Spotlight-Hog, Expects To Get Away With Things As A Player That He Overrules As A DM'. How did you guess?
Just ask Fletch; he was DM. It was otherwise very enjoyable; the roleplaying parts, the Lovecraftian elements. It just fell down during any combat encounter that assumed a certain party resource level or cohesive tactics.
50 coins = 1 lb...While a decent baseline for handling the weight, that's still 50 coins though. And last time I had 50 coin in my pocket, it wasn't exactly covert.
Drac's implementation of the magical coin-purse does solve the problem, but I personally wouldn't just hand out such items. Issues like this are ideal situations to see how a PC/player would solve the problem in-character.
-Kurocyn
I didnt just hand out these items, I made it as an item they could purchase at a specialty shop. 2 versions regular for 50pg or the chain covered one for 65pg, chain covered one makes it harder for thieves to cut.
I didnt just hand out these items, I made it as an item they could purchase at a specialty shop. 2 versions regular for 50pg or the chain covered one for 65pg, chain covered one makes it harder for thieves to cut.
My apologies, I didn't mean to imply you just gave them away. Allow me to re-phrase.
I would first see how each PC dealt with the coin bulk/weight issue, allowing them time to figure out what works for them. Should a player begin looking for magical containers, then I'd introduce the coin purse.
-Kurocyn
I was in a party where this was an issue. We used encumbrance rules and quickly transferred things over to a wagon to carry it all. Thieves work well. Bandits. Oh and fire. Alchemical and otherwise... Great way to rid of that extra gear.
Or banks (with exorbitant fees)to store gold and special equipment.
Mostly my group's general laziness prevented this from getting out of hand. Nobody wants to roleplay a quartermaster. :P
One possibility I can see, which doesn't depend on unequal shares, and which happened to me, is the situation when a PC dies.
I'll paraphrase you here if you don't mind.
New pc has less gear otherwise party is benefiting from a death.
Party is supposed to help the new guy out.
Not always ok due to inappropriate items.
Sometimes not ok because PCs are greedy/in-character suspicious.
Vicious cycle of new PCs dying (I'm very familiar with this due to a certain sneaky DM)
So - what's the answer? I really would like to know this - and I think this applies to more than new PCs, even existing PCs can suffer due to the 'party treasure counter' (and lets face it, it tends to be just one person) also applying the above rules to treasure distribution, and I don't think that every party member can be equally rewarded after each 'hoard'.
Answers on a postcard please...
|
|
I have only ever had this issue happen in one campaign...one solution, which I applied, each character could have a will, if no will their family, church or other group got their estate.
New characters started with treasue as per their level from the DMG. It meant that some items were designated party treasure and didn't belong to a specific party member, but no issue there.
I ended up with a small power creep from those who actually made a will leaving it to the party, but in the main it worked quite well.
This would be completely dependent on what sort of group you play with. Mine was more of an issue with players completely changing character classes so their previous equipment was of minimal use to the new character.
|
|
I have only ever had this issue happen in one campaign...one solution, which I applied, each character could have a will, if no will their family, church or other group got their estate.
In one game, a PC made the party paladin swear an oath, that he would ensure his dear old mum got his body and possessions if he died.
He later went on to fall into some deathtrap and be lost forever, and the paladin was honour bound to travel to the far side of the world to present Old Granny Gnome with her son's only possession, recovered from his last encounter...
...one dart.
|
|
...I think this applies to more than new PCs, even existing PCs can suffer due to the 'party treasure counter' (and lets face it, it tends to be just one person) also applying the above rules to treasure distribution, and I don't think that every party member can be equally rewarded after each 'hoard'...
I hope that's not a dig at me...!
Heavens above, man! I'm going as fast as I can!
Do you realize how much loot there was in that last adventure?
I'm onto 8 pages of Excel, here!
Portrait-style!
(I'll send you an e-mail tonight, though I see someone's already been dipping... Mr 'I've got a magic glaive'...I'm looking at you!)
|
|
My group has never had a problem with distribution of loot. We simply calculate the gp value and everyone can either sell the stuff they don't want or pay for items out of their share. If two PCs both lay claim, it's a simple d20 roll to see who gets the item. There are rare exceptions when you run across a class or race-specific item, but the DM does a good job of trying to work those in equally. Also, there are some items held as party treasure that could come in handy later and are not part of the distribution. Overall, it simply comes down to common sense game management by the DM and especially the players.
|
Re the specific instance of the OP (which I know is resolved): the character was a Cleric. In general I don't heavy-hand alignments, but if you have a Lawful Cleric (or Cleric of a Lawful god) not acting in the best interests of the party, or violating a party charter, I would look at them working their way towards ex-Cleric. Similar justification could be made for a Good Cleric/god.
The DM's in my group are a bit ruthless. Which works because we as players try to police each other.
if the Player doesn't respond to the other players, have a personal talk..
If that doesn't work, encumberance rules,
if that doesn't work, a hit from the Thieves Guild...
...of course, if you want to be really mean, you could just hit her with an epic powered Mordekainen's Disjunction!
"Remember the 3rd Commandment: Need Before Greed!"
~veteran DM.
And in the passing years, the CLEARLY lawful evil ruler grew more and more sadistict, eventually falling to the dagger of a gnome rogue and his fellows, commitioned to rid this land of the vile man and his royal court...
Though imaginative, your post outlined what was probably the WORST possible outcome for the item's creator and was hardly neccessary.
-Kurocyn
Unknown to the Ruler of Uruz, the Gnome had a rather odd sense of humor.The ruler of Uruz, however, did not share the gnome's sense of humor. Once his personal guards began acting strangely even before the end of their first 8-hour duty shift, the artificer was summoned to the castle and forced under torture to explain himself. The ruler thereafter arrested the gnome's family and confiscated his possessions on charges of treason, subversion of the city guard, sedition and insurrection.
The circlets were removed from the guards by the local priesthood and promptly placed upon the heads of the gnome's family, whom the ruler kept in his castle for his own amusement. The gnome had one leg amputated at the hip and the other at the knee, with his forearms removed as well, forcing him to hobble around the castle like the ruler's beloved 3-legged bull-dog from his youth.
When the ruler grew tired of the gnome-dog family, they were sewn into large canvas bags weighed with heavy stones and thrown into the moat.
Why such an item continues to exist as anything but a prototype error that the artificer forgot to destroy is beyond me.
FWIW,
Rez
Its hard to be tried of treason when Uruz is a Dwarven communtiy and the creator is a Gnome. And Uruz is build inside a mountain so there is no moat.
This is a case where an item was designed specifically to punish a Player, then a swiss-cheese backstory created for it...
...I have no problem with your addition to the story, except that I only see the ruler as being Evil (unless such punishment was the law of the land) and more likely Chaotic. I certainly don't think he was "clearly" LE ...
Is there something wrong with punishing a piss-poor player? o.O? Playing off of my earlier post, I would have done worse to them that just make them yipp and scratch behind their ears. I would like to think that other DMs would have do so as well...
I see the torture, thought-out humiliation, and eventual murder of the gnome and his family from your anecdote as Lawful Evil. Lawful being that he charged the gnome of 4 seperate crimes, tortured him into revealing the cause (or at least forced him to confess something, so that the torture was "justified"), and detained his family only to humiliate them publicly.
Chaotic Evil, to me, would of had still involved torture (but without a "justified" cause), no charges brought aqainst him, and the slaughter of him and his family once the sick ruler had his fill of the gnome's screaming. All of this would have been preceeded by execution of the barking guards for "trying to be funny." That, would be Chaotic Evil imo.
Regardless, the OP's issue has been resolved and the item was never created/used in the first place and by proxy, the ruler in question.
-Kurocyn