It's actually worse than that. If you're carrying cash, but not otherwise breaking any laws, the money can be seized until you can prove in court that it isn't going to be used for illegal purposes. Legal fees in such cases are non-recoverable.
Law Enforcement for fun and profit.
|
It's actually worse than that. If you're carrying cash, but not otherwise breaking any laws, the money can be seized until you can prove in court that it isn't going to be used for illegal purposes. Legal fees in such cases are non-recoverable.
Law Enforcement for fun and profit.
And we're pretty clearly getting into Lawful Evil territory here. Still, my original point was that you don't even have to point to pre-modern civilization to find ways in which it's okay for people of both lawful and goodly bent to loot their enemies. As long as looting your foes isn't your primary motivation (which is non-good) and it's not directly illegal (which is non-lawful), I don't honestly see a reason why a Lawful Good person would be opposed to supporting their crusade for righteousness off the wealth of their enemies. A clever LG person might even relish the irony.
That having been said, I dislike looting for purely aesthetic reasons. I find it makes a heroic narrative somewhat less heroic if you're rifling through a dead goblin's trousers for pocket change. If I'm running gritty sword-and-sorcery games, absolutely; if I'm running something a little less Conan-esuqe... not so much. I go pretty far out of my way to remove looting as a concern for my players and their characters.
Jeremy Puckett
With the confiscation of property with the drug wars, regardless of any proof that the money was actually drug related, I remember a prominent old conservative lawyer who opposed it because the only relevant legal precedent he could find for such practices was the witch trials.
Well, I guess it's still an improvement. Instead of "Kill and Loot," it's just "Loot." That's something, anyway.
C: Look, you just killed the evil necromancer and cleansed his tower of its taint. What are you going to do, just leave stuff there? Maybe so the next evil necromancer has a head start, or bandits or orcs can clean the place out instead of you? This guy lived entirely outside the laws, and you don't have to post a notice in case his third cousin wants his wand.
The trouble here comes when you decide to dispose of the loot.
Let's say, among the necromancer's loot, there's a really nice necklace. It's not only beautiful but distinctive, with the maker's mark and everything, so when you sell it in the town, the jeweler who made it not only identifies his own work, but knows he sold it to some noble who gave it to his wife and had her buried with it and is rather upset to find out that the necromancer not only brought her back as a ghoul to be one of his undead minions (which the adventurers destroyed) but the necromancer also stole her jewelry, including a number of nice items the party is wearing, since the necklace wasn't the only thing the necromancer stole from the noblewoman's mausoleum.
Of course, what the nobleman is really upset about is what happened to his wife's remains, but unless the party can convince him that they disposed of all of the necromancer's minions remains with appropriate and respectful funerary rites--which adventurers seldom do--he's going to be demanding every last bit of his wife's possessions since he has the receipts and witnesses to prove who they belonged to, and just because you killed a graverobber doesn't mean you get to keep the stuff the graverobber stole.
Saying that the nobleman should be glad the party whacked the undead mockery that the necromancer made of his wife? This would hold a lot more water if the party presented him with an urn with ashes rather than telling him they dumped the ghoul's bones down the necromancer's outhouse.
C: Look, you just killed the evil necromancer and cleansed his tower of its taint. What are you going to do, just leave stuff there? Maybe so the next evil necromancer has a head start, or bandits or orcs can clean the place out instead of you? This guy lived entirely outside the laws, and you don't have to post a notice in case his third cousin wants his wand.The trouble here comes when you decide to dispose of the loot.
Let's say, among the necromancer's loot, there's a really nice necklace. It's not only beautiful but distinctive, with the maker's mark and everything, so when you sell it in the town, the jeweler who made it not only identifies his own work, but knows he sold it to some noble who gave it to his wife and had her buried with it and is rather upset to find out that the necromancer not only brought her back as a ghoul to be one of his undead minions (which the adventurers destroyed) but the necromancer also stole her jewelry, including a number of nice items the party is wearing, since the necklace wasn't the only thing the necromancer stole from the noblewoman's mausoleum.
Of course, what the nobleman is really upset about is what happened to his wife's remains, but unless the party can convince him that they disposed of all of the necromancer's minions remains with appropriate and respectful funerary rites--which adventurers seldom do--he's going to be demanding every last bit of his wife's possessions since he has the receipts and witnesses to prove who they belonged to, and just because you killed a graverobber doesn't mean you get to keep the stuff the graverobber stole.
Saying that the nobleman should be glad the party whacked the undead mockery that the necromancer made of his wife? This would hold a lot more water if the party presented him with an urn with ashes rather than telling him they dumped the ghoul's bones down the necromancer's outhouse.
And that entire scenario is why this is a role playing game. Story, drama, interaction with others.
Have the group RP it out. Are they barely better than bandits or true saints or something in the middle? Perhaps their interaction with this wealthy noble will make them a friend for the future or perhaps a new enemy. Just remember that part of the game setup is advancement by combat and adventure, be it loot or experience points, etc. While this is a great way to deal with the loot issue, having it come to this EVERY TIME will get annoying.
Or you can avoid the loot issue by making sure the charactersw get appropriately rewarded (cash and magic items etc) via other methods than loot. In the end YOU are the ref. If it is an issue then give them an alternative.
I did some quick searches on the message boards with little results. Here is my question...
How does a Lawful (good) or anything Lawful aligned character justify looting after dropping an enemy? Or even allowing it? I have just gone with the flow for the most part as in just don't bring it up as it causes to many debates that slows game play down... anyone want to throw me some opinions please?
I think you are right to pin it on the Law vs Chaos axis of alignment. It really has little to do with Good vs Evil without specific circumstances. As a matter of Law vs Chaos, the answer to your question depends entirely on the "Law" the PC is observing. For instance: A LE society might have a "keep what you kill" law or code, in which case it would be perfectly Lawful for any PC from that society to loot his fallen foe. Actually, a LN or even LG society, if it was militaristic, might well have a similar law code. A LN character could be well within his alignment to loot a fallen enemy if he is following a "personal code of order" rather than societal laws. Law, doesn't always mean, what is lawful by societies standards. It could be one's personal code. In my mind Good and Evil acts are a little bit more universal, easily identified. But Law vs Chaos is sometimes more fluid because Law doesn't necessarily mean "laws" it can mean orderly, controlled, disciplined, or maybe even just a little OCD.
::EDIT:: That is not to say that I would allow a chaotic Rogue who enjoys breaking into houses and stealing everything he can find put Lawful on his character sheet. "But it's part of my personal code to steal things every night." No the line must be drawn somewhere on how far someone can take "personal codes" and I wouldn't allow someone to create chaos everywhere he goes, in the name of a personal code, and call it Lawful. There has to be some common sense involved.
That's my take on it.
You also have to keep in mind that it is simply a game mechanic. Notice even in the description of the LG Paladin, who has the most stringent law code of anyone, there is nothing about the "dishonor of looting" and in my opinion that is simply because of game mechanics. You as the DM could base the universal laws of your world so that looting a corpse, enemy or not, is a Chaotic or at least Neutral act. However, that would create extra work for you because you have now unbalanced part of the "character wealth" rules. If you are running a low wealth campaign that might not be a bad thing, if you are running a normal or high wealth game, you are going to have to make up that difference elsewhere, which is more work for you.
::EDIT:: Remember also, setting universal laws like this, which interfere in basic game mechanics, will put all of your Lawful, especially Lawful Good, characters and NPCs at a rather large disadvantage over the length of their careers when compared to a Neutral or Chaotic character or NPC. You may want to consider the ramifications of such a rule closely before imposing it. It could cause a significant power imbalance in your party, not to mention fighting amongst party members.
...
::EDIT:: I have gone back through the thread and read most of the posts. Many of you have very interesting historical, or even present day, posts about how looting isn't necessarily chaotic or evil; "To the victor go the spoils," good reference. Definitely an interesting thread.
I had something similar happen.
The adventurers had to clear the beach, so they took the choice pieces to the marketplace.
One thing was a figurehead carved like a phoenix. The townspeople started giving it bad looks. One of the PCs asked what was wrong with it. The NPC told them about this horrible serial killer who also carved birds. The PCs were all in favor of adding it to the bonfire for the big festival the next day.
Good roleplaying opportunity and more adventure background all around.
|
|
The fun part is looting your PC friend's corpse when there are no means for him to come back.
I like the fremen's way : everyone chooses an item that the dear departed had on him and explains how said departed was his friend.
Since it is an expected part of the funerals, a lawful person has to do it. IE, in this kind of culture where survival and practicality are of the greatest import, looting is not only allowed, but expected.
I'm not sure if its even locatable anymore, but the Wizards website had a Save My Game article regarding Alignment for 3.5, where they basically stated that Lawful could be replaced with Orderly, and you would get 100% of the intent of the alignment and only 20% of the arguments.
Ah, here it is, the article which revolutionized alignment at my table and made alignment arguments a thing of the past. I heartily reccomend it for anyone having issues with the law/chaos alignments.
Honestly, I feel that this article, while an interesting read, ignores some important points :
- It sets Lawful and Chaotic as opposites with no middle ground instead of extremes on a whole axis of behaviour. I get how a Lawful and a Chaotic persons think/behave, but what about a Neutral one ?
- It greatly underestimates the importance of a law (even an evil or capricious one) for a Lawful person. For such a person to even question an official law is difficult, as the questioning hinges on the individual believing that he knows better than the collective (from which the law comes). Thinking like this is very challenging for a Lawful mind.
When wondering about how the whole Law vs Chaos thing applies concretely, I tend to think about what I know of the modern japanese society which, IMHO, is a great RL example of a Lawful mindset.
|
You're missing my point completely if you think it was even remotely about realism or history.
Agreed my friend, but being the sad me, I have the weakness of believing that historical perspective is never a bad thing. :)
Really, some historical figures are just too much to be believed by modern standards. Especially in the times I was talking about.
I agree with the whole using Order in place of Lawful.
Anyway, I've played a Paladin. My paladin has never looted a body (though he did pick up a spell book off the ground after blowing away an Orc Cleric with his thundering glaive). Looting pockets of the dead is just dirty, tedious, and low. Instead what the party does is pick up the treasure lying around, sell it at the town, and then it's distributed after that. All the while my paladin has never been part of the collection or selling process (He's busy cleaning his glaive and providing proper burial for the dead of any innocents if there are any).
As for magic items, they are powerful items that could be put to better use. Better for them to be kept, and if they provide no utility, better for them to fund his cause.
|
|
I think it depends on your setting and it's societal laws. In the middle ages if I can be permitted to use real life as a loose example, medieval soldiers were permitted to loot as part of their income. It was pooled and the divied up by their lord and distributed accordingly. It was not seen as evil or unlawful as long as you didn't try to keep someting yourself which was considered theft; to the victor goes the spoils. Strangely enough, pirates of the Golden Age of piracy had an almost identical code of practice and they were criminals themselves!
This can work in a fantasy RPG too but on so many more levels. How does the local government think of these practices? Does loot go to the government, churches, guilds, victims families etc? Do they get a cut of any loot? What about magic? Maybe the local wizards guild get a cut? What about monster races? Goblins, orcs, kobolds etc? Do they have any rights of ownership in the local law system and if not can the government lay claim to looted goods? Does legal looting apply only to those approved for it? Soldiers at war, registered adventurers and the like?
Lots of cool options and premises to work with regarding this issue. IMO a LG is permitted to loot unless it is in any other way deemed illegal or immoral by the society of which he is a part.
|
|
The answer is...it depends. If you smite an evil landlord, his belongings should pass, by law, to his heirs, not the paladin who caved his evil skull in. But a lot of criminals either don't have heirs, or their heirs are impossible to identify (without extreme use of divination magic). The psuedo-medieval setting of most D&D games doesn't have easy identification tracking, after all.
Also, people who break laws tend to have their properties seized by rightful authorities - and paladins will tend to view themselves as such rightful authorities (What right? DIVINE RIGHT!). Also, you don't want those powerful magical items falling into the wrong hands (that would be negligent); at the least a paladin would want them turned over to 'proper' authorities.
And it may well just be that religious doctrine says that if you smite evil things and take their stuff, that's okay - it's part of your reward for doing the right thing (stopping evil).
+1! If there's an heir who isn't stupid and/or insane, you should notify that heir.
It's very simple:
You kill it? You get it!
In the past it was normal, that the winner of a duell gets the weapon/money/land or whatever of his enemy.
Take this to a little more archaic stae and you get the "I was victorious, so the loot is mine" point of view.
And of course Lawful doesn't mean you follow the knights owe, even an assasin who's credo is "I finish every job, regardless of the obstacles" is lawful. Lawful means you follow an oath/rule, how they are is specified by you/your background.
Anyone who opposes a LG paladin probably deserve to have their stuff looted. It would be more an issue in a lawful EVIL society, where corrupt laws and their officials would do anything to bereave the paladin of anything of value.
If my paladin was met with someone representing lawful good authority, and they claimed that I should surrender the Headband of Cha +4 I took from an evil sorcerer that spread death... I would ask them to remove their rings, subject themselves to a dispel magic spell, and let me detect evil. And then ask "What in the gods name is WRONG with you!?"
No _true_ LG authority would strip a paladin of tools that empower him. And if your GM makes up some crap like that, the players should tell him to stop watching Law & Order before play.
|
|
No _true_ LG authority would strip a paladin of tools that empower him. And if your GM makes up some crap like that, the players should tell him to stop watching Law & Order before play.
Quick caveat: A LG authority would be good at policing its own members, to the point that internal affairs would be a big deal. I can easily see a paladin who's been involved in a little too much "equipment repurposing" lately to come in and have a discussion with his confessor about whether his motives have remained pure, or if he's just gotten too enamored of worldly things. As well, a LG authority would recognize that not every person is LG all the time, and that even people who are can be deceived. Because of that, they'd also want to be on the lookout for their agents accidentally picking up bad stuff--after all, an evil sorcerer's gear might be evil itself.
And even LG people aren't necessarily nice. I'm all about "paladin =/= jerk", but I also like the idea that even a LG organization can have its internal disputes. Imagine a PC paladin who "repurposes" his enemy's gear in his quests getting called back to the home church by a church elder who decides to use the looting as the basis of an inquisition when he's really angry at the paladin gallivanting off on his own all the time instead of doing the church's bidding. He doesn't want to ruin the paladin... just teach him a little lesson in humility.
Man, now I want to run a Pathfinder campaign as a medieval procedural police drama. XD
Jeremy Puckett
PS: I like that idea enough, I even wrote a supplement about it! =3
|
Some might consider it an unethical waste of resources; resources that should be put to use in the ongoing battle against evil. If fighting evil is worthwhile, then it's a fight worth winning. There's nothing laudable about being killed prematurely by evildoers simply because one chose to forgo picking up the equipment that could have helped her win the fight. As long as the loot is used responsibly and righteously, then some might consider looting the bodies of foes a moral imperative.
+1
And my paladin of Abadar couldn't have said it any better.
You know what, every town or city should have some heirs, or footmen of heirs, hanging about. They will ask the characters about missing relitives and their gear. They might pay more for a signet ring with a complete story, or they may already have a scroll of locate object. In any case, they pay for proof of a deceased relitive because they get increased birthrank and possibly something from the inheritence. Some adventurers collect grizly trophys, and these can count as revenge for the noble. Nobles don't have to 'soil their hands' so to speak. If we ever get back to gaming I'm going to add a heir or two to my game. They make good sponsors.
How about this issue:
How is ''we killed him in self-defense and took his money'' different from ''We killed him for his money''?.
Intent.
How about this issue:
How is ''we killed him in self-defense and took his money'' different from ''We killed him for his money''?.
In the same way that "I fought him back in self defense" is different than "I fought him because he annoys me". As Mynameisjake said, intent :p
The trouble here comes when you decide to dispose of the loot.
Let's say, ...
Saying that the nobleman should be glad the party whacked the undead mockery that the necromancer made of his wife? This would hold a lot more water if the party presented him with an urn with ashes rather than telling him they dumped the ghoul's bones down the necromancer's outhouse.
THIS is why RPG's are great :)
Well done!
love your Avatar! reminds me of my SCA helmet!
That is why my neutral characters always take "To stop threats to people however necessary." like a pleadge. It's like the MIB. As for wanting the ashes, it depends. Is it part of the formula for a Litch potion? Can that form of undead come back from ashes?
Evil does not get to enjoy the same rights as the good, law-abiding citizens. This includes the right to own property. Therefore, the Paladin is enforcing righteous justice by commandeering those goods for the cause.
Really, it doesn't matter. Make it up. Craft some justification. This is your game, so make it what you want it. Flexibility is one of the perks of a good RPG.
- My two cents.
There was a 2E AD&D game where we (mostly LG characters) spent a significant amount of time returning loot to their rightful owners. The dwarves were mighty pleased with this too, and gave us us much more for our Dwarven Thrower than the used we would have had for it anyway.
In my games, even nowadays, its understood that returning loot (or ransoming loot for Evil character) is one of the easiest ways to get more than 50% resale value (at which point it has nothing to do with being LG anymore).
|
I look at it in a fairly practical light: they are dead, because they either did something evil first, are in the process of planning to do something evil soon, or are trying to eat me, therefore to further my cause of not dying, thus saving the lives of others and upholding order, claim whatever they had, if it belongs to someone else I'll return it without the expectation of (but certainly the hope for)reward. This is also why I tend to have my equipment made by someone, usually myself, using materials I bought from a legitimate business.
I also confirm their evil deeds with my own eyes before acting with lethal force.
Now when I'm playing a religious individual it's usually easier. I'm spreading the word of my god, and that word will abide no evil creature's survival, unless they are acting out of alignment, and anything they have is probably someone else' property anyway, so I will collect it and return it to anyone claiming that it is theirs, isn't evil, and if they seem legitimate. Which is where a good sense motive comes in handy.
Stuff is Stuff.
The better question is How did a good person Get the Stuff??
As long as you give it to the poor, no harm no foul, right?
*Dumps a set of Unholy Full Plate +5 and a +2 Unholy Vicious Vorpal Adamantine Greatsword on the nearest beggar*
"Here you go, my downtrodden friend! For Sarenrae"!
I had stuff for dinner. :)
Seriously, melt down or burn anything that might turn the user evil.
The god that died in Glori...in Pathfinder's game world probably died destroying a great evil. Start a nice warm fire for the homeless. Undead are great for a bonefire.