|
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?
My moral code is dedicated towards wearing the clothing of my enemies.
Really, it's just expected of the game and the genre. If the enemy has something interesting and is dead, you should take it if you want it because it's not like it's going to do much good laying on his corpse. Plus, the item itself may be extremely valuable or powerful or rare, and not taking it doesn't make much sense.
It's all very disconnected from reality, anyways.
|
Well considering that money sitting on the dead guy (who can't use it anymore), could be used to house and feed starving orphans, heal the sick, build temples to just causes, defend the weak, etc. I think its a relative no-brainer that the LG character would see it as good to have that money working for the cause of good rather than decorating a forest or dungeon floor. But then again, I tend to interpret LG for paladins and others more like Sparhawk than Sir Galahad, ie-practical overrules pious. YMMV
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?
Lawful only means that you are orderly, not necessarily that you follow any nation's laws. Devils are lawful and they steal(con people out) their souls every chance they get.
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.
I've thought about this and for my Audor campaign have come up with a couple laws that are coded in the kingdom's legal code:
"Dangerous" monsters need to be slain in order to secure the safety of the rest of the population. This keeps the dragons and beholders and ogres from multiplying and enslaving all the commoners.
A person can also be declared an outlaw. Anybody who finds someone who has been declared an outlaw is allowed to kill him and take all his stuff.
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?
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).
Lawful only means that you are orderly, not necessarily that you follow any nation's laws. Devils are lawful and they steal(con people out) their souls every chance they get.I disagree entirely with this interpretation.
Lawful beings follow rules. Devils do not "con" people out of their souls ... they strike contracts with them and "buy" souls. Granted, an Evil devil will twist the contract terms in every possible way to their advantage, but it's not a con.
Demons "con" people out of souls.
When devils get you to sign the contracts there is usually fine print or they are written in such a way that the mortal does get what he thought he was getting. If you write something in such a way that I dont get what I think I am getting in a way I want to get it, that is no better than false advertising, another form of a con.
Demons just ignore the contract. A devil has to go by the contract as written. The key is to pay careful attention to how it is written.
Pit Fiend:If you do X I will do Y(hidden in the contract is a clause that says if X is not done in a very specific way the devil can opt out.
Balor:If you do X I will do Y. The Balor then just decides to ignore any agreement.
PS: Feel free to replace the two above with another devil or demon. I just used those two because they are well known, not because I think a mortal would strike a deal with them first, since their power level would only lead to them dealing with very powerful mortals.
Edit: I see your idea and my idea of a con is different. If you know what I mean, and you "agree", but really intend to twist things later that is a con. If is like if I agree to sell you a (random object) for 499, and lead you to beleive the price is 4.99 when it is really 499.00. If it is not honest and ethical agreement in design it is a con. If you believe the 499 idea is a legit proposal then I don't think there is anything I can say to convince you.
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?
To use a historical context, anytime a knight defeated another knight, by rights he got his armor and his horse. This included jousting tournaments. Often times the armor, horse (and sometimes even the knight) would be 'ransomed' back during a tournament, though the loser was never actually taken prisoner. In times of war, they were prisoners and the opposing side paid to get them back.
In modern parlance, knights jousted for pink slips.
To convert this for usage by a paladin (the pinnacle of LG), unless they have some sort of code or oath of poverty, when they defeat an enemy, dead or alive, the paladin is within his rights to take whatever possessions that person enemy has on them.
Now, if you were to abuse the rule, for instance goading people into fighting you when you know they can't win, that might violate the good aspect of the alignment.
To me, Lawful represents following the letter of the law. Good represents following the spirit of the law.
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. In fact, I reccomend it so much, I deleted the second half of my post, as I beleive this article is a better teacher than any amount of snarky counter-argument I can make.
I must remember, don't formulate rebuttals on an empty stomach. They just come out cranky.
Well considering that money sitting on the dead guy (who can't use it anymore)...
Or worse yet, they could! It's a fantasy world, and it's not unheard of for those naughty nasty things to rise from the grave and go on a rampant evil spree! Thus, when your LG holy soldier divests the corpse of a vanquished foe, he/she/it is ensuring that if said villain does return to the waking world, it does not have all of the resources it possessed when you laid the divine smack-down on it.
The fact of the matter is that looting happens. I don't think you can call a WWII G.I. "Evil" because he looted a helmet, wristwatch, Luger or Hitler-Youth knife off a dead Wehrmacht soldier. I don't see why D&D should have different standards of morality, and the historical milieu upon which most "fantasy" is based was...
An interesting movie is Kelly's Heroes, where a young Clint Eastwood plays a captain whose platoon votes to rob a bank that is behind German lines. So as they acquire the resources needed to get to the city and rob the bank, they become heroes for breaking through, even though Clint's character specifically mentions that what they are doing is against military law.
If you haven't seen it, I recommend it.
THe question is a sticky one, and it honestly goes out even farther then alignment.
D&D has always struggled on if it wants to be high flying heroic adventure! or grim and gritty mercenary sword and sorcery! While paladins most definately fall in the first group, looting - and indeed much of D&D activity - falls in the second.
See, D&D was created in a rather big mishmush of both ideas, with both of them significantly expanded on as it went; the high flying heroic adventures had Charlemagne and his paladins, the powerful and holy clerics of religious ceremony. The grim and gritty mercenary sword and sorcery adventures had Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, or the Dying Earth series. Early editions were far more involved in the latter idea, where life is cheap, death is common, and adventurers are just barely organized mercenaries who risk life and limb for the sake of treasure. As D&D has marched on, it's slowly leaned more and more to the first style, with adventurers actually being heroes, large and ornate plotlines, and alignment loyalties that rest in morality.
So, the initial question: is it lawful good? I have no idea. It transcends alignment and rests in that most frightning of positions, that of convention and trope.
I've thought about this and for my Audor campaign have come up with a couple laws that are coded in the kingdom's legal code:
"Dangerous" monsters need to be slain in order to secure the safety of the rest of the population. This keeps the dragons and beholders and ogres from multiplying and enslaving all the commoners.
A person can also be declared an outlaw. Anybody who finds someone who has been declared an outlaw is allowed to kill him and take all his stuff.
That's usually how I go around it: anti-banditry laws. If a paladin wants to return some stuff to the owner, even better, but that's not required.
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?
Maybe a small example may help you out here.
Lets imagine that during a journey to a distant location a lawful charakter stumbles upon the dead body of a traveler - a very wealthy traveler. Whatever or whoever killed this stranger is long gone. There is no immediate threat so the charakter has time to look after the body and what it holds in possession. Search reveals a marvelous long sword - at least a masterwork weapon, a heavy pocket filled with several coins and gems, a amulet which seems to have a more personal value...
So how does a lawful charakter react properly? What will he take or do?
In my opinion the lawful good charakter cares for a proper burial and probably will leave the marvellous weapon or exchange it with his own. It makes sense to him that somekind of weapon should follow the stranger in the after life. He´ll take most of the coins and gems or maybe everything depending on the burial rites which he is used to. There is a chance to discover relatives of this stranger so he takes the amulet to give it to them. In case he discovers relatives in the near village he´ll hand over the coins and the amulett and leads them to the spot were he has burried the traveller. If asked he´ll also hand over the sword. In case that no one is related or seems to know the stranger he keeps everything he has found for himself. Maybe he´ll return to the grave to leave back the amulett.
A lawful evil charakter would not bother himself with the burial, he´ll inform the inhabitants of the near village that there is a body which needs to be burried. He´ll probably pay the peasants with the money he has taken from the stranger. Some of the peasants notice the wonderful longsword the charakter carries and admire it. The evil charakter only takes care for his own life, if the stranger is burried with a weapon or not is no concern for him. The peasants eventually have been on the way to prepare the strangers funeral and noticed an amulet on the ground near the body. At least something they can leave on the grave to personalize it.
A lawful neutral charakter maybe arrange a burial by himself and will take the weapon. It makes sense to him that somekind of weapon should follow the stranger in the after life, so he leaves a dagger. He´ll take all of the coins. Because there is a chance to discover relatives of this stranger in the near village he takes the amulet to give it to them. In case he discovers the relatives he´ll hand over the amulett and leads them to the spot were he has burried the traveller. He´ll hand over the sword but keeps the money if he is asked. Or he´ll hand over the money and keeps the sword.
Another law I had for Audor was that tomb robbing was legal, but only if the tomb was at least 100 years old.
Which I suppose means it is possible an area could have a tomb that is suddenly "open for business" assuming that chaotic grave robbers didn't get there first.
Wealthy Audorians might set up tombs with elaborate traps and treasures just so that who they are and would be remembered by later generations of adventurers.
A suppose a corelary of this culture's rules is that it is polite to know something about the guy whose tomb you are robbing.
|
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?Maybe a small example may help you out here.
Lets imagine that during a journey to a distant location a lawful charakter stumbles upon the dead body of a traveler - a very wealthy traveler. Whatever or whoever killed this stranger is long gone. There is no immediate threat so the charakter has time to look after the body and what it holds in possession. Search reveals a marvelous long sword - at least a masterwork weapon, a heavy pocket filled with several coins and gems, a amulet which seems to have a more personal value...
So how does a lawful charakter react properly? What will he take or do?
In my opinion the lawful good charakter cares for a proper burial and probably will leave the marvellous weapon or exchange it with his own. It makes sense to him that somekind of weapon should follow the stranger in the after life. He´ll take most of the coins and gems or maybe everything depending on the burial rites which he is used to. There is a chance to discover relatives of this stranger so he takes the amulet to give it to them. In case he discovers relatives in the near village he´ll hand over the coins and the amulett and leads them to the spot were he has burried the traveller. If asked he´ll also hand over the sword. In case that no one is related or seems to know the stranger he keeps everything he has found for himself. Maybe he´ll return to the grave to leave back the amulett.
A lawful evil charakter would not bother himself with the burial, he´ll inform the inhabitants of the near village that there is a body which needs to be burried. He´ll probably pay the peasants with the money he has taken from the stranger. Some of the peasants notice the wonderful longsword the...
Totally off topic, but why are you spelling it "charakter"?
Totally off topic, but why are you spelling it "charakter"?
If you look at his profile, you'll see he's German. "Charakter" is the German spelling.
I have a Planescape character in a story I'm writing named Celeste, who is a paladin of St. Cuthbert and a member of the Harmonium. So, I asked myself: What would happen if she had to kill some criminal on the streets of Sigil who was resisting arrest?
First of all, the Harmonium isn't some modern police department, where if an officer kills a suspect or even fires his weapon at all, he has to be placed on mandatory paid suspension while the high-ups conduct an inquiry. Celeste will simply report the incident to her immediate superior, who will have her fill out the appropriate form and that will be that. In fact, the only reason they'll even have her fill out the form is because the Fraternity of Order will complain if they don't. (They love forms, you know.)
Is the Harmonium going to actually question whether the killing was justified? Of course not! One of their own killed a criminal? Obviously, the sod deserved it — and since the one who killed him is a paladin, doubly so. It's not like Celeste is going to lie on the official report, after all. If she says the killing was justified, then it was. QED.
On Law and Order, they'd be roping off the area with yellow crime scene tape, having a small army of uniforms collecting evidence, taking the body to the medical examiner, the whole nine yards. In Sigil, there are enough dead people laying around on the streets that the Collectors can actually make a living collecting them — and that's exactly what would happen to the dead criminal in question.
So, the only question we have left is whether Celeste and her party will claim the dead criminal's possessions or the Collectors will. If he has any magical items, she'll most certainly claim them. If the items are evil, she'll turn them in to her superiors; if not, she'll either keep them or give them to her party members. Now, she's not going to rifle through the deader's pockets looking for a bit of jink; however, she'd probably do nothing more than express annoyance if the party's rogue did.
And the most important thing to note? In Sigil, all of this is legal. In fact, Sigil is probably ahead of 99% of the towns in most D&D campaign worlds by having a legal system at all. When those towns have problems with all but the most petty of criminals, they don't call the police — they call adventurers. Now, lawful adventurers are far more inclined to seek out jobs from local mayors or magistrates so they can have some semblance of legal authority. Chaotic ones will take jobs from whomever's paying. But both types will be collecting the loot — and it's not likely to trouble their consciences whether they're good, neutral, or evil.
Of course, our paladin friend will no doubt be donating some of the loot to her church. The clerics will know perfectly well where it came from — and it won't trouble their consciences either.
|
|
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?
The 'lawful' route would be to NOT loot the body but to hand over the body and all its possessions to local law enforcement. Taking any of the possessions of the corpse is obstruction of justice; specifically, evidence is being removed from the scene. If in a region in which there is no law enforcement, the corpse should either be buried with its possessions, have a cairn raised over it, or summarily burned/cremated. A role-playing scene would be appropriate here. Maybe the bard could compose a quick funeral dirge for the fallen.
I usually don't let players 'loot' bodies in the game. They get compensated at the end of the mission for all services rendered. If they're desperate for cash in the middle of the adventure, they can get an advance from their patron for an amount pro-rated against their current progress.
-Perry
As long as it doesn't get out of hand, it can lead to some role-playing opportunities.
In the last game session I was in, our party was attacked by an evil cleric and two fighters he had hired. We defeated them but didn't kill them because they surrendered. (My chaotic neutral bard might have killed them anyway, but you know how paladins are...)
So we had them tied up and while the paladin and other PCs were questioning the evil cleric, my rogue was going through the fighters' possessions, separating all the valuable ones, and doing detect magic to find the magical items.
Then the paladin decides to let them go and give them their stuff back. My bard argued that we should at least keep some of their stuff, but the paladin insisted. He did let my bard keep the cleric's copper mask which was a badge of his rank.
No one in my group has ever seen a problem with a Lawful character of any sort looting a body or taking the gear of a dangerous captive.
The 'lawful' route would be to NOT loot the body but to hand over the body and all its possessions to local law enforcement. Taking any of the possessions of the corpse is obstruction of justice; specifically, evidence is being removed from the scene. If in a region in which there is no law enforcement, the corpse should either be buried with its possessions, have a cairn raised over it, or summarily burned/cremated. A role-playing scene would be appropriate here. Maybe the bard could compose a quick funeral dirge for the fallen.I usually don't let players 'loot' bodies in the game. They get compensated at the end of the mission for all services rendered. If they're desperate for cash in the middle of the adventure, they can get an advance from their patron for an amount pro-rated against their current progress.
-Perry
Not to start a flame war, but you're confusing modern CSI with the more primitive 'It was him Sherriff' 'Oh, ok, take his stuff, except for that dagger, thats for my son's birthday' investigation style.
Honestly, in more primitive times, evidence was usually upstanding (or not so upstanding) citizen A and B accusing C. If C was dead, that was usually it, unless A and B were on the bad side of the local constabulary. A dead deer or coins might be evidence of something being stolen, but it was all turned over to the sheriff who usually kept it for himself for dinner and cost of office.
Usually, what happened was, you killed a bandit, chopped off his head, took his belongings, and then stopped by the nearest town to see if there was a bounty on his head. If there was, you got paid. If not, you tossed the head on a pike outside town as a warning and went on.
If you made the mistake of killing the local sheriff's son who was out padding his pockets on passing travelers, you hung after being tortured.
That's about the extent of justice in primitive times.
There are two parts to this question: the lawful and the good.
If you're in a city, castle, or other similar civilized area, there are authorities on site: city guards, castle guards, and so on, who are basically the local police. As officers of the law, they will be able to inform you what the relevant laws are in regards to murder and property.
If you're in an uncivilized area, then you are the law, meaning that the only laws are whatever personal morality or code of civilized behavior you brought with you.
Good? There are generally various codes which are agreed upon to be the activities of a good person. Not desecrating the dead is one, and included in that is giving them some variety of culturally appropriate funerary rites, though getting cultures to agree on these is pretty much impossible--one culture may think burial is all that's necessary, another requires burial with two silverpieces over the eyes, a third thinks cremation on a pyre is the only way to go, a fourth goes with burial again but insists that the deceased be given a favorite weapon and a favorite tool to go into the afterlife with, a fifth agrees on grave goods but thinks that you can give them joss paper substitutes and keep the tangible loot for yourself, and a sixth culture only has special rites for certain classes, in particular the fact that it's unheard of to not bury a wizard with their spellbooks no matter how evil they might be because the belief is that a wizard's spells contain a portion of their soul and they cannot rest in peace without their spellbooks, their bonded object and their familiar. In fact, if you kill a wizard you better kill their cat too and bury it with them or else there will be an undead wizard draug shambling off after kitty very soon after, and the same happens if some fool or evil person or both decides to loot the spellbooks and magic ring out of a known wizard's caern.
That all said, deciding what's "good" is a matter of common sense and application of the golden rule: If you wouldn't mind someone else looting your spellbooks after you die, then it's probably not evil for you to loot someone else's spellbooks after they die, especially if you think they wouldn't feel particularly profaned by this act and wouldn't likely come back as a vengeful ghost.
Of course, the sacred/profane divide is very much a personal one. Personally, if I were a dead wizard hanging out in the afterlife and I heard that someone had taken my skull and put it on their desk as a memento mori, I'd be somewhere between amused and honored. If they had made it into some variety of undead and were doing things with it, ranging from disgusting to horrid? I'd be annoyed, but I'd ultimately blow it off as the actions of childish necromancers. If they had my spellbook too and were studying, copying spells out and whatnot, I'd consider this all part of the grand exchange of knowledge that goes down through the ages.
That said, if I had some original spell of mine and I found that someone had copied it down and claimed it was their own invention--or worse, that it was inspired by some god they wanted to pimp--I would be coming back from the afterlife with a poltergeist vengeance such as the world has not seen, hurling books with the lie in them around libraries, having crow quills scratch the word PLAGIARIST on the offending wizard's forehead while he slept, and pretty much throwing an ectoplasmic hissy fit until the true ignominy was known and publicized in all the relevant scholarly publications of the time.
Really. Everyone has a sacred/profane button and that's mine.
|
See, D&D was created in a rather big mishmush of both ideas, with both of them significantly expanded on as it went; the high flying heroic adventures had Charlemagne and his paladins, the powerful and holy
Charlemagne and his Paladins were in involved in a rather fair amount of looting in their lives. There was an old TV show in France about the "historical" Charlemagne ... and it was a weird and bloody stuff.
Now why he is remembered in folk tales as a paragon of virtue : ... ???
Because the guys before and after him were HELLLLUVAH worse !!!
Do some research about the merovingian kings and their morals ... should be pretty enlightening.
So after this sidetrack ... Ancient cultures right until the renaissance and somewhat still beyond ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED looting the bad guys. Respecting your enemies is really a 20th century thing.
But if that is not enough, think about it some other way : in a world of widespread poverty and famine, would you let the poseesssions of your fallen enemy rot on the spot you killed him, or try to see them brought to a better use for the betterment of good people who might really need it ?
To convert this for usage by a paladin (the pinnacle of LG), unless they have some sort of code or oath of poverty, when they defeat an enemy, dead or alive, the paladin is within his rights to take whatever possessions that person has on them.
As another well-known example, William Marshal was one of the most renowned knights of the Middle Ages, and he made vast profits from his victories on the tournament circuit.
Until modern times, soldiers normally looted and pillaged the lands they passed through. When the First Crusade passed through Byzantine Empire, they wisely kept the city gates of Byzantium closed until their "allied" crusader army had passed by. Unless a ruler specifically limited his men's depredations (such as when Henry V forbade his troops to despoil churches), they considered looting a normal part of warfare.
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?
How I read this question is that it is one of empathy. Lawful good characters tend to empathize with most people, sometimes even their enemies. Whether or not to "allow" looting depends on whether that character is attempting to lead the rest of the party in the tenets of lawful goodness, although "allow" assumes that said character has them under his command, which is generally not the case, even for paladins.
If I were playing a paladin in group that had just killed a group of hobgoblins, I would probably consider the loot of the hobgoblins "ill-gotten gains", take my share, and donate a significant portion, because there is little chance of finding who the hobgoblins stole from. If I KNEW where the loot came from, I would implore the party to return the wealth to the rightful owners. If I was playing a lawful good character who was not a paladin I might do these things but to a lesser degree, maybe? Paladins are standing for moral code. They are exemplars of that code, so tend to follow it strictly. Lawful good characters on the other hand are just trying to live in a good and lawful fashion.
Also, one thing to keep in mind, you are not just playing a character, you are playing a character with a group of friends. Roleplaying is good, but pestering them because of what is written next to word "alignment" can become a problem, as many MANY groups will attest to. So much so there is a tv-tropes entry that touches on it.
Of course this tv-trope describes the rest of the players.
So after this sidetrack ... Ancient cultures right until the renaissance and somewhat still beyond ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED looting the bad guys. Respecting your enemies is really a 20th century thing.
This^. Historically, that's how most armies got paid, by looting on the field. In fact, it was often the most dangerous part of a battle, when the presumed visitors began looting, only to be counter attacked when the armies cohesion broke down. Often, loot was pooled, and then shared out, similar to a pirate vessel. Remember, no bank accounts meant that everyone was paid in cash, usually right before the battle. This was seen as a good way to avoid desertions or units switching sides.
One interesting idea comes from Norse culture: While theft was derided, the act of defeating an enemy and taking his stuff was the pinnacle of warfare. In fact, there is a record of one raid where the vikings came ashore, stole a bunch of stuff, then the leader felt bad about it, turned around, gave the stuff back, and gave the owners the chance to defend it. They were all killed and the loot went with the vikings, but at least the raid leader was no longer a thief.
How does a Lawful (good) or anything Lawful aligned character justify looting after dropping an enemy?
Maybe… Yell, “Failure to surrender will result in the forfeiture of all rights to personal property!” at the beginning of battle?
Honestly, if you're going to be lawful about these things, you have to have some form of lawful authority set up who is authorizing these activities and ultimately taking the blame and the responsibility.
Are you a pirate or a privateer? What's the difference? A privateer has a letter of mark which allows him to basically be a pirate in service of the authorities.
Are you a bunch of thugs forcibly jumping innocent kids into your gang or are you the press gang for the royal navy out looking for conscripts? The difference? You have an actual government endorsing your activities.
Are you a mafia thug collecting protection money or the royal tax collector collecting taxes?
If you're jousting in a tournament, you and whoever you're jousting against have already agreed as to the stakes, whether the winner gets to keep the loser's horse, gear, or whatever, and there are a lot of witnesses to this contract.
It should also be remembered that dueling, which has its own rules and laws and conventions, had those come about during the time it was outlawed.
|
|
Totally off topic, but why are you spelling it "charakter"?If you look at his profile, you'll see he's German. "Charakter" is the German spelling.
Ah! That makes sense. LOL! Thanks Hogarth.
It just kept throwing me for a loop. Everything else was spelled right, except that.
I had a "friend" once that would mispronounce a word on purpose, repeatedly, just to get on everyone's nerves. Example. I was running Hunter: The Reckoning back in the day, and this guy kept referring to the hunters and "Ibdued". I finally figured out he meant "Imbued". However he just laughed and continued to say "Ibdued". It was really grating on everyone's nerves and he knew it and loved it. So he kept doing it.
One interesting idea comes from Norse culture: While theft was derided, the act of defeating an enemy and taking his stuff was the pinnacle of warfare. In fact, there is a record of one raid where the vikings came ashore, stole a bunch of stuff, then the leader felt bad about it, turned around, gave the stuff back, and gave the owners the chance to defend it. They were all killed and the loot went with the vikings, but at least the raid leader was no longer a thief.
If memory serves, I believe that particular saga described the raiding group lighting the house on fire, and slaughtering the unarmed and unarmored people as soon as they ran out, all for the sake of having the owners be aware that the raiders were taking their stuff. You know, for the few seconds it took to expire whilst impaled on a spear. The crux of the issue wasn't that they were stealing things, it's that they were being sneaky while stealing things, and that was the thing that was deemed unacceptable.
It's an interesting phenomenon, but the sagas allude to the historical possibility that raiders going abroad to foreign lands to raid seemed to be held to a different sort of moral standard than your average domestic raiding. That's a different topic altogether, however.
See, D&D was created in a rather big mishmush of both ideas, with both of them significantly expanded on as it went; the high flying heroic adventures had Charlemagne and his paladins, the powerful and holy
Charlemagne and his Paladins were in involved in a rather fair amount of looting in their lives. There was an old TV show in France about the "historical" Charlemagne ... and it was a weird and bloody stuff.
Now why he is remembered in folk tales as a paragon of virtue : ... ???
Because the guys before and after him were HELLLLUVAH worse !!!
Do some research about the merovingian kings and their morals ... should be pretty enlightening.
So after this sidetrack ... Ancient cultures right until the renaissance and somewhat still beyond ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED looting the bad guys. Respecting your enemies is really a 20th century thing.
But if that is not enough, think about it some other way : in a world of widespread poverty and famine, would you let the poseesssions of your fallen enemy rot on the spot you killed him, or try to see them brought to a better use for the betterment of good people who might really need it ?
You're missing my point completely if you think it was even remotely about realism or history.
If I kill some one, I'm jacking his stuff. Hell, I may jack his stuff even if I don't kill him. Commandeering this wagon in the name of my god!
The Paladin will want any evil items to destroy.
While he's at it, burn the bodies so they can't rise.
Fire cleanses.
"I free you from the chains and claims of this world and help you to pass unfettered and free of material possessions and wealth into the spiritual realm, go free and soar!"
"I will use what you have left to make ammends for your deeds in this life, go now and be bothered no more"
"I will raise forth a fire and free you from this mortal coil!"
Good quotes, I have to remember these for Saturday's game....
Killing someone who has wronged some one or killed in the name of self-defense gives permission to the persons items? that doesn't make much sense.
Are you asking your question based on real world ethics and morality or the implied ethics and morality of a world were conflict rules the planet, where dragons and monsters exist and where the profession of 'Adventurer' is as real and valid as Grocer, Soldier and Farmer? Where literally THOUSANDS of years of martial conflict have made such practices second nature and pretty much unquestioned.
Some amount of adaptation to your belief system and morals has to happen when playing a sword and sorcery game because frankly the settings we play in are far more violent, deadly and less 'Humane' even in their most enlioghtened area's, than our world. It is not a game where (for the most part) there are Bill's of Rights or accepted concepts similar to that, let alone ruling bodies to enforce such notions or make laws to protect the idea's.
Lawful means, at it's fundament, that the character for the MOST PART believes and acts in some orderly and structured fashion. It in no way means they are a saint or don't have off days or even have gaping exeptions to that belief as part of their regular outlook.
It is the accepted practice to profit from a successful combat, conflict or war even in OUR world. The phrase 'To the victors go the spoils' is from OUR history after all and represents that concept.
Many knights, warriors, etc throughout history would take trophy's from and loot the enemys they defeated to become rich, improve their kingdoms or countries and to fund the wars or conflict they were engaging in.
One could almost ask, "How does defeating your enemies NOT entitle you to their lands and goods?" in the vast majority of RP settings.
Remember the worlds your playing in are mirrors of ours but by NO MEANS reflecting ours.
|
|
First of all, the Harmonium isn't some modern police department, where if an officer kills a suspect or even fires his weapon at all, he has to be placed on mandatory paid suspension while the high-ups conduct an inquiry.
Funny you should bring up modern police departments. A good chunk of every modern police department's budget comes from the seizing of criminals' assets--which often don't have to be returned even if the suspect is found innocent. This can range from the reasonable ("We're seizing the vehicle that you smuggled drugs in and selling it at police auction.") to the ridiculous ("This computer might have been used in your drug business, so we're seizing it... as well as the stereo you probably bought with drug money, all of your jewelry, and your house. Drug money."), and it really varies from department to department how much this is done. But even in the modern day, "looting the bad guys" is considered to be a normal part of law enforcement.
Jeremy Puckett