Another thought:
If it's not for the Money (which, as offered as a reward, is pretty weak), what IS the motivation to bring this guy back?
If the reward isn't worth the risk, then why do it?
(Now, the reward can be something else, even something intangible like fame, fortune, satisfying character background, romance, revenge, etc. IF that's what your characters are looking for.)
I've played in games where the heroes decided that the reward was more than the risk was worth. (Dragon Mountain...) I even played a post-apocalyptic game where we used to calculate bullet cost before going out on a mission...if it looked like we weren't going to make enough to afford the ammunition, we didn't go. Not that we were evil ro selfish, but why not have SOMETHING worth the risk.
So, I ask again, what was the motivation to get this guy?
Honestly, I couldn't tell you for certain. The PCs went really out of their way to get this guy - more than I originally planned for. As I said before the bounty was a completely optional thing; the PCs had other things they had to do and just saw the wanted poster while they were milling about town. Maybe since I created an actual wanted poster and printed it out for the PCs they thought it was a much better deal than I intended it to be; I don't know.
Honestly, I couldn't tell you for certain. The PCs went really out of their way to get this guy - more than I originally planned for. As I said before the bounty was a completely optional thing; the PCs had other things they had to do and just saw the wanted poster while they were milling about town. Maybe since I created an actual wanted poster and printed it out for the PCs they thought it was a much better deal than I intended it to be; I don't know.Another thought:
If it's not for the Money (which, as offered as a reward, is pretty weak), what IS the motivation to bring this guy back?
If the reward isn't worth the risk, then why do it?
(Now, the reward can be something else, even something intangible like fame, fortune, satisfying character background, romance, revenge, etc. IF that's what your characters are looking for.)
I've played in games where the heroes decided that the reward was more than the risk was worth. (Dragon Mountain...) I even played a post-apocalyptic game where we used to calculate bullet cost before going out on a mission...if it looked like we weren't going to make enough to afford the ammunition, we didn't go. Not that we were evil ro selfish, but why not have SOMETHING worth the risk.
So, I ask again, what was the motivation to get this guy?
They interacted with their environment.
Please just talk to them OOC, you are not a bad DM when you do that.
Most DM’s would kill for players that bite after their adventuring hooks like that, yet you want to punish them?
Most DM’s would kill for players that bite after their adventuring hooks like that, yet you want to punish them?
Don't really see the hook here, it was a simple one-and-done job.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just think it through. If the authorities are real bastards about getting the fugitive's items back, then the PCs are going to simply say "lesson learned, next time we dump the fugitive's body in a ditch and keep the loot."
KEEP IT IN GAME
1) Would the NPC authorities know that the fugitive had magic items? How would they know?
2) Would they care? What sort of contract or obligation were the PCs under, in returning the fugitive? "Dead or Alive?"
3) If the fugitive told the authorities he had magic items, and the PCs tell the authorities he's lying, are the authorities really going to believe the fugitive over the PCs? Are they going to go through all the hassle of detecting truth to recover some items?
..now, if there's a particular item that's important because it's "evidence" or whatever, then I could see the authorities going out of their way to recover that particular item. But don't go trying to get the loot back just because you're afraid of cracking the "Loot By Levels" table. That's lame. Just dial back some future loot to compensate.
So you want to discourage them from picking up similar one-and-done jobs in the future?
Of course not, though I think I misinterpreted what DrDeth meant in his post.
Although it's got me thinking I may have to discuss another issue with the players regarding my game, loathe as I am to want to.
Have fun with it. Force a tense scene in which the players either have to kill the guards to get away with the item or end up in jail only to have to now chase down the corrupt guard captain who. Murdered the fugitive in his cell and the split town with the item he forced the PC's to give up. Now they can go get the item again.
FYI since so many of you have contributed your opinions to this thread I'll update it after the next session to let you know what I did and how it went.
Thank you!
FYI since so many of you have contributed your opinions to this thread I'll update it after the next session to let you know what I did and how it went.
I wish you luck and I do truly hope whatever you decide works. In the end its about having fun and enjoying a game and a story. Everything else is just details. So good luck and happy gaming.
Just think it through. If the authorities are real bastards about getting the fugitive's items back, then the PCs are going to simply say "lesson learned, next time we dump the fugitive's body in a ditch and keep the loot."
KEEP IT IN GAME
1) Would the NPC authorities know that the fugitive had magic items? How would they know?
2) Would they care? What sort of contract or obligation were the PCs under, in returning the fugitive? "Dead or Alive?"
3) If the fugitive told the authorities he had magic items, and the PCs tell the authorities he's lying, are the authorities really going to believe the fugitive over the PCs? Are they going to go through all the hassle of detecting truth to recover some items?
..now, if there's a particular item that's important because it's "evidence" or whatever, then I could see the authorities going out of their way to recover that particular item. But don't go trying to get the loot back just because you're afraid of cracking the "Loot By Levels" table. That's lame. Just dial back some future loot to compensate.
+1!
I've been in games (as a player and a GM) where some situation leads the players to believe that it's better to just take the loot and ignore the plot because the plot isn't worth the reward.
(We had one GM who had an adventure where the heroes get forced into helping escort a minor nobleman across a mountain pass...he and his guards treated the heroes like crab and constantly tried to confiscate anything they recovered during the adventure. Once the nobleman got captured, they had no reason to reescue him so, once they found him and his group imprisoned by the kobolds, they left him, took his loot and horses, and went their own way. The GM was baffled until the players explained why they were not interested in getting him or his bully-boys free.)
Just think it through. If the authorities are real bastards about getting the fugitive's items back, then the PCs are going to simply say "lesson learned, next time we dump the fugitive's body in a ditch and keep the loot."
Really what the guards shoiuld be more concerned with is where the bandit sold the sword he stole. Not the items he owned that weren't stolen.
So you want to discourage them from picking up similar one-and-done jobs in the future?
Well, seeing as the PCs come out ahead both in XP and treasure than if the hadn't accepted the bounty, even if they returned the gear, I'm not seeing the disincentive.
If 250gp isn't worth the trouble they went through to catch this guy (to me it sounded like a rather easy encounter despite the level difference), that's something to bring up IC, maybe they could haggle for a bigger reward.
Just think it through. If the authorities are real bastards about getting the fugitive's items back, then the PCs are going to simply say "lesson learned, next time we dump the fugitive's body in a ditch and keep the loot."
If the PCs want to become highwaymen, I wouldn't have any problem with that so long as they realize that in-game actions have in-game consequences.
Why does the reward for returning the maguffin have to be worth more than the maguffin itself? Isn't that counter intuitive? Why would a npc offer a bounty worth more than the items stolen?
The incentive for the PCs is they get the reward and get in the good graces of whoever, rather than keeping the loot and risk getting caught with stolen goods.
I also give out larger quest xp rewards when PCs go out of their way to do the noble thing.
Why would a npc offer a bounty worth more than the items stolen?
Two words: Sentimental Value.
For example: My mom painted a really nice portrait of Jesus when she was a teenager. I have it hanging in the bedroom, and is the only painting I have left from when she was alive. The painting has no worth, it might sell for $10 at a yard sale, if that, but sentimental value wise, it's priceless and would be one of the first non-living things I'd grab on the way out of the house if the house caught fire...
The funny thing is that in my experience paying more for the return of an item than it's worth makes PCs more suspicious and more likely to consider keeping it than if the reward is less than it's worth. "Hey guys, why is this noble paying us 5000 gold for this silly statue that can't be worth more than a couple hundred? There must be something more to this statue that he knows that we don't. Maybe we better do some research before we just hand it over to him."
Oh, and for those interested in the outcome of the issue the return of the fugitive's gear, my next session will be either Friday the 13th or the 20th. My group alternates between my game and my friend's (who plays the inquisitor in my game) Kingmaker game.
Normally it'd be my game to run on the 13th but this last session our group has (once again) come into the possession of an evil artifact, and (yet again) it's taken over one of the PCs. It ended with my character (a CG fey sorcerer) trying to convince the paladin that killing the warlord (the PC co-opted by the evil artifact sword we just got) to get the sword away from him is not an acceptable solution at this point, so we kind of have to get this little situation resolved.
Cranewing, that's a modern day law. In medieval times, Nobles WERE the law. What they said, went, and only someone higher up could overrule them, like the King.
Just think it through. If the authorities are real bastards about getting the fugitive's items back, then the PCs are going to simply say "lesson learned, next time we dump the fugitive's body in a ditch and keep the loot."If the PCs want to become highwaymen, I wouldn't have any problem with that so long as they realize that in-game actions have in-game consequences.
Only only only if the authorities know about. If you cheese them on how the authorities "knew" they kept the guy's gear, then they're going to know the GM cheesed them, and that's not going to be fun for anyone. Don't cheese them. Your players aren't dumb.
Why does the reward for returning the maguffin have to be worth more than the maguffin itself? Isn't that counter intuitive? Why would a npc offer a bounty worth more than the items stolen?
Is the reward for the recovery of the guy's items, or for the apprehension of the guy? I was under the (possibly wrong?) impression that the criminal was wanted for a crime against the authorities unrelated to the criminal's gear. If the criminal's only crime was stealing gear, and the PCs didn't return the stolen gear, then yeah, the authorities have a basis to not only know what the guy had on him, but to demand the stuff back in return for the reward and the good graces of the authorities. If the badguy was wanted for crimes unrelated to his gear, then I seriously doubt the authorities would demand to get the guy's gear as part of the ransom.
The incentive for the PCs is they get the reward and get in the good graces of whoever, rather than keeping the loot and risk getting caught with stolen goods.
I can tell you now: your PCs want to know why they can't have both, and they have a legitimate point. If they're all LG or LN guys, and they know with certainty that the guy's gear is not only stolen, but the owners of it are looking for it, then okay. I've never seen an entire LG party.
This whole thing is something their characters are going to have to work out among themselves, and working it out is part of the fun of roleplaying. Something we like to call "character development."
I also give out larger quest xp rewards when PCs go out of their way to do the noble thing.
Player: "But Steve, I'm not playing a noble character. Why should noble characters advance faster than non-noble characters?"
Is the reward for the recovery of the guy's items, or for the apprehension of the guy? I was under the (possibly wrong?) impression that the criminal was wanted for a crime against the authorities unrelated to the criminal's gear. If the criminal's only crime was stealing gear, and the PCs didn't return the stolen gear, then yeah, the authorities have a basis to not only know what the guy had on him, but to demand the stuff back in return for the reward and the good graces of the authorities. If the badguy was wanted for crimes unrelated to his gear, then I seriously doubt the authorities would demand to get the guy's gear as part of the ransom.
It was a two-part reward: The authorities were paying a bounty for the suspect's return since he fled, and the victim was paying a reward for the return of the stolen sword. Also, the authorities aren't demanding the suspect's gear to confiscate for themselves; they're demanding the PCs return it to them so they can hold onto it on behalf of the suspect. If the suspect is found innocent (very unlikely) he will have been wrongfully deprived of his property if it isn't returned to him. If he's found guilty (pretty much a certain outcome in this case) then he'll be required to pay restitution and fines - which may necessitate the sale of his magic items if he doesn't otherwise have the money. That's why it's important for the authorities to get his gear back.
Ahh, gotcha.
Well keeping the sword should be right out if your party is lawful, but keeping the rest of the guy's gear would probably be fair game. I don't think you should punish your party in XPs if they're chaotic and keep the sword though, because they're just playing their alignment.
If they returned the guy for the reward, but kept the sword, I think I would have the sword's owner hire another adventuring band to get the sword back from your PCs, either by theft or ambush.
Ahh, gotcha.
Well keeping the sword should be right out if your party is lawful, but keeping the rest of the guy's gear would probably be fair game. I don't think you should punish your party in XPs if they're chaotic and keep the sword though, because they're just playing their alignment.
If they returned the guy for the reward, but kept the sword, I think I would have the sword's owner hire another adventuring band to get the sword back from your PCs, either by theft or ambush.
Unfortunately the thief already fenced the sword by the time the PCs caught him. They recovered most of the proceeds from the sale and the right thing to do would of course be to turn it over to the authorities as evidence but they've decided to keep it instead. Not much can be done there so the PCs will be able to keep it without a hassle.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds to me like people are putting "their preferred play style" over actual judgement.
Killing and looting is one of the many play styles that Pathfinder caters to but it isn't the default unless we are talking about dungeons. Just because NPC's carry items you want doesn't necessarily give you the right to them, even if you kill that NPC because there could be repercussions to those actions.
Also, a simple local knowledge roll will tell you what the laws are in a city, a DM doesn't have to and shouldn't have to tell you to do that. Does the DM tell the spellcaster what spells he needs to choose? Does the DM tell you what feats you need to pick? Does he have to tell you which enemies to go for in battle? There is a reason for certain skills but some people become so lazy or are used to having everything handed to them that they think it's just part of the norm for the DM to need to tell them "everything". Should the DM just go ahead and tell you where all the traps are and where the secret chest is located?
Someone even had the "balls" to mention that the DM is being a dick because he is using a Lawful Good society. If you want a real example of a dick is someone that threatens someone else with being a dick if that person doesn't do what the other person wants. It's like coming up with a tactic that ends up not working but you tell the DM he is being a dick because he didn't change the outcome to make that certain tactic work because that person thought that his tactic was the best thing on the planet.
Also, the players knew what the reward was to start with, if it was too low then they could have gone and done something else. Not every city in someone's game is going to be exactly the same and just because you are a PC that doesn't mean you are the exception to the rule unless otherwise told so. Unless you have a reputation, a city isn't going to know you and your group from anyone else. You don't walk around with a "Hey I'm a PC" sign over your head.
PS: Pathfinder gives the DM the freedom to make his cities however he wishes but what is universal is the fact that you can make that knowledge roll to find out what the laws of that city are.
I can only see one thing for the DM to do here -- Ask the players to think of how they would feel if their PCs were the ones who were captured and lost their magic gear this way. If they are bothered by that possibility, point out that they have just opened up the possibility of that happening to them (since they have set the example by their treatment of their captured fugitive).
Of course, since in the game I am playing in my PC has already been taken prisoner and never got her magical gear back, any fugitive captured by my PC will certainly be looted in the same manner.
|
|
You keep what you kill is the expectation in these kinda games so you need to make it crystal clear what you are doing here if you don't want confused and angry players
Where exactly does it say that? From what I know, Pathfinder caters to all styles and not just one in particular. Killing and looting is usually something you see in a dungeon crawl but in no book does it say the default of the game is to kill and loot everything.
Now you are more than welcome to do that but don't be surprised when the consequences come back to bite you in the bum.
|
|
It doesn't have to say it, D&D culture has been predicated on 'kill the guy and take his stuff' for quite a long time. (e.g. The Orc and The Pie)That's a Fallacy I'm afraid.Counterpoint, where does it say that you don't kill the guy and take his stuff?
As a side note both the WBL charts and monster drop tables would seem to indicate that you acquire things by murdering people and stealing their pants.
Are you seriously going to try the "it doesn't say I can't" fallacy?
The law of the land in his specific campaign says so and that is how Pathfinder was designed. It is up to you as a player to find out what the laws of the land are. You can't go in with mentality that you can kill everything, gain their items and always get away with it.
It doesn't have to say it, D&D culture has been predicated on 'kill the guy and take his stuff' for quite a long time. (e.g. The Orc and The Pie)That's a Fallacy I'm afraid.
I have been playing D&D since the original 3 volume set. But I guess in a way he's a little wrong-D&D culture has been predicated on 'kill the guy and take his stuff' since the very first time anyone played the published game. But that's a quibble, so no, it's not a "fallacy". (He keeps using that word, I don't think he know what that word means") It's a statement of fact.
Now, yes. Thats just the norm. It's perfectly Ok to have a world or a nation or set of regional laws/ morals where that is NOT the norm. It's just that when the DM goes outside the norm on stuff like this, he has to make it VERY clear to the Players and the PC's.
I have to agree with DrDeth here... I've been playing D&D since 1974, too (those 3 little books); and the games have always been in the vein of the 'defeat/kill the guy; take his stuff' mentality.
When the object was to defeat someone and RECOVER some object for someone else, that was always made clear up front. We still looted the rest of his stuff for ourselves.
It doesn't have to say it, D&D culture has been predicated on 'kill the guy and take his stuff' for quite a long time. (e.g. The Orc and The Pie)That's a Fallacy I'm afraid.
It's not a fallacy, it's history.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a fallacy, it's history.
No, it's a fallacy. History is irrelevent. If we have to be slaves to tradition then how is anyone new supposed to get into this game? "I'm sorry, but you can't play/GM if you don't know the traditions of this game that have been established over the 38 years of its existence." It's unfair to hold a GM (or player) to something like that and if you do you're a jerk.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, it's a fallacy. History is irrelevent. If we have to be slaves to tradition then how is anyone new supposed to get into this game? "I'm sorry, but you can't play/GM if you don't know the traditions of this game that have been established over the 38 years of its existence." It's unfair to hold a GM (or player) to something like that and if you do you're a jerk.
Knowing every detail? Yeah, that's too high a bar.
Knowing a few pertinent ones? Not required, but a good idea.
Informing your players when you're violating any expectations/historical precedents you do know about? A very good idea, and, IMO, basic courtesy.
It's not a fallacy, it's history.No, it's a fallacy. History is irrelevent. If we have to be slaves to tradition then how is anyone new supposed to get into this game? "I'm sorry, but you can't play/GM if you don't know the traditions of this game that have been established over the 38 years of its existence." It's unfair to hold a GM (or player) to something like that and if you do you're a jerk.
No one is a slave to history. No one is saying you should not do things that were not done before. Nor do you have to know every bit of the game's history. But kill monsters and take their things is not some obscure fact, it is a baseline behavior for the game since its inception. You do know about it, and if you didnt, you have just been told about it.
That said, by all means divert from it. But take care to realize you are making a change and take actions appropriate to it.
For instance, in my current game world I have made changes to a long established norm in game, and to what the game system implies. Magic items are exceedingly rare, and cannot be crafted by normal means. Every permanent magic item (not a potion, scroll or wand) is priceless and thus cannot be bought or sold in any normal fashion.
This is obviously a change from the norm, but I did not ask my players for permission, nor did I expect to need it. What I did to is talk to them ahead of time about what I was doing, what the impact I expected it to have on the game and the game world was, and what I was going to do (if anything) to mitigate that impact. If I didnt do that, it was I who was being a jerk, not them if they got angry with me.
For instance, in my current game world I have made changes to a long established norm in game, and to what the game system implies. Magic items are exceedingly rare, and cannot be crafted by normal means. Every permanent magic item (not a potion, scroll or wand) is priceless and thus cannot be bought or sold in any normal fashion.
This is obviously a change from the norm, but I did not ask my players for permission, nor did I expect to need it. What I did to is talk to them ahead of time about what I was doing, what the impact I expected it to have on the game and the game world was, and what I was going to do (if anything) to mitigate that impact. If I didnt do that, it was I who was being a jerk, not them if they got angry with me.
This is different though. This is a much larger change to the scope of the game and impacts things like class & feat selection. I too would (and did) discuss things like this with my players before the campaign started so they'd have an idea of what my campaign & game world is like and how it would affect potential characters.
In this case, we have the issue of being able to assume PCs can automatically keep gear from a bounty in a particular country. That's not a big enough contradiction to whatever assumptions players may have about looting defeated foes, so an IC explanation will suffice.
Only only only if the authorities know about. If you cheese them on how the authorities "knew" they kept the guy's gear, then they're going to know the GM cheesed them, and that's not going to be fun for anyone. Don't cheese them. Your players aren't dumb.Just think it through. If the authorities are real bastards about getting the fugitive's items back, then the PCs are going to simply say "lesson learned, next time we dump the fugitive's body in a ditch and keep the loot."If the PCs want to become highwaymen, I wouldn't have any problem with that so long as they realize that in-game actions have in-game consequences.
I'm sorry, when you said "lesson learned", I thought you were descibing the PCs new behavior for the forseeable future. If robbing some guy is just a one time thing, then you are correct, chances are good the PCs won't get caught.
Why does the reward for returning the maguffin have to be worth more than the maguffin itself? Isn't that counter intuitive? Why would a npc offer a bounty worth more than the items stolen?Is the reward for the recovery of the guy's items, or for the apprehension of the guy? I was under the (possibly wrong?) impression that the criminal was wanted for a crime against the authorities unrelated to the criminal's gear. If the criminal's only crime was stealing gear, and the PCs didn't return the stolen gear, then yeah, the authorities have a basis to not only know what the guy had on him, but to demand the stuff back in return for the reward and the good graces of the authorities. If the badguy was wanted for crimes unrelated to his gear, then I seriously doubt the authorities would demand to get the guy's gear as part of the ransom.
Unless the laws and traditions of the land indicate they would, as is the case in this particular example.
The incentive for the PCs is they get the reward and get in the good graces of whoever, rather than keeping the loot and risk getting caught with stolen goods.I can tell you now: your PCs want to know why they can't have both, and they have a legitimate point. If they're all LG or LN guys, and they know with certainty that the guy's gear is not only stolen, but the owners of it are looking for it, then okay. I've never seen an entire LG party.
This whole thing is something their characters are going to have to work out among themselves, and working it out is part of the fun of roleplaying. Something we like to call "character development."
They can have both, in general they can do whatever they want. Actions simply have consequences. In this example, the guards told the PCs that not returning the fugivtive's gear is the same as stealing. If the guards find out the PCs are stealing, there would be consequences.
Lots of countries have different laws. Keeping slaves in Katapesh would likely have different consequences than keeping slaves in Andora.
There's nothing wrong with having slavery be OK, or not OK in your campaign. You can even have both in different regions.
Similarly, there's no rule that says anyhting not nailed down is there for the PCs to loot, no more than there is a rule that says all NPCs are put there for the PCs to kill.
I also give out larger quest xp rewards when PCs go out of their way to do the noble thing.Player: "But Steve, I'm not playing a noble character. Why should noble characters advance faster than non-noble characters?"
Well, Player, you have more ill gotton gains than a noble character would. Why should non-noble characters be richer than noble characters?
Also, the noble characters went "out of their way" to be noble. That means they did something extra. Is not the standard reward for doing stuff treasure and XP? You got some ill gotten gains, what do noble caracters get?
It's not a fallacy, it's history.It doesn't have to say it, D&D culture has been predicated on 'kill the guy and take his stuff' for quite a long time. (e.g. The Orc and The Pie)That's a Fallacy I'm afraid.
And anyone who doesn't play like this is having BADWRONGFUN?
For instance, in my current game world I have made changes to a long established norm in game, and to what the game system implies. Magic items are exceedingly rare, and cannot be crafted by normal means. Every permanent magic item (not a potion, scroll or wand) is priceless and thus cannot be bought or sold in any normal fashion.
This is obviously a change from the norm, but I did not ask my players for permission, nor did I expect to need it. What I did to is talk to them ahead of time about what I was doing, what the impact I expected it to have on the game and the game world was, and what I was going to do (if anything) to mitigate that impact. If I didnt do that, it was I who was being a jerk, not them if they got angry with me.
This is different though. This is a much larger change to the scope of the game and impacts things like class & feat selection. I too would (and did) discuss things like this with my players before the campaign started so they'd have an idea of what my campaign & game world is like and how it would affect potential characters.
In this case, we have the issue of being able to assume PCs can automatically keep gear from a bounty in a particular country. That's not a big enough contradiction to whatever assumptions players may have about looting defeated foes, so an IC explanation will suffice.
Quick question to the DM:
Can you explain how you are approaching this?
Are their bounties on people? OR are you having the players issued leders of Marque (sp)?
DO the characters have the right to negotiate for expenses?
Well, Player, you have more ill gotton gains than a noble character would. Why should non-noble characters be richer than noble characters?
Also, the noble characters went "out of their way" to be noble. That means they did something extra. Is not the standard reward for doing stuff treasure and XP? You got some ill gotten gains, what do noble caracters get?
Do extra evil characters who forego the loot get extra xp? What about extra neutral pc's?
Do you inform your players of this game changing XP reward process before the game starts or just surprise them later?
Quick question to the DM:
Can you explain how you are approaching this?
Are their bounties on people? OR are you having the players issued leders of Marque (sp)?DO the characters have the right to negotiate for expenses?
The players saw the wanted poster when they were going about their business in town. Since two rewards were being offered they spoke with the victim, who was offering a reward for the return of the stolen sword, and the authorities, who were offering a bounty on the fugitive since he fled. When the PCs spoke to the authorities (in this case the captain of the city guard and one of the baron's castle officers) they were given a writ of arrest and told to make sure they had that with them when they pursued the fugitive so that authorities in other towns knew the capture of the fugitive was legitimate. Writs of arrest are specific to each bounty; they're definitely NOT letters of marque. For the most part the bounties aren't negotiable - at least for small fry like this guy - but individual rewards of course are.
The players saw the wanted poster when they were going about their business in town. Since two rewards were being offered they spoke with the victim, who was offering a reward for the return of the stolen sword, and the authorities, who were offering a bounty on the fugitive since he fled. When the PCs spoke to the authorities (in this case the captain of the city guard and one of the baron's castle officers) they were given a writ of arrest and told to make sure they had that with them when they pursued the fugitive so that authorities in other towns knew the capture of the fugitive was legitimate. Writs of arrest are specific to each bounty; they're definitely NOT letters of marque. For the most part the bounties aren't negotiable - at least for small fry like this guy - but individual rewards of course are.Quick question to the DM:
Can you explain how you are approaching this?
Are their bounties on people? OR are you having the players issued leders of Marque (sp)?DO the characters have the right to negotiate for expenses?
Were they told, at THAT time, they would not be allowed to loot the felon of his wealth? If not, then, I'm sorry, but you screwed up.
Master Arminas