It's strictly an alignment role-play scenario.
Lawful Good: Would probably "use" items at the present need. Taking any items is usually to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands, only to be returned to the appropriate person(s) once available to do so.
Neutral Good: Would use items, and return them if available, but keep them if that isn't possible.
Chaotic Good: Might take items of use, but may return them if asked.
Lawful Neutral: Would take items of use, but is usually persuaded to return some form of compensation.
The problem with this is that in many cases the dec'd would want his gear to go to his closest friends and boon companions, those who have saved his life time and again.
|
It's strictly an alignment role-play scenario.
No it's not. Opinions on the appropriate way to treat the dead (and their stuff) vary among individuals of the same alignment.
While a Lawful or Good individual may feel less comfortable with taking a dead friend's gear than a chaotic or evil one, there are also plenty of contrary philosophies and cultures consistent with a Lawful and/or Good alignment that would support taking such gear. For example, a party may have the formal or informal understanding that major adventuring gear belongs to the group and if you die and can't be raised, the group recovers your gear. Such a group may have a separate "widows and orphans" fund or other plan to provide adequately for next of kin. Alternatively, they may feel that the best way to honor a fallen friend is to use their gear in whatever cause their friend died for.
A LN character isn't much less likely to turn over the items than a LG character, since even if they are generally less selfless they generally respect any traditions requiring the dead be buried with such-and-such, or laws indicating proper rights of inheritance.
Conversely, a nonevil Chaotic character might feel like the dead ought to be able to keep in death what they earned in life.
My NG character had a very pragmatic "the dead aren't using it" philosophy that most closely matches your "NE" writeup. It was pretty much as DrDeth says - she wanted her items to go to the people she risked her life with. Near the endgame she almost died holding off a powerful undead and if she was willing to die for her companions she sure as heck was willing to let them take her stuff (which would help them to not die in the future).
|
For my current game, if your character dies and is not rezzed then your new character starts at level two with appropriate WBL.
The party is level 13 now. While it doesn't take long for a level two to catch up if he keeps his head out of trouble, it does serve to keep wealth in check while creating an additional penalty for serial characters. Introducing a new pc every other session starts to screw up story flow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For my current game, if your character dies and is not rezzed then your new character starts at level two with appropriate WBL.
The party is level 13 now. While it doesn't take long for a level two to catch up if he keeps his head out of trouble, it does serve to keep wealth in check while creating an additional penalty for serial characters. Introducing a new pc every other session starts to screw up story flow.
So he has to spend 11 levels barely able to participate? Sounds like loads of fun.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you can't find a way to work in a level appropriate character into the story and balance his additional wealth, that's a GM failure.
As well, starting a character 11 levels below the party is silly from a story standpoint. It's like asking the Justice League to partner with a normal police officer to fight Darkseid. The police officer is useless and the Justice League would be irresponsible for taking the relative weakling into such a fight.
|
|
It's silly? Silly?
Remind me to infer that your group's gaming style is silly.
Working a character into the story isn't a problem. Working a replacement character into the party every other week is. As is dealing with an extra 140k gold every other session.
Since I knew this was going to be an issue with certain of my players, this was the solution we discussed and agreed on. None of my players have a problem with it or, if they do, have voiced it to me.
It's been working as intended for this campaign for about seven months now.
From a story standpoint, it's like asking Ashton to stand with Belhamir. From a COMBAT standpoint, any combat can be balanced around your players and their abilities.
This is the solution that my group chose, being themselves aware of their own gaming tendencies. It's an option that Xallin can choose to explore or not.
Certainly, it's Xallin's choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, really. I have run in many games where all new characters start at low (1st or 2nd) level dispite the current APL. Never have I not had a role to play. If that is how the campaign is structured, I do not see that as a GM failure in any way.
Using your example, the simple policeman deals with Darkseids cronies, while the JL handles the big guy. The good GM offers multiple level challenges for the group. Has always been fun that I have seen. Even adding to the challenge of the higher levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering Darkseid's "cronies" have been seen routinely cutting bloody swathes through army regiments, I doubt that'd turn out how you'd like.
My point, though, is not that the challenge would be too difficult for the lowbies, but that WHY would the high level party take on such a liability instead of finding someone else as skilled and experienced as they are? It makes little sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um low-level outreach program?
I get yor point about Darkseids, but there is always something to be done to be helpful.
There is plenty of fantasy history for taking on such a character: Bilbo Baggins, Shea Olmsford, Pug the Magician, etc. . . The reality argument does not hold up for saying that it is a GM failure.
Using that logic, why would any higher level party take on any new member? By the point you are talking about, they would rarely need them. Plus that whole sharing treasure with a new member, lack of trust in an unknown new friend, or the fact that there is someone around that is as skilled, experienced, and "available" also makes little sense.
This is a games where frequently, the idea of making sense is put aside and things are done for the convenience of playing. If that is the table rules (rechar at L1 or L2), then that is in no way "silly" or "make little sense". It is just that tables style. Roll with it and have fun!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm having a hard time finding any way "New characters start 11 levels below everyone else" is at all conducive to the convenience of playing.
It's inconvenient. It makes no logical sense. It's likely frustrating and un-fun for the person having more dog-piled on top of the suckage that is losing a character.
I see no reason for it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just wanted to point out, LOOTING your corpse isnt the worst thing evil party members could do to it. Have fun with that thought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm running a game and a character died, the player then rage quit the group. He had some good gear, I feel as though the other players should be able to loot his corpse, but I fear if they get all the stuff he had, its going to overpower the existing players? What are your thoughts on this Pathfinder Community?!
How would you prevent looting of the bodies? Also a player rage-quiting doesn't have to kill them. You can turn him into an NPC that then decides to leave the group for important reasons.
Never break the immersion in favor of game balance. Balance means nothing once the immersion is broken. Without the immersion you might as well be playing a war game.
You know, I hate to call bad wrongful but I agree with Ryngin. We used to play that way, and it's bad, wrong, and no fun.
Only loot PC bodies after they have been turned into undead and had a chance to use their gear in that form.
OK, you can drink their blood before that, it spoils if you wait too long.
I feel as though the other players should be able to loot his corpse, but I fear if they get all the stuff he had, its going to overpower the existing players?
Sounds like a good time for their other gear to get Sundered/Stolen/be less optimal to the threats thrown at them, not get much new gear for a while, and temporarily increase the threat level of enemies to compensate, until things equal out and they are at normal WBL. That's the point of WBL, not that you are always at it, but that if/when you are significantly over/under it, that indicates a need to adjust encounters to compensate, the idea is that when you are at WBL you can just follow standard CR vs APL, but when you diverge you shouldn't. This example isn't particularly unique in regards to this issue, it's just one amongst many ways that you could temporarily exceed WBL. Of course, it's not as bad as if they just were handed the entire value in gold and sent into a Magic Mart, because alot of the gear may very well overlap gear they already have (or only applies to class features they don't have), and thus not give them any net benefit. The part they can't productively use, you don't even need to worry about.
I'm running a game and a character died, the player then rage quit the group.Also a player rage-quiting doesn't have to kill them.
You missed the point that the player RAGE quit because their character died, not that the character was killed becaused the player quit in such a manner.
As for the OP, was this player a friend or recurring member of your games/party? If so, then talk to the player and make sure there are no hard feelings. If not, discuss with the player that he/she may be allowed back in the game, but request an apology to the group for his/her actions.
If the player has no intentions of returning to the party, leave up to the players to role-play it out. Interesting "hook" could come up with the employing assassins guild.
What players do with their characters is their choice. Using GM fiat to stop them from doing something that can be easily done by anyone willing to (e.g.: taking stuff from dead people) is in bad form, IMO.
If you're worried about the power up to the PCs, just compensate for it a little bit. Suddenly everyone got slightly above WBL? No problem, just give them a little less loot until their wealth reaches the point your comfortable with.
That said, if you can't deal with a small power up for the PCs, you're in for a rough ride... Players surprise you with unexpected combos and strategies all the time, learn to adapt without unfairly punishing them.
I'm running a game and a character died, the player then rage quit the group.Also a player rage-quiting doesn't have to kill them.You missed the point that the player RAGE quit because their character died, not that the character was killed becaused the player quit in such a manner.
As for the OP, was this player a friend or recurring member of your games/party? If so, then talk to the player and make sure there are no hard feelings. If not, discuss with the player that he/she may be allowed back in the game, but request an apology to the group for his/her actions.
If the player has no intentions of returning to the party, leave up to the players to role-play it out. Interesting "hook" could come up with the employing assassins guild.
If he rage-quit the DM probably killed him out of spite with BS. But yeah totally missed that.
Some people just can't handle the loss of a character. I had a friend (this guy always plays a fighter or ranger) try a wizard. A new player* starts a bar fight and my friend forgets he is a wizard and tries to fight. His character dies, and my friend almost RAGE quit because of it. I simply talked to him and informed him that it is okay to walk (or in some cases run) away from a fight if you find that your in too deep. I also informed him that there are creatures out there that could TPK thrice over before breakfast. The world is meant to be explored, you have to control when you're ready for it.
*Note that the new player was not ask to return as his actions killed 3 reoccurring gamers characters and a few other problems we had with the guy
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It works, but from then on you're fighting animals, oozes, and dragons that keep their hoard in a well diversified stock portfolio and bonds set to mature in 800 years.
*Note that the new player was not ask to return as his actions killed 3 reoccurring gamers characters and a few other problems we had with the guy
So he was killed out of spite... K you guys have fun with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Note that the new player was not ask to return as his actions killed 3 reoccurring gamers characters and a few other problems we had with the guySo he was killed out of spite... K you guys have fun with that.
Nope, the guy was killed purely out of dice rolls in the bar fight.
To be clear: assuming they can productively put the gear to use (i.e. it is not just duplicates of existing gear), compensating is NOT just not giving them gear for a while... because if it's a significant deviation from WBL (which is the only reason to care in the first place), they WILL be over-powered vs. same enemies. so part of the compensation is upping the enemies' game UNTIL they are on-par with WBL (perhaps having gained a level in the mean time). or stealing/sundering stuff. enemies can be boosted by stats, gear, stronger type/level/number of enemy, or simply the situational details of the encounter environment/pacing that makes the enemies more of a threat... even adding additional demands on the PCs, like taking care of NPCs, affects the power balance. not getting new gear for a while (or less gear than normal) is just one small part of keeping the challenge appropriate. you have to do similar things, but in reverse, if you ever have a 'all/most of the PCs gear is taken away' campaign moment.
we loot Dead PCs all the time.
the loot is shared among the survivors that attended that session.
in Weekly William's group
Aaron and I are the two people whose characters most likely to die
in fact, Aaron dies twice as much as i do and i die once every 6-8 sessions on average
Aaron is reckless and does crazy stunts that draw aggro, set off traps, give him permanent penalties, and generally leave him dead.
I often build glass cannons whom you would think. should be able to mop the floor with a bunch of mooks, but due to crappy rolls on my part, i fail to damage them, and the mooks, due to extreme luck, overwhelm me, despite being over 6-8 CRs below me, because they suddenly gets crits and the like, and i die to the dogpile of mook crit killing.
it doesn't help that i focus on defenses other than AC instead of AC. like Saves, CMD, HP, DR, ER, and Fortification.
|
|
Working a character into the story isn't a problem. Working a replacement character into the party every other week is. As is dealing with an extra 140k gold every other session.
Is that really the alternative? You would have a death every other session if it weren't for the fact that replacement characters started as much as 11 levels behind?
If you can't come up with something for a level disparate character to do to participate, that's a gm failure. Goodness knows, all lower level enemies cease to exist from the world once they're a few cr's below the APL.
*sigh*
Or I could just let him start at the same level as the party instead of trying to force them to be useful. It is not so much a matter of "can't" as it is "why bother with it?".
Some people just can't handle the loss of a character. I had a friend (this guy always plays a fighter or ranger) try a wizard. A new player* starts a bar fight and my friend forgets he is a wizard and tries to fight. His character dies, and my friend almost RAGE quit because of it. I simply talked to him and informed him that it is okay to walk (or in some cases run) away from a fight if you find that your in too deep. I also informed him that there are creatures out there that could TPK thrice over before breakfast. The world is meant to be explored, you have to control when you're ready for it.
*Note that the new player was not ask to return as his actions killed 3 reoccurring gamers characters and a few other problems we had with the guy
That was not the new gamer's fault. If a fellow party member does something stupid he is on his own, even when I play good aligned characters. Now if he gets jumped I am more than willing to risk my character's life to help him.
Working a character into the story isn't a problem. Working a replacement character into the party every other week is. As is dealing with an extra 140k gold every other session.Is that really the alternative? You would have a death every other session if it weren't for the fact that replacement characters started as much as 11 levels behind?
the level 2 contributes nothing to the level 13 party. he or she may as well be negligible.
Pathfinder
Catching up is impossible
being 1 experience point behind the guy with the most XP or 1 copper piece behind the richest PC can screw you over for life
as can spending a copper piece on a pint of ale when you honestly require that highly overpriced magic item needed to survive.
don't wanna deal with the Kamikaze method? enforce spending limits on gear.
the real issue with the Kamikaze method, is several PCs that place disproportionately large amounts of wealth on one item and die, or PCs whom carry nothing but an extremely cumbersome pile of gold, merely to die.
|
What I would consider "good" behavior is for the colleagues of the deceased to use all of their resources, including the possessions of the dead character, to get themselves out of their predicament and back home.
If the body cannot be brought back, they should bring back the most valuable of the character's possessions and a small part of the remains so that Resurrection is possible.
Once home, the dead character's possessions should go towards him getting raised or resurrected. His family may well be able to stump up the difference in cost.
In the pathfinder world, money is life. Robbing a dead character of money so that he can't be raised or resurrected is tantamount to murder.
Richard
What I would consider "good" behavior is for the colleagues of the deceased to use all of their resources, including the possessions of the dead character, to get themselves out of their predicament and back home.
If the body cannot be brought back, they should bring back the most valuable of the character's possessions and a small part of the remains so that Resurrection is possible.
Once home, the dead character's possessions should go towards him getting raised or resurrected. His family may well be able to stump up the difference in cost.
In the pathfinder world, money is life. Robbing a dead character of money so that he can't be raised or resurrected is tantamount to murder.
What if he likes his heavenly reward and doesn't want to be raised? About half the characters in our games don't want to come back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I liked how all nine alignments had excuses to field strip fallen comrades.
A pyre is being lit under under a freshly fallen comrade. He's wearing nothing but a loin-cloth. Around the pyre, his group; one is wearing the dead guy's helmet, the next guy in the dead man's armor, next guy, weapons, next guy, jewelry, next guy gear. Mournfully they polish the crap they just stripped from him.
Funny. :)
Why does everyone assume a Paladin thinks dead, not easily resurrectable party members have property rights? We're fighting evil here, not re-enacting Atlas Shrugged in the Underdark. A will would cover coin treasure, but without a special provision in force, it's not even clear a party members "owns" the ghost touch morningstar, which was probably looted in another adventure by the party, anyway.
Further, paladins may not perform evil acts, whereas they cannot become non-lawful in alignment. Which means that if any possessions of the deceased might go to someone evil, or even be deprived from the forces of good, the paladin would not only be able but might be obligated to keep the loot. Eventually, sure, eventually, you might turn that magic weapon over to the dead PC's younger brother who will actually use it, or whatever. I could see a LN inquisitor of a particularly rigid deity being so finicky about the law, but a Paladin? Their loyalty is to order and right, not local statutes.
In my mind a good paladin is as tough as General Patton, as stern as Martin Luther, as inspirational as Joan of Arc, and as pragmatic as Dirty Harry. They believe in personal honor, but for a paladin, nothing personal can ever trump the Great Cause, whatever that might be.
Why does everyone assume a Paladin thinks dead, not easily resurrect-able party members have property rights? We're fighting evil here, not re-enacting Atlas Shrugged in the Underdark. A will would cover coin treasure, but without a special provision in force, it's not even clear a party members "owns" the ghost touch morningstar, which was probably looted in another adventure by the party, anyway.
Further, paladins may not perform evil acts, whereas they cannot become non-lawful in alignment. Which means that if any possessions of the deceased might go to someone evil, or even be deprived from the forces of good, the paladin would not only be able but might be obligated to keep the loot. Eventually, sure, eventually, you might turn that magic weapon over to the dead PC's younger brother who will actually use it, or whatever. I could see a LN inquisitor of a particularly rigid deity being so finicky about the law, but a Paladin? Their loyalty is to order and right, not local statutes.
In my mind a good paladin is as tough as General Patton, as stern as Martin Luther, as inspirational as Joan of Arc, and as pragmatic as Dirty Harry. They believe in personal honor, but for a paladin, nothing personal can ever trump the Great Cause, whatever that might be.
You know I know you said all that crap just to justify you padding your own characters' pockets with your fellow players' fallen characters' treasure, right?
Atlas Shrugged? Paladins as pragmatic as Dirty Harry?
Riiiiiight.
I'm a GM, mostly.
Paladins have nothing in their code preventing them from being pragmatic.
a paladin cannot personally poison a foe, but nothing disallows them from targeting and picking off a foe another has poisoned (such as his rogue ally) with his or her longbow.
a paladin cannot lie, but they can be silent and have somebody else lie for them, or they can leave information out by means of omission
a paladin cannot cheat, but they can use funds their rogue partner earned for the party with his loaded dice without issue.
a paladin cannot steal, but dead men have no property rights, and nothing stops the paladin from receiving something his rogue ally stole
nothing in the paladins code states he has to awaken every sleeping demon and challenge them to a sword duel with an unbuffed mundane longsword before he kills them. in fact, to prevent evil done to his companions, a proper paladin would coup de grace the sleeping demon with his holy adaptable composite bow, releasing a celestial arrow into the fiend's heart before he awakens and threatens the lives of his companions.
nothing says the paladin has to fight a demon one on one either. a true paladin uses superior tactics to turn the demon into a holy pincushion while his allies assist him.
and nothing says the paladin has to leave the holy sword on his companions corpse, where it would be useless, when he could use it to assist his crusade against evil.
in fact, even the paladin, should recommend using the loot of slain companions to fend off evil.
to a true paladin, surviving to continue the crusade should matter more than the property rights of a brother in arms whom is to be living a life of happiness in Celestia with 72 virgins and no longer has a use for his weaponry.
Good companions would bury/cremate your corpse with your possessions.
Great companions would also bury/cremate your corpse with your still living henchmen.
Shameful, how far we've fallen.
I think it's fine. If you play using the WBL rules then presumably the group will find less treasure for a while. If you dont play with the WBL rules then there's no problem.
I actually think it's worse if the player hasnt quit. If the surviving party all divvy up the dead character's loot (thus exceeding expected WBL) and the player introduces a replacement (built at 'standard' WBL) they are now going to be underequipped relative to everyone else as the party goes through a 'dry spell' to get things under control.
In that instance, I think I'd tailor the upcoming treasure to suit the new PC (but my group has no problem with coincidentally finding weapons which happen to match their characters' chosen specialties).
Good companions would bury/cremate your corpse with your possessions.
Great companions would also bury/cremate your corpse with your still living henchmen.
Shameful, how far we've fallen.
Good companions wouldn't begrudge their other companions taking stuff they no longer need.
Great companions would come right out and say "Take my stuff if I die, it could save your life on this journey" before they died.
Shameful, how far we've fallen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to donate my body to science. The science of AWESOME.
As GM I don't like having to remove treasure from the AP to balance out the wealth of the dead characters. "The dragon's hoard contains eleven thousand gold... I mean, eleven hundred copper pieces." "The evil king draws his magic... mundane sword."
And I don't like the idea that the party have an incentive to get their characters killed off as often as possible to enrich the group. Most people wouldn't abuse that, but it doesn't feel like good game design.
Removing wealth from the new character to balance out anything the party keeps seems fairer, as long as the group aren't too eager to bankrupt the new guy.
|
|
What if he likes his heavenly reward and doesn't want to be raised? About half the characters in our games don't want to come back.
I'd suspect the player was abusing the system along these lines:
And I don't like the idea that the party have an incentive to get their characters killed off as often as possible to enrich the group. Most people wouldn't abuse that, but it doesn't feel like good game design.
If a PC is so keen on heavenly reward, why doesn't he just throw himself off a cliff and not go adventuring. Or dedicate his life to a temple. Or join some suicidal crusading army out in the Abyss.
I don't buy it, myself. I think players are very into self-preservation until they think they can swap out one character for another and leave a whole load of treasure for the rest of the party (and presumably their future selves) in the process.
Richard
|
|
I don't buy it, myself. I think players are very into self-preservation until they think they can swap out one character for another and leave a whole load of treasure for the rest of the party (and presumably their future selves) in the process.
I would never play a character suicidally in the hopes of the party profiting from their death, and I've never seen another player do so either. Our characters are more valuable to us than their Celestial Armour or +3 Keen Rapier.
I find it hard to believe that these suicidal looters are anything more than a small minority.