(originally placed in general discussion but I think it might be better of in advice.)
Hi everyone. I was wondering what the general opinion is on looting the bodies of fallen enemies. do people consider it neutral or evil? this particular scenario along with others often leave me torn on how to act.
I mean even if I play a good utilitarian pragmatist who thinks killing is wrong but will kill if the effect is that future lives would be saved by taking this one life. so its very easy to justify killing a bad guy in a campaign. I find it harder to justify stealing the dead guys stuff. I guess I could argue that he won't need it anymore and it will help me save others in the future, but it still feels like a contrived reason to justify taking his stuff.
the reason I feel conflicted is because I the player (me) obviously want the loot because more loot generally leads to more fun. but the character wouldn't feel the same way, its not a game to them.
a similar situation arrived when in my last game, we came across a shrine to an old long lost deity with some trinkets (can't remember what is was, some gold and maybe a neckless or something) from a player perspective everyone was happy, yay. we found loot. and in game I justified my concerns asking 'do you guys think this is right' to which the neutral members didn't care and the other lawful good character justified it with, if this was a shrine to an existing god then no. it wouldn't be. but because its a primitive shrine to a false deity its fine. to me this kinda felt like stealing from a wishing well, I don't personally believe in wishes but I'd still consider it wrong to take the pennies even if all they would do is sit there and rot.
and this also brings me to my second/third point. think i've lost track now. I don't want to be a stick in the mud. I don't want to always argue alignments and morality in every session. I don't want to be THAT guy who just kills the merriment of adventure by posing introspective moral quibbles.
so tell me, how do you guys handle this sort of thing. or am I just over thinking it?
I personally think that the morality of looting is more of a law vs chaos sort of consideration.
Good characters are concerned with the wellbeing of innocent life. So they wouldn't steal from poor people because that would harm them, but taking unattended stuff technically doesn't hurt anyone, except maybe for a slum nearby that might need it more.
I think a chaotic good would be far more likely to be ok with looting corpses than a lawful good character. it feels like an honor thing to me, really.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're overthinking. "To the victor go the spoils" has been the motto of warriors since time immemorial.
Besides: if the PCs don't pick it up, the Goblins will...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really depends on what the loot is, what character is looting it, whose body it comes off of, and who it actually belongs to in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the overthinking.
It's Lawful Good, not Lawful Stupid. Being good means trying to help others, doing things that from everyone's perspective are good, despite the context.
Objects (except special ones) don't have alignments, they're just tools used in the force of Good or Evil. Unless the object itself is cursed or was born out of the sacrifice of unwilling people (or willing but manipulated ones), there is no reason not to use them.
Only case where our party doesn't usually loot is PCs, mostly because of a Wealth by Level thing, but a Lawful Character would donate or bury with, while a Chaotic one might take them for profit.
Overall, the idea of Conquering and taking for your own benefit (or the benefit of Good) is more than enough to make it Good if that's your benefit.
You've gotta remember than behind your intentions (good-evil) there's the execution part (Law-chaos).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the victor go the spoils outlook, this type of game has that as one of it's core precepts, would you ignore the dragon hoard just because it would be stealing? so long as you don't kill random good guy A to steal their stuff, You're fine in both the lawful and good Axes. (plural form of axis is pain in ass on forum where axes regularly get mentioned.)
You're overthinking. "To the victor go the spoils" has been the motto of warriors since time immemorial.
Besides: if the PCs don't pick it up, the Goblins will...
Being good is about hope ('the goblins will probably never find it'), being lawful is about responsibility ('let's bury it so they cant find it easily'), among other concepts.
Fear ('the goblins will find it'), on the other hand, leads to the dark side...
There are other options than repetitive alignment discussions though. What about taking your paladin's share and giving it to some temple / heir / needy?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One that came up in our group wasn't looting the fallen; our lawful cleric was fine with confiscating such goods for the better good (and usually for my CN barbarian because no-one else has any significant martial weapon proficiencies). It was looting the unattended. Did produce a nice showdown between he and I about a cloak of resistance (while the rest of our party, behind our backs, looted the place :).
I'd also be fine with 'keeping out of hands of evil' for a reason to loot. You don't want to give that +2 flaming heavy flail to the next of kin, especially if they're upset with what you did to their kin. And then you get into tracking that sort of thing down.
Ultimately, taking the spoils from the fallen I would call neutral in and of itself, and how you deal with the spoils would affect good vs evil.
To continue on from Scott's point, it's something a GM should watch for as well when the players start leaving loot behind. It's easy to do behind the screen -- perhaps some sort of unambiguous stash they can get, or an indefinite loan from one's superiors, or just a letter of marque or some such that gives authority to loot for the more LN guys. After all, if the law says you're allowed to confiscate the goods of one's enemies ...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that it would be law vs chaos in most cases. It is also heavily campaign dependent.
As others said, there are many times where looting was part of the victory. Looting the dead as a crime usually meant peasants trying to do it, not the knights or warriors that participated in the battle.
As stuff got more expensive, you would start to ransom equipment as well as nobles. The winner still took the stuff, but offered to sell or trade it back to the other side.
I know that at least with Iomedae's followers, it's wasteful to bury even the greatest of heroes with a sword or armor. The living need them more.
Sounds like a cheap god. It is an honor to pass to Valhǫllr with many treasures through the flames of your ship-pyre out at sea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Search the door for traps
2) Kick the door
3) Kill the monsters
4) Loot the room
5) Repeat
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fear ('the goblins will find it'), on the other hand, leads to the dark side...
Ah, yes, words of wisdom about ignoring an innate survival instinct from the "Sociopathy is Good, Emotion is Evil" School of Space Magicians. :P
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fear ('the goblins will find it'), on the other hand, leads to the dark side...Ah, yes, words of wisdom about ignoring an innate survival instinct from the "Sociopathy is Good, Emotion is Evil" School of Space Magicians. :P
I thought Fear leads to shakened, shakened leads to frightened, and frightened leads to panicked.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to +4 morale bonus to Constitution and Strength and a +2 morale bonus to Will save.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this is just out in the wilderniss, I would less fear that goblins would take it (I mean..it is probably medium armor, and goblins are small, as well as smallfries that one would hardly worry about), and more worried that bandits would. Taking unattended goods is one of their favorite pasttimes.
And if you are leaving armor and weapons lying about...that could be inadventantly giving bad people the ability to arm themselves. It allows them to further build up their organization, and allow them to do more raids and more daring raids. Thus, you could be doing more harm than good.
So either way, you will have to take care of the goods. At the very least, you can take them to the local guards, and hand the items over to them for a reasonable price. That way, you are arming the locals so they can defend themselves, and you can negotiate it as the reward for taking care of whatever scoundrels attacked you (presumably bandits, cultists, orc raiders, etc.)
looting your fallen foes is neither good or evil, it just is
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"They're not going to need it where they're going."
The ancient Egyptians strongly disagree.
Most Greeks and Romans just want to make sure you leave the 2 cp over their eyes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The paladin rummages through the dragon's hoard, but instead of filling his pocket he appears to be searching for a particular object. Grunts of his frustration can be heard by the members of his adventuring party, prompting the wizard to approach the holy warrior with concern. Normally the paladin would be cheerfully boasting about the group's latest accomplishment, he wasn't one to prioritize material possessions.
Wizard: What precisely are you searching for?
The paladin lets out a long sigh and turns to the wizard.
Paladin: I'm searching for the dragon's will, have you seen it? Now that we have slain it for its foul deeds, it's only proper procedure for us to find and execute his last will!
The wizard stops in his tracks and gives the paladin a blank look, then shuffles away without saying a word.
Now the real question is whether the paladin is searching for the dragon's will due to his dumped Wisdom or the strict and literal adherence to his alignment. Either way, searching for the last will and testament of a dragon, let alone the common bandit, seems ridiculous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The paladin rummages through the dragon's hoard, but instead of filling his pocket he appears to be searching for a particular object. Grunts of his frustration can be heard by the members of his adventuring party, prompting the wizard to approach the holy warrior with concern. Normally the paladin would be cheerfully boasting about the group's latest accomplishment, he wasn't one to prioritize material possessions.
Wizard: What precisely are you searching for?
The paladin lets out a long sigh and turns to the wizard.
Paladin: I'm searching for the dragon's will, have you seen it? Now that we have slain it for its foul deeds, it's only proper procedure for us to find and execute his last will!
The wizard stops in his tracks and gives the paladin a blank look, then shuffles away without saying a word.
Now the real question is whether the paladin is searching for the dragon's will due to his dumped Wisdom or the strict and literal adherence to his alignment. Either way, searching for the last will and testament of a dragon, let alone the common bandit, seems ridiculous.
as the parties rogue I would point out to the paladin that dragons don't keep wills because they don't want to pass their horde on to their children due to their belief that you have to build your own from scratch
edit: I would be using bluff my ass off hoping the paladin had used wis as a dump stat and put no ranks in sense motive
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite part of the Lord of the Rings was when they stopped to loot all the Orcs' bodies after the big battles.
My favorite part of the Lord of the Rings was when they stopped to loot all the Orcs' bodies after the big battles.
Admittedly, the fellowship had several members that were nobles, an ancient mage, as well as the backing of a coalition of the various kingdoms and races. If they needed money, they could just ask for it.
Adventurers on the other hand need a certain degree of self sufficiency. They have to pay for themselves much of the time.
But if you wanted to have a more cinematic campaign, then maybe discuss with the GM to have someone give you the right equipment so you don't need to find or fund it yourself.
Admittedly, the fellowship had several members that were nobles, an ancient mage, as well as the backing of a coalition of the various kingdoms and races. If they needed money, they could just ask for it.
Adventurers on the other hand need a certain degree of self sufficiency. They have to pay for themselves much of the time.
But if you wanted to have a more cinematic campaign, then maybe discuss with the GM to have someone give you the right equipment so you don't need to find or fund it yourself.
In general I feel like hired gun adventurers make their money in fiction by getting paid to do the job, either in advance per a contract or as a reward. I can't really think of any iconic characters that scavenged their rewards. I can think of iconic thieves, but there the whole focus is on criminality, and even then it's rare for the guy you're rooting for to kill somebody and rifle through their wallet.
Maybe when they're looking for a key or other plot device, but not just to pocket the cash for later.
I like the PFS angle where you're sent on missions and then get paid for completing the mission.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt I'd ever say looting was a "Good" action as far as alignment goes. Neutral, sure. Evil, potentially. But it would ultimately depend on the situation.
My favorite part of the Lord of the Rings was when they stopped to loot all the Orcs' bodies after the big battles.
Well eh, it kind of DID happen. And made sense when it didn't.
Look at the Hobbit, for example. They looted the trolls' cave, if you'll recall.
At that point they had decent weapons and armor, and had no need of the goblins' crude equipment even if they did have time to pick it up.
In the main LotR series, they were all gifted some quite nice equipment, like a Mithral Chain Shirt and some +1 Orc/Goblin/"Not designated Good race" Bane swords (an heirloom weapon from the aforementioned troll looting in one case) and the like, and so again had no need of the orcs' inferior gear.
PCs, meanwhile, are dependent on a loot treadmill. If there's something valuable, they need to get it and either use it or sell it. The game's math is dependent on you having these items, because monster save DCs and attack rolls and AC values and ave bonuses are all calculated with PC WBL and the Big Six items in mind.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite part of the Lord of the Rings was when they stopped to loot all the Orcs' bodies after the big battles.
The whole LotR story kicks off when Isildur loots Sauron's body.
Being good is about hope ('the goblins will probably never find it'), being lawful is about responsibility ('let's bury it so they cant find it easily'), among other concepts.
Being good is about hope: "I hope we can make good use of this loot!"
Being lawful is about responsibility: "We must take responsibility for this loot by taking it with us so we can keep an eye on it."
And being stupid is about blind optimism. "Although I have no evidence for this, I'm sure we won't need that magic sword, and if we leave it where it is it will somehow wind up in the hands of someone who needs it more than we do."
"They're not going to need it where they're going."The ancient Egyptians strongly disagree.
Most Greeks and Romans just want to make sure you leave the 2 cp over their eyes.
So you take their sword but put 2cp on their eyes. At least a good reason to take some cp with you. Without me they'd have their sword but would not be able to pay the ferryman.
Apart from that: Most of the times the bad guys are the ones attacking the good guys. So you can justify taking their stuff as the bad ones paying for their crime. "compensation for immaterial damage"
In most movies I find it either ridiculous or hilarious that they often do not loot the fallen, especially when they themselves don't have a weapon or are running out of ammo. Often times the "hero" grabs a gun off a corpse, shoots some one/something and then drops the gun continuing, again, unarmed.
Greatest mistakes in movies: Not looting weapons and not double tapping
My favorite part of the Lord of the Rings was when they stopped to loot all the Orcs' bodies after the big battles.
The Hobbit, more than the LotR, features many instances of looting graves and treasure hoards of slain monsters. Consider the purpose of the Battle of the Five Armies at the end of the Hobbit is to gain a share of the loot from Smaug's hoard. The wight's cairn is looted as the source of the elven blade, "Sting". Already mentioned is the looting of the Troll's Cave. Of course the goblins and orcs throughout Tolkien's works never possess weapons, nor items of power, so there's no reason to loot a dead orc.
Seems like selective memory to not recognize all the looting going on.
Didn't Frodo and Samwise loot some stuff from the Barrow Downs as well? Though my memory of that whole section is fuzzy. Thankfully.
Didn't Frodo and Samwise loot some stuff from the Barrow Downs as well? Though my memory of that whole section is fuzzy. Thankfully.
Yeah, my mentioned wight's cairn as the source of Sting is the Barrow Downs incident.
Economically, you are taking it out of the hands of "bad guys" and reinvesting it back into the local economy. Or the whole idea of Paying It Forward...
Very useful to sell evil weapons to churches to destroy/de-evil that weapon etc. making trouble later on because Gadgebloke son of Gadgebandit wants his daddy's MurderPeasant+3 back...
Morally, you could also donate items if you feel really bad about it: i.e. donating that rubbish Ioun Stone of 1HP Regen per day as it will do the Church far more good in the long run than paying out for the materials for Wands/Potions.....
Work it into your character's faith, or use it to justify levelling up as Evangelist, etc, etc...
Also, think of all the Roleplaying Opportunities: this would work where you could go around doing good deeds in kind for the wife and family and small town of Lord Prissy-Pants, aka "Duck Burpin'" the Highwayman, who had no idea of his double life....
.... now you've just got rid of the bad guy but they were an important official in town, just about to give a large donation to an orphanage, but because he was caught in his Aladdin's cave hideout by the PCs, the ill-gotten gains he was living off will mean little Gemmi has to go without her Swallowtail Present this year...
Just don't be too overbearing about it and you might even be able to get a better Diplomacy Reaction from NPCs: "You've really helped us out by giving us back the items the Fish Men stole from us: here's a Party and 10% discount off everything in town!"
I mean even if I play a good utilitarian pragmatist who thinks killing is wrong but will kill if the effect is that future lives would be saved by taking this one life. so its very easy to justify killing a bad guy in a campaign. I find it harder to justify stealing the dead guys stuff. I guess I could argue that he won't need it anymore and it will help me save others in the future, but it still feels like a contrived reason to justify taking his stuff.So you are 100% ok with taking someone's life, but not their stuff?
If your enemies were still alive after the fight would you rob them?
Are you placing more importance on ownership than life?
I'm not 100% ok with taking someones life, thats why I put the 'killing is wrong' part in there. don't cherry pick.
anyway. its about weighing the pro's and cons. or the good vs the bad.
the bad; i have to kill someone. the good; killing them will save more lives. does the good out way the bad. yes, therefore killing this person in this situation is morally justified.
in that situation, me killing helps others. in the situation of me stealing, it helps no one but myself.
if my enemies were still alive after the fight I wouldn't rob them unless robbing them would somehow be for the greater good.
and i'm not placing more importance on ownership than life. its absurd to draw that conclusion.
in that situation, me killing helps others. in the situation of me stealing, it helps no one but myself.
Stealing from the dead hurts no-one. (Unless you have reason to think the money will otherwise go to supporting your enemy's now orphaned children.)
It helps other people if you use the loot in pursuit of your important quest. (Less so if you're spending the loot on ale and whores.)
I'm currently running a game where there are no magic item shops. (Using variant intrinsic bonus rules.) So in this sort of game you can afford to leave enemy weapons lying around because they're unlikely to be valuable, and taking money from corpses isn't going to help you much because the things that make you more powerful aren't for sale. But you could equally give the money to the poor. In standard Pathfinder, you pretty much need to grab everything and convert it to the magic items you need.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Hobbit, more than the LotR, features many instances of looting graves and treasure hoards of slain monsters. Consider the purpose of the Battle of the Five Armies at the end of the Hobbit is to gain a share of the loot from Smaug's hoard. The wight's cairn is looted as the source of the elven blade, "Sting". Already mentioned is the looting of the Troll's Cave. Of course the goblins and orcs throughout Tolkien's works never possess weapons, nor items of power, so there's no reason to loot a dead orc.
Seems like selective memory to not recognize all the looting going on.
Graves and treasure hoards, yes. Bodies, no.
Indiana Jones is the same way. He robs plenty of temples. But remember when he shot the sword wielding guy who failed his roll on his dazzling display? Did he go through the guys' pockets afterwards or take that sweet sword?
I thought the OP was pretty clearly aimed at the very typical Pathfinder scenario of killing somebody and then looting their corpse. That scenario is just about unique to RPGs. The one time it happened on screen in LotR (Isildur snatching the one ring) it led to massive death and destruction.
Indie would have taken the sword from the dead guy if he'd thought he needed one. He took someone's sword towards the end of Temple of Doom when he was out of ammo.
Graves and treasure hoards, yes. Bodies, no.
As stated in my previous posts LotR orcs don't bear magical swords nor items, nor gold for that matter, so why would you rob an orc who has nothing worth taking.
Indiana Jones is the same way. He robs plenty of temples. But remember when he shot the sword wielding guy who failed his roll on his dazzling display? Did he go through the guys' pockets afterwards or take that sweet sword?
Why steal a sword, Indiana Jones has no known sword skills, besides he's got a pistol, and he proves why a pistol is better than a sword. So why would Indiana Jone waste his time stealing a sword, in the middle of a fight. He wouldn't.
I thought the OP was pretty clearly aimed at the very typical Pathfinder scenario of killing somebody and then looting their corpse. That scenario is just about unique to RPGs. The one time it happened on screen in LotR (Isildur snatching the one ring) it led to massive death and destruction.
Right, but the OP didn't bring up LotR, you did.
Other movies that include big medieval battles, often show people combing through the bodies looking for stuff, which is a very common post battle practice. In those movies that you don't see looting bodies, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen, rather looting isn't part of the story so such scenes aren't included.
But its definitely true that RPGs especially those derived from D&D, looting bodies is a normal expectation, because unlike a movie, instead of a series of independant scenes, the events are continous, so every second that is normally editted out of a movie, is played out in RPGs.
Now look at real life, how many German Lugers and Japanese samurai swords were recovered from dead WW2 soldiers and brought home to America? The answer is a very large number, practically all such items found in the US today were taken from bodies.
It may not be heroic, but its definitely realistic - it happened all the time, since the beginning of civilization. Why would you advocate not looting bodies, aside from making the game less realistic?
My favorite part of the Lord of the Rings was when they stopped to loot all the Orcs' bodies after the big battles.
Literally all of the Orc gear was low quality and practically worthless in Pathfinder terms, especially if you consider a gold value to weight ratio. You should note that the only time they found actual magic gear (The Hobbit, the trolls' lair) they looted the hell out of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In general, I agree that the base assumption of most campaign worlds is that if you are slain in battle, whoever bested you has the right to take your stuff. Like maritime laws of salvage, looting your slain foes is just the law of the land, and thus would be a neutral act. Some particularly lawful characters might even say it's their duty to ensure that the slain person's belongings are put to good use, or back into the economy, or whatever.
You're not really expected to bury your enemies, but you are certainly allowed to take their stuff.
If I were GMing this game and wanted to let my good-aligned PCs feel better about looting, I'd plant something personal, like a silver locket with pictures of the dead combatant's family, on one of the bad guys. That way, the PCs can choose to hawk it, but if they could reasonably return the locket to the family, they would have that option (the bad guy would need to have dog tags or something). I wouldn't punish them for selling it (again, neutral act), but it would certainly be a nice opportunity to RP a good alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In general, I agree that the base assumption of most campaign worlds is that if you are slain in battle, whoever bested you has the right to take your stuff. Like maritime laws of salvage, looting your slain foes is just the law of the land, and thus would be a neutral act. Some particularly lawful characters might even say it's their duty to ensure that the slain person's belongings are put to good use, or back into the economy, or whatever.
You're not really expected to bury your enemies, but you are certainly allowed to take their stuff.
If I were GMing this game and wanted to let my good-aligned PCs feel better about looting, I'd plant something personal, like a silver locket with pictures of the dead combatant's family, on one of the bad guys. That way, the PCs can choose to hawk it, but if they could reasonably return the locket to the family, they would have that option (the bad guy would need to have dog tags or something). I wouldn't punish them for selling it (again, neutral act), but it would certainly be a nice opportunity to RP a good alignment.
Honestly, I'd feel a little bad about finding a locket with loved ones in the debris field of a former foe. (Then again, that's probably why they cut those scenes out of the first Austin Powers movie.)
Still, a little NPC nudge can help them. As mentioned, between letters of marque, salvage laws, and other things, you could make sure your characters, if not feel good about it, know when it's good and when it's not. (And donations are another nice thing. Maybe the guard could use some slightly used scale mail? Just takes some cleaning..polishing..repair..OK, bad example, but if it's bad you're only getting scrap iron value anyway.)