Who gets the gear of a mass murderer?

[Jon_Dahl]

During our previous session, one of the PCs decided to attack the Merchants' Guild and committed a mass-murder of 15 people, all innocent civilizians or members of law enforcement. One of the PCs gave the final killing blow. Afterwards the body was taken by the authorities.

The deceaced PC (who was a spriggan disguised as gnome) had lots of magical items on him. His gear was outrageously expensive and useful. Some of his gear was bought during the character creation and some was obtained as a shared loot.

But who gets to keep the gear? The spriggan had no family. The PCs are trying to insist that the spriggan was only borrowing the gear and it belongs to the adventuring company (the other PCs). There is no written proof of this and it's a lie: Loots were divided fairly and the gear was his.

What would you do in your campaign?

[Keneth]

Is there a reason why you don't want the party to keep his gear? I don't really see the problem. Adventuring parties are usually tightly-knit groups and the closest thing to a real family for a lot of characters. They could bury the gear with him (if there's gonna be a burial at all), but that hardly serves any purpose.

[Krazzman]

What would you do in your campaign?

How many relatives are still available for the guys that have been killed?

Reparations to them or even going that far, selling the stuff and paying ressurections for the slain.

This could be one way.

Other way is: PC's get the gear but have a "debt" in that way that they have to pay for the funeral, and the damage done to the families of those merchants and guards. If the party can't pay, their guild takes this and now your party is indebted to do a task for the guild free of reward.

This way you can see if they are still in the curve of WBL.

[Skysaber]

In almost all cases where property is in dispute "the Crown" takes it for itself.

This was especially true in medieval times, but still hold some truth today. If there is no clear owner, or the owner died while guilty of some crime, and the items in question are valuable? Government suddenly owns it.

Just look at what happens to unattended houses, or cars for that matter. Car is left by the side of the road too long, government tows it and it is held against those towing fees. After a certain few days, it gets sold at auction to pay those towing fees.

Medieval governments got much worse. "If I want it, it's mine" was all-too often the only legal practice worth noting of some nobles. They didn't get the term "Robber Baron" coined for nothing, you know.

And losing the gear of a mass-murderer is a good slap on the wrist for a party, saying "don't do that again" better than just about anything else could.

[kardar233]

Assuming the loot was split equally, there's no reason to have the other characters acquire the loot as long as they're approximately at WBL.

I'd have the authorities seize the goods and sell them for reparations for the victims' families, possibly even Raises if the gear is worth enough.

[Jon_Dahl]

Reparations to them or even going that far, selling the stuff and paying ressurections for the slain.


I'd have the authorities seize the goods and sell them for reparations for the victims' families, possibly even Raises if the gear is worth enough.

Interesting... The gear is worth six Raise Dead spells (spellcasting fees and material components). I find the idea of raising 1st-level warriors intriguing.

[kardar233]

Interesting... The gear is worth six Raise Dead spells (spellcasting fees and material components). I find the idea of raising 1st-level warriors intriguing.

I'd imagine a Good-aligned Cleric would waive the spellcasting fee and cast it at cost, possibly getting you to seven Raise Deads.

[JaronK]

If they claim the gear was given to him, then they're clearly co conspirators or otherwise involved. They would absolutely NOT be given the gear, and would likely be arrested if that's possible.

JaronK

[PlusSixPelican]

Not giving them the gear is punishing them for another PC's (I assume they left the group) misdeeds. Giving it to them -could- make it less challenging for them later. Split the difference, bury the person in their clothing, donate weapons for funds to Raise, and let them keep the spriggan's supplies (magic items, wands, potions, tools, etc.)

[Vertharrad]

It depends on how this towns laws and regulations do it. But I would weigh in on others suggestions, the LAW claims it as evidence. The party is arrested - guilt by association. And the LAW and/or families of any victims get to stake their own "claims" through the "justice system"(such as it is). At the very least the offenders body and gear will be claimed and the party gets "a talking to" by lawful officials.

Less murder hobos more adventurers. And if adventurers wish to leave their gear to the party...they can get a Last Will and Testament drawn up and notified in any lawful city, more than likely by a lawful church.

[Keneth]

In almost all cases where property is in dispute "the Crown" takes it for itself. This was especially true in medieval times, but still hold some truth today.

I don't see how this is comparable to a D&D situation. While the period is somewhat akin to medieval times, the setting is most certainly not. Each PC is capable of single-handedly killing dozens of low-level rabble who would challenge them and likely quite a few NPCs of roughly equivalent level. At the risk of incurring their wrath by taking the loot they earned with their sweat and blood, most authorities would sooner demand a fee, and possibly ask them to come in for questioning, rather than provoke a direct confrontation.

[Matticussama]

Have the authorities seize the gear, for 3 reasons:

1) It adds to the verisimilitude of the situation. It is exactly what would happen in a similar village for such acts.

2) It teaches the PCs that there are consequences for their actions. Storm a major guild in the middle of the city, and not only might it be lethal but you aren't guaranteed to get your gear back.

3) It keeps the players from trying to abuse WBL by having a player die, then splitting that PCs loot among them only for a new PC to be introduced with full loot. If unchecked, PCs can try to do this several times to break the wealth system. Having the government hold onto the loot keeps this from happening, and keeps the players from just assuming that they can get a dead PC's loot back in similar situations in the future.
--3a) If they want the gear so bad, they will probably try to break into the town watch and steal it. This allows you to introduce encounters where they have to earn back the gear, and aren't just given it for free. This can not only be fun, but again reinforce that they aren't just guaranteed to be able to get back the items of dead characters.


I don't see how this is comparable to a D&D situation. While the period is somewhat akin to medieval times, the setting is most certainly not. Each PC is capable of single-handedly killing dozens of low-level rabble who would challenge them and likely quite a few NPCs of roughly equivalent level. At the risk of incurring their wrath by taking the loot they earned with their sweat and blood, most authorities would sooner demand a fee, and possibly ask them to come in for questioning, rather than provoke a direct confrontation.

If it is a moderately sized city, then they should have several mid to high level NPCs who guard the city. If every city in the world were held hostage to greedy, murderous adventuring parties, then nothing would ever progress. Someone has to be there to protect the people of the city from the murder hobos.

[hymer]

I think the WBL may need to be observed with some care. Paying for getting some guards ressed will let the player's next PC come in with full WBL gear (and it's a pretty cool thing to do, too).
If you'd rather punish the player (and believe this to be a good idea), give the items to the other PCs and let them decide what to hand over to the new guy. Or something in between, with parts of the wealth being lost to story, some staying with the PCs, and some coming in with the new PC.
But if the PCs suddenly get 33% ahead of WBL, you'll need to be aware of the possible consequences, and possibly adjust future treasure until the disparity is dealt with.

[Yahzi]

At the risk of incurring their wrath by taking the loot they earned with their sweat and blood, most authorities would sooner demand a fee, and possibly ask them to come in for questioning, rather than provoke a direct confrontation.
This attitude is how you get players committing mass murder in the first place.

If you reward the party by letting them have the loot, and you reward the player by giving him a new PC (with appropriate WBL!), then you can hardly be surprised when it happens again. And again. And again.

A far more appropriate medieval/age of heroes response is to have the town blame the party for bringing such an unstable lunatic into their midst in the first place. A man is judged by his friends, and their friend was a murderer; ergo, are they not almost murderers also?

Not only should every last penny on the gnome be appropriated by the authorities, but each member of the party should have to surrender a magic item. After which they should all be banished from town, on pain of death if they ever return. If the PCs object, they should be attacked, with everything the town has to throw at them.

If your local authorities can't enforce this edict, then your local authorities can't protect their citizens. In which case they have no legitimate authority. The townspeople will ask the PCs to take over; they will offer their virgin daughters (and/or sons), give huge gifts of gold, sing the PCs praises to the high heavens no matter what they do - as long as they kill the existing authorities and make sure no other PCs can mistreat them.

The entire point of being a ruler is being able to protect what you have. If the town rulers can't protect what they have, they are de facto not rulers. The people will turn to the only entity that can protect them - the PCs.


Edit: What Matticussama said. :smallsmile:

[Darth Stabber]

Not only should every last penny on the gnome be appropriated by the authorities, but each member of the party should have to surrender a magic item. After which they should all be banished from town, on pain of death if they ever return. If the PCs object, they should be attacked, with everything the town has to throw at them.

If your local authorities can't enforce this edict, then your local authorities can't protect their citizens. In which case they have no legitimate authority. The townspeople will ask the PCs to take over; they will offer their virgin daughters (and/or sons), give huge gifts of gold, sing the PCs praises to the high heavens no matter what they do - as long as they kill the existing authorities and make sure no other PCs can mistreat them.

The entire point of being a ruler is being able to protect what you have. If the town rulers can't protect what they have, they are de facto not rulers. The people will turn to the only entity that can protect them - the PCs.

This is one view of the role of government, but even during the middle ages it would be considered somewhat simplistic and/or barbaric. That is basically a longhand version of "might makes right". Not to say that the PCs can't take the town as their own. Considering they damage one of their number did on his own in opposition to the party, the rest of them probably have it in the bag if they want it, though their fitness as rulers is hardly evidenced by their ability to perform acts of violence. The subtle art of subjugation of the masses is likely beyond them, and keeping the populace alive and docile will not likely happen as it takes a level of social and organizational finesse they are unlikely to possess. Adventurers are great for taking territory, but bad for holding it, as adventurers are like Towlie, only instead of getting high and wandering off, they'll just get bored and wander off (they might get high too, but I am not one to judge what imaginary substances imaginary people put in their imaginary bodies, so long as it doesn't make them real, which would require multiplication). If the pcs stick around the people whould starve, or rebel, likely both, and the pcs would destroy them to the last man, and then they would the proud owners of a ghost town.

[Amnestic]

If they claim the gear was given to him, then they're clearly co conspirators or otherwise involved. They would absolutely NOT be given the gear, and would likely be arrested if that's possible.

JaronK

The fact that one of the PCs performed the killing blow on the mass murderer is probably a vote against them being co-conspirators.

That said, I'd still have the city seize the gear (whether partially or totally) and sell it off unless they can provide evidence (Oh hai Forgery skill?) that it should be the remaining PC's property. Even then, it was used to perpetrate a heinous crime - there's no way I'd have the city give them it all back, even if it was "legitimately" their property.

[Jon_Dahl]

Have the authorities seize the gear, for 3 reasons:

1) It adds to the verisimilitude of the situation. It is exactly what would happen in a similar village for such acts.

2) It teaches the PCs that there are consequences for their actions. Storm a major guild in the middle of the city, and not only might it be lethal but you aren't guaranteed to get your gear back.

3) It keeps the players from trying to abuse WBL by having a player die, then splitting that PCs loot among them only for a new PC to be introduced with full loot. If unchecked, PCs can try to do this several times to break the wealth system. Having the government hold onto the loot keeps this from happening, and keeps the players from just assuming that they can get a dead PC's loot back in similar situations in the future.
--3a) If they want the gear so bad, they will probably try to break into the town watch and steal it. This allows you to introduce encounters where they have to earn back the gear, and aren't just given it for free. This can not only be fun, but again reinforce that they aren't just guaranteed to be able to get back the items of dead characters.



If it is a moderately sized city, then they should have several mid to high level NPCs who guard the city. If every city in the world were held hostage to greedy, murderous adventuring parties, then nothing would ever progress. Someone has to be there to protect the people of the city from the murder hobos.

Good points. My thoughts about this unfortunate incident are clearer now. I'm going to go along in your lines with this one.

Originally he wanted to murder the guildmaster for blacklisting him. He couldn't get to him, because people were trying to protect him, so he killed his secretary (players were protesting that the secretary had an exaggarated fortitude save, and I agree that +3 was a bit too much, sorry). After that he was cornered and killed everyone who tried to touch him. He was Chaotic Good at the time.

[Krobar]

Government confiscates the gear. The PC used that gear to commit a crime, and as such it is ripe for seizure as the tools of a crime, and for evidentiary purposes. They might sell it at auction to recoup expenses, provide some measure of restitution, or to fund raise dead spells. Or maybe just dole it out to the city guard, or the local nobility might just keep it for themselves.

It would be rare for the friends of a criminal to be able to just keep the criminal's tools, that he used in the commission of a crime. If they try to steal it, after asking for it, they'll probably end up arrested themselves, or have rewards put on them and bounty hunters after them. WHEN they're caught (I would see to that), WITH the gear they stole, they'll stand trial, be convicted, and probably imprisoned or at a minimum fined, and end up having THEIR equipment seized TOO.

Or they kill their way free, and get bigger rewards and more powerful bands of adventurers/bounty hunters after them, and the list of charges just grows. :smallamused:

[Amnestic]

(players were protesting that the secretary had an exaggarated fortitude save, and I agree that +3 was a bit too much, sorry).

A +3 Fort save is 'a bit much'? :smallconfused:

[Pickford]

In almost all cases where property is in dispute "the Crown" takes it for itself.

This was especially true in medieval times, but still hold some truth today. If there is no clear owner, or the owner died while guilty of some crime, and the items in question are valuable? Government suddenly owns it.

Just look at what happens to unattended houses, or cars for that matter. Car is left by the side of the road too long, government tows it and it is held against those towing fees. After a certain few days, it gets sold at auction to pay those towing fees.

Medieval governments got much worse. "If I want it, it's mine" was all-too often the only legal practice worth noting of some nobles. They didn't get the term "Robber Baron" coined for nothing, you know.

And losing the gear of a mass-murderer is a good slap on the wrist for a party, saying "don't do that again" better than just about anything else could.

If they're at a level where '1' of them could kill 15 people including trained soldiers (law enforcement) and only be put down by their own party....I would not suggest trying to have 'the crown' collect it, unless 'the crown' wants to get deposed by angry adventurers for injustices against 'the people' :smallwink:

[Boci]

If they're at a level where '1' of them could kill 15 people including trained soldiers (law enforcement) and only be put down by their own party....I would not suggest trying to have 'the crown' collect it, unless 'the crown' wants to get deposed by angry adventurers for injustices against 'the people' :smallwink:

I'm pretty sure the crown has its court mages and captain of the guards who would be more than a match for the PCs.

[Emmerask]

If they claim the gear was given to him, then they're clearly co conspirators or otherwise involved. They would absolutely NOT be given the gear, and would likely be arrested if that's possible.

JaronK

Agreed,
I can´t even get behind the reasoning of the group, their party member just committed a mass murder and now they go to the authorities and want his stuff?
I hope they are all of evil alignment :smalleek:

[Barsoom]

But who gets to keep the gear?
That would be a decision for the local lord, mayor, burgomaster, chieftain, king, or other authority figure. Who's an NPC under the control of the DM :smallamused:

[Rhynn]

What would you do in your campaign?

The gear is auctioned and used to pay wergild and compensation to victims' families and the Merchants' Guild (or to pay for raise dead, yes, although I thoroughly detest the idea of a setting where 5th-level spells are that easily bought). If it is unsufficient to cover all that, the PCs - as the closest and only associates - may be required to pay more (possibly for more raise deads). (Medieval towns sometimes had laws along the lines of "any foreigner is responsible for any fines or compensations incurred by any counrtyman of his.") Maybe the PCs will stop arming mass murderers, and/or the players will use peer pressure to make sure no one does that crap. They can buy the gear back if they want (and, being an auction, you might be nice and let some items go for less than their market value, while others - maybe ones you think are a bit too powerful - would find very motivated potential buyers.)

Alternatively, it's just confiscated by the government, since no one has a proper claim on it. (But IMO it's likely that the victims' families would have lawful claims for compensation.)

[HurinTheCursed]

Having the party to pay something they consider not negligible is just going to bring some resentment between players. The PC should have nothing, the new PC should arrive with his level -1 and the adjusted loot which is already quite a punishment.

While raise dead is too expensive to be covered by the loot alone, this wealth is worth hundreds lifetime of work. Selling the loot in auctions for the victims seems fair to me.

Have the PC interrogated by authorities to check their degree of complicity but be careful if you want to jail a few of them that the city has enough strength to do it. Banning them from the city / baronny /... would seem OK to me if they were taken by surprise. Or a side quest, but nothing that would take too much valuable resources if they were taken by surprise by a player. If they were indeed accomplice passive or active, they deserve something more serious.

[Raven777]

This happened in my campaign. Party is Good/Neutral. Party Wizard blew himself up along with a bunch of civilians. City guard seized his equipment. The following day, we all agreed to infiltrate the city guard barracks to get back our loot (which, to be fair, included a plot critical MacGuffin). Much use of Bluff, Invisibility, Charm Person and Suggestion followed, with the odd application of an half-ogre barbarian's angry fist on an armory guard's face and a batch of Dretches summoned in the cell block for good measure. No casualties. Then we skipped town. Woe to the guards if they try to follow. Have I mentioned we are mostly Good? Morale of the story? Do not get between adventurers and *their* loot.

But really, taking a party's item(s) is the best plot hook. Take their stuff. Watch them crusade to the end of the world to retrieve it (http://spoonyexperiment.com/2012/04/03/counter-monkey-the-dungeon-masters-secret-weapon/).

Because that's what I'd do. No way in the seven hells I'd let the city keep my stuff.

[Bakeru]

Good points. My thoughts about this unfortunate incident are clearer now. I'm going to go along in your lines with this one.

Originally he wanted to murder the guildmaster for blacklisting him. He couldn't get to him, because people were trying to protect him, so he killed his secretary (players were protesting that the secretary had an exaggarated fortitude save, and I agree that +3 was a bit too much, sorry). After that he was cornered and killed everyone who tried to touch him. He was Chaotic Good at the time.I finally get what people mean by "Chaotic Stupid".

Anyway, the murderer's gear gets confiscated. Since the party did stop him, they might get away without (personal) punishment, as long as they don't draw attention to the fact that he belonged to them.
Since they already said (even if it was a lie) that he used gear he received from them, the authorities should question the connection between the murderer and the party, and they should be rather... conscious about what kind of people that group chooses to bring with them.

Basically, I'd say the equipment of the dead character is lost, and those who know what happened (and didn't approve of it, some criminal groups might be impressed instead) would now be unfriendly towards the group as a whole, because of the entire "being friends with unpredictable lunatics and handing them dangerous weapons"-thing. Not actively hostile, it's just that no one who knows who they are likes or trusts them.

[Kornaki]

Telling the law "oh hey we gave that guy the sword he used to cut down a dozen people with" is basically saying "oh hey we're legally liable for costs that were incurred". Sell all the gear, and tell the PCs they owe court fees equal to whatever else is required to raise dead everybody. They have 48 hours to file an appeal. Or, if they want to drop their claim on the magical gear since no evidence of this connection exists outside of the party's word, they won't be held liable for the extra costs.

If the party goes on a killing spree to get their stuff back, hit them with a holy word and laugh at the LG written on their character sheet



The gear is auctioned and used to pay wergild and compensation to victims' families and the Merchants' Guild (or to pay for raise dead, yes, although I thoroughly detest the idea of a setting where 5th-level spells are that easily bought)

A single person going on a killing spree like this would be on the order of a national tragedy. If one cleric in the whole kingdom can cast raise dead, he'll probably show up to do it as long as diamonds are provided.

[Barstro]

Originally he wanted to murder the guildmaster for blacklisting him. He couldn't get to him, because people were trying to protect him, so he killed his secretary (players were protesting that the secretary had an exaggarated fortitude save, and I agree that +3 was a bit too much, sorry). After that he was cornered and killed everyone who tried to touch him. He was Chaotic Good at the time.

I'm not sure the above story changes how I feel about who should get what (I'm remaining silent on that), but I do object to some of the conclusions that have been made.

"Mass" Murderer is a bit much. Sounds like he;
1) planned to murder one person, be it right or wrong
but
2) murdered that person's second-in-command instead
This is a logical next step if you cannot do #1.

The GUILD then kicked it up a notch by going after him instead of resorting to local law enforcement. THEY cornered HIM, and he fought for his own safety. He created the situation, but I don't see the mens rea of a mass murderer.

Aw hell, I will give my conclusion. Unless there is more information that contradicts my above assessment, I'd say that the local government takes whatever the PC had, but lets the rest of the players off the hook. I might go so far as to allow the remaining PCs to purchase any of the confiscated magic items at sale price instead of purchase price.

[00dlez]

Do you as the DM WANT them to have the loot? It's your game to administer, and if transfering the loot to the other PCs would unbalance play, then I would take that heavily into consideration.

Think of it like this - killing a single PC, with a party of PCs is not overly difficult, yet, the party is rewarded with, as you put it, extremely valuable items?

Whether you let them keep it or have it claimed as evidence, property of the crown, what have you is your call, but I would encourage you to track it as you would any other loot they aquire, and if it over powers them in the short term, it might be a level or two before they start finding nifty toys or lots of gold again.

[Gnome Alone]

protesting that the secretary had an exaggarated fortitude save
"I am SO SICK of medium-high defenses on low-level NPC employees! How many Disintegrates to the face should it take to murder some dork on his lunch break?!"

[lightningcat]

During our previous session, one of the PCs decided to attack the Merchants' Guild and committed a mass-murder of 15 people, all innocent civilizians or members of law enforcement. One of the PCs gave the final killing blow. Afterwards the body was taken by the authorities.

The deceaced PC (who was a spriggan disguised as gnome) had lots of magical items on him. His gear was outrageously expensive and useful. Some of his gear was bought during the character creation and some was obtained as a shared loot.

But who gets to keep the gear? The spriggan had no family. The PCs are trying to insist that the spriggan was only borrowing the gear and it belongs to the adventuring company (the other PCs). There is no written proof of this and it's a lie: Loots were divided fairly and the gear was his.

What would you do in your campaign?

Ok, so one (or more) of the PCs was involved in stopping the "former" party member. And only one notable person was killed.

So charge the party the appropriate wereguild for the dead NPCs and tell them to go away. Likely 1000 gp per NPC level, and 5000 gp per PC level. (More if noble titles are involved, but none have been mentioned). They also pay for the funeral of the party member and then they can have the stuff.

Remember that an average person makes about 1 gold a day, so 1000 gp is almost 3 years pay.

[HurinTheCursed]

Even worse, a low qualification hireling (the most usual) costs 1 silver a day, 3 for a qualified one. During a full time job, they probably earn less.

[Gnome Alone]

A +3 Fort save is 'a bit much'?

"Y'know when I strangled that farmer? He had that family heirloom ring I thought was magical, remember? Well, it seemed like he took a few too many rounds to choke to death. C'mon, DM."

[Keneth]

If it is a moderately sized city, then they should have several mid to high level NPCs who guard the city. If every city in the world were held hostage to greedy, murderous adventuring parties, then nothing would ever progress. Someone has to be there to protect the people of the city from the murder hobos.

And at what point do you assume these superguards would arrive at the scene? Do they just sit around all day waiting for the adventurers to come around? Are there no other threats of importance that demand their attention? And how many overzealous officials would die before they realized they're grossly outmatched? I strongly doubt that high-level characters would go to any great lengths to acquire a dead person's gear, they should have better things to do. At best they would ensure that the rest of the party stands trial and/or leaves town.


This attitude is how you get players committing mass murder in the first place.

If you reward the party by letting them have the loot, and you reward the player by giving him a new PC (with appropriate WBL!), then you can hardly be surprised when it happens again. And again. And again.

That's pure nonsense. If the players don't give a damn about the life of their characters, then penalizing them won't make any difference in whether or not they decide to go on another rampage. If anything they might just get vindictive and decide to go stupid evil, killing everything in sight. This is an OOC problem, and trying to handle it in the game with impunity is more likely to make things worse than better. That goes both ways, of course. Allowing the player to make a new same-level character with full WBL is just bad DMing. I treat all new characters as heroic NPCs prior to joining the party. Between their reduced WBL and the fees levied by the authorities (if the PCs don't choose to ignore them), things generally even out.

I must say that aside from the odd paladin, there's not a single character of mine who would stand idly by if officials tried to take a party member's gear after their demise. They have no claim over it, and the character already paid for any crimes committed with their life. Testing the good will of mercenaries who spend their lives battling monsters is a good way to get a faceful of steel.

[Emmerask]

Sorry but the group has even less claim over it then the local government...
There are three cases in which I as a dm would allow them to keep the loot:

They are the relatives of the murderer.
That they can show that without a doubt this gear is theirs and was only lend to the now dead and no the word of the other party members is not enough.
They are in the last will of the murderer.

In any other case there is no reason why they should have any claim.

Overall as the dm you are still in trouble then, the party now has items well above their intended powerlevel, so either you reduce treasure found in the coming adventures, you let the new pc be build without wbl or?

And with that precedence of keeping the wbl whats stopping the players from killing and recreating their group over and over again (with one survivor) to have infinite money to spend on everything with their final and real characters by then ^^

[Clericzilla]

During our previous session, one of the PCs decided to attack the Merchants' Guild and committed a mass-murder of 15 people, all innocent civilizians or members of law enforcement. One of the PCs gave the final killing blow. Afterwards the body was taken by the authorities.

The deceaced PC (who was a spriggan disguised as gnome) had lots of magical items on him. His gear was outrageously expensive and useful. Some of his gear was bought during the character creation and some was obtained as a shared loot.

But who gets to keep the gear? The spriggan had no family. The PCs are trying to insist that the spriggan was only borrowing the gear and it belongs to the adventuring company (the other PCs). There is no written proof of this and it's a lie: Loots were divided fairly and the gear was his.

What would you do in your campaign?

Didn't read past this yet but..

Every character I make has a living will that is tied to my secondary character. Sometimes I will include members of the party and sometimes I include random people that don't really exist (nameless NPC #385743) and then sometimes I will give a share to my killer (confuses the hell out of them and they think it is cursed someway... Fun way to get PCs to throw away 50,000 gp worth of magic items...).

[Keneth]

And with that precedence of keeping the wbl whats stopping the players from killing and recreating their group over and over again

That's not a game issue at all. If your players do that, it's entirely an OOC problem, because there's nothing stopping the players from simply handing all of their gear to one player and then committing suicide. And then no one has to claim anything. If this happens, no amount of penalizing is gonna help your game. Keeping the WBL of the party steady is one's job as DM, but keeping the game going in a reasonable direction is the responsibility of the entire group.

In a world where adventuring groups are common, the companions should have every right to claim a dead comrade's gear. It is also up to them to respect any existing testament that dictates the postmortem distribution of possessions unless the entire world (or general region) is controlled by a single authority that also deals with matters of law (which is unlikely).

[Raven777]

Sorry but the group has even less claim over it then the local government...
There are three cases in which I as a dm would allow them to keep the loot:

They are the relatives of the murderer.
That they can show that without a doubt this gear is theirs and was only lend to the now dead and no the word of the other party members is not enough.
They are in the last will of the murderer.

In any other case there is no reason why they should have any claim.

Some would argue that the guards being introduced to the business end of the whole party's spells and steel is a pretty good way to ascertain if that claim holds or not. Remember, by mid-level, adventurers are the stuff of legend (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/legendLore.htm). Pretending the town guard matches the party's level as a way to secure the towns authority over the PCs is poisonous to suspension of disbelief. It castrates the PCs. It puts into question the whole reason why the adventurers are the ones putting their necks on the line battling demons and saving the world. Besides, fighting and mopping the streets with the guards is only the dumb way to go about retrieving that gear.

A smarter party will infiltrate the guard vaults and get their stuff over a night of what boils down to legitimate urban adventuring without killing anybody. It is not even hard. Invisibility, Charm Person, Suggestion and a dash of lock picking should get them through. A whole no casualty stealth operation is actually pretty fun. Then they find out there's a trio of Golems, commissioned from that Wizard who lives over the hill, watching the evidence room. And their destruction triggers an alarm. Because they are mostly good and want to avoid casulaties, they have to escape through disused sewers and fight slimes and otyughs. And then skip town without being caught.

And that's actually what should happen: guards do take the loot, but party is introduced to an adventure to get it back. They litterally earn it back, because infiltrating the guard compound counts as genuine adventuring. Everybody ends up happy : town guard gets to do its job, DM doesn't let party get away without some trouble, party doesn't loose their stuff in the end. Xp is earned. Fun is had.

That's what separates a DM who plays with the party from one who plays against the party.

[Vertharrad]

During our previous session, one of the PCs decided to attack the Merchants' Guild and committed a mass-murder of 15 people, all innocent civilizians or members of law enforcement. One of the PCs gave the final killing blow. Afterwards the body was taken by the authorities.

The deceaced PC (who was a spriggan disguised as gnome) had lots of magical items on him. His gear was outrageously expensive and useful. Some of his gear was bought during the character creation and some was obtained as a shared loot.

But who gets to keep the gear? The spriggan had no family. The PCs are trying to insist that the spriggan was only borrowing the gear and it belongs to the adventuring company (the other PCs). There is no written proof of this and it's a lie: Loots were divided fairly and the gear was his.
PC's aren't above the law.
What would you do in your campaign?

Would someone reasonably answer why a CG character would slaughter innocents and law enforcement personnel? I question that CG alignment. More like CN or CE.
And yes the gear found on this heinous mass-murderer should go to burying or raising and/or compensating any families and persons agencies involved with burying or raising them(time is money, especially back then). Any gear left over should then default to the ruling body of the town/city.
The party can try forging documents that prove they really owned the gear, but again being that they are disallowing these people their compensation for their grievances I question that they are standing up to that good alignment.
It all really comes down to how the law in that town/city works.
PC's aren't above the law.

[Scow2]

I'd say that, if the party's indeed Good, the town should try to negotiate with the party for rights to the murderer's gear, which is then paid to the families of the slain as restitution (Raise Dead is too expensive, unreliable, and inefficient - that money's better for letting their next-of-kin live comfortably), pointing out the extent of the damage caused by the wayward party member.

If the party doesn't cooperate - turn how the world sees the PCs from "Heroes" to "Villains"

As far as an adventurer going on a Killing Spree against guards - Self defense when something goes horribly awry.

[Vertharrad]

I'd say that, if the party's indeed Good, the town should try to negotiate with the party for rights to the murderer's gear, which is then paid to the families of the slain as restitution (Raise Dead is too expensive, unreliable, and inefficient - that money's better for letting their next-of-kin live comfortably), pointing out the extent of the damage caused by the wayward party member.

If the party doesn't cooperate - turn how the world sees the PCs from "Heroes" to "Villains"

As far as an adventurer going on a Killing Spree against guards - Self defense when something goes horribly awry.

So did the CG PC negotiate with the families before killing their kin or with the authorities before killing appointed law enforcement agents? No?
So then the law shouldn't have to negotiate with the party to seize what amounts to evidence in an investigation, then use it to compensate the interested parties who have been wronged. When has the law ever negotiated with anyone who wasn't holding people hostage(which invalidates any reason to call them good anymore). As has been stated adventurers are not above the law just paramilitary murder hobos it would seem...should I have to negotiate with the associates of an individual who kills my family to compensate me for the grief and mental anguish they have caused? No.
And this is not self defense, this individual killed innocent civilians. They would not be innocent if the defendant now dead could claim self defense...as for the guards they have their rules and regulations their empowered to do whatever they need to enforce the laws of the society they work for(doesn't mean he can't claim self defense against them).

[Waspinator]

Honestly, if the party is actually heroic, they should be probably offering to pay for the guard's resurrection anyway.

[Jon_Dahl]

Bucketloads of great ideas so far, thank you!


Some would argue that the guards being introduced to the business end of the whole party's spells and steel is a pretty good way to ascertain if that claim holds or not. Remember, by mid-level, adventurers are the stuff of legend (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/legendLore.htm). Pretending the town guard matches the party's level as a way to secure the towns authority over the PCs is poisonous to suspension of disbelief. It castrates the PCs. It puts into question the whole reason why the adventurers are the ones putting their necks on the line battling demons and saving the world. Besides, fighting and mopping the streets with the guards is only the dumb way to go about retrieving that gear.

A smarter party will infiltrate the guard vaults and get their stuff over a night of what boils down to legitimate urban adventuring without killing anybody. It is not even hard. Invisibility, Charm Person, Suggestion and a dash of lock picking should get them through. A whole no casualty stealth operation is actually pretty fun. Then they find out there's a trio of Golems, commissioned from that Wizard who lives over the hill, watching the evidence room. And their destruction triggers an alarm. Because they are mostly good and want to avoid casulaties, they have to escape through disused sewers and fight slimes and otyughs. And then skip town without being caught.

And that's actually what should happen: guards do take the loot, but party is introduced to an adventure to get it back. They litterally earn it back, because infiltrating the guard compound counts as genuine adventuring. Everybody ends up happy : town guard gets to do its job, DM doesn't let party get away without some trouble, party doesn't loose their stuff in the end. Xp is earned. Fun is had.

That's what separates a DM who plays with the party from one who plays against the party.

They have the chance of retrieving the gear back, but I will not proactively offer them the chance. The idea, initiative and plan has to be 100% theirs. Considering the value of the loot (I guess it's about 37,000 gp or more, with one 10,000 gp item) the security measures should be extra difficult.


I'm not sure the above story changes how I feel about who should get what (I'm remaining silent on that), but I do object to some of the conclusions that have been made.

"Mass" Murderer is a bit much. Sounds like he;
1) planned to murder one person, be it right or wrong
but
2) murdered that person's second-in-command instead
This is a logical next step if you cannot do #1.


Alright, I wasn't thinking it so analytically.

[Jon_Dahl]

Honestly, if the party is actually heroic, they should be probably offering to pay for the guard's resurrection anyway.

The alignment of the rest of the party is TN, CN and CG.
The player of the killed PC created another CG character.

[Scow2]

So did the CG PC negotiate with the families before killing their kin or with the authorities before killing appointed law enforcement agents? No?
So then the law shouldn't have to negotiate with the party to seize what amounts to evidence in an investigation, then use it to compensate the interested parties who have been wronged. When has the law ever negotiated with anyone who wasn't holding people hostage(which invalidates any reason to call them good anymore). As has been stated adventurers are not above the law just paramilitary murder hobos it would seem...should I have to negotiate with the associates of an individual who kills my family to compensate me for the grief and mental anguish they have caused? No.
And this is not self defense, this individual killed innocent civilians. They would not be innocent if the defendant now dead could claim self defense...as for the guards they have their rules and regulations their empowered to do whatever they need to enforce the laws of the society they work for(doesn't mean he can't claim self defense against them).
The PC that went on a killing spree flew off the handle, to the point that his own party rejected and condemned his actions. The party might be more reasonable in making reparations for the chaos caused by their suddenly-psychotic member's actions.

The authorities would rather negotiate with the PCs instead of offer an ultimatum because they've seen the carnage the PCs can cause, and are faced with a pretty unstable predicament: Namely, if the PCs are out-of-control like this, they're the ones holding the cards, and the town should probably realize this. They pretty much have to appeal to the party's better natures in hopes of getting them to give up the wealth of the fallen murderhobo, and maybe persuade them that a further killing spree will not be in their interests. If the party doesn't play, the town should let them go - and then send out the call for the Paladins. While the PCs may or may not be the stuff of legends, they aren't the only living legends in a good campaign world.

And it's self-defense in the mind of the PC, not the eyes of the law. Almost every cop-killer in history feels self-justified for their actions.

[Vertharrad]

Usually I might agree with you on the self defense against law enforcers, but with the extra added innocents involved, the law had a right to do anything in their power to protect the populace.
I would think any good aligned people would want to talk out their differences with law enforcement before resorting to violence(yes this does mean surrendering first).
And if adventurers are just let to go around unilaterally ignoring the law and causing trouble this will lead to a break down of "society" itself. Whats the point of appointing those to lead communities if the laws and measures they enact don't actually work when it comes to murder hobos? Those same murder hobos(usually not always good or neutral) should be helping the people and good communities keep the peace.
There have been times my characters have gained the ire of "the authorities", however rather than fight them and possibly bring more trouble our way they decided to spend their time in a cell and/or paying fines. Even though I'm sure most of those times the character could've wiped the floor with the constables/deputies/captain of the guard and the guard themselves.

[Ashtagon]

I'm not sure the above story changes how I feel about who should get what (I'm remaining silent on that), but I do object to some of the conclusions that have been made.

"Mass" Murderer is a bit much. Sounds like he;
1) planned to murder one person, be it right or wrong
but
2) murdered that person's second-in-command instead
This is a logical next step if you cannot do #1.

The GUILD then kicked it up a notch by going after him instead of resorting to local law enforcement. THEY cornered HIM, and he fought for his own safety. He created the situation, but I don't see the mens rea of a mass murderer.

Classic mistake. Law is not justice. No kind of rogues' guild survives long if they don't know how to manipulate the local legal system to make it look like they were the victims.

From the law's point of view, #1 never happened (private thoughts and discussions in closed groups are rarely crimes in medieval law systems). #2 (PCs murder a person who is a suspected criminal, but no solid evidence otherwise that victim would already have been arrested) plainly did happen, and was plainly a crime committed by the PCs.


Aw hell, I will give my conclusion. Unless there is more information that contradicts my above assessment, I'd say that the local government takes whatever the PC had, but lets the rest of the players off the hook. I might go so far as to allow the remaining PCs to purchase any of the confiscated magic items at sale price instead of purchase price.

At the point the PCs killed the rogue PC, they would have been praised as heroes, and the gear would have been used to cover compensation costs or added to city coffers.

Once they declared they were an accessory to the crime ("we loaned that gear to him"), the absolute best result they can hope for is banishment on pain of death if they return, while taking their gear with them, and that's only because they did directly end it. keeping anything that was directly used for killing (as opposed to random trinkets he was carrying) would be next to impossible even in this scenario.

If they hadn't personally ended the killer, they would likely be held as culpable as the killer himself.

[Emmerask]

Some would argue that the guards being introduced to the business end of the whole party's spells and steel is a pretty good way to ascertain if that claim holds or not. Remember, by mid-level, adventurers are the stuff of legend (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/legendLore.htm). Pretending the town guard matches the party's level as a way to secure the towns authority over the PCs is poisonous to suspension of disbelief. It castrates the PCs. It puts into question the whole reason why the adventurers are the ones putting their necks on the line battling demons and saving the world. Besides, fighting and mopping the streets with the guards is only the dumb way to go about retrieving that gear.

Firstly, I never read the whole legend lore text, wow that is stupid :smallbiggrin:

If the guards are all level 1 to 3 then there is another problem however which also stretches suspension of disbelieve to breaking point...

how come the town is still under the control of these people and how come its still standing? Any evil adventuring party will have looted and burned the place years ago with the guards unable to do anything against that.
How come the kingdoms in those settings have armies when one adventuring party can kill millions of level1 goons without any danger and they can be anywhere in a second.

Then we have settings like Fearun which should be having something like 1 million legendary people in it, this somewhat cheapens the legendary part ^^

Then there is the whole problem of gaining xp... its really easy to reach level 10 and there is really not all that much legendary actions required by raw.

Overall both scenarios break suspension of disbelieve if you think about them for a second, a power level curve like d&d has just doesn´t work in any kind of world that you want to be remotely believable.


In any event if the legend lore part works and they find someone capable of casting it they KNOW that the gear does not belong to the party members (as the op said, they want to lie about having lend it to the now dead group member).
IF the local government can do anything about that then is another question, though if the party just takes the gear they will become wanted criminals in that kingdom.

[Yahzi]

This is one view of the role of government, but even during the middle ages it would be considered somewhat simplistic and/or barbaric.
The concept of government as public servant was present in the ancient world (such as Rome and Athens), but that technology was one of the things we lost during the Dark ages (hence one of the reasons they're called the Dark ages).


their fitness as rulers is hardly evidenced by their ability to perform acts of violence.
We're talking D&D, right? Where man-eating dragons and genocidal demons are normal threats to the state, right?

I'm pretty sure acts of violence is the primary attribute for rulers in a D&D world.


a level of social and organizational finesse they are unlikely to possess.
That's what advisers are for. There will be plenty of people willing to do the day-to-day running of the kingdom for them, as long as the PCs kill whoever the adviser tells them is causing problems.

Don't you watch Game of Thrones? :smallbiggrin:



Pretending the town guard matches the party's level as a way to secure the towns authority over the PCs is poisonous to suspension of disbelief.
Agreed. It should be the town rulers who the party is frightened of. The town should be ruled by an adventuring party so high level they stopped adventuring and decided to run a town instead.

Not having high-level adventurers running the town is even more destructive to suspension of disbelief. How does the town survive? Why doesn't even one high-level paladin decide that allowing people to live safe and secure lives is better than killing yet another dragon? Wouldn't at least one high-level cleric decide that a whole city full of people officially worshiping his god is a more worthwhile task than looting yet another dungeon?

In the original D&D, castles were owned by high level PC classes; and the players were expected to establish their own fiefs after 9th level or so (hence "Name" level). Later editions lost that, and these days your 9th level murder hobos can expect to roll into an entire country run by a 3rd level Aristocrat. :smallannoyed:



then penalizing them won't make any difference in whether or not they decide to go on another rampage.
I was merely referring to the well-known tendency of people to do what is in their economic interest, even when it doesn't otherwise make sense.


If anything they might just get vindictive and decide to go stupid evil, killing everything in sight.
If a game world cannot deal with this problem in-game, then in my book there is something seriously wrong with the game world.

If the only thing the PCs fear is the brute hand of Divine intervention (in the form of the DM), then the game is already broken. If the only thing keeping players from murdering everything in sight is their own restraint, your characters are too powerful for your world.


I must say that aside from the odd paladin, there's not a single character of mine who would stand idly by if officials tried to take a party member's gear after their demise. They have no claim over it, and the character already paid for any crimes committed with their life.
This attitude is cold comfort to the relatives of the slain. Especially if that loot could restore their lost ones to life. Or merely prevent the dead guard's widow and children from starving. Asserting that death is sufficient punishment does not address the concept of restitution, which is also a common feature of most justice systems.

I do salute you, however, on playing evil characters extremely well. A complete disregard for life, a attitude towards property rights defined solely by self-interest, and the expectation that anyone who cannot kill you must necessarily grovel for your good will sounds like the perfect Chaotic Evil murder hobo!

[Boci]

The concept of government as public servant was present in the ancient world (such as Rome and Athens), but that technology was one of the things we lost during the Dark ages (hence one of the reasons they're called the Dark ages).

Except they aren't called the dark ages anymore, for precisely that reason.

[Yahzi]

Except they aren't called the dark ages anymore, for precisely that reason.
And yet they had a legal system that decided punishments based on the social class of the victim, enshrined the king's divine right to rule, kept serfs and slaves, accepted torture as a legitimate way to extract confessions, and prosecuted witches on hearsay.

These are the kind of people who would have no problem killing and enslaving everyone you know simply because you had a slightly different color of skin - or, in many cases, simply because you spoke a different language.

Asserting that they would hold known associates of a mass murderer partially responsible for the damage is not a stretch, particularly when you consider that our own government does the same. What do you think would happen if you went to the site of a mass shooting and told the cops, "Hey, that's my gun... I was just lending it to that guy. So, I'd like it back now."

[Scow2]

Usually I might agree with you on the self defense against law enforcers, but with the extra added innocents involved, the law had a right to do anything in their power to protect the populace.
I would think any good aligned people would want to talk out their differences with law enforcement before resorting to violence(yes this does mean surrendering first).
And if adventurers are just let to go around unilaterally ignoring the law and causing trouble this will lead to a break down of "society" itself. Whats the point of appointing those to lead communities if the laws and measures they enact don't actually work when it comes to murder hobos? Those same murder hobos(usually not always good or neutral) should be helping the people and good communities keep the peace.
There have been times my characters have gained the ire of "the authorities", however rather than fight them and possibly bring more trouble our way they decided to spend their time in a cell and/or paying fines. Even though I'm sure most of those times the character could've wiped the floor with the constables/deputies/captain of the guard and the guard themselves.It's still technically "Self Defense" because, had the character NOT attacked and killed the guards, he would have been killed or captured. Yes, he deserved to be killed or captured, and "Self Defense" does


Classic mistake. Law is not justice. No kind of rogues' guild survives long if they don't know how to manipulate the local legal system to make it look like they were the victims.

From the law's point of view, #1 never happened (private thoughts and discussions in closed groups are rarely crimes in medieval law systems). #2 (PCs murder a person who is a suspected criminal, but no solid evidence otherwise that victim would already have been arrested) plainly did happen, and was plainly a crime committed by the PCs.First off, this is a merchant's guild, not rogue's, and the guy you were quoting was seriously wrong about the situation - The merchant's guild was using its in-house security detail to try to neutralize the PC before he could kill/hurt anyone else, instead of just sitting back letting the PC kill everyone he wants while hoping for "Legitimate authority" to show up.

Also Conspiracy is a crime. Just wanted to point that out.


Firstly, I never read the whole legend lore text, wow that is stupid :smallbiggrin:

If the guards are all level 1 to 3 then there is another problem however which also stretches suspension of disbelieve to breaking point...

how come the town is still under the control of these people and how come its still standing? Any evil adventuring party will have looted and burned the place years ago with the guards unable to do anything against that.
How come the kingdoms in those settings have armies when one adventuring party can kill millions of level1 goons without any danger and they can be anywhere in a second.

Then we have settings like Fearun which should be having something like 1 million legendary people in it, this somewhat cheapens the legendary part ^^

Then there is the whole problem of gaining xp... its really easy to reach level 10 and there is really not all that much legendary actions required by raw.

Overall both scenarios break suspension of disbelieve if you think about them for a second, a power level curve like d&d has just doesn´t work in any kind of world that you want to be remotely believable.


In any event if the legend lore part works and they find someone capable of casting it they KNOW that the gear does not belong to the party members (as the op said, they want to lie about having lend it to the now dead group member).
IF the local government can do anything about that then is another question, though if the party just takes the gear they will become wanted criminals in that kingdom.Actually, it's not stupid. Level 10+ characters ARE legendary, and also rare. It is NOT easy to gain the XP required to reach level 10. In fact, a normal person that has lived a challenging life, outside of full-time adventuring, is likely to never get above level 6 - and that's usually someone of great importance.

Having guards be level 1-3 doesn't stretch Suspension of Disbelief at all - it's even spelled out in the Monster Manual (For all intelligent races), DMG, and A&EG that Conscripts are level 0(Level 1 Commoners), Career Soldiers are level 1, Sergeants are only level 3 (And likely the only officers a non-militarized organization has), and leaders of small bands like that are only level 5 or 6. Larger organizations have Lieutenants at levels 4-6, and Captains at levels 6-7 (Unless you're a dwarf - then your captain is Level 9).

Of course, I find that most worlds don't mind 9th-level clerics being around to cast Raise Dead (Seriously - the rarity of such clerics should be enough to put a stop to the "Revolving door" on death).

Adventuring parties are extremely rare - it's why the one being GM'd for is the only one able to do anything of note. On the other hand, a Metropolis (And ONLY a metropolis) is capable of having a static population including characters up to level 20 (Aside from epic-level commoners) - but it's probably safe to assume they're heroes from the previous generation, are disorganized, and probably highly reclusive. Your average village is unlikely to have a single non-commoner above level 7. Large towns might have a few people of level 9.

You're only going to start finding living legends in cities.

[Boci]

And yet they had a legal system that decided punishments based on the social class of the victim, enshrined the king's divine right to rule, kept serfs and slaves, accepted torture as a legitimate way to extract confessions, and prosecuted witches on hearsay.[/I]

So say that, not "that why its called the Dark Ages", because that is the precise reason the name Early Middle Ages is now preferred.

[Barstro]

First off, this is a merchant's guild, not rogue's, and the guy you were quoting was seriously wrong about the situation - The merchant's guild was using its in-house security detail to try to neutralize the PC before he could kill/hurt anyone else, instead of just sitting back letting the PC kill everyone he wants while hoping for "Legitimate authority" to show up.


I am " the guy". After rereading the OP, I agree that my understanding of the facts were incorrect. It appears that it was not 15 people from the guild looking for vengeance instead of justice, but 15 ordinary citizens and law enforcement who (speculation now) witnessed the original murder and foolishly tried to take down a rabid bear using only wooden spoons.

Without a showing that the rest of the party had reason to believe that the PC was going to kill the original victim or that the PC had Belkar-like tendencies, it looks as if they did all that could be expected to stop the scenario from getting worse.

If the party knew or aided, they should be punished as mentioned by others.
If the party did not know; a "forgiving" magistrate would understand that it was hard for them to kill a party member and let them go (again, possibly purchase the confiscated magic items) and/or give them some quest to help the realm, a harsh magistrate would ban them from the realm and possibly brand them.

[Vertharrad]

So say that, not "that why its called the Dark Ages", because that is the precise reason the name Early Middle Ages is now preferred.

IMHO the "reason" Early Middle Ages is used is to be "gasp" politically correct. I do believe the Term Dark Ages adequately describes that era in our history, due to all the horrible offenses committed especially by those who were supposed to be protecting people not hurting them by any means necessary.

So Scow2 should I go slaughter innocent people and law enforcement personnel because I suspect a conspiracy or because they rightfully tried to detain me after my overt homicidal murders? No. And I can be pretty neutral on the good/evil axis myself.
There are some words we need to memorize - right and wrong, what this supposedly CG creature did was wrong. You don't just go indiscriminately start killing others because your true target is not accessible. It also tends to be evil as well. I would not have seen a problem with the CN doing this or in the right instance the TN, but the only CG character? That character was not CG.
That still wouldn't change the fact that any law system would call for action in certain situations...this being a prime example. I wouldn't just let the PC's walk away with the gear that rightfully belonged to the dead character. And claiming that gear as theirs makes them willing accomplices in the tragedy that did happen - guilt by association.

[Emmerask]

Actually, it's not stupid. Level 10+ characters ARE legendary, and also rare. It is NOT easy to gain the XP required to reach level 10. In fact, a normal person that has lived a challenging life, outside of full-time adventuring, is likely to never get above level 6 - and that's usually someone of great importance.

Having guards be level 1-3 doesn't stretch Suspension of Disbelief at all - it's even spelled out in the Monster Manual (For all intelligent races), DMG, and A&EG that Conscripts are level 0(Level 1 Commoners), Career Soldiers are level 1, Sergeants are only level 3 (And likely the only officers a non-militarized organization has), and leaders of small bands like that are only level 5 or 6. Larger organizations have Lieutenants at levels 4-6, and Captains at levels 6-7 (Unless you're a dwarf - then your captain is Level 9).

Of course, I find that most worlds don't mind 9th-level clerics being around to cast Raise Dead (Seriously - the rarity of such clerics should be enough to put a stop to the "Revolving door" on death).

Adventuring parties are extremely rare - it's why the one being GM'd for is the only one able to do anything of note. On the other hand, a Metropolis (And ONLY a metropolis) is capable of having a static population including characters up to level 20 (Aside from epic-level commoners) - but it's probably safe to assume they're heroes from the previous generation, are disorganized, and probably highly reclusive. Your average village is unlikely to have a single non-commoner above level 7. Large towns might have a few people of level 9.

You're only going to start finding living legends in cities.

At first let the soldiers kill rats, they gain 2nd level there easily

(How come there are even any level 1s after a certain age? if killing rats practically doubles your survivability and skills any mom dad should send their kids to kill rats...)

Then comes the advanced training:

Two possibilities

a) train with a wizard and summon monster, that takes a while longer but is safe (especially since you will have safety precautions in place)
For more efficiency create one of those fun permanent summon monster trap things ^^

b) have a dungeon with two ways, one way leads to a dragon/beholder whatever high level monster there is, the other just is the way out.
Send your soldiers in one at a time, one half will be eaten the other however still get the xp since they circumvented the encounter (which should give the same xp)

Do whatever you wish with your army of level 10 characters, conquering the world might be a good idea since they really can´t do anything against you now?

/edit tldr I just don´t see how it is hard in d&d to gain 10th level...

[Scow2]

IMHO the "reason" Early Middle Ages is used is to be "gasp" politically correct. I do believe the Term Dark Ages adequately describes that era in our history, due to all the horrible offenses committed especially by those who were supposed to be protecting people not hurting them by any means necessary.

So Scow2 should I go slaughter innocent people and law enforcement personnel because I suspect a conspiracy or because they rightfully tried to detain me after my overt homicidal murders? No. And I can be pretty neutral on the good/evil axis myself.
There are some words we need to memorize - right and wrong, what this supposedly CG creature did was wrong. You don't just go indiscriminately start killing others because your true target is not accessible. It also tends to be evil as well. I would not have seen a problem with the CN doing this or in the right instance the TN, but the only CG character? That character was not CG.
That still wouldn't change the fact that any law system would call for action in certain situations...this being a prime example. I wouldn't just let the PC's walk away with the gear that rightfully belonged to the dead character. And claiming that gear as theirs makes them willing accomplices in the tragedy that did happen - guilt by association.The thing about the Dark Ages is that a lot of those atrocities were exaggerated by Renaissance- and Victorian-era "Historians", smearing the past to make themselves look better.

And I'm not saying that it's right to go on a killing spree in self-defense - it's very wrong. But it's still self-defense, but not the legally-defensible kind.

At first let the soldiers kill rats, they gain 2nd level there easily

(How come there are even any level 1s after a certain age? if killing rats practically doubles your survivability and skills any mom dad should send their kids to kill rats...)

Then comes the advanced training:

Two possibilities

a) train with a wizard and summon monster, that takes a while longer but is safe (especially since you will have safety precautions in place)

b) have a dungeon with two ways, one way leads to a dragon/beholder whatever high level monster there is, the other just is the way out.
Send your soldiers in one at a time, one half will be eaten the other however still get the xp since they circumvented the encounter (which should give the same xp)

Do whatever you wish with your army of level 10 characters, conquering the world might be a good idea?Do I really need to point out the flaws in this plan? Even going by RAW:

Most (If not all) of the kids would die to the rats, which have higher AC, the same hit points, comparable damage, and much greater numbers than the children. So, that fails right out the door.

The rest of the training fails as well, because:
A.) You do not gain experience for defeating summoned monsters unless you kill or neutralize the summoner - and then, you get the experience from defeating the Wizard, not his summons. However, you can't try to gain XP for the wizard by 'beating' him because sparring doesn't grant experience - there is no real challenge or risk there.

B.) A beholder or dragon is so far above the low levels you're trying to funnel through its lair that the 'trainees' would not gain any experience from the circumstanes. Furthermore, you don't get XP for running from a threat, and running through this "two-entrance dungeon" serves no purpose. You don't get experience for bypassing an encounter unless the encounter's threat is neutralized in the process (Such as sneaking past on the way in AND out. You don't get double XP for sneaking past a monster on the way in, then fighting it on the way out). The only way to get experience from a particular enemy multiple times is by either killing it again after it's been raised, or by gaining partial experience by forcing a recurring enemy to retreat and become a new encounter later. Furthermore, your big scary monster will either not be content to be a "Training tool", in which case it will pursue the survivors (And if they run from that, they didn't bypass the threat.), or it will not mind them, and thus not challenge them, thus not letting them get any XP anyway - they either ran from the XP, or the XP didn't look their way in the first place.

[Ashtagon]

First off, this is a merchant's guild, not rogue's, and the guy you were quoting was seriously wrong about the situation - The merchant's guild was using its in-house security detail to try to neutralize the PC before he could kill/hurt anyone else, instead of just sitting back letting the PC kill everyone he wants while hoping for "Legitimate authority" to show up.

Also Conspiracy is a crime. Just wanted to point that out.


Merchant... rogue... we're splitting hairs here. A merchant is simply a rogue with a focus on Charisma skills and government approval.

And conspiracy a crime? In which jurisdiction is that? Conspiracy to murder royalty (later extended to nobility) has long been considered so, but conspiracy to murder plebeians (even if rich plebeians), as opposed to the actual act, is quite a recent concept in criminal law.

Also, I'm willing to bet that any public organisation that has its own in-house security personnel armed with lethal measures also has government approval to actually use them in specific circumstances, and won't be automatically assumed to have criminal intent when so used.

[Emmerask]

Most (If not all) of the kids would die to the rats, which have higher AC, the same hit points, comparable damage, and much greater numbers than the children. So, that fails right out the door.

The rest of the training fails as well, because:
A.) You do not gain experience for defeating summoned monsters unless you kill or neutralize the summoner - and then, you get the experience from defeating the Wizard, not his summons. However, you can't try to gain XP for the wizard by 'beating' him because sparring doesn't grant experience - there is no real challenge or risk there.

B.) A beholder or dragon is so far above the low levels you're trying to funnel through its lair that the 'trainees' would not gain any experience from the circumstanes. Furthermore, you don't get XP for running from a threat, and running through this "two-entrance dungeon" serves no purpose. You don't get experience for bypassing an encounter unless the encounter's threat is neutralized in the process (Such as sneaking past on the way in AND out. You don't get double XP for sneaking past a monster on the way in, then fighting it on the way out). The only way to get experience from a particular enemy multiple times is by either killing it again after it's been raised, or by gaining partial experience by forcing a recurring enemy to retreat and become a new encounter later. Furthermore, your big scary monster will either not be content to be a "Training tool", in which case it will pursue the survivors (And if they run from that, they didn't bypass the threat.), or it will not mind them, and thus not challenge them, thus not letting them get any XP anyway - they either ran from the XP, or the XP didn't look their way in the first place.

Rats have 1 hp, I think kids have more^^
But fair enough, put the rats in a whole and let the kids throw stones at them^^ (there is no rule for having to be in danger to gain xp)

secondly its not really sparring if the creature in question is honestly trying to kill you.
I´m not sure about the summon monster not giving xp part but I do not have the books with me so I will take your word for it... so just raise dead stuff or bring in some boars really there are countless possibilities to train your soldiers.

as for the monster labyrinth part, well there is the real danger of dying if you take the wrong door so there is a challenge :smallbiggrin:

[Krobar]

No matter how powerful your party is, there's always someone more powerful out there somewhere, who is willing to come after you. Maybe for a price, maybe for free, depending on the circumstances. But they're out there.

Especially if I'm the DM. :smallamused:

[Boci]

IMHO the "reason" Early Middle Ages is used is to be "gasp" politically correct. I do believe the Term Dark Ages adequately describes that era in our history, due to all the horrible offenses committed especially by those who were supposed to be protecting people not hurting them by any means necessary.

I'm pretty syre the bolded part describes every era of history ever.

[Scow2]

Rats have 1 hp, I think kids have more^^
But fair enough, put the rats in a whole and let the kids throw stones at them^^ (there is no rule for having to be in danger to gain xp)

secondly its not really sparring if the creature in question is honestly trying to kill you.
I´m not sure about the summon monster not giving xp part but I do not have the books with me so I will take your word for it... so just raise dead stuff or bring in some boars really there are countless possibilities to train your soldiers.

as for the monster labyrinth part, well there is the real danger of dying if you take the wrong door so there is a challenge :smallbiggrin:In response to "Put rats in a hole": Rats can climb. Very well, at that. There's a reason commoners hire the guys with never less than 6 HP (Half again more than the tougher commoners, and thrice as many as the average one), strength of several men, the will of the gods backing them, arcane power at their fingertips, and those that can disappear in shadows and kill with a single well-placed hit to take care of rats for them. If there aren't enough rats to be a problem, there aren't enough rats to offer XP.

Anything that has a chance of training your soldiers has an even better chance of killing them - and those 10s across the board stats (Maybe a +1 or so) makes it even harder for them to triumph. If you're lucky, you might have a survival rate of ~0.1% at best trying to take a large number of people from level 0 to level 10 - and the survivors are unlikely to have favorable stats.

[HurinTheCursed]

1) I believe most citizen have a better use of their time than trying to adventure. Working would probably be harder than today in those settings, citizens have less protection and if they have a big family to breed they can't really get away. When life expectancy is close to 35, you can't really expect people to spend a few years on the road.

2) If a citizen could earn a level after a quest where he has 10% chances being killed, I'm pretty sure he'd rather have the authorities protecting him than count on himself (which was the basis of feodalism).

3) When aventurers retires, most of my characters believe they'd be more useful to the community by keeping on killing dangerous ennemies rather than staying peaceful as leader of the guard of high level cleric...

4) As a player, some of my characters have already coldly murdered (evil) NPCs. But usually, it took some time to approach (even several months for some) and some thinking to avoid being seen / taken. A PC who planned to murder someone without doing this is effectively out of control and a threat to his party and for the autorities. You can't expect the authorities to understand the self defense point of vue. Seeing his comrades put him down should indeed save them from the worst, but suspicions would remain about the fact they knew or not his will to kill the first guy. I see no way they would legitimatly give them the loot back.

[Scow2]

[QUOTE=HurinTheCursed;15115993]1) I believe most citizen have a better use of their time than trying to adventure. Working would probably be harder than today in those settings, citizens have less protection and if they have a big family to breed they can't really get away. When life expectancy is close to 35, you can't really expect people to spend a few years on the road./QUOTE]Yeah. Adventuring is out of the league of the vast majority of people, since to even contemplate it you need to stand out from the rest of society already. However, that "Life expectancy of 35 years" is a misleading figure because of the high infant/toddler mortality rate from the modeled era. For those who survived past 2, the life expectancy was closer to 60 years.

[ericgrau]

Yeup and nobles averaged in the 70s, same as today. Even since deep into the BCs. Our great advancement was not super expensive technology to extend the life of those who can afford it, but rather the improvement of living conditions, sanitation and basic care to the masses to bring them up to the level of the rich.

Anyway I agree that the authorities should seize the property. It belongs to no one and is relevant in criminal proceedings. They would probably auction it off from there if they can't just sell it for half like PCs often do. That is after holding it until the end of legal proceedings. Like someone said the PCs claiming it because the mass murderer was one of them would not look good at all. They could be captured for such a statement but probably released once the authorities realize they were only being greedy and not thinking. Any legal claims the PCs have better be in writing and notarized (or well forged :smallbiggrin:).

If the authorities think the PCs helped captured the errant PC they might throw them a small bone, but they'd also be suspicious of them for harboring a criminal for so long.

[dascarletm]

There's a reason commoners hire the guys with never less than 6 HP (Half again more than the tougher commoners, and thrice as many as the average one), strength of several men, the will of the gods backing them, arcane power at their fingertips, and those that can disappear in shadows and kill with a single well-placed hit to take care of rats for them.

The real reason is their very existence is in the mind of the DM, and he made them (and the entire world around them) to let the PCs have fun. If rat-shenanigans isn't fun, then it won't happen....

[MukkTB]

From a gameplay standpoint theres a couple competing arguments. Losing the equipment as a penalty for misbehaving is a possibility. Each of the other characters didn't earn it. On the other hand the party did earn the loot in its possession. The major problem with letting them keep the loot is if the dead guy comes back in with full wealth and the party gets richer by player death rather than poorer.

From a realism perspective you should probably follow any laws that you have already made up about the area. If you have already told the party 'this is what they do with murderers' then you should stick with it. Failing to do so would be a serious blow to verisimilitude.

From a legal standpoint its impossible to tell. If you're in a totally generic pseudo medieval fantasy setting they'd seize it and keep it in all likelihood. A fairytale setting would probably see your party come up in an audience before the local lord. Some cultures had strict rule of law and others did not. Its all about the world building. If you need some help, you can look to the general alignment of the society if you have ever generated that. If your society is an expy of some real civilization you can look at their laws.

[awa]

your assuming npcs get xp at all which is not true.
pcs have ecl npcs have cr. npcs have non associated levels pcs don't. npc gain levels when the dm says they do not when they have fought enough monsters

Also i suspect their is a rule some where that the dm should adjust xp based on how challanging a fight is.

I know at least one wizards of the coast premade adventure did so reducing the cr of classed goblins becuase they did not have the elite array or level appropriate gear. following that precedent shooting fish in a barrel (or rats in a hole) is worth 0 xp