Weregild price in 3.5

[hymer]

For those in doubt, weregild is an amount you pay if someone is badly injured or killed by your hand (regardless of circumstances like accidents, self-defence, and such).

The PCs have come to a place where settling things by a paying of weregild is common. One of the PCs has robbed a man of his honour by shaming him, and the man can only regain that honour by slaying the shamer. This is quite likely to end in that man's death, which will result in his family wanting to kill the PC that does it (or all of them), unless they pay weregild.
So how much ought that to be, roughly? Obviously, this should vary by the importance of the slain individual, but if I set it too low, there might seem to be the implication that PCs can murder with impunity and just hand over some gold. (In which case, peple would stop settling for weregild and insist on killing the PCs, but still.)
On the other hand, setting it too high is unrealistic, since weregild is supposed to be the usual way you settle things, and the average fellow doesn't have anywhere near the wealth of the average PC.

[Emperor Tippy]

One copper piece, to show how repugnant the PC's find a man so stupid that he attacks and tries to kill a murder hobo for shaming him and as a warning to said family that they either grow up and realize that attacking the murder hobo is a good way to end up dead or that the family curse of stupidity will strike them dead.

Absent an ulterior motive I can't think of any PC who would pay that kind of extortion for killing a dude who tried to kill them first.

[hymer]

The ulterior motive is that the guy's family and friends will kill them if they don't settle. But that's really besides the point.

[thethird]

I'm slightly saddened because this thread isn't about licanthropic guilds.

[hymer]

Can you fight through the pain and give me a number? :smallsmile:

[thethird]

That will probably depend on how the weregild is applied. Perhaps nobles are the only ones who can demand a weregild, if so, they might ask for gold. Otherwise in most cases paying for the dead's funeral (you might need to hire some npcs, and that isn't expensive) and let's say the income of a year and a day of the deceased should be enough (and reasonably easy to adjust based on the deceased worth for the society).

[hymer]

Weregild was generally applied to all free people and sometimes slaves as well. In this case it's all living persons that have sworn loyalty to the local king (and are thus protected by the king's law). But the price, as you note, still vary according to how well regarded that person was.
I suppose the price may be as little as 25gp for a freeman. Well, maybe I can play it so that the players assume it will be much more. :smallsmile:

[Jon_Dahl]

I'd think that the weregild should be equal to person's treasure value. NPCs themselves of course aren't aware of any treasure values, but by coincidence it should follow the same path.

The more important individual have +1 CR (rounded down) for purposes of weregild.

1st-level commoner has CR 1/6. Thus the treasure value and weregild is 50 gp.
1st-level aristocrat has CR 1 (increased CR for purposes of weregild). Treasure value and weregild is 300 gp.

[hymer]

Excellent suggestion! Thanks a bunch.

[BWR]

Look at the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild)article, replace shilling with gp.
Quick and easy

[DaedalusMkV]

Note that, historically, Weregild was never applied solely to killings. The PCs should have the opportunity to pay it to satisfy the shaming (public insults and slander were usually assigned very steep Weregild, at least in the systems I've seen, often more than assault or minor theft). As to the price, the general rule if we go by historical systems would be:

-The Weregild for murdering a slave should be somewhere in the range of the price of a good cow. 20-25 GP maximum.
-The price for murdering a free man should be roughly equal to 100 times the above. 2000-odd GP. While this might seem a bit steep, keep in mind that the Weregild for murder was historically absolutely ruinous, usually far in excess of the total worth of an entire freedman family. Only Nobles and very wealthy merchants were expected to be able to pay.
-The price for killing a Noble should be six times that, or about 10-12 thousand GP. Only royals and the higher-ranking noble houses were expected to be able to pay a Noble's Weregild. The usual penalty was death.

I actually have a full list of Weregild prescribed under Ethelbert's Law, if you want some more estimations. It's actually pretty easy to convert to D&D numbers, since a schilling in Ethelbert's time was defined as about the price of a sheep.


Look at the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild)article, replace shilling with gp.
Quick and easy

A schilling was worth far more than a D&D GP, but we can work out an exchange rate pretty well using the price of sheep.

[hymer]

@ BWR. Thanks. Though it's not quite that simple, unfortunately, as DaedalusMkV points out; and more on that below.

@ DaedalusMkV: Thanks for taking the time and for the offer. A price of 2000gp is not practically possible in D&D, though, due to its rather screwy economics. There's just not that kind of money lying around.
The average unskilled labourer gets 1 sp per day, less than 40gp per year if he's employed all year round. Even a highly skilled labourer gets just a little over 1gp per day, so even for him it's about 5 years' salary.
2000gp is also over twice the GP limit of a small town (being up to 2000 inhabitants).
So for all its historical accuracy, it just doesn't fit the D&D economy 'system'. :smallannoyed: <--- That small annoyed is directed at D&D economy, btw.
:smallbiggrin: <--- That small biggrin is directed at your kindness in writing all that out.

Edit: Oh, and as for paying the shame off, what happened was that the PC used Intimidate to cause the NPC to shame himself (and thereby his family, and in part the king even). The only way he can regain his position in the king's guard (which he renounced right after the incident to avoid implicating the king) is if he subjugates what he was demonstrated to be afraid of. And he intends to do that or die trying, as he is in fact a very honourable man - just not able to do much against game mechanics. And when the PCs see a guy coming at them with a sword, they're unlikely to let him live, even though he's going to call out the one PC for single combat. And even if they do, he's bound to try again. And again, ad nauseam.

[Jon_Dahl]

Look at the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild)article, replace shilling with gp.
Quick and easy

Another idea:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=52416&stc=1&d=1343824613

Does that link work? If it does, then you should assign a standard weregild for every rank. Laborer should be valued at 50 gp. Gentleman 300 gp. Master craftmen 800 gp, and so on.

[hymer]

I get a log-in screen, but I also get the general idea. :smallsmile: Thanks.

[Jon_Dahl]

I get a log-in screen, but I also get the general idea. :smallsmile: Thanks.

One last attempt: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?327175-Social-ranks-and-pseudo-medieval-fantasy-worlds
Please see OP and the picture.

[hymer]

Clicking on the attached thumbnail gets me another log-in screen. Thanks again. :smallsmile:

[Mnemnosyne]

The ulterior motive is that the guy's family and friends will kill them be killed by them if they don't settle. But that's really besides the point.That's usually a lot more along the lines of how these things typically go in D&D - at least, it certainly would if it were my character, although perhaps your players are very different in temperament to me and most that I've played with.
@ BWR. Thanks. Though it's not quite that simple, unfortunately, as DaedalusMkV points out; and more on that below.

@ DaedalusMkV: Thanks for taking the time and for the offer. A price of 2000gp is not practically possible in D&D, though, due to its rather screwy economics. There's just not that kind of money lying around.
The average unskilled labourer gets 1 sp per day, less than 40gp per year if he's employed all year round. Even a highly skilled labourer gets just a little over 1gp per day, so even for him it's about 5 years salary.
2000gp is also over twice the GP limit of a small town (being up to 2000 inhabitants).
So for all its historical accuracy, it just doesn't fit the D&D economy 'system'. :smallannoyed: <--- That small annoyed is directed at D&D economy, btw.It sounds from his explanation that this is exactly the intent - that generally very few people can actually pay such a sum, given that the idea was that it would be greater than the sum worth of an entire family. If the idea is that only wealthy nobles or merchants could possibly afford to pay the weregild for murder, then 2000 gp is an appropriate sum, because most people wouldn't have that available.

[Sith_Happens]

I'm going to second the "treasure value, with effective-CR adjustment based on social rank" approach. Seems as good a system as any.

Of course, as Emperor Tippy characteristically pointed out, whether your PCs pay up at all is a separate matter entirely.

[hymer]

@ Mnemnosyne: About the ulterior motive, I think these PCs are more in line with you than with the murder hobos Emperor Tippy was referring to.
About the other system, well... No, it's actually important that the system can be used by non-nobles too. The nobles and other highborn don't like seeing their workforce/customers/soldiers/people/friends waste each other in blood feuds.

@ Sith_Happens: They can do as they like, of course. They may avoid this whole situation. But if they don't, they may pay up (in fact, I expect they will do so if they have the means), and so I need to be prepared for that eventuality. If not, and they start slaughtering people, I have stats on the king's son, Ivar 'Bloodthirst' Helgesson, who will happily grant the players a swift TPK if they so choose. I also know the lay of the surrounding territory, if they choose to skip town. Only thing I lack is a small wooden duck, in case I get caught near water. Oh, and a Robin Hood costume.
But they'll likely want to settle things amicably, as they have a few things they'd like to do in town.

[Mnemnosyne]

I was agreeing with Tippy, actually, in that generally, the vast majority of my characters, if they defended themselves after being attacked, would be wholly unwilling to pay for having refused to allow themselves to be killed. And if the family of the loon that attacked me tried to kill me, I'd defend myself against them too, and the likely result would be them dying, because I'm a murder hobo and murdering things for a living is pretty much my entire line of work.

I think this is how many, possibly most, of the players I've played with would react as well. The idea of being made to pay because I was attacked and defended myself would absolutely not be well received.

[hymer]

I see. Well, they're quite welcome to react with hostility. That is their choice. I do think they will act with more prudence, weregild being no unknown concept to the players or at least two of the PCs.
But they are so far ECL ~5, and so cannot disregard an entire town just yet.

[Sith_Happens]

I see. Well, they're quite welcome to react with hostility. That is their choice. I do think they will act with more prudence, weregild being no unknown concept to the players or at least two of the PCs.
But they are so far ECL ~5, and so cannot disregard an entire town just yet.

Depends on the town, but it sounds like this particular one has at least a few persons of level.

[hymer]

It's a town where a fairly badass warrior, the king, resides with his sons when they're not out fighting the evil jotunn, so it has more than its fair share of mid-level NPCs. They happen to be home at the moment, and the PCs want to see if they can't help them get back out.
But even without them, this particular party is nothing near optimized, and wouldn't stand a chance if the town guards descend on them in force, or managed to surprise them. But more than that, I think they'd rather surrender than fight so many good-aligned people.

[ksbsnowowl]

I've generally assumed the appropriate weregild price for murder, in a game where people can be raised from the dead, is the cost of said raise dead.

5,000 gp, if I'm not mistaken.

[hymer]

Unfortunately, this would render the weregild system fairly unusable for most people. The idea is to stop the killing (by removing the need for vengeance), while still keeping a healthy dose of deterrence.

[Calmar]

You could make the man's family consist of ridiculously powerful NPCs, who could in fact crush the PCs without effort. That'll teach them if they believe they're dealing with a bunch of low-level aristocrats or something like that. :smallbiggrin:

[hymer]

While that would certainly make me feel good when they players get that 'Oh four-letter-word' look, I'm worried it wouldn't serve the nature of the campaign. And I might regret it moments later, when they get that 'Four-letter-word this' look.
This weregild thing isn't very important. It's just the reaction to dealing too lightly with intimidating local authorities' agents (who are actually good people), and maybe it will give the players a chance to react to the values dissonance and do a bit of roleplaying, mayhap starting a little argument among themselves and some exchange of views. At least one PC is likely to think that the weregild system is not only effective, but more fair than anything else one could dream up.

[Frozen_Feet]

Flip. The four-letter-word you're looking for is flip. :smallwink:

How about alternatives? In some lands, it was customary to marry the wife of a man you slayed, based on the idea that since you killed their provider, you must now provide for them. :smallbiggrin:

[hymer]

If the guy wasn't a half-ogre (and thus constantly suspected of being a jotunn), that would be more likely to be suggested. But maybe it ought to be brought up by a blind person in the name of Funny.

[Rhynn]

The PCs have come to a place where settling things by a paying of weregild is common. One of the PCs has robbed a man of his honour by shaming him, and the man can only regain that honour by slaying the shamer. This is quite likely to end in that man's death, which will result in his family wanting to kill the PC that does it (or all of them), unless they pay weregild.

The family would probably have no legal standing to demand/expect weregild. If it's a duel, absolutely not. If the man attacks the PC with lethal intent (i.e. weapon in hand), also absolutely not. If the man just tries to punch the PC (and is not a monk/unarmed swordsage), maybe, yeah.

Obviously, not having a legal claim for weregild doesn't mean they won't go with blood feud/vendetta - an "illegal" feud or vendetta is a common enough trope.

Anyway, something like 5-10 years' income is probably a decent enough approximation, so say 5 to 10 times 50 times their weekly earnings. For an average joe using Profession +5 to make a living, that comes out to ~375 gp a year, so the weregild would be something like 1,875 gp to 3,750 gp. Yes, that's chump change for adventurers, but it's a fortune for a normal person.

[hymer]

Far too modern, Rhynn. Think Viking age Iceland. You kill somebody, you owe weregild. Nobody cares why you killed him or how, where or when; certainly not those dependent on him and those who loved him. You killed him, now his family must have satisfaction. That's either a dead killer or due weregild paid.

The rest seems a decent enough calculation to me. Thanks! :smallsmile:

[Rhynn]

Far too modern, Rhynn. Think Viking age Iceland. You kill somebody, you owe weregild. Nobody cares why you killed him or how, where or when; certainly not those dependent on him and those who loved him. You killed him, now his family must have satisfaction. That's either a dead killer or due weregild paid.

Vikings were pretty big on ruling-based law, lawspeakers, and þings (later moots)... you go to the local jarl or the þing, probably get a judgment that since you were attacked, you owe no weregild and the family has no right to blood feud. They may very still carry out blood feud, and there's no police to help you and the jarl and his huscarls probably won't step in, but when you kill them all for attacking you (the most likely outcome with PCs, but obviously not assured, especially since you consider this a good idea), you'll probably be judged in the right.

Vikings weren't uncivilized barbarians with no law. In fact, even the "barbarians" of Europe had legal codes. Salic Law (which weregild became a part of) was from the Franks, from around the start of the "Viking Age" (9th century).

So I agree with your conclusion - that no weregild paid means blood feud - just not that there's no law or that it's the accepted way...

I use weregilds in RuneQuest (Glorantha) all the time (measured in cows, and based on your station since technically no one in a Heortling clan has a personal income), and that and blood feuds keep human fatalities in the campaign very low. I've actually had the players carry out a feud: they were beaten but not maimed or killed by some toughs from the next clan over, so they sneak over to their stead at night and set fire to the longhouse... several retainers dead and the head of the bloodline (who led their beating) was maimed and scarred horribly. Fun times!

[hymer]

But there were no jarls or kings on Iceland. And the thing didn't always do very well in establishing what actually happened (since each side would often tell a very different story from the other), but it did well in finding a solution, just or not.
The shamed hird-man would make sure to make his attack/challenge outside of the area that the king has declared under his protection. And he would know exactly where this is, since he used to be one of those protecting it.
Fionally, the whole weregild thing would probably be handled without talking to any jarls or kings, or bringing it before a thing. If it isn't settled fast, there would be a constant threat of violence when the PCs move out of town.