When is looting bodies evil

[BluFlcn]

I apologize if this has been covered but I didn't see anything in my look through the first few pages of threads. That said I'd like to first state the scenario:

Our group is playing a pathfinder mythic adventures module. The party composition is a LG paladin, a LG cleric(me), a LN Monk, a CG Rogue, and a CN Sorcerer. The module is about a demonic invasion of apocalyptic scale. The introductory dungeon was thrust upon the party right from the onset and it's an escape from the catacombs beneath a city to the surface. We escaped the dungeon and upon leaving we see that the entire city has been ruined with some pockets of resistance still fighting.

Our loot haul from the introductory dungeon was substantial and more than over burdened the group; we're adhering to the carry weight rules and some players just didn't want to deal with divvying up the loot so we could actually carry it, or listen to my advice which was to deal with being at a medium load and declare your dropping your pack with all the excess gear during combat so you can move around, it's just mundane loot anyway and isn't going to go anywhere. So our first order of business on the surface was to find something to help us carry the gear until we could offload it.

After finding an intact cart among the ruins we started to secure and the DM stopped us to let us know that it was evil to loot it since it might be owned. This derailed the entire session as we debated it for two whole hours; when is it alright to loot gear from the dead. The DM went on to say that looting from none evil dead is an act of evil. He went further saying that if we were attacked by neutral enemies (not at all implausible) and we took the gold they carried after defeating them (most likely with lethal force) we would be doing evil and the paladin and cleric would be at high risk of losing their abilities.

I know it's the DMs game and his rules but I would like them to be consistent. He says he's sticking to the rules by the book and not allowing normal player shenanigans that the rules don't cover. However, maybe I'm missing something in the core pathfinder book, but where does it say "you can take loot off of dead evil enemies but not off of none evil enemies."

Rather than force anyone to read a novel, does anyone have any insight or advice for broaching this subject? I don't want to ruin the game or create a fight over it.

Cheers

[Vhaidara]

I recommend the following argument: They don't need it, it will enable us to do more good in the world if we profit from their equipment. They forfeited their right to it when they attacked you and attempted to take your lives. The applies to good aligned creatures too, though then you get into the fact that you were attacked by good creatures for some reason.

If he makes the paladin and the cleric fall, I would consider that grounds to stand up and leave. Good GMs do not abuse the paladin. The paladin abuses themselves enough by playing a paladin.

[Xefas]

Looting dead bodies is never really classy - I mean, you never see James Bond pulling the dinner jackets off of all his slain foes to hawk at the local pawn shop. At the same time, I can imagine few instances where it would be "Evil".

The definition of "Evil" here being the definition given in the 3.5 Player's Handbook, pg 104, "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

If looting a body doesn't actively cause suffering or death to others, then it's not Evil, just gauche. That said, if, for example, you honorably killed some noble in a lawful and consensual duel, you should probably leave his valuables to his next of kin (or if you're super classy, send his family a weregild). At that point, you're borderline stealing from a widow. But random bandits or demons in a dungeon out in the middle of bumbleass nowhere? Evil is a hard sell there.

[Curmudgeon]

Pretty much all adventurers are bad guys: they wander about killing folks and stealing their stuff. That's why I personally don't play Good-aligned characters: it just seems morally indefensible.

If you've decided to play a Paladin, you've purposely chosen an alignment that's going to cause problems. My suggestion is that before anyone takes on the burden of threading that needle they have a discussion with their DM to determine if there's likely to be a problem. If such a choice turns out to be fraught with peril, alternative classes should be considered instead: perhaps a Knight (Lawful alignment required, but not Good) or Crusader (anything except Neutral) in D&D, or whatever suffices as equivalents in Pathfinder.

[Vhaidara]

Another point to raise is this:
Was killing them evil? No? Then how is taking their stuff evil? Stealing<Murder. If the murder doesn't make you fall, then the stealing won't push you over the edge.

[Diachronos]

They forfeited their right to it when they attacked you and attempted to take your lives.

If he makes the paladin and the cleric fall, I would consider that grounds to stand up and leave. Good GMs do not abuse the paladin. The paladin abuses themselves enough by playing a paladin.

Seconded to both of those.

As for the cart, it's in the middle of a ruined city, and from the sound of your post it's a stroke of good luck that you found one that's actually usable despite the majority of the city being either dead or holed up somewhere. Yes, the cart most likely belonged to someone, but that someone is most likely:
A) Dead, and therefore has no real claim to say you can't take it,
B) Trapped in one of the resistance pockets and likely wouldn't care at all if your took the cart considering hell has literally broken loose, or
C) Going to understand that you need the stupid thing more than he does, and at worst ask for something in exchange that would be more useful to him than a cart.

[BluFlcn]

I agree that taking anything from an opponent killed in a duel would be reasonably amoral. You probably wouldn't have time to take it before some official stepped in to cart off the body anyway. I've seen threads elsewhere that suggest giving burial rights and/or just not being a turd about taking gear off of dead bodies. Frankly if I find a dead body in a dungeon and it's clear they weren't evil but they have healing potions, gold, or scrolls on them? I'm probably going to take them and use the argument Keledrath suggested. The other guy is already dead, leaving the equipment does them no good and since we're adhering strictly to a module that item might be there for a reason, because on the next page might be a fight where we'll dip into our resources.

Our DM has made it clear that taking any gear off a none evil enemy is itself an evil act. by that logic it should extend to looting a dungeon unless it's explicitly an evil lair of some kind. Which means every item in our possession that didn't come off a cultist is ill gotten gains. That's where my biggest problem is I think; a lack of consistency in his ruling of looting.

It's one thing to have consequences down the road for say, taking an heirloom weapon off a none evil corpse. Like running into the widow and them claiming the weapon belonged to their dead spouse or something. Then were it me and I were playing a good character, our paladin too, would give it back. Intent isn't being taken into consideration at all. Take the cart for example, we weren't taking it from some homeless kid who was using it to haul around all of his possessions including his medicine because he's also dying of TB or something. It was an abandoned cart in the middle of the apocalypse.

[Vhaidara]

Your third paragraph sums it up perfectly. That is how loot repercussions should be dealt with.

Also, if you need a different argument for your GM, I did post a second one two posts up from you. The first argument I gave puts it decidedly at Neutral, while the second puts it at NOT INVOLVED WITH BLOODY ALIGNMENT.

[Knaight]

Looting dead bodies is never really classy - I mean, you never see James Bond pulling the dinner jackets off of all his slain foes to hawk at the local pawn shop. At the same time, I can imagine few instances where it would be "Evil".
This has more to do with character stylization than anything. James Bond is supposed to be suave, commanding, in control of his situation, etc. James bond having to do something like take someone's boots because they're better than his and he's trudging through a bunch of mud fighting hypothermia really undercuts the suave, sophisticated end of things, yet that is downright common in other media. The local pawn shop hawking really has more to do with how hauling a bunch of crap around is much more irritating in real life than it is in a game like D&D.

Basically, it comes down to how D&D really doesn't have creature comforts a lot of the time. Sure, carrying around mangled bandit armor involves dealing with a heavy, awkward load for negligible benefit, but the heavy, awkward load bit tends to get forgotten. Whereas an actual person in that situation probably is going to decide to weight not having to haul a heavy, awkward load around a little more heavily than the tiny profit they make make with the stuff. This also comes into things like lodging, food, etc. D&D characters don't really take advantage of those luxuries a lot of the time, actual people with the sort of cash they have usually do.


If looting a body doesn't actively cause suffering or death to others, then it's not Evil, just gauche. That said, if, for example, you honorably killed some noble in a lawful and consensual duel, you should probably leave his valuables to his next of kin (or if you're super classy, send his family a weregild). At that point, you're borderline stealing from a widow. But random bandits or demons in a dungeon out in the middle of bumbleass nowhere? Evil is a hard sell there.
This really comes back to the killing part. If killing people is a reasonable approach to a situation, looting corpses probably is too. The example of getting better boots I used above is a classic here - nobody begrudges soldiers for doing that in the wars where it was relevant, because the situation is already bad enough to be in the killing stage.

There are a few exceptions still. The duel example you listed is one of them. Killings in self defense involving mistaken identities could be another. Guards and the like are a third - the adventurers probably don't have a problem with the guards of a corrupt noble most of the time, but they can end up as casualties in fighting against said noble themselves. Generally though, looting is really not the issue. The willingness to kill in supposedly good adventurers, theft from people who are actually alive, and other such things are much more pertinent.

[oxybe]

I just like that looting from evil is supposedly fine but from unknowns? Egads! Stealing from evil is A-O.K! Just don't steal from good kids though!

Yes looting is basically theft. But it's also one of the few ways D&D PCs can afford to buy better gear, seeing as the Craft, Profession & Perform skills are kinda poop for trying to raise actual money and is one of the generally assumed tropes of the game/genre, as old as the game itself.

Before calling mutiny, I would ask the GM how he's planning on keeping the PCs armed for the rest of the campaign if looting isn't viable. If he's going to be placing extra obviously lootable treasure or giving out more rewards then it shouldn't be a problem, but if he's leaving everything as is without an alternate form of remuneration to make up for the possibility of the cleric & paladin becoming skill-less experts and feat-less fighters then I might recommend a threat of mutiny as your party will likely find itself under-equipped for the apocalypse.

That or the cleric & paladin might want to start looking at turning evil for the sake of the world. I doubt all evil deities, especially the rather lawful devils, are fine with the apocalypse and destruction of the status quo.

If Pelor won't grant you the boons needed to save the world, Asmodeus might...

[Twilightwyrm]

While looting is by no means a good act, it is about as neutral an act as they come. It's opportunistic, and while you might not do it to your family and friends (unless you know they wouldn't mind), if a typical neutral peasant finds an abandoned cart, (just hypothetically, no connection to your situation to be sure) they are going to take it. They may ask around to see if someone in their village has lost a cart (so as not piss off their neighbors and all), but that is during times of peace, and then only sometimes. And further more, how do you guys know the person you are taking the cart from isn't evil? Sure they aren't part of the invasion, but that doesn't mean no one in the city was evil prior to the invasion.
And more to the point, why is it acceptable to loot from evil creatures? Because it hurts their ability to continue to do evil? THEY'RE ALREADY DEAD! Their ability to do evil has been terminally (quite literally terminally) restricted. Ending their ability to continue to be evil is what the murder/manslaughter was for! So why is it okay to loot from their estates/families (assuming they had such. I doubt demons/skeletons/whatnot have such things), and potentially deprive these possible-non-evil individuals of their kin's possessions, and not from non-evil others that have attempted to kill you?

[Coidzor]

Looting bodies is only evil when it would require an evil act to get at the bodies in the first place (in which case it's more the enabling act is evil than the looting itself) or that the act of looting the bodies is evil, such as in cases where the bodies themselves are loot for a necromancer who then necromances them into Undead(generally requires the manner of making undead or undead themselves to be evil in this case though) or when part of the body is loot, such as harvesting something for grafts/spell components/proof of kill for a bounty, if corpse mutilation is tagged evil in your game.

In this case your DM is just talking out of his ass. Especially because he's the one who gave you the cart in the first place.

Taking an abandoned cart from a ruin doesn't impact the long-dead previous owner in the slightest. Though it's a bit amazing that it'd be in that good of a condition. If it was left by a previous failed effort to clear out the ruins or go grave-robbing, there's even less of an issue, though considering you didn't take it from someone's tomb, there's really no issue in the first place.

Now, taking a cart that's been recently used without checking to see if the owner is still around/alive could very well be theft and is fairly careless, but that doesn't seem to be what happened here.


While looting is by no means a good act, it is about as neutral an act as they come. It's opportunistic, and while you might not do it to your family and friends (unless you know they wouldn't mind)

Unless we're in a culture where we're big on burial weapons, then I have much more right to my father's +2 Sword and +4 Shield than a hypothetical adventurer who found his body after he fell in battle. And even in such a culture, the practicality of using said +2 Sword and +4 Shield to ensure there's a society around to bury him should at least outweigh the short term delay in burying them with him. So things will probably vary when it comes to looting/"looting" family and friends and next of kin and inheritance.

[BluFlcn]

I believe the module is fairly loot heavy later on. Right now it's stingy. After we got back on track after the two hour debate that ended with shelving for later we dragged our over burdened selves to the main city stronghold. We had to roll to see if vendors had what we wanted, so in the case of the paladin and myself a cleric we wanted armor. There was none. Level 4 and still using starting armor. On the flip side (and this is why we have a paladin at all, which was brought up a few posts back) the campaign has a heavy focus on a legendary Holy Avenger.... which we looted btw... Just throwing that out there... from the introductory dungeon in a room that looked suspiciously like a tomb. It's a +1 cold iron longsword now but it's meant to grow in power and become ridiculous, it is a legendary item after all. The second book of the module actually focuses exclusively on beafing up the sword.

Both the paladin and the cleric are of Iomedae and after the revelation that looting from none evil is evil, which I too find pretty inconsistent, we talked about that sword. It's a good thing I'm not the paladin because I would end the campaign by returning it. The DM told the paladin in private that it's okay because the sword was stolen by the cultists so we actually recovered it without knowing it, again no intent being taken into consideration. Though as far as the church of Iomedae would be concerned that weapon is still at large, being a huge artifact, we shouldn't be able to keep it by the DM's logic.

I think I've got the ammunition I need to peacefully approach this with the DM before we play tomorrow. I just hope he doesn't double down to save face or something. If he does, well so be it. I know not to play do-gooders in his campaigns going forward.

I appreciate the advice, folks. If you've got any more wisdom I'll be sure to apply it.

[Bullet06320]

it really depends more on cultural or religious standards weather or not its evil, legality of the looting might be a better question, again depending on the culture and local laws
as for example, in the movie Chronicles of Riddick, the necromongers had a law or custom at least, you keep what you kill. but I would probly consider them a LE society, and relates directly to cultural ideology on weather or not its evil, to them, its perfectly fine to the dead the bodies

another point to make, how can you tell the alignment of a dead body? detect alignments spells generally only work on living creatures or undead, not objects. unless magical in nature then maybe

and besides what good is this perfectly good loot doing just sitting there, unless you have religious or cultural moors dictating that the bodies get buried with their worldly goods or get passed on to next of kin, which could led to later reprecussions especially if unique or recognizable items are looted as was stated earlier

the obvious solution is, pcs are murder hobos, have the paladin fall and become a blackguard, and the cleric takes up a new appropriate god, loot all you want

[Falcon X]

Let me give you some examples from my Shadowrun game:

A security guard gets gunned down in combat. I take his pistol and ammo. Not evil.

A peasant gets killed in the crossfire. I need the ammo from his concealed carry so I can survive longer. Not evil.

I kill a peasant or guard just so I can loot them. Evil.

A Good aligned priest dies.
- I take his wallet. Not that evil, but you should give his money to the church.
- I take his key to where the church's offering is held, then loot the church. Evil.

My ally dies. He has an expensive computer module implanted in his skull. I chop off his head and take the entire head to a pawn shop to sell for cash and so I can steal the dead guy's identity. Treading a fine line...

[JusticeZero]

The other thing is, you don't know where the guy with the cart is, but if you do find them? You can give them their stuff back.

[Spore]

Ultimatively it's just a question onto how your DM wants to create loot. Still your paladin and you should take the loot for their church (and by that they mean themselves) until the rightful owners want it back. If that is a grieving widow or a bastard son and they can prove it, they get it. Until then the stuff aids you in your quest.

And yes, furthering the goals of good is still a selfish act as you want to improve the world into your favor.

[Coidzor]

Ultimatively it's just a question onto how your DM wants to create loot. Still your paladin and you should take the loot for their church (and by that they mean themselves) until the rightful owners want it back. If that is a grieving widow or a bastard son and they can prove it, they get it. Until then the stuff aids you in your quest.

Placing loot and then saying "no, ye cannot get ye flask" is slightly different from how the DM wants to create loot.

[KillianHawkeye]

I only skimmed through the thread, but in my opinion: looting, as a form of stealing, is an unlawful act. It can sometimes also be evil, such as in the case of stealing food from starving children, but most of the time it will most likely just be neutral with respect to good and evil. Stealing and looting are likely to get you in trouble with the authorities when you're in a civilized place (but note that a city currently hosting the apocalypse is no longer considered civilized), but that is because of the unlawfulness of those acts rather than for any reason relating to the moral axis of alignment.

In your specific case, I'd say that the cart was clearly abandoned by it's owner and therefore fair game for anyone else to pick up. When all Hell literally breaks loose, anything that you want to keep had better be kept with you!

[Stella]

Looting dead bodies is never really classy - I mean, you never see James Bond pulling the dinner jackets off of all his slain foes to hawk at the local pawn shop. At the same time, I can imagine few instances where it would be "Evil".At the same time, Bond is financed by his organization and isn't in it for the money. I could list a good half dozen Bond stories where at the end he is carrying around millions in cash or goods, and yet he never seems to be able to keep it for himself, because just like the cops who raid a drug house he is bound by his duty to turn the money or good over to the proper authorities.

On the flip side, I've seen Bond grab a gun or a knife or other useful items off of bad guys he has dealt with.

Looting the bodies of people or things that attack you isn't evil. Nor is taking a cart which is sitting around in the middle of a ruined city. Taking a cart from the middle of a farmer's fields is stealing, even if the farmer is no where to be seen, because there's no reason to conclude that the farmer is dead and no longer has any need for the cart. If there was any moral ambiguity it could be handled by leaving behind the value of the cart in coins, but that's going to the opposite extreme.

Frankly, if your DM considers looting the corpses of neutrals who attack the party to be an evil act, you need a new group or a new DM. With that kind of world view it is only a matter of time until the Paladin and the good Cleric cross some invisible alignment line and start suffering the consequences of being an Ex-Cleric or an Ex-Paladin.

Just taking the coins from a dead guy who attacks you could make the Paladin fall, if the attacker was neutral and not evil. And despite having a Paladin in the party it's not always possible to know that a person is neutral rather than evil. So even though your DM is telling you that looting evil people is ok, what you'll face in reality is a corpse landmine trap, almost every single fight.

I'd suggest making another attempt to discuss these issues with your DM. If he isn't willing to budge, then I'd highly recommend either finding another group or DM, or playing only neutral or evil characters.

[sideswipe]

when, like one of my player's, you like to check orifices for hidden loot.... up to the elbow....

[Renen]

Find abandoned stuff? Take it and later compensate the owner if you ever encounter them.
Find dead guy with loot on him? Bery him and say a prayer. Take loot as payment for the service.
Attacked by enemy? Tell em that by continuing the attack they forfeit all rights to their stuff should they lose. Beat them and take said stuff.

[Amphetryon]

Looting bodies in D&D is evil whenever the DM decides it's evil, unfortunately. Due to the relativistic nature of Alignment interpretation and the fact that, in D&D, the DM's role is usually that of final arbiter in such matters, most other arguments amount to navel gazing or tilting at windmills.

In the specific case indicated by the OP, I'd personally call the looting much more 'Chaotic' than 'Evil,' but I'm not the OP's DM.

[Renen]

Can you cite RAW on that please? :D

[Bronk]

Looting bodies in D&D is evil whenever the DM decides it's evil, unfortunately.

Maybe, but I'd say as long as it's in the game, it's just part of the game, and an expected and necessary part at that, even though it's ludicrously terrible in real life.

[VoxRationis]

From what I'm looking at in your original post, it wasn't so much a question of looting bodies as a matter of taking something whose owner may or may not still be alive. It was possible in your situation that the owner was hiding nearby and preparing to move his remaining possessions and family to safety. Taking the cart, therefore, posed a chance of putting an innocent in considerable danger by preventing him from leaving a war zone. If a group of demons had been pulling a cart and you killed them, you would be perfectly justified in taking the cart for your purposes.

[Renen]

In that case is it evil buying the last loaf of bread, thus causing a family to starve because when they come to the store after you and find no bread, they starve. Were you supposed to have made sure no one needed the bread before buying it? (Like buying food at a more expensive that the said family wouldnt be able to afford anyways)

[VoxRationis]

There are a few key differences between those scenarios. Firstly, they aren't paying for the cart; their acquisition of the vehicle has no legitimacy. It might not be illegal per se, depending on the kingdom, but their claim to it basically boils down to "No one objected when we tried to take it." Secondly, the odds that there's a surviving civilian somewhere nearby who was planning on using the cart far outweigh the odds that you buy the last loaf of bread at a bakery and there's a family nearby who can afford to buy that loaf but are on the verge of starvation, to the point where that loaf makes the difference between life and death, and aren't nearby any other place where they can get food.

[Amphetryon]

Can you cite RAW on that please? :D

1. To whom was this addressed, specifically?

2. Could you cite the RAW on your position?

[Renen]

There are a few key differences between those scenarios. Firstly, they aren't paying for the cart; their acquisition of the vehicle has no legitimacy. It might not be illegal per se, depending on the kingdom, but their claim to it basically boils down to "No one objected when we tried to take it." Secondly, the odds that there's a surviving civilian somewhere nearby who was planning on using the cart far outweigh the odds that you buy the last loaf of bread at a bakery and there's a family nearby who can afford to buy that loaf but are on the verge of starvation, to the point where that loaf makes the difference between life and death, and aren't nearby any other place where they can get food.

And the good heroes can do with that cart outweigh anything a nobody peasant can do. The vart might let the heroes move fasy enough to go save the next city or something.

@Amp
1) It was adressed to you when you said stealing is evil no matter what dm says.

2) oh I see what you are trying to do. But I have no position. I am just asking sarcastic questions that are based on positions of others. :-)

[Perturbulent]

@Amp
1) It was adressed to you when you said stealing is evil no matter what dm says.

It seems there was a misunderstanding. It seems clear to me that he was saying the DM rules the game, so if he insists something is evil, then it's evil.

[Renen]

Ahh right, i did misunderstand that part. But... he is siting rule 0, which is kinda redundant. Because if DM says "Fighters have full casting" then it is so. DM can do anything is what i am saying, and i am sure most on the boards know rule 0

[Zrak]

Looting dead bodies is never really classy - I mean, you never see James Bond pulling the dinner jackets off of all his slain foes to hawk at the local pawn shop. At the same time, I can imagine few instances where it would be "Evil".
Obviously not, he has Moneypenny blot out the bloodstains and auctions them at Sotheby's.

[loodwig]

I'll have to bring this up with my group next week, see what they think.

Throwing in my 2 cents both as GM and player, Here's how I'd divvy various treasure acquisitions based on alignment type. Be aware that I don't care about alignments of your victims, I care about their side (badguy, goodguy, innocent). Badguys will, for arguments sake, have long since crossed the moral event horizon, which I know brings a lot of grey between "innocents" and "badguys" and of course discretion is advised and your mileage may vary regardless. That said, slaughtering a kobold village for their supply of lumber is evil. Stealing from the LG king because the fate of the world is at stake is necessary or at least neutral. The only thing that really matters to me as a GM is that "Good" aligned Clerics and Paladins aren't willfully doing evil. The neutral distinction should be where a good NPC would make a snide comment or withhold praise.

What is Good
Accepting a reward for a good deed
Commandeering or Larceny out of noble necessity (steal a boat to save people from a flood)
Hunting for survival
Taking the loot from the bad guys


What is Neutral
Accepting a reward for an evil deed (the evil is done with the deed, the reward is just the reward at this point).
Hunting for sport
Larceny or Burglary towards bad guys
Taking the loot from the people you just killed
Commandeering for convenience

What is Evil:
Grave Robbing
Killing innocents for their loot
Poaching
Robbing anyone (as in, if you extort the badguy while he's defenseless... you're a villain. If you kill the badguy, even unarmed, then take his stuff... I'm oddly okay with it).
Larceny or Burglary towards innocents


So for the OP, I'd call stealing the wagon Commandeering for convenience or larceny from innocents. They don't, strictly speaking, need the wagon, and they're not leaving a sum of money or consolation for the people you're robbing. The cops can take my car without warning (at least they can in hollywood), but they'll give it back or buy me a new one, or else it's grand theft auto. So I'd allow without punishment, "Sorry, we're taking your wagon. Here's 100gp, which should allow you to buy a new one and pay for your troubles to get it. Terribly sorry, but we need this wagon."

The argument as I've frequently seen it and dealt with it:
*rogue* - we're just going to go in while they're asleep, see if they have anything of value to pinch, and hawk it for gold. No one gets hurt this way.
*paladin* - did these people personally wrong you at some point in the past? Do you have some sort of rightful claim to their meager possessions?
*rogue* - well, no, but think about it... the gold we get will be spent on buying better armor that will help save the world, so that we can save these poor fools from the dragon that's probably heading this way.
*paladin* - we could also kill bandits and sell their armor for the better armor, and these people can keep their precious forks and still be safe from this alleged dragon.
*rogues* - that takes time and risks our lives. Paladin's are just lawful stupid.
*paladin* - and rogues are chaotic lazy. Find a college freshman to argue utilitarian logic towards as a claimant to virtue, and see how that works out for you. Now do you want to go help me backstab some bandits for their hoard, or do you want to steal the silverware of these dirt farmers?
*rogue* - fine... you're no fun.

[Drake2009]

Seriously? Dude, looting is A PART OF THE GAME! If your DM thinks that you cant loot things that "MIGHT be owned by somebody" then he obviously doesnt understand the rules. I mean, i guess it COULD be evil, but it would be a minor evil. Like how a paladin can only sense GREAT evil. If he detects evil on somebody who, maybe didnt pay his taxes or took some money he shouldnt have, they wouldnt register. Looting stuff from dead bodys NO MATTER WHO IT WAS is not evil! And taking loot that seems abandoned?
Whos gonna come back for it? its the freakin apocalypse! Your DM seems to want to control you more than he should. Sure, its his world, but your playing the game too. Talk to him about it, and if he doesn't let you loot, then just leave. If you really want to stay.... Make a group entirely of evil people and just pillage. Not like he can say you cant do that, its your alignment! Serioiusly though, looting corpses and abandoned stuff isnt evil...only way it is evil is if the guy isnt completely dead, and is not evil, and you kill him and take his stuff.

[Amphetryon]

Compare:

Find abandoned stuff? Take it and later compensate the owner if you ever encounter them.
Find dead guy with loot on him? Bery him and say a prayer. Take loot as payment for the service.
Attacked by enemy? Tell em that by continuing the attack they forfeit all rights to their stuff should they lose. Beat them and take said stuff.
with:


@Amp
1) It was adressed to you when you said stealing is evil no matter what dm says.

2) oh I see what you are trying to do. But I have no position. I am just asking sarcastic questions that are based on positions of others. :-)
Emphasis added. EDIT: Also, I didn't say "stealing is evil no matter what [the] DM says." I said "evil acts are defined as whatever the DM says are evil acts." There's a rather large difference between those two statements.

Ahh right, i did misunderstand that part. But... he is siting rule 0, which is kinda redundant. Because if DM says "Fighters have full casting" then it is so. DM can do anything is what i am saying, and i am sure most on the boards know rule 0
I was citing Rule 0 because, in matters of alignment, everything ultimately comes down to Rule 0. Pretending otherwise doesn't actually resolve anything, or answer the OP's question.

[ElenionAncalima]

Personally, I think the fact that good guys loot is one of those willing suspension of disbelief things you have to deal with when playing a game like D&D or Pathfinder. In reality, we would probably look down on someone taking everything from a dead body. In D&D it is one of the easiest way to get wealth to PCs, so we accept it...much like we accept that our character can be stabbed repeatedly without being hindered in any way, until their "damage" hits some predetermined number.

If he want his game to operate outside of the current looting paradigm he needs to:
a) Take other measures to ensure wealth balance.
b) Establish a clear stance on the matter. Right now his rules regarding what is "evil looting" seems completely arbitrary. I wouldn't be surprised if his ruling regarding the cart is based off of either him having information the party doesn't know or, even more likely, is a gut reaction to you guys taking something he didn't want or expect you to take.

[jedipotter]

A good person can't loot. Looting is an evil act. Looting also referred to as sacking, plundering, despoiling, despoliation, and pillaging, is the indiscriminate taking of goods by force. Obviously it is not an good act.

A good person scavenges items. Scavenge: to search for (anything usable) among discarded material.



A good person can never really know the ownership of an item. If the good person knows who the dead body was, they would return anything they found to any family they knew of, but other then that, a good person is free to take items off any dead body or location.

Why the person is dead is important. A good person can't just kill to get things.

[Knaight]

A good person can't loot. Looting is an evil act. Looting also referred to as sacking, plundering, despoiling, despoliation, and pillaging, is the indiscriminate taking of goods by force. Obviously it is not an good act.

A good person scavenges items. Scavenge: to search for (anything usable) among discarded material.

In practice, much of what is referred to as "scavenging" and much of what is referred to as "looting" are the exact same thing - with "finding" thrown in as a third option, particularly among sloppy journalists. Which one actually gets used tends to be more about spin than anything.

[Anlashok]

Taking spoils of victory isn't a good act, but it's not particularly evil either. Now.. if you knew the cart owner was away and snatched it up while he was distracted... sure, evil. Given, however, that the cart was not protected and you have no proof that this person you're supposedly robbing from even exists... then no, not evil.

If you later find out there was an owner and refuse to compensate him, then that could be evil, sure.

I was citing Rule 0 because, in matters of alignment, everything ultimately comes down to Rule 0.

EVERYTHING in general ultimately comes down to rule 0 because that's what rule 0 means. Which makes saying "It's up to the DM" ultimately a useless statement.

[Amphetryon]

EVERYTHING in general ultimately comes down to rule 0 because that's what rule 0 means. Which makes saying "It's up to the DM" ultimately a useless statement.
My response wasn't about EVERYTHING (and you'll note I included how I'd likely rule their actions, were it my game, in my response); my response was about how Alignment, in particular, works.

Incidentally, this argument essentially means that you don't believe there are rules for whether a given attack roll hits a particular AC, or a given saving throw is made against a particular spell, within D&D "because Rule 0 exists." There are, and a DM who rules otherwise through Rule 0 is either withholding information from the PCs for some reason, or is power-tripping.

There AREN'T hard-and-fast rules for what actions constitute Evil ones or Good ones within D&D for many situations; careful reading matters of alignment will even show that the rules are contradictory in places, in ways that (for example) most of the combat rules are not. If you have RAW evidence to the contrary on this, please cite it.

[atemu1234]

Looting a body is evil if and only if the owners were A) the rightful owners or B) weren't killed because they were evil or attempting to kill you. Now, B would become A if it turned out they were attacking you to feed their dying child, then it belongs to the next of kin.

Grave-robbery is morally gray, unless the bodies have some sort of way of letting you know why that stuff's there and it isn't just decoration (IE, the ghost of an ancient paladin guards the tomb of ancient paladins who were buried with their ancestral weapons).

[Coidzor]

There are a few key differences between those scenarios. Firstly, they aren't paying for the cart; their acquisition of the vehicle has no legitimacy. It might not be illegal per se, depending on the kingdom, but their claim to it basically boils down to "No one objected when we tried to take it." Secondly, the odds that there's a surviving civilian somewhere nearby who was planning on using the cart far outweigh the odds that you buy the last loaf of bread at a bakery and there's a family nearby who can afford to buy that loaf but are on the verge of starvation, to the point where that loaf makes the difference between life and death, and aren't nearby any other place where they can get food.

The odds are in favor of a civilian who owned the cart hiding out instead of having fled or died in the initial wave of demons that started trashing the place? Really?

Not that the DM did his DM magic and placed a cart there just to be a ****? :smalltongue:

Besides, unless they owned the cart this hypothetical civvy had no greater claim to the salvage than the party did.

[Graypairofsocks]

when, like one of my player's, you like to check orifices for hidden loot.... up to the elbow....

You know there is a spell called Gold Finder (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20030825a).

Also of use in finding/Identifying treasure are: Detect Magic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectMagic.htm), Detect Metal and Minerals(from "Races of Faerûn"), Detect Weaponry(from "CityScape"), Detect Evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm)/Chaos (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectChaos.htm)/Law (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectLaw.htm)/Good (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectGood.htm), Detect Poison (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectPoison.htm), Detect Fire(from "Frostburn") and Detect Snares and Pits (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectSnaresAndPits.htm)*.

If you count Livestock as treasure: Detect Animals or Plants (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectAnimalsOrPlants.htm)** and Detect Aberration***(from "Lords of Madness").

Probably only useable in a campaign set on the high seas most of the time: Detect Ship(From "Stormwrack", Obviously).


* The material that makes the traps can be salvaged and their may be treasure from people who died to the trap nearby.
** Some plants also produce useful things or are valuable.
*** Some abberations would actually count as livestock.

[Coidzor]

You know there is a spell called Gold Finder (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20030825a).

Also of use in finding/Identifying treasure are: Detect Magic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectMagic.htm), Detect Metal and Minerals(from "Races of Faerûn"), Detect Weaponry(from "CityScape"), Detect Evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm)/Chaos (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectChaos.htm)/Law (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectLaw.htm)/Good (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectGood.htm), Detect Poison (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectPoison.htm), Detect Fire(from "Frostburn") and Detect Snares and Pits (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectSnaresAndPits.htm)*.

If you count Livestock as treasure: Detect Animals or Plants (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectAnimalsOrPlants.htm)** and Detect Aberration***(from "Lords of Madness").

Probably only useable in a campaign set on the high seas most of the time: Detect Ship(From "Stormwrack", Obviously).


* The material that makes the traps can be salvaged and their may be treasure from people who died to the trap nearby.
** Some plants also produce useful things or are valuable.
*** Some abberations would actually count as livestock.

I'm intrigued. What aberrations would make good livestock? The most tameable ones I can think of are Rust Monsters.

[Pex]

It seems there was a misunderstanding. It seems clear to me that he was saying the DM rules the game, so if he insists something is evil, then it's evil.

What the DM says, goes. If he says enough stupid stuff, the players go too.

[Graypairofsocks]

I'm intrigued. What aberrations would make good livestock? The most tameable ones I can think of are Rust Monsters.

Note sure about Good(in quality of livestock, and alignment), but there are various(some are possibly tenuous).


There are the Illithidae (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/lom_gallery/88145.jpg), although they are smarter than most other animals, and they may be hard to domesticate.
The Corrupted Creature template(from BoVD), and its nephew template Corrupted by the Abyss(from "Expedition to the Demonweb Pits") can be applied to animals, note that while it doesn't increase their int score, it does make them CE.
The Spellwarped template(from MMIII) makes creatures into abberations, it does however give a +4 bonus to int and make them usually evil.
The Rust Monster, which you already mentioned.
The Folugub (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/folugub.htm)(basically a rust monster, but with crystals) could probably be tamed like a rust monster.


There are probably more which I forgot or didn't know about.

[FidgetySquirrel]

Good GMs do not abuse the paladin. The paladin abuses themselves enough by playing a paladin.I haven't even posted in this thread and you're already calling me a masochist?

On-topic: The question of looting a corpse is a bit of a morally grey issue, I suppose. Still, as has already been mentioned, if the pally doesn't fall for killing Bob the... Expert, why would the pally fall for taking his 1d6x1000 cp afterwards?

The important thing is, a DM can make whatever crazy ruling. That can't be stopped. Players will just start to leave when the rulings get too crazy, assuming the DM doesn't stop. Such is the natural order of things.

[Averis Vol]

It might not be a good thing to take stuff from the dead. You are a cleric and the paladin is a paladin, both of you are high ranking officials in the church of your choice. So what you do is give the dead their deserved rights, take their stuff, and when you aren't in life threatening danger, go to a chapel of your god and pray to him for forgiveness. For the most part, your god doesn't care that you took a sword off of some orc who tried to bury it in your gut. He probably would just give you a "Not cool bro," if you took it off an honorable adversary before going back to doing what he was doing BECAUSE HE/SHE'S A FREAKING GOD/GODDESS AND DONT GIVE A DAMN.

Seriously, gods have bigger fish to fry.