Is dragging your loot around a bad idea?

[magicalmagicman]

For low-str characters (like 6str) carry weight is a huge, huge problem. Just carrying your camping supplies will take up the full 20lbs. But then it hit me, what if you drag all your non-combat gear? That way you can bring along a lot more stuff and ditch it all in a fight so it doesn't encumber you.

Climbing isn't an issue either since you can just make a few round trips with your maximum load, unless of course its a long distance climbing.

[Pyrite]

If your dragging it in a big sack, you'll risk some piece of underbrush or a loose dagger catching it and splitting it open, so it would be better to use a sled or small cart.

There's nothing in the raw for it, but as a DM I would rule that it is much easier to spot you if you are dragging a load behind you, both because of your larger profile and the noise you're generating.

Finally, someone could attack you, prompting you to drop your load, and then grab it and run away.

So overall while it's a thing you can do, it's probably not wise for a long-term solution. A pack animal, or a mount with saddlebags, would be a much better solution

[Kurald Galain]

At low levels, you could either bring a pack mule along, or convince the party barbarian to carry your gear for you. At moderate levels, bags of holding are cheap.

Plus, you don't need to bring that much. I find that even low-strength characters can still carry a mess kit, waterskin, bedroll, and a couple days of rations. Let somebody else bring a tent and 100' of rope.

[magicalmagicman]

Ok thanks! Wagon/cart or a packmule it is! Bag of holding solves all my problems but I don't have access to it until higher levels due to gp issues.

[Necroticplague]

Ok thanks! Wagon/cart or a packmule it is! Bag of holding solves all my problems but I don't have access to it until higher levels due to gp issues.

Depending on your alignment, Enveloping Pits are bigger and cheaper (50x10 foot cylinder).

[Broken Crown]

Is this a solo adventure? Otherwise, what's wrong with letting a stronger ally carry your non-combat-related gear?

[Honest Tiefling]

Is this a solo adventure? Otherwise, what's wrong with letting a stronger ally carry your non-combat-related gear?

...What sort of groups have you played in? Because you run a good risk that everyone, including the Lawful Good paladin, will just help themselves to your loot.

[GilesTheCleric]

...What sort of groups have you played in? Because you run a good risk that everyone, including the Lawful Good paladin, will just help themselves to your loot.

If you're having trouble with things like this in a group, it may be handy to make a party contract before the game begins. In it, everyone agrees to basic things like how to divvy up loot, whether there's a "party fund", what to do when a character/player misses an adventure, how to deal with character death, that sort of thing. You could easily include agreements on distributing loot and wealth/buying power (ie giving all the gold to the party face who can haggle for better deals). I find that even in groups with less mature players, having such an agreement helps to stave off problems, particularly if the least mature players have a hand in drafting it.

[Honest Tiefling]

If you're having trouble with things like this in a group, it may be handy to make a party contract before the game begins. In it, everyone agrees to basic things like how to divvy up loot, whether there's a "party fund", what to do when a character/player misses an adventure, how to deal with character death, that sort of thing. You could easily include agreements on distributing loot and wealth/buying power (ie giving all the gold to the party face who can haggle for better deals). I find that even in groups with less mature players, having such an agreement helps to stave off problems, particularly if the least mature players have a hand in drafting it.

...What sort of groups that you have played in? Admittedly, lawful types tend to be few and far between. The ones that are lawful are a bit...Redfellian, shall we say.

On a more serious note, I was in a group where everyone drafted a will (I don't think the DM liked us assuming we'd die...), and it sort of worked, but a lot of groups would just exploit this. If you don't have my problems, then yes, a stronger ally is a good idea, but invest in Sense Motive first.

[Broken Crown]

...What sort of groups have you played in? Because you run a good risk that everyone, including the Lawful Good paladin, will just help themselves to your loot.

I can honestly say that this has never been a problem. The people I play with are more interested in working together to accomplish their mutual goals than endangering their characters by stealing from each other. That's kind of the point of an adventuring party: to be more, rather than less, effective as a group.

So, what kind of groups have I played in? Non-dysfunctional ones.

Besides, the same problem exists if you use a pack mule instead. What's to stop your fellow party members from running off with your mule the moment your back is turned?

[Strigon]

So, what kind of groups have I played in? Non-dysfunctional ones.


I'm with you.
What kind of groups do you play in, Tiefling? Because they sound very.. how shall I put this?

"It's what my character would do; don't blame me!"

[rrwoods]

o_O

The notion that your default assumption should be that your party can't be trusted with your stuff is 100% foreign to me. I mean, I can imagine campaigns where that would be the case, but I've never been in one. I've always had the biggest guy hold the extraneous stuff and the most social guy hold the cash, and then we all, y'know, trusted each other.

[Chronos]

Yeah, I've seen characters who won't trust anyone with a few specific items, but they've always been either equipment that needs to be carried on one's person anyway (like your weapons, for instance), or so small that they make no practical difference to encumbrance (a letter from a lost love, or the like). But not being able to trust your party members with your cooking pots or grappling hook? What kind of sense does that make?

My low-level characters usually do have a pack mule for all of the mundane gear I like to carry. And yes, there is the risk that the mule will get spooked off, or stolen, or whatever. But the stuff I carry on the mule is mostly very cheap (by adventurer standards, at least), so it's no big loss if it happens.

[Segev]

I generally find that a single cross-class rank of Handle Animal and, for Small characters, Ride is rarely remiss: have a pack mule (and, again, for Small characters, a riding dog), and your mobility dramatically increases. A floating disk can do a lot, too, though at level 1 its duration - even at 2 hours - is not spectacular. The pack mule is usually going to be better. (The disk has other utility uses besides carrying things, though, which should not be overlooked!)

[Malroth]

...What sort of groups that you have played in? Admittedly, lawful types tend to be few and far between. The ones that are lawful are a bit...Redfellian, shall we say.


I'm Pretty certain that the Blue Headed Overlord of whom you speak would be quite happy to carry your gear in an honest manner except the fact that he almost certianly is playing a 4 str small or tiny sized character himself.

[Telonius]

Stealing from your own party is Stupid Evil.

Getting your own party to offer to carry all your stuff on their own, just to keep on your good side? Smart Evil.

[Elkad]

I've used a backpack with quick-release buckles. Drop it as a free/swift/move action (depending on your DM) at the beginning of combat.

A big sack over your shoulder Santa-style works too I guess.

[ekarney]

I'm with you.
What kind of groups do you play in, Tiefling? Because they sound very.. how shall I put this?

"It's what my character would do; don't blame me!"

I have evil players who are better behaved than the majority of those characters I've seen.
Gotta wonder how the inn has so many "badly lit tables in the shadowy corner of the room"

If I ever become a publican you can bet my establishment will be very well lit. In a circle-based structure. Damn Tieflings.

I'll quit with the Tiefling hate though.

Personally, and I encourage my players to do this, is so start investing in some sort of safehouse, or base as soon as possible. Where they stash as much as possible and hire some guards to protect it. Until it usually goess something similar to this:

Me: How the hell is your 6 Str Kobold carrying that?
A: Oh, B's carrying everything I don't have equipped.
B: Yeah, I'm cool with it.

And that tends to be the end of it.

[Coidzor]

...What sort of groups have you played in? Because you run a good risk that everyone, including the Lawful Good paladin, will just help themselves to your loot.

The kind where that sort of player is shown the door.

Or defenestrated.

[Myou]

...What sort of groups have you played in? Because you run a good risk that everyone, including the Lawful Good paladin, will just help themselves to your loot.

No good aligned character steals from allies for personal gain. Period. If you're robbing the party you're commiting a serious evil act, and as a character are neutral at the very best.
If a lawful good paladin did that in any game I was running then he would fall so hard that the rest of the session would be a lovingly detailed description of the eternal agony the gods then chose to inflict upon him as they tear his very soul apart in punishment for his betrayal of everything for which he stands. Or something like that. :smalltongue:

[sovin_ndore]

No good aligned character steals from allies for personal gain. Period. If you're robbing the party you're commiting a serious evil act, and as a character are neutral at the very best.
If a lawful good paladin did that in any game I was running then he would fall so hard that the rest of the session would be a lovingly detailed description of the eternal agony the gods then chose to inflict upon him as they tear his very soul apart in punishment for his betrayal of everything for which he stands. Or something like that. :smalltongue:
I think most realworld morality systems would consider the par-for-course murder hobo-ing of sentient creatures a more serious offense than petty theft. In that sense, it is quite arguable how 'serious' an evil act that is, if it even need be evil at all. D&D is populated with multiple classes labeled "thief" and many more archetypes that might as well require a thieves guild membership. Heck, Haley from OOTS is not an 'evil' character despite her sticky fingered predilections.

[Psyren]

...What sort of groups have you played in? Because you run a good risk that everyone, including the Lawful Good paladin, will just help themselves to your loot.

What the what? What the hell kind of paladins - and party members in general - are you playing with that they can't carry your gear for you?

[Myou]

I think most realworld morality systems would consider the par-for-course murder hobo-ing of sentient creatures a more serious offense than petty theft. In that sense, it is quite arguable how 'serious' an evil act that is, if it even need be evil at all. D&D is populated with multiple classes labeled "thief" and many more archetypes that might as well require a thieves guild membership. Heck, Haley from OOTS is not an 'evil' character despite her sticky fingered predilections.

1. A decent campaign has no 'murder hobo-ing'.
2. Theft from allies for personal gain =/= petty theft.
3. Thieves don't steal from people they entrust with their lives and live to talk about it.
4. Haley doesn't steal from the party, and hasn't since the comic got serious.

[sovin_ndore]

1. A decent campaign has no 'murder hobo-ing'.I think that is rationalizing. You can say that an adventurer has noble intentions, but going into a villainized locale and killing the guards/inhabitants is still murder. Even generic goblinoids (http://www.goblinscomic.org/) have families and goals. Looting corpses is essentially desecration. Waging war against even a notably 'evil' race like Drow does not mean that they all deserved that. D&D is rife with racism, marginalization, steriotyping, ... and takes these to the logical conclusion, resolving many of these conflicts with fights to the death. And any way you cut it, Adventurers make their living off a habit of killing things and taking their stuff; not profession checks.

2. Theft from allies for personal gain =/= petty theft.Petty theft and grand theft are only differentiated by the value of the items stolen, so I would expect this to actually depend only on the level of the campaign and the portion of their wealth which is willfully and librally redistributed.

3. Thieves don't steal from people they entrust with their lives and live to talk about it.A good thief does not get caught.

4. Haley doesn't steal from the party, and hasn't since the comic got serious.I did not claim that she did, just establishing her as an example of how integral the 'thief' archetype is to high fantasy gaming.

Now, I would still not suggest stealing from your party unless an agreement has been made OOG. That is generally poor form, but I have played with groups that 'excluded' the thief from loot draw and the thief 'redistributed' his rightful portion of the loot from the party at their liesure. I have also had items not make it into the loot pool when the rogue solos a trapped room or the like. These are not things which bother me over-much.

[Myou]

I think that is rationalizing. You can say that an adventurer has noble intentions, but going into a villainized locale and killing the guards/inhabitants is still murder. Even generic goblinoids (http://www.goblinscomic.org/) have families and goals. Looting corpses is essentially desecration. Waging war against even a notably 'evil' race like Drow does not mean that they all deserved that. D&D is rife with racism, marginalization, steriotyping, ... and takes these to the logical conclusion, resolving many of these conflicts with fights to the death. And any way you cut it, Adventurers make their living off a habit of killing things and taking their stuff; not profession checks.
Petty theft and grand theft are only differentiated by the value of the items stolen, so I would expect this to actually depend only on the level of the campaign and the portion of their wealth which is willfully and librally redistributed.
A good thief does not get caught.
I did not claim that she did, just establishing her as an example of how integral the 'thief' archetype is to high fantasy gaming.

Now, I would still not suggest stealing from your party unless an agreement has been made OOG. That is generally poor form, but I have played with groups that 'excluded' the thief from loot draw and the thief 'redistributed' his rightful portion of the loot from the party at their liesure. I have also had items not make it into the loot pool when the rogue solos a trapped room or the like. These are not things which bother me over-much.

1. Maybe that's how you run your games, it's not how I run mine.
2. Missing the point.
3. Missing the point even more.
4. You used her as a counter argument, but she is not one.

[Psyren]

Petty theft and grand theft are only differentiated by the value of the items stolen, so I would expect this to actually depend only on the level of the campaign and the portion of their wealth which is willfully and librally redistributed.

You are using the legal definition of "petty theft" - but I believe he is using the literal definition of "petty," i.e "trivial and capable of being overlooked." But stealing from your comrades-in-arms probably shouldn't be, because if you can't trust them with your character's gear, it raises the question of whether you can trust them with your character's life.

In addition, even by the legal definition, adventurer gear quickly outstrips the monetary budget of all but the wealthiest NPCs, so it wouldn't qualify as that either past the earliest levels. Even a +1 sword costs more than a commoner is likely to see in a lifetime of labor.

[Honest Tiefling]

Because people keep asking, yes, I was in that sort of group. The kind with people making aberration following PCs with a abberration animal companion and calling foul if anyone thought this might be a bad idea to let them into the party. Or the one incident where someone made a character who was a servant of a well known evil organization and thought that other people would totally respect the laws (which...Probably didn't actually exist to protect the character, mind you) and let them into the party despite being the servant of evil wizards. Or the time I was sick and people made my character work with demons and mass murderers 'to not split the party' despite hating both and not being of evil alignment.

So I guess my first piece of advice, don't play with people like that.

My second is to STILL invest in Sense Motive, because even sensible parties will have some people with sticky fingers. Also, if you need to leave your wealth with an NPC (some settings do have banking!) or to invest it into less liquid assets, you'll be ahead of the game. I would say that investing in a heavily armored wagon you can stick smaller party members into might be a wise investment. And a hilarious one!

[Segev]

Generally speaking, if you're going to play a character who has "harmless" party-troubling tendencies, such as "petty theft" of fellow PCs' trinkets, you should talk to the other players OOC about it, and about how the party dynamic will handle this. You should also restrict yourself to things that don't matter in the immediate or long term, and be willing to take your lumps for getting caught.

This can work, but it takes cooperation from all involved, and a willingness on your part to lose, because you cannot be "beating" the party when you're the instigator of party-unfriendly behaviors. There's a reason such characters are also often the party butt-monkey.

And you should only do it if everybody is 100% okay with it and with playing to make it fun for all involved.

[sovin_ndore]

You are using the legal definition of "petty theft" - but I believe he is using the literal definition of "petty," i.e "trivial and capable of being overlooked." I was indeed and had also mentioned grand theft in my first statement for context.


1. Maybe that's how you run your games, it's not how I run mine. Since the primary contention on this is that you feel that 'murder-hobo' is an inappropriate term, what do you do different in your games to prevent PCs from regularly committing murder of sentient creatures and profiting off it?

[Segev]

Since the primary contention on this is that you feel that 'murder-hobo' is an inappropriate term, what do you do different in your games to prevent PCs from regularly committing murder of sentient creatures and profiting off it?

Typically by having them play heroic types who don't commit murder.

Killing sentient creatures and profiting from it isn't murder if the sentient creatures were out to kill you or otherwise commit atrocities. In the parlance of the New West in Rifts: they Need Killin'.

The "murder-hobo" archetype arises from the dungeon crawl wherein monsters are haphazardly arranged within a dungeon and exist only to be opposition to the party, whether the monsters are intelligent or not. This does not mean that the typical game where the PCs fight intelligent enemies is rife with PC-committed murder.

[sovin_ndore]

Typically by having them play heroic types who don't commit murder.

Killing sentient creatures and profiting from it isn't murder if the sentient creatures were out to kill you or otherwise commit atrocities. In the parlance of the New West in Rifts: they Need Killin'.

The "murder-hobo" archetype arises from the dungeon crawl wherein monsters are haphazardly arranged within a dungeon and exist only to be opposition to the party, whether the monsters are intelligent or not. This does not mean that the typical game where the PCs fight intelligent enemies is rife with PC-committed murder.
Okay, it sounds like we play similar games then. I just generally feel that murder is murder, even if the creatures commit atrocities or really need killin'. Psychologically, killing should weigh heavily on a 'good' character and regular killing will degrade the line at which they draw what is wrong. This is something I like to play up in the games that I run.

What I often find when I am not at the helm, though, is that even some of the most devout Paladin types will easily contemplate genocide in their zealous justification (genocide of sentient undead, for instance).

Comparing this (admittedly extreme case) to theft or trust issues, I feel like the hierarchy of sins should definitely not make a huge psychological issue of taking things that are not yours. Thieves happen. They are iconic.

Now game balance dictates some out of game agreement regarding loot distro in the same way as favortism with xp rewards is generally not going to sit well. So long as the players trust one another, though, I have no issues with their characters playing at thieves.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I was indeed and had also mentioned grand theft in my first statement for context.

Since the primary contention on this is that you feel that 'murder-hobo' is an inappropriate term, what do you do different in your games to prevent PCs from regularly committing murder of sentient creatures and profiting off it?

I think the problem is that your conflating the ideas of "murder" and "homicide." Just because you kill someone doesn't mean you've murdered them.

For example; if the enemies are military personnel and your party serves the opposing nation those are combat kills. This is the type of killing most heroic adventurers are doing and the loot is just spoils of war. You don't have to be affiliated with any actual militia or army for this to be the case in a pseudo medieval setting like a typical D&D game. You just need a valid justification such as "they serve lord burnington, razer of villiages" or "they're raiders that have been plaguing the region for months" and so on.

Murder, on the other hand, is devoid of any noble intent or solid justification. It's killing solely for personal gains or perverse pleasure.

Seriously, most modern nations draw a distinction between murder, man-slaughter, and a couple other killings dependent on circumstance. To lump all killing under the umbrella of murder is naive at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

[sovin_ndore]

For example; if the enemies are military personnel and your party serves the opposing nation those are combat kills. This is the type of killing most heroic adventurers are doing and the loot is just spoils of war. You don't have to be affiliated with any actual militia or army for this to be the case in a pseudo medieval setting like a typical D&D game. You just need a valid justification such as "they serve lord burnington, razer of villiages" or "they're raiders that have been plaguing the region for months" and so on.
I agree with the general sentiment. In counterpoint, I would point out the archetype for a military character usually also includes a weight of (possibly irrational) responsibility. Military snipers can tell you exactly how many people they have killed. They may even see their faces when they try to sleep at night. My point is that participating in killing, even for the right reasons, has psychological reprocussions. PTSD is real.


Murder, on the other hand, is devoid of any noble intent or solid justification. It's killing solely for personal gains or perverse pleasure.
Many serial killers believe they have noble intent and solid justification, as warped as that justification may be. It is that relatability that makes films like 'Silence of the Lambs' so resonant.


Seriously, most modern nations draw a distinction between murder, man-slaughter, and a couple other killings dependent on circumstance. To lump all killing under the umbrella of murder is naive at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.
Perhaps 'murder' was a poor word choice in some respects. In this case I was not selecting the term to characterize a legal classification, but to outline the severity and psychological weight of a life committed to killing. Even manslaughter or accidental killing can easily require counciling, and that is nothing compared to the life an adventurer lives.

That all aside, though, whatever you classify this killing as. If it is war crimes or manslaughter; the first law in most societies is that killing is wrong. Theft is not on scale with loss of life.

I still don't think that theft is inherantly evil, even from one's allies. And even if you end up classifying it as such, it is a paltry sin beside the 'killing lifestyle' that adventurers lead. I still think good characters can steal. Theft could be reasoned within nearly any aspect of the alignment spectrum. I also believe that stealing without rationalle is <insert alignment> Stupid.

[Kelb_Panthera]

By the rules of the game neither killing nor stealing is inherently evil and while some people do find that killing imposes a great psychological burden on them, others are completely, or nearly completely, unaffected. Adequate justification goes a long way toward the latter.

As for psychopaths; unlike reality, D&D has an objective alignment system. While morality and alignment aren't quite the same thing, the latter does tend to inform the former and vice-versa in a very broad sense. The justifications their psychosis feeds them may alleviate any sense of guilt but the cosmic force that is evil will still mark them as its own.