Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rico_Huerta 10-10-07, 11:40 AM	I am playing a LN Cleric(no god yet, looking at Hextor) and we recently met and killed an Aboleth. Before this the group arbitrarily decided without my opinion that ALL gold will be put into a group fund to be used when someone wanted something. After killing the aboleth, I found myself in possession of a lot of treasure, including 5000 GP, and I was seperated from the group by a small lake. Would it be wrong for me as a LN character to want to take my share of the gold? There are 5 characters, so my share would be 1000GP. I thought about keeping all of it, but the Paladin is with me. Would keeping my share of the booty be LN, or could the DM justify a shift in alignment?
JasonOrlandoHawk 10-10-07, 11:48 AM	My advice... solve this problem out of game, not in game.
trapspringer 10-10-07, 11:52 AM	L.N. could be a lot of things, but honestly this doesn't sound like one of them. Why didn't you just take your share earlier when the party was with you? Why do you need so badly to take your share now? Did you agree to the arrangement? Have you had the opportunity to discuss with the group that you're not OK with it? A LN character would wait until he could tell the party what he was doing. Taking all the gold with be chaotic, and I'd probably shift your alignment on the spot. theft = chaotic, and theft against someone whose so close to your character demonstrates such a total disregard for what is "right..." The fact that you thought about keeping all of it, but the Paladin is with me. suggest you should consider if you're really lawful neutral at all.
Dog_O_War 10-10-07, 01:03 PM	Since you never agreed to any contract what-so-ever, you are free to keep all of the money, or do with it as you see fit (a cleric of hextor would probably go the route of greed). Greed does not equal chaos. Unless your character signed something, or verbally agreed, then you have no obligation to do anything. This is the law part of LAWful. negotiating with your party as to what you will take in treasure after this is highly suggested though (consistently greedy players often end up without friends). To share the treasure would be a good act, as you were not bound to their agreement. Keeping it would be the smart thing to do, as it wises up the rest of the party (something they clearly weren't in the first place). Do not worry about the paladin; being greedy is not being evil. Attacking someone for non-evil tendancies is an evil act. So is robbery (for anything other than survival). A character with an honest streak (as lawful people often have) would inform the party as to what the situation is. The more you abuse the law though, the more you slip into the grasp of evil; this is something for you to consider for RP perposes.
Hsien 10-10-07, 01:18 PM	There are some details, when did the party decide this? If you were there did you object etc...that I'm unclear on. Clearly though the funds all go together...go ahead and take your 1000 gp now because you need it...for something...eventually anyway. And there is no hindrance for you not to go ahead and take it. It's actually probably them trying to think of a way to limit funds lost to paladin tithing gold away ( maybe ) Best idea would be to follow the party quantity +1 rule. ( 6 splits in your case ) Everyone gets an equal share, but an extra equal share is set aside for group funds and needs, loans to purchase magic items, outside healing/raising etc..
Habronicus 10-10-07, 02:24 PM	A Lawful character - regardless of motivation (good/evil) - is expected to be bound by his word. So, under "normal" circunstances, you should divide the gold. However, this part right here makes the whole thing muddy: the group arbitrarily decided without my opinion that ALL gold will be put into a group fund to be used when someone wanted something. You may have not shared your opinion when the decision was made, but did you accepted the decision at any point? If yes, then you can stick to your word or risk a shift to TN (assuming you did other similar actions - this alone shouldn't do it). If you never even mentioned your position on the matter, then you're pretty much free to keep it. If they complaint, you can say just that "I never told you I accepted that arrangement". However, the act is on the selfish side and may push into the "Evil" side of the alignment table. Again, this alone wouldn't do it, but other similar actions you had in the past will gain a boost from this. That's how I see it... more information would be useful, but I guess you can pretty much guess the answer from that.
Rico_Huerta 10-10-07, 02:27 PM	Ok, I see some calrification issues, so I'll try to explain a little more. The party is basically a merc group, hired to clear lands of monsters. At the time, we discussed, and the majority voted to put ALL gold in a pot( not literally) and take as needed. I oonly thought a little should go in(party +1 idea). The DM and his friend(a lot of DM favoritism towards him) said that this would be the best idea, so I was stuck. No contract was agreed upon, and in fact I disagreed, but it was disregarded. Now, on another note, would it be logical to need money to tithe to a church that I want to convert to? And would it also be in my rights to take money to purchase a weapon?
trapspringer 10-10-07, 02:29 PM	Stealing that which was stolen is still stealing. The party took his loot and designated it as party loot. He now should talk to them to reclaim it (and if they refuse, then he should "liberate" it, which is totally different from stealing).
BlackRequiem 10-10-07, 02:39 PM	How does one meager action result in a drastic alignment shift? LN means you gravitate more towards lawful behaviour, but are not bound by it with the smallest infraction in conduct resulting in expulsion. Seriously use some freaking common sense.
Habronicus 10-10-07, 02:40 PM	At the time, we discussed, and the majority voted to put ALL gold in a pot( not literally) and take as needed. <SNIP> No contract was agreed upon, and in fact I disagreed, but it was disregarded. If it was voted, and you were present, then you know the rules, and should abide by them. A Lawful character may not agree with the rules, but he will respect them. That, however, is the expected behavior... you can do differently but, yes, that would start counting towards an alignment shift, IMO. Now, on another note, would it be logical to need money to tithe to a church that I want to convert to? If the church demands it, yes. And would it also be in my rights to take money to purchase a weapon? From the share that rightfully belongs to you, you should be able to buy whatever you wish.
Behind_Blue_Eyes 10-10-07, 02:47 PM	the group arbitrarily decided without my opinion that ALL gold will be put into a group fund to be used when someone wanted something You are someone therefore by this agreement you can spend the money when you want something. I'm fairly sure thats not what the other people thought the agreement means but that is what you have all agreed to. Of course that depends if you have posted the proper wording of the agreement. Edit ~ just saw the clarification post. Needed is not a good word to have in an agreement because it's very hard to prove needed Vs wanted. I definitely wouldn't describe money to give away as needed though.
IRememberCecil 10-10-07, 03:54 PM	If it was voted, and you were present, then you know the rules, and should abide by them. A Lawful character may not agree with the rules, but he will respect them. Nah. Lawful characters respect rules that they feel are deserving of respect. This clearly was not cleared by him, therefore he can keep the money.
Sunic_Flames 10-10-07, 04:14 PM	Nah. Lawful characters respect rules that they feel are deserving of respect. This clearly was not cleared by him, therefore he can keep the money. Indeed. Lawful =/= always does what he's told. For that matter, Lawful =/= Orderly, but that's another story.
trapspringer 10-10-07, 04:19 PM	How does one meager action result in a drastic alignment shift? LN means you gravitate more towards lawful behaviour, but are not bound by it with the smallest infraction in conduct resulting in expulsion. Seriously use some freaking common sense. You should calm down. I guarantee you that the other posters here are using "some freaking common sense," you're just having trouble understanding why they think the way they do.
Cifer 10-10-07, 04:26 PM	Nah. Lawful characters respect rules that they feel are deserving of respect. This clearly was not cleared by him, therefore he can keep the money. And what would chaotic characters do? Are they required to break rules even if they find them acceptable? IMO, lawfulness is the idea that you try to abide by all rules of a certain system despite some of them bothering you - or you reject that system outright. If you disagree with a rule, you openly try to change it by the ways the system provides. @OP Try renegotiating the rule or ask if you can have access to the funds for your needs.
IRememberCecil 10-10-07, 05:09 PM	And what would chaotic characters do? Are they required to break rules even if they find them acceptable? Chaotic characters do whatever the **** they want. Lawful characters don't have to respect any authority that they don't consider legitimate. IMO, lawfulness is the idea that you try to abide by all rules of a certain system despite some of them bothering you - or you reject that system outright. If you disagree with a rule, you openly try to change it by the ways the system provides. Therefore a Paladin becomes Chaotic Good when he enters a Lawful Evil city or the Nine Hells?
meabolex 10-10-07, 05:16 PM	My advice... solve this problem out of game, not in game. This is the correct answer. You need to coordinate with the group outside of the game about how to distribute wealth. You're not making a character decision - you're making a decision about how you (as the player) are going to get along with the other players. If you're going to be a disruptive presence in the game -- stealing from other players, etc. -- you're in for an up-hill battle. The best route is to work with your fellow players, regardless of alignment. Edit: After reading the follow-up post, the majority of the group did what they wanted to do. You have two choices: do it their way or don't play. Being a disruptive player won't make the game better for anyone, so it's better to play it their way or don't play.
Habronicus 10-10-07, 05:39 PM	Nah. Lawful characters respect rules that they feel are deserving of respect. This clearly was not cleared by him, therefore he can keep the money. Indeed. Lawful =/= always does what he's told. For that matter, Lawful =/= Orderly, but that's another story. Abnormal interpretation of what the PHB states (page 104). Bolded sentence would be a Chaotic character's behavior, not Lawful. Chaotics are the ones who question the value of the rules, and deem them worthy or not of respect. Lawful characters accept the rules and follow them as long as they're imposed by a superior - this is especially true for a LN character. LG or LE have a moral compass that may force them to find a way to replace the rules that challenge that moral, but never by promoting anarchy, and never for personal motives.
The_Shaman 10-10-07, 06:03 PM	It's not abnormal. A lawful character respects legitimate authority, but the way the decision was taken does not make it legitimate. Unless the cleric has reason to defer to any of those who made that decision (the money fund), s/he is not bound by it. Being lawful does not mean accepting any rule anywhere. "A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her." Acknowledging the importance of law and order does not mean deferring to any decision two or more people somewhere have taken: otherwise, "rules" everywhere would conflict and there would be complete chaos. Rather, it means observing some transcedental principles: you should defer to your superiors, you should act honorably (depending on the code of honor), etc. Laws, traditions and personal codes: these are important, not what 2-3 of your buddies have decided (in fact, going the other way would probably be chaotic). OTOH, simply taking away all the money would probably be theft. Now, this is a one-sided account, but here is how the cleric can justify it: by making an arbitrary decision without consulting him/her, the rest of the party has infringed on the normal proceedings within adventuring parties and has brought chaos. Therefore, their decision is not binding. The only question is, why hasn't the cleric protested before? If I were playing that character, I'd inform the paladin (just how is a paladin traveling with a cleric of hextor anyway) that I intend to keep 1000 and if s/he has a problem with that, we'll discuss it when everyone is around.
Cifer 10-10-07, 06:29 PM	Therefore a Paladin becomes Chaotic Good when he enters a Lawful Evil city or the Nine Hells? Please do read my post when you respond to it. IMO, lawfulness is the idea that you try to abide by all rules of a certain system despite some of them bothering you - or you reject that system outright. If you disagree with a rule, you openly try to change it by the ways the system provides. Two ways for the paladin to stay LG without problems. In the case of the Nine Hells (or a likely tainted locale), he'll probably choose the first one and only move in when on a crusade or other mission to bring down the system, while in the second one (assuming only a mild evil), he should probably try convincing people that what they are doing is not the best way to act. You know, redeem them. However, I get the horrible feeling that this may devolve into a paladin thread... Chaotic characters do whatever the **** they want. Lawful characters don't have to respect any authority that they don't consider legitimate. Shouldn't the two be somewhat mutually exclusive? At the moment, they sound rather similar. Wouldn't a chaotic character obey an authority he considers legitimate, whatever that would entail according to his standards? LG or LE have a moral compass that may force them to find a way to replace the rules that challenge that moral, but never by promoting anarchy, and never for personal motives. LG? Certainly. LE? Certainly not - selfishness is the most basic pillar of most evil characters. @The Shaman The way it was depicted it sounded more like a majority decision. A lawful person would IMO reason "I either continue to adventure with this group and respect their rules (which doesn't mean I won't try to change them) or I get out." Depending on how the character views deceitfulness, leaving may be done openly or in secret (e.g. by selling them out to some rivals, though I would most certainly not reccommend this for PCs). (just how is a paladin traveling with a cleric of hextor anyway) You know, that's an interesting question. As long as the paladin doesn't directly serve Heironeous and the cleric himself is LN, I could see some common ground in the fact that both are of the opinion that order and reliability are to be valued higher than chaos. They probably disagree on how an ideal civilization might look like, but they both know it would be better than barbarism. Hey, that's actually a fun concept I'd love to play one day in the right campaign...
Habronicus 10-10-07, 07:09 PM	LG? Certainly. LE? Certainly not - selfishness is the most basic pillar of most evil characters. Yes, but you can be selfish without braking the system. An example that comes to mind, when I think LE, is the reliable general who's the right-hand man of the tyrant king. He's evil, selfish, usually has a personal agenda, but he'll follow the rules and will "capture him alive" if those are his orders. However, only if the king starts to act in a way that challenges his moral inclination would he consider braking that loyalty. Even then, he'd probably try to talk with his king before taking drastic measures. I believe "selfishness" is a term that can be applied equally to "Evil" and "Chaos", only they are different kinds of selfishness.
Voran 10-10-07, 07:24 PM	I'm not good at linking sites, but I'd direct some attention to Order of the Stick, most recent strips. Think the one within the past day or so, with Roy talking with a Deva about his alignment. Think it covered his "Lawful" and "Good" pretty well. Which may have bearing on "Lawful" in this context. Or not. I thought it was a good strip in any case :P
IRememberCecil 10-10-07, 09:29 PM	Please do read my post when you respond to it. Misread. Sorry. Two ways for the paladin to stay LG without problems. In the case of the Nine Hells (or a likely tainted locale), he'll probably choose the first one and only move in when on a crusade or other mission to bring down the system, while in the second one (assuming only a mild evil), he should probably try convincing people that what they are doing is not the best way to act. You know, redeem them. However, I get the horrible feeling that this may devolve into a paladin thread... Here I agree. Shouldn't the two be somewhat mutually exclusive? At the moment, they sound rather similar. Wouldn't a chaotic character obey an authority he considers legitimate, whatever that would entail according to his standards? A Chaotic character would do anything he wanted. If he were to obey an authority figure, it would be a purely coincidental event or he may have been forced. Abnormal interpretation of what the PHB states (page 104). Bolded sentence would be a Chaotic character's behavior, not Lawful. Chaotics are the ones who question the value of the rules, and deem them worthy or not of respect. Lawful characters accept the rules and follow them as long as they're imposed by a superior - this is especially true for a LN character. You do realize that you basically just called all Lawful people robots, right? Anyways, it says they respect authority. What do they consider to be authority? Every single person that comes along and issues a command? No. Nobody is dumb enough to follow authority that they don't consider legitimate, except if that authority is a threat, in which case they have no choice. LG or LE have a moral compass that may force them to find a way to replace the rules that challenge that moral, but never by promoting anarchy, and never for personal motives. Why not for personal reasons?
Habronicus 10-10-07, 11:14 PM	You do realize that you basically just called all Lawful people robots, right? No, I don't think so. Although, Lawful people IRL can sometimes be considered "stiff" or "robots" by Chaotics who can't see life with the same perspective. Anyways, it says they respect authority. What do they consider to be authority? Every single person that comes along and issues a command? No. Nobody is dumb enough to follow authority that they don't consider legitimate, except if that authority is a threat, in which case they have no choice. Authority from anyone who HAS it, of course. It should be obvious that Lawful characters respect a hierarchical system, and authority comes from those in a position of power, and assuming you are associated with that source of power. Here's my quote on Lawful characters again: Lawful characters accept the rules and follow them as long as they're imposed by a superior - this is especially true for a LN character. Did you miss that? How you can interpret that into "Every single person that comes along and issues a command" is beyond me. If you're willing to die for king and country, it doesn't mean "each and every king or country on the planet", but the one you pledged to. It may not even be a person, but a concept. Example: Monks. They follow their school or monastery (maybe the code of a particular master, in which case it would be a person you hold as an authority). With a Cleric, it would be their religion, and higher members of that religion, and so on. I don't need to tell you this, though... I believe you know it all too well. So, no, they're not robots, they're exactly like real people who think like that. That there's a hierarchy and you are somewhere in it. It's definitely not as free-spirited as Chaotics - surprising as that may sound. I'm sure you know of real people who are like that, even if you don't like them and avoid having them in your social circle. Why not for personal reasons? Because the whole is more important than the self. A Paladin isn't LG because he has a personal craving for hunting evil. He's LG because he believes he's in the service of a greater good, and thus is willing to sacrifice his personal life in pursuit of that ideal. If he does happen to also have a personal craving for that... well, consider it a nice perk to have.
metalmayhem80110 10-10-07, 11:34 PM	Ok, first of all. Stealing doesn't ALWAYS have to be a chaotic act. A professional thief who steals things under contract, and always follows through on the contract, can be lawful. Second, you didn't agree to the contract. Just look at this from your character's eyes... Ok, you guys decided to do what with all of the loot? Ummm, this isn't being put up to a vote. We worked as a team to get here, and the loot should be split evenly. If you all want to take YOUR shares and put them together, that is fine with me. But as for my share, I have already taken it. I only took an even share, so feel free to do whatever you want to with the rest. That is being perfectly lawful, and it sounds like it is kind of what you what. Also, it isn't being evil :D
deathbane 10-11-07, 02:55 AM	If this was an OoC decision then you don't really have a choice as the CM could enforce it, but if it was an IC choice then it is up to you in the end. A LN character follow rules not because he thinks the rules are always right, but because he realizes(believes) that if people only follow the rules they want to follow the impact will be worse on a larger scale. The OP's character seems to be more of a TN, by only agreeing with the group when it suits him. Part of being with a group is going along with the rules even when you disagree.
wizarddog 10-11-07, 04:33 AM	You found the gold. The deal, which the GROUP agreed, was to put all money in fund. You voted against that idea but lost AND but went along with Agreement. You, according to oral agreement, don't even get a share. There is no division of gold until their is a need by a member. Even If you take 1000 and leave the rest you are obligated to hand over the 1000gp as the per the oral agreement. You can make an argument you need the gold but there is a forum to do that after the adventure. You are justified if you need the Gold right now (pay off someone, buy healing, new weapon, etc.) and spend it but understand you never were entitled to a share according to the agreement. You were entitled to the fund. Besides, the real question is, are you planning to carry 50lbs of gold with you till you find the rest of the party? ;)
Dei 10-11-07, 04:59 AM	I agree with Wizarddog, by remaining with the group after being outvoted you imply that you accept all terms and agreements applied to that group including those you disagree with. You may not like it but in character you would feel compelled to give up the gold into the party fund. You would also feel compelled to object and renegotiate but from the sound of things that's more of an out of game problem than an ingame one.
Cifer 10-11-07, 07:42 AM	A Chaotic character would do anything he wanted. If he were to obey an authority figure, it would be a purely coincidental event or he may have been forced. I think we're on the same side then. IMO, the difference between the two alignments is how they view allegiance to a group: A lawful one is either in (and obeys all the rules) or out (and doesn't feel really bound to any of them) while a chaotic one could tag along and say (well, think) "Well, I like you guys and will generally care for you, but that loot fund system is total crap so I'll take my share anyway."
Sunic_Flames 10-11-07, 08:14 AM	So now Lawful = get exploited by the rest of the party? No wonder 90% of players pick Chaotic Stupid... :headexplo Lawful = respect legitimate authority. The other party members are not authority at all, they are companions. You are under no obligation to do anything they command. If they ask, then you might or might not as you will. But by no means are you to be screwed over by something you should have had a part in but didn't. The agreement did not include you, therefore it does not include you. That works both ways. It's not a 'worst of both worlds' type scenario. If you are later included in the agreement and agree to it, then you are bound to it. Not before. Take your fair share now, and if anyone complains point that out to them.
wonlee76 10-11-07, 10:30 AM	A long time ago in 2nd edition I remember debates on what it meant to be lawful and a wise man came down from the mountains with tablets of stone and said... "Lawful is a misleading word as it implies following "laws". Consider changing the term Lawful to "Orderly" as in order vs. chaos instead of law vs. chaos." Taking this into consideration, the difference between "orderly" and chaotic is a bit more clear cut. Orderly follows some kind of structure or code. It could be following the laws placed by a government (police officer, paladin maybe). It could be more akin towards religious beliefs or structure in mind/body. (monk, certain types of clerics) It could be strictly following their own sense of justice which may not necessarily be what the present laws are (Slavery is legal but lawful PC does not believe slavery is right so will take actions to free slaves). The whole "respect legitimate authority" is just one possible example of a lawful person. As for the OPs dillemma... that is one very ambiguous way to treat treasure. Just toss it all into a pot and we'll use it as "needed". What the hell does that mean? Use the ambiguous rule to your advantage. You need to tithe to the church and therefore take a chunk of money out of the "pot". You need a new weapon, suit of armor, magical wand or whatever... take money out of the "pot". Abuse the hell out of this "as needed" nonsense. Who's the final judge as to what is considered as an "as needed" expense. I can understand having an emergency group fund for a group (like your Party +1 idea in treasure division) but doing a put all money into a pot and we'll use it "as needed" is just too vague for a lawful guy to follow without defining what is considered "as needed".
Habronicus 10-11-07, 03:16 PM	It could be following the laws placed by a government (police officer, paladin maybe). It could be more akin towards religious beliefs or structure in mind/body. (monk, certain types of clerics) It could be strictly following their own sense of justice which may not necessarily be what the present laws are (Slavery is legal but lawful PC does not believe slavery is right so will take actions to free slaves). Mostly agree with everything you said, as well as the two first examples quoted above. However, the third example reeks of CG, IMO.
Cifer 10-11-07, 07:42 PM	@Sunic So now Lawful = get exploited by the rest of the party? No. It's more like "Lawful = Doesn't go pick and choose what rules apply to him". The other party members are of course not authority, but the party is. If said party had a vote and the cleric just got outvoted, I wouldn't consider it lawful to remain with the party and ignore the sharing rule.
JimmytheHand 10-12-07, 09:20 AM	There seem to be some issues to consider here: 1) Did the character agree to the disposition of the treasure? either through action or through verbal agreement. If yes then he should follow along with the agreed rules. If no, then he is free to do what he likes, I'd suggest letting the rest of the party know, and play the you may have agreed but I certainly didn't. 2) What determines the need required to take money out? If it hasn't been defined then you're fine with just taking some of the money (or even all of it) If there is a method to decide then use it to justify what you want. (also you should maybe ask if you need the money or just want it) 3) There seems to be a DM bias towards one of the other players that everyone seems to be ignoring: "The DM and his friend(a lot of DM favoritism towards him) said that this would be the best idea, so I was stuck." To me this seems the most serious issue, if the DM and his friend have said this is how it works, you should be questioning why? And what will happen if you choose not to follow their rule. And once that is decided, are you willing to play with that restriction?
Tovec 10-12-07, 02:48 PM	I would solve this in game. Even the Paladin can be convinced as to why you are doing it. If the simple matter is that you just want your share there is nothing wrong with that, it is not a trait of any alignment. Not liking the party's choice and finally having the power to change it is very LE to me but not enough to cause an alignment shift. I think with this act alone it is not enough to warrant an alignment shift. The LG could think the same thing and nothing would happen if they took their own share. It would be evil of you if you took more then your share; if say you were doing it as payment for carrying the loot in the first place. Take your share, I'd try and talk to the members of the party but I don't think there is anything that they can really do to you. If you do follow my suggestions and they still don't like it give them the option to explain their side, it may seem like a good idea it may not but it gives both you and them the option.
Dog_O_War 10-12-07, 04:38 PM	Okay, I've gone through the thread (all the new posts sinse my last) and have read what you people have said. I'm too lazy to start quoting you all right now so I will make some general statements to try and cover everyone. At no time is a group of PC's a government or organisation (though they may be a part of), and thus a 'respectable' authority. If one does not agree to terms he is exempt. In order to be binding, there needs to be a physical contract, or at the very least a verbal agreement. You do not go to a job, do work and then vote on how much you get paid; this is an agreement decided apon between the employer and yourself. If you do not agree you negotiate or leave. Period. Unaddressed objections, or terms you were never informed about (in game) are never binding. If this treasure he had found, obtained, etc... without stealing from the group is his, which he may do with as he sees fit. This statement stands even if it was a group effort to bring down its (the treasures') guard. If the group saw him and objected then they would have reason to lay claim on the treasure. This could lead to a fight but by OOC intervention it is not likely to happen. The gold is yours, OP as long as you haven't violated the criteria I have listed (or the DM doesn't nerf-slap you). **note that this will cause ire amoungst the players that have been lawyered.
FlikViktor 10-12-07, 10:02 PM	The Question that everyone is failing to ask is, was this agreement something discussed out of game or in game? You said your DM was on board with the vote to put the money in a pot and use it as needed, leaving me to believe this was an out of game decision. If that is true it doesn't matter what your alignment is. A rule my group uses is party money is party money. They find it together they split it among the party. But anything found without the party is not party money it's personal money.
Tovec 10-15-07, 06:46 PM	I should clarify, I agree strongly with most of what Dog O War said. If the party, in game held a vote and you are held accountable to such a vote then it is non-binding. I don't care what the DM says, he is there to listen to the players especially when it does not concern him. I prefer to play LN and while I would generally agree with the party in their spirit of putting the cash into the pot, if I disagreed then I would simply take my share especially if there is no mandate to not do it. If the treasure was extra to the job then it is up to the party to determine what happens to it and without a general accord and means to bind such an accord you can disregard it. Especially when the number is so easy to split (1000gp each) I would say take your money if you object to the proposed plan. If the party doesn't like it then talk about it. If the DM slaps you then slap him back because once again this is something that the DM should not govern.
Amon_V 10-15-07, 07:40 PM	I think this is probably offered with a reasonable compromise: Offer 4,000 to the Party. You aren't cheating the Party, in this way. Then you still lay claim to 'some' of the shared money. You might also choose to announce that you will not comply with the decision to surrender all earnings to a collective party budget. If you do so, you should keep the entire sum and let the Party keep what they find. Finder's Keepers. Whatever you decide, it shouldn't be surprising or covert. You've stated your opposition to this before, now you choose to stand your ground.