Should the Paladin pay for Evil Magic Items he wants / has destroyed?

[tvknight415]

1. Destroy the sword. Tell the rest of the party to get over it.
2. Keep a wary eye on the ones who didn't want it destroyed.
3. If there are genuinely evil spells in the spellbook, tear out those pages. Leave the rest of the book for the wizard.
4. Take out an ad in the personals: "Unattached heavily armored paladin seeks like-minded group for glory and the greater good. Age/race/occupation unimportant. Just got out of a relationship that greed wrecked, and looking for a fresh start. Honest, trustworthy, and totally committed, and hope you are too."

OK, maybe skip the personals.

 

[lukelightning]

What, so the paladin's alignment and goals must be followed by the entire party?

Paladin: My goals are destroying evil.
Party: Ours too. Lets destroy the sword!
Outcome: Everyone happy.

Paladin: My goals are destroying evil.
Party: Ours too...but for a prophet. Let's sell the sword!
Paladin: Screw you, I'm destroying the sword.
Outcome: Paladin happy, other players not so happy.

Paladin: My goals are destroying evil.
Party: We only care about money. You can destroy the sword but it counts as your loot.
Outcome: Paladin should be happy; he's accomplishing his goal. Party is happy because they get money.

It's not like the vast amount of income you get is from selling vile unholy backscratchers of evil, right?

 

[lukelightning]

3. If there are genuinely evil spells in the spellbook, tear out those pages. Leave the rest of the book for the wizard.

Paladins are well known for their ability to read magic and their high ranks in spellcraft.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

No, but this is why you dont play a paladin unless your GM isnt a tool. If you're constantly being hosed for sticking to your code, roll a new character, or find a new game master. Its also the reason why I think the paladin is the worst designed class, as it creates a dynamic where the party has to kow tow to one particular character for permission to do damn near anything.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I also agree with Henry, that Paladin is with the wrong group, and could really use to get some Good-aligned traveling companions.

I see this a lot. Why? If the paladin is odd man out, the player needs to make a new character, not the rest of the group. Attitudes like this reinforce the drama whore "mother may I" type of paladin-group dynamic.

 

[lukelightning]

... it creates a dynamic where the party has to kow tow to one particular character for permission to do damn near anything.

I remember trying to start "Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil." We had a great plan to sneak past the guards but the stupid paladin ruined it "because deception is wrong."

 

[Delta]

What, so the paladin's alignment and goals must be followed by the entire party?

Yes.

Associates
While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Yes.

Right. The paladin leaves, and the player makes a character that jives with the rest of the group/campaign. If the campaign is set about negotiating an end to an elven/dwarven war, and one character brings a PC who is an orc who openly attacks elves and dwarves at every opportunity, it means the player made a character thats wrong for the game. Similarly, if 4 out of the 5 players want to play morally ambiguous guys, it means Dudly Doo Right needs to tone it down, or pack his gear. One player doesnt get to dictate the story and action.

 

[TheYeti1775]

Right. The paladin leaves, and the player makes a character that jives with the rest of the group/campaign. If the campaign is set about negotiating an end to an elven/dwarven war, and one character brings a PC who is an orc who openly attacks elves and dwarves at every opportunity, it means the player made a character thats wrong for the game. Similarly, if 4 out of the 5 players want to play morally ambiguous guys, it means Dudly Doo Right needs to tone it down, or pack his gear. One player doesnt get to dictate the story and action.

Have to agree with that.

---------------------
Now depending on the 'godly' tenets of the faith, even the LG Clerics of that faith know the benefit of working with those of 'less' faith. There is nothing inherently evil in selling tools of evil. Their actual use would do that. Are you saying a Paladin would chastise a Fighter for changing his Longsword +1 for the Longsword +1 Unholy Flaming (completely unintelligent)? If this is the case, why in so many treasure hoards or even wielded by bad guys are there Holy Weapons? Why didn't they destroy them least 'good' got a hold of them.

---------------------
With agreeing with the above, my case example is I was new to a Dawnforge game, I thought Ogre Fighter as a PC race was pretty cool. Went with it, but the mesh with the group wasn't there. So an out was made for the character, and I brought in a Human Fighter to replace him. All of a sudden it meshed great, the character fit perfectly with the group. Even though the sheer power of the Ogre Fighter was awesome, nothing clicked as it did with the Human.

The same applies to classes and motivations. A greedy selfish rogue might not click with a party of 'Dudly Doo Rights', or he might excel in a party motivated by sheer monterary value of a haul.

Yeti

 

[Henry]

I remember trying to start "Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil." We had a great plan to sneak past the guards but the stupid paladin ruined it "because deception is wrong."

While this makes for good demonstration of character when roleplaying, it also makes for a stupid paladin. Stealth does not equal deception, and a paladin would likely be no more opposed on the basis of their code to stealth in destroying evil than a Rogue would be opposed to fighting to gain treasure rather than pickpocketing.

I see this a lot. Why? If the paladin is odd man out, the player needs to make a new character, not the rest of the group. Attitudes like this reinforce the drama whore "mother may I" type of paladin-group dynamic.

Either way, the paladin is no longer adventuring with a group opposed to his goals of fighting evil in its many forms. Neither wingandsword nor I mentioned making the other players change characters, only that the paladin needs to find other companions. If the player rather needs to make a more mercenary character, or if they party should need to re-evaluate what "good" means, then he and the group need to come to a better understanding to avoid harmful inter-party conflict. (While inter-party conflict can be fun, conflict that stops the game off wouldn't be.)