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

[sword-dancer]

Especially a cleric of Tyr should understand that he has no authority to judge anywhere if the rightfull authorities didn't extend their rights to him. He should strife to convince as many authorities as possible to embrace the virtues of Tyr, but he can't judge in Zhentil Keep and especially can't judge anyone just for being from Zhentil Keep unless he just broke the law of a country where this cleric has been granted these authorities.

Except in a place where no legitimate authorities exist, which is the case in Zhentil Keep from the eyes of Tyrs church, OTOH being a cleric of Tyr is in itself a very dabgerous kind of being in Zhentil Keep.

As if such a thing could ever be functioning. Law and Good simply oppose each other on a fundamental levels.

Depends of the intend of the law, it could and have, and not all who follow them have fallen.

become archdevils while the CE guys and celestials can do nothing but to pity them.

fight them with pity, don`t stop from holy smite them.

BTW: Before we continue this discusion we should better start a new thread, as we're too far off topic.

It would, especially if we have differences was is avveptally or needful LG behaviour.

 

[Starglim]

This is why treasure division must be agreed between players out of character. It can be justified in-character any way they like.

The paladin character would argue that the items are abominations that must be destroyed, not items of value. However the paladin character would also place honour and trust between companions above squabbling over loot, so it cancels out.

As a question of game fairness the paladin's player (and any other players of Good-aligned characters who vote to destroy the items) must pay their fair share for that action in support of their alignment. If everyone in the group agrees that destroying evil items is a contribution to the party's purpose and completion of the mission, then it would be reasonable to deduct their value from the treasure before division.

 

[happyelf]

This is why treasure division must be agreed between players out of character. It can be justified in-character any way they like.

The paladin character would argue that the items are abominations that must be destroyed, not items of value. However the paladin character would also place honour and trust between companions above squabbling over loot, so it cancels out.

As a question of game fairness the paladin's player (and any other players of Good-aligned characters who vote to destroy the items) must pay their fair share for that action in support of their alignment. If everyone in the group agrees that destroying evil items is a contribution to the party's purpose and completion of the mission, then it would be reasonable to deduct their value from the treasure before division.

Yeah, sure that would work in a game where roleplaying is not considered important, but in a game where it is, that would not work at all. If a paladin is in a party, by definition their mission involves such goals.

It's especially bizare to claim that a paladin would value 'honor and trust' over 'squabbling over loot', where 'squabbling voer loot' involves not being screwed out of resources for taking apropriate actions. That's not fair, IC or OOC. And how much honor and trust can be had in a party that wants to re-sell a book of vile darkness?

 

[Heathen72]

Yah, I'm with Henry on this one.

 

[Blood Jester]

My gaming experience is that most people want to play "heores" for the benefits, but start whining when the concept of being a good guy gets in they way of power.

Probably explains why so few politicians (of any party) have any priciples if they have risen past the most basic levels of the government.

I have seen entire parties act shocked at my Paladin being disgusted that they wanted to use an item so blatently evil that it radiated a palpable evil even to party members with no magical abilities at all.

 

[Terwox]

Any game I've played in would give the entire party experience for destroying a powerful evil item. If we choose to keep it, we could keep it, but I don't believe that ever came up. Although, most parties were primarily good, though paladin-free.

Most games I've run anymore have either had evil parties that gleefully took the item and used it, or could disenchant the item and use it to forge something useful.

 

[Nifft]

What, why argue about treasure?

The Paladin and Fighter are both going to have to compensate the Wizard for any critter that could have been enslaved and sold at market, but which they foolishly killed. Any time the Fighter uses lethal damage in combat vs. a marketable slave-creature, the Fighter owes the Wizard some gold (since the slaves won't be in perfect condition -- probably affects sale price).

These foolish players are losing a great source of loot!!!1!

-- N

 

[Orius]

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."

That why you let the paladin charge the guards...alone. And when they start laughing their asses off at the easy kill, that when you shoot 'em in the bellies with poisoned arrows and bolts.

 

[Endur]

Player: I want STUFF!!!

Character: Evil Must Be Destroyed!!!

Result: Obvious evil things get destroyed or swiped by party thief, non-evil stuff gets sold to highest bidder.

But from a story perspective, the Paladin is not a "Slay them and Loot their bodies" type of character. He is far more likely to "Slay them and burn all their tainted possessions" with the idea that "all of their possessions are tainted".

 

[frankthedm]

My gaming experience is that most people want to play "heores" for the benefits, but start whining when the concept of being a good guy gets in they way of power.

Sounds like the Beer and Pretzels Paladin in my group.