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

[gizmo33]

IMO the question is more one of compensation and property rights. Now for some people, property rights are a moral issue (ie. good vs. evil) but I think for most people, property rights is a Law vs. Chaos issue.

So IMO the issue would be resolved by going to the Law elements of the paladin's faith and asking "what is his legal obligation?". What would the paladin believe to be the legal rights of the PCs in question? If there's no lawful reason why he should compensate them then I don't think he would/should (again - assumes that good/evil, while relevant to destroying the item in the first place, has nothing to say on the issue of compensation).

I think it's reasonable for the paladin's religion to offer some guidance on this issue - it has to be fairly common for holy warriors to wind up dealing with evil magic items, and regardless of whose property it is, the question of whether or not they owe an owner compensation would probably be addressed in the legal codes of the paladin. Whether or not the paladin had enough skill points in Knowledge-Religion to answer this question for himself is another thing.

For example, what happens if the paladin finds out that some lord's castle is accidentally built on an ancient indian burial ground and the castle has become evil? The castle must be destroyed, yet the current lord really isn't at fault. Given that the paladin's faith is good, and that the family of the lord will be homeless, some compensation by the temple would seem to be in order. I think it's fairly reasonable that this issue would have been considered by the wise temple leaders and some general law or practice would have developed. And the law would probably be pretty detailed. For example:
1. if you weren't aware of the evil nature of the item when you acquired it, and can prove such to the satisfaction of a tribunal of clerics of our faith, then you're owed half the price that you paid for the item
2. if you were aware of the item according to the sworn testimony of a guardian of the faith, then you must forfeit the item to the temple without delay. A tribunal of clerics will further assess any damages for which you are responsible (ie. paying for exorcisms for people that your evil magic item possessed)

The issue could be further complicated by battles in jurisdiction between custom, secular, and temple law. The complexities of this in actual history are enormous but there is tons of room for interesting roleplaying. IMC I treat the "rights" of the other PCs in this case as custom, and would expect the paladin to do so as well. I would have to assume that paladins, who are trained to kill on behalf of their faith, get some education from their temple with regards to the laws of their faith.

Whether the other PCs want to respect the law is up to them. As is whether or not they want to pursue compensation with the paladin's temple, the local authorities, or by trying to kill the paladin. Most likely the paladin and his temple would have a solid opinion on this as well.

 

[Templetroll]

In my old group if the sword starts to talk it gets put in a sack and sold or destroyed, depending on our mood at the time. The sword's alignment didn't mean squat.

Most of our groups were neutral tending towards good. The groups that had paladins usually had them as the leaders so there was not a lot of issue with destroying evil things.

Did your non-good characters help themselves along the way to fill out their treasure shares?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Any heroic and Good character would be more than a little hesitant to allow an evil item to run loose in the world. The true value of an evil weapon is zero (or less) from this POV. I can understand that Greedy aligned PCs may legitimately have a different opinion.

Obviously someone is in the wrong adventuring party.

After recently meeting his first zombie, my horrified Druid insisted that the captured item that could make zombies should be destroyed. It was not really because item happened to be Evil, although the Paladin would have probably cared if he got wind of it. My character just thought that treating the dead that way was an unspeakable atrocity, and those who do so should be utterly annihilated. After they are killed, the Druid personally hacks their bodies into small pieces and scatters them to be devoured by the animals. He also insists their names not be spoken in his presence.

Since we do not really track the value of loot dispensed, the other players just acceded to my very vigorous in character demands.

 

[Elf Witch]

Any palidan adventuring with a party should be respecting the way they do things or finding a new party. Why should the whole group bend around him?

If he is the only one who wants an item destroyed (and while we might be talking an evil intelligent artifact, we might just be talking an unholy sword that the neutral character can use just fine) then he should pay to destroy it. And then maybe leave the party.

That is kind of one sided. The group needs to understand that a paladin joining the group may force certain changes. No one but the paladin is going to suffer if they step over the line. They are not going to pay the penalty and have to attone to get their class skills back.

There needs to be give and take in a party. A player should not bring a paladin into a party made up of all chaotic or neutral characters it can be as bad as bringing in an evil character in a good group.

But if you do accept a paladin in your party then you have to realize and accept that you may have to do somethings a little different than you did before.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

IMO the question is more one of compensation and property rights. Now for some people, property rights are a moral issue (ie. good vs. evil) but I think for most people, property rights is a Law vs. Chaos issue.

I imagine that is how the conversation between Isildur and Elrond began as stood in the heart of Mount Doom.

"Evil smevil. Doom of all Man & Elf for all time until the breaking of the World! What a bunch of fairy hooey!!!

"This is a property rights issue, fair and square."

 

[TheAuldGrump]

My opinion?

The spellbook - yes, he should pay for it.

The (apparently) intelligent, evil sword? Hell no - destroy it before it can subvert another. Who would buy such a thing anyway? Just someone you'd have to kill later most likely.

That about sums it up.

Heck, in my game there would likely be an XP reward for destroying the sword, and none for selling it so that it can corrupt others.

The spellbook? That is what detect evil is for, and if there is a paladin in the party it is free. If there is some sort of vile corrupting magic in there it should be noticed, if there isn't just hand it to the wizrd with the injuction to destroy the book after he has finished copying the non-evil spells from it. Though arcane spells tend to be neutral in regards to alignment. And if it does trigger detect evil? Well then...

The Auld Grump

 

[FireLance]

I've tweaked the treasure and equipment rules in my games so that such a situation would never come up, but in the event that I'm DMing a more traditional game, this is what I would do:

If the party as a whole decides the evil item should be destroyed, some good organization (most likely the paladin's church) will give them a reward equal or more than the value of the item destroyed. If the party insists that the paladin should pay for it, the same organization will give the reward to the paladin instead.

Other DMs might have a different philosophy, but I do not penalize good acts in my game. If the party finds that doing good is a chore, and it is more attractive to be selfish, perhaps the DM in question should examine his style to see if he is inadvertently discouraging good behavior.

Of course, if he intends to encourage selfish behavior, then more power to him.

 

[Zappo]

Wrong party. I would expect any paladin to destroy any item which has an evil aura. No character that a paladin would associate with can use them, and selling them means giving more power to someone who is certainly evil. And this is just the pragmatic point of view - I think that a paladin who wants to destroy them simply because they're evil would be quite justified.

 

[Endur]

I voted no, although I didn't like the yes no options on the poll.

The Paladin (and/or party) should definitely destroy the evil items.

The compensation issue is a difficult one. I'd let the party negotiate it, although generally I would think that the Paladin shouldn't have to compensate anyone.

I think the Paladin should definitely burn the spellbook. Although there may be a few neutral spells in it, the chance of infecting the party wizard with "evil" spells is too great.

 

[Sejs]

No, the paladin shouldn't have to pay for evil items he's destroyed, and if Battlin' Johnny Bookkeeper keeps pressing the issue I'd think it's high time for the paladin to start sending out resumés.