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

[Ottergame]

If the paladin has to pay for smashing an evil item, does the wizard have to pay for frying magic items with a fireball when the BBEG fails his save?

 

[Len]

Can I vote twice? I don't think the paladin should have to pay for that stuff, but my character wishes he would. However, if one wants to have a paladin around to stand between one and whatever monsters one is facing, one must make certain sacrifices, costly though they may be.

 

[wingsandsword]

I also agree with Henry, that Paladin is with the wrong group, and could really use to get some Good-aligned traveling companions. If you're travelling with a Paladin, you have to expect things like this, and if you're a Paladin, you have to accept that not every group will be right for you.

In my current campaign, and any campaign I can recall being in, the Paladin would smash the evil magic item and everybody would agree (or help destroy it in whatever way possible).

Pay for an item? To be honest, I've never even played in a game where the party was so mercenary and petty to actually divvy up shares of treasure like crude pirates. They always politely discussed (in-character) who should get what item, and kept the majority of items in a communal fund.

 

[Celebrim]

My personal opinion is that if a paladin is adventuring with a party who wants to sell Evil items rather than destroy them, he's probably adventuring with the wrong party.

My thoughts exactly. Ultimately, this is a PC interaction issue and should be resolved by PC in character interaction.

Destroying tools of evil is part of the job description. If the Paladin suddenly finds that he's questing in a party that objects to his goals, and in fact that he's not questing with a group of heroes, but rather adventuring with a bunch of sellsword mercenaries, then the Paladin would certainly end his association with the party. In fact, under some rules of Paladinhood, he must end his association with the party, since the rules of Paladinhood traditionally forbid long term association with non-good characters. Failure to end such a relationship once the Paladin becomes aware of the issue is a breach of his code of conduct.

If I were RPing the Paladin in question, I'd probably first be somewhat taken a back, and perhaps assume niavely that the fighter cluelessly didn't realize that the sword was a work of daemonic evil, and would begin patiently explaining to the fighter what signs could be seen that indicated that the sword was a foul blasphamous object. Once the fighter clearly conveyed to the disbelieving Paladin the fact that he knew that the sword was evil, but that he wanted to sell it for a profit to some other presumably evil being anyway, I think the Paladin would go through one hurt momment of 'You can't really mean that?', and then be forced to walk away and find a party that shared his goals of defeating evil.

As a short term solution, if the Paladin knew ahead of time that the party was just a group of greedy sellswords, a Paladin could legitimately agree that he will pay a fair price for (or get his supporting temple to pay) any evil artifact that comes into the party posession in order to take it off the market, but this is only a short term solution and one the party should have made clear. The Paladin can adventure under that sort of agreement only when he has no other choice and must find some allies to face the immediate threat or else allow evil to prosper. But he's not going to consider such a party to be his friends and comrades - merely some mercenaries he's been forced to hire.

In my campaigns, it just doesn't come up because the party knows that I'll be handing out XP story awards to all non-good players whenever objects of great evil are destroyed, and generally destroying the minor evil artifact that threatens the safety of the region is a story arc that comes up pretty regularly in my campaigns. Also my parties in long term campaigns tend to be very open to the idea that they are heroes and not merely mercenaries. The party rogue might wince ICly seing such valuable property destroyed, but he knows that a sermon is forthcoming if he actually voices those sentiments in front of the do-gooders in the party. They are also very much aware that if they sell an evil item of significant power on the open market, there is a very good chance that they will see it again in the hands of some other baddies. In fact, if they know me at all, they know that I'll go out of my way to make them have cause to regret such a rash act. This is a very strong incentive to destroy any item that has proved troublesome in the past.

As for the spellbook, if it didn't obviously radiate evil (and merely containing evil descriptor spells wouldn't cause it to do so IMO as a DM) and wasn't obviously written on human skin or something (as many of my necromatic tomes are), if I where the Paladin I'd almost certainly ask the party spellcaster for his expert opinion as to whether the book is evil. I'd do this less because I'm metagaming and wanting to ensure that the Wizard gets access to the spells, and more because it allows for some great RP oppurtunities. Besides which, I'm a Paladin, what do I know actually know IC about all this mysterious arcane magic?

 

[Goobermunch]

In my games, adventurers have to join a guild and get licensed. They also have to pay taxes and tithes.

Adventuring companies are regulated and have to be sponsored by organization in good standing with the city government.

The flip side of it is that the good-aligned churches will pay 50% of the market value for evil magical items, which they will then destroy for the good of all. They also get free rezzes (up to the value of the total taxes and tithes paid to date) if they die while performing a quest for the City or one of its Churches.

So based on that, I voted yes, because in a literal sense, those items are party treasure.

--G

 

[Angel Tarragon]

I'm sorry, but if the players are demanding their equal share of everything even stuff that needs to be destroyted they are being selfish. The paladin should declare them as evil, only other evil beings would want these evil items to remain around.

I have to agree with Croth on this one.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Is it? If some evil group spends its equipment budget on EVIL! weapons of some type (maybe Unholy weapons), are they really that much better off than if they went with conventional, non-aligned abilities? Are crazed cultists with Unholy daggers that much more dangerous than ones with Flaming, Shock daggers or Wounding knives? Any other surplus magic the group sells might also be making evil guys more powerful.

Unholy weapons are only good for one thing: killing Good aligned people and creatures.

While it is true that just because a creature is Good does not automatically make you Evil if you find you need to whup its ass, planning on fighting Good creatures regularly enough to justify investing in an Evil weapon is extremely strong circumstantial evidence that the person in question is planning on evil acts.

Why don't you try roleplaying this out: "Hey, Mr. Paladin. I thought I might try out a little evil. Just to see if it works out for me. We are friends so that is no biggy, right?"

Carrying around a evil weapon is pretty much saying the same thing. Selling it only means you are assisting someone else with the same.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

If I were RPing the Paladin in question, I'd probably first be somewhat taken a back, and perhaps assume niavely that the fighter cluelessly didn't realize that the sword was a work of daemonic evil, and would begin patiently explaining to the fighter what signs could be seen that indicated that the sword was a foul blasphamous object. Once the fighter clearly conveyed to the disbelieving Paladin the fact that he knew that the sword was evil, but that he wanted to sell it for a profit to some other presumably evil being anyway, I think the Paladin would go through one hurt momment of 'You can't really mean that?', and then be forced to walk away and find a party that shared his goals of defeating evil.

...and then come back with his new posse to kick his old party's butts and take that sword from them before it can do any more harm.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

My point of view?

If the item is actually evil, he doesn't pay.

If the item is not evil, and he destroys it just 'cause it looked at him funny, he pays.

And finally - I wouldn't give out XP for just destroying an evil item. Now redeeming it? That's a bit different.

If I have an evil sword in the game then destroying it is a plot point, and therefor gets XP. I don't put them in randomly.

The Auld Grump

 

[Mark]

This is one of the areas where I think the DM should keep his trap shut and allow group dynamics to determine how things shake out.

I've played in groups where the DM's best friend played a paladin and despite where the other players wanted to take the game it simply wasn't going to happen because the DM would always back the play of the paladin player. I've played in games where most of the group wanted to be primarily good and the DM backed a player who wanted to bring an evil character into the game, even though it made no sense for the other characters to allow one to join them. While these aren't the same as the circumstance of the original question, they bear the same onus.

Sometimes conflict within a party has to play itself out, no matter the outcome, and the players need to be assured by the DM that it isn't a reflection on the players, it's just part of the game. Then the DM needs to step back far enough to only adjudicate the natural consequences of the actions taken by the individuals of the group.