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

[sword-dancer]

I would expect the wizards player to play a bit more in Line with his Int, and both PCs could be expecting a long and serious spiritual and moral check and lecture at the next main temple of the pallys church.

Every Pally ho didn`t nothing against the selling of an evil item would be an Ex Pally.
If the spellbook was evil, or hold only/mostly evil spells then I see nothing wrong with destrying it.

Lawful:
The only Laws here concerning are his code and the tenets of his god, faith and church.

The PCs should also remember, that being allies, comrade in arms of a pally could have his own advantages.
Like a better reputation, help from the church and so on.

 

[Romnipotent]

DMC said it best "Its Tricky"

I would not charge him for it in some circumstances; The percentage lost in destroying the item is considered a tithe to his related church, and each other party member is considered part of that. We should gain favour in the church, I want free board!


If I was a die hard money maker, he buys the sword. I'll use my cut to buy more drugs, poisons, booze, and whores. Its legal if the local authorities say so.

We detect magic on things, but hardly ever Detect Evil
a sword made by an evil mage but wielded by a soldier of a good land (who found it adventuring) should radiate evil no? I insert gray into this black and white poll!

 

[SWBaxter]

As a DM: the way I handle evil items is the party gets some amount of credit with the local temple if they either turn them over to the temple for destruction or somebody the temple trusts (such as the party's paladin) swears they destroyed the item. Selling a known evil item is usually an evil act, inasmuch as the group is profiting from the future evil acts the buyer is almost certain to commit.

As a player: I've seen it done both ways. I'd never play a paladin (or any good character) in a group that wanted to count destroyed evil items against a paladin's/cleric's/whatever's share, but for some types of groups that's appropriate.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Selling an evil weapon seems to me to be asking for trouble. You're more or less arming a potential enemy. One thing that could exist in a world is order of clerics who purchase evil magic items and destroy them. This could be a fix for the situation.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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 would not disagree.

This is really one of those things that the group should foresee. As a group. Both in and out of character.

It would really suck to have to roleplay your character out of the group. The reward of good roleplaying becomes the same as permenant irrevocable death. Yeah, you can make a new one but that is an odd reward for being a good player.

The DM does have some degree of responsibility of hinting what kind of characters will fit into an adventuring group. Being a Paladin would be a no-no for some groups, and not necessarily because they are evil. Being evil would be a no-no for others.

Roleplayed out correctly, and this kind of conflict can easily comes to PC on PC fighting. Some Paladins would simply kill a character who showed such attachment to evil items, and I would probably not sanction a Paladin for doing so if I were DM.

I agree that the DM should stay out of it, and be no more activist than to remind the players that the actions of the PCs should not mean anything personal between the players. If the DM faces an ugly interPC conflict, he should resort to informing all players that if something disproportionately bad happens to a PC because of good roleplaying, good karma will flow forward to the next PC...provided the past is left in the past.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

BTW, I do play a Paladin in one campaign. And it would be difficult for me to imagine that I would instigate the destruction of evil spell books, as much as my character would love to. I only know what is in those books by asking the very crafty party Wizard.

 

[Ellie_the_Elf]

The only arguments my players have ever had about destroying evil items have been about which way was best to destroy them.... either they like playing really heroic characters, or they're just weird...

But then I did run this party through the Banewarrens, which is where they picked up this tactic -very soon after starting the adventure

Ellie

 

[Orius]

Are you sure you've never played in my and Torm's group?

We have a player whose opinion yours would fit to a "T". Ancient Orb of Dastardly Evil? The rest of the party is thinking to destroy the thing, he's thinking how much some evil wizard would pay for the thing - or worse, how he plans to start taking levels of Wizard...

I'm way ahead of him, since I would be playing the wizard already. At this point in the campaign I should be powerful enough to use the artifact on my own. And why in the Nine Hells would I trust that power in the hands of an NPC? I want that power for myself!

 

[D-rock]

Isn't this why you should discuss the dynamics of the group before a campain begins, especilly when paladins are involved.

I wouldn't make the paladin pay, but you would have to forsee something like this happening.

 

[frankthedm]

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.

Very well said.