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

[Delta]

Paladin destroys the evil items. Those who give him grief he has to stop adventuring with (as per the Paladin's code).

 

[Moonstone Spider]

Did Gandalf start demanding that Frodo pay him his share of the value of the One Ring after he destroyed it?

 

[Kid Socrates]

I voted "evil items destroyed," because, well, paladins crusade against evil, and here IS evil, all nice and bottled up in some tempered steel.

If that's the kind of thing that's going to get the rest of the party all out of sorts, surprise them when they get back to the city and the mayor/governor/whoever thanks them with "The tyrant is destroyed! Bless you! To commemorate this momentous occasion, our city's finest smiths and alchemists have prepared these items for our heroes!"

 

[painandgreed]

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.

No, the paladin is being selfish because he expects others to follow his will and moral code when he obviously hasn't made these agreements with them to begin with. Classic disruptive paladin syndrom. I agree that the paladin is in the wrong party but since the paladin is in the minority here and contantly being disruptive in the party, he should leave because he was in error and should have accepted his debt to the party for the right to destory such items unless he had gotten them to agree to other arrangements beforehand. Sure, the paladin was only doing what a paladin does, but everybody is not a paladin. There are even other paths that would mean destruction of the items and still reward the party. One being the possiblity of selling, or turning over the item to a good church for a reward so they may destroy it. In most games I've played, the destruction of such items for ones good gods means either status or XP and there is typically a market for them. In that that paladin is hogging this glory for himself without thought of his compatriots (or even giving them a chance to share in the honor) reeks of selfishness.

 

[TheYeti1775]

Didn't vote cause it's both

Really couldn't vote like anything it's a two-sided coin.

My example falls to something that's non-offensive but a defensive item.

Robe of Protection +2 AC versus Good

How does the Paladin rule in this instance? It was worn by a CN mage character who justified it by Clerics persucute the Paladin (World was Valus - written by our own Destan), it didn't matter if they were good or not. So who was to say we couldn't be attacked by a 'good' cleric.
Now there was one item the same said mage said he would destroy but sold and covered some armor costs for the Paladin. If he ever found out well he would be upset for sure.
There are sometimes though when it is perfectly acceptable for the Paladin to utterly destroy something. Though I do like the thought of a 'Church' rewarding the party in some fashion for assisting in this. I thought the Lord and Shopkeeper things especially good examples of the gray area this involves.

Add this to the fact that Wizards are your primary identifier of magics so the Paladin has to rely on the mage to say what anything does.

 

[lukelightning]

If the item is truly evil you should bring it to some super goody goody temple and have it ritually destroyed and *ahem ahem* mention what a great deed you did for the cause of good and shouldn't Pelor/Heironious/Muffy the Blessed smile kindly upon the heroes who did such a deed, heroes who need resources if they are going to continue their crusade against the dark.

And if the party insists on selling the items the paladin should gladly say "fine, I give up my share for the greater good" because that is what paladins do.

 

[lukelightning]

Did Gandalf start demanding that Frodo pay him his share of the value of the One Ring after he destroyed it?

The one ring wasn't loot, it was a plot device.

 

[irdeggman]

Need an "other" choice here.

It depends.

First off smashing a magic weapon to destroy it won't usually work will it?

Hardness and Hit Points: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his own weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck. Each +1 of enhancement bonus also adds 1 to the weapon’s or shield’s hardness and hit points.

DAMAGING MAGIC ITEMS
A magic item doesn’t need to make a saving throw unless it is unattended, it is specifically targeted by the effect, or its wielder rolls a natural 1 on his save. Magic items should always get a saving throw against spells that might deal damage to them— even against attacks from which a nonmagical item would normally get no chance to save. Magic items use the same saving throw bonus for all saves, no matter what the type (Fortitude, Reflex, or Will). A magic item’s saving throw bonus equals 2 + one-half its caster level (round down). The only exceptions to this are intelligent magic items, which make Will saves based on their own Wisdom scores.

Magic items, unless otherwise noted, take damage as nonmagical items of the same sort. A damaged magic item continues to function, but if it is destroyed, all its magical power is lost.

So simply "smashing" them won't usually work - and if it is an "evil" item it surely has a lot of enhancement bonuses to it.

Usually I would imagine destroying the item involves going to a temple or something along those lines. In that case I would also imagine that the temple of the "good" deity that is backing this destruction would "pay" for the item in order to rid the world of it. Now this payment is most likely less than the selling value (1/2 market price per the book) but still something is better than nothing.

I also echo the earlier post that if the party is "trying to sell evil items" then it is most likely not the kind of group a paladin would associate him/her self with.

Now if the paladin wishes to destroy a non-aligned item then he most suredly should have to pay for it. It is not easy being a paladin.

 

[Henry]

I've got an alternative situation or two.

1. ... one of which happens to be an Unholy Falchion. There is also a Holy Shocking Keen Humanbane Battleaxe, which once belonged to a dwarven companion of the lord; said dwarf wielded this axe valiantly in a long struggle to free his people from an army of evil human mercenaries.

2. ...Among the items available for sale is a weapon the shopkeeper purchased from the last lot of adventurers to come through - a +3 Defending Unholy Rapier.

-----

Neither the shopkeeper nor the lord radiate evil. (The lord, in fact, is strongly Lawful Good. The merchant might be anything from Lawful Neutral to Neutral Good.)

What actions should the paladin take?

1. The Falchion is the lord's personal and rightful property, won through the spoils of righteous battle. However, the lord is making a poor choice, though he's not evil. As the paladin, I'd notify the branch of my nearest local church, informing them of the whereabouts of the weapon; if they want to work on convincing the lord, so much the better; at worst, if something bad happens, they will be alerted to the presence of the item. Either way, it's out of my and the church's hands until something changes.

2. If I can't buy the unholy rapier, and can't convince the party it's worthwhile (say, the church is willing to buy it), then I really can't do anything until I come up with something better. No active evil is being committed with it, and it's at beast unlawful and at worst evil to take the rapier by force. So again, I keep tabs on the item until something better can be done.

Being good doesn't mean take actions that compromise your principles in order to right a wrong; it does mean that if you are inconvenienced by a good action, don't be afraid to take it. If the Rapier is used to commit evil, then I've got an opening; if not, I sit and wait for my chance.

 

[Harmon]

Paladin- “my friends, we joined together to battle, and destroy evil, and in killing Malock, the Dark Paladin we have done that. Now his sword- a bane to humans and dwarves, and a sword of darkness that harm those of good must be destroyed, would you fault me for doing that?”

Party Member #1- “nah, you can destroy all the evil you want, but that sword is worth a tens of thousands of gold.”

Party Member #2- “ya, we can’t pass up that amount of coinage. We could use it to defeat even more evil-“

Paladin- “while the new welder of this blade kills other humans and other dwarves- we could save countless lives by keeping this sword from the hands of evil.”

Party Member #1- “then those people need to step up and pay us protection.”

Party Member #2- “you know I see a lot of profitable areas to work in here.”

Paladin, frustrated and angry- “I will take the sword to my church and they will give us a fair value for it, then I will part company from you my companions.”

Party Member #1- “what would you consider fair value?”

And the Paladin leaves the group. As the adventurers move from town to town they notice that there are Paladins, Clerics, and Monks that watch them- all from their former companion’s church. Some time later the group sells a Unholy dagger and finds themselves surrounded by the good church’s Paladins and the local Lord’s soldiers, they are arrested for “assisting evil,” and hung.

I can see this happening easily, course with Players they would fight and more likes kill a few of the good guys, but a few alignment changes and some explaining that you do not see their actions as anything but greedy and assisting in evil which by default (my POV) makes them evil too.

(If you help evil then you are the evil you help.)


"The only thing that good men must do to allow evil to secceed is nothing."