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

[Saeviomagy]

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.

 

[WayneLigon]

Those items are a danger to everyone. If he's adventuring with such folk as would, knowingly, sell such items and put them back into general circulation, he - or anyone with a remotely good alignment - should haul them off to prison or just deal with them right then and there.

 

[Testament]

If the sword was an intelligent evil sword, then yeah, it dies for free. If it wasn't intelligent but still an Unholy sword or the like, it still dies for free.

The spellbook? If it didn't detect as evil, then Pally boy better be paying up for that.

Either way, sounds like the Paladin's in the wrong party.

 

[Victim]

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.

No character that a paladin would associate with can use them, and selling them means giving more power to someone who is certainly evil.

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.

A clever paladin might work with the group, using the sale of evil stuff as a sting operation to find and investigate then capture/kill the buyers so that the group makes money and evil takes a boot to the head. Since the adventurers will then likely have a bigger cache of evil toys, they can then try to sell the items to someone else until people catch on. At that point, no one will be buying the items anyway, so he might as well break them. However, Clever doesn't come standard on pallies.

As far as spells go, any wizard who can cast Conjuration spells like Summon Monster, Planar Binding, or Gate can already cast [Evil] spells. If you can trust them to use those spells responsibly, then what business do you have burning up spellbooks because of a few evil spells? Additionally, the [Good] version of the spell is not always appropriate. If someone Gates in a Solar, and then it dies, well, oops, you just killed some high up Angel. When calling outsiders for very dangerous jobs, it might be better to go with the evil option so you don't kill some important agent of good. Besides, as a fringe benefit, Balors make great bombs.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot to talk about the truly dangerous stuff. People don't use artifact type thingies; the artifacts use them. The Sword of Kas needs to be handled more carefully than nuclear waste. Anyone taking swings with is either making a brave sacrifice to beat some monster with Epic DR, or is a moron.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

No. If a paladin is in a party that wants to sell or use evil items except in extenuating circumstances (for example, Malthindor in the Living Greyhawk Ether Threat series), he's in the wrong party. If the question even comes up, he's in the wrong party.

 

[Steel_Wind]

One interesting twist on this theme IMC recently was the issue of what to do with a magical gauntlet of frozen souls.

short strokes: This was an evil magic item of moderate power that radiated necromatic magic. It made a special type of undead.

Postion A: Lawful Goods Knight of Solamnia wannabes want to destroy this thng. They have some cause to do so. The item is intrumental in creating ice ghouls. very bad thing, etc.

Postion B: Lawful Good White Robed Wizard of High Sorcery. The Orders of High Sorcery's first allegiance is to magic. To deliberatly destroy a rare magic item would likely result in the expulsion of the Wizard PC from the Orders of High Sorcery.

The Wizard ultimately availed himself of an opportunity to dispose of the item about 10 sessions later by selling it for a fraciton of its worth to a 2nd in command of the White Robes. The item thus vanished into the Vaults of the Orders of High Sorcery instead of being released on to the market.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

My problem with the initial scenario is is the item considered treasure?

Sure it has a value but so does a gold idol of a god, does that mean it is automatically treasure? Does a cleric in a party that wants to flog off an idol to the highest bidder have any rights over something that may be hard-coded into their character. What happens if the party gets a staff of power which can't be split between the 4, does it get sold so everyone gets a share at the expense of the wizard? The official treasure distribution method simply compares value and uses bids but the problem with it is that it is a very materialistic pov that ignores any other sensitivities.

The solution I think is to make several piles, a general pile for distribution and other piles where vested interests need to be addressed.

 

[Baron Opal]

No question

Interesting. Im my campaigns, this question rarely occurs. The paladin would have to race the cleric to destroy the item.

We came across a similar situation in a 2e game I ran back in the day. The BBEG was defeated, a fighter of great might. He had a crown that boosted his capabilities, and was in fact the Crown of Evil Might, although the players didn't know that at the time. The paladin and the cleric were right there to destroy the item, readying their physical and magical might. The cavalier, who was played by a power-hungry player, tried to stop them. He argued, rather eloquently it seemed, to sell the crown if he couldn't keep it himself. Why waste power? The ranger was swayed, the wizard argued that it should be destroyed, and the fighter/thief was being indicisive. Inter-party strife was imminent. The paladin's player stood up and said "Stand down, Grima*! This is the very essence of evil. It is our duty to protect this land and any who use it will fall to the temptation that it offers. Know this, I take my oaths seriously, and will further my cause to the utmost. If you carry it, I will strike off your hand. If you use it, I will take your head. Choose quickly."

The rest of the players said a collective "Whoa!", rocked back, and sided with the paladin. The cavalier submitted, and went along with the attempts to destroy it.

Since then, I have clarified at the beginning of a game to make sure that every one is on the same page, ethically speaking. While the above was cool, and the paladin's player really shined, I would prefer not to have situations that could lead the party to self-destructing. And, if the characters are of that mind set, I adjust the rewards appropriately.

N.B. The cavalier was not named Grima, but was appropriate given how the other characters were being swayed.

Baron Opal

 

[Baron Opal]

Follow up

Another thought, Frank. Why do you assume that the paladin would be the one with the problem? In my experience, it's the cleric who would lead the charge on issues like this. Of course, clerics that I have run tend to be Good aligned, but still.

Baron Opal

 

[Ottergame]

I say if the party insists on making him pay for it, make the desturction of the weapon a high level encounter, and reward only the paladin with a large sum of experience.