Total..er..partial..er somewhat chaos?

[andargor]

Im either going to find a new one ot start my own game again but I swear if I hear "Girls shouldnt play D&D" one more time, youll see my handiwork on CNN.....

What? Who said that?

We'd be jumping in joy to have a girl play with us. Do not despair...

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

However, your actions were a direct result of your character's greed. I can, to a certain extent, see the top of the paladin slide (with blackguard at the bottom).

GREED?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

OK, People, say it with me MAGIC ITEMS ARE NOT CASH; THEY ARE TOOLS!!!!!!!!!!!

Magic Items are what you need to survive.

How much is a +1 Dagger worth? 2,305 gp? And if you are being attacked by a critter with DR 30/Magic, how much would you be willing to pay for that little bit of steel?

Magic Items are Tools. These tools may have a set value to create (in D&D they have a set value to help DM’s balance characters and campaigns), but they are not in & of themselves possessed of the intrinsic value some people seem to think.

In this case we are talking about a 16th (later post) level character forced to drop down to 5 items.

That would be 1 Armor, 1 Weapon, plus 3 others. If you force 1 to be an Evil Item, you are forcing them down to 2 others. At high levels (in most games), the difference between you having your 4 best items & your 5 best items has a significant impact on your ability to survive.

And if you know you will be forced to return an item of evil, and should you be defeated that item of evil could wreck untold havoc……. Why not just destroy in a nearly abandoned pocket plane of unknown location?

This wasn’t an act of greed, it was one of intelligence. The player found a way to avoid the Lawful Stupid Stereotype of Paladins.

From all that has been detailed, I’m pretty sure had he taken the evil item with him, it would have somehow fallen back into evil hands.

Just a hunch.

Repeat.

Magic Items are Tools. Gems are Cash. Gold is Cash. Copper is sorta Cash. Art Objects are Cash. Magic Items (while they may possess a listed value) have a much more important role other than ultra-light trade bars.

Or, in a video game, when you get to the rail-road level where you can only take X of your equipment with you, do you take the most valuable or the most useful/powerful. Look how often Power/Cost corresponds (though usefulness can vary by situation).

Wands are not ATM Cards, you can’t Cash out any Equity on your Holy Avenger.

Rant out.

 

[IcyCool]

GREED?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

Yes, greed.

OK, People, say it with me MAGIC ITEMS ARE NOT CASH; THEY ARE TOOLS!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, they are both. If I have a +1 longsword, and stumble across a +1 dagger, then yes, that dagger is effectively a lightweight way of carrying 1152.5gp. It is NOTHING more than cash.

Magic Items are what you need to survive.

Sadly, this seems to be what everyone believes. And certainly what the core ruleset adheres to. Of course, if you trust your GM ...

Magic Items are Tools. These tools may have a set value to create (in D&D they have a set value to help DM’s balance characters and campaigns), but they are not in & of themselves possessed of the intrinsic value some people seem to think.

Yes, yes they are. Most folks, if the item is not exactly what they want, will save it only to sell it so that they can eventually afford to have someone craft the item they really want. Some of those items may be useful in the interim, but eventually they will be exchanged for cash.

In this case we are talking about a 16th (later post) level character forced to drop down to 5 items.

Huh, I read that as being forced to drop down to 5 items from this dimension, i.e. only 5 of the items that they had looted from this dimension. I'm not sure I read that wrong, either. Goldmoon, how exactly did this work?

That would be 1 Armor, 1 Weapon, plus 3 others. If you force 1 to be an Evil Item, you are forcing them down to 2 others. At high levels (in most games), the difference between you having your 4 best items & your 5 best items has a significant impact on your ability to survive.

1. If your GM runs straight by the rules, then yes. Of course, the arbitrary restriction seems to imply otherwise...

2. I am a Paladin. I have the choice of bringing a back an evil item for proper destruction by my church, or trying to destroy it in the field and bringing back a shiny new suit of magical plate. I choose the fullplate option, why? Because I really want that shiny new suit of armor, even if it means I don't fully purge an evil item from the land? Because I'm afraid for my own survival? Because I think that armor will keep me alive longer so that I can continue to help others and see to it that evil items are "potentially" destroyed? Or do I make that sacrifice, do I expose myself to danger so that I might see to it that a lasting evil is properly eradicated from this world?

And if you know you will be forced to return an item of evil, and should you be defeated that item of evil could wreck untold havoc……. Why not just destroy in a nearly abandoned pocket plane of unknown location?

Well, you could try. Are you sure you would succeed?

This wasn’t an act of greed, it was one of intelligence. The player found a way to avoid the Lawful Stupid Stereotype of Paladins.

I disagree.

From all that has been detailed, I’m pretty sure had he taken the evil item with him, it would have somehow fallen back into evil hands.

Again, I disagree.

 

[Artoomis]

...2. I am a Paladin. I have the choice of bringing a back an evil item for proper destruction by my church, or trying to destroy it in the field and bringing back a shiny new suit of magical plate. I choose the fullplate option, why? Because I really want that shiny new suit of armor, even if it means I don't fully purge an evil item from the land? Because I'm afraid for my own survival? Because I think that armor will keep me alive longer so that I can continue to help others and see to it that evil items are "potentially" destroyed? Or do I make that sacrifice, do I expose myself to danger so that I might see to it that a lasting evil is properly eradicated from this world?...

Pretty well-stated, and summarizes the problem the Paladin is facing. Throw into the mix the fact that he is the sole representative of the church with full authority to make field decisions, and you pretty well have it.

Is there truly a difference between destroying the weapon on the spot and bringing it back to the church? Would bringing it back be more about the egos of the priests - that is, allowing them to put "destroyed big, bad, evil weapon" on their résumés? Is there a church rule that evil weapons MUST be brought back to the church for destruction? May the paladin ignore such a rule as a senior church leader? These are all questions to be considered.

Bottom line, this action seems to be perhaps questionable, but not a gross violation of the paladin's code of conduct.

In any case, the paladin (and player) should have KNOWN (from the DM) if this was to be considered a gross violation of the code. DM should have said something like, "You know, if you have the paladin do that it will be a gross violation of his code of conduct." There may have been some disagreement on that point, but the ruling would have been clear, at least.

 

[jeffman]

Bring a coupon!

This is that last straw with him too. Im going DM shopping this weekend.

Tax free weekend in MA...

 

[werk]

Is there truly a difference between destroying the weapon on the spot and bringing it back to the church?

...and if there is, would the character be aware of it?

If the character is low on int, and hasn't spent much on history or arcana, odds are he's oblivious to an issue if it exists. Magic evil sword, I'll break it, problem solved! I'll take it with me, just in case it reshapes or fixes itself or something...sounds reasonable to me.

Is there something established within the church that dictates action in this type of scenario? If not, you are playing your character...no harm, no foul.

He quite obviously wasn't keeping the evil sword out of greed, as there was zero personal gain of any kind. In fact, he was selflessly choosing to take the evil item (for the protection of others, even after it was 'destroyed') over other valuable/useful items. That is the opposite of greed. I think you are way off.

 

[Artoomis]

...and if there is, would the character be aware of it?

As as rather senior (16th level) member of the church, I would hope so.

...Is there something established within the church that dictates action in this type of scenario? If not, you are playing your character...no harm, no foul.

He quite obviously wasn't keeping the evil sword out of greed, as there was zero personal gain of any kind. In fact, he was selflessly choosing to take the evil item (for the protection of others, even after it was 'destroyed') over other valuable/useful items. That is the opposite of greed. I think you are way off.

The "greed" was in destroying it to make room for another item to keep. The real question comes down to his oath to follow church rules (if that's part of his oath) and what church rules he might have violated and then whether or no that violation was a "gross violation."

That fact that this act may have been chaotic is actually neither here nor there unless he actually changed alignment

 

[IcyCool]

He quite obviously wasn't keeping the evil sword out of greed, as there was zero personal gain of any kind. In fact, he was selflessly choosing to take the evil item (for the protection of others, even after it was 'destroyed') over other valuable/useful items. That is the opposite of greed. I think you are way off.

Actually, he was. He wanted to take the evil sword with him, but couldn't, because he was only allowed 5 items, and he wouldn't give up one of those items for the sword. He wasn't selflessly choosing to take the evil item over others, because he didn't take the evil item.

 

[werk]

As as rather senior (16th level) member of the church, I would hope so.

So, since he's high ranking, and was unaware of any weird evil artifact handling protocol, he was fine. Right?

The "greed" was in destroying it to make room for another item to keep.

But that's not what he did, is it?

That fact that this act may have been chaotic is actually neither here nor there unless he actually changed alignment

Which did not happen.


Are you ready to declare cowpoop yet?

 

[Artoomis]

So, since he's high ranking, and was unaware of any weird evil artifact handling protocol, he was fine. Right?

I did not say that. I Said he certainly should be aware of protocal and should know when it is okay to violate that protocal.

But that's not what he did, is it?

It's exactly what he did. He destroyed the weapon solely so that he could take a different item back with him rather than giving up an item to take back the sword for "proper" destruction.

Which did not happen.

No, it did not.

Are you ready to declare cowpoop yet?

Yep - but ONLY because the DM should have pre-warned him of what would have happened. I think that the "gross violation of oath" could be defendable, but not after-the-fact like the way it was done here. Also not defendable is loss of powers due to a "chaotic act." That's not the way the paladin class works.