Why do some players insist on destroying an enemy's spellbook in front of wizard?

[Alcore]

Okay, good to know there are some forumites that use it differently.


How do you destroy something evenly? Either it's they party's to decide what to do with, or it automatically goes to someone and it's considered theirs as soon as it found. The latter is very weird assumption to me, but if that's your view, that's your view.

I use words correctly. And I can do that by actually knowing what each letter of pvp stands for.

And... if you are going to ignore context you are going to be confused.

[Chauncymancer]

Do your other players have any experience with Call of Cthulhu by the way? What I'm thinking about is the trope from several stories about witches in which the spell book itself is an evil artifact.

[MoiMagnus]

But if an individual wants to sell or destroy some loot and the majority of the party goes along with it, then the party as a whole has decided what to do with that loot, even if some members aren't happy with the decision.

All VS One is still PvP. If everyone suddenly attack a PC to murder him that's PvP. And generally as a Player, I fundamentally disagree on taking group decision without reaching unanimity (voting is fine, but between reasonable peoples the winning side of the vote is able to find a compromise for the losing side to reluctantly agree).

Outside of some other justifications provided (which there can be, like honest fear of being a cursed item), this is still an act which is negative toward the party with for only objective to bully a specific player.

Unless this kind of PvP (however you name it) is considered normal at the table it's probably one of the few instances where as a GM I would step in and say "NO, you don't do that".

[Telok]

But this seems like a near-unique situation. Maybe the paladin’s player sincerely thinks that an evil wizard’s spellbook must be inherently evil by definition?

Do they know (or strongly suspect) what's in the spellbook before making these kind of decisions?

Ordinarily, spellbooks are loot and best given to allied wizard. Destroying them mostly comes up when a specific book is known to be too dangerous to use...

....what is this, Fahrenheit 451? What the hell is that why would you burn spellbooks.

I've seen it several times, although not in the ~10 years with my main curent stable group. Basically it comes from either the aforementioned *******s trying to "subtly" pvp or (and actually more common in my experience) people who don't come from the d&d murder-hoboism object utility asthetic.

Lets say there's a body of knowledge, say its super detailed info on nerve-muscle structure & interaction in human hands. Its just info right? If there's a circumstance with a tricky hand nerve surgery it would be good have. But say the source of the info was a massive & heinous torture genocide progrom. There are people who do not see the useful information as being different from the moral actions of the nasty people who produced it through terrible crimes.

Its that "the tool/object is a moral actor in the crime" perspective, combined with some RL habituation that magic=evil which causes an issue. Combined with a weird intersection of d&d murder-hoboism, where characters have an implied moral imperative to blindly slughter & destroy everything not on a strict binary good/evil side and no repercussions for things modern people consider terrible crimes, you get "burn the evil book" people. Which is a bit odd considering you have actual methods in d&d to determine if said tool (book of magic) spells is really in-game evil because d&d is firmly in the spells=swords so only special ones are aligned. But you get spill over from other stuff that gives some people a logic chain of:
We are good guys so enemies are evil >> opposing wizard = evil wizard >> evil wizards use evil magic >> evil wizard's spellbook = book of evil magic >> opposing wizard spellbooks = evil book to be smashed & done in.

[Tanarii]

Unless this kind of PvP (however you name it) is considered normal at the table it's probably one of the few instances where as a GM I would step in and say "NO, you don't do that".

I might require the party to formally vote, as I suspect this was more of one player saying their character was going to do something and the DM either immediately accepting it as done or the other PCs standing around because meh it doesn't affect them.

But I'd certainly never step in and overrule if a party voted to take an action and one character didn't like it, unless it was violating a standing rule had. That indicates that the character is a bad fit for the party.

Which is why I questioned why it was PvP. Many tables have a standing rule against that. Now I know if I join one I need to ask if it means no attacking other characters, no messing with other characters at all, or the party not being allowed to vote an action against any individual character in the party's preferences. As opposed to assuming we all know what it means.

[animorte]

Wins thread.

Thanks! I was hoping somebody would read and appreciate it. Inspired by Golden Girls actually.

[Duff]

I would consider it PvP if a player, for example, stole my Barbarian's new magic weapon. This is exactly the same scenario.

This.
If there's in-game character reasons, it might be OK. Assuming that's part of the agreed customs of your table

Otherwise it seems a bit like a "Find better people to play with" type issue

[Pauly]

Okay, good to know there are some forumites that use it differently.


How do you destroy something evenly? Either it's they party's to decide what to do with, or it automatically goes to someone and it's considered theirs as soon as it found.

I assume things are property of the party until it's assigned to someone. If one member of the party unilaterally destroys or sells party loot without the approval of the rest of the party, that's an offense against the party as a whole, not individuals who might have used it. But if an individual wants to sell or destroy some loot and the majority of the party goes along with it, then the party as a whole has decided what to do with that loot, even if some members aren't happy with the decision.

The rule of thumb with the various groups I’ve gamed in is that if an item of loot is restricted to one particular character in the party for [reasons] then it belongs to that player unless they explicitly say they don’t want it. Where the party gets involved is making sure there is a fair distribution of loot.
There may be some edge cases if it is the only loot item or it is much more valuable than other loot items. Generally if that happens there is in party discussion/negotiation to come to some agreement as to what to do. Such as the item is sold for cash, the player receiving it forgoes future loot, the players buys it from the party with their own cash, or the players redistribute items to equalize value amongst party members.

Edit to add
As for PvP the tables I’ve played at include it to mean messing with a player’s stuff in a harmful way. This includes possessions, NPC contacts and things the player can reasonably expect to become theirs. For the last one for example if the bad guy has a horse and there is one player in the party who doesn’t have a horse and wants one then deliberately targeting and killing the horse when it isn’t necessary to achieve the party’s goals is a mild form of PvP. Because it is done to prevent the character from getting an item. If the horse dies or runs away as accidental collateral damage then that’s OK.

We generally accept some limited messing with players stuff when it’s obviously a joke with no real consequences. An example was a game where the bard and the paladin had a running dispute as to whether the paladin’s personal heraldic device was an eagle or a chicken. One night before going into a village the next day the bard repainted the paladin’s shield to his preferred interpretation. The DM had the party roll perception the next morning, the paladin failed his perception check and the rest of the party who passed the check kept their mouths shut. In the village there was comedy and shenanigans which was an amusing event in the campaign. Repeating the joke wouldn’t have been taken as funny though, that would be crossing into harassment/PvP territory.

[Alcore]

I can sort of understand why it might be practical. There is a saying about linear fighters and quadratic wizards which is a real thing. Still doesn't change the fact that they burned loot that I would count against the treasure for an encounter...


Just on core alone a spellbook from a level 4 enemy with 20 int would be...

the physical book (15gp)
20 level 0 spells (100gp)
10 level 1 spells (100gp)
4 level 2 spells (160gp)

So in pathfinder 1e if the party burns the book they lose 375gp (187gp 5sp resale). Say the party wizard can copy down a level 1 and three level 2s. That's 130gp he now has "equipped" on his character. Still over 50gp to split with the party.


But it doesn't sound like they did it to keep game balance and the rant at the beginning suggests something more malicious. Which is why I called it pvp. I will again say it is Player vs Player as opposed to Player Character. This already seems like a OOC problem spilling over into IC.

Fortunately this seems to be the minority if the replies are anything to go by... have we tried finding a new table?

[SpoonR]

“talk to your group” is always job one, to find out what gm and other players thought was going on. That said

good reasons to burn books, D&D of various flavors:
Book pinged on paladin’s “detect evil” ability
Book is magical (so NOT a spellbook in vanilla D&D), someone has reason to think it’s cursed or trapped
DM known to give out trapped books

Non-pvp bad reasons
Wrong genre savvy; Warhammer Fantasy, Discworld, Cthulhu, various fiction, have dangerous, corrupting, books. There, burning unless you’re sure it’s safe would make sense.
Previously well-established lore reasons, like this order of paladins bans literacy.

dunno if any apply in this case

[tomandtish]

yeah, I've been playing this game in various forms since 1977. I can only recall two times where destroying a spellbook was seriously considered. In both cases the book had 1 spell that was ritualistic and would require the unwilling sacrifice of hundreds.

[Willie the Duck]

I'm sure I've seen this at least once, but not more than 2-3 times in 39 years of gaming. Not more or less common than throwing items to a rust monster or pushing a monster corpse off a cliff before someone else could get the trophy they wanted. Sometimes people are just dinking around and being destructive and being inconsiderate to the other gamers who might want that such-and-such. If they do so again after it's been brought up, then you have an interpersonal conflict going on. As always, 'it's what my character would do' is not an excuse to be disruptive at the table (since you chose to play this character) and the best solution is always to talk it out like the reasonable individuals we certainly hope they can be (when push comes to shove).

[False God]

I've never actually seen a party do this.

Most of my parties have been more than happy to turn over whatever spellbook they find so they can learn all the enemy's tricks. The rest hock spellbook loot for coin.

[Easy e]

Perhaps the other player has been playing too much Call of Cthulhu?

[Lord Torath]

I've had it happen once in a Dark Sun game, where the uneducated druid wanted to destroy it. My preserver was able to convince her that it was the manner of the casting rather than the spells themselves that caused the defiling, and the spellbook was preserved. But Dark Sun is a world where wizards are generally mistrusted, so it make s a bit more sense in that setting.

In an earlier adventure, the BBEG was a defiler who had large stone 'wheels' in their home that served as a spell book, and those were shattered. There were no PC mages in that party, though, so none of them could tell that they were spell "books".

yeah, I've been playing this game in various forms since 1977. I can only recall two times where destroying a spellbook was seriously considered. In both cases the book had 1 spell that was ritualistic and would require the unwilling sacrifice of hundreds.

In this case, I'd be more inclined to take a sharp dagger and slice off the offending pages and burn them, then hand what was left to the party wizard.

[Duff]

If the party had voted to sell the spellbook and split the gold, would that also have been PvP?

Not usually.
But if the wizard had the gold to buy it from the party's "pooled treasure" and wasn't given 1st option on it, yes, that would be PVP.

[Kriegspiel]

Thanks! I was hoping somebody would read and appreciate it. Inspired by Golden Girls actually.

Rose recounting a tale of her childhood in St. Olaf?

[animorte]

Rose recounting a tale of her childhood in St. Olaf?

Blanche actually, telling a story of the townsfolk and Big Daddy, her father.

There were only 3 books in St. Olaf’s library, if I recall correctly.

[Zuras]

I might require the party to formally vote, as I suspect this was more of one player saying their character was going to do something and the DM either immediately accepting it as done or the other PCs standing around because meh it doesn't affect them.

But I'd certainly never step in and overrule if a party voted to take an action and one character didn't like it, unless it was violating a standing rule had. That indicates that the character is a bad fit for the party.

Which is why I questioned why it was PvP. Many tables have a standing rule against that. Now I know if I join one I need to ask if it means no attacking other characters, no messing with other characters at all, or the party not being allowed to vote an action against any individual character in the party's preferences. As opposed to assuming we all know what it means.

As far as my tables are concerned, PvP is any intra-party behavior that would make a reasonable person wonder “why are these people trusting each other with their lives”. It can range from acceptable in-character drama which adds to the game as long as it stays within bounds, but it requires players to be pretty good at both respecting and noticing each other’s boundaries.

There’s also obviously problematic player behavior that’s not PvP, but the vast majority is either PvP or the stuff you address with safety tools.

[DigoDragon]

This is weird, but not unheard of; I once had run an adventure and half the party was very paranoid that wizard spell books came with curses and wards that would corrupt readers into monsters or something.

I basically stepped in and told the paranoid folks that unless the book was bound in humsn skin and written in blood, it's usually safe to read, barring minor snake sigil traps that really just do damage.

Eventually they came around.

[Rynjin]

Well, Sepia Snake Sigil is a lot more annoying than "do damage" since it essentially sidelines a character for days or weeks of game time lol.

[Quertus]

Yeah, so, this behavior makes sense in certain horror settings, like Warhammer, or Call off Cthulhu, or the Moonshae Isles, where magic is corrupting / Wizards are hunted. It makes sense for certain (generally problematic) archetypes (like the AD&D Barbadian). Now, maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see the OP saying that this even occurred in D&D, so… it might be perfectly reasonable.

And it’s possible that, even if it did take place in a D&D setting, that the player(s) didn’t read the setting documents or whatever, and have been influenced by some other system or popular media into believing that books are bad.

Still, in a D&D context, “destroying the loot” - regardless of whether it’s obviously intended for one player - is not just suboptimal, but PvP.

Eh...

It is almost unheard of for me.

almost


I once had a religious character who believed that the mind and soul were the most sacred things a man has. This was foreshadowed early and was clearly stated in the background. The GM didn't seem to get the memo. Cue my character, the party wizard, burning a book full of mind effecting spells that the GM thought he was missing.

Apparently one of them was needed for the quest

Ignoring everything else, this is why you do not construct fragile adventures with single points of failure like that.

As opposed to assuming we all know what it means.

Assuming everyone means exactly the same things by their words is, unfortunately, a slow and maddening path to failure. Which is (one of the reasons) why I advocate one-shots, so people can calibrate expectations; when the group is told to bring characters for a “political” game, and they bring a Noble, a Bard, a Knight, and a matchmaker, they can have a conversation about what those words mean to everyone.

[DigoDragon]

Well, Sepia Snake Sigil is a lot more annoying than "do damage" since it essentially sidelines a character for days or weeks of game time lol.

The actual Sepia version does yes. There are ways around it though.

[Cikomyr2]

The problem is that magic is not properly defined in your world. Some players will associate "black magic" (aka the Dark Side) that will corrupt your soul with any evil practitioner. And yhea, theres a difference between picking the Tome of Darkness used by a Warlock as his pact boon, and just a bad guy wizard.

But some players dont understand that nuance, and i feel its up to the DM to make sure its established that a spellbook, even of an evil wizard, is more like an evil scientist 's research book than a gateway of evil.

[animorte]

I've heard some horror stories of parents throwing away their children's D&D equipment because of the possible evil influence. D&D books are our spell books.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've heard some horror stories of parents throwing away their children's D&D equipment because of the possible evil influence.

Or it's good parenting, not a horror story. If they don't want their kids playing D&D it's their call. I lived through the "D&D is a satanic cult" era (thankfully, I was a young adult at that point, not a kid). I had been raised by two parents who were super strict in what they let us watch on TV, what movies we went to, etc. Somehow, I turned out OK. (I think)

Spoiler: Anecdote

Show

I raised two kids, and there were certain TV shows that were banned by my wife and I. (I played some D&D with my kids, but my wife found that the game wasn't to her taste so after a few sessions she declined to participate any further. I think she's be just as happy if I got rid of all of my D&D stuff in an on line auction or garage sale, but that I'm not gonna do).

[Batcathat]

Or it's good parenting, not a horror story. If they don't want their kids playing D&D it's their call. I lived through the "D&D is a satanic cult" era (thankfully, I was a young adult at that point, not a kid). I had been raised by two parents who were super strict in what they let us watch on TV, what movies we went to, etc. Somehow, I turned out OK. (I think)

So would parents keeping their kids from playing soccer out of fear it would transform them into pigeons also be good parenting? Parents dictating what their kids may or may not do for irrational reasons might be acceptable parenting, but I certainly wouldn't call it good parenting.

[Psyren]

OP hasn't posted since the beginning of the thread but I'll +1 the "have a conversation with the table and prepare to leave that group entirely if it doesn't go well" advice.

[Quertus]

So would parents keeping their kids from playing soccer out of fear it would transform them into pigeons also be good parenting? Parents dictating what their kids may or may not do for irrational reasons might be acceptable parenting, but I certainly wouldn't call it good parenting.

Yeah, I’ve seen too much bad parenting - and bad management in general - that took the form “X, so that (not) Y”, when X and Y were not logically related, done by managers who lacked the ability to have a reasonable conversation about their dictates, that I really can’t call it “good” anything, either.

[MonkeySage]

A lot of people have told me that this is unusual, unheard of behavior... Which makes me wonder about the groups I've played with in the past!

This has happened to me at least four times in the years I've played D&D and Pathfinder, with at three different groups. Most recently, I had just met the new player. They were new to the campaign, and this was our first encounter together. After the fight, the player immediately tried to burn the book. After protests from the rest of the group, they relented and gave the book to me- the only one in the party who could actually use it.

There was no indication that this wizard we fought was practicing evil magic- their spells were neutral, mostly harmless. We didn't fight him because he was evil, but rather because he was crazed.

I think their might be something to the suggestion they came from Call of Cthulhu, honestly..