Paladin PC - I think he just fell.


Advice

351 to 400 of 496 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

FuelDrop wrote:

Now if the Paladin felt that the Wyvern was irredeemable then his behavior would be walking the line.

Doesn't excuse it. It is akin to a general practitioner euthanizing a patient because he feels a brain tumor is inoperable without bothering to get a second opinion from the brain surgeon who was also examining the patient.

Maybe the doctor was right about the tumor, maybe he was wrong, but he ABSOLUTELY KNEW that he didn't have all the information necessary to make a qualified judgement on the issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darinby wrote:
alchemicGenius wrote:
Sometimes paladar isn't the best option. even if it's not a charm, there's nothing saying the wyvern didn't just bully the group into negotiation. If someone has a split second to make a choice, they will go with what their instinct tells them. From the paladin's perspective, he did the most reasonable thing with what information he was privy to.
The Wyvern ran away from the party, the PCs chased after it. That doesn't point to the Wyvern being in a position of strength. And even of it did 'bully the group into negotiation', a good character has an obligation to LISTEN to its demands rather than killing it out of hand. If the demands are unreasonable or evil THEN violence may be the answer.

A good character has no such obligation once attacked. There is nothing in the definition of good that says they must listen to an enemy. Valuing life doesn't mean being a milqtoast anytime the villan wants to monologue.


Darinby wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:

This entire talk comes down to peoples preconceptions of good, and how they interpret it within the setting.

You're claim that they have an obligation to listen to the Wyvern is no more and no less valid then someone elses, although this should have been adjudicated by the GM long before this issue cropped up.

No, not all interpretation of 'good' are equally valid. If I claim that randomly setting fire to buildings in a crowded city full of innocent people is 'evil' the opposing viewpoint that it is a moral thing to do doesn't really hold water.

Preserving sentient life is a core value of 'good', the Paladin didn't even make an attempt to do so. Instead, he kills a sentient being in a fit of pique.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules

"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. "

Both of which don't matter once you have been attacked. The respect or lack thereof for sentient beings stops once you have been attacked.

Killing an opponent isn't evil - it didn't stop being an opponent just because your (friend, relative, relation, neighbor, anyone else) decided to stop fighting.

Having it stop swinging doesn't put a chain on a PC's neck that says 'you are evil if you don't stop'.


Ckorik wrote:
Valuing life doesn't mean being a milqtoast anytime the villan wants to monologue.

Valuing life DOES mean spending at least 15 seconds looking for an option that allows you to avoid killing a sentient being when you can do so without undue risk.

And performing due diligence before executing someone is not 'being a milktoast'.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Darinby wrote:


The GM stated that the other PCs had a significant chance of success for their attempt at recruiting the Wyvern into their kingdom. The Paladin could have found that out in less than a minute without serious risk to the party. His failure to do so indicates a callus disregard of the lives of others.

This I feel is the least important aspect of the conversation and least helpful to what I hope the GM was trying to get out of this thread i.e a different view. I'll also mention that the players and their characters wouldn't and shouldn't know the chances of success. It being likely is just as meaningful as the chance it doesn't happen.

The GM literally said what his bias was. If you're using it to justify your argument, then we may as well not have a discussion at all since clearly Stephen was just looking to hear people parrot his own thoughts.

If there's a solid chance that something as obvious as the Wyvern simply not keeping it's word and it goes on to harm more people, the Paladin shouldn't do it. That is gambling with the lives of others. Which I might add would be a callus disregard to the lives of others.

This.

What doesn't matter:

The other PCs were speaking to it.

Why: The paladin couldn't understand what was being said - doesn't matter what they were saying - it could have just as easily been battle taunts - without the other players actually stepping up and saying STOP (a free action) the paladin had no knowledge of what was going on.

The Wyvern was intelligent.

Why: Intelligent foes abount in the game - if killing an intelligent being because it says 'peace' is evil - then no demon or devil will ever fear a paladin again - how easy to trick such a good patsy.

The Wyvern had surrendered.

Why: Paladins are generally *not* required to accept surrender - with just a couple of exceptions (see Faiths of Purity). You are thinking of the Caviler. Please see example Paladin codes for RAW reasons your homerules of paladins needing to be this way mean you play by a house rule - if the GM in question feels this way and it wasn't clear from the very first step the player took - then having him fall now is not fair to the player. If there is a houserule like that clearly defined already then this entire thread is a waste.

The paladin was angry.

Why: Being angry is not against the rules of being a paladin. It's called 'Righteous Wrath' - there is even an entire AP about the subject.

The Wyvern wasn't evil.

Why: Neither are many foes you have to fight - in some AP's a paldain may even have to fight Angels - without falling - you can't get more good than that. (They can be bound to evil via a spell) - Once attacked you are expected to defend yourself - there isn't anything that says you must hold your hand outside of a custom code.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The former paladin was spewing hatred, struck down a non-combatant, then murdered it, fully knowing that his allies were negotiating with it.

Get real.


Ckorik wrote:

What doesn't matter:

The other PCs were speaking to it.

Why: The paladin couldn't understand what was being said - doesn't matter what they were saying - it could have just as easily been battle taunts - without the other players actually stepping up and saying STOP (a free action) the paladin had no knowledge of what was going on.

The Paladin KNEW that he had no idea what the situation was. He KNEW the other PCs felt the situation warranted talking instead of fighting. He also KNEW that he could find out what the situation was quickly and without serious risk by asking the other PCs.

But instead of doing that he chose to kill the Wyvern in a fit of anger.


Darinby wrote:
alchemicGenius wrote:
Sometimes paladar isn't the best option. even if it's not a charm, there's nothing saying the wyvern didn't just bully the group into negotiation. If someone has a split second to make a choice, they will go with what their instinct tells them. From the paladin's perspective, he did the most reasonable thing with what information he was privy to.
The Wyvern ran away from the party, the PCs chased after it. That doesn't point to the Wyvern being in a position of strength. And even of it did 'bully the group into negotiation', a good character has an obligation to LISTEN to its demands rather than killing it out of hand. If the demands are unreasonable or evil THEN violence may be the answer.

I have no obligation to listen to the demands of someone who has just tried to kill me.

That is called taking someone hostage. Don't negotiate with hostage takers if you're in a position to take them out.

Which they were, in this case, since said hostage taker was not nearly in a position of strength.

Darinby wrote:


The Paladin KNEW that he had no idea what the situation was. He KNEW the other PCs felt the situation warranted talking instead of fighting. He also KNEW that he could find out what the situation was quickly and without serious risk by asking the other PCs.

But instead of doing that he chose to kill the Wyvern in a fit of anger.

Righteous anger.

Because the thing had JUST TRIED TO KILL HIM.

Why do people keep glossing over this fact like it doesn't matter?

Making the Paladin fall is essentially blaming a victim for turning the tables on someone who tried to kill them.

"Oh well he just stabbed me in the gut but he's talking to my friends now so he MUST BE AN OKAY GUY RIGHT?"

Are you seriously telling me that any living person with more than two brain cells to rub together would realistically think that?


Rynjin wrote:

I have no obligation to listen to the demands of someone who has just tried to kill me.

That is called taking someone hostage. Don't negotiate with hostage takers if you're in a position to take them out.

Which they were, in this case, since said hostage taker was not nearly in a position of strength.

The PCs were unrestrained, fully armed, and in a position of strength. In fact, they were the ones forcing the Wyvern into negotiations instead of the other way around.

Rynjin wrote:


"Oh well he just stabbed me in the gut but he's talking to my friends now so he MUST BE AN OKAY GUY RIGHT?"

Are you seriously telling me that any living person with more than two brain cells to rub together would realistically think that?

Any good person would find out what's going on before shooting the guy in the back of the head. Maybe he deserves to go to jail, maybe he deserves to get shot, AND MAYBE HE WAS OFF HIS MEDS AND NEEDS MEDICAL CARE. If you have any compassion for your fellow human beings at all you take a few seconds to find out which situation applies before blowing his head off.


Darinby wrote:


Any good person would find out what's going on before shooting the guy in the back of the head. Maybe he deserves to go to jail, maybe he deserves to get shot, AND MAYBE HE WAS OFF HIS MEDS AND NEEDS MEDICAL CARE. If you have any compassion for your fellow human beings at all you take a few seconds to find out which situation applies before blowing his head off.

I have compassion for people who deserve it.

Someone who has just tried to murder me does not deserve it.


Darinby wrote:
No, not all interpretation of 'good' are equally valid. If I claim that randomly setting fire to buildings in a crowded city full of innocent people is 'evil' the opposing viewpoint that it is a moral thing to do doesn't really hold water.

Thank you for that strawman. Of course not all interpretations are equally valid. This situation is not remotely equivalent to setting a building on fire to kill innocent people. How about you address my actual argument rather then make pointless statements like this.

This is like you saying that you have the correct "answer" to the trolley dilemma, and when I point out there are different answers you say that nope, not doing it my way is the same as doing a horrendously evil act that we both agree is evil.

Darinby wrote:
Preserving sentient life is a core value of 'good', the Paladin didn't even make an attempt to do so. Instead, he kills a sentient being in a fit of pique.

This is more complicated then your giving it credit as being. I'm sorry the world doesn't boil down to simple black and white, and the rules don't necessarily do this either.

A Paladin does not necessarilly need to preserve the life of a sentient creature who kills others merely for being within it's territory. Unlike a beast, the Wyvern knows there's a difference between a creature like humans/dwarves/elves/etc. and deer/sheep/etc. It just doesn't care and kill indiscriminately because things that are weaker then it don't matter. A Paladin is easily able to justify (depending on your interpretation, which you'll notice I haven't even said yours was incorrect, merely that other interpretations can be valid) kill the Wyvern to protect other sentient life who will come this way in the future.

Again, I'll point to it's ok to kill a liche even if it surrenders, to which the general reply was "yeah but they're totally evil and have done evil stuff". Well ok, from the Paladin's point of view you have a creature with sentience who goes about slaughtering anything it considers weaker then it, because it can't be bothered to care.

Darinby wrote:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules

"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. "

I'd also point out, that this brief statement isn't the be all end all of what it means to be good. Under a strict reading of this, a Paladin should never take a life period. But we all know that a strict reading of this is silly.

TL:DR, don't straw man my argument it's unbecoming of you. The situation is far more complicated then you're giving it credit for, and under some interpretations the Paladin did not commit an evil act.


Stephen Ede wrote:

I have a player who is using the Paladin of Freedom - CG https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/extras/community-creations/hous e-rules/classes/paladin-of-freedom

In this session the party was flying above the forest canopy when the Paladin was jumped by a Wyvern. The Wyvern did some damage before attacks from the party caused it to flee closely pursued by the Sphinx Wizard and Gnome Sorcerer riding a Dire Bat. They called on it to parlay in Draconic. Badly wounded and unable to easily outrun the hasted PC's itagreed to parlay landing on a solid part of the forest canopy. The 2 PC casters had started negotiating for 2 rounds when the angry Paladin caught up. The Paladin couldn't speak Draconic but could see that the PC's and Wyvern were communicating and not fighting. He charged in dropping the Wyvern to -1hit points. The Sphinx PC stopped the unconcious Wyvern from falling at which point the Paladin delivered a Coup De Grace decapitating it.

This character is 100% a warrior now. If he wants to become a Paladin again I think an atonement quest that teaches him why mercy and understanding are virtues to be strived towards should need to be completed.

This is a good opportunity for a party adventure and character building for his PC. He can either come back into the light and rejoin the ranks of Paladin or become bitter and angry over what he feels are unjust judgements to his actions and become an Blackguard. Or just show his apathy about it all and probably reroll a new character (because, really, who wants to play a Warrior for the whole campaign).

Paladins need uphold a strict code of conduct at all times. I would not let blatant evil actions like this slide.


Darinby wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

What doesn't matter:

The other PCs were speaking to it.

Why: The paladin couldn't understand what was being said - doesn't matter what they were saying - it could have just as easily been battle taunts - without the other players actually stepping up and saying STOP (a free action) the paladin had no knowledge of what was going on.

The Paladin KNEW that he had no idea what the situation was. He KNEW the other PCs felt the situation warranted talking instead of fighting. He also KNEW that he could find out what the situation was quickly and without serious risk by asking the other PCs.

But instead of doing that he chose to kill the Wyvern in a fit of anger.

You are projecting - the Paladin *KNEW* nothing of the sort - stop metagaming what the player knows into what the character knows.


Solusek wrote:


Paladins need uphold a strict code of conduct at all times. I would not let blatant evil actions like this slide.

By your definition every iconic Paizo has produced (including the paladin) is evil in alignment based on actions taken they have published.

(i.e. killing something that just tried to kill you isn't evil - by RAW or RAI in any definition).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Majuba wrote:

The former paladin was spewing hatred, struck down a non-combatant, then murdered it, fully knowing that his allies were negotiating with it.

Get real.

This.

Palpatine might as well have been behind him monologuing about hate.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Majuba wrote:

The former paladin was spewing hatred, struck down a non-combatant, then murdered it, fully knowing that his allies were negotiating with it.

Get real.

This.

Palpatine might as well have been behind him monologuing about hate.

Paladins aren't Jedi - not even close to the same thing - paladins are allowed to feel, take retribution, marry, love, all of that.

the 'non-combatant' is a flat out falsehood - it attacked - it's a combatant - the fact that someone in the party tried to talk to it doesn't change that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
Solusek wrote:


Paladins need uphold a strict code of conduct at all times. I would not let blatant evil actions like this slide.

By your definition every iconic Paizo has produced (including the paladin) is evil in alignment based on actions taken they have published.

(i.e. killing something that just tried to kill you isn't evil - by RAW or RAI in any definition).

There is a huge difference between killing something that is actively in combat and killing someone who is running away or standing there with their hands up and talking. Even if they previously did take a hostile action.

Would I change a good aligned PC to neutral or evil for what he did here? No, not for only rare transgressions at least. But the Paladin code is much stricter than just "remain good aligned". Messing up even once when you are a paladin means it's atonement time. Even when you mess up on accident. This, however, wasn't an accident. It was just straight up blood thirst.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I know they aren't Jedi. Thanks for missing the point.

This was clearly an over the top response to a de-escalated situation, and he needs to atone for it. The fact that the CdG came after the party told him what was going on...even more so.


Kryzbyn wrote:

I know they aren't Jedi. Thanks for missing the point.

This was clearly an over the top response to a de-escalated situation, and he needs to atone for it. The fact that the CdG came after the party told him what was going on...even more so.

Way to not read the very first post - the party never told him what was going on. Nor did they say *a word* as he charged and then CdG'd ... which again - takes over a full round to accomplish.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ok...true.

They didn't say a word to him. The Sphinx just aided the Wyvern preventing it from taking falling damage fro mthe Paladin's first attack. Actions speak louder than words...but I digress.

Strike that last part off, then. However:

"This was clearly an over the top response to a de-escalated situation, and he needs to atone for it."

That part is still valid.


Solusek wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Solusek wrote:


Paladins need uphold a strict code of conduct at all times. I would not let blatant evil actions like this slide.

By your definition every iconic Paizo has produced (including the paladin) is evil in alignment based on actions taken they have published.

(i.e. killing something that just tried to kill you isn't evil - by RAW or RAI in any definition).

There is a huge difference between killing something that is actively in combat and killing someone who is running away or standing there with their hands up and talking. Even if they previously did take a hostile action.

Would I change a good aligned PC to neutral or evil for what he did here? No, not for only rare transgressions at least. But the Paladin code is much stricter than just "remain good aligned". Messing up even once when you are a paladin means it's atonement time. Even when you mess up on accident. This, however, wasn't an accident. It was just straight up blood thirst.

There is nothing in the situation that says the Wyvern had its hands (if it had them) up.

It hadn't surrendered. The party was trying to get it to surrender - you are projecting based on info that the GM would have let it surrender and become an ally. At the time (based on the info given) it had not. Speaking is a free action that doesn't mean 'you let your guard down'.

Saying 'they were out of initiative' or anything else is using out of game knowledge to make a character react differently. Nothing in the situation given tells the Paladin that they had stopped - and considering he was lagging behind if the party hadn't caught up with the Wyvern (causing it to stop) he most likely wouldn't have been able to catch it. The only way that the paladin could have known what was happening would be for the other players (in character) to actually say something - not exactly a huge hurdle. That didn't happen.


Kryzbyn wrote:

Ok...true.

They didn't say a word to him. The Sphinx just aided the Wyvern preventing it from taking falling damage fro mthe Paladin's first attack. Actions speak louder than words...but I digress.

Strike that last part off, then. However:

"This was clearly an over the top response to a de-escalated situation, and he needs to atone for it."

That part is still valid.

No - there was nothing *in character* that said the situation had de-escalated.

That would have either required the rest of the party to actually step up - or to metagame.

One of those is valid - and without it, you can't lay everything on the paladins feet.


Still going strong I see. I just want to understand the tunnel vision evil side of this argument. It seems like everyone who is arguing for a fall wants to look at everything in extreme isolation. The place the fight takes place in is called the Stolen Lands. The current inhabitants stole this land from humaniods. By killing off the non-combatants. The entire campaign revolves around reconquering stolen land.

Also the player is playing a Paladin of Freedom. I don't think getting in a fight about law and chaos like we have about good and evil will be productive, but this guy is as far from a traditional paladin as a Hellknight is. In my mind slavery is a giant no-no for CG types. So I can see the paladin thinking that enslaving the wyvern is worse than killing it. I also don't think that the paladin should care at all what the wizard and sorcerer think. Playing a paladin is about doing what you think is right especially when it is not popular, this is the reason most people who don't like them at the table don't like them at the table.

I wouldn't like to be the GM or any of the players in this scenario. It seems like you have different goals for different party members (or more likely they do and the GM has little to do with it.) That can be fine but when people want mutually exclusive things like converting and slaying your enemies, the group needs to have a talk. This can be done in game if everyone wants some story resolution, but it might need to be done out of game because gamers have a tendency to get heated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think all the arguments that killing the wyvern in order to save people from it is not evil are missing a very important point: that that's not what the paladin was doing at all.

Stephen Ede wrote:
When the other players tried to convince him not to kill it he did respond "you can raise dead it afterwards if you like but I'm killing it".

If you kill someone/something so that it won't be there to kill others, you do not want that thing to be brought back to life so it can pose that threat again. He killed it because he wanted to kill it, and whether it gets to live or stay dead after he has had his satisfaction of killing it is unimportant to him. That makes killing the wyvern evil in my eyes, even if the wyvern was the agressor.

Ckorik wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

I know they aren't Jedi. Thanks for missing the point.

This was clearly an over the top response to a de-escalated situation, and he needs to atone for it. The fact that the CdG came after the party told him what was going on...even more so.

Way to not read the very first post - the party never told him what was going on. Nor did they say *a word* as he charged and then CdG'd ... which again - takes over a full round to accomplish.

Didn't they?

Stephen Ede wrote:
I did repeatedly say "Are you sure you want to do that", "Are you realluy sure", "you can tell they appear to be talking with him in a language you don't know and they aren't fighting", "it's unconcious and helpless but not dead and your fellow party members have just told you they were negotiating with it. Are you sure you want to kill it".

The way I understand it, they told him that in character, or it would probably have said "your fellow players".


I have high doubts about the validity of the scenario as presented. We're getting only one side of the story and the DM has refused to allow the player to show his side as well.

Further the DM has only provided information that further proves his side to be correct.

So meh. With only the original information presented an argument can be made on the Paladin's behalf. However it appears that there was obviously bad things going on. If he had opened up with "Oh and the Paladin killed the Wyvern, and flat out said he didn't care if his party had it revived or not." This thread would have been a lot shorter.

He didn't. That is a pretty important detail to not give till like 6 pages in.


Wow, surprised this is still going on.

I hope the GM sticks to his guns on this one. It's a somewhat murky call, sure, but there is an argument to be made that it's fall-worthy and it's not like falling is that big of a deal. Really, though, I think the bigger point here is that it is part of the GM's role to adjudicate this sort of thing... it's clear how the GM of this game feels about it, and it's his right - no, it's his responsibility - to enforce the rules and make the calls outside of the PCs' control.

Besides, is atonement really even that much to ask? For this kind of offense, at most, I'd expect a brief period of lost Paladin powers and a few thousand GP spent to get the spell cast. By the time you're fighting Wyverns in the woods, you can probably rustle up a cleric or druid somewhere.

If it helps, think of an atonement every once in a while as the cost of doing business for a Paladin. I mean, you get some pretty nice class features, why not pay for them once in a while?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

EDIT: somewhat ninja'd; but that's normal; and a second time to fix a tag

Ckorik wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

I know they aren't Jedi. Thanks for missing the point.

This was clearly an over the top response to a de-escalated situation, and he needs to atone for it. The fact that the CdG came after the party told him what was going on...even more so.

Way to not read the very first post - the party never told him what was going on. Nor did they say *a word* as he charged and then CdG'd ... which again - takes over a full round to accomplish.

Uh...

The First Post wrote:

I have a player who is using the Paladin of Freedom - CG https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/extras/community-creations/hous e-rules/classes/paladin-of-freedom

In this session the party was flying above the forest canopy when the Paladin was jumped by a Wyvern. The Wyvern did some damage before attacks from the party caused it to flee closely pursued by the Sphinx Wizard and Gnome Sorcerer riding a Dire Bat. They called on it to parlay in Draconic. Badly wounded and unable to easily outrun the hasted PC's itagreed to parlay landing on a solid part of the forest canopy. The 2 PC casters had started negotiating for 2 rounds when the angry Paladin caught up. The Paladin couldn't speak Draconic but could see that the PC's and Wyvern were communicating and not fighting. He charged in dropping the Wyvern to -1hit points. The Sphinx PC stopped the unconcious Wyvern from falling at which point the Paladin delivered a Coup De Grace decapitating it.

My thought is that the Paladin has just fallen and lost his Paladin abilities until he has atoned.
1st he attacked the creature when it was in some sort of parlay even if he couldn't understand the words.
2nd After knocking it unconcious he proceeded to decapitate it.

Does anyone think this is an unreasonable view by me? And if so can you clarify why you think the Paladin shouldn't fall.

Thanks

... doesn't say the party remained silent and allowed this to happen with no words.

In fact, way to not read the rest of the thread (although, actually, since you participated, I presume you read it, but ignored it), and then attack someone for not reading the first post. So, let's get the full story as we have it, eh?

failure in communication between GM and player:

Stephen Ede wrote:

It has just occurred to me that part of the problem may have been that the player considers death in Pathfinder to be a non-career ending injury. When the other players tried to convince him not to kill it he did respond "you can raise dead it afterwards if you like but I'm killing it".

I had mentioned to them that the other party I'm running through the campaign has as part of there health care system a Speak with dead and free Reincarnation offer to any citizen that is murdered. So this may've contributed to a feeling that death isn't serious. Although I have stressed that I have house ruled that there is a finite limit to the amount of times you can be brought back based on your Con score.

Quote:
When the other players tried to convince him not to kill it he did respond "you can raise dead it afterwards if you like but I'm killing it".

The take-away: the paladin knew the players were trying to communicate instead of kill it, but decided to kill it any way.

more clarification on what actually happened:

Stephen Ede wrote:

From what he said he was operating on two levels -

A) In game - "It attacked me and damaged me and made me angry so it has to die".
B) Metagame - The player was pissed about the Trolls in the last encounter not been killed thanks to (in his mind) an agreed mutual withdrawal. Note in the last encounter the party ceasefired with the the trolls while the Paladin was down. He thought they should have kept fighting and killed them or gone after them after we had healed up. (1 almost untouched Advanced Troll 2nd level Barbarian with a Bardiche and Combat Reflexs and 2 seriously unconcious Trolls and 1 dead troll vs Paladin down but stable, Spriggan Barbarian/Ranger prone but healed to single digit hit points and dropped weapon, Half Grown Sphinx Wizard on about 10-20 hit points with Chill touch and 6th lev Gnome Sorcerer with half her spells having watched the Troll save against every spell cast at it. All but the Sorcerer were within reach of the Troll. The Troll had offered mutual withdrawal to which the Paladin said "surrender or die", at which point the Troll dropped him, and then did a non-lethal attack on the Gnome as it attracted an AOO to heal the Spriggan and offered the same terms on seeing the Spriggan get healed to conciousness and the Sphinx get it's Chill Touch spell off. The party accepted and stopped the Paladin charging after the Troll and attempting to kill him as he dragged his companions away.
Stephen Ede wrote:
Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

I vote a soft no. There are some odd circumstances here that make me say that he shouldnt fall but a RP laden warning from his diety of sort might be in order.

1) He didnt speak the language, so talking doesnt really = parlay. Maybe a sense motive might have helped here and should have been offered. Certainly could have been an exchange of taunts and threats for all he knew.

2) He isn't a standard pally correct? The focus is far more on the good than the lawful. So this thing attacks with no provocation and is a public menace. assuming I do understand we are negotiating do I think it should be negotiated with? What if we let it be and it wanders off to attack some children?

3) your party seems to be keen on entering into treaties with agressive, violent and often evil creatures the moment this paladin isnt present. It might be time to question if it is actually an act of good to constantly let monsters off the hook for their actions.

4) The timing of it all is happening a lot faster than people are giving credit. He burst into the clearing and attacked this took mere seconds. No actions took place in between for him other than he was running through the woods chasing the thing that hurt him and his friends. Just because the player was subject to all the exposition...the character wasnt. It wasn't like they got out a table and started signing a peace accord here. Situation are misconstrued.

That is my two CP. He gets a talking to in the form of a vivid dream or holy vision to make sure he doesnt stray from the path and understands that hasty agression is not the way of his order....but striping him of his powers is just a bridge to far for something that is merely a misunderstanding.

Good points. Just a couple of clarifications.

1) They were in the air so he did see the his party members call out to the Wyvern as it ran away (they were faster but while they did close distance slightly they didn't pass it before they called for it to stop) and it then landed on the canopy in sight and the 2 other party members also landed and started talking with it in 1 of the many languages they knew that the Paladin didn't.

The previous agreement with the Troll was from the players POV "it would have certainly killed several party members and maybe everyone if the fight had continued".

Stephen Ede wrote:
Gregory Connolly wrote:
Nice try but no. There is a huge difference between one creature and a group of creatures. There is a huge difference between the chase in the air through the woods and the aftermath of a group battle in a field near a hall. In your changed example you have created a gap of more than 12 seconds between when the gnome and sphinx start the parlay and when the paladin catches up. The characters never left combat rounds in the original example.

They had dropped out of inititive.

Re: other posters comments on other PC's not caring - As for the other players trying to stop him. He attacked, then did a Coup de Grace. The others players didn't notice the initiial attack until just before the blow was landed and had 6 secs to try and persuade him to stop.
Short of attacking the Paladin physically or with spells how exactly were they supposed to stop the Paladin doing a Coup de Grace? And if the Sphinx had let the Wyvern go it would've fallen to it's death anyway.

If people think what the Paladin was OK that's fine. But justifying it on the basis of "the other PS's didn't really try and stop him, is ridiculous.

Stephen Ede wrote:
Scavion wrote:


Attacking people with lethal force without warning is pretty damning. The Wyvern intended to kill them. Are you saying every party should roll over and let creatures go when the creature wouldn't do the same for them?

Deadmanwalking wrote:
When your Paladin is violating the Geneva Convention, you are doing it wrong.
I didn't know the Geneva Convention was in the game as a international standard between countries and individual monsters. Remember, for it to be valid, the parties must have agreed to it beforehand.

Just a note here that I thought had been made clear but appears to have been missed by a number of posters.

The PC's initiated the parlay/surrender that was occurring. The Wyvern didn't go - attack, get beaten, lets talk.

The events were -
Wyvern attack, Wyvern gets badly damaged and runs with a comment to 1 of the PCs as he flees, 2 of the PC's including the one it spoke to followed and said stop and talk or else, the Wyvern stopped and talked, the Paladin catches up a couple of rounds later and knccks it unconcious in a surprise attack and then Coup de Gras it as another PC tries to stop it falling to it's death.

Stephen Ede wrote:
Scavion wrote:


To top it all of claims of land is silly at best and to flat out attack someone without warning is an incredibly evil act.

The Paladin attacked the Wyvern without warning.

So you are saying that Paladin did a evil act?

Or was it only evil when the Wyvern did it?

Just a note on attacking with surprise. Wyverns are Carnivore Predators. They attack/kill or starve.
As a general guideline I use (others may disagree)

Evil Sentient Carnivore Predators eat and kill other high order sentients and often do so from preference.

Neutral Sentient Carnivore Predators eat and kill other high order sentients but not by preference.

Good Sentient Carnivore Predators don't kill high order sentients for the purpose of eating them, but will eat them if they kill them for some other reason. Yes, that Gold Dragon will eat you if you are stupid enough to pick a fight with it that ends up with it killing you.

My definition - High order Sentience is a species that generally has Int 5+ (that is even the individuals of that species that have lower INT can be considered to have high order sentience) and individual creatures that have Int 5+ are high order sentients, even if their general species are normally high order Sentients.

Predators (using a non coloquial usage) are creatures that feed themselves through hunting other creatures. If they don't hunt, kill and eat other creatures they starve. Note: Hunting from ambush is a standard hunting technique and isn't generally seen as cowardly by most people.

In communities most people can keep themselves fed without relying on hunting even if they are large carnivores. In the wild large carnivores can not afford to be to picky or they starve.

Stephen Ede wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Davick wrote:


Now you're just moving goal posts. Let me check my copy of Rivers Run Red for how large the dungeon cells are. Hmmmmmm, It's not saying. Let me ask my GM if a wyvern could fit in one BEFORE. I. KILL. IT. He said yes it could. Problem solved. You wouldn't have to worry about all that trekking to and fro and slinking if they had negotiated its surrender peacefully first. Something that in the 2 KM campaigns I've played was common with the more intelligent creatures. I inevitably ended up with a council that had kobolds, fey, and such on it. Running the damn country! And one of those games had a paladin in it.

I'll note that I had much the same experience with Kingmaker. It's a very good AP.

However I find it unlikey that the Brutish and naturally violent Wyvern is going to submit meekly and just follow along for you to imprison it.

Actually the PC's talking to it were in the process of explaining the idea that there are general classes of "not acceptable prey" rather than just individuals that weren't acceptable prey (which he had already indicated he understood) and had beaten the crap out of it relatively easily. They were going to try and convince it to become a member of their Kingdom with a significant chance of success. Where it would either purchase it's food or hunt creatures not on the "not acceptable prey" list.

Would it have made a sterling member of their Kingdom? Probably not. Would it have made an acceptable citizen that roughly followed the rules of their society. Probably. If you haven't noticed that your society has people who are inclined to be a bit brutish and physical bullies when they think they can get away with it, and yet still be functional members of society then I would respectfully suggest you haven't been observing your fellow citizens very closely.

Stephen Ede wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:

Lets also point out that the vast majority of thing you fight in this game aren't killed outright, merely they reach -1 or lower hitpoints and we write them off as dead.

The GM specifically broke the rule to allow it to be at -1 hp (which is fine, but not the norm) and the Paladin finished it off.

I have made a clear point throughout the campaign that that negative hit points and death are two very different things.

I would also note that while many games to treat monsters as dead at -1 hit point as per the rules this is not correct. My choosing not to play a house rule that many use isn't my "breaking the rule".

Quote:

A) In game - "It attacked me and damaged me and made me angry so it has to die".

B) Metagame - The player was pissed about the Trolls in the last encounter not been killed thanks to (in his mind) an agreed mutual withdrawal.

...

They were in the air so he did see the his party members call out to the Wyvern as it ran away (they were faster but while they did close distance slightly they didn't pass it before they called for it to stop) and it then landed on the canopy in sight and the 2 other party members also landed and started talking with it in 1 of the many languages they knew that the Paladin didn't.

...

They had dropped out of inititive.
Re: other posters comments on other PC's not caring - As for the other players trying to stop him. He attacked, then did a Coup de Grace. The others players didn't notice the initiial attack until just before the blow was landed and had 6 secs to try and persuade him to stop.

...

The PC's initiated the parlay/surrender that was occurring. The Wyvern didn't go - attack, get beaten, lets talk.
The events were -
Wyvern attack, Wyvern gets badly damaged and runs with a comment to 1 of the PCs as he flees, 2 of the PC's including the one it spoke to followed and said stop and talk or else, the Wyvern stopped and talked, the Paladin catches up a couple of rounds later and knccks it unconcious in a surprise attack and then Coup de Gras it as another PC tries to stop it falling to it's death.

...

I have made a clear point throughout the campaign that that negative hit points and death are two very different things.

The take-aways: the paladin's motivations were "angry" and "wanting things to die"; the party was no longer in battle (anyone other than the paladin); the paladin had seen the wyvern attack, get beaten, fly away, and then called down to land by his party instead of doing anything else; the paladin knows there's a difference between killing and rendering unconscious.

warning the paladin:
Stephen Ede wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

Did you warn him that he would be crossing the line BEFORE he did so?

Paladins (of any kind) are not meant to be a "Gotcha!" class. As a GM you should be working with the player to make sure a paladin never falls due to ooc misunderstanding or suchlike. snip

I had made previous warnings that when your party makes a deal with someone then you are included in that deal unless you have clearly stated you will not be part of the deal beforehand. And that Parlys are a "deal".

I did not say "if you do this you will fall" because he doesn't have one of those magic items that has the GM tell you that. I did repeatedly say "Are you sure you want to do that", "Are you realluy sure", "you can tell they appear to be talking with him in a language you don't know and they aren't fighting", "it's unconcious and helpless but not dead and your fellow party members have just told you they were negotiating with it. Are you sure you want to kill it". I really don't think there was any "Gotcha" in it.

Quote:

I had made previous warnings that when your party makes a deal with someone then you are included in that deal unless you have clearly stated you will not be part of the deal beforehand. And that Parlys are a "deal".

...
I did repeatedly say "Are you sure you want to do that", "Are you realluy sure", "you can tell they appear to be talking with him in a language you don't know and they aren't fighting", "it's unconcious and helpless but not dead and your fellow party members have just told you they were negotiating with it. Are you sure you want to kill it".

The take-away: the paladin knew they were negotiating, and, from all instances, in-character.

Wyvern's alignment, aka it's neutral not evil:
Stephen Ede wrote:
Gregory Connolly wrote:
Killing evil creatures is not murder.

Wyverns aren't normally evil. And this one was no exception.

This is a unclaimed wilderness zone that the PC's are trying to set up a Kingdom in (Kingmaker campaign). The Wyvern had attacked the Sphinx before oin a hunting strike and had been beaten off (although the party didn't recognise it). When the Sphinx pounce did over half it's hit points it did protest "hey I didn't attack you I left you alone after the other time" at which point the Sphinx and Gnome decided to try negotiating with it to teach it boundries about what could be hunted and to recruit it. But they weren't willing to get in the way of the Paladin's sword.
Stephen Ede wrote:
LazarX wrote:


Wyverns as generally presented in the bestiary are evil man-eating monsters, which makes them appropriate Paladin targets. The DM has not stated he's made his world an exception in this.

He also hasn't stated one very important fact. How did the Paladin in question, break his code? That's the litmus test here. The Paladin at most may be doing some questionable and unwise decisions, but I don't think it's neccessarily time to turn him into a featless fighter yet. There are a spectrum of things a DM can inflict on an errant Paladin short of completely turning him off.

The standard alignment for Wyverns is Neutral. While they will eat most things they aren't noted as particuly eating "men" and sinc ethe party consists of a Half-Celestial Paladin, a Gnome Sorcerer, a half grown Sphinx Wizard and a Spriggan Barbarian/Ranger (only 1 humanoid and no Humans) there's a limit to how hard you can push the "man-killing" part. Since the Spriggan and the Sphix are perfectly aware about how "men" happily kill their species.

Because the player had just retrained his Paladin from a different archtype because it wasn't working for him we hadn't fully gone over a new code of conduct. I consider atoning a perfectly doable process (albeit embarrassing/potentially expensive)

[quote - SRD]Wyverns are nasty, brutish, and violent reptilian beasts akin to more powerful dragons. They are always aggressive and impatient, and are quick to resort to force in order to accomplish their goals. For this reason, dragons generally look down upon wyverns, considering their distant cousins nothing more than primitive savages with a distinct lack of style or wit. In most cases, this generalization is spot-on. Although far from animalistic in intellect, and capable of speech, most wyverns simply can't be bothered with the subtlety of diplomacy, and prefer to fight first and parley later, and even then only if faced with a foe they can neither defeat nor flee from.

Wyverns are territorial creatures. Though they occasionally hunt in small groups for large prey, they are generally solitary creatures, hunting in areas ranging in size from 100 to 200 square miles. Wyverns have been known to fight to the death among themselves for the right to hunt a territory rich with prey.

Although constantly hungry and prone to mayhem, a wyvern that can be befriended (usually through a delicate combination of flattery, intimidation, food, and treasure) becomes a powerful ally. They often serve giants and monstrous humanoids as guardians, and some lizardfolk and boggard tribes even use them as mounts, although such arrangements are quite costly in terms of food and gold, for few are the wyverns who would willingly serve as steeds for lesser creatures for long.

Quote:
the Wyvern isn't evil

The take-aways: the wyvern isn't evil (though this doesn't justify its actions), and the party consists largely of non-humanoid creatures (making them slightly monstrous in mein, if not in persona).

unfortunate view on paladins, aka, where I disagree with the OP to an extent, but meh its personal preference and this still casts the paladin in a negative light:
Stephen Ede wrote:

The Wyvern was simply hunting in what it considered it's general hunting territory.

If the other party members had killed it I wouldn't have blinked an eyelid. If he had knocked it unconcious and left it bleeding I would have frowned. But topping it off with killing it. Oh, he also got the Spriggan to skin it.

I will say I was reluctant to have a Paladin in the party because about half the Paladins I've seen played have been problems in the party/campaign. This is straight up nLG Paladins, and to be honest I suspect he may well hacve done this if he had still been a standard Paladin Archtype. I don't think been CG rather than LG had much to do with his actions.

Stephen Ede wrote:

I'd like to point out that Paladin's are supposed to be held to a MUCH higher standard than your average person.

If any of the other players had killed it I would've shrugged.

Stephen Ede wrote:

Coupe de Grace is a particular action that can only be done to a helpless creature.

While in some cases the helpless feature may be very temporary (i.e. a Hold Monster spell) in the case of a creature with negative hit points they are indeed helpless for sometime.

BAB and Weapon proficiencies make no difference to a Coup de Grace. Smite does.
Those features are for killing in combat which is perfectly fine for a Paladin to do.

PS. I have no problem with a Paladin Coup de Gracing a Troll in the given scenario. Expecially since no one mentioned any flaming or acid damage been applied.

Stephen Ede wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Stephen Ede wrote:


I'd like to point out that Paladins are supposed to be held to a MUCH higher standard than your average person.

If any of the other players had killed it I would've shrugged.

So basically, you're treating players in your group differently than one another, setting up a double standard.

That never ends well.

If it's evil for one person, it's evil for all people.

If it's not evil for one person, it's not evil for all people.

Simple enough.

I don't think it was evil. It was Neutral. Self preservation (from his PoV) and carrying through with...

I would consider it evil for any of them to do it in the given circumstances. The rules hold Paladins to higher standards. Players are allowed to do evil acts with out penalty in the rules (as GM I might place a penalty or reward depending on the circumstances) but the rules say a Paladin gets punished if they do evil, or break their code.

I would also make clear that I emphasized to the player when he chose to be a Paladin that he would be held to double standards in that he would have restrictions in behaviour that wouldn't apply to the rest of the party (i.e. they wouldn't have to live by his alignment or code - I stripped out the "don't be around evil people" part of the Paladin's code). Having had this pointed out to him he still wanted to be a Paladin.

PS. The player in no way expressed any belief he was in danger of been killed by the Wyvern. Most of the damage he took was from the Spriggan botching a bow shot into the grappled fight and following the botch having to make an attack roll on the which the Spriggan proceeded to roll a critical threat and confirm it. The other attacks were struggling to get through the DR5/Magic that the Half-Celestial Paladin has.

Quote:

I would also make clear that I emphasized to the player when he chose to be a Paladin that he would be held to double standards in that he would have restrictions in behaviour that wouldn't apply to the rest of the party (i.e. they wouldn't have to live by his alignment or code - I stripped out the "don't be around evil people" part of the Paladin's code). Having had this pointed out to him he still wanted to be a Paladin.

PS. The player in no way expressed any belief he was in danger of been killed by the Wyvern.

The take-aways: though I disagree (in a mild way) with the OP's understanding/view of paladins, the player knew in advance that they were held to a higher standard (it was not sprung on them by surprise); the player also felt no danger from the Wyvern before killing it.

the OP is not going to automatically cause the paladin to fall:
Stephen Ede wrote:
LazarX wrote:

You can't fall a Paladin for breaking a code when you haven't set one yet.

That's supposed to be the thing you do first before letting one out the gate.

You can fall for doing an evil or dishonorable act.

Killing people your side are in parley with when they haven't broken the parley is considered evil and/or dishonorable in pretty much every fantasy trope I've ever come across in over 40 years of reading fantasy.
Stephen Ede wrote:

I think there have been some very good points made for at least partial mercy.

I will talk to the player and make clear that I'm very unhappy with what occurred and to a degree what I see as something of a pattern. I will make a point of laying out what will be required as a Code of Conduct and give him a chance to justify why he shouldn't be considered to have fallen.

If after discussion I decide that he has fallen I'll probably let him atone by raising the Wyvern and doing his best to civilise the Wyvern and covert it by speech and deed into a good member of society. No Atonement spell as such required (the Raise dead is costly enough)

Do people think this sounds reasonable?

The take-away: the OP is not going to smite the paladin of its powers, but is going to require atonement, and explain things out of character; this sounds reasonable

irrelevant asides are irrelevant:
Stephen Ede wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:
<snip> Actually, I wonder how old the players are? <snip> I find it hard to believe that an adult would actually say this as his paladins reason.

The player is 40 I'm 50.

While it's possible that I have unintentionally misstated the players views it would seem pointless to do so intentionally. Afterall I'm the GM I can just say he fell. I'm putting the situation here to get a check on what I'm contemplating to make sure I'm not simply flying off the handle.

As for adults acting in juvenile ways. My observation of life has sadly been that been an adult of any age is in no way restricts a person from acting in a way that is commonly described as "juvenile".

Stephen Ede wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Stephen Ede wrote:


They had dropped out of inititive.

Re: other posters comments on other PC's not caring - As for the other players trying to stop him. He attacked, then did a Coup de Grace. The others players didn't notice the initiial attack until just before the blow was landed and had 6 secs to try and persuade him to stop.
Short of attacking the Paladin physically or with spells how exactly were they supposed to stop the Paladin doing a Coup de Grace? And if the Sphinx had let the Wyvern go it would've fallen to it's death anyway.

If people think what the Paladin was OK that's fine. But justifying it on the basis of "the other PS's didn't really try and stop him, is ridiculous.

Oh cool you're back. Can you get the player on here so we can have the complete story?

I could possibly do so but I'm not sure that would help me manage the situation within the game. Indeed since the thread has significantly devolved into highly aggressive "sides" discussion I strongly suspect it could make the situation harder to bring to a mutually satisfactory resolution. And my game is more important to me than your desire to try and "win" a internet thread.

And by the way I completely disagree with your concept of the position of the GM in a game. The GM is not 1 person with an equal place on deciding how things go/operate.

IMO The GM, as the person that conceives and operates the world the PC play in, has significantly more authority on the rules of the game and what happens. They have to because if they aren't comfortable mentally with the world they are operating in their head then the campaign will rapidly come to an end.

This doesn't mean they have absolute authority and don't need to take player views into account. They most definitely do have to have to give weight to player views. But the GM has more authority than any other player, or couple of players, at the table so long as it's a game issue. And when I'm a player the same is true that the GM overrules me as man individual. The game is a cooperative endevour, but that's not the same as saying all people are equal.

Stephen Ede wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Stephen Ede wrote:


Just a note here that I thought had been made clear but appears to have been missed by a number of posters.

The PC's initiated the parlay/surrender that was occurring. The Wyvern didn't go - attack, get beaten, lets talk.

The events were -
Wyvern attack, Wyvern gets badly damaged and runs with a comment to 1 of the PCs as he flees, 2 of the PC's including the one it spoke to followed and said stop and talk or else, the Wyvern stopped and talked, the Paladin catches up a couple of rounds later and knccks it unconcious in a surprise attack and then Coup de Gras it as another PC tries to stop it falling to it's death.

Ah so the Paladin didn't accept the Surrender his companions offered. I don't see the issue here. This is an issue about player dynamics.

I don't believe the Paladin should fall in any case. His party members don't speak for him and the Paladin isn't required to uphold their word of surrender. If anything the other players should get a slap on the wrist for not upholding their word.

Scavion you've just convinced me that I won't be asking my player to come here.

Your attitude is quite clearly "The Paladin is fine. The Paladin shouldn't fall, regardless of what he does. Don't care what you say, don't really believe what you are saying and it doesn't matter anyway. That players views matter as much to the rules of the game as yours do and if he disagree's with you you have no right to rule against him".

You are entitled to your opinion, but letting you into my game IMO via an internet discussion with my players would not be conductive to the enjoyment of my players or I, or the flow of the game. Which happens to be my priority.

Stephen Ede wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

You job as the GM is to both 'play the other side' and be the judge - if your player is trying to RP and doesn't expect negatives - doing so will shut down any attempt at RP they ever wanted to try again.

As the judge - you should have the maturity to stop the session and make sure the player both wants the RP to have consequences and is comfortable with the effects on their character - because if they aren't it can totally take the fun out of the game.

Some people want RP light games - some want RP to have real bite - if you (as the GM) and your players are not on the same page it will cause problems. If you haven't had those discussions before it rears it's head at the table - then that's when you need to step back and have the talk.

In this situation - player did something GM thinks should make him fall. I'm not sure why he brought it to this forum - it's his game he needs no permission from us to make a call for *his* game.

If he hasn't had this discussion (about RP and consequences) prior to making the call - he's being a jerk GM. Regardless of his right to make the call or what the player did and 'rules of the game'.

If his player is blindided by this then this is just a passive aggressive way to punish the player. Don't use the rules to beat up a player - if you don't like how they are playing just have a talk about it, and make sure they know what the rules and consequences are before you enforce them.

If the player expects this to happen and is fine with it - then why ask the forums - we are not the GM in question - the only person that has the right to make a 'fall' call is the GM and it's your game - you already allowed a chaotic paladin - without a code you can argue grey morals till the end of time but it's still your game. If you are just wanting justification - again it doesn't matter what anyone else says - you are better for the health of your gaming table asking your table (with the Paladin present) for their opinions - instead of strangers on the internet. At least then you can be sure that your players are able to speak up - no amount of forum posts backing you up will save your game if everyone else at your table thinks it was a bad call.

It response to your comments - I have discussed that actions have consequences and the player is probably the player who has most put the view that the game should be tough on the PCs.

Of course this doesn't mean that putting it to him that the events could result in his Paladin falling won't blindside him. Humans are quite skilled at not seeing consequences of actions and suggestions they've made or put in place.

I came to hear to get some distant perspective because as GM and Players we are within the situation and while this gives details you don't have this also means we lose a degree of perspective and can develop tunnel vision. This is the "Advice" forum after all. And indeed I have gained useful input from many of the posters. I'm not asking for posts I can hold up to my players and say "I'm right because they say I am". I'm looking for posts that say "you are right/wrong because of "x"" and "have you thought of "y"" and "you could try handling the situation with "y" or "z"" which is where your post largely fits, and is not without value, although I could've done with out the passive-aggressive attacks on myself. Those posts will help we check my thinking and see things I've missed and make me rethink things I had clearly understood.

The take-away: it seems the OP doesn't agree with Scavion, and is about 50 years old; also Ckorik has some great points and some true statements that are, unfortunately, slightly marred by an unpleasant apparent attitude of condescension presented.

Those are all the OP's posts that appear in a quick "search" of his name in this thread, so that looks pretty decent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:


He didn't. That is a pretty important detail to not give till like 6 pages in.

In fairness, he first admits that evidence on page 2, not page 6. I even reference it before page 6.


Gregory Connolly wrote:
Still going strong I see.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
I was going to post here, but... "Sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Gregory Connolly wrote:
I just want to understand the tunnel vision evil side of this argument.
Gregory Connolly wrote:
I just want to understand the tunnel vision evil side ...
Gregory Connolly wrote:
... the tunnel vision evil ...
Gregory Connolly wrote:
... tunnel vision ...

Hahahahah! Oh, man! ... wait,

Gregory Connolly wrote:
It seems like everyone who is arguing for a fall wants to look at everything in extreme isolation.

... you're serious?

... have you not read my posts? I mean, I don't blame you, they're an eye-sore and really, really long, but, you know, that's factually untrue.

Alright, I'mma need a different alias for this...


aegrisomnia wrote:
Scavion wrote:


He didn't. That is a pretty important detail to not give till like 6 pages in.
In fairness, he first admits that evidence on page 2, not page 6. I even reference it before page 6.

Still usually not a detail you should leave out from the initial conversation.

"Oh yeah, and a callous disregard for life, whether it is permanent or not."


Thymus Vulgaris wrote:


Didn't they?

Stephen Ede wrote:
*metagame stuff*

Here is the *in game* things we were given:

Quote:


In this session the party was flying above the forest canopy when the Paladin was jumped by a Wyvern. The Wyvern did some damage before attacks from the party caused it to flee closely pursued by the Sphinx Wizard and Gnome Sorcerer riding a Dire Bat. They called on it to parlay in Draconic. Badly wounded and unable to easily outrun the hasted PC's itagreed to parlay landing on a solid part of the forest canopy. The 2 PC casters had started negotiating for 2 rounds when the angry Paladin caught up. The Paladin couldn't speak Draconic but could see that the PC's and Wyvern were communicating and not fighting. He charged in dropping the Wyvern to -1hit points. The Sphinx PC stopped the unconcious Wyvern from falling at which point the Paladin delivered a Coup De Grace decapitating it.

My thought is that the Paladin has just fallen and lost his Paladin abilities until he has atoned.
1st he attacked the creature when it was in some sort of parlay even if he couldn't understand the words.
2nd After knocking it unconcious he proceeded to decapitate it.

To whit point by point:

1. Paladin was attacked by a Wyvern - I just noticed the wording here - I hate thinking this is intentional but it wasn't 'the party was attacked by a Wyvern' - Now I'm thinking the GM is upset with the player - *but* we'll go ahead and ignore this.

2. Angry paladin - why the descriptive? Because paladins aren't allowed to be angry? It's a leading word intended to make you feel the paladin was being unjustly wrathful - it *DOSEN'T* matter - after being attacked a paladin is allowed to feel anger - anger isn't evil or immoral - nor does it break a code unless it is homebrew.

2b. Note that the paladin couldn't understand - it wasn't 'the players tried to stop him or tell him to wait' - the situation (in game) was he couldn't understand what was going on.

3. The other character held onto the creature while the paladin proceeded to saw the neck off - all it takes to stop a CtG is to be interrupted - surely the sphinx pc could have just moved the wyvern.

4. 'couldn't understand the words' - here we see that 'seeing your other characters standing in front of the wyvern speaking a strange lanaguage should automatically mean the paladin understood what was going on - from a distance - while charging. I disagree - the player may have known - the character almost certainly didn't.

5. CtG isn't an evil act. Irrelavant to the situation as the creature was neither and innocent or a non-combatant (regardless of it's status to other party members - it still had attacked and the paladin character really should not have any idea that things had changed).


roit-roit-roit!
THERE we go! Ah!

So, let's get crackin'!

Gregory Connolly wrote:
The place the fight takes place in is called the Stolen Lands. The current inhabitants stole this land from humaniods. By killing off the non-combatants. The entire campaign revolves around reconquering stolen land.

Sort of.

This "land" has been "stolen" by humanoids from humanoids by killing off humanoids for a long, long time. Inevitably, those countries established that weren't killed off by humanoids fell due to other reasons. When was the last non-"stolen" kingdom in the area? I dunno. I'm pretty sure it doesn't tell us. But if it did, how do you know that the Wyvern in question is one of those that did the stealing? Perhaps he came in after it was already stolen and no one was living anywhere near. In which case, he would have been stealing what was stolen from thieves that was stolen from thieves that was stolen from thieves that was stolen from thieves that was stolen from thieves, etc...

Gregory Connolly wrote:
Also the player is playing a Paladin of Freedom. I don't think getting in a fight about law and chaos like we have about good and evil will be productive, but this guy is as far from a traditional paladin as a Hellknight is. In my mind slavery is a giant no-no for CG types. So I can see the paladin thinking that enslaving the wyvern is worse than killing it. I also don't think that the paladin should care at all what the wizard and sorcerer think. Playing a paladin is about doing what you think is right especially when it is not popular, this is the reason most people who don't like them at the table don't like them at the table.

I have no idea where you get the idea that they were planning on enslaving it. I quoted all the OP's posts (at least, all shown by a search of the OP's name), and no where was it indicated that the paladin smelled any hint of slavery.

Otherwise, I'd agree with this segment.

Gregory Connolly wrote:
I wouldn't like to be the GM or any of the players in this scenario.

Me too, but mostly that's because I like being me!

Gregory Connolly wrote:
It seems like you have different goals for different party members (or more likely they do and the GM has little to do with it.) That can be fine but when people want mutually exclusive things like converting and slaying your enemies, the group needs to have a talk. This can be done in game if everyone wants some story resolution, but it might need to be done out of game because gamers have a tendency to get heated.

This is entirely accurate, and something I wholeheartedly agree with. :D

And now, to de-mythify!

blip-blip-blip...

EDIT: it is daggum hard finding the "power down" sound on youtube...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think you have a player problem rather than a paladin alignment/character problem here. If the party had been talking with the wyvern with the intention of keeping it distracted until the paladin could arrive and kill it, nobody except perhaps the DM would be upset about it. But because the player of this paladin is paying no attention to what the rest of the party is doing, he is not playing well with the rest of the party -- and that is creating tensions that will lead to problems in the campaign. The fact that his character is a paladin who should be the conscience of the group rather than its troublemaker only adds to the difficulties.


Quote:

When the other players tried to convince him not to kill it he did respond "you can raise dead it afterwards if you like but I'm killing it".

The take-away: the paladin knew the players were trying to communicate instead of kill it, but decided to kill it any way.

The take away is - that players talked out of game - the characters had plenty of opportunity to stop what was going on and from all evidence didn't actually seem to want to. Honestly from what happened outside of fall/didn't fall there are massive issues that are evident based on player/character interaction that look like they will blow up the game if not dealt with.

That's outside of the question really - but the goals of the rest of the party and the goals of the paladin player don't seem to be close at all - this will continue to frustrate everyone at the table until they find a way to work it out. That's a way bigger issue than did the paladin fall/not fall.


David knott 242 wrote:

I think you have a player problem rather than a paladin alignment/character problem here. If the party had been talking with the wyvern with the intention of keeping it distracted until the paladin could arrive and kill it, nobody except perhaps the DM would be upset about it. But because the player of this paladin is paying no attention to what the rest of the party is doing, he is not playing well with the rest of the party -- and that is creating tensions that will lead to problems in the campaign. The fact that his character is a paladin who should be the conscience of the group rather than its troublemaker only adds to the difficulties.

lol well it seems this is the one thing that everyone agrees on


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
Thymus Vulgaris wrote:


Didn't they?

Stephen Ede wrote:
*metagame stuff*

Yes, we were told that the GM reminded him OOC (metagaming) that the party had told his character that they were trying to negotiate with it (not metagaming).


Thymus Vulgaris wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Thymus Vulgaris wrote:


Didn't they?

Stephen Ede wrote:
*metagame stuff*
Yes, we were told that the GM reminded him OOC (metagaming) that the party had told his character that they were trying to negotiate with it (not metagaming).

No I don't see that anywhere in any of his posts - I will give you that you could infer that - but I believe you could just as easily infer the other way - it is ambiguous. I infer that they didn't otherwise the fact that he didn't speak draconic - and that he could see the party members talking - are not relevant. Why take the time to setup what he could see vs. what was being said in character?

Perhaps the moment was heated enough that what was 'in character' and not was ambiguous at the table - hard to tell based on the information given - easy to assume based on the conflict of interest.

I do disagree that the other players had no ability to effect the outcome - they could have moved the wyvern - gotten in the way - attempted to grapple (all things that happen in real life when a friend is trying to get into the wrong fight).

It seems like an excuse to just say 'that couldn't do anything' because the wyvern was unconscious - because those kinds of actions would be enough to turn this into a definite problem for the paladin - assuming any action at all - even just grabbing the paladins arm - should have made the paladin stop to at the very least re-assess.


If the paladin views death as a mere inconvenience, surely atonement isn't worse? Is atonement worse than death?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
aegrisomnia wrote:
If the paladin views death as a mere inconvenience, surely atonement isn't worse? Is atonement worse than death?

Belkar disagrees

Link.


Ckorik wrote:
Quote:

When the other players tried to convince him not to kill it he did respond "you can raise dead it afterwards if you like but I'm killing it".

The take-away: the paladin knew the players were trying to communicate instead of kill it, but decided to kill it any way.

The take away is - that players talked out of game - the characters had plenty of opportunity to stop what was going on and from all evidence didn't actually seem to want to. Honestly from what happened outside of fall/didn't fall there are massive issues that are evident based on player/character interaction that look like they will blow up the game if not dealt with.

That's outside of the question really - but the goals of the rest of the party and the goals of the paladin player don't seem to be close at all - this will continue to frustrate everyone at the table until they find a way to work it out. That's a way bigger issue than did the paladin fall/not fall.

You know, you ignored the bold part right above that to reach your conclusion.

Quote:
I did repeatedly say "Are you sure you want to do that", "Are you realluy sure", "you can tell they appear to be talking with him in a language you don't know and they aren't fighting", "it's unconcious and helpless but not dead and your fellow party members have just told you they were negotiating with it. Are you sure you want to kill it".

Notice "your fellow party members", not "your fellow players". This is in-character style speech.

Ckorik wrote:
Thymus Vulgaris wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Thymus Vulgaris wrote:


Didn't they?

Stephen Ede wrote:
*metagame stuff*
Yes, we were told that the GM reminded him OOC (metagaming) that the party had told his character that they were trying to negotiate with it (not metagaming).
No I don't see that anywhere in any of his posts - I will give you that you could infer that - but I believe you could just as easily infer the other way - it is ambiguous.

It's only ambiguous if he (deliberately or otherwise) used incorrect terminology in his posts, which is a pretty large assumption to make about a person that claims not to be seeking validation, but clarification and communication.

Ckorik wrote:
I infer that they didn't otherwise the fact that he didn't speak draconic - and that he could see the party members talking - are not relevant. Why take the time to setup what he could see vs. what was being said in character?

No, they are entirely relevant. If someone attacks someone else, and I run to help out in the battle, but then notice they're talking, I'm not going to slug the initial attacker - I might not put my weapon away, but outright attacking the guy is the wrong thing to do.

Similarly, the paladin had, from all indications, both in-character reason (he saw how his party was responding, even if you presume - though it's a really focused and strange presumption - that the OP simply spoke incorrectly and all information was out of character), and out-of-character (which is, in fact, reason enough to change your actions in character) that this was not a good idea, yet persisted.

Ckorik wrote:
Perhaps the moment was heated enough that what was 'in character' and not was ambiguous at the table - hard to tell based on the information given - easy to assume based on the conflict of interest.

The first part is very possible - but what conflict of interest? The OP HAS STATED THAT THE PALADIN WON'T FALL. He's changed his mind on his initial premise. He stated that didn't come here to get, "Yes you did this right." but "Here are some things you didn't think of." and, by his own admission, he's acquired those, and has taken them into account.

Ckorik wrote:
I do disagree that the other players had no ability to effect the outcome - they could have moved the wyvern - gotten in the way - attempted to grapple (all things that happen in real life when a friend is trying to get into the wrong fight).

One, at least, was trying to stop the wyvern from falling off a cliff. From every indication, the other PCs were trying to stop him, but not by direct PvP conflict.

Something similar happened to me once (the first thing, not the second). Is it the same situation? Not by a long shot. But it is similar in a number of ways. You see, heat of the moment can create very unusual situations, especially when some players want diplomacy, and others want killing.

Now, it seems that in this case, there was far more "no, really, are you sure?" than in that case, but, unless you take a really odd view of the words actually printed to page, the picture is pretty clear: the paladin had in-character reason to not attack, and the player had out-of-character reason not to attack, yet both decided to do so anyway.

Any excuses that we might try to come up with ("maybe he thought they were charmed!" "maybe he thought it was evil!" "maybe he thought it was untrustworthy!") are valid in a generic similar arena, but in this case, we're told explicitly what the paladin noted for his own motivations. Anything else is us attempting to justify it for the player after the fact.

Ckorik wrote:
It seems like an excuse to just say 'that couldn't do anything' because the wyvern was unconscious - because those kinds of actions would be enough to turn this into a definite problem for the paladin - assuming any action at all - even just grabbing the paladins arm - should have made the paladin stop to at the very least re-assess.

Should have, yes. But you're clearly reading your own presumptions about how the situation played out instead of actually accepting what's been posted here. So am I (in fact, all people do this - it's natural), but the difference is the verbiage used sides with my interpretation: the paladin had in-character reason not to attack, but chose to anyway, and all the paladin's or player's reasons relayed to us (by way of the GM) are not a valid justification for any paladin (unless you're allowing non-good ones) to perform the actions he chose to without suffering something.

That said, there's something to be said for the idea that, since the player isn't posting, we don't get to see all sides of the story... but it's kind of irrelevant: the GM has claimed his reasons were to get perspective (which he has gained), has noted that the player won't fall but will discuss things out-of-character to prevent such issues from arising in the future.

This is literally the best outcome.

Paladin has not fallen.
GM and player are clarifying things out of character, so they can clarify things in-character.

I don't know why this thread is still going other than, "No, you're looking at it ever-so-slightly different than I am!" which, you know, is kind of silly. Though, clearly, I'm succumbing as much as anyone else.


Sub_Zero wrote:
aegrisomnia wrote:
If the paladin views death as a mere inconvenience, surely atonement isn't worse? Is atonement worse than death?

Belkar disagrees

Link.

Heh. Nice.

But just to be clear, since I understood neither of the points either of you were attempting to make:

aegrisomnia: are you saying that the paladin should find his own atonement an acceptable thing, or are you saying that the paladin should have found the wyvern's atonement an acceptable thing, or something else?

Sub-Zero: are you suggesting that the Wyvern would rather die than undergo atonement, that the paladin probably loathes atonement (which is a stretch - comparing a CG paladin to a CE psychopathic ranger), or just noting that the blanket "atonement is better than death" is not a sentiment held by all, or something else?


Tacticslion wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:
aegrisomnia wrote:
If the paladin views death as a mere inconvenience, surely atonement isn't worse? Is atonement worse than death?

Belkar disagrees

Link.

Heh. Nice.

But just to be clear, since I understood neither of the points either of you were attempting to make:

aegrisomnia: are you saying that the paladin should find his own atonement an acceptable thing, or are you saying that the paladin should have found the wyvern's atonement an acceptable thing, or something else?

Sub-Zero: are you suggesting that the Wyvern would rather die than undergo atonement, that the paladin probably loathes atonement (which is a stretch - comparing a CG paladin to a CE psychopathic ranger), or just noting that the blanket "atonement is better than death" is not a sentiment held by all, or something else?

I didn't really have a point, other then Belkar thinks atonement is far worse then death, since it's a far greater pain in the rear to fix.

That was all.


Cool. Just so long as we're clear! :D


Tacticslion wrote:
Cool. Just so long as we're clear! :D

Sorry for the confusion. My point is this:

The paladin has no problem killing monsters because they can be raised from the dead. Death is therefore an inconvenience, and he can smite first and ask questions later.

As such, is it unreasonable to ask the paladin to atone for questionable behavior, since falling and requiring atonement is similarly a temporary inconvenience for the paladin?

(The comic is a bit confusing... it seems to imply that a paladin who has willfully committed an evil act can't atone. I'm not sure I'm seeing in the rules where that is the case. Still, a cute cartoon.)


Re: the comic: it is explained from the perspective of a psychotic murderous Halfling ranger with no ranks in religion, a phenomenally low wisdom score, and a desire to murder that's tempered only because of circumstances and the crew he hangs with. It also comes after a long series of really irritating paladin moments that no one in the group, not even the lawful good ones, agreed with*. Added to that, Belkar (the ranting Halfling in green) was mostly just boasting about something that was - obviously - proven incorrect.

Otherwise, I'd agree with your general premise.

* Note: it's not claiming that all paladins are awful; in fact, all except the one paladin in question, Miko, are awesome people. Miko, however, is extremely arrogant, self-righteous, and terrible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tacticslion, I have these kinds of alignment discussions with friends all the time. I suspect I would enjoy gaming with any of the people who post here, they care enough to ask for help, they are my kind of people in general. I usually don't get involved in this kind of thread, but I have a friend who is kinda obsessed with CG and has played Paladins of Freedom before. Those characters were all pain in the ass individualists who didn't give a fig if the other party members wanted to do something different. I was one of the first people to argue the character was acting perfectly justified. I didn't have all of the information and I mistakenly thought the monster was evil rather than simply aggressive. I identified emotionally with the paladin player because he reminded me of a good friend and I thought the OP was looking for a diversity of opinions. I really try to avoid discussing real life morality and ethics with gaming friends for the same reason I generally avoid topics like politics, religion and sex; there is very little to gain and very much to lose. I and many other people consider prison to be slavery, therefore taking someone prisoner is making them your slave. This is the gap in the logic you are not seeing written anywhere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

Re: the comic: it is explained from the perspective of a psychotic murderous Halfling ranger with no ranks in religion, a phenomenally low wisdom score, and a desire to murder that's tempered only because of circumstances and the crew he hangs with. It also comes after a long series of really irritating paladin moments that no one in the group, not even the lawful good ones, agreed with*. Added to that, Belkar (the ranting Halfling in green) was mostly just boasting about something that was - obviously - proven incorrect.

Otherwise, I'd agree with your general premise.

* Note: it's not claiming that all paladins are awful; in fact, all except the one paladin in question, Miko, are awesome people. Miko, however, is extremely arrogant, self-righteous, and terrible.

Actually, now that I think of it, the PC in question is very much like Miko. He acted rashly and dumb in a situation.

However, look at when Miko killed the bandits. There was no loss of paladin hood there even though her actions seem counter intuitive to being good.

Just to be clear, it's not that I think the PC shouldn't fall, only that it completely depends on the group dynamic and definition of what good is.


Sub_Zero wrote:
Darinby wrote:
Preserving sentient life is a core value of 'good', the Paladin didn't even make an attempt to do so. Instead, he kills a sentient being in a fit of pique.

This is more complicated then your giving it credit as being. I'm sorry the world doesn't boil down to simple black and white, and the rules don't necessarily do this either.

A Paladin does not necessarilly need to preserve the life of a sentient creature who kills others merely for being within it's territory. Unlike a beast, the Wyvern knows there's a difference between a creature like humans/dwarves/elves/etc. and deer/sheep/etc. It just doesn't care and kill indiscriminately because things that are weaker then it don't matter. A Paladin is easily able to justify (depending on your interpretation, which you'll notice I haven't even said yours was incorrect, merely that other interpretations can be valid) kill the Wyvern to protect other sentient life who will come this way in the future.

You are missing the point. Yes, the decision on whether the Wyvern needed to die was complicated. Jurors can have valid disagreements about the verdict of a murder trial BUT they all have a DUTY to make sure they LISTEN TO THE FACTS of the case before they make a judgement. This was not a reasonable disagreement about morality, this was the Paladin NOT CARING enough to learn all the facts before performing an execution. Good people may kill, BUT IT IS NOT SOMETHING THEY DO LIGHTLY.

You say 'the world doesn't boil down to simple black and white' but apparently you feel that one action taken out of context is sufficient to justify a sentient creature's death without bothering to learn anything more about the situation.


Darinby wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:
Darinby wrote:
Preserving sentient life is a core value of 'good', the Paladin didn't even make an attempt to do so. Instead, he kills a sentient being in a fit of pique.

This is more complicated then your giving it credit as being. I'm sorry the world doesn't boil down to simple black and white, and the rules don't necessarily do this either.

A Paladin does not necessarilly need to preserve the life of a sentient creature who kills others merely for being within it's territory. Unlike a beast, the Wyvern knows there's a difference between a creature like humans/dwarves/elves/etc. and deer/sheep/etc. It just doesn't care and kill indiscriminately because things that are weaker then it don't matter. A Paladin is easily able to justify (depending on your interpretation, which you'll notice I haven't even said yours was incorrect, merely that other interpretations can be valid) kill the Wyvern to protect other sentient life who will come this way in the future.

You are missing the point. Yes, the decision on whether the Wyvern needed to die was complicated. Jurors can have valid disagreements about the verdict of a murder trial BUT they all have a DUTY to make sure they LISTEN TO THE FACTS of the case before they make a judgement. This was not a reasonable disagreement about morality, this was the Paladin NOT CARING enough to learn all the facts before performing an execution. Good people may kill, BUT IT IS NOT SOMETHING THEY DO LIGHTLY.

You say 'the world doesn't boil down to simple black and white' but apparently you feel that one action taken out of context is sufficient to justify a sentient creature's death without bothering to learn anything more about the situation.

I'm sorry but it is you who is missing the point.

I am not saying that there is no case to be made that this was an evil act. I am pointing out that the situation's outcome is entirely dependent on the peoples definition of good, evil and how it works within the Pathfinder system.

To counter this point, you seem to think stating your opinion solves the problem, but it doesn't it just adds another opinion to the pool. You also seem to assume that I believe there is no other side to this dilemma. That is not what I'm saying. I'll repeat, I am not saying that there is no case to be made that the Paladin did an evil act. I'm pointing out that the situation is more grey then that.


Sub_Zero wrote:
I'm pointing out that the situation is more grey then that.

Casually killing sentient creatures is a grey area now?

1. The Paladin had the creature unconscious and completely helpless. Any justification of self-defense is void.
2. The Player when asked why the Paladin character (in game) killed the Wyvern stated "It attacked me and damaged me and made me angry so it has to die". Any justification of 'it might hurt other travelers in the future' is void.
3. The other PCs were trying to convince the Wyvern to change it ways and were making headway. Any justification of the Wyvern being irredeemably evil is void.
4. The Paladin had a opportunity to SAFELY and EASILY learn this simply by asking his fellow PCs. Any justification of claiming ignorance of #3 is void.

So where exactly is the grey area here?

Also note that the information in #3 could have been anything from "the wyvern was defending it's young" to "every biped the Wyvern had previously met had tried to kill it". The Paladin didn't bother finding out.

351 to 400 of 496 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Paladin PC - I think he just fell. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.