Darinby's page

Pshhhh... Soooo the dreature known for mayhem... can be pacified with constant treasure and food and praise??

What CAN'T?? That's kind of a lame thing to even put in a book ;)

The term the book uses is 'befriended' not pacified. It's probably part of the reason the Wyvern counts a neutral rather than evil. If you are nice to a Wyvern it may come to like and care about YOU, whereas an evil creature would only ever care about what you can do for it.

frankly that monster is just as dangerous NOW... as it was in the BEGINNING of the battle.

They managed to drive it off fairly easily at the start of the battle so... not all that dangerous to PCs of that level. And not dangerous at all once it was unconscious at -1 HPs.

HAD the paladin made a Knowledge check to know anything about Wyverns... what he would have gotten would be this.

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.

Whatever risk the Wyvern represented, the Gnome and Sphinx took the brunt of that risk in order to secure a powerful ally (flying scout/guard) for their kingdom. Not only is that outcome best for the Wyvern, it could have saved a lot of lives in the kingdom as well. The Paladin ruined that in the service of his petty pride and anger.

a forest on which you claim squatter's rights by dint of brute force

You make that sound like a bad thing, but what other option does a Wyvern (who only speaks Draconic) have besides claiming its territory by dint of brute force? What authority can the Wyvern look to, to recognize/enforce its claim on the hunting grounds it needs to survive?

I think a truly neutral wyvern would be willing to kill unintelligent creatures for food and/or sport. I think it would use brute force and intimidation to coerce and drive off intelligent creatures it viewed as a threat of some sort. I do not believe that it's tenable, however, to argue that an intelligent creature attacking another intelligent creature with lethal force is not evil - when there is no valid reason for said attack.

Protecting its territory from a perceived threat can be viewed as a valid reason (from a neutral standpoint) especially if it had been attacked by previous adventurers. Also note that giving the other side the benefit of the doubt is riskier for the Wyvern than for the PCs. PCs generally have the benefit of quick healing, a seriously injured Wyvern on the other hand is likely to starve to death from being unable to hunt or be killed/driven out by other predators while it is weakened. Having access to good hunting grounds is a life-or-death issue for apex predators and it can't just go somewhere else if it gets driven off, any territory with sufficient game is probably already claimed by some other predator.

Except in the AP you're in you've come to take back the Stolen Lands.

Which makes YOU the Native American tribe coming to take their land BACK, while the current "natives" are the colonials who are attacking you for being in "their" territory.

Still feel comfortable about giving a big thumbs-up to the wyvern's actions?

So in your scenario, a group of heavily armed Native American tribesmen intent on retaking the land of their ancestors show up on a rancher's homestead unannounced, get shot at resulting in minor injuries, and drive off the shooter. Two of the tribesmen chase down the rancher, convince him that he is better off talking to them rather than trying to fight a superior force, and start to explain that this is rightfully their land, and if the rancher wants to stay he has to follow the tribe's rules. According to the GM this approach has a significant chance of success. It is at this time that the third Native American shows up, sees them talking, and shoots the rancher. One of the talkers tries to give the rancher first aid to prevent him from bleeding out and explains that they were negotiating. The third Native American then shoots the rancher in the head to make sure he dies. Hmmm...still evil.

And I never gave a big thumbs-up to the Wyvern's actions, but I don't need to. The Wyvern is neutral and not that bright, it is within his alignment to do occasional #$@$# moves. A Paladin whose abilities stem from maintaining the highest standards of good doesn't get that leeway.

The fact that the Paladin didn't bother to learn WHY the Wyvern attacked means we also have to consider the POSSIBLE motivations the Wyvern might have had, some of which are fairly justified. If the Wyvern has been attacked without warning by previous adventurers, it has every reason to deal with this new threat in its territory preemptively.

Because they're flying murderous a%$*!@~s who act more on instinct than any human who would reasonably be protected by the paladin's code. In fact the fact that it has a 7 int is exactly why it's actively engaging in evil for attacking random passersby without notice and has earned it's death sentence. Frankly if these were bandits I'd also be perfectly okay with it.

Calling the attackers 'bandits' is an assumption of guilt. It implies that the attacker was disobeying the lawful authority of the area, the PCs were aware of none. It also implies a shared cultural code that both parties would be aware of and that the attacker violated.

A fairer analogy would be the party of PCs getting attacked by a of party natives living in the area. If there is any lawful authority in the area, it lies with the natives.

An armed party invaded the natives territory, the natives attack first. Is that a nice thing to do? No. Could it ever be justifiable? Of course, by any number of situations.

Repeated incursions of robbers/settlers might have taught the natives that stranger=danger. Their culture would dictate they use any possible advantage in their fight for the survival of their tribe. Simo Häyhä "the white death" killed hundreds of Russians from hiding during the Winter War, that was not dishonorable. He was simply defending his homeland in the most effective manner he could.

If you replace the Wyvern with a Native American Tribe, do you still feel comfortable giving a big thumbs-up to the Paladin's actions?

Once again, they were speaking draconic. He didn't know a word of what they were saying, only that people who had been fighting a minute ago were speaking a strange language at each other. In a world where speaking in a strange language is a common prelude to a fireball coming out of midair this isn't always the best sign, especially for a character without the "knowledge" of a monster's capabilities, or a decent spellcraft.

Even someone without spellcraft can tell the difference between two people fighting/casting spells at each other and two people TALKING in a strange language.

You know how we know that? The GM specifically told the PC "you can tell they appear to be talking with him in a language you don't know and they aren't fighting". The Paladin can tell the other PCs are talking and not fighting/casting spells. He knows what his party members look like when they are fighting, he know what they look like when they are casting spells.

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.

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 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.

"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.

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.

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'.

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.

Wyverns are dangerous, aggressive, and are very difficult to restrain or bring before a lawful authority. From that point of view executing it was the pragmatic way to handle the situation, with hitting it while its guard was down then performing a coupe de grace being the most practical way to do that.

That would fall under the heading of 'killing without qualm if doing so is convenient' part of the definition of evil.

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 callous disregard of the lives of others.

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. "

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.

Darinby wrote:

Mordo the Spaz - Forum Troll wrote:

Perhaps PCs charmed?

How Paladin know valid parley?

Paladin of Freedom = Detect Charm at will.

Which is just defeated by more magic.

Woo.

So the Wyvern has magic powerful enough to charm a Wizard and Sorcerer (both high Will save classes), had a spell to hide the effects of those charms, had enough foresight to cast that spell, yet didn't have the foresight to guard against the Paladin and didn't bother casting any spells during the portion of the fight the Paladin was in? Very plausible.

Also, the PCs might have been replaced by doppelgangers, better chop off their heads just in case.

Perhaps PCs charmed?

How Paladin know valid parley?

Paladin of Freedom = Detect Charm at will.

If the wyvern was, say, a group of bandits, chances are, beating them up and letting them go because they said they were sorry would be considered negligent on behalf of the paladin. Why would it be any different for a wyvern?

Was the paladin underhanded? yes, most certainly. then again, since he's a paladin of freedom, this isn't inherently code breaking.
Was he evil? Not really. He picked an imperfect solution that likely saved quite a few lives.

Bandit 1 : "The Sheriff of Nottingham has been..*SLICE*"

Bandit 3 : "Prince John is a...*EXECUTE*"

And once again the Paladin of Freedom has delivered justice without bothering to get the whole story.

It is evil because he doesn't even LOOK for a good solution or check for mitigating circumstances, instead he casually kills a sentient being.

I really don't see a problem with what the paladin did. The wyvern ambushed the party without provocation, the paladin doesn't speak draconic, and no one informed him there was negotiations.

The two sides had stopped fighting and started talking, how much more information do you need?

Even if the paladin knew they were negotiating, the paladin has absolutely no reason to believe the wyvern wouldn't simply use it's shot at survival to assail more people; it's track record certainly implies it would love to take the chance to attack a weaker group of travelers given the opportunity. The monster manuel even says that wyverns are normally very aggressive creatures, and that it dislikes diplomacy. I'd say your paladin listened to his better judgement, and made a perfectly justified choice.

The Paladin 'has absolutely no reason to believe' because he didn't bother asking the people who could actually TALK to the Wyvern. If he hears everyone out and still decides it is too dangerous to let the Wyvern live that is one thing. Killing the Wyvern out of hand when the two sides of the conflict have started talking to each other something else entirely.

Clearly indiscriminately includes killing stuff that just threatened to kill you.

It includes a vast variety of situations, that's why it is considered indiscriminate. It includes killing people who attacked due to a mistaken assumption, killing people who attacked because they had a valid justification, and killing people when the conflict that made violence necessary has already been resolved.

Good people prefer peaceful co-existence whenever it is possible, that is part of what makes them good. It is the evil people who look to killing as the go-to solution for their problems. That is part of what makes them evil.

By killing the Wyvern without bothering to find out what the situation was, the Paladin firmly puts himself in the evil category.

Is it sentient, or is it like a dog and doesn't know better?

Pick one, you can't argue both.

It's a sentient being who was raised outside of a civilized society and thus might not know any better.

I don't know how many times I'm gonna say this but this is quite clearly a player dynamic issue.

The Paladin wants to kill stuff. The rest of the party wants to befriend everything. You support the befriending everything. Either get the Paladin on board or accept his playstyle.

The Paladin wants to INDISCRIMINATELY kill stuff, that is an alignment issue.

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.

The issue is that good aligned PCs are supposed to value life, the paladin didn't bother finding out what the situation was before resorting to killing.

You say that the paladin couldn't tell if the Wyvern was surrendering or threatening the PCs. By that logic, the PCs could have been the ones who surrendered and the Wyvern had graciously decided to spare them as long as they left its territory.

THAT could mean loads of things. The Wyvern could have them ensorcelled or could be threatening them or whatever. His party members didn't see it fit to inform him quickly so he charged.

Again, he was a Paladin of Freedom, who can Detect Charm at will.

Yes, the Wyvern COULD have been threatening the PCs but he ALSO could have been apologizing for an honest mistake (he thought the PCs were a threat to his family). A good aligned PC has a duty to find out which before resorting to killing if he can do so without undue risk.

If you think the Paladin should stay his blade in case every enemy has some kidnapped children somewhere, then you're going to have far less Paladins.

He should stay his blade for the 30 seconds it takes to find out whether or not killing is justifiable when he can do so without undue risk.

Ok ignore what we *know*

Paladin and party chases Wyvern - Paladin comes upon two others cornering the Wyvern (they brought it down!) and they are shouting at each other in a roaring manner that makes no sense to you.

Yup - I can tell they were in parlay. Oh wait thats metagaming. If the players aren't willing to step up and stop the paladin or inform him of what they are doing he had no way to know they were in surrender negotiations.

Again that doesn't even matter - make the Wyvern a demon - that is offering a wish to the other party members - again if killing a foe in parlay is an automatic fall he's toast - all a demon needs to do to be safe from paladins is to make sure they have someone to negotiate with any time they feel free.

That's a silly interpretation.

Who said they were shouting? The paladin might have trouble telling if the Wyvern was talking aggressively but would be able to tell if the other PCs were in a fighting mood or not.

Not to mention that when the Wyvern falls out of the treetops one of the other party members catches him before he hits the ground. That is a clear indication that it had stopped being a kill-or-be-killed situation.

The Wyvern attacked without warning with lethal force intending to kill. Upon discovering it was outmatched it, quite cowardly, wished for parley. This is most dishonorable.

Any Paladin would find negotiating with such a dishonorable creature distasteful. While I can see some allowing the insult by, it is also perfectly reasonable for a Paladin to deny the Wyvern right of surrender as due forfeit for ambushing them(Dishonorable).

Clearly speaking. You cannot tell negotiation, surrendering, or much of anything when you hear people speaking in a language you can't understand.

You can't have it both ways, if the paladin can't tell if the creature is negotiating or surrendering then the paladin also has no idea if the wyvern is performing a cowardly surrender, apologizing for an honest mistake, or explaining why he was perfectly justified in attacking the PCs.

A good PC would learn the circumstances before killing an intelligent creature when he could do so without serious risks.

For all he knew the wyvern was saying "Very well, you have won, but if you let me live I will tell you where I have hidden the kidnapped childre-URK!!!"

Also, finding someone distasteful is not justification for killing them.

As a GM I made just one paladin fall.

He had an Oath against Fiends and refused to chase a fiend beyond a pool of illusionary water, after he knew they were into someone's dream and he saw everyone else in the party move beyond. He was afraid of drowning but the other PCs shown greater courage than him, and the fiend was the target of his Oath. Thus he fell.

Do you mean fell as in 'lost his oath powers' or fell as in 'became an ex-paladin'? Because if I am reading things right those are two separate things.

"If a paladin violates the code of her oath, she loses the class abilities associated with that oath until she atones. If she violates her paladin’s code, she loses her oath abilities as well as her other paladin abilities."

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo---pal adin-archetypes/oathbound-paladin

Darinby wrote:

The paladin could have asked the party members if they were being bribed and paladins of freedom get Detect Charm at will.

It didn't have to be surrendering, it was clearly negotiating. Not an immediate danger.

Yeah because negotiating with evil blood hungry monsters is totally to be expected.

Seriously I said this in the last thread about this kind of stuff and I still stand by it. You aren't obligated to accept an enemies surrender under any circumstances.

Negotiating with evil blood hungry monsters is totally unexpected, which is why seeing your friends TALKING with something is a big red flag that the situation might not be so black-and-white.

There is no situation where a PALADIN is require to accept a surrender? If group of PCs steals an artifact from an evil nobleman and a couple of good aligned city guards try to stop them, you think a paladin shouldn't fall for killing the the guards even if they surrender and could be incapacitated?

Darinby wrote:

But for all the paladin knew the wvyern was defending it's young, or thought all adventures were dragon hunters. The fact that he didn't bother learning what the situation was (which he could have done without significant risk) before killing an intelligent being makes it an evil act.

Actually for all the Paladin knew the wyvern was bribing his party members into killing the paladin to get a cut of some treasure or it had magically brainwashed them and was issuing commands. They never actually explained anything to the Paladin in character so I don't see why he'd assume it was surrendering.

The paladin could have asked the party members if they were being bribed and paladins of freedom get Detect Charm at will.

It didn't have to be surrendering, it was clearly negotiating. Not an immediate danger.

Unless it's player choice to make his character fall, or it's a clearly evil act, a paladin shouldn't fall. The very fact that there's discussion in this thread counts as the fact not being a "clearly evil act".

I would have granted the paladin a sense motive or linguistic check to become aware of the parlay despite different language, but failing that check, his actions are justifiable.

A good person respects and values life. The GM told the player that the party and wyvern were talking. There was no immediate danger. Killing it at that moment was an evil act.

IF the paladin had killed it before the parley the killing would have been justifiable as self defense. IF the paladin had waited the parley out, learned WHAT the circumstances were and WHY the wyvern attacked then he MIGHT be able to justify killing the wyvern as a danger to other travelers.

But for all the paladin knew the wvyern was defending it's young, or thought all adventures were dragon hunters. The fact that he didn't bother learning what the situation was (which he could have done without significant risk) before killing an intelligent being makes it an evil act.

Actually no. This is not a laudable goal. Stopping bad people is a laudable goal. And that may involve killing them if they resist being stopped; but if killing them is the goal that is still an evil act.

Stopping bad people = good.

Killing people when you could stop them fairly easily = bad.

Simply put, murder is still murder; even when the victim is a horrible person.

It was a justified execution for their crimes. The criminals had raped and murdered innocent people. Their guilt was 100% clear and going through the legal system would have resulted in the criminals deaths just as certainly. Street thugs who attempt to kill visiting royalty do not get community service as a rule.

Killing people isn't a very nice thing to do, but good =/= nice.

In this particular case the action was neutral. Killing people who deserve to die is not evil, it is justice. The fact that Jasnah's motivation for that action was mainly to teach her student a lesson rather than to protect the innocent means it is not a good act either.

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?

I wouldn't have him trying to civilize the Wyvern as atonement. It gives the paladin too much credit, the person who interrupts a peaceful parley to murder someone is not 'civilized'.

For atonement I would have the paladin be forced to spend all his next level's skill points on languages to remind him that other types of people are also people.

Darinby wrote:

The natives/wyvern don't need to be the 'good guys' for the paladin to fall. Merely being unpleasant people does not justify a death sentence. Killing people merely because they are unlikable or because it is convenient/safer is an evil act.

If an armed group of strangers enters your territory isn't it pragmatic to 'end the potential threat' they represent? If a wyvern flew into a civilized area without attacking anyone would the citizens of that area have any justification to attack it based on it's potential threat?

I'd say someone whose first act upon seeing a new person is "Stab it and see if it bleeds" is more than merely "unpleasant".

That guy at the DMV who gives you the stinkeye is unpleasant.

That guy who stabs people for being in his territory is a psychopath.

So if a wyvern flew into a city but didn't attack anyone, any city guard or adventurer who attacked it would be a psychopath?

A group adventurers represent just as much a potential danger to the inhabitants of an 'untamed' territory as the wyvern does to the inhabitants of a civilized territory.

How many adventuring parties actively go hunting 'monsters' for treasury/spell components without being attacked first?

It's morally null, in my eyes.

Neither party is in the right, but the people who attacked without provocation were certainly in the wrong FIRST.

Just because they start parleying when they realize they're outmatched doesn't suddenly mean they're the good guy in this situation. They were just trying to kill you a few moments before.

And if you're under no orders to, and cannot feasibly take prisoners, then ending the potential threat may be the more pragmatic option.

The natives/wyvern don't need to be the 'good guys' for the paladin to fall. Merely being unpleasant people does not justify a death sentence. Killing people merely because they are unlikable or because it is convenient/safer is an evil act.

If an armed group of strangers enters your territory isn't it pragmatic to 'end the potential threat' they represent? If a wyvern flew into a civilized area without attacking anyone would the citizens of that area have any justification to attack it based on it's potential threat?

Thankfully, not everyone is police, nor is this the present day where killing people is some sort of taboo.

Things were simpler in the sort of time period Golarion takes place in.

You're in the middle of untamed wilderness.

Someone or something has attacked you with intent to kill.

You are perfectly justified in killing it back.

And by 'untamed wilderness' you mean the home territory of intelligent (if primitive) beings.

Now let's look at this scenario in a different context. A small group of modern soldiers enter the territory of a primitive tribe. A hunting party from the tribe attacks the soldiers injuring one. The soldiers using their modern weaponry drive the hunting party off then chases them down and intimidates them into a parley. That's when the injured soldier shows up and (seeing two groups talking) decides to gun down the natives.

If this an evil act or not?