A good person would be for the first one to pull the others into hiding and whisper "Seems like we've stumbled upon a nest of wyverns here, my friends, and by [inser Deity of Luck]'s luck, they are asleep. Looks like we for once have the upper hand guys. Let's see if we can do this nice and easy. And if we do waken them up, we stick to regular procedure. You know.. Monster-slaying is our thing, no? Don't be afraid, and watch out for the little ones. They bite and sting as well. Just as dangerous as the full-grown specimen. Only difference is they stay in the nest, when mama and papa goes out to fetch food. You know like the one that snatched your sister when you were a child Sir Stiegfried."
The evil persons. "My, my. Look what we have here. Stupid lizards. Let us catch them, enslave them, and torment them into a tame state, so that they can perform as beasts of burden for us. Maybe we can even make them snatch bodies [insert Necromancer's name] can raise as zombies. We do not have the time to nurse, so let us make dinner out of their young."
A summary of my thoughts on this whole mess:
I hardly see how attacking a dangerous monster is evil, regardless of its alignment
This one is kind of questionable because he did attack it in its sleep, but he was a paladin of Erastil. Hunting dangerous beasts is what they do; if you're sleeping around an evil cave you don't make yourself look any better than any other dangerous beast.
What is this silliness!? Even if a judiciary system existed in that world, I would never believe that the wyverns would agree.
Considering he used knowledge that his character would appropriately know to make his decisions, I rule no
While the DM has every right to strip the paladin's powers, if the DM didn't lay out what he expected from the player at the beginning then that is just unfair to the player. The DM is the final arbiter in what is defined as evil, good, lawful, chaotic, and honorable in his game, but the players should know about that.
An issue I've had is based on the other things that the DM said; I believe he was punishing the player more for using tactical planning to dispatch challenges early, claiming it as metagaming or as violation of his code. I admit having your setups removed before they could hatch is a pain to deal with but not a very valid reason to strip one's powers. (This also not very effective in obtaining the result he is looking for, unless he uses that phylactery to mislead his players into the script) Which I believe to be evil and almost as bad as just playing the player's character for him.
I tend to agree that the paladin's actions were morally questionable without being unequivically chaotic or evil. However, they were certainly reasonable (and even justifiable) from an adventuring standpoint.
Being an APG anti-paladin is way easier. Not only would the anti-paladin be justified in killing the wyvern he would even be justified in torturing the wyvern while it was still alive and animating its corpse as a steed afterwards. Sounds like a lot more fun to me!
This does make me wonder however, what GMs are willing to tolerate from their paladins (or good-aligned clerics) in terms of alignment and actions. Here are a few situations I would like people to comment on with regards to paladins, actions and alignment.
1. The party spies a wyvern tending to her three screeching babies. The female wyvern would definitely be hunting more than normal to raise her chicks. Is the paladin committing an evil act if he kills the mother and abandons or kills the chicks? What if he kills the mother and takes the chicks to raise? What if he kills the mother then sells the chicks to a merchant (can anyone say dancing wyverns)?
2. The paladin runs across a badly injured unarmed ogre (one that can barely protect itself) after the rest of his tribe were slaughtered by mercenaries. The paladin knows that ogres are monstrously evil creatures (in fact horribly depraved). Is he committing an evil act if he kills the defenceless ogre? Is he committing an evil act if he heals the injured ogre and then lets him go?
3. A paladin enters a tavern where a bound troll is being used as a living dartboard by the locals. Does the paladin free the troll since it is obviously being tortured knowing full well that if set free it will return and slaughter everyone in the Inn?
4. The high-level paladin sees a wyvern being ridden by a robed figure some 200 feet way. He knows that an evil wizard in the area has tamed a wyvern. Does he and his party kill the wyvern (that they could easily kill in a single round) knowing that...
1.If the mother has been attacking people I would make him fall. The OP did not give us that much info though.
Selling the wyverns on the open market is close enough to slavery that he would be a warrior real soon. If he raised the wyverns they may grow up to be good so that would be ok also.2.It would depend on the tribe. If they were a danger to the area I would not make him fall for it, but I would hope he would try to make an agreement with it. Even evil people can be grateful if you help them.
3.Why did the people capture it. If the troll has attacked before I would tell the people to kill it or let it go. Torture would not be condoned. I really can't see people trying to capture a random troll for no reason. It is way too dangerous.
4.If the wizard is known to be evil then most likely it is for a reason, and if a high level paladin thinks it is wise to face down an evil wizard he deserves whatever he gets if he has the chance to kill him without endangering himself.
Sorry, edited that for clarity. The point you're avoiding is that honorable is a subjective term that you have to define, and your definition will vary from mine. Just like alignment.
So is knifing a guy in his sleep honorable? Point blank your defintion is it honorable to kill a sleeping enemy?
This guy ate my previous avatar, you are a sick um, bug thing, Mr. Fishy is impressed.
Actually let's turn this situation around 180 degrees.
Let's say an anti-paladin (and his equally psychotic companions) spy a pair of wyverns sleeing 200 feet away just before they enter a crypt. Is the anti-paladin committing a good act if he let's the sleeping wyverns live? What if he uses a statement like "they are not hurting us, so let's just leave them be"? Would this be a good person speaking?
I could totally see the anti-paladin pull out a bag of popcorn (or whatever the Golarion equivalent to an on hand treat to watch cinematic events with is) chuck a rock at the wyverns to wake them up and watch the people who were foolish enough to trust him get carried away as lunch. With a deep laugh go, "Muahahahaha! That was entertaining," and smirk.
We know that the paladin followed Erastil but what if he followed a god of mercy, life, peace, love or healing?
Would killing the sleeping wyverns be an evil act or just an ethos violation?
And if this is the case are you saying that mercy, peace or healing are not GOOD actions or endeavors?
What if he followed a god of honor and justice instead? What if he followed a god of good dragons who viewed wyverns as a blight upon the face of the world (spilled as they were from the urine of the god of evil dragons)?
Just postulating. :-)
We know that the paladin followed Erastil but what if he followed a god of mercy, life, peace, love or healing?
Would killing the sleeping wyverns be an evil act or just an ethos violation?
And if this is the case are you saying that mercy, peace or healing are not GOOD actions?
What if he followed a god of honor and justice instead? What if he followed a god of good dragons who viewed wyverns as a blight upon the face of the world (spilled as they were from the urine of the god of evil dragons)?
Just postulating? :-)
It all depends on your cosmology and what empowers paladins and likewise what makes them fall. If it's the power of a god directly, then its up to that god to decide, and the GM of that world to decide what the god decides. It may also be some nebulous karma-meter of Lawful Goodness which LG gods can sponsor paladins for but can't do much about if the paladin's actions make the ecumenical karma-meter go *TILT*.
Personally I've found it fun to run a world where paladins are part of medieval Christianity and they fall when the current Pope gets tired of writing indulgences for their assorted screw-ups. Of course that's dealing with the Medici popes, so isn't going to work for all worlds.
The latest posts actually remind me of all those action movies where the good guy has no problem killing hundreds of faceless hired goons but then takes the BBEG to jail instead.
I once lost my paladinhood for fighting a red dragon in the town square. I killed the dragon (who had been attacking the village) but during the fight a dozen-odd innocent people died when it breathed on me and they were caught in the cone.
Thank you, that is what Mr. Fishy was trying to get at, is the act honorable? Anyone can justify anything. Justified is not the same.
Mr. Fishy feels that the paladin should not be punished for ending a threat to the region. Just that the ends justify the means is a little sloppy. Meta gaming or not.
Play as you will. Killing a monster is not evil, however attacking an unconscious opponent is in fact dishonorable.
I think that a paladin can act dishonourably but they need a very good reason to do so.
No. Killing someone is never to be extolled as a good act. Next question?
Just so. I think that I would define killing a genuine monster (as opposed to the D&D definition, which can list angels as monsters, but a sick, evil creature that can only cause harm) is justified (necessary to prevent bad things), not sanctified (a good thing in and of itself).
1. The party spies a wyvern tending to her three screeching babies. The female wyvern would definitely be hunting more than normal to raise her chicks. Is the paladin committing an evil act if he kills the mother and abandons or kills the chicks? What if he kills the mother and takes the chicks to raise? What if he kills the mother then sells the chicks to a merchant (can anyone say dancing wyverns)?
Depends on what the party know of wyverns, and what information they have gleaned locally. If said wyvern has not been eating the locals, negotiating with it would probably be the correct thing to do in order to establish motives and perhaps arrange that the best interests of local people and the wyvern both are served. With wyverns this isn't likely to be easy, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. If the wyvern is smart enough to realise that praying upon humans could endanger the lives of it's young, it will likely avoid this.
Certainly killing the chicks is wrong, and taking a course of action that can allow them to live a life with the opportunity to be beneficial to themselves and others is desirable.
2. The paladin runs across a badly injured unarmed ogre (one that can barely protect itself) after the rest of his tribe were slaughtered by mercenaries. The paladin knows that ogres are monstrously evil creatures (in fact horribly depraved). Is he committing an evil act if he kills the defenceless ogre? Is he committing an evil act if he heals the injured ogre and then lets him go?
Can leopards change their spots? In a world like Eberron, where creature alignments are mutable, healing the ogre is the right thing, if the ogre agrees to be a good boy. In world where ogres are invariable depraved cannibals, offering the ogre a clean, swift death is probably the closest thing to merciful you can be.
3. A paladin enters a tavern where a bound troll is being used as a living dartboard by the locals. Does the paladin free the troll since it is obviously being tortured knowing full well that if set free it will return and slaughter everyone in the Inn?
Again, it depends on the flexibility of alignments for such creatures. Either way, permitting the torture to continue is the unacceptable course of action.
4. The high-level paladin sees a wyvern being ridden by a robed figure some 200 feet way. He knows that an evil wizard in the area has tamed a wyvern. Does he and his party kill the wyvern (that they could easily kill in a single round) knowing that the rider will possibly plunge to his or her death or without parleying with the rider at all?
It depends on the quality of the information. 'Evil Wizard' could just mean 'suspicious old guy we don't like much' or it could mean 'undead necromancer out to kill us all'. If a detect evil pinged up on the two, then an attack could be justified. If it didn't, negotiating is a must.
5. The paladin's party arrives at the tomb of an elven hero that is being used as a base by an evil necromancer. Is he committing an evil act by looting the treasure-laden bodies of the fallen warriors that have yet to be animated by the necromancer (they are just corpses after all)?
I think the perspective of the question of looting the dead could be summed up with this: "If these be truly the bodies of noble warriors, just and true, then I cannot imagine that they would desire their desecration as undead, but would rather wish their gear be used to thwart such evil than let it flourish."
Mr. Fishy feels that the paladin should not be punished for ending a threat to the region. Just that the ends justify the means is a little sloppy.
Yes ... ends justifies means can be used to justify anything.
Did the dragon fly into the square and unleash hell or did you ride him in? If the Dragon started attacking and you did your best to protect innocent lives then you paladin should have been clear.
Or, The dragon flys into town to buy a toothbrush. You called him a flying lizard and throw rocks at him? Innocent people burn.
Did the dragon fly into the square and unleash hell or did you ride him in? If the Dragon started attacking and you did your best to protect innocent lives then you paladin should have been clear.
Or, The dragon flys into town to buy a toothbrush. You called him a flying lizard and throw rocks at him? Innocent people burn.
The dragon flew in and unleashed hell. I then unleashed hell back. This was back in 2nd Ed. over 15 years ago and it was the last time I ever played the character (I then switched over [in some disgust] to a crazy CN half-orc fighter who thought everyone he met was an illusion - long story).
No. Killing someone is never to be extolled as a good act. Next question?
So is knifing a guy in his sleep honorable? Point blank your defintion is it honorable to kill a sleeping enemy?
A real paladin would smother baby Hitler in his crib.
Can I haz paladin?
Don't worry, I'll take care of the corpses.
Don't worry, I'll take care of the corpses.
Good Necromancer? That is about as likely as good drow. Take off the hat of disguise and show your face so that my many eyes may gaze upon you heretic.
What kills me is all the people assuming the paladins reasons for the action taken. Looking at this purely empirically based of the info given (not what the AP says, not what the bestiary says).
Based off the OP
Point 1. The Paladin noticed sleeping wyvern.
Point 2. The Paladin suggested killing said wyvern.
Point 3. The player said it would be better to strike than get caught unawares.
Where is the knowledge check?
Where is his previous experience with said creatures?
Where was it made clear that these creatures would attack the party?
Nowhere, therefore it is out-of character knowledge. This type of knowledge used to make in-character decisions constitutes metagaming.
Those of us defending the wyvern. Not one (IIRC) has agreed with loss of power based on this one act without a DM warning. Why are there SO MANY assumptions that that has been suggested?
Honor, definition aside, is different to many people. If you want to quote Dragonlance, try reading a little story in Tales volume 2 called Definitions of honor, by Richard A. Knaak (the writer also of Legend of Huma). A Kight and a minotaur discuss honor. The Knight a paladin's honor, minotaurs follow a more japanese style of honor.
The next question, if it still is honorable, is it courageous?
Are paladin's hard to play due to the standards that are expected. Indeed, without a doubt, no questions asked. If a player plays one just to get cool powers, but does not wrestle with the internal struggle of moral dilemma at every encounter in the violence heavy world of most Fantasy RPG's, then they just wanted cool powers and the alignment and code mean nothing.
Alignment summary:
Good = Ask questions first, shoot if that fails. Hard-mode
Neutral = Ask or shoot, whichever's more effective in achieving the goal. Normal-mode
Evil = Shoot first, raise and then speak with dead if there were any questions that really needed asking. Easy-mode
ANYTIME a good character's first reaction is to resort to violence, they are delving in the realm of evil.
The idea expressed by most of the defenders of the paladin's actions here tend to be saying, that it's okay to perfom acts that evil performs as long as it's against evil.
Hello? Ever hear the statement "Don't stoop to their level"?
Don't worry, I'll take care of the corpses.Good Necromancer? That is about as likely as good drow. Take off the hat of disguise and show your face so that my many eyes may gaze upon you heretic.
How can you have so many eyes and be so blind? Right after the most popular alignment pissing thread topic of all time (Paladins) in second place is the Good Necromancer thread. We are the great recyclers of fantasy gaming!
What kills me is all the people assuming the paladins reasons for the action taken. Looking at this purely empirically based of the info given (not what the AP says, not what the bestiary says).
Based off the OP
Point 1. The Paladin noticed sleeping wyvern.
Point 2. The Paladin suggested killing said wyvern.
Point 3. The player said it would be better to strike than get caught unawares.Where is the knowledge check?
Where is his previous experience with said creatures?
Where was it made clear that these creatures would attack the party?Nowhere, therefore it is out-of character knowledge. This type of knowledge used to make in-character decisions constitutes metagaming.
Those of us defending the wyvern. Not one (IIRC) has agreed with loss of power based on this one act without a DM warning. Why are there SO MANY assumptions that that has been suggested?
Honor, definition aside, is different to many people. If you want to quote Dragonlance, try reading a little story in Tales volume 2 called Definitions of honor, by Richard A. Knaak (the writer also of Legend of Huma). A Kight and a minotaur discuss honor. The Knight a paladin's honor, minotaurs follow a more japanese style of honor.
The next question, if it still is honorable, is it courageous?
Are paladin's hard to play due to the standards that are expected. Indeed, without a doubt, no questions asked. If a player plays one just to get cool powers, but does not wrestle with the internal struggle of moral dilemma at every encounter in the violence heavy world of most Fantasy RPG's, then they just wanted cool powers and the alignment and code mean nothing.
Alignment summary:
Good = Ask questions first, shoot if that fails. Hard-mode
Neutral = Ask or shoot, whichever's more effective in achieving the goal. Normal-mode
Evil = Shoot first, raise and then speak with dead if there were any questions that really needed asking. Easy-modeANYTIME a good character's first reaction is to resort to violence, they are delving in the...
Do you honestly demand that a good party give a full knowledge check then walk up and talk to everything they encounter in case it's not evil?
Or do you just make paladins fall for it?
Why are they attacking something if they know nothing about it? There are MULTIPLE in-game methods of resolving the nature of threat before resorting to violence.
Hmm, Detect alignment anyone? Maybe a knowledge check, IIRC they are free actions that can be taken at any time. Sometimes the good characters have previous experience that will tell them a little more.
So many ways to answer questions before jumping to conclusions, and making a wrong call.
Another army-ism, when you assume, you make an A$$ out of U and ME.
By the sound of most of the opposing side, I want to play a pally in your games, that way I can act like an assassin and do it with all the Paladin's powers. Evil duke, kilkl him in his sleep, evil Orc chieftan, kill him in his sleep, Evil dragon kill him in his sleep.
Ooooh, ooh, can I poison them too as long as they are evil? Eh? It's Tactical. Can I torture them till I ge what I want... it's okay they are evil, it lets me do what they do without repercussion.
EDIT: sorry if I'm coming off too snide. When I get worked up I sarcasm. I'm just trying to make the point that it's not ok to act like evil just because it's against evil.
How can you have so many eyes and be so blind? Right after the most popular alignment pissing thread topic of all time (Paladins) in second place is the Good Necromancer thread. We are the great recyclers of fantasy gaming!Don't worry, I'll take care of the corpses.Good Necromancer? That is about as likely as good drow. Take off the hat of disguise and show your face so that my many eyes may gaze upon you heretic.
<goes to search for good necromancer threads to verify claim>
Why are they attacking something if they know nothing about it? There are MULTIPLE in-game methods of resolving the nature of threat before resorting to violence.
Hmm, Detect alignment anyone? Maybe a knowledge check, IIRC they are free actions that can be taken at any time. Sometimes the good characters have previous experience that will tell them a little more.
So many ways to answer questions before jumping to conclusions, and making a wrong call.
Another army-ism, when you assume, you make an A$$ out of U and ME.
By the sound of most of the opposing side, I want to play a pally in your games, that way I can act like an assassin and do it with all the Paladin's powers. Evil duke, kilkl him in his sleep, evil Orc chieftan, kill him in his sleep, Evil dragon kill him in his sleep.
Ooooh, ooh, can I poison them too as long as they are evil? Eh? It's Tactical. Can I torture them till I ge what I want... it's okay they are evil, it lets me do what they do without repercussion.
EDIT: sorry if I'm coming off too snide. When I get worked up I sarcasm. I'm just trying to make the point that it's not ok to act like evil just because it's against evil.
Maybe they dealt with wyverns earlier in the game so they already know how much they like/don't like to talk.
Maybe they dealt with wyverns earlier in the game so they already know how much they like/don't like to talk.
Since that is not made clear whether they have or have not, all we can do is judge based on the information given and not assume that they do/do not know anything about wyverns.
See a previous post of mine. Whether they know or not it's alignment or Int, the question gets boiled down to killing in it's sleep. Which if not an evil act, then assassins need not be evil.
Old resource, with REALLY abusable crunch, but always useable fluff:
BoED and BoVD
BoVD lists evil acts as;
Lying, Cheating, Theft, Betrayal, Murder, Vengeance, Worshiping Evil Gods and Demons, Animating/Creating Undead, Casting Evil Spells, Damning or Harming Souls, Consorting With Fiends, Creating Evil Creatures, Using Others for Personal Gain, Greed, Bullying or Cowing Innocents, Bringing Despair, Tempting Others.
(Murder: the killing of another committed with aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
BoED lists good acts as;
Helping Others, Charity, Healing, Personal Sacrifice, Worshiping Good Deities, Casting Good Spells, Mercy, Forgiveness, Bringing Hope, Redeeming Evil
It also asks, is it okay to do what is considered an evil acts for the greater good, and the answer is no, evil is evil no matter the reason.
Maybe they dealt with wyverns earlier in the game so they already know how much they like/don't like to talk.Since that is not made clear whether they have or have not, all we can do is judge based on the information given and not assume that they do/do not know anything about wyverns.
See a previous post of mine. Whether they know or not it's alignment or Int, the question gets boiled down to killing in it's sleep. Which if not an evil act, then assassins need not be evil.
Old resource, with REALLY abusable crunch, but always useable fluff:
BoED and BoVDBoVD lists evil acts as;
Lying, Cheating, Theft, Betrayal, Murder, Vengeance, Worshiping Evil Gods and Demons, Animating/Creating Undead, Casting Evil Spells, Damning or Harming Souls, Consorting With Fiends, Creating Evil Creatures, Using Others for Personal Gain, Greed, Bullying or Cowing Innocents, Bringing Despair, Tempting Others.(Murder: the killing of another committed with aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
BoED lists good acts as;
Helping Others, Charity, Healing, Personal Sacrifice, Worshiping Good Deities, Casting Good Spells, Mercy, Forgiveness, Bringing Hope, Redeeming EvilIt also asks, is it okay to do what is considered an evil acts for the greater good, and the answer is no, evil is evil no matter the reason.
The BoEd also says that if the paladin(good character)has to choose between committing an evil act to save the world or keep his alignment he should choose his alignment. It is not in those words, but it gives an example of doing the wrong thing for the right reason with lives at stake or keeping the alignment and the book goes for the alignment. That is enough to lose an alignment in my games, and probably most other people. It was at that point that I stopped taking the book seriously.
I am also for mercy and forgiveness, but within certain constraints. If I am a high level character and I come upon the wyvern with the belief that I can probably(very high chance) defeat it(based on other monsters I have fought) if diplomacy fails sure, but if it is at the boundaries of what I can handle it either gets completely avoided or it dies by the easiest method possible.I don't know if the OP did that, but we did not get a lot of info. I think the DM was fed up from previous behavior more so than the wyvern incident.
edit:I just saw your last line so I guess you saw that nonsense. If I have to choose between being a paladin without a world, or being a warrior knowing I saved the world I will just have to say bye bye to my powers. I can atone for it later. I can't atone to undo the destruction of the world as I know it.
edit 2: If my deity snatches my powers for such an act then I guess we were never on the same page anyway, and it is time to find a more reasonable deity.
The BoEd also says that if the paladin(good character)has to choose between committing an evil act to save the world or keep his alignment he should choose his alignment.
It doesn't say he should choose alignment, it just says it doesn't make it not an evil act. I'm sure in the extreme example of the only way to save the world is by killing the unconscious child with out of control/uncontainable reality bending powers (ala Franklin Richards, of FF) then I'm sure that one will not be a big hooplah to atone for.
It doesn't say he should choose alignment, it just says it doesn't make it not an evil act. I'm sure in the extreme example of the only way to save the world is by killing the unconscious child with out of control/uncontainable reality bending powers (ala Franklin Richards, of FF) then I'm sure that one will not be a big hooplah to atone for.
The BoEd also says that if the paladin(good character)has to choose between committing an evil act to save the world or keep his alignment he should choose his alignment.
Oh, your deity might not strike your powers from you, but your subconscious would have a field day travelling to Guilt City on the Guilt Train for a long stay in Hotel Guilt. In fact that makes a good redemption story, finding an un-fallen paladin drunk in the bar where he's been drowning his sorrows for the last ten years convinced that he's going to be condemned for his evil deed ...
Why are they attacking something if they know nothing about it? There are MULTIPLE in-game methods of resolving the nature of threat before resorting to violence.
This is Varnhold Vanishing, barring some magnificent circumstance or GM ass-pull, they DEFINITELY know what a wyvern is, and have in all likelihood defeated several as random encounters, knowing them as foul monsters that attack on sight.
Hmm, Detect alignment anyone? Maybe a knowledge check, IIRC they are free actions that can be taken at any time. Sometimes the good characters have previous experience that will tell them a little more.
Way out of range for spells like that. They likely had a -4 due to range with their longbows. Also, knowledge check is kinda irrelevant. They stumbled across two sleeping specimens of the flying poisonous menace that is notorious for being a pain in the side of the local village, and most likely have attacked them before. They are monsters, a menace and a looming threat to their quest (which redoubles the importance of succeeding, since the lives of an entire village hangs in the balance).
So many ways to answer questions before jumping to conclusions, and making a wrong call.
Now, for some more information that the OP omitted, but it is spoilers for Varnhold Vanishing, sooo:
I think that taken in a vacuum, sure, there could be speculation. But when is something EVER in a vacuum?
Also, looking at the paladin code: Is it HONORABLE to throw away the lives of good friends and champions of the land over the sanctity of a couple of barely sentient lizards?
Also, what I want to know, is how the heck they managed to KILL the wyverns in one and a half round of combat? They were FAR away, likely had cover, they have a good HP pool, and barring several master archers and magic, they should be able to fly away before sustaining too severe damage to recover. Again, this sounds like spiteful GM set-up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What the BoED does say is that taking the easy way out, killing the child that might come to threaten the world, sacrificing the innocent to save the world and so on, that's giving the principle of evil a win. The D&D universe is built on the very concrete premise of the forces of Good against the forces of Evil. They have their own planes, they have philosophies, they have strategies, and they have force to back their views up. Also: It's very clear that they are not balanced. There is a LOT more evil than good. What this means is that if you're on the side of Good, you can't afford to stoop to the level of Evil. You can't use their strategies, because of the "cost" to your soul, and because of the misery that this will spread, resulting in evil cashing in due to your actions.
In the 3.5 Fiendish Codex 2, about devils, the very reason for the existence of Hell shows this clearly. Asmodeus is the champion of the gods of Good, the soldier who does whatever is necessary to destroy chaos and evil. As time passed, he got more and more tainted by the things he felt were necessary to do. As he saw it: "I have blackened myself so that you can remain golden". The consequence was Hell, a place thriving on misery and wickedness, promoting sin across the planes.
It comes as no surprise that many who are clearly evil see themselves as good. It's not a good thing to tell people that you are evil. And thus, such people always try to justify their own actions, trying to shift the focus to the possible good consequences their actions may bring. If you kill an evil person, they want to talk about "protecting others against this person", if they murder someone in their sleep, they call that "using the best tactical option in a dangerous situation", if they torture someone to pieces, they say "gathering information to protect society". There is no act they can't find an excuse for. THIS is what evil is all about. A good act needs no justification. Acting and thinking this way is what destroys the world we all live in.
However, the edge of morality is sharper than that. Justifications don't make an evil act less evil. You can fool yourself that you're fighting the good fight, but that doesn't change the fact that you're a frightened and pissy little cutthroat who likes to pretend you're good. When you commit an atrocity, like torturing someone, that happens here and now, and sullies you. The supposed benefit that you tout ("protection of society") comes in the future, and may never happen at all. What his means is that your evil act is certain, and balanced against a potential gain in the future. Given enough reasoning like this, your damnation is assured, and for only mediocre gain.
You can't fight the good fight, or be a paladin, using the tools of evil. You can't take the easy way out, you can't stoop to their level, and you can't justify your actions. In return, the DM has a duty not to set you up to fail because of impossible situations, which also follows from the above.
If you think I am too judgemental, well, tough. It probably means you need to reconsider the principles you follow when you act.
they DEFINITELY know what a wyvern is, and have in all likelihood defeated several as random encounters
Definitely know... in all likelihood... random encounters..
Is it just me, or does the inclusion of chance not also include the chance to not encounter something?
You say taken in a vacuum. In the context of the question (No AP, No history of encounters, a veritable vacuum) was attacking violent creatures in their sleep evil? In answer to a circumstance free question, the base answer, yes.
In context, violent menace, plaguing their actions, asked by the locals, killing them in their sleep evil? In context, the answer is yes.
See all my previous posts about what constitutes evil and why good people do good by refusing to sink to that same level for the pure sake of doing it against evil.
Evil acts don't cease to be evil just because of who or what the target of said acts are.
A lot of deep succint things about the separation of good and evil
This, or +1, or this +1 or whatever is the forum terminology for "I wholeheartedly agree"
If you were to measure good and evil by a point scale, evil does evil, and the forces of evil get a point, good overcomes evil, good gets a point, good used evil to overcome evil... sorry that point still goes to evil. So sure you can follow your "use evil on evil justification", just know that your merely empowering the forces of evil each time you do, therefore counteracting the good you intended.
|
You are a NG Wizard. You sit in a tavern in a lonely town, sipping ale and resting comfortably. You're out of spells for the day, but it seems it's all fine and no danger can be nearby.
Suddenly, a villager bursts into the tavern and yells "ORCS !!!". Everybody is looking at you, their only hope. You reach for your scroll case, looking for something useful for the coming fight. To your horror, you discover that you have only one useful scroll left:
Animate Dead.
What do you do ?
|
|
Actually you don't have to kill anbody for Animate Dead, you just walk to the town cementery and grab some skeleton ad-hoc militia.
But, as we all know, the spell is [Evil] and animating undead is Evil. However, it's the one thing that stands between the orcs and you having to live with screams of dying children in your head till the end of your life. What do you do ?
Actually you don't have to kill anbody for Animate Dead, you just walk to the town cementery and grab some skeleton ad-hoc militia.
But, as we all know, the spell is [Evil] and animating undead is Evil. However, it's the one thing that stands between the orcs and you having to live with screams of dying children in your head till the end of your life. What do you do ?
For my campaign I have established that undead are inherently evil because they are a corruption of the natural order.
Having said that as your example can show sometimes the choices is between two evils. It doesn't mean you don't have a choice and it doesn't mean that the lesser evil isn't still evil.
Of course some would say that when you are presented with a choice between two evils then it's time to look for different options. Just becuase someone tells you a and b are your only options doesn't actually make it true, at least in the real world.
For the example you gave, what about having a few of the stronger villagers pull down the walls of the houses in front of the orc attack to slow them down and fight a rear guard action with improvised weapons while the women and children are evacuated?
Maybe it wouldn't work, and yes it can be a hell of a lot more dangerous than animating the skeletons, but it isn't evil. Being good instead of neutral is in large part about not being willing to cross that line whatever the circumstances. The smart good character (and don't think LG can't be smart) looks for options outside the offered choices to find something that might work without crossing the line.
Huge doesn't even begin to describe that stretch. Looking beyond the outrageous hyperbole, if that were to happen the paladin would not be at fault, because one has to willingly commit an evil act. Any GM that would make the Paladin fall in that situation needs to be Falcon-punched repeatedly.
Metagame much? What a GM would or wouldn't do or should or shouldn't do doesn't come into the equation. In-character, assuming what you see is what you get isn't wise. Not in the D&D world full of gnome illusionists and tricky fey creatures.
The example I gave was absurd, yes. But the point is that the burden of righteousness is upon the paladin. It's his job to ensure that what he's doing is right, for a lot of reasons. Being too lazy or fearful to check things out isn't paladin-like.
See now I actually want to host a game with some of these posters as Paladin PCs. I want to set up a neutral sentient being who is unconsciously draining the life force from the planet. When they get to it, they'll only have day left before the world is drained and every minute they waste is another couple of lives that are lost for ever. They could slay the creature and save the world, but will they be too worried about staying in line with their alignment? (In the last hour, if they don't do something by then, then they'll be the only living beings save for a couple of trees) I'd like to know what they would do. Also I'd make sure to remove the wish spell, that spell would make it too easy.
EDIT: Also just to mess with them, I'd make red herrings so they wouldn't be sure if it was really that creature.
Choosing to do the lesser of two evils is still doing evil.
As a paladin, you do not do evil.
Let's say you're a Neutral Good wizard in the above situation.
Question 1: Why have you exhausted your spells when there was an orc threat nearby? It's not as if a large scale orc raid is invisible, proper scoutwork on the village's behalf would spot them a week in advance. Orcs aren't known for being very good at sneaking.
Question 2: What are you doing in the tavern if there is an orc threat?
Question 3: Why are you carrying an Animate Dead scroll at all? Are you saving it "just in case I will need to take the easy way out"? Given that you're carrying a 3rd level spell scroll, why didn't you save, say, a Fireball instead?
Question 4: If you're a wizard of any consequence, i.e. one that could actually help with the orc situation, why don't you carry any equipment that could help you? Say, a wand of fireballs, a figurine of wondrous power or two, a potion or five?
Question 5: If you're a wizard of even middling skill, your combat stats aren't THAT abysmal. You might not eat dragons for breakfast with your staff, but you're more than a match for one or even several orcs. Yes, it might hurt you. Does that free you from responsibility?
Question 6: Why are you alone their only hope? The town supposedly has at least a few people able to fight to some degree, you know, the town guard, militiamen, the usual. Further, if you check the tavern, you're bound to find a merchant whose caravan guards you could commandeer, a retired adventurer or two, and so on. It's bound to be enough to at least give the women and children time to get out, since it's hardly a full scale army of orcs we're discussing.
Concluding question: Why did you let yourself be roped into a situation that's extremely artificial and only designed to justify acting in an evil manner?
|
Choosing to do the lesser of two evils is still doing evil.
As a paladin, you do not do evil.
If that is the case then why is there a clause that says you can work with evil characters in order to help defeat a greater evil? sounds a lot like a lesser of two evil situations to me.
From the Paladin entry
Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally
with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes
to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement
spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and
should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is
doing more harm than good.
I't does say that only under exceptional circumstances and one should seek atonement but clearly a Paladin can choose the lesser of two evils
See now I actually want to host a game with some of these posters as Paladin PCs. I want to set up a neutral sentient being who is unconsciously draining the life force from the planet. When they get to it, they'll only have day left before the world is drained and every minute they waste is another couple of lives that are lost for ever. They could slay the creature and save the world, but will they be too worried about staying in line with their alignment? (In the last hour, if they don't do something by then, then they'll be the only living beings save for a couple of trees) I'd like to know what they would do. Also I'd make sure to remove the wish spell, that spell would make it too easy.
EDIT: Also just to mess with them, I'd make red herrings so they wouldn't be sure if it was really that creature.
I would actually love to play in that campaign, cause as I've said earlier, according to most of you I would be safe for killing anything that could without verification be a possible future threat in it's sleep. No pesky alignment dilemmas. Simple solution.
This will work exactly once until the party makes it back to town and ditches the village bumpkin. The Paladin has never been the idiot that you seem to be purporting he is in any edition, only an anal retentive view on alignment and the Paladin's code produces pure comedy like this.
Sorry, I disagree. I don't see unwillingness to ambush some creatures as the oft-named Lawful-Stupid. Paladins aren't allowed to use poison. So if you encounter a situation where you've got a bunch of bad guys and a bucket of poison and the paladin refuses to use it, do you abandon him? "You're just a wuss." No.
Paladins are about redemption and enlightenment, not ambush and trickery.
He did roleplay his character. A noble war leader on a quest to clear out a tomb. He saw a potential threat covering their escape route and took action to protect his friends. You do realize that 200 ft. is less than 70 yds. so even for a human running that means they are less than 12 seconds away. You might have time to set for a charge if you are lucky. Oh wait they can fly, what a fun time to look forward to.
Noble? When? Where? "Hey, I'm a chicken. Let's go invisible, sneak up, paralyze them, then club them to death." Same thing. Ambush isn't noble, sorry. It's tactically useful. Expedient.
This wasn't presented as appearing to be life or death. The paladin chose the convenient and less risky attack path, not the necessary one. I'm not saying a paladin shouldn't do things intelligently, just that ambush has a savagery to it that needs to be weighed against personal risk very highly.
At which point his companions would have been well served to butcher him and use him as a bribe for the wyverns. Really? Really?
How... random. Seems the paladin's traveling with wanton chaotic evil murderers who have zero respect for others. "You made this particular encounter harder for us, so despite all the other encounters your holy abilities have made easier for us, you're dragon-food." Wow. Just wow.
Wow!!! This is literally the most retarded stuff I have ever heard in 30 years of gaming.
To be honest, the surrender was intended to be metaphoric. That wasn't clear, I admit. I don't propose that a paladin is outright asking everything he encounters if it wants to surrender. But ambush denies any chance, which isn't acceptable to me. If you're invading a den of known thieves, sure, ambush. If you're about to go up against a huge dragon that out-classes you, sure. But a couple nesting wyverns? Give them a chance to run away. If they choose to attack, THEN you're justified to defend yourself.
Mistakes breed sorrow, and quests for redemption. In other words stories, but that is something a Paladin that you describe will never have, because he is following a script written and enacted by the GM, the voice of the Paladins God who apparently never read the Dragonlance series. I suggest you read it, it might change your view of the intent of a Lawful Good Paladin like character, and how they are meant to behave, because frankly what you suggest is so sad it makes me laugh.
I've read more fantasy than I can shake a stick at, including huge swaths of the DL series. This paragraph makes zero sense to me though. No idea what you're talking about. A paladin taking the burden of understanding he lives in a world full of magic and actually checking what he does before he does it... doesn't seem unreasonable to me at all. Incidentally, when I play paladins I don't even accept that because something detects as evil that I'm green-light to slay it. Situational.
Mistakes can be made. Sure. Ambushing a couple nesting wyverns is one of them.
Ion Raven: I'd play. Consider the situation: Millions are dying. Some force is making the neutral creature drain the world, and he doesn't know why. Either this force is merely a device to make paladins lose their powers set up by the DM because he is spiteful, allowing the force in question to be more powerful than even the gods, or it's a force that the gods could possibly stop some way. The gods, for their part, are losing followers very rapidly, and should have some interest in the situation. Furthermore, I will assume the paladin knows that the draining effect will end if the creature it's tied to dies, and that the paladin knows that the effect is real and what will happen.
Being a paladin in that situation, I would explain the situation to the creature quickly, and ask him if he'd consider killing himself, or let me kill him, to end the danger.
If he did not, I would make a prayer to my god, asking them to end the draining effect while saving the innocent.
If nothing happened, I would offer myself in the innocent's place, if the draining would end.
If still nothing happened, I would entreat any good or neutral god who would listen to make the draining stop.
If nobody answered even this, I would try to knock the innocent unconscious, or try to move him to an extradimensional space, or anything else I could think of that might help.
If at last I saw NO other options, after a short crisis of faith, I would probably kill the innocent as painlessly as possible, but keep the body so I could have it resurrected as soon as possible. If that makes me fall from grace, well, so be it. If the world lives, there is at least some hope for the future, while a dead world has none. And all the while, sitting at the inn with the animate dead scroll in my pouch, drinking my sorrows away while waiting for the orc horde to show up, I would curse the day I let myself be dragged into another highly artificial situation designed to prove that it's okay to do evil.
Let's say you're a Neutral Good wizard in the above situation.Question 1: Why have you exhausted your spells when there was an orc threat nearby? It's not as if a large scale orc raid is invisible, proper scoutwork on the village's behalf would spot them a week in advance. Orcs aren't known for being very good at sneaking.
Question 2: What are you doing in the tavern if there is an orc threat?
Question 3: Why are you carrying an Animate Dead scroll at all? Are you saving it "just in case I will need to take the easy way out"? Given that you're carrying a 3rd level spell scroll, why didn't you save, say, a Fireball instead?
Question 4: If you're a wizard of any consequence, i.e. one that could actually help with the orc situation, why don't you carry any equipment that could help you? Say, a wand of fireballs, a figurine of wondrous power or two, a potion or five?
Question 5: If you're a wizard of even middling skill, your combat stats aren't THAT abysmal. You might not eat dragons for breakfast with your staff, but you're more than a match for one or even several orcs. Yes, it might hurt you. Does that free you from responsibility?
Question 6: Why are you alone their only hope? The town supposedly has at least a few people able to fight to some degree, you know, the town guard, militiamen, the usual. Further, if you check the tavern, you're bound to find a merchant whose caravan guards you could commandeer, a retired adventurer or two, and so on. It's bound to be enough to at least give the women and children time to get out, since it's hardly a full scale army of orcs we're discussing.
1) Because I was busy unloading your spells helping out the town
2) I was in town, why should you know about a surprise orc raid?3) You know, often times you have scrolls you picked up from adventuring, I haven't used it before for obvious reasons. I just haven't gotten around to ridding myself of it yet.
4) Oh I'm sorry I didn't wear my offensive magical artifacts, I guess I'm not paranoid enough. I'll remember to prepare for surprise attacks no matter how good of a day it seems. Well I guess I should wade my way through the orcs to get my wands.
5) I'm a wizard! you want me to melee with orcs!? I might survive with one orc, but several? Why don't we just ask the town guards to cast magic while were at it?
6) Not all backwater towns are up to your standards with your properly equipped knights and weapons of mass destruction (Balistas and Catapults) and what not. They obviously expect something from me because I've been casting spells all day. :/ I guess were screwed huh.
As for being in that situation, don't ask me why I don't control fate -_- Fate has it out to get me I guess
|
|
Concluding question: Why did you let yourself be roped into a situation that's extremely artificial and only designed to justify acting in an evil manner?
It's not designed, and it's not artificial. Heck, Pathfinder APs feature such situations often (RotRL has TWO such events). It's just a matter of not having all your resources and your buddies by your side when crap hits the fan. You're just trying to avoid answering the question :)