Please stop with the animal comparison, as it's really just comparing apples to oranges.
A wyvern killing because it's hungry is no where near the same as an animal killing because it's hungry. For crying out loud, you are the one trying to say that it should be treated differently for being sentient!
Compare apples to apples. Transpose "Neutral human" for Wyvern in your sentences:
"Mr. Fishy thinks that Neutral Humans with 7 Int aren't evil because they don't pursue an evil agenda. They're man eaters out of hunger or in defence of territory, not a malious intent to cause suffering to other creatures."
"at least the Neutral Human with 7 Int eats his kill."
This is a more apt comparison.
If you treat the wyvern as a base animal, and thus exempt of morality and retaining neutral alignment despite committing morally evil acts... then he can be slaughtered as you would a dangerous animal that threatens innocent people.
You can't have it both ways.
It's almost like you're saying a monster isn't an animal. Let us all ponder this truth together.
You also have cases where animals enslave each other, engage in infanticide, and use brood parasitism to kill another animal's young and trick it into raising your young for you.
Wait! That sounds like politically thread talk Welfare Reform much.
Nature is trying to survive. They don't even have the internet or TV to tell them what to think.
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. Others
actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty
Thanks for the quote, because to me this sounds like exactly what the paladin did. He killed a creature without regard for the creature's life because it might pose a problem later. That sounds exactly like killing without compassion because doing so was convenient.
HAH!
Monsters are such damned inconvenient people!
So animals that kill competion for resourses v.s. a creature that kills for sneakers, that the same?
Umm kill to wear or mount, at least the wyvern eats his kill.Mr. Fishy doesn't like dolphins they're uppitty.
Dolphins and porpoises don't compete for resources. The two animals have different diets and different food sources.
As far as we know, dolphins literally do it because it amuses them.
You also have cases where animals enslave each other, engage in infanticide, and use brood parasitism to kill another animal's young and trick it into raising your young for you.
Nature is pretty messed up, and pretty Evil aligned, quite frankly.
Mark your calendars, folks- I'm agreeing with Cirno on this last part. Nature is rarely neutral, and I think the alignment is overrused with respect to certain animals and creatures of low intelligence. Evil should NOT be a four letter alignment...even though it does have four letters. You know what I mean. I think.
Mayhaps the intelligence portion of alignment should be increased a bit?
HUh?!?!
Evil should NOT be a four letter alignment...even though it does have four letters. You know what I mean. I think.
::Sneaks up behind FhDM with restraints::
Mark your calendars, folks- I'm agreeing with Cirno on this last part. Nature is rarely neutral, and I think the alignment is overrused with respect to certain animals and creatures of low intelligence. Evil should NOT be a four letter alignment...even though it does have four letters. You know what I mean. I think.So animals that kill competion for resourses v.s. a creature that kills for sneakers, that the same?
Umm kill to wear or mount, at least the wyvern eats his kill.Mr. Fishy doesn't like dolphins they're uppitty.
Dolphins and porpoises don't compete for resources. The two animals have different diets and different food sources.
As far as we know, dolphins literally do it because it amuses them.
You also have cases where animals enslave each other, engage in infanticide, and use brood parasitism to kill another animal's young and trick it into raising your young for you.
Nature is pretty messed up, and pretty Evil aligned, quite frankly.
Um no.
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. Others
actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some
evil deity or master.It certainly did not seem to me that the Paladin was killing for sport, neither did he seem to callously suggest killing them. He does not appear to be communing with an evil deity. Neither did he seek to inflict pain for the sake of pain, nor did he try capturing them to sell into slavery. In fact the Paladin was making a tactical choice to remove a probable threat to their mission. So by the RAW I don't see how what he did was evil. All he did was kill, and that for the purpose of protecting his friends, and safeguarding the mission.
Actually I'd say the Paladin in question was killing out of convienience, which is one of the uglier parts of an Evil alignment. THIS I see in my mostly-evil game as a regular occurance on the part of the characters that are evil.
What would I have done if I were the paladin? Probably try to sneak around. Or, if I was so worried that the wyverns were going to wake up, dose 'em with some type of sleeping potion(not a poison) and make sure they didn't wake up for a few hours. Also, there's the possiblity that the Coup De Grace might not have worked and the party had to deal with two angry wyverns(which I've also seen happen in that same game).
Mayhaps the intelligence portion of alignment should be increased a bit?HUh?!?!
I'm not sure where it was(in fact it might be me getting my wires crossed with respect to edition), but there was a time where creatures of particularly low intelligence were considered shades of evil, not neutral. I'm not sure when this was, though.
You're confusing player statement with character statement. And possibly things written in this thread with good sense. Please, come with me to a comfortable and safe place.
Your welcome. Feel free to tell your players that they mean less in the grand scheme of things in your game world than, well two HUMANS.
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. Others
actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of dutyThanks for the quote, because to me this sounds like exactly what the paladin did. He killed a creature without regard for the creature's life because it might pose a problem later. That sounds exactly like killing without compassion because doing so was convenient.
Mr. Fishy fix it for you.
Evil should NOT be a four letter alignment...even though it does have four letters. You know what I mean. I think.::Sneaks up behind FhDM with restraints::
And for my next impression...Jesse Owens!
No Mr. Fishy that is the point they are WYVERNS and they mean more in the equation than apparently every sentient race out there, especially the well behaved ones. You know the ones who don't generally think eating sentients is normal fare for the table.
You consider them stupid lizards, I am sure they would disagree with you.
While you are at it, kill all the drow too. They are a mostly evil race, nevermind that there are a few that don't deserve to die.
I can't believe I read the WHOLE THING.
Some parts of it made me laugh. Others made me cry. Overall, it's the feel-good thread of the year!
Interestingly enough, all I got out of it is whether or not Paladins should use coup de grace on a sleeping opponent or whether or not that would be an evil act.
Doubly interestingly enough, the party I'm DMing for that is mostly evil has been in a similar situation and has run away every time.
INTERVENTION:
Freehold, we're you're friends. We won't stand by and watch this. You must get help.
We care man we do!!!
And for my next impression...Jesse Owens!Evil should NOT be a four letter alignment...even though it does have four letters. You know what I mean. I think.::Sneaks up behind FhDM with restraints::
Get him!!
Get him!!And for my next impression...Jesse Owens!Evil should NOT be a four letter alignment...even though it does have four letters. You know what I mean. I think.::Sneaks up behind FhDM with restraints::
::Gives chase::
Remind me to fire my editor!
No Mr. Fishy that is the point they are WYVERNS and they mean more in the equation than apparently every sentient race out there, especially the well behaved ones. You know the ones who don't generally think eating sentients is normal fare for the table.
So they're on the "LIST"?
Get him!!And for my next impression...Jesse Owens!Evil should NOT be a four letter alignment...even though it does have four letters. You know what I mean. I think.::Sneaks up behind FhDM with restraints::::Gives chase::
Remind me to fire my editor!
No Mr. Fishy that is the point they are WYVERNS and they mean more in the equation than apparently every sentient race out there, especially the well behaved ones. You know the ones who don't generally think eating sentients is normal fare for the table.So they're on the "LIST"?
A euphemism for MENU?
No Mr. Fishy that is the point they are WYVERNS and they mean more in the equation than apparently every sentient race out there, especially the well behaved ones. You know the ones who don't generally think eating sentients is normal fare for the table.So they're on the "LIST"?
Can we get puppies on the list too? I mean they are just animals right?
/sarcasm
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.
Does your quote not say there is no excuse for an evil act? So either you choose the evil act, even though it is for the greater good which goes against your quote, or you go with the quote and the world ends. I am too lazy to open the book, but it is saying f*$k the world. I am assuming quoted correctly when you said "no matter the reason" in your previous post.
A lot of deep succint things about the separation of good and evilThis, 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.
Is there ever a point when the paladin should not agree to talk things out?
Nobody talked about waking them and having tea. Let sleeping dogs lie, just ignore them, easy as that.
When you have to pass the dogs on the way back home, that is not so simple as it sounds.
Interesting...
The only problem I have with code of honor/conduct is that they are silent in areas that they shouldn't be. The pushing an orc down the stairs thing is hilarious, but it is actually part of what I'm talking about- what advantages should a paladin take advantage of, which ones should they not, and which ones should they avoid?
If anything this thread has made me reexamine the paladin in hard game terms, not roleplaying terms.
A paladin is a solder, and an army that fights like some of these people want to play a paladin will not win a war. That does not mean that must because the paladin happens to be in army that he should be allowed to do everything without repercussion, but I think many of us are far apart on what is honorable. I mean really honorable, not those fake rules knights set up to make sure they did not get trounced by peasants. Is a Pincer movement not honorable since it involves deception?
A paladin is a solder, and an army that fights like some of these people want to play a paladin will not win a war. That does not mean that must because the paladin happens to be in army that he should be allowed to do everything without repercussion, but I think many of us are far apart on what is honorable. I mean really honorable, not those fake rules knights set up to make sure they did not get trounced by peasants. Is a Pincer movement not honorable since it involves deception?The only problem I have with code of honor/conduct is that they are silent in areas that they shouldn't be. The pushing an orc down the stairs thing is hilarious, but it is actually part of what I'm talking about- what advantages should a paladin take advantage of, which ones should they not, and which ones should they avoid?
If anything this thread has made me reexamine the paladin in hard game terms, not roleplaying terms.
Pincer Movement is a tactical maneuver. It is no different that going after the enemy spellcaster first.
Luring the enemy into lowering their guard by asking to parlay under flag of truce then attacking them. That is deception. It is not honorable, and a paladin should have a major issue with it.
An army fighting like these people do might not win the battle, but they will win the war. If you're THAT honourable, the enemy better hold on tight to his people, because defections are going to be a pretty serious problem. Offering surrender and decent treatment after it is a strategically good thing, because it gets you recruits. Ask people who join the military: Why did they do it? A lot of them will tell you it's about standing up for what's right, another bunch will say it's because they are grateful to their country and want to give something back.
A paladin should talk when doing so is not obviously a stalling tactic from the enemy, or if the other party consists of supernatural evil like demons or devils.
The stuff paladins don't hold with is deceptions, murder, poison, you know, all the things generally seen as bad neighbour policy. That still leaves room for most tactical options.
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. Others
actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of dutyThanks for the quote, because to me this sounds like exactly what the paladin did. He killed a creature without regard for the creature's life because it might pose a problem later. That sounds exactly like killing without compassion because doing so was convenient.
Killing something before it can kill you is not about convenience. It is about survival. If we are in opposing armies and I snipe you from a mile away it is because you are a threat. Now if I have you in a position where I can take you prisoner without almost no danger to myself, and I kill you because I dont want to feed a prisoner, that is a kill of convenience. Convenience is when it is not necessary, and before you try to go that route with the wyvern we already know that wyverns in stories don't just allow players to walk by unmolested. The fact that the DM had the monster sleeping sounds like a setup to me anyway, but that has already been stated.
if i remember correctly, the BoED was meanwhile etablished to apply to exalted characters and specifically excluded normal PC's from having such harsh limits. So yep, an exalted PC Paladin would choose his alignment. A normal PC Paladin? It depends.
I need a page number for that. The way the intro desctribes the book it is a deeper explanation as to how good should behave. I am not buying it though. Good to me does everything it can to preserve life within moderation. Did the backstabbing BBEG just surrender? Do you believe him? It does not matter. Take him prisoner, and turn him over to the authorities. <--Good
Has he escaped 5 times, and killed thousands after every escape? <----If you turn him over again then you are just being silly. At worst killing him is the lesser evil, and I would not even consider it evil, but I understand some DM's might.Is there ever a point when the paladin should not agree to talk things out?
No, unless he has reason to believe it will lead to more evil OR his god would want him to deal swift justice because the bad guy is currently desecrating his altar by using it as pissoir while talking with the paladin.
I just wanted to see how far you were convinced to talk to everyone.
Welcome to the world of "good", where things are usually not as simple as for neutral or evil.
You may have to pass them, you don't know. You're taking a chance. You're going that extra mile, BECAUSE your good. Choosing the easiest path? Thats not caring, thats neutral. Or, often, evil, since it involves killing who/whatever is between you and your objective.
Just because I kill something that does not mean I don't care about it. In any situation you have to weigh risk. This is not about being good or evil. It is about being practical. The paladin has a duty to protect the people. If he allows certain things to live he is not following the code. At some point you have to weigh the chance of letting it live even though it might try to kill you, and if you are the protector of an area, which most PC's are, by risking your life you are risking other people's lives by extension.
Is it more evil to let the people die or to kill the monster?<---I know that is situational, but it is why killing the unconscious monster is not always an evil act.
|
A paladin should talk when doing so is not obviously a stalling tactic from the enemy...
With that unnecessarily warlike attitude, you're going to find yourself butting heads with the crowd that believe a paladin should accept all offers of surrender, no matter how fake, no matter many times they've been broken.
If that crowd turn up here, they'll denounce you as one of us!
A paladin is a solder, and an army that fights like some of these people want to play a paladin will not win a war. That does not mean that must because the paladin happens to be in army that he should be allowed to do everything without repercussion, but I think many of us are far apart on what is honorable. I mean really honorable, not those fake rules knights set up to make sure they did not get trounced by peasants. Is a Pincer movement not honorable since it involves deception?The only problem I have with code of honor/conduct is that they are silent in areas that they shouldn't be. The pushing an orc down the stairs thing is hilarious, but it is actually part of what I'm talking about- what advantages should a paladin take advantage of, which ones should they not, and which ones should they avoid?
If anything this thread has made me reexamine the paladin in hard game terms, not roleplaying terms.
Pincer Movement is a tactical maneuver. It is no different that going after the enemy spellcaster first.
Luring the enemy into lowering their guard by asking to parlay under flag of truce then attacking them. That is deception. It is not honorable, and a paladin should have a major issue with it.
It is a tactical manuever that tricks the enemy into taking a bad position, not different than an ambush which some have stated as being underhanded.
An army fighting like these people do might not win the battle, but they will win the war. If you're THAT honourable, the enemy better hold on tight to his people, because defections are going to be a pretty serious problem. Offering surrender and decent treatment after it is a strategically good thing, because it gets you recruits. Ask people who join the military: Why did they do it? A lot of them will tell you it's about standing up for what's right, another bunch will say it's because they are grateful to their country and want to give something back.
A paladin should talk when doing so is not obviously a stalling tactic from the enemy, or if the other party consists of supernatural evil like demons or devils.
The stuff paladins don't hold with is deceptions, murder, poison, you know, all the things generally seen as bad neighbour policy. That still leaves room for most tactical options.
No it won't win the war. Why would anyone go to Team B when Team A is winning? You assumed Team A has not morals. That is not the case. Team A is just practical, and knows that a agreeing to fight without using ambushes and other trickery(not white flag stuff) is a good way to lose a fight.
Trickery=Examples are making the enemy think you have more or less men than you actually have. The Paladin would see this as lying. Team A would use this to make the "smaller" army hold off until the reinforcements showed up. If Team A has the larger army then Team B will attack, but find themselves outnumbered.The false white flag is underhanded though. If you pull that one time the other army will probably never accept your real surrender.
Good should not comprise it ideals, Paladins won't.
A paladin is a solder, and an army that fights like some of these people want to play a paladin will not win a war.
That depends on the war. Wars between moral forces are not just about winning militarily, they are about hearts and minds. You win those battles not by fighting dirtier and nastier than the other guy (what does that prove other than that you are a dirtier, nastier person?), but by showing yourself to be morally superior to the other guy, and if that means fighting with one hand tied, you do it because even if you lose in the short term it will secure victory in the long run. The people see that your side is much more beneficial to them to be running things than the other guy, and you gain support and he loses it.
Ahem. If you don't mind me saying, this is a rather ridiculous thread.
We are all using our own real-world biases on what is good, lawful, evil and so on, and applying them to a game where the alignment rules give such a simplistic view of the personalities and situations involved, all arguments become not only ill-defined, but illogical. Perhaps it is subtle, but it cannot be otherwise.
If highly intelligent people in the real world cannot even agree on whether evil exists, let alone whether it can be applied to people or actions or both, then what hope do we have?
By the continuing lack of consensus on this thread, I think I have my answer.
But it is entertaining at least.
BTW, Snorter, if you want to know what you've missed, go read the thread, lazy arse!
Cheerio!
Who are this so called intellgent people?
A paladin should talk when doing so is not obviously a stalling tactic from the enemy...With that unnecessarily warlike attitude, you're going to find yourself butting heads with the crowd that believe a paladin should accept all offers of surrender, no matter how fake, no matter many times they've been broken.
If that crowd turn up here, they'll denounce you as one of us!
Reminds me of the War God's Own series by David Weber. The Champions of Tomanak were essentially "Palladins", they had to hold to Tomanak's code which included always accepting surrender.
Of course if an enemy did that and then violated the surrender the code no longer applied to that enemy at all.....
Killing something before it can kill you is not about convenience. It is about survival. If we are in opposing armies and I snipe you from a mile away it is because you are a threat. Now if I have you in a position where I can take you prisoner without almost no danger to myself, and I kill you because I dont want to feed a prisoner, that is a kill of convenience. Convenience is when it is not necessary, and before you try to go that route with the wyvern we already know that wyverns in stories don't just allow players to walk by unmolested. The fact that the DM had the monster sleeping sounds like a setup to me anyway, but that has already been stated.
Fair enough. But what about killing something before it knows you're present?
Stop there, answer that question as asked. Something. Not "a pair of wyverns". Something. Some un-specified thing. Don't add in baggage involving wars and armies and necessity.
"Wow, that looks scary. Let's ambush it."
You know what's missing from the original poster's story? A Knowledge(arcana) check. Or mention of previous history of having contact with wyverns.
Sorry, but the original scenario involves "oh, look. Something. It's sleeping. It's sleeping in our way. Let's kill it before it wakes up."
Not noble. Not dignified. Not fair. Not necessary. Not Good. Not even hunting.
I repeat - I don't think this is the end-all-be-all nuke-the-paladin Evil kind of act. It's just like... having overdue books out from the library isn't Lawful. It's kind of Chaotic, and you should get fined for it, but it isn't death-penalty time.
As for the bold part?
No, he's not. Simple as that. A Fighter is a soldier. As it happens, they can be any alignment.
A Paladin? He's a "holy warrior". Not a mere soldier. Unlike that soldier, this paladin:
From the PRD
Paladins....... Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers... Are you going to tell me a knight is not a soldier?
Thanks for the quote, because to me this sounds like exactly what the paladin did. ...
That is because your definition of convenience is different than mines. Your definition includes taking foolish risk, such as having to fight it on the way out of the area in a weakened state. Mine includes things like killing it because you don't want to take the time to talk to it, even if it is known as a reasonable creature.
I also thank you for --->Killing something BEFORE it can kill you is self-defense. If you let the other person/creature take the first swing you may not get to retaliate.
The sniper in my example was in a war. Sniping was also called out as dishonorable by another poster so I included it in case you agreed.
The Paladin had no good reason at hand for considering the relation with the dragonlike creature he could not identify as hostile. So, it was a kill of convenience. He did not even bother finding out what he killed. Sounds pretty convenient for me. Also, the compassion part and killing without qualms part, don't forget those, they also both apply.
Since when is knowing a creature is a man eater that prefers to talk last and eat first, unless it knows you are stronger that it, not a good reason to kill it? The DM said the metagaming part was the paladin playing his himself, not that the character did not know what a wyvern was.
If the DM did not want the players to deal with them he could have simply not put them there. Either do or don't do. If he intended for the monsters to harass the players on the way out he could have waited until they were on the way out. Knowing you have a swing first, talk later player, assuming that is true, you don't put targets in front of the, unless you want to fight.
Who are these so called intelligent people?
What is this so called real world?
But that is another debate...
:-)
Killing some random person on the off-chance that he's a cannibal demon worshipper? Not good.
I hope the off-chance is not referring to the normally bad-tempered, man-eating wyvern when that is basically how they are described.
Off chance usually means less than 50%. I don't think the wyverns fall into the less than 50% category for their description.