I've heard of that place. Sounds dreadful.
I've heard its more a state of mind, but that makes me think its dreadful, which is even worse.
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."
From the way I read the OP's post, and I may have to read it again the pally already knew it was a wyvern so it was not just "something". Now if the DM never provided the knowledge at any point then that would be different. I would handle that as a meta-gaming issue. Next time I might ask for more info from the OP before I enter a thread.
You know, I don't think I have ever read anything positive about the alignment system ever on these boards. It makes me wonder why people have stuck with it for so long. Of course, I often play games where alignment is meaningless like CoC.
Can anyone present one instance where the Pathfinder alignment system was or had a positive influence on their game?
It has yet to cause me any issues, but I am still thinking of getting rid of it. I would make a paladin follow a strict code depending on who his deity was.
Now that I think about it I dont really use it anyway unless a spell needs to know. It is very much behind the scenes.
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....
Spot on
Since we have some strongly opinionated posters here, keeping in line with the thread's intended spirit, is it dishonorable to trip an orc down a flight of stairs?It depends.
Does the orc know you're there? Is the orc engaged in some sort of evil act or crime? Is the orc known to be a criminal? Are you in the middle of a fight with this orc?
Or are you just pushing because he's in your way? Or because it's funny to watch intelligent creatures fall down and go boom? Or because someone dared you to do it? Or perhaps the paladin is just racist and likes to see orcs suffer and just stabbing it to death is too quick.
\o/ Well, there was a battle going on within a hold around Riddleport, so I rode on in on my horse (Through the broken down wall) to see frenzied barbarian orcs fighting humans (and winning too). I took out a couple of orcs and saw this orc near the stairs. I hopped of my horse and readied my weapon at it. One turn we exchanged blows, then I heard the rest of my group having trouble with orcs in another room. So I tripped the orc down the stairs so I could ride to help my group. The orc just managed to die falling down those stairs. Now I don't know if this particular orc had killed any humans, and I hadn't detected evil on it. But according to some of the posters, I might be responsible for the death of an innocent orc at the wrong place at the wrong time. I mean, what was wrong with my Paladin!? Not offering it surrender? And then tripping it down stairs, that's just not honorable, even if it was done to rescue those important to me, obviously my honor (~pride~) should come first. Even those that I have not had time to personally judge should be held at the utmost respect.
Oh Iomadae, where does thy path lead my soul?
Paladin is a romantic version of the Knights of the middle ages. That were created by poets, writers, singers, and story tellers.
Paladin are not real. So please, i am asking, do you use real world military description, combat situation, or real world combat action to describe what a paladin would do. Want to use that for Fighters or Rouges, go right ahead, but real world military are not paladins.
If this seam over handed, i apologizes.
Seems there should be ample interest in my upcoming book about a good-aligned wyvern dual-wielding ranger, striving to overcome the well-deserved prejudice his people suffer, due to their violent and aggressive nature, completely disregarding the damage they do to the goodly races of the world.
It's gonna be a 15 book series, so get your first copy of "Brizzt Bo'Burden - Misunderstood Wyvern Ranger", where he meets his magical lion companion, finds his fire-sword and eludes evil humans who wish to kill him due to his heritage, trying as hard as he might not to kill them back, because then he would be as bad as his kin.
He will find many companions with the same plight, such as Blargahr, the stern but fatherly Otyugh, and Frozoburno, the jovial Remorhaz that enjoys walks in the brisk weather. All sentient creatures that overcame their kin's tendencies to hunt down other sentient races, they work to raise cattle, and hilarity ensues.
Post of the year.
Also: *some people* seem to think meta-gaming is a character referring to any single piece of information that has not been spoon-fed by the DM since the beginning of said character's existence in the current campaign. This is false. Sorry.
Paladin is a romantic version of the Knights of the middle ages. That were created by poets, writers, singers, and story tellers.
Paladin are not real. So please, i am asking, do you use real world military description, combat situation, or real world combat action to describe what a paladin would do. Want to use that for Fighters or Rouges, go right ahead, but real world military are not paladins.
If this seam over handed, i apologizes.
If the paladin is in charge of an army then yes. I am sure wizard's or any caster would affect things, but Terry Goodkind's novels did a decent job of portraying magic in battle. The opposing army normally had casters to try to balance things out. Magic would not change everything.
|
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.
the wyverns probably sleep and eat in the same spot. they don't build civilizations. they look for meat and eat it. they are an abomination to all civilized folks out there and they must be eradicated for the greater good. enslaving them or cohabiting with them would mean killing a lot of other animals to feed them. look at it any way you want: they are a scourge.
now about your drow statement: it is correct in part. Yes, they must all be killed. But no, there are none that don't deserve to die. in Golarion, when regular elves perform acts of evil that are so vile and irrevocable that they have no chance to ever find the Brightness, they turn into drow.
|
now about your drow statement: it is correct in part. Yes, they must all be killed. But no, there are none that don't deserve to die. in Golarion, when regular elves perform acts of evil that are so vile and irrevocable that they have no chance to ever find the Brightness, they turn into drow.
Non-evil drow exist in Golarion canon, actually.
Paladin is a romantic version of the Knights of the middle ages. That were created by poets, writers, singers, and story tellers.
Paladin are not real. So please, i am asking, do you use real world military description, combat situation, or real world combat action to describe what a paladin would do. Want to use that for Fighters or Rouges, go right ahead, but real world military are not paladins.
If this seam over handed, i apologizes.
So...like Sigfried (or Sigurd, if you prefer)? Wait, no...he kills a dragon by digging a pit, hiding in it, and stabbing the dragon when it walks over unaware of him...then bathes in its blood...then decapitates his foster father because birds told him he was planning to kill him (but he hand't acted yet - no preemptive strikes for paladins!).
Maybe King Arthur? Hmm...nope, he leads conquering armies and takes great delight in slaughtering his foes, not worrying about offering surrender or anything of the sort.
Lancelot, then? Hmm...well, he's adulterous with his liege's wife, and kills Gawain's brothers in a rage (but is still presented as the most honorable, finest knight around).
St. George, surely? Well, he saves a princess by charging a dragon who'd taken to nesting in a spring...then took it prisoner, leads it to town, and executes it before the populace...as a condition of conversion to his religion (presumably if they'd refused he would've let it go in the middle of town).
Something to think about, too, especially for people saying "oh, don't commit an evil act when the townsfolk can fight it off!" You realize you're arguing that a paladin, or a good character in general, should let these people die, people that don't have to, to keep from casting an evil spell or the like? Whether it's the whole town or a bunch of extra townsfolk doesn't really matter - those are people whose lives could be saved that the character intentionally and knowingly allows to die, for the sole reason of maintaining their own "moral high ground". Apparently, it's moral to send people to their deaths when you can prevent it if the way you can prevent it is icky, hmm?
...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
You both realize that BoED isn't meant to be pushed onto normal PC's, right? It flat out stated that Exalted characters and normal characters - even paladins - are held to entirely different standards.
If you see the thread where I brought up the BoED/BoVD in the first place, you would see that I used it to point at rules that list what constitutes Good or Evil acts. How and why those acts are performed and to what degree the choice was made was introduced by someone else. I just pointed out how those acts registered in game.
I say again that the problem is that the game uses Alignment to codify rules and their effects on others, but the game (all the way back to 1st) fails to codify the alignments. They are using fluff against crunch, if there is no crunch to weigh the alignment against, then they should not use alignment to weigh the crunch of the game. When they grant crunch powers to a class and regulate those with fluff standards, then anyone that plays it gets all the mechanics and can always claim matter of interpretation for the standards. As a DM I play this a little heavy handed;
"So you want the class that gets 2 bonus feats/lvl, an extra +2 to atk/dmg every 3 levels, and all good saves with a bonus double the ability modifier to each?"
...
"Hmm what does it have to do to get all these benefits?"
...
"Oh, it has to protect all elves? That's it? No penalties? Well, then you better role-play the heck out of this, because I'm going to have you EARN those added benefits that no one else gets, you better be one elf protecting fool."
(Basing my version off of the 2nd ed Bladesinger, which was a perfect example of piles of extra powers, for very little sacrifice)
When it comes to alignment, I prefer the Palladium system, as it:
1: Lays out what each alignment will/will not do
2: Closely reflects the D&D alignment scale
3: Removes True Neutral, as nothing can ever be truly neutral.
|
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.
Only if you fight with one hand behind your back and still win.
In which case, most of those that defect to your side are doing so because you have proved yourself the stronger, not out of admiration for your morals.If every confrontation results in one side fighting ineffectively, versus a side fighting normally (), and being hammered into the ground, routed, killed or enslaved, then who is going to flock to their banner?
I can't imagine the recruiting officers of France being inundated with volunteers, after Acincourt, can you?
How about The Somme? Or Passchendale?
'Lions led by Donkeys' was the phrase to describe the Allied tactics.
Towns in my area had every single able-bodied man killed on the same day, after being forced to walk slowly toward the enemy, shot in the back as cowards and mutineers, if they 'dishonourably' attempted to jog or use cover.
Barbarian: *sees an elf child, attacks, kills it and start eating the corpse*
Paladin: "BY ALL THE GOOD GODS! WHAT ARE YOU DOING!?"
Barbarian: *munch* "I was hungry, and the elf child looked weaker than me."
Paladin: "I cannot abide such evil! I must kill you to save the other elven children!" *draws his sword, smites the barbarian, but deals normal damage*
Barbarian: "Naw, it's cool, I got Int7, see? So I am neutral. After all, I AM hunting for food, just don't need to care about if what I am eating is a sentient being, and get to act like a stereotypical demon through a loophole now."
Paladin: "Oh... f$*&." *falls for dishonorably attacking a neutral sentient creature out of convenience since it MIGHT attack other elven children later*
Barbarian: *sees an elf child, attacks, kills it and start eating the corpse*
Paladin: "BY ALL THE GOOD GODS! WHAT ARE YOU DOING!?"
Barbarian: *munch* "I was hungry, and the elf child looked weaker than me."
Paladin: "I cannot abide such evil! I must kill you to save the other elven children!" *draws his sword, smites the barbarian, but deals normal damage*
Barbarian: "Naw, it's cool, I got Int7, see? So I am neutral. After all, I AM hunting for food, just don't need to care about if what I am eating is a sentient being, and get to act like a stereotypical demon through a loophole now."
Paladin: "Oh... f&!#." *falls for dishonorably attacking a neutral sentient creature out of convenience since it MIGHT attack other elven children later*
See, this falls under "Punish those that harm or threaten innocents", for those of you that just dash aside the code as irrelevant and interpretive. As he SAW the evil act being commited he was assured in the barbarian's guilt.
BUT since he did not witness nor learn of the wyverns commiting an evil act, there is no justification. Why does it seem so hard to grasp here?
Punish those that do evil, to do that FIRST you have to KNOW that they do or have done evil.
EDIT: The popular defense for the paladin here seems to fall under that double-standard.
If a neutral wyvern kills a person in their sleep to eat, then it was due to violence and an inherently evil nature.
If a Player kills a wyvern in it's sleep despite knowing nothing about it, then it was an act of heroism and proactive planning.
Which one is it guys evil or not?
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.
Only if you fight with one hand behind your back and still win.
In which case, most of those that defect to your side are doing so because you have proved yourself the stronger, not out of admiration for your morals.swift action to heal yourself, 1/2 your level + cha times per day, for 1/2 your level*1d6, oh, and also remove 1 negative condition/3 levels.
Oh, for a capstone, thats maximized(but neglectable).Or weapon bond?
Depending on target, how about a keen brilliant energy weapon? Or rather a holy speed weapon?Paladins were given tools to ensure they CAN fight with one hand behind their back _AND STILL WIN_(because that hand heals a 10th level paladin for 5d6 HP/round for about 8-9 consecutive roudns in that battle...thats fast healing 17.5 for those 8 rounds, oh, it also removes fatigue/staggered/exhausted condition...and oh, and his weapon just became keen flaming in addition to it's regular properties.)
All compensation for him being an inferior fighter. He can't achieve the same AC, so he has some healing. He can't achieve nearly as much to hit/damage, so he gets bonded weapon. He needs more stats than a fighter, so he gets better saves to compensate.
If the fighter and paladin in my kingmaker campaign fought, the only question about the outcome would be "Will the paladin last 2 rounds, or 3?" It might even end in 1 if the fighter gets a critical or two in.
Actually... I think the fighter can fight with one hand on his back and still have a good chance to win.
Edit: Regarding the posts above - So, in order for a paladin to kill beasts that are well known for not discerning whom it kills, sentient or no, even with the mental capacity to reflect on its action and nature, he first needs to observe the creature and catch it in the act?
Oh, and the paladin in OP's example should have had ample reason to think the wyverns man-eaters, as the AP makes several clear indications that they have successfully killed humans before.
Also, regarding the barbarian example: We encountered a group of cannibal berserkers with my paladin just the other day. Then we went and utterly eradicated the tribe of like-minded barbarians, without either side even attempting parlay. Guess what? My paladin still has his powers. (And no, there were no children or non-combatant, partly due to the fact that they were so savage there were no gender roles, meaning everyone came at us with crude weapons and bite-attacks, and partly because our GM is not a spiteful drama-queen who enjoys punishing people for their character choices)
You know what irks me about this whole thread? The fact that people seem to hold the paladin code in higher regard than a player who wish to play one. I will never step down from my position due to one damning fact about the OP: He ruined a PLAYER'S character, and his efforts put into the character, in a campain that is takes your characters to new heights or RP possibility and gives you time to establish a family, built a homeland and defend it from harm. This he did, over something so ridiculous as a wyvern. There are TONS of legitimate paladin dilemmas in Kingmaker. "Do I accept the surrender of this non-evil bandit that seeks to befriend us, despite the law?" "How will we deal with this hostage situation?" "Do we focus our resources on a good chance of becoming great, or do we play it safe to make sure our people have food for the winters?" "Will these kobolds actually honor the deal they offer, or is it a ruse to throw us off guard and attack while we are away?"
So many options. But no. Dead man-eating wyverns in an EXCEEDINGLY suspect scenario, and the paladin falls.
No-one here is saying that a paladin should get away with murder (except people who twist the words of others to create intentional misinterpretations to carry their position across), yet this is devolving into some frenzied argument normally reserved for orthodox priests of rivaling sects discussing an interpretation of holy scripture.
Uhm. Not to spoil the fun, but just because they are aggressive does NOT mean they attack every sentient being on sight.
...
Deducing from that: They are not genuinely evil and they are not actively hunting sentient beings.
Except that I was talking about more than just the bestiary text. The wyverns I've run into in games, and the wyverns in the campaign in question, were run as Evil, plain and simple.
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.
Except that "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life."
Which, considering the Paladin in question was living in a place where wyverns were killing indiscriminately, and were either working for the lich directly, or were set up to threaten anyone attempting to thwart his plans.
Knights had been sent to deal with them and never returned.
With information like that, it's definitely a case of "protecting innocent life" over "killing because it's convenient".
The idea that a Paladin can't kill someone using the proper tool for the job (tactics, bows, etc) is ridiculous. Should he put down his sword and use his bare hands when fighting a Lemure, because using the weapon would be "convenient"?
Seriously guys?
This thread was finished well before the post-limit for page one, and here you are at page 10 bickering about alignment ... again.
Partly for the fun, partly because spiteful GMs ruining characters pushes my buttons. So, angry fun?
MordredofFairy: Of course, on PAPER, the paladin looks awesome. But the reality of my campaign is that the fighter has almost 10 more to hit, AC and does almost twice the damage. The paladin IS good against legitimate evil, like 3-4 times per day, but if the fighter got dominated, he would tear the paladin down in a matter of seconds.
Also, armor training allows for high dex, meaning the fighter that put his second highest stat in dex instead of cha, and focused on dex-stuff where the paladin got Cha-stuff, has much better AC. Fighter is a two-weapon-fighting sword&shield type, and they commission the the party wizard to make their stuff. The paladin uses a 2handed sword so he can use a hand to touch himself/others without dropping his weapon, so his hits DO hurt, but he also has feats towards doing his paladin stuff.
Some of the posters on here are busy adding too much fluff to decide if this was evil. A character's intention lies with the player. Whether an action was evil or not totally lies within the context of the game. So we'll use these to determine whether there was the intention of evil or the promotion of evil.
Did the Paladin intend evil? no, he was trying to protect his party. "They're going to attack us"
Did the Paladin promote evil? no, someone had mentioned that these wyvern in particular had the treasures of humans (Meaning they attacked and killed humans and stole their stuff) Effectively removing this threat whether they knew it or not, was actually a good thing.
Alright let's check our chart to see if the Paladin falls due to evil:
Paladin promotes evil with evil intentions: Falls, that's just wrong
Paladin promotes evil with good intentions: Falls, he's failing his duty to stop evil and instead aiding it
Paladin promotes good with evil intentions: Falls; Well now his alignment is shifting...
Paladin promotes good with good intentions: Falls? (At least this one did)
Holy ~! The Paladin falls anyway?
The DM didn't think his method was rigorous enough with the creatures of sharp teeth and barbed tails, he should obviously let them attack him and the party so that the DM would be happy, because it's not only his character any more, but the DM's as well.
In fact the DM goes on to say later that it's at least cowardly. The DM scratching for a reason to justify making the Paladin fall.
Some of the posters on here are busy adding too much fluff to decide if this was evil. A character's intention lies with the player. Whether an action was evil or not totally lies within the context of the game. So we'll use these to determine whether there was the intention of evil or the promotion of evil.
Did the Paladin intend evil? no, he was trying to protect his party. "They're going to attack us"
Did the Paladin promote evil? no, someone had mentioned that these wyvern in particular had the treasures of humans (Meaning they attacked and killed humans and stole their stuff) Effectively removing this threat whether they knew it or not, was actually a good thing.
Alright let's check our chart to see if the Paladin falls due to evil:
Paladin promotes evil with evil intentions: Falls, that's just wrong
Paladin promotes evil with good intentions: Falls, he's failing his duty to stop evil and instead aiding it
Paladin promotes good with evil intentions: Falls; Well now his alignment is shifting...
Paladin promotes good with good intentions: Falls? (At least this one did)
Holy ~! The Paladin falls anyway?
The DM didn't think his method was rigorous enough with the creatures of sharp teeth and barbed tails, he should obviously let them attack him and the party so that the DM would be happy, because it's not only his character any more, but the DM's as well.
In fact the DM goes on to say later that it's at least cowardly. The DM scratching for a reason to justify making the Paladin fall.
Not to mention something everyone seems to have overlooked, myself included.
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Note that it doesn't say the paladin loses all class features if she breaks the code, but rather only if she willingly commits an evil act? That means it doesn't mean a thing if it's "cowardly" or "dishonorable" or any of that - that's how paladins have to behave, but they don't lose their powers if they break those guidelines from time to time.
So the only question is "did he commit an evil act willingly"? Pretty clearly he didn't, to me - some of you will say he did, but his intent was to protect his friends, not for personal profit or the joy of killing or anything of the sort.
The OP also stated that the Paladin was metagaming for thinking that they were monsters that would attack them if they tried climbing.
I challenge for proof that that's in any way metagaming (that's perfectly reasonable for the character to assume that, honestly... since he didn't have any knowledge of the creatures, going by their physical description you can easily assume it's a monster).
The point being that he thought he was committing a good act, not an evil one. And one has to be willingly commit an evil act to fall from grace.
This business about breaking honor by using bows or killing what is assumed to be a monster in their sleep is what I'm challenging.
show me the proof they were going to attack. Not in a scripted event in the AP happening later. In what you can deduce from the OP.
I'm fairly certain the player can recognize what would be a threat to his character, a Paladin of Erastil, regardless of whether or not it's sleeping, if it's a bear, a tiger, or a wyvern.
Not mentioned in the OP. It never happened. For all you know, those wyverns did NOT have any treasure. Possibly the AP states that, but their WealthbyLevel already was too high, and the DM left it out.
We may never know, and so neither of us have any reason to argue on that ground do we?
Like I said, "Whether an action was evil or not totally lies within the context of the game."If a Paladin walks into a bar, stabs a random person, and then finds out that this person was about to do something evil, does that make the "stabs a random person" act fine?
Why was the Paladin stabbing the person? If the reasoning was, "I like to stab" then the Paladin is acting out of alignment. If the reasoning was, "This person looks threatening" then the Paladin was justified in the end as far as good and evil go. Though stabbing someone in a bar is usually unlawful, so the Paladin would lose his powers anyway...
You can't just look at an action by itself, you're just grabbing the grey area and twisting to whatever you want to. You have to look at the ends, the intention and the overall consequences.
On the flip side say there is an evil cleric and he has a scroll of cure critical wounds and he uses it to cure someone. You could look at that action and say, "oh it's a good action, what's up with that?"
But if you saw the intention, "I want to heal this Necromancer so he can help me raise undead armies" and the consequences, The Necromancer, now at full health unleashes his fury of undead armies upon the world, you can see this was definitely evil with evil intentions.
As if people can determine as if they can judge good/evil via the court of law. As if the law never put innocent people in jail and never let the guilty go free...
|
|
Besides, if he's out to protect innocent commoners he'll have to kill EVERY animal with any natural attack.
Goodbye kitten, it has a bite AND claws, and is eating meat.
Given how many times a hypothetical wizard got torn to pieces by a hypothetical housecat, in the threads where the wizard lobbyists were whoring around for extra hit points, there may be some justification for that...
All nice. But without bringing in any extra information:
Sure it does. Some people argue that it's dishonorable or cowardly, so he falls, but that doesn't matter a whit to falling.
He killed 2 sleeping sentient creatures with no proof of their hostility based on the fact that they COULD be a problem later IF
a.: they woke up
b.: they were hostileThat he did so willingly is pretty much to be taken for granted.
Now, is it evil? Thats what the whole question here revolves around.There was no knowledge checks, there was no mentioning about having heard something about them, or knowing something about them, or even knowing WHAT they were.
Do you need Knowledge (engineering) to know that a building has walls, a roof, and keeps you safe form the elements? No. You need it to know the specifics of an architectural style, how to build things beyond a basic house, and the like, sure.
Do you need Knowledge (religion) to know that Zon-Kuthon is a nasty customer and his followers do nasty things? No. Probably not even for his portfolio. You'd need it to know the specific rites and rituals of his faith, the meaning of stories about him, and so on.
Do you need Knowledge (geography) to know what the neighboring countries are, or what a mountain is? No, you'd need it to know the exact location of the entire border of the countries, their subunits (states, fiefdoms, or what have you), and so on.
Do you need Knowledge (nobility) to know who the ruler of your country is? No, you need it to know who the ruler of other people's countries are by name, or to know the entire roster of nobility major and minor in your own land.
Now...do you need Knowledge (arcana) to know that a wyvern is a nasty creature that plagues the countryside? If we're going by the precedent of every other knowledge...no, you'd need it to know the specifics of their poison, that they have darkvision, that they're clumsy fliers, and possibly that they're not totally mindless beasts like they act. None of which changes the part about them being nasty creatures, and since the paladin can only act on what he knew...all he'd know, barring having that knowledge skill, is that basic stuff.
So it comes to those two options:
1: Guilty until proven otherwise.
2: Innocent until proven otherwise.
No, there's also option 3 - guilty based on the information available at the time. Barring a successful knowledge skill check, the information available is only what's common knowledge about wyverns - that they're nasty, ill-tempered beasts that plague any area they're in. Which is exactly the kind of thing a knight in shining armor wants to exterminate to protect anyone who may be nearby.
|
|
Sturm yes, good example but nothing like what many seem to be advocating here. No I am thinking more along the lines of the events leading up to the cataclysm and the Lawful Good Knights of Solamnia who can't seem to grasp the reality of their situation at assorted periods of time.
I just generally put it down to the Idiot Ball that the creators of Dragonlance seem to feel mandatory to assign to the forces of Good. Or maybe it's to them that Neutrality is the only good because Paladine's most noteworthy deeds are in service to the Balance.
Given that every single time I've witnessed a group* go through the DL series, the god Paladine inserts himself into their party and actively hinders the cause of good, with his endless retarded jackassery, to the point where the campaign crashes and burns, then I wouldn't take Weis and Hickman's interpretation on anything.
*Thankfully, I've not been in these groups, I've just seen the players across the room, with their heads in their hands, crying "Why?!Whyyyyyyyyyy!?"
People for the Equal Treament of Wyverns demand that the organization known as "Paizo" STOP abusing the poor wyverns as encounters in their adventure paths! These encounters paint the poor wyverns in a negative light, and makes people believe in the stereotype that all wyverns are evil flesh-eating winged death-bringers to all they encounter. This is not true! They are NOT evil, and should NOT be defamed in this way!
Use a small red dragon instead: Same CR, same challenge, but unquestionably EVIL. If we see another wyvern set up to be mercilessly killed by another adventuring party, there will be legal action, as soon as we find a lawyer willing to listen to us for more than 2 minutes!
One turn we exchanged blows, then I heard the rest of my group having trouble with orcs in another room.
Oh Iomadae, where does thy path lead my soul?
There you have it. The orc was aware of you and engaged in combat. Since talking is free, he had every opportunity to say "look man, I'm not with them... I live here". If he had and your paladin asked for a Sense Motive, was told the orc seemed to be telling the truth and then you killed him (stairs or no), that'd be against the code. But what you did... not a problem.
Even in the case of intelligent creatures with languages you don't speak, gestures go a long way.
I reiterate... ambush denies any possibility of peaceful resolution or discovery of misunderstanding or illusion. That's my problem with it. And even then context matters. Getting the jump on something in the middle of Castle Ravenloft is probably fairly reasonable.
now about your drow statement: it is correct in part. Yes, they must all be killed. But no, there are none that don't deserve to die. in Golarion, when regular elves perform acts of evil that are so vile and irrevocable that they have no chance to ever find the Brightness, they turn into drow.Non-evil drow exist in Golarion canon, actually.
I though James said he would never publish any non-evil drow. That does not affect home games of course, but for official purposes I thought all drow were evil.
those are people whose lives could be saved that the character intentionally and knowingly allows to die, for the sole reason of maintaining their own "moral high ground". Apparently, it's moral to send people to their deaths when you can prevent it if the way you can prevent it is icky, hmm?
That is my issue with some people's view of paladins. I think a paladin should be hard to play, and should take every reasonable risk to save a life, and parley before they fight, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.
I think the obligation is to protect the people first, and uphold your code second if you ever have to choose between the two.
You both realize that BoED isn't meant to be pushed onto normal PC's, right?
I could not find that anywhere. I know the exalted characters are held to higher standard, but BOED describes itself in the intro as a way to RP characters that want to actually be good, and not neutral with the title of being good.
those are people whose lives could be saved that the character intentionally and knowingly allows to die, for the sole reason of maintaining their own "moral high ground". Apparently, it's moral to send people to their deaths when you can prevent it if the way you can prevent it is icky, hmm?That is my issue with some people's view of paladins. I think a paladin should be hard to play, and should take every reasonable risk to save a life, and parley before they fight, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.
I think the obligation is to protect the people first, and uphold your code second if you ever have to choose between the two.
I agree. I don't think that a paladin cannot attack a sleeping foe, I just think they need a very good reason for it to be justified.
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?Thats the point. Even if you ignore everything else, and just take that "knight", the point stands. He's NOT a mere soldier. He's more than that, he has a moral code to follow(in case of knight, thats chivalry).
He is held to standards over and above a mere soldier.
A mere soldier in a medieval setting may well plunder, rape, and arson.
A knight? Won't. Unless he's not lawful good. But if we're talking blackguard or anti-paladin here(which are well also qualified for the "knight" job), then the whole discussion is moot.
I did not say a mere soldier, but there have been books talking of paladin kings and generals. If those guys fought without tricking the enemy(not honorable by some) into taking bad positions or taking advantage of ambushes when needed, and other acceptable tactics then unless they had a much superior force they would probably not be king or general for much longer
Not confronting an obvious threat? That may be stupid.
Killing everything you see on the off-chance that it MAY become a threat, thats convenient.
I never said kill everything. The wyvern example and the sniping example were two different scenarios, sorry I was not clear on that.
We have no idea how much info the pally was given so I will drop that example.The sniping thing was about fighting in an actual war, not trying to start one. If sniping is dishonorable then so is every other ranged weapon. Now that I think about it using any tactic that would keep an an enemy away while allowing you to attack them would be dishonorable if you have to go into melee to fight. You may not have an issue with snipers, but I am bringing up points made by other not just things you said. If you think sniping is ok. We can move forward from that issue.
Stop spreading this BS about wyverns being man eaters.
Nowhere does the descriptive text suggest that wyverns EVER dine on other sentient beings.
Stop spreading this BS about wyverns being man eaters.
Nowhere does the descriptive text suggest that wyverns EVER dine on other sentient beings.
Wyverns are rather stupid but always aggressive: They attack nearly anything that isn’t obviously more powerful than themselves.