Is this an evil act?


Advice

751 to 800 of 1,233 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

1. the inability of modern people to accept that there's anything evil and that every debased act in the world has an explanation transcends into their handling of fictitious characters, be it at the game table or when writing a novel. like the girl with a dragon tattoo said to the journalist "he fu&^ing tried to kill you! he's killed dozens of women along the years! not everyone is a fu%^ing victim! he deserved what he got!" (she was referring to the murderer dying in a ball of flame many minutes after a car crash: she could have pulled him out but she just stayed there and watched; the journalist on his moral high ground couldn't come to grasp with the fact she didn't pull the guy out so he could take years in the justice system and etc. etc. etc.)

--> i basically tend to agree that everyone can get a second chance and redeem themselves, but there's folks out there who have time and time again committed evil and nothing will change their ways. in a game where evil is personified, i am in awe that there are still people out there trying the risen fiend, good undead or misunderstood drow angle. it's so passé and unoriginal that it truly stinks as a plot device IMO. "yay we are the buffy generation" i guess... it speaks of an inability for an author to 'get with the program' and develop within a setting rather than always 'fight the man' and try to surprise the reader (and editor) with a sad 'out of the box thinking' idea that's really a way to wrap up a novel by a given deadline due to the lack of a better idea...

Well, I roll with the idea that evil exists. I just don't tie it into race.

It's always been the "Always Chaotic Evil" tropes and all of its related tropes that I've found passe from my earliest days of reading fantasy really, long before Buffy ever came down the chute. It's not about subverting peoples' expectations or rebelling, it's about casting aside concepts that just flat out don't work for me or that I find downright offensive and dangerous. I'm just not seeing how not shoehorning everything into simple black and white cheapens a setting, concept, or work of fiction.

For many of us, tropes like that are something mainstream fantasy has(or should) grown past. Hell, Tolkien was never happy with Always Chaotic Evil for his orcs.

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

2. curses

--> those are different. they are an affliction upon an existing good guy. the guy sees himself become a vampire or a werewolf, and tries to fight this. this kinda plot i generally have no problem with, as it speaks of man's struggle to keep control over his darker side and rein in his primal instincts. it's funny to think that vamps/werewolves are templates rather than a base creature... in general templates can be explained by an event or transformation or accident or experiment gone awry, and thus serve a purpose within a story. however, i tend to have no time with "evil base creature gone good" stories. there are fiends in hell and the abyss, and they are evil mofos. there are wicked dark elves demon worshipper under the earth and they are evil mofos. [insert other base evil creature and location] and they are evil mofos.

But if a being can fall, can't they rise? Or is morality simply a one way street?

Liberty's Edge

Charender wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
That sounds reasonable. The 'you are in danger of losing your blessing' warning comes before the paladin does something wrong then?

I don't know. Part of me thinks that eliminates the benefit of items like the Phylactery of Faithfulness. If the DM is expected to warn the paladin anytime they might be stepping out of line, then why even have an item like this?

Now, if it was something that should be obvious to the character, but it isn't obvious to the player, then a knowledge(religion) or wisdom check might be in order. Plus, it is a good way to make use of those checks.

I do not feel that a check is in order for something which is obvious to the character. Just as you do not ask for Perception checks before describing to the players the huge magnificent palace which stands in front of them.

My point is that the GM and the paladin's player should make the effort to clearly delineate together what will cause a breach of the code before play begins. And if the GM sees the paladin walking in a moral trap unknowingly, he should give him a fair warning.

If this is done and the player insists on taking the action, then the GM will smite him with the wrath of the gods (and the loss of powers). Since the player was warned beforehand, this will prevent any argument arising after the fall.

Concerning the Phylactery of Faithfullness, I see it as a Detect Spiritual Trap, allowing the character to become aware of actions or objects that seem innocuous but can actually cause him to fall (like an item which can magically change your alignment).

I do not see it as an excuse for GMs to wash their hands of the responsibility of clarifying the code beforehand.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Good thing gods don't have to raise children.

No, thats what humans are for.

Hercules mother just to name one.


The party of Ulrick the paladin and his party is approaching the tomb of the dread lich Vordekai, scourge of Varnhold, and spots two draconic creatures far off in the distance.

Paladin: *fires an arrow* "DIE! Evil dragon!"

Wyvern: *is grazed and looks bothered* "Wyvern!"

Paladin: "Well, but from afar it looked like-"

Wyvern: "And I am Neutral!"

Paladin: "...What?"

Wyvern: "I am neutral, not evil!"

Paladin: "Well I can't just assume all screeching flying monsters that attack everything on sight are neutral"

Wyvern: "I object to the fact that you automatically treat me like an evil being!"

Paladin: "Well, I am a paladin, and dragons are of the dread triumvirate."

Wyvern: "Oh, paladin, eh? Very nice, and how did you become that, eh? By exploiting the Core Rulebook, and hanging on to outdated ideals of good versus evil fighting in 'glorious' battles, instead of adhering to the complex myriad of quasi-psychological facets of modern thinking! If there is ever to be any progress-"

*Other wyverns screeches in and severs the cleric's head* "SCRREEEE! DENNIS! THERE'S SOME LOVELY GUTS OVER HERE!"


So, when can we add Wyvern to the Reincarnate spell list as an option ?


Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think the GM regarding this was confused. Paladins are Lawful Good. This GM is forcing his player to play Lawful Stupid, two totally different alignments.

This wasn't an evil act. The paladin ambushed and killed and animal. 'Nuff said.


So change the word "wyvern" to "Billy the kolbold janitor".

It's different, SHOOT IT!

Your paladin just fired at a creature that had not made an action of hostile intent. Also the paladin made no attempt discern if the "dragon-like creatures" were hostile. The wyvern may have been unaware of the tombs nature or existence [wyverns don't have tombs].

Wyverns do not attack every thing on sight.

1. That is stupid and exhausting. [Wyverns fly, constant attacks on clouds would limit their numbers.]

2. That is a vicious rumor started by paladins to justify genocide againist anything without hair.

The creature aside attacking an unidentified target is questionable at best.


Mr.Fishy wrote:

So change the word "wyvern" to "Billy the kolbold janitor".

It's different, SHOOT IT!

Your paladin just fired at a creature that had not made an action of hostile intent. Also the paladin made no attempt discern if the "dragon-like creatures" were hostile. The wyvern may have been unaware of the tombs nature or existence [wyverns don't have tombs].

Wyverns do not attack every thing on sight.

1. That is stupid and exhausting. [Wyverns fly, constant attacks on clouds would limit their numbers.]

2. That is a vicious rumor started by paladins to justify genocide againist anything without hair.

The creature aside attacking an unidentified target is questionable at best.

Agreed, much better to attack the darkness, that is evil...

Oh and FYI, magic missles work best...


Soluzar wrote:

I think the GM regarding this was confused. Paladins are Lawful Good. This GM is forcing his player to play Lawful Stupid, two totally different alignments.

This wasn't an evil act. The paladin ambushed and killed and animal. 'Nuff said.

Okay so I know you didn't read the whole thread (It's a lot to go through). However,

sir_shajir wrote:

When I said the paladin was metagaming, that's exactly what it was as he said "These wyverns are going to attack us when we come back, as that always happens when we play dnd" -He was generalizing all the games his played in (including the ones where I was a player or was not present at), and made a decision based on that. The paladin player is always very paranoid about everything and always assumes the worst will happen. He makes decision based on being paranoid as a player and not based on his experiences with the game that he is currently playing or based on the experiences based on the character. After that he then began to whine as to how the game is designed to punish them even though he lacked any knowledge as to what was currently surrounding him or what he was getting into.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Mikaze wrote:


I'm kind of reminded of another thread.

if you're curious to know where i'm coming from on this, i'll try to explain in the most concise way i can but i warn you, there's a chance that this could take this thread on a tangent or that i may end up rambling... ;) here it goes:

--> i basically tend to agree that everyone can get a second chance and redeem themselves, but there's folks out there who have time and time again committed evil and nothing will change their ways. in a game where evil is personified, i am in awe that there are still people out there trying the risen fiend, good undead or misunderstood drow angle. it's so passé and unoriginal that it truly stinks as a plot device IMO. "yay we are the buffy generation" i guess... it speaks of an inability for an author to 'get with the program' and develop within a setting rather than always 'fight the man' and try to surprise the reader (and editor) with a sad 'out of the box thinking' idea that's really a way to wrap up a novel by a given deadline due to the lack of a better idea...

There are no words to properly describe my rage.


Mr.Fishy wrote:


Wyverns do not attack every thing on sight.

If they did, a mirror would be the ultimate anti-wyvern device. No, wyverns are merely territorial, constantly hungry, violence prone semi-intelligent predators.

Perfectly safe to be within a mile of. Unless you're made of meat.


Mr.Fishy wrote:

2. That is a vicious rumor started by paladins to justify genocide againist anything without hair.

Really?

(Looks worriedly in the mirror at my receding hairline)


I think the key part is the the player didn't even try to figure out if the target was evil.

Lets say I walk into a town and start killing people at random. This is an evil act.

Now lets say through luck and happenstance all the people I killed were evil. Does this suddenly make it a good act?

What if I made sure the targets were evil, then murdered them in their sleep?


Charender wrote:
I think the key part is the the player didn't even try to figure out if the target was evil.

This is true, but in his defence he could have seen them as merely animals, and dangerous.

Charender wrote:
Lets say I walk into a town and start killing people at random. This is an evil act.

]

Agreed.

Charender wrote:
Now lets say through luck and happenstance all the people I killed were evil. Does this suddenly make it a good act?

Nope.

Charender wrote:
What if I made sure the targets were evil, then murdered them in their sleep?

One of the aspects of good is that it tries to redeem people. You kill the irredeemable, punish the guilty, and redeem all those you can.

Some things are automatically irredeemable, and others are automatically guilty of a crime (in the moral sense if not the legal one). For example, if a man with filed teeth charges you screaming "Deeeaaaaaattthhhh!" and waving an axe he then tries to kill you with, you are entitled to kill him in self defence.

Some things you cannot redeem even if you try. For the paladin, I think killing the irredeemable is acceptable if they have adequate reason.

Punishing the guilty is also acceptable, if you have a crime and a perpetrator, then this is justice.

However, 'evil people' can mean people who are redeemable and have not committed a crime. It is not acceptable to kill these people, because while they are alive and they have not committed a crime they can still be redeemed. Demanding they change and killing them when they say 'no' is not acceptable, because they are not to blame for the shortcomings of the converter.


Dabbler wrote:
Charender wrote:
I think the key part is the the player didn't even try to figure out if the target was evil.

This is true, but in his defence he could have seen them as merely animals, and dangerous.

So I am good to go on my plan to poison my neighbor's pit bull because it is an animal and possibly dangerous? Slippery slope there.

Quote:


Charender wrote:
What if I made sure the targets were evil, then murdered them in their sleep?

One of the aspects of good is that it tries to redeem people. You kill the irredeemable, punish the guilty, and redeem all those you can.

Some things are automatically irredeemable, and others are automatically guilty of a crime (in the moral sense if not the legal one). For example, if a man with filed teeth charges you screaming "Deeeaaaaaattthhhh!" and waving an axe he then tries to kill you with, you are entitled to kill him in self defence.

Some things you cannot redeem even if you try. For the paladin, I think killing the irredeemable is acceptable if they have adequate reason.

Punishing the guilty is also acceptable, if you have a crime and a perpetrator, then this is justice.

However, 'evil people' can mean people who are redeemable and have not committed a crime. It is not acceptable to kill these people, because while they are alive and they have not committed a crime they can still be redeemed. Demanding they change and killing them when they say 'no' is not acceptable, because they are not to blame for the shortcomings of the converter.

Self defense is perfectly acceptable, but this case has nothing to do with anyone being in immediate danger. This hinges around the possibility of danger at a future date.

At worst, the wyverns were evil, but capable of changing their ways. If the paladin had decided to kill the wyverns because they were evil and a danger, that might have been acceptable(I might have rules that as a barely neutral act).

The paladin killed the wyverns because he believed they might attack him at some future date, and he currently had the upper hand. That to me is no different that an evil wizard killing a baby because he believed it was the child that prophecy said would kill him 20 years hence. Neither one represents an immediate danger to the person doing the killing.


Charender wrote:
The paladin killed the wyverns because he believed they might attack him at some future date, and he currently had the upper hand. That to me is no different that an evil wizard killing a baby because he believe it was the child that prophecy said would kill him 20 years hence.

... and we all know how that turns out! Books that can be used as battleship anchors and endless film franchises, along with shed-loads of merchandised expensive tat ...


Dabbler wrote:
Charender wrote:
The paladin killed the wyverns because he believed they might attack him at some future date, and he currently had the upper hand. That to me is no different that an evil wizard killing a baby because he believe it was the child that prophecy said would kill him 20 years hence.
... and we all know how that turns out! Books that can be used as battleship anchors and endless film franchises, along with shed-loads of merchandised expensive tat ...

Yeah, the wizard always kills the wrong child, so cliche.

It would be fun if the evil wizard actually does manage to kill the child destined to destroy him. The adventure would take a whole other twist from there.


Charender wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Charender wrote:
The paladin killed the wyverns because he believed they might attack him at some future date, and he currently had the upper hand. That to me is no different that an evil wizard killing a baby because he believe it was the child that prophecy said would kill him 20 years hence.
... and we all know how that turns out! Books that can be used as battleship anchors and endless film franchises, along with shed-loads of merchandised expensive tat ...

Yeah, the wizard always kills the wrong child, so cliche.

It would be fun if the evil wizard actually does manage to kill the child destined to destroy him. The adventure would take a whole other twist from there.

Not really interesting, though, as the evil wizard conquers the world and everyone dies or lives in misery thereafter. Bit boring really.


Or the wizard looses anyways and it turns out that "Destiny" is a bunch of bunk ;p

Or the child is REBORN sometime later I guess whatever that's boring :|


ProfessorCirno wrote:

Or the wizard looses anyways and it turns out that "Destiny" is a bunch of bunk ;p

Or the child is REBORN sometime later I guess whatever that's boring :|

Or they come back as a zombie-revenant! That would be cool, having the bad-guy be the wizard and the good guy as the darkness-infused undead that wants to eat his brain - and it never would have happened if the bad guy hadn't killed him in the first place.


No no no. For a truly vomitous end to this storyline, we see the wizard digging up the now-skeletonized corpse of the destined child. Turns out he never really could let it go, this destiny thing bothering him. Thing is, he cuts himself on a bone shard, and gets infected with some magic-resistant disease. You know, boils and sores. Eventually, the wizard dies, a blasphemous lump of quivering sludge that managed to infect his entire bureaucracy at a meeting. YAY! The kingdom is FREE thanks to the destined child!!!... or something.


Giving a cockroach communion doesn't make it a Christian.
A trainer nursed a snake back to health, and it obeys him like a good little puppy.
Now a paladin of Bahamut is supposed to kill wyverns on sight.
The alignment, or lack thereof, was not that big an issue.
You know what, if someone at your table starts playing themselves instead of their character, snap them with a towel. It worked on Total Drama World Tour. :)


Charender wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Charender wrote:
I think the key part is the the player didn't even try to figure out if the target was evil.

This is true, but in his defence he could have seen them as merely animals, and dangerous.

So I am good to go on my plan to poison my neighbor's pit bull because it is an animal and possibly dangerous? Slippery slope there.

Is it a giant flying poisonous pit bull?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

"One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it."


TriOmegaZero wrote:
"One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it."

I like this one. Yoink. It fits in my current KM game.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
"One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it."

bthis should be siggied oh wise one


So when can i play a Wyvern ??


Hay, if you can not beat the party, Join the Party.

Were my 1st level Wyvern :)

PS: is i start off playing small or tiny..... can i ride on the paladins head ?


Dabbler wrote:
Charender wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Charender wrote:
The paladin killed the wyverns because he believed they might attack him at some future date, and he currently had the upper hand. That to me is no different that an evil wizard killing a baby because he believe it was the child that prophecy said would kill him 20 years hence.
... and we all know how that turns out! Books that can be used as battleship anchors and endless film franchises, along with shed-loads of merchandised expensive tat ...

Yeah, the wizard always kills the wrong child, so cliche.

It would be fun if the evil wizard actually does manage to kill the child destined to destroy him. The adventure would take a whole other twist from there.

Not really interesting, though, as the evil wizard conquers the world and everyone dies or lives in misery thereafter. Bit boring really.

Or the adventure is really about finding a way to bring the child back....


Imnotbob wrote:
Charender wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Charender wrote:
I think the key part is the the player didn't even try to figure out if the target was evil.

This is true, but in his defence he could have seen them as merely animals, and dangerous.

So I am good to go on my plan to poison my neighbor's pit bull because it is an animal and possibly dangerous? Slippery slope there.

Is it a giant flying poisonous pit bull?

You are basically say that you are good to kill an animal you think is dangerous because it is big, flying and poisonous. What if it is merely big and poisonous? What about flying and big? What if it is just big like say a Terrasque?

A dog bite causes nasty infections. That makes them kinda poisonous, and they can be 80 pounds. So poisonous and medium size creature that may attack me in the future, am I cleared to kill it?

An oleander tree is large and poisonous. That is 2 out of 3, KILL IT!

Good to know I am now clear to kill lots of things just because they have one dangerous aspect and I think they may be a threat to me sometime in the future.

Contributor

Charender wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Charender wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Charender wrote:
The paladin killed the wyverns because he believed they might attack him at some future date, and he currently had the upper hand. That to me is no different that an evil wizard killing a baby because he believe it was the child that prophecy said would kill him 20 years hence.
... and we all know how that turns out! Books that can be used as battleship anchors and endless film franchises, along with shed-loads of merchandised expensive tat ...

Yeah, the wizard always kills the wrong child, so cliche.

It would be fun if the evil wizard actually does manage to kill the child destined to destroy him. The adventure would take a whole other twist from there.

Not really interesting, though, as the evil wizard conquers the world and everyone dies or lives in misery thereafter. Bit boring really.
Or the adventure is really about finding a way to bring the child back....

Basically, the story is always about a wizard who's exceedingly stupid. It's supposed to be about the inevitability of fate, but in a world where resurrections are possible--which even included the Greek myths, because Medea was able to do that trick--the logical thing to do if you find out that you're going to be killed by anything in twenty years is to make sure to schedule a resurrection for that day.

I mean, look at the stories:

Scenario 1: You're a royal bastard and you kill all the kids who are supposedly fated to kill you, but you inevitably miss one because that's what always happens. And you have 20 years of bad PR about being a psycho child killer.

Scenario 2: You decide to be a good uncle or whatever to the kid fated to kill you, so he'll grow up loving you. You succeed, but it ends up that in twenty years he kills you accidentally. You're dead and your beloved nephew or whatever he is is now a guilt-stricken basket case.

Just bank up for a resurrection when it happens in twenty years. Have folk come in and fix the problem and explain to your nephew that it's all right, you got advance warning from an oracle, and he doesn't have to worry about it because it was fate.

I mean, even in the days of the Greek myths, anyone with that sort of prophecy on them should be trying to contact Medea and book an appointment for her services, or her dad's, since the King of Tartary knew the same trick.


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
Quote:
stuff

Basically, the story is always about a wizard who's exceedingly stupid. It's supposed to be about the inevitability of fate, but in a world where resurrections are possible--which even included the Greek myths, because Medea was able to do that trick--the logical thing to do if you find out that you're going to be killed by anything in twenty years is to make sure to schedule a resurrection for that day.

I mean, look at the stories:

Scenario 1: You're a royal bastard and you kill all the kids who are supposedly fated to kill you, but you inevitably miss one because that's what always happens. And you have 20 years of bad PR about being a psycho child killer.

Scenario 2: You decide to be a good uncle or whatever to the kid fated to kill you, so he'll grow up loving you. You succeed, but it ends up that in twenty years he kills you accidentally. You're dead and your beloved nephew or whatever he is is now a guilt-stricken basket case.

Just bank up for a resurrection when it happens in twenty years. Have folk come in and fix the problem and explain to your nephew that it's all right, you got advance warning from an oracle, and he doesn't have to worry about it because it was fate.

I mean, even in the days of the Greek myths, anyone with that sort of prophecy on them should be trying to contact Medea and book an appointment for her services, or her dad's, since the King of Tartary knew the same trick.

I mean come on, where is the evil in that. Needs more kicking the dog


Charender wrote:
Imnotbob wrote:
Charender wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Charender wrote:
I think the key part is the the player didn't even try to figure out if the target was evil.

This is true, but in his defence he could have seen them as merely animals, and dangerous.

So I am good to go on my plan to poison my neighbor's pit bull because it is an animal and possibly dangerous? Slippery slope there.

Is it a giant flying poisonous pit bull?

You are basically say that you are good to kill an animal you think is dangerous because it is big, flying and poisonous. What if it is merely big and poisonous? What about flying and big? What if it is just big like say a Terrasque?

A dog bite causes nasty infections. That makes them kinda poisonous, and they can be 80 pounds. So poisonous and medium size creature that may attack me in the future, am I cleared to kill it?

An oleander tree is large and poisonous. That is 2 out of 3, KILL IT!

Good to know I am now clear to kill lots of things just because they have one dangerous aspect and I think they may be a threat to me sometime in the future.

"OMG! He killed a huge monster that is an OBVIOUS threat to him, his friends and the fate of dozens of villagers! He must be killing cute puppies and fluffy kittens too!"

(Large derogatory rant that would get me banned on several points according to Paizo policies omitted)

Your arguments are on the same level as "You are against the war?! YOU HATE THE TROOPS AND FREEDOM!!"

Seriously, back in the day, this would never have been an issue. Before Twilight, Buffy and other "Oh, the horrid monsters of legend are all actually nice people if we could just get over our BIGOT RACISM!11!" bullcrap hit the shelves and made people want to PLAY the "poor, misunderstood creatures of the lonely night" instead of killing them for XP.

I pity the paladin. He has gone from shining hero to a mix of Robocop from the second movie when they put all the bullcrap directives into his head, and the uncool guy who calls the cops on your awesome pool-party.


Charender wrote:
Imnotbob wrote:
Charender wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Charender wrote:
I think the key part is the the player didn't even try to figure out if the target was evil.

This is true, but in his defence he could have seen them as merely animals, and dangerous.

So I am good to go on my plan to poison my neighbor's pit bull because it is an animal and possibly dangerous? Slippery slope there.

Is it a giant flying poisonous pit bull?

You are basically say that you are good to kill an animal you think is dangerous because it is big, flying and poisonous. What if it is merely big and poisonous? What about flying and big? What if it is just big like say a Terrasque?

A dog bite causes nasty infections. That makes them kinda poisonous, and they can be 80 pounds. So poisonous and medium size creature that may attack me in the future, am I cleared to kill it?

An oleander tree is large and poisonous. That is 2 out of 3, KILL IT!

Good to know I am now clear to kill lots of things just because they have one dangerous aspect and I think they may be a threat to me sometime in the future.

:shrug: It doesn't make you necessarily evil, just paranoid and well... people may come to avenge the things you destroy/kill.


Kamelguru wrote:


"OMG! He killed a huge monster that is an OBVIOUS threat to him, his friends and the fate of dozens of villagers! He must be killing cute puppies and fluffy kittens too!"

(Large derogatory rant that would get me banned on several points according to Paizo policies omitted)

Your arguments are on the same level as "You are against the war?! YOU HATE THE TROOPS AND FREEDOM!!"

Seriously, back in the day, this would never have been an issue. Before Twilight, Buffy and other "Oh, the horrid monsters of legend are all actually nice people if we could just get over our BIGOT RACISM!11!" bullcrap hit the shelves and made people want to PLAY the "poor, misunderstood creatures of the lonely night" instead of killing them for XP.

I pity the paladin. He has gone from shining hero to a mix of Robocop from the second movie when they put all the bullcrap directives into his head, and the uncool guy who calls the cops on your awesome pool-party.

How exactly is a sleeping creature an obvious threat?

Me pointing a gun at your head is a direct and obvious threat.

But by your logic, if I own a gun, and I don't like you, then you are perfectly justified in killing me because at some point in the future I might become a threat. I am sorry, but preemptive cold-blooded killing isn't a good or noble act. At best, it is neutral act depending on the justification. In this particular case, the paladin had zero justification for their actions. I expect more from my paladins, you are free to do whatever you want with it.


Ion Raven wrote:


:shrug: It doesn't make you necessarily evil, just paranoid and well... people may come to avenge the things you destroy/kill.

Paranoid is one thing, when you start acting on that paranoia and killing the thing you think are out to get you, you cross the line into something completely different.


Charender wrote:
Kamelguru wrote:


"OMG! He killed a huge monster that is an OBVIOUS threat to him, his friends and the fate of dozens of villagers! He must be killing cute puppies and fluffy kittens too!"

(Large derogatory rant that would get me banned on several points according to Paizo policies omitted)

Your arguments are on the same level as "You are against the war?! YOU HATE THE TROOPS AND FREEDOM!!"

Seriously, back in the day, this would never have been an issue. Before Twilight, Buffy and other "Oh, the horrid monsters of legend are all actually nice people if we could just get over our BIGOT RACISM!11!" bullcrap hit the shelves and made people want to PLAY the "poor, misunderstood creatures of the lonely night" instead of killing them for XP.

I pity the paladin. He has gone from shining hero to a mix of Robocop from the second movie when they put all the bullcrap directives into his head, and the uncool guy who calls the cops on your awesome pool-party.

How exactly is a sleeping creature an obvious threat?

Me pointing a gun at your head is a direct and obvious threat.

But by your logic, if I own a gun, and I don't like you, then you are perfectly justified in killing me because at some point in the future I might become a threat. I am sorry, but preemptive cold-blooded killing isn't a good or noble act. At best, it is neutral act depending on the justification. In this particular case, the paladin had zero justification for their actions. I expect more from my paladins, you are free to do whatever you want with it.

In this particular case they were in Encounter Area Z1-3 of Varnhold Vanishing, and after GMing it, I know exactly how justified he was. The wyverns involved have grown fat on humans, taking advantage of the terrain to kill helpless victims that pose them no threat, and should have been EVIL had the alignment rules applied to non-player creatures. The GM changed this encounter, because the Wyverns were supposed to be not only awake, but hiding and waiting to feast upon the adventurers while they are defenseless, climbing down a steep cliff overhanging a churning pool of a huge waterfall.

But let's say this was NOT the case, and the paladin stumbled across two sleeping wyverns sunbathing in a pleasant meadow, he would still think them to be EVIL MONSTERS because in his experience, they are draconic beasts that attack on sight. And if not he had killed them, they would soon get Darwin Awarded out of existence soon enough, for sleeping in plain sight (much less in a region infamous for its plethora of dangerous flying monsters, which is the case of the AP in question). Which is my way of saying "This encounter is so silly, it breaks the suspended disbelief with a cartoon mallet."

And don't presume I am arguing that someone who has a gun should die because they MIGHT be a threat. This example has no real world comparison, which is why I am so vehement in my defense of the paladin. Wyverns are big dragons that kill on sight. Not a humanoid or even remotely debatable innocent. They are: Big. Murderous. Monsters.


Charender wrote:
Ion Raven wrote:


:shrug: It doesn't make you necessarily evil, just paranoid and well... people may come to avenge the things you destroy/kill.
Paranoid is one thing, when you start acting on that paranoia and killing the thing you think are out to get you, you cross the line into something completely different.

ZOMG!!! we must shut down the government, they're evil...

Seriously though, while acting on paranoia may be lawfully wrong, it may just as often be the law. A good look into history shows this. Just because something is wrong and messed up doesn't make them evil.

This is why alignment threads are so infectious. Because there is no way to come up with a unanimous definition of what's good or evil or what's lawful or what's honorable. At some point someone comes and tries to push their belief onto someone else and then people of course retort back. All sides believing that they are right. Why? Because all alignments are rooted in one's own personal belief.


Ion Raven wrote:
Charender wrote:
Ion Raven wrote:


:shrug: It doesn't make you necessarily evil, just paranoid and well... people may come to avenge the things you destroy/kill.
Paranoid is one thing, when you start acting on that paranoia and killing the thing you think are out to get you, you cross the line into something completely different.

ZOMG!!! we must shut down the government, they're evil...

Seriously though, while acting on paranoia may be lawfully wrong, it may just as often be the law. A good look into history shows this. Just because something is wrong and messed up doesn't make them evil.

This is why alignment threads are so infectious. Because there is no way to come up with a unanimous definition of what's good or evil or what's lawful or what's honorable. At some point someone comes and tries to push their belief onto someone else and then people of course retort back. All sides believing that they are right. Why? Because all alignments are rooted in one's own personal belief.

IDK, I would think a government that is so paranoid that it feels justified in killing any citizen it feels may be a threat is pretty evil IMO. Just because the government passed laws to make this behavior legal doesn't make it any less evil.

Contributor

This is starting to remind me of a Ravenloft game where my non-paladin character was given a Dark Powers check for putting a tiger to sleep with a sleep spell then slitting its throat.

The DMs perspective was that it was a beautiful natural animal in its wild habitat and my character should have just left it alone, or if I was worried about it harming nearby humans, driven it away to somewhere else.

My character's perspective was that it was encountered in the middle of a human road, so if it wasn't a man-eater already, it was going to become one quite soon, and it was my duty to civilization to put it down. Driving it off so it could go to someone else's village to eat someone else's villagers? That would be an evil act.

We've got a nest of wyverns lairing over an old tomb. One supposes they picked that spot because there's a steady stream of grave robbers, cultists, necromancers, mourners, adventurers, and scantily clad archaeologists coming to visit this tomb, making it an excellent hunting ground. It's like a lion lairing by a waterhole. If you go to the waterhole and come upon the lion taking an afternoon nap, you know exactly why he's there, and catching him unawares is his bad luck. Coming on the wyverns while they're asleep? Same deal. They're "neutral" on a technicality, or at best the same sort of "neutral" as your average bandits and highwaymen who are doing it for the money, as opposed to the sort of bandits and highwaymen who just do it as a fundraising activity to support their day job as cultists of unspeakable horrors. Sort of like a bake sale but with more blood.

Of course, the paladin if he's really wanting to worry about the "non-evil" business, he could just do subdual damage till he knocks the wyverns unconscious, then inspect their nest for evidence of any crimes deserving of the death penalty. Look! Human skulls and bones! That means man-eaters with an outside chance of necromancers and graverobbers.


Kamelguru wrote:

In this particular case they were in Encounter Area Z1-3 of Varnhold Vanishing, and after GMing it, I know exactly how justified he was. The wyverns involved have grown fat on humans, taking advantage of the terrain to kill helpless victims that pose them no threat, and should have been EVIL had the alignment rules applied to non-player creatures. The GM changed this encounter, because the Wyverns were supposed to be not only awake, but hiding and waiting to feast upon the adventurers while they are defenseless, climbing down a steep cliff overhanging a churning pool of a huge waterfall.

So wait, did the DM change the encounter(and perhaps the alignment of the wyverns), or is still the same encounter? I confused....

Quote:


But let's say this was NOT the case, and the paladin stumbled across two sleeping wyverns sunbathing in a pleasant meadow, he would still think them to be EVIL MONSTERS because in his experience, they are draconic beasts that attack on sight. And if not he had killed them, they would soon get Darwin Awarded out of existence soon enough, for sleeping in plain sight (much less in a region infamous for its plethora of dangerous flying monsters, which is the case of the AP in question). Which is my way of saying "This encounter is so silly, it breaks the suspended disbelief with a cartoon mallet."

So because they were going to die anyway it is ok to kill them, got it.

or

1. Wyverns do not always attack on sight. They are smart enough to observe their prey, and they will avoid attacking thing they consider too dangerous.

2. Wyverns are neutral. Wyverns are neutral. In case it hasn't already been mentioned Wyveryns are normally neutral. Drop the assumption that they are always evil.

3. If only Paladins had some way of knowing for certain if a creature is evil... Man, I really think they should have an ability that lets them detect if creatures are evil.

Quote:


And don't presume I am arguing that someone who has a gun should die because they MIGHT be a threat. This example has no real world comparison, which is why I am so vehement in my defense of the paladin. Wyverns are big dragons that kill on sight. Not a humanoid or even remotely debatable innocent. They are: Big. Murderous. Monsters.

You are arguing that the paladin was justified in killing something that he merely thought to be a threat, the two are exactly the same.

If the paladin had taken the time, and used his class given abilities to verify that the wyverns were actually a threat to himself, his friends, or the world at large, then he would have been perfectly justified in killing the wyvern.

What the paladin actually did was was walk into the middle of a murder mystery, shoot the butler, and claim he did the right thing because the butler is always the one who commits the crime. Even if he is correct, and the butler actually was the killer, that doesn't make his actions good or right.


Hey! Mr. Fishy apologized to that butler, wait, forget Mr. Fishy said that.

Dark Archive

Ironically if he had investigated via a knowledge check he would probably have came to the same conclusion anyway since it is stated in there descriptions that they are generally solitary creatures (making two of them being together odd) and that they are sometimes used by monstrous humanoids as guards. meaning it wouldn't be that far a stretch for the Paladin to conclude that they are actually guards for that tomb.


But he didn't.


*sigh* I shall use smaller words then, so my intents here cannot be misinterpreted, or easily twisted.

The encounter is SILLY. Two beasts _sleeping in plain view_ is SILLY. It should not happen. Imagine now if your GM sent a purple gnome in an ice-cream truck that shoots pizza. It should not happen EITHER. It is AS silly.

Got that? Good.

Regarding detect evil: In this encounter, the wyverns were several hundred feet away. The paladin's range of detection is 60 feet. 60 feet < several hundred feet. When something is out of range, he CANNOT detect them.

Got that one too? Have a nice smiley-face sticker.

Now, for teacher's pop quiz, and this one is for the Gold Star;

Name me ONE. SINGULAR. ADVENTURE. PATH. Where wyverns have been portrayed as anything except brutish monsters that attack players on sight. Yes, the wyvern could POTENTIALLY be played as a neutral creature, in which case his normal response to adventurers would be either to avoid them as potential trouble, or to hail them and engage them in dialogue. Like a neutral humanoid with Int7 would.

And "serving the Dread Sky-Mage Nastilock as a mount" does not count as portrayed as anything else.

Dark Archive

Again even Ignoring a knowledge check on the animals themselves 2 large fierce creatures know to be generally violent towards just about everything outside the lair of a BBEG (which the characters know is the lair hence why they are there) and since they haven't been driven off there is no reason to believe that they aren't in cahoots with the bad guy


Oliver McShade wrote:

Hay, if you can not beat the party, Join the Party.

Were my 1st level Wyvern :)

PS: is i start off playing small or tiny..... can i ride on the paladins head ?

Well, so what are my abilities, and states for my new Wyvern?

Well for a 1st level Wyvern without raceal HD anyway:)


This thread is addictive.


Yes, why would they put themselves and their mission in jeopardy, by awakening two sleeping monsters, when they have the advantage of catching them asleep. BTW, Kamelguru, I would have less of a problem with a purple gnome in an ice-cream truck that shoots pizza, than being all of the sudden forced to greet all kind of monsters before attacking them, because of all that Pokémon stuff out there.


This is a wyvern..

751 to 800 of 1,233 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Is this an evil act? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.