*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.
So the DM changed the encounter. He made it "silly".
As for one Adventure, Mr. Fishy runs creatures as he sees fit and is not a slave to a book.If Mr. Fishy wants to have good aligned wyvern mounts ridden by an order of Sky Knights [paladins] then that's Mr. Fishy's game. We do not know what changes the DM made. Those wyverns could have been the good mounts of a pair of Sky Knight we don't know and neither did Psycho the Paladin. That's why he fell. Because he was a Meta gaming prig and got called on it.
We can fight this as long as you want Mr. Fishy has guppies, he can argue for days, crying and yelling does not win fights with Mr. Fishy.
One more thing Mr. Fishy is an adult and can buy all the gold stars he wants.
Shhhhhh, careful now. If the paladin finds those guppies asleep, you know what will happen ;)
The gold is under the tank. The trollop is in the other room.
"Wake up wyverns! I come in peace. Are you friends or foes?"
One of the wyverns opens its baleful reptilian eye and sends the paladin a hateful gaze, then lifts it scaly head and stretces its neck to let out a voluminous shriek so that the other wyvern awakes as well. They come at the paladin quicker than a purple gnome in an ice-cream truck shoots pizza, and the paladin who has not drawn his weapon yet since it would be meta-gaming to even assume that these big reptilian nasties are evil, gets swept off the wyverns' perch high on the cliffs, and falls to his death. The last thing he hears before he hits the rocks at the bottom and cracks his neck is a wyvern's primal shriek high above, but he will not assume that they attack his friends, because his player does not want to be accused of meta-gaming. He is pretty sure it was all just an accident. Why would wyverns do that. Their allignment is neutral.
Kamelguru, 15 minutes ago
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.
In the Wyvern Spur stories, this one family is decended from a Wyvern and each person could transform into a Wyvern once. It was Forgotten Realms, but I'll take a gold star on a technicality.
Don't add the ice cream truck to the Cleaves.
It's already got some items that will be given the boot as soon as there are more then 100 items.
Sir Paladin calls out to the wyverns. The great beast raises it's mighty head. Both beast and paladin stand looking at each. A secret messege is passed.
The wyvern taps his broad chest twice in a ritual greeting. A trumpeting call. "Player, Player!"
The paladin responses in kind. "Well met Dawg!"
Parley ensues.
Instead
Paladin "Look a lizard with wings, KILL IT!"
Yeah, he's total justifed.
"Wake up wyverns! I come in peace. Are you friends or foes?"
One of the wyverns opens its baleful reptilian eye and sends the paladin a hateful gaze, then lifts it scaly head and stretces its neck to let out a voluminous shriek so that the other wyvern awakes as well. They come at the paladin quicker than a purple gnome in an ice-cream truck shoots pizza, and the paladin who has not drawn his weapon yet since it would be meta-gaming to even assume that these big reptilian nasties are evil, gets swept off the wyverns' perch high on the cliffs, and falls to his death. The last thing he hears before he hits the rocks at the bottom and cracks his neck is a wyvern's primal shriek high above, but he will not assume that they attack his friends, because his player does not want to be accused of meta-gaming. He is pretty sure it was all just an accident. Why would wyverns do that. Their allignment is neutral.
Question =1)= Why is a Paladin trespassing on the wyverns home ?
Question =2)= How do the wyverns know that this is a paladin. He just looks like another armed & armored intruder.Question =3)= If you woke up next to your wife, and someone was standing next to your bed, in armor and weapons sheafed but very visible. And you had a shotgun under your pillow. You are True Neutral, so what would your first action be? Sit there and listen to the guy, or pull out the shotgun and shoot the trespasser ?
I wonder if those against him falling for this, would be against him falling for it if those actually weren't wyverns but half-(copper)dragon monitor lizards.
For all he knew, they could as well had been.
Mr. Fishy does not have a shot gun or hands. [airbreathing racist]
*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.
I know the range of detect evil, all it means is that the paladin is too lazy to walk over 60 feet from a sleeping wyvern.
And for the record, I am aware that this will quite possibly wake the wyverns because they have a perception of +18, but no one said being a good guy was easy.
If the paladin had some dex, and a few ranks in stealth, they would probably be able to sneak within 60 feet of the wyverns(the paladin already gets a +16 from the wyverns sleeping and being 60 feet away). Also, an invisibility spell from the wizard would give enough bonuses to keep the paladin from being detected.
But these are the kind of things you do when you actually care about the sanctity of life and/or want to make sure you are not condeming an innocent creature to death. Not something I would expect a paladin to do, oh wait, yes I would.
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.
Since I don't use adventure paths at all, I guess I have to go by the RAW.
Although constantly hungry and prone to mayhem, a wyvern that can be befriended (usually through a delicate combination of flattery, intimidation, food, and treasure) becomes a powerful ally. They often serve giants and monstrous humanoids as guardians, and some lizardfolk and boggard tribes even use them as mounts, although such arrangements are quite costly in terms of food and gold, for few are the wyverns who would willingly serve as steeds for lesser creatures for long.
According to the RAW, they can be reasoned with, they can be bargained with, and they can be befriended. Nowhere does it say that you must be evil to do these things. It also says they are impatient and quick to anger, but then so is my dad. Last time I checked that isn't a criminal offense.
For the record, getting rid of the wyverns was most likely a good thing, but like a police officer, I expect paladins for follow certain procedures BEFORE they sanction justice. They can't just start offing random dirtbags because they have a hunch they are up to something.
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.
If the mission was the priority, they could have just snuck past them.
Mr. Fishy's father is an angry Fishy. If the TV doesn't work he calls...he has Mr. Fishy's Mom call to ask were the remote is.
True story. Mr. Fishy could hear him cursing the TV in the background. Mr. Fishy hopes no paladins go by his house while he's sleep in his chair. Mr. Fishy will put out traps.
|
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.
LOL!
You are basically say that you are good to kill an animal you think is dangerous because it is big, flying and poisonous.Is it a giant flying poisonous pit bull?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.
Or at least Not Evil.
(also, not supper)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.
I guess it depends on how you define Danger. A dog safely behind a fence is not as dangerous a Giant Mobile Carnivorous Oleander or a Wyvern for that matter.
Mr. Fishy does not have a shot gun or hands. [airbreathing racist]
LOL, ture
I wonder if those against him falling for this, would be against him falling for it if those actually weren't wyverns but half-(copper)dragon monitor lizards.
For all he knew, they could as well had been.
Heck, for all he knows it could have been two Lawful Good Arch Angles who disguised them selves as Wyverns. He Should Have Checked!
I know the range of detect evil, all it means is that the paladin is too lazy to walk over 60 feet from a sleeping wyvern.*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.
If I was sleeping next to my wife and was woken by a delicious cheeseburger walking into my room to check if I was Evil, well it wouldn’t go to well for the cheeseburger is all I am going to say.
Holy S&!@! That's like Mr. Fishy favorite dream. Does the Cheeseburger have a smaller cheeseburger and a box of fries with him and are they all carrying ketchup packets with them. Mr. Fishy is sooo hungry now, thanks a lot jerk.
The funniest thing about ths is that the only reason wyverns are considered neutral is because all animals have alignment: neutral. It doesn't matter how horrifying the animal is, it's neutral.
In prep for a DS game I was looking at 2nd ed monsters, came across the wyvern and checked it out.
A LOT of people are assuming that the alignment of neutral is a recent oversight.
Even in the old 2e, they were neutral, with evil tendencies. Not even NE.
Someone assumed they were solitary... They are UNLESS with mate and young.
Under combat it says they are "rather stupid, but aggressive" (they were int 5-7 then, so also not new). And that they "will NEARLY always attack" (caps mine). BUT then it goes on to say they are "willing to let prey go that is too powerful" and "understands that men, particularly those armed in bright metal, are stronger than their size would indicate"
So they tend to avoid attacking people due to them being not easy prey.
Just wanted to point out, that it's not new that they are not cold , heartless killers, just angry and hungry.
Heck, for all he knows it could have been two Lawful Good Arch Angles who disguised them selves as Wyverns. He Should Have Checked!I wonder if those against him falling for this, would be against him falling for it if those actually weren't wyverns but half-(copper)dragon monitor lizards.
For all he knew, they could as well had been.
Well I don't generally blame players/characters for not finding out that something is disguised. A couple of LG Archangels who disguise themselves as wyvern will do it very well, probably including a few human corpses around themselves (easy to get with illusion or conjuration magic, or simply using some bad guys... and a dangerously large amount of angels seem to be a little to much "the end justifies the means" ;).
Being half-dragon lizards is a much easier case where they may be good and just generally sleeping.
A bunch of "What-if" scenarios, each more far-fetched than the other, ignoring the ACTUAL scenario
This paladin, along with 99% of the other paladins in Golarion would realistically go "Awh, g~!+*$mit! There's ANOTHER of those screeching, poisonous bastards that keep attacking us whenever we climb 100 feet above sealevel."
But whatever. Keep comparing wyverns to your dad. Otyughs to your moms, Remorazes to your uncle, and a rampaging fire-elemental to your neighbors chihuahua. Neutral babies that needs to be protected.
So, for the sake of satire, WHAT IF: The wyverns were actually Batman and Robin, staking out the tomb where the Riddler and Poison Ivy were concocting some crazy poison that they would put into the villagers water-supply, and make them all speak in riddles? Oooh, ooh! Even better: They are actually the paladin's PARENTS, who were both cursed by the gods for raising their children wrong, telling them that it's OK to kill monsters to protect your friends, and now have to RAISE a couple of wyverns as punishment!
And you know what the hilarious thing is: These scenarios are even LESS far-fetched than some of the ones presented.
What if wyverns are horrible screeching predatory beasts that feast on men and women whenever found and are only given "neutral" because of the weird thought that all animals have to be neutral, despite nature being concretely horrible?
Or is that too far fetched?
A bunch of "What-if" scenarios, each more far-fetched than the other, ignoring the ACTUAL scenarioThis paladin, along with 99% of the other paladins in Golarion would realistically go "Awh, g*+#+#mit! There's ANOTHER of those screeching, poisonous bastards that keep attacking us whenever we climb 100 feet above sealevel."
But whatever. Keep comparing wyverns to your dad. Otyughs to your moms, Remorazes to your uncle, and a rampaging fire-elemental to your neighbors chihuahua. Neutral babies that needs to be protected.
So, for the sake of satire, WHAT IF: The wyverns were actually Batman and Robin, staking out the tomb where the Riddler and Poison Ivy were concocting some crazy poison that they would put into the villagers water-supply, and make them all speak in riddles? Oooh, ooh! Even better: They are actually the paladin's PARENTS, who were both cursed by the gods for raising their children wrong, telling them that it's OK to kill monsters to protect your friends, and now have to RAISE a couple of wyverns as punishment!
And you know what the hilarious thing is: These scenarios are even LESS far-fetched than some of the ones presented.
Funny people keep mention Batman & Robin. Based on Comic books (60,70,80,90) and anime tv serices (Bruse Wayne batman). He would be know as a ""prick"", as listed be some on this board.
He always tried to CAPTURE the bad guys. He would then leave them tied up with police notified, or dumped them on the police dept doorstep.
He did not kill people who were helpless. May threaten them with heights, or let them think he would kill them. But he was bluffing, and did not kill people if he did not get the answers he wanted.
He would go out of his way to save people, even the evil bad guys, from dieing.
Did he, on purpose, make the rumors about him being a monster, creature of the night, mean tough bad guy who hurt people, spread and go around. Yes, all the better to help his image of being Bad Cop. Was he the bad cop in action he took, NO. By his action, he was a Lawful Good person, who worked outside the system, do to the system being corrupt.
Do i think Batman would have killed the Wyvens in their sleep, NO.
Captured them or sedated them if he thought they were wild animals.
Tried to reason with them throw bribe, bluff, or force if he thought they were intellect, yes.
What if wyverns are horrible screeching predatory beasts that feast on men and women whenever found and are only given "neutral" because of the weird thought that all animals have to be neutral, despite nature being concretely horrible?Or is that too far fetched?
(well if we left out that this is a fantasy game, with other intelligent creatures all over the place, in which case this base assumption would be wrong)
Ya, i could see in real life history, this explanation being used.
Then again, this was the same explanation used to justify whipping out and killing human barbarian's and savages. After all, they were less than men because they did not think like us, which means they were just animals be be used if possible, or destroyed if they were a damager to the more civilized white man.
Just because there are many who would use this argument, does not make the argument right. In the real world do i think you could make this argument, sure, but in the real world we do not have an alignment system, nor do we have paladin who follow that alignment system. In the real world, we have poets, folk artiest, story teller, and Science Fiction/Fantasy writers... making up stories about brave hero's. Some of these stores are well done, some are not, and more fuel for the fire :)
What if wyverns are horrible screeching predatory beasts that feast on men and women whenever found and are only given "neutral" because of the weird thought that all animals have to be neutral, despite nature being concretely horrible?Or is that too far fetched?(well if we left out that this is a fantasy game, with other intelligent creatures all over the place, in which case this base assumption would be wrong)
Ya, i could see in real life history, this explanation being used.
Then again, this was the same explanation used to justify whipping out and killing human barbarian's and savages. After all, they were less than men because they did not think like us, which means they were just animals be be used if possible, or destroyed if they were a damager to the more civilized white man.
Just because there are many who would use this argument, does not make the argument right. In the real world do i think you could make this argument, sure, but in the real world we do not have an alignment system, nor do we have paladin who follow that alignment system. In the real world, we have poets, folk artiest, story teller, and Science Fiction/Fantasy writers... making up stories about brave hero's. Some of these stores are well done, some are not, and more fuel for the fire :)
Just as dragons are just animals to humanoids, humanoids are just animals to dragons. Do you think dragons think any more of us? Dragons eat humanoids. Humanoids are just silly little animals on 2 legs who sometimes manage to learn their language.
If barbarians were known to hunt and eat their kind, do you think even a good dragon would stop to reconsider a tribe of barbarians resting near their home? They would feel threatened and wouldn't bother waking up the tribe to parley, these thing hunt and eat their kind.
Of course, that doesn't happen in Golarion because barbarian humanoids don't go around hunting and eating dragons, but if they did... you know what would happen
Just as dragons are just animals to humanoids, humanoids are just animals to dragons. Do you think dragons think any more of us? Dragons eat humanoids. Humanoids are just silly little animals on 2 legs who sometimes manage to learn their language.
You are making assumption. First that All humans see dragons as animals... which is not true. Second that all dragons see humans as animals... which is also not true. Either way, this has nothing to do with the alignment restriction that paladins must both be Lawful and Good.
If barbarians were known to hunt and eat their kind, do you think even a good dragon would stop to reconsider a tribe of barbarians resting near their home? They would feel threatened and wouldn't bother waking up the tribe to parley, these thing hunt and eat their kind.
If they are of Good Alignment. yes. That is the difference, between a good, neutral, and evil dragon.... their alignment. Yes, i would expect a Good Dragon to not kill humans in their sleep, not slay children, or the helpless... because if they did, they would no longer be good dragons.
Of course, that doesn't happen in Golarion because barbarian humanoids don't go around hunting and eating dragons, but if they did... you...
I do not know Golerion. I am going what is in Pathfinder Player Handbook, and Bestiary. I make my argument based on Alignment and what a good person would do.
For those that have said "Hunters dream for the hunters god"... It might have been EASY to kill them, but it wasn't SPORTSMANS-like.
It wasn't hunting... it was the slaughtering of sleeping creatures.
For that ALONE I'd have the god take the Paladins powers.
What? Hunting? Sportsmanlike? Where do you get this kind of logic from? Hunting is about putting meat on the table. It's about tracking down and killing the wolf that ate your sheep, so they can't eat any more of your sheep. It's about putting a nice warm bear pelt on your bed so you don't freeze in the winter nights. Hunting is about survival in a harsh world. Always has been.
Sure, some rich people at various times have hunted 'for sport', but those guys also generally used dogs, drivers, horses and other totally unfair advantages in the course of hunting. Because they weren't stupid and didn't want to get killed by the dangerous things in the woods while they were having fun.
Bottom line, if the paladin decided it was necessary to kill something, killing it as quickly as possible is the best method. He's not killing for the sport of it (example: cats vs mice - cats are bastards).
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.
1. "They are always aggressive,", "Prefer to fight first and parley later, even then on if faced with a foe they can neither defeat nor flee from","constantly hungry and prone to mayhem". This is all straight out of the Pathfinder Bestiary. It's obvious the TYPICAL wyvern behavior is 'attack, flee if you must, parley as a last resort'. Wake up a wyvern and you should expect to get attacked - it really is that simple. They are not slumbering humanoids, either - you can subdue/tie a person up. You can't do that with a wyvern. Your range of reasonable options are extremely small; leave, ignore, kill. You have to beat an average wyvern to within an inch of its life before it will parley.
2. Wyverns aren't described as being very Neutral. If that's basic neutral behavior for 'intelligent' creatures, Neutrality is a lot more forgiving than I would have thought. The only reason I can think of that they're listed as Neutral is that they act only from necessity (food/territory) rather than pure malice. That STILL doesn't change them from being aggressive eating machines, does it?
3. Detect Evil has a range, isn't foolproof, and just because a thing isn't Evil doesn't mean it isn't a huge threat. Phase Spiders? Remorhaz? Shambling Mounds? All are above bestial intelligence and Neutral, yet they still totally attack and eat things pretty much whenever they're hungry. Being Neutral doesn't give you a free pass is you behave in a manner that threatens innocent people and societies. Being a paladin doesn't mean "If it isn't Evil, I can't touch it." It DOES mean "I will protect society and my party from dangerous predators.", however.
But do _NOT_ come here and tell others they are doing it wrong, when I, and my likeminded think that they are, in fact, not doing so.
Fixed that for ya.
I already said. We don't have to prove you wrong to make US right. And you simply failed, together with other, over 14 pages of discussion, to EITHER justify the action without assuming metagaming, or giving reasons that make the paladin any better than your stereotypical wyverns.
I have made several highly relevant reasons, reflected by my intimate knowledge of the encounter in question, the exact situations, and the reasons behind it. I fail to convince YOU, sure, but to be honest, I don't care. Your arguments are either subjective or inconsistent (Going from defending RAW in all it's logical fallacy, to "Alignments are subjective - everyone plays creatures differently - my drow are not always evil" in one post), yet you seem find yourself fit to condemn the arguments of others just as vehemently as I condemn arguments of people who think an utterly illogical* encounter merits a fallen paladin.
* = NO animal sleeps in plain sight, much less a cunning one. According to the adventure path, their nest is a FLAT dc35 to spot from a favorable position, and would easily go up to 46 from the position the party would be in when they attacked. Don't tell me that people at lv7-9 have more than +25 to perception, because that is nearly impossible unless you are investing half your feats in it, and play an elf druid. And even then, in order to qualify as "Killing them in their sleep", the party needed to have some truly epic ranged potential to kill two wyverns in one round at several hundred feet distance.
I will never convince the hard-core "Death to the evil paladin!" crowd, and I have come to terms with that. Just don't go around thinking that you are any more "right" than me and those who agree with me, in an argument that is based on what can ultimately summed up by the sagacious words of The Dude; "That's just, like, your opinion man..."
If the paladin did some of the things you think that I obviously must condone, such as killing peasants that own a dagger, animals that have natural attacks, etc etc etc etc ad nauseum, we would have something WORTH debating. Killing the wyverns in Z3 of Varnhold Vanishing, based on the knowledge the players should have by then, and the evidence of man-slaughter found in their nest... is completely reasonable. THAT is what I am arguing. That the wyverns were sleeping out on in plain sight asking to be attacked by ANYTHING... was something the GM added by himself, and not part of the original encounter.
If people want to have paladins encounter sleeping drow babies to create "moral dilemmas", then go ahead, just don't expect me to think that it is anything but silly to make that encounter in the first place.
1) Wyverns are aggressive = Cool, then leave them alone, just like you do the barbarian tribe that lives next door.
2) Wyverns are not described as being very neutral = Sure they are. They are not out to fight others. They are just hunt for food, shelter, and to protect themselves. Some wyveerns are good, some are bad, but they as a society are neutral.... same as humans.
3) Even if something is evil. That does not give a Good creature the right to kill it on sight without reason. Just because it is large, and might be dangers, is not reason to kill it on sight... investigate it to find out if it is evil, sure. Investigate it to find out whats it doing their, sure. If it is aggressive, and it attacks you, do you have the right to defend yourself... and kill it then, sure.
Maybe these creatures are neutral, is because there society, like human society, is neutral.
Wyverns are still aggressive eating machines... but then so are humans. Wyverns and humans both compete for food, shelter, and resources in the same area's. They are both aggressive, think they are right, and do not like talking to others who are not like themselves.
If a human kills a sleeping wyverns, because they think they are a threat, in there sleep without checking. Then that human is neutral in alignment. Most humans are neutral, and do not spend the effort or time needed to verify if they are right or correct in their actions.
If a wyvern kills a sleeping human, because they think they are a threat, in there sleep without checking. Then that wyvern is neutral in alignment. Most wyvern are neutral, and do not spend the effort or time needed to verify if they are right or correct in their actions.
Humans or Wyvers who kill out of sport, fun, money, or greed. Well then you have evil alignments.
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.
1. "They are always aggressive,", "Prefer to fight first and parley later, even then on if faced with a foe they can neither defeat nor flee from","constantly hungry and prone to mayhem". This is all straight out of the Pathfinder Bestiary. It's obvious the TYPICAL wyvern behavior is 'attack, flee if you must, parley as a last resort'. Wake up a wyvern and you should expect to get attacked - it really is that simple. They are not slumbering humanoids, either - you can subdue/tie a person up. You can't do that with a wyvern. Your range of reasonable options are extremely small; leave, ignore, kill. You have to beat an average wyvern to within an inch of its life before it will parley.
While I agree that they will usually attack, my point is that it isn't a 100% thing. They are smart enough to avoid attacking something that they know is stronger than they are.
2. Wyverns aren't described as being very Neutral. If that's basic neutral behavior for 'intelligent' creatures, Neutrality is a lot more forgiving than I would have thought. The only reason I can think of that they're listed as Neutral is that they act only from necessity (food/territory) rather than pure malice. That STILL doesn't change them from being aggressive eating machines, does it?
That is exactly why they are neutral. They are territorial in that they want to keep other hunters out of their turf. But they don't go wandering around just looking for random people to torture for fun.
Defending your turf make them no different from a group of villagers who refuse to flee when an armor of orcs tries to drive them from their homes.
3. Detect Evil has a range, isn't foolproof, and just because a thing isn't Evil doesn't mean it isn't a huge threat. Phase Spiders? Remorhaz? Shambling Mounds? All are above bestial intelligence and Neutral, yet they still totally attack and eat things pretty much whenever they're hungry. Being Neutral doesn't give you a free pass is you behave in a manner that threatens innocent people and societies. Being a paladin doesn't mean "If it isn't Evil, I can't touch it." It DOES mean "I will protect society and my party from dangerous predators.", however.
I agree, but the point is that the paladin didn't have any reason to justify his attack other than metagaming than "They are going to attack us later, I know it" If he had tried to detect evil. If he had consulted a map to see how far away the nearest villages were. If he had sent the rogue in to look for human remains. Then, he would have had justification, but he didn't even try to determine if they actually were a threat.
I expect a police officer to follow the law and use due process. They can't just walk into the mansion and shoot the butler. If anything, I hold paladins to a higher standard.
1) Wyverns are aggressive = Cool, then leave them alone, just like you do the barbarian tribe that lives next door.
Except the party CAN'T. They have to climb a cliff right by them and are certain to be attacked. They can't just walk away, can't ignore them, and basically can't parley with them until they've beaten the snot out of them (based on the description of wyverns in general, and the AP in specific).
2) Wyverns are not described as being very neutral = Sure they are. They are not out to fight others. They are just hunt for food, shelter, and to protect themselves. Some wyveerns are good, some are bad, but they as a society are neutral.... same as humans.
Neutrals are not 'prone to mayhem' or 'prefer to fight first'.
3) Even if something is evil. That does not give a Good creature the right to kill it on sight without reason.
THERE'S the important phrase 'without reason'. The paladin HAD reason - prevent the wyverns from killing the party in the immediate future. This was a very real threat and a HIGH probability of happening.
Wyverns are still aggressive eating machines... but then so are humans. Wyverns and humans both compete for food, shelter, and resources in the same area's. They are both aggressive, think they are right, and do not like talking to others who are not like themselves.
I call B.S. on that one. Humans in a fantasy setting co-exist with other humans, elves, gnomes, good dragons, dwarves, etc. etc. etc. Wyverns co-exist to mate. Period. No communities, no societies, no nothing. They'll work for things that can obviously overpower them and will give them food in recompense - assuming they can't run away.
They're not big humans with stingers and wings. They're monsters.
1) Wyverns are aggressive = Cool, then leave them alone, just like you do the barbarian tribe that lives next door.Except the party CAN'T. They have to climb a cliff right by them and are certain to be attacked. They can't just walk away, can't ignore them, and basically can't parley with them until they've beaten the snot out of them (based on the description of wyverns in general, and the AP in specific).
2) Wyverns are not described as being very neutral = Sure they are. They are not out to fight others. They are just hunt for food, shelter, and to protect themselves. Some wyveerns are good, some are bad, but they as a society are neutral.... same as humans.Neutrals are not 'prone to mayhem' or 'prefer to fight first'.
3) Even if something is evil. That does not give a Good creature the right to kill it on sight without reason.THERE'S the important phrase 'without reason'. The paladin HAD reason - prevent the wyverns from killing the party in the immediate future. This was a very real threat and a HIGH probability of happening.
Wyverns are still aggressive eating machines... but then so are humans. Wyverns and humans both compete for food, shelter, and resources in the same area's. They are both aggressive, think they are right, and do not like talking to others who are not like themselves.
I call B.S. on that one. Humans in a fantasy setting co-exist with other humans, elves, gnomes, good dragons, dwarves, etc. etc. etc. Wyverns co-exist to mate. Period. No communities, no societies, no nothing. They'll work for things that can obviously overpower them and will give them food in recompense - assuming they can't run away.
They're not big humans with stingers and wings. They're monsters.
I second Helic.
I have made several highly relevant reasons, reflected by my intimate knowledge of the encounter in question, the exact situations, and the reasons behind it. I fail to convince YOU, sure, but to be honest, I don't care. Your arguments are either subjective or inconsistent (Going from defending RAW in all it's logical fallacy, to "Alignments are subjective - everyone plays creatures differently - my drow are not always evil" in one post), yet you seem find yourself fit to condemn the arguments of others just as vehemently as I condemn arguments of people who think an utterly illogical* encounter merits a fallen paladin.
News Flash, the DM changed the encounter. That means, among other things, that everything you think you know about the encounter is probably wrong.
Second, even if the DM ran the encounter exactly like you describe it, and the player knew every one of those details, then the player is a metagamer, because there is no way the paladin's character could have known any of those details without doing some investigation.
* = NO animal sleeps in plain sight, much less a cunning one. According to the adventure path, their nest is a FLAT dc35 to spot from a favorable position, and would easily go up to 46 from the position the party would be in when they attacked. Don't tell me that people at lv7-9 have more than +25 to perception, because that is nearly impossible unless you are investing half your feats in it, and play an elf druid. And even then, in order to qualify as "Killing them in their sleep", the party needed to have some truly epic ranged potential to kill two wyverns in one round at several hundred feet distance.
Lions do it all the time. It comes with being the alpha predator in the region. When you are not afraid on anything in the area, you sleep anywhere you damn well please. With two +18 perception checks, most things would be lucky to get within 50 feet of the wyverns without waking them up. Not to mention, most of the creatures in the area would know to stay the hell away from that area.
The party did spot them sleeping, so obviously it wasn't a DC35-45 perception check.
I will never convince the hard-core "Death to the evil paladin!" crowd, and I have come to terms with that. Just don't go around thinking that you are any more "right" than me and those who agree with me, in an argument that is based on what can ultimately summed up by the sagacious words of The Dude; "That's just, like, your opinion man..."If the paladin did some of the things you think that I obviously must condone, such as killing peasants that own a dagger, animals that have natural attacks, etc etc etc etc ad nauseum, we would have something WORTH debating. Killing the wyverns in Z3 of Varnhold Vanishing, based on the knowledge the players should have by then, and the evidence of man-slaughter found in their nest... is completely reasonable. THAT is what I am arguing. That the wyverns were sleeping out on in plain sight asking to be attacked by ANYTHING... was something the GM added by himself, and not part of the original encounter.
Let me spell it out for you since you seem to have trouble grasping the core of our problem. The ends don't justify the means. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is still a bad thing. If the ends justify the means, then you can do a lot of the things we described and still be considered good.
The paladin very well may have done the world a great service by killing a vicious predator, but he did it for all the wrong reasons(half of which were metagaming).
If I kill an evil irredeemable serial killer, I have done my community a great service.
If I killed him because he looked at me funny, I am no better than he is.
I really don't care if you agree with this, I just want you to understand why myself and several other have a problem with what the paladin did. If you want to run your morality where only the end result matters, great, but I don't do things that way.
1) Wyverns are aggressive = Cool, then leave them alone, just like you do the barbarian tribe that lives next door.Except the party CAN'T. They have to climb a cliff right by them and are certain to be attacked. They can't just walk away, can't ignore them, and basically can't parley with them until they've beaten the snot out of them (based on the description of wyverns in general, and the AP in specific).
2) Wyverns are not described as being very neutral = Sure they are. They are not out to fight others. They are just hunt for food, shelter, and to protect themselves. Some wyveerns are good, some are bad, but they as a society are neutral.... same as humans.Neutrals are not 'prone to mayhem' or 'prefer to fight first'.
I could describe my 11 month old daughter as "prone to mayhem".
Hell, those phrases describe half the male teenagers I have known.
All that does is reinforce my opinion that wyverns are immature or savage dragons. Just like barbarians are savage humans.
3) Even if something is evil. That does not give a Good creature the right to kill it on sight without reason.THERE'S the important phrase 'without reason'. The paladin HAD reason - prevent the wyverns from killing the party in the immediate future. This was a very real threat and a HIGH probability of happening.
Most of the paladin's reasons were metagaming. If you remove those, the paladin didn't have any good reason to attack. A little investigating could have turned up some good reasons, but he didn't bother.
Wyverns are still aggressive eating machines... but then so are humans. Wyverns and humans both compete for food, shelter, and resources in the same area's. They are both aggressive, think they are right, and do not like talking to others who are not like themselves.
I call B.S. on that one. Humans in a fantasy setting co-exist with other humans, elves, gnomes, good dragons, dwarves, etc. etc. etc. Wyverns co-exist to mate. Period. No communities, no societies, no nothing. They'll work for things that can obviously overpower them and will give them food in recompense - assuming they can't run away.
They're not big humans with stingers and wings. They're monsters.
Some groups of humans co-exist fine. Others, like a tribe of savage barbarians, will attack anyone who comes into their territory. If beaten in combat, only then a barbarian tribe will parley.
In several campaign settings, elves have been known to be quite hostile to anyone who intrudes on their sacred lands. Shoot first, question the bodies later.
First, wyverns are NOT humanoids!
Also, check this out.
Last, can a moderator please rename this thread to 'Are wyverns evil?'?
First, wyverns are NOT humanoids!
Also, check this out.
Last, can a moderator please rename this thread to 'Are wyverns evil?'?
Did not say they were humanoids.... just that humanoids & wyvern did not act that differently.
I checked out the link... with the many different wyvern. So different types have different alignments. Just as different classes have different alignments.
The question is not are Wyverns evil, or even if they are neutral. The question is what is a Lawful Good person doing, killing a creature in its sleep, that he has no knowledge about, does not know, and did not spend the time or effort to find out about ... before murdering it in its sleep.
First, wyverns are NOT humanoids!
Also, check this out.
Last, can a moderator please rename this thread to 'Are wyverns evil?'?
Nah, that is an easy question, and largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Interesting little tidbit from that link
Celestial Wyvern
Many adventurers mistakenly believe the wyvern to be a wholly evil creature. In truth, though it is certainly savage and aggressive, the typical wyvern has no leaning toward evil or any other alignment. In fact, a small population of noble and ferocious wyverns exists on the upper planes -- most notably the Wilderness of the Beastlands. Here, on the dusky layer of Brux, flights of celestial wyverns soar through the skies, their sparkling scales reflecting the sunlight. Some spellcasters have learned to summon these creatures, and particularly brave heroes occasionally try to tame them for mounts.
The real debate is: how far does a paladin need to go to verify that something deserved to die before they are allowed to murder that creature in cold blood?
Okay, let's forget the wyverns for a second. Let's go with another intelligent neutral creature: the mimic.
Mimics are INT 10--not only smarter than the average bear, but as smart as the average human. They are completely neutral. However, they have this emotional need to get their jollies by impersonating inanimate objects then attacking people who they successfully fool.
So the paladin gets word that there's this mimic that gets its jollies by sneaking into roadside shrines and impersonating the holy water font so that the first person to walk up, stick their hands in its mouthful of spit, then close their eyes and start mumbling prayers, suddenly has their head swallowed by the ravening maw that replaces the basin of the font. Hilarious!
The mimic is completely non-denominational. It's impersonated the sacramental beer keg at the shrine of Cayden Cailean, the unholy bath of virgin's blood at the shrine of Asmodeus, the fanged devouring maw of spit at the shrine of Rovugug (really easy to do that one), but it's currently at the shrine of Iomedae looking like a fairly standard holy water font except that the party ranger has spotted it with his spyglass and hands it to the paladin so he can watch it in the process of eating a nun. The wizard then mentions that mimics are intelligent, so if they go in and proceed with Diplomacy, talking to it as if it were a person, it may say something like "Aw shucks, you got me. What gave me away? Was my holy water font disguise too Art Deco or something?" and they could probably convince it to go somewhere else so the paladin could pray in peace at the shrine like he wanted.
Let it be stressed--the mimic is completely neutral in all this. It just gets its jollies by eating people it fools, and if you tell it you're not fooled and are polite about it, it will probably be a good sport about the whole thing and go somewhere else, because there's no fun in it anymore once it's been made.
Yes, it just ate a blessed nun. Last week it ate a satanist The week before it got a drunk and a bunch of goblins who shrieked in ecstasy as they were devoured by what they thought was the maw of their god. It's neutral.
Exactly what is the paladin supposed to do?
"Wake up wyverns! I come in peace. Are you friends or foes?"
One of the wyverns opens its baleful reptilian eye and sends the paladin a hateful gaze, then lifts it scaly head and stretces its neck to let out a voluminous shriek so that the other wyvern awakes as well. They come at the paladin quicker than a purple gnome in an ice-cream truck shoots pizza, and the paladin who has not drawn his weapon yet since it would be meta-gaming to even assume that these big reptilian nasties are evil, gets swept off the wyverns' perch high on the cliffs, and falls to his death. The last thing he hears before he hits the rocks at the bottom and cracks his neck is a wyvern's primal shriek high above, but he will not assume that they attack his friends, because his player does not want to be accused of meta-gaming. He is pretty sure it was all just an accident. Why would wyverns do that. Their allignment is neutral.Question =1)= Why is a Paladin trespassing on the wyverns home ?
Question =2)= How do the wyverns know that this is a paladin. He just looks like another armed & armored intruder.
Question =3)= If you woke up next to your wife, and someone was standing next to your bed, in armor and weapons sheafed but very visible. And you had a shotgun under your pillow. You are True Neutral, so what would your first action be? Sit there and listen to the guy, or pull out the shotgun and shoot the trespasser ?
Answer =1)= Trespassing on the wyverns home. Heheh. What a burglar. Why are you trespassing on the animals' home whenever you take a walk outside your own?
Answer =2)= Who said the wyvern knows its a paladin? The wyvern just has baleful eye and hateful gaze generally.Answer =3)= Lol. What does that has to do with anything? But even as Lawful Good I would the shotgun on them, and then show them politely to the door. I doubt I would sting them with a poisonous tail, eat them while they are still alive, or grab them with my talons and fly up in the sky only to drop them to their death.
First, wyverns are NOT humanoids!
Also, check this out.
Last, can a moderator please rename this thread to 'Are wyverns evil?'?Nah, that is an easy question, and largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Interesting little tidbit from that link
** spoiler omitted **The real debate is: how far does a paladin need to go to verify that something deserved to die before they are allowed to murder that creature in cold blood?
That wyvern are NOT humanoids is relevant to the discussion at hand in the context that some keep using humanoid examples for comparing.
Yeah. Did you notice that one in particular is 'Celestial'?
I hardly see it as murder in cold blood... That's not how I picture it anyways.
First, wyverns are NOT humanoids!
Also, check this out.
Last, can a moderator please rename this thread to 'Are wyverns evil?'?Did not say they were humanoids.... just that humanoids & wyvern did not act that differently.
I checked out the link... with the many different wyvern. So different types have different alignments. Just as different classes have different alignments.
The question is not are Wyverns evil, or even if they are neutral. The question is what is a Lawful Good person doing, killing a creature in its sleep, that he has no knowledge about, does not know, and did not spend the time or effort to find out about ... before murdering it in its sleep.
Nonetheless, damn near every example I see here compares wyverns to humanoids.
Notice that they don't have different alignments. The ones I checked were all N. They did however have very different descriptions.
... ... Yeah I'm not gonna answer that. Ok I will do it anyway. "What pis a Lawful Good person doing, killing a creature in its sleep?"... It's not a cute little rabbit for gawds sake. "Spend the time or efffort to find out about"... Adventurers, NOT zoologists!
Mimic stuff
Exactly what is the paladin supposed to do?
Since the paladin has done his research, and knows in character that the mimic is a threat to innocent people, I have no problem with him killing the mimic. If the paladin hasn't done his research, but gets attacked by the mimic, he also has the green light to kill. He should refrain from busting into random churches and smashing all their kegs/fonts/<insert random container here>.
Okay, let's forget the wyverns for a second. Let's go with another intelligent neutral creature: the mimic.
Mimics are INT 10--not only smarter than the average bear, but as smart as the average human. They are completely neutral. However, they have this emotional need to get their jollies by impersonating inanimate objects then attacking people who they successfully fool.
So the paladin gets word that there's this mimic that gets its jollies by sneaking into roadside shrines and impersonating the holy water font so that the first person to walk up, stick their hands in its mouthful of spit, then close their eyes and start mumbling prayers, suddenly has their head swallowed by the ravening maw that replaces the basin of the font. Hilarious!
The mimic is completely non-denominational. It's impersonated the sacramental beer keg at the shrine of Cayden Cailean, the unholy bath of virgin's blood at the shrine of Asmodeus, the fanged devouring maw of spit at the shrine of Rovugug (really easy to do that one), but it's currently at the shrine of Iomedae looking like a fairly standard holy water font except that the party ranger has spotted it with his spyglass and hands it to the paladin so he can watch it in the process of eating a nun. The wizard then mentions that mimics are intelligent, so if they go in and proceed with Diplomacy, talking to it as if it were a person, it may say something like "Aw shucks, you got me. What gave me away? Was my holy water font disguise too Art Deco or something?" and they could probably convince it to go somewhere else so the paladin could pray in peace at the shrine like he wanted.
Let it be stressed--the mimic is completely neutral in all this. It just gets its jollies by eating people it fools, and if you tell it you're not fooled and are polite about it, it will probably be a good sport about the whole thing and go somewhere else, because there's no fun in it anymore once it's been made.
Yes, it just ate a blessed nun. Last week it ate a satanist The...
Heheh good point! :)