Oliver McShade |
Nonetheless, damn near every example I see here compares wyverns to humanoids.
---------------------------------------------
Well that is because they have humanoid intelligence, and alignment.
Just because it looks like an animal to you, does not mean they are animals, they act like animal, ..... well at least no more some than humans do :)
Which leads us back to comparing humans to wyvern, do to how they act similar, when compared to same alignment.
Oliver McShade |
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote: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>.Mimic stuff
Exactly what is the paladin supposed to do?
Good point.
Charender |
Nonetheless, damn near every example I see here compares wyverns to humanoids.
Humans are the baseline for morality.
If a paladin were to kill any human, even an evil one, without cause in my campaigns, they would fall.... hard.It also removes the it was big, mean, and ugly looking from the equation. To me what a creature looks like doesn't matter. What if it had been a half copper dragon/wyvern, a half-celestial wyvern, or a celestial wyvern? Big, check. Flying, check. Poisonous, check.
Even if the creature was a Evil Evil half-fiend wyvern, I would still have a problem with what the paladin did, because the paladin had no way on knowing it was a half-fiend wyvern without metagaming.
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!
Paladin, not Barbarian! If you want to play a character that smashes everything they see that looks like a threat, don't play a paladin.
this guy ate my previous avatar |
Nonetheless, damn near every example I see here compares wyverns to humanoids.
---------------------------------------------
Well that is because they have humanoid intelligence, and alignment.
Just because it looks like an animal to you, does not mean they are animals, they act like animal, ..... well at least no more some than humans do :)
Which leads us back to comparing humans to wyvern, do to how they act similar, when compared to same alignment.
Oh, my bad, I failed to comprehend that in all fantasy games humanoids have monopoly on intelligence and alignment...
To me, I would say it looks slightly more evil than a regular animal. A mix between a giant bird, a crocodile and a scorpion... Well, I can see why you might see them as animals. I don't act like an animal. Not since kindergarten anyway. Do you?
Each alignment has a much broader group of different behaviorisms. Two entities who are both neutral, can be very, very different. In your game, is every neutral monster acting like a neutral human druid?
this guy ate my previous avatar |
It also removes the it was big, mean, and ugly looking from the equation. To me what a creature looks like doesn't matter. What if it had been a half copper dragon/wyvern, a half-celestial wyvern, or a celestial wyvern? Big, check. Flying, check. Poisonous, check.
In the case we are discussing, it is not a cozy home with some sleeping humanoids they intrude on. It is a nest of big, mean, and ugly looking creatures. Big, flying, posionous, carnivorous, don't give a purple gnome's ass for conversations with adventurers, reptilian monsters.
Goth Guru |
Well maybe you are missing the point.
It's a Zen question.
Why is a poisonous, sneaky, bloodthirsty, smart enough to know better wyvern neutral?
Think about this till your mind boggles and becomes empty of thoughts. Now you are ready to meditate, or pray, or just relax. If that doesn't work, ask yourself why a paladin should wake one up before fighting one.
There is no answer, nor should there be.
Charender |
Oliver McShade wrote:Nonetheless, damn near every example I see here compares wyverns to humanoids.
---------------------------------------------
Well that is because they have humanoid intelligence, and alignment.
Just because it looks like an animal to you, does not mean they are animals, they act like animal, ..... well at least no more some than humans do :)
Which leads us back to comparing humans to wyvern, do to how they act similar, when compared to same alignment.
Oh, my bad, I failed to comprehend that in all fantasy games humanoids have monopoly on intelligence and alignment...
To me, I would say it looks slightly more evil than a regular animal. A mix between a giant bird, a crocodile and a scorpion... Well, I can see why you might see them as animals. I don't act like an animal. Not since kindergarten anyway. Do you?
Each alignment has a much broader group of different behaviorisms. Two entities who are both neutral, can be very, very different. In your game, is every neutral monster acting like a neutral human druid?
Humans are something we all understand. I have never met a wyvern, so I have to approximate them based on something I do understand. I imagine they are similar in personality to a slightly retarded aggressive male teenager.
"What did you say about my mother? I'm gonna smash ya face in!!!!"
this guy ate my previous avatar |
Humans are the baseline for morality.
and therefor it is easiest to give creatures who have no moral or whose thinking is too alien to humans, to compare it to the human baseline for morality, the alignment neutral.
If a paladin were to kill any human, even an evil one, without cause in my campaigns, they would fall.... hard.
Ok... *cough* humans you say. Well I'm talking about wyverns. Kind of my point in what you quoted from my post.
Even if the creature was a Evil Evil half-fiend wyvern, I would still have a problem with what the paladin did, because the paladin had no way on knowing it was a half-fiend wyvern without metagaming.
Does it have to have a devil parent to be a threat to the society the paladin has sworn to protect, or himself, his friends and his mission?
IMO it's more metagaming to try to find out what moves the wyvern, instead of playing the paladin's (very fantasy-setting human [pre-Natural Geographic influenced homo sapiens]) reaction, which is in this case to attack the sleeping wyverns, assuming that they will attack them first chance they would get.Paladin, not Barbarian! If you want to play a character that smashes everything they see that looks like a threat, don't play a paladin.
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!
... ... Yeah I'm not gonna answer that. Ok I will do it anyway. No wait, I have a hard time getting your logic. I have to reflect for a moment. Oh you are saying that I say that every adventurers must smash up everything that they see that looks like a threat and that I probably should not play a paladin, because I fail to see the difference between a barbarian and a paladin. Oh, ok.
Charender |
Charender wrote:In the case we are discussing, it is not a cozy home with some sleeping humanoids they intrude on. It is a nest of big, mean, and ugly looking creatures. Big, flying, posionous, carnivorous, don't give a purple gnome's ass for conversations with adventurers, reptilian monsters.
It also removes the it was big, mean, and ugly looking from the equation. To me what a creature looks like doesn't matter. What if it had been a half copper dragon/wyvern, a half-celestial wyvern, or a celestial wyvern? Big, check. Flying, check. Poisonous, check.
Everything in bold is assumed based on what? Previous encounters with wyverns? Stories told around the campfire to scare children?
And if it had been a half-copper dragon/wyvern?
It would have been a nest of a big and ugly looking creature. Big, flying, poisionous, carnivorous, but looking for someone to trade some jokes with, maybe a prank or two.
Kevin Andrew Murphy Contributor |
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote: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>.Mimic stuff
Exactly what is the paladin supposed to do?
So the paladin, having slain this mimic, later on goes down the road and from a distance successfully spot a very large mimic taking the form of a children's playhouse or a halfling-size vacation cottage. He has not seen this mimic eat any other sentient beings. He could, possibly , think that this mimic was not waiting for random halflings or human children but is instead laying in wait for bears, even though there isn't a sign that says HUNN-E INSEID, but then again, being intelligent, mimics know that bears are illiterate.
What is the paladin supposed to do now about the mimic sitting by the side of the road looking like something from a miniature golf park?
this guy ate my previous avatar |
this guy ate my previous avatar wrote:Charender wrote:In the case we are discussing, it is not a cozy home with some sleeping humanoids they intrude on. It is a nest of big, mean, and ugly looking creatures. Big, flying, posionous, carnivorous, don't give a purple gnome's ass for conversations with adventurers, reptilian monsters.
It also removes the it was big, mean, and ugly looking from the equation. To me what a creature looks like doesn't matter. What if it had been a half copper dragon/wyvern, a half-celestial wyvern, or a celestial wyvern? Big, check. Flying, check. Poisonous, check.
Everything in bold is assumed based on what? Previous encounters with wyverns? Stories told around the campfire to scare children?
And if it had been a half-copper dragon/wyvern?
It would have been a nest of a big and ugly looking creature. Big, flying, poisionous, carnivorous, but looking for someone to trade some jokes with, maybe a prank or two.
wyvern canon aka wyvern lore aka common [fantasy setting humanoid] sense
what's up with all your answers having something to do with half-something half-wyverns. Now it's a half-copper dragon/half-wyvern whoa. What if it had?
Looking for someone to trade some jokes with, maybe a prank or two. Boy, if I was the DM and you were the players, you would often be punished for being naive when it comes to monsters. Maybe I'm just not watching enough new-school cartoons.
Charender |
Charender wrote:Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote: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>.Mimic stuff
Exactly what is the paladin supposed to do?
So the paladin, having slain this mimic, later on goes down the road and from a distance successfully spot a very large mimic taking the form of a children's playhouse or a halfling-size vacation cottage. He has not seen this mimic eat any other sentient beings. He could, possibly , think that this mimic was not waiting for random halflings or human children but is instead laying in wait for bears, even though there isn't a sign that says HUNN-E INSEID, but then again, being intelligent, mimics know that bears are illiterate.
What is the paladin supposed to do now about the mimic sitting by the side of the road looking like something from a miniature golf park?
Well lets see. He knows first hand that.
A. Mimics are predators.B. It is set up shop beside a well traveled road.
It is pretty safe to assume it is a threat to any random children that might be traveling alone down the road to go to grandmas. He should leave it because getting eaten by the mimic will keep Little Red Riding Hood from getting killed by the wolf, and that really is for the greater good. Getting eaten by a mimic is much more humane.
Now if the same mimic was set up next to the entrance of a dangerous tomb that was known to be frequented by evil types, he should seriously consider leaving it alone.
this guy ate my previous avatar |
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:Charender wrote:Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote: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>.Mimic stuff
Exactly what is the paladin supposed to do?
So the paladin, having slain this mimic, later on goes down the road and from a distance successfully spot a very large mimic taking the form of a children's playhouse or a halfling-size vacation cottage. He has not seen this mimic eat any other sentient beings. He could, possibly , think that this mimic was not waiting for random halflings or human children but is instead laying in wait for bears, even though there isn't a sign that says HUNN-E INSEID, but then again, being intelligent, mimics know that bears are illiterate.
What is the paladin supposed to do now about the mimic sitting by the side of the road looking like something from a miniature golf park?
Well lets see. He knows first hand that.
A. Mimics are predators.
B. It is set up shop beside a well traveled road.It is pretty safe to assume it is a threat to any random children that might be traveling alone down the road to go to grandmas. He should leave it because getting eaten by the mimic will keep Little Red Riding Hood from getting killed by the wolf, and that really is for the greater good. Getting eaten by a mimic is much more humane.
Now if the same mimic was set up next to the entrance of a dangerous tomb that was known to be frequented by evil types, he should seriously consider leaving it alone.
In other words, the paladin's new job description is not to remove threats to the safety of the random children that travels alone down the road to go to their grandmas, is it to leave such threats alone. Especially if the paladin is going for a dungeon such as a dangerous tomb, he should leave threats alone.
Freehold DM |
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?
I think I mentioned before that back in the day many predators were considered Neutral(Evil) in terms of alignment. Maybe this should be brought back?
Oliver McShade |
ProfessorCirno wrote:I think I mentioned before that back in the day many predators were considered Neutral(Evil) in terms of alignment. Maybe this should be brought back?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?
Cool... just remember to list Humans as Neutral(evil) since humans are predators also.
Kerym Ammath |
Freehold DM wrote:Cool... just remember to list Humans as Neutral(evil) since humans are predators also.ProfessorCirno wrote:I think I mentioned before that back in the day many predators were considered Neutral(Evil) in terms of alignment. Maybe this should be brought back?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?
Omnivores.
Oliver McShade |
Oliver McShade wrote:Omnivores.Freehold DM wrote:Cool... just remember to list Humans as Neutral(evil) since humans are predators also.ProfessorCirno wrote:I think I mentioned before that back in the day many predators were considered Neutral(Evil) in terms of alignment. Maybe this should be brought back?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?
Herbivore = Eats plants
Carnivore = Eats meatOmnivore = Eats Plants & Meat
Predators = Carnivore & Omnivores.
Again, if you want to list all predators as Neutral(evil), do not forget to list humans as Neutral (evil) also.
Kerym Ammath |
Kerym Ammath wrote:Oliver McShade wrote:Omnivores.Freehold DM wrote:Cool... just remember to list Humans as Neutral(evil) since humans are predators also.ProfessorCirno wrote:I think I mentioned before that back in the day many predators were considered Neutral(Evil) in terms of alignment. Maybe this should be brought back?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?
Herbivore = Eats plants
Carnivore = Eats meat
Omnivore = Eats Plants & MeatPredators = Carnivore & Omnivores.
Again, if you want to list all predators as Neutral(evil), do not forget to list humans as Neutral (evil) also.
My point was that we do not solely engage in predation for food or even necessarily a large proportion of their diet, where as predators as in the Wyvern specifically engage in predation as their sole source of food.
Freehold DM |
Kerym Ammath wrote:Oliver McShade wrote:Omnivores.Freehold DM wrote:Cool... just remember to list Humans as Neutral(evil) since humans are predators also.ProfessorCirno wrote:I think I mentioned before that back in the day many predators were considered Neutral(Evil) in terms of alignment. Maybe this should be brought back?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?
Herbivore = Eats plants
Carnivore = Eats meat
Omnivore = Eats Plants & MeatPredators = Carnivore & Omnivores.
Again, if you want to list all predators as Neutral(evil), do not forget to list humans as Neutral (evil) also.
I should have been more clear. These were creatures with an animal level of intelligence or slightly better- wyverns actually would be on the outskirts of the level of intelligence I am talking about.
Charender |
wyvern canon aka wyvern lore aka common [fantasy setting humanoid] sense
In other words those random stories told by uncle Ted around the campfire when he had gotten to much firewater in him?
Common lore in most parts of our world used to be that humans of african decent were sub-human creatures only fit for manual labor. I, for one, am glad we have moved beyond such narrow minded thinking.
Lore is biased by the race that is passing the lore down. I am sure elven lore is filled with stories about how humans are a short lived aggressive and savage race that cannot be trusted. Dwarves will probably tell you stories and swear up and down that elves are pointy eared tree-huggers that will murder you for pissing on the wrong tree.
In short, common lore is a mix of truth, half-truths, and outright falsehoods. A lot of it is probably very subjective to who is telling the story. I would expect an enlightened and educated paladin to know this and act accordingly. He knows enough to suspect the wyverns are a dangerous threat to the area, but he probably doesn't have enough information to be sure.
what's up with all your answers having something to do with half-something half-wyverns. Now it's a half-copper dragon/half-wyvern whoa. What if it had?Looking for someone to trade some jokes with, maybe a prank or two.
There are plenty of "monsters" in the bestary that look big and mean, but are not actually mean. Some were mentioned earlier in this thread. Look up copper dragon behavior. I would expect a half-copper dragon/wyvern to act like their sire is some respects, especially if the copper dragon reared it. If the paladin kills them because they are big and mean looking, then paladin just killed a good aligned and probably friendly creature.
Boy, if I was the DM and you were the players, you would often be punished for being naive when it comes to monsters. Maybe I'm just not watching enough new-school cartoons.
Monster is a very subjective term. I have meet people who think anyone who eats meat or wears fur is a monster. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, if you call everything in the bestary a monster then...
Large claws and fangs, must be a monster!
Large Poisonous Abberation!
Another Large Monster!
It is in the bestary, must be a monster too
I have actually played a neutral good druid who exactly that naive. She would not attack anything without provocation. It was hard, but it made for some great RP. Since I DM regularly, I know most of the creatures in the bestary by heart. It was very hard to put aside everything I knew about creatures I had read about in the bestary, and play my character as a very sheltered girl who knew very little about the outside world. As a result of how I played my character, our party actually ended up befriending creatures that most parties would have killed. She was brave and open minded, but not stupid or reckless(int 13, wis 17). I would let the rest of the party take up ambush positions while I went to talk to creatures. I would also leave myself an escape route if I needed it. Once the rest of the party adjusted to my odd behavior, this actually worked pretty well.
Playing a character like that isn't for everyone, but then neither is playing a paladin IMO.
Stubs McKenzie |
What if said paladin came into contact with a village of goblins, having previously fought goblins as a young paladin that jumped him/his party? If he slaughters the entire village of goblins without asking questions, are you ok with him keeping his powers? As per the goblin description in the bestiary they are quite similar to wyverns as far as attitude is concerned, and are even NE, not neutral.
Personally I wouldn't be ok with that as a DM, you may be, and that's ok too. As to the original question, it all depends on how you run your world. If you give most/all intelligent creatures some moral ambiguity, and have them act differently in different situations when interacting with or around PCs, the PC should have known better than to attack the creature while it slept. If you play evil as hard and fast evil, and creatures with descriptions similar to the wyverns (alpha predators) as only hungry angry mean creatures, than the PC has every reason to think it is going to behave as such. I don't play my animals that way, and I don't play my intelligent creatures that way, but instead as individuals with unique behaviors/points of view.
Kamelguru |
"Wyverns = alpha predators, so they sleep in the open like Lions"
*opens random encounter table for AP, finds CR14 dragon as most dangerous local creature, looks up wyvern; CR 7*
Yeah? No. A wyvern is at the middle of the fantasy food-chain, and far from the most dangerous the sky has to offer. They are not lions, they are barely wolves.
Oliver McShade |
What if said paladin came into contact with a village of goblins, having previously fought goblins as a young paladin that jumped him/his party? If he slaughters the entire village of goblins without asking questions, are you ok with him keeping his powers? As per the goblin description in the bestiary they are quite similar to wyverns as far as attitude is concerned, and are even NE, not neutral.
Personally I wouldn't be ok with that as a DM, you may be, and that's ok too. As to the original question, it all depends on how you run your world. If you give most/all intelligent creatures some moral ambiguity, and have them act differently in different situations when interacting with or around PCs, the PC should have known better than to attack the creature while it slept. If you play evil as hard and fast evil, and creatures with descriptions similar to the wyverns (alpha predators) as only hungry angry mean creatures, than the PC has every reason to think it is going to behave as such. I don't play my animals that way, and I don't play my intelligent creatures that way, but instead as individuals with unique behaviors/points of view.
So does this mean my Halfling Paladin, can kill those big mean monster called humans in their sleep.... i mean they are a clear and present damager to other halflings, even other dwarfs and elfs, when you get right down to it ??
Charender |
Charender wrote:In other words, the paladin's new job description is not to remove threats to the safety of the random children that travels alone down the road to...
Well lets see. He knows first hand that.
A. Mimics are predators.
B. It is set up shop beside a well traveled road.It is pretty safe to assume it is a threat to any random children that might be traveling alone down the road to go to grandmas. He should leave it because getting eaten by the mimic will keep Little Red Riding Hood from getting killed by the wolf, and that really is for the greater good. Getting eaten by a mimic is much more humane.
Now if the same mimic was set up next to the entrance of a dangerous tomb that was known to be frequented by evil types, he should seriously consider leaving it alone.
Since your sarcasm detector seems to be a little off, here is a serious answer.
The paladin knows first hand that mimics are dangerous predators, and this one is setting up shop in a place that puts innocents in danger. It is fairly safe to infer the mimic is a threat to public safety.
The problem is that it is not safe to assume that beasts that are normally mindless killing machines in our world are mindless killing machines in the fantasy world. A tiger that has lost fear of humans near a village may be a dangerous rabid predator that needs to be put down. It may also be an awakened tiger that has been charged by the druid that awakened it to protect a sacred grove.
That reminds me of something that happened to one of my characters back in second edition. We were paid by the village leader to rescue his son from a creature that was menacing the village. The creature was some kind of intelligent white boar. It had attacked several villagers without provocation, and was generally considered aggressive and mean. We killed the creature only to figure out a little too late that the boar was the leader's son, who had been cursed. There were several clues, but we were too focused on getting paid(and metagaming that this was a simple kill the beast save the prince quest) to pick up on them. Good thing I was playing a fighter and not a paladin, because I deserved to fall for that one.
Charender |
Someone wrote:"Wyverns = alpha predators, so they sleep in the open like Lions"*opens random encounter table for AP, finds CR14 dragon as most dangerous local creature, looks up wyvern; CR 7*
Yeah? No. A wyvern is at the middle of the fantasy food-chain, and far from the most dangerous the sky has to offer. They are not lions, they are barely wolves.
And if the wyverns knew there were no dragons in the area?
The tables just tell you what might be in the area. At CR7, it is very possible that the wyverns are the alpha predators in that area.
Kamelguru |
That reminds me of something that happened to one of my characters back in second edition. We were paid by the village leader to rescue his son from a creature that was menacing the village. The creature was some kind of intelligent white boar. It had attacked several villagers without provocation, and was generally considered aggressive and mean. We killed the creature only to figure out a little too late that the boar was the leader's son, who had been cursed. There were several clues, but we were too focused on getting paid(and metagaming that this was a simple kill the beast save the prince quest) to pick up on them. Good thing I was playing a fighter and not a paladin, because I deserved to fall for that one.
How was this metagaming? You are paid to save a child from a dangerous creature. It's like saying "The fighter favoring the new +3 flaming sword instead of the MW sword he got from his grandpa is metagaming, since he doesn't understand magic, and would prefer to use a sword that MEANT something to him."
If someone pays you to do a task, doing said task is not metagaming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
And if the wyverns knew there were no dragons in the area?
The tables just tell you what might be in the area. At CR7, it is very possible that the wyverns are the alpha predators in that area.
Charender |
Charender wrote:That reminds me of something that happened to one of my characters back in second edition. We were paid by the village leader to rescue his son from a creature that was menacing the village. The creature was some kind of intelligent white boar. It had attacked several villagers without provocation, and was generally considered aggressive and mean. We killed the creature only to figure out a little too late that the boar was the leader's son, who had been cursed. There were several clues, but we were too focused on getting paid(and metagaming that this was a simple kill the beast save the prince quest) to pick up on them. Good thing I was playing a fighter and not a paladin, because I deserved to fall for that one.How was this metagaming? You are paid to save a child from a dangerous creature. It's like saying "The fighter favoring the new +3 flaming sword instead of the MW sword he got from his grandpa is metagaming, since he doesn't understand magic, and would prefer to use a sword that MEANT something to him."
If someone pays you to do a task, doing said task is not metagaming.
The methods we used to hunt down the boar involved some metagaming. Because of that, we missed out on some clues about the boar's true nature. We had some other other clues about what the boar really was, but we ignored them for the lure of MOAR EXPEES and MAGEEKUL LEWT!
Also, the reward was for bringing back his son, killing the boar was strictly optional. Needless to say, we failed to get the reward.
Imnotbob |
this guy ate my previous avatar wrote:Charender wrote:In the case we are discussing, it is not a cozy home with some sleeping humanoids they intrude on. It is a nest of big, mean, and ugly looking creatures. Big, flying, posionous, carnivorous, don't give a purple gnome's ass for conversations with adventurers, reptilian monsters.
It also removes the it was big, mean, and ugly looking from the equation. To me what a creature looks like doesn't matter. What if it had been a half copper dragon/wyvern, a half-celestial wyvern, or a celestial wyvern? Big, check. Flying, check. Poisonous, check.
Everything in bold is assumed based on what? Previous encounters with wyverns? Stories told around the campfire to scare children?
And if it had been a half-copper dragon/wyvern?
It would have been a nest of a big and ugly looking creature. Big, flying, poisionous, carnivorous, but looking for someone to trade some jokes with, maybe a prank or two.
The thing some people seem to be missing here is that Paladins don’t have to be correct all the time; they have to be Good.
It’s ok for them to make a mistake once in a while.Kamelguru |
Kamelguru wrote:Charender wrote:That reminds me of something that happened to one of my characters back in second edition. We were paid by the village leader to rescue his son from a creature that was menacing the village. The creature was some kind of intelligent white boar. It had attacked several villagers without provocation, and was generally considered aggressive and mean. We killed the creature only to figure out a little too late that the boar was the leader's son, who had been cursed. There were several clues, but we were too focused on getting paid(and metagaming that this was a simple kill the beast save the prince quest) to pick up on them. Good thing I was playing a fighter and not a paladin, because I deserved to fall for that one.How was this metagaming? You are paid to save a child from a dangerous creature. It's like saying "The fighter favoring the new +3 flaming sword instead of the MW sword he got from his grandpa is metagaming, since he doesn't understand magic, and would prefer to use a sword that MEANT something to him."
If someone pays you to do a task, doing said task is not metagaming.
The methods we used to hunt down the boar involved some metagaming. Because of that, we missed out on some clues about the boar's true nature. We had some other other clues about what the boar really was, but we ignored them for the lure of MOAR EXPEES and MAGEEKUL LEWT!
Also, the reward was for bringing back his son, killing the boar was strictly optional. Needless to say, we failed to get the reward.
Aaah, I see. Reminds me of a similar situation back in 2e AD&D, when I ran Night Below, and the players were tasked to trap and bring back a young werebear so the local ranger could teach him to not only come to terms with his dual nature, but also harness his massive strength and resilience to damage so he could smash orcs and protect the village. The players managed to do so without harming the werebear overly much, mostly due to the druid-player's wide-eyed awe of the beast, which led to the subsequent semi-adoption of him when they were higher level, and the druid could change into bears himself and show him that he was not alone. Good times.
I think many fall prone to the crazy-eyed drive for XP. I remember one case where a player lacked like 15 XP in order to level up, and said he was going out to hunt down an orc. He traveled for half a week, and found nothing but friendly peddlers, halfling gypsies that lifted 30GP off him, an old woman with a heavy basket, and several friendly fey that played pranks on him. The frustration was kinda fun, and I gave him XP for the roleplay when he eventually came back and had a glorious in-character moment where he explained his misadventure to the party.
Charender |
Charender wrote:this guy ate my previous avatar wrote:Charender wrote:In the case we are discussing, it is not a cozy home with some sleeping humanoids they intrude on. It is a nest of big, mean, and ugly looking creatures. Big, flying, posionous, carnivorous, don't give a purple gnome's ass for conversations with adventurers, reptilian monsters.
It also removes the it was big, mean, and ugly looking from the equation. To me what a creature looks like doesn't matter. What if it had been a half copper dragon/wyvern, a half-celestial wyvern, or a celestial wyvern? Big, check. Flying, check. Poisonous, check.
Everything in bold is assumed based on what? Previous encounters with wyverns? Stories told around the campfire to scare children?
And if it had been a half-copper dragon/wyvern?
It would have been a nest of a big and ugly looking creature. Big, flying, poisionous, carnivorous, but looking for someone to trade some jokes with, maybe a prank or two.
The thing some people seem to be missing here is that Paladins don’t have to be correct all the time; they have to be Good.
It’s ok for them to make a mistake once in a while.
They have to be both lawful and good. That said, I really want to play an avenger style of paladin. Someone who dances on the edge of breaking the law to bring evil doers to justice. I know full well that playing a character like that can lead to losing my abilities, but I do like a challenge.
And yes, they can make mistakes. As a DM, I wouldn't take his powers away permanently for this. I would do something to give him a warning.
this guy ate my previous avatar |
In other words those random stories told by uncle Ted around the campfire when he had gotten to much firewater in him?
Again, I don't think we have the same logic or the same taste in game flavoring, you and I.
Wyverns are natural to a fantasy world just as wolves were natural to medieval times in the real world.
Not like some mythical beings that were told about around the campfire but didn't exist, because in the game world these beings exist. They are there. You see them flying around. Of course you know what they are and what they do. Heck, you can even buy (in-game) Ye Olde
Bestiary to read about it.
Common lore in most parts of our world used to be that humans of african decent were sub-human creatures only fit for manual labor. I, for one, am glad we have moved beyond such narrow minded thinking.
Huh, please rephrase. Seriously, I don't get any of this.
Lore is biased by the race that is passing the lore down. I am sure elven lore is filled with stories about how humans are a short lived aggressive and savage race that cannot be trusted. Dwarves will probably tell you stories and swear up and down that elves are pointy eared tree-huggers that will murder you for pissing on the wrong tree.
I didn't mean wyvern lore as the lore wyverns passes down from generation to generation. That never even came to my mind. I think that idea is silly. I meant humanoid lore about wyverns, more precisely, the facts and stories gathered over generations.
In short, common lore is a mix of truth, half-truths, and outright falsehoods. A lot of it is probably very subjective to who is telling the story. I would expect an enlightened and educated paladin to know this and act accordingly. He knows enough to suspect the wyverns are a dangerous threat to the area, but he probably doesn't have enough information to be sure.
I still wouldn't blame the good guy for killing two monstrous predators, that would snatch up your children on their way to grandma, fly to their nest, and feed your child to its own offspring.
Actually, I don't even aggree with your definition of common lore. In my mind, common lore is something that everyone just knows, without rakns in a knowledge skill, such as wyverns are a threat. Avoid them if you are not trained in slaying them.
Quote:
what's up with all your answers having something to do with half-something half-wyverns. Now it's a half-copper dragon/half-wyvern whoa. What if it had?Looking for someone to trade some jokes with, maybe a prank or two.
There are plenty of "monsters" in the bestary that look big and mean, but are not actually mean. Some were mentioned earlier in this thread. Look up copper dragon behavior. I would expect a half-copper dragon/wyvern to act like their sire is some respects, especially if the copper dragon reared it. If the paladin kills them because they are big and mean looking, then paladin just killed a good aligned and probably friendly creature.
I don't think copper dragons look big and mean. I think they look big, noble, calm and vigilant. In my game the copper dragon would be the sire... hold up. Did you just say act like their sire if the copper dragon reared it. What are we talking about here? I think you are taking it out of proportions with this half-copper dragon/half-wyvern talk.
this guy ate my previous avatar |
Quote:
Boy, if I was the DM and you were the players, you would often be punished for being naive when it comes to monsters. Maybe I'm just not watching enough new-school...
Monster is a very subjective term. I have meet people who think anyone who eats meat or wears fur is a monster. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, if you call everything in the bestary a monster then...
Large claws and fangs, must be a monster!
Large Poisonous Abberation!
Another Large Monster!
It is in the bestary, must be a monster tooI have actually played a neutral good druid who exactly that naive. She would not attack anything without provocation. It was hard, but it made for some great RP. Since I DM regularly, I know most of the creatures in the bestary by heart. It was very hard to put aside everything I knew about creatures I had read about in the bestary, and play my character as a very sheltered girl who knew very little about the outside world. As a result of how I played my character, our party actually ended up befriending creatures that most parties would have killed. She was brave and open minded, but not stupid or reckless(int 13, wis 17). I would let the rest of the party take up ambush positions while I went to talk to creatures. I would also leave myself an escape route if I needed it. Once the rest of the party adjusted to my odd behavior, this actually worked pretty well.
Playing a character like that isn't for everyone, but then neither is playing a paladin IMO.
So just out of friendly curiosity, the very sheltered little girl you play, what kind of creatures did she befriend?
this guy ate my previous avatar |
this guy ate my previous avatar wrote:Charender wrote:In other words, the paladin's new job description is not to remove threats to the safety of the random children that travels alone down the road to...
Well lets see. He knows first hand that.
A. Mimics are predators.
B. It is set up shop beside a well traveled road.It is pretty safe to assume it is a threat to any random children that might be traveling alone down the road to go to grandmas. He should leave it because getting eaten by the mimic will keep Little Red Riding Hood from getting killed by the wolf, and that really is for the greater good. Getting eaten by a mimic is much more humane.
Now if the same mimic was set up next to the entrance of a dangerous tomb that was known to be frequented by evil types, he should seriously consider leaving it alone.
Since your sarcasm detector seems to be a little off, here is a serious answer.
The paladin knows first hand that mimics are dangerous predators, and this one is setting up shop in a place that puts innocents in danger. It is fairly safe to infer the mimic is a threat to public safety.
The problem is that it is not safe to assume that beasts that are normally mindless killing machines in our world are mindless killing machines in the fantasy world. A tiger that has lost fear of humans near a village may be a dangerous rabid predator that needs to be put down. It may also be an awakened tiger that has been charged by the druid that awakened it to protect a sacred grove.
That reminds me of something that happened to one of my characters back in second edition. We were paid by the village leader to rescue his son from a creature that was menacing the village. The creature was some kind of intelligent white boar. It had attacked several villagers without provocation, and was generally considered aggressive and mean. We killed the creature only to figure out a little too late that the boar was the leader's son, who had been cursed. There were...
Don't throw dirt.
Same goes for wyverns IMO.
Wyverns don't exist in our world. To my knowledge the only statted creatures in fantasy gaming that exist in our world are the ones called animals. I see what you are saying with the tiger, I just can't see how it has anything to do with any of this.
Don't feel bad about killing the chieftain's son. My, my you are talking alot about animals, considering that you and I differ over the subject of wyverns.
this guy ate my previous avatar |
Kamelguru wrote:Charender wrote:That reminds me of something that happened to one of my characters back in second edition. We were paid by the village leader to rescue his son from a creature that was menacing the village. The creature was some kind of intelligent white boar. It had attacked several villagers without provocation, and was generally considered aggressive and mean. We killed the creature only to figure out a little too late that the boar was the leader's son, who had been cursed. There were several clues, but we were too focused on getting paid(and metagaming that this was a simple kill the beast save the prince quest) to pick up on them. Good thing I was playing a fighter and not a paladin, because I deserved to fall for that one.How was this metagaming? You are paid to save a child from a dangerous creature. It's like saying "The fighter favoring the new +3 flaming sword instead of the MW sword he got from his grandpa is metagaming, since he doesn't understand magic, and would prefer to use a sword that MEANT something to him."
If someone pays you to do a task, doing said task is not metagaming.
The methods we used to hunt down the boar involved some metagaming. Because of that, we missed out on some clues about the boar's true nature. We had some other other clues about what the boar really was, but we ignored them for the lure of MOAR EXPEES and MAGEEKUL LEWT!
Also, the reward was for bringing back his son, killing the boar was strictly optional. Needless to say, we failed to get the reward.
The only thing I can derive from this, is that you are the meta-gaming type to the nth degree. MOAR EXPEES and MAGEEKUL LEWT! ? Ohkaaay... Well then DM seems like you can toss that great plot you've spent days and days on coming up with to the side. Your players are only interested in MOAR EXPEES and MAGEEKUL LEWT. Actually, I would like to recommend some cheesy korean mmo's to you, if you are only in RPG'ing for that.
Charender |
Charender wrote:
In other words those random stories told by uncle Ted around the campfire when he had gotten to much firewater in him?Again, I don't think we have the same logic or the same taste in game flavoring, you and I.
Wyverns are natural to a fantasy world just as wolves were natural to medieval times in the real world.
Not like some mythical beings that were told about around the campfire but didn't exist, because in the game world these beings exist. They are there. You see them flying around. Of course you know what they are and what they do. Heck, you can even buy (in-game) Ye Olde
Bestiary to read about it.
Being that any accurate knowledge about Wyverns requires a DC 16 Knowledge(Arcana) check and you cannot make that check untrained, I am afraid I have to disagree and say that knowing about Wyverns is not common place. To know even 1 piece of information about wyverns, you would have to have ranks in knowledge(arcana) and make a DC 16 knowledge check. That alone eliminates a significant portion of the general population. Knowing a significant amount of accurate information(like 3 pieces of useful information) would be a DC 26. Not exactly a check the every commoner can make untrained.
I would say that many people have heard of wyverns, but most of it is wild rumours and crazy tales. Actually knowing accurate information about them is not very common.
Odds are the paladin didn't have any ranks in Knowledge(Arcana), and thus didn't personally know anything about wyverns. So any knowledge he did have would have come from someone else in the party who did make their knowledge check.
Quote:
Common lore in most parts of our world used to be that humans of african decent were sub-human creatures only fit for manual labor. I, for one, am glad we have moved beyond such narrow minded thinking.
Huh, please rephrase. Seriously, I don't get any of this.
I was indirectly referring to slavery. Part of the justification for slavery that the slaves were less than human, and not deserving of basic human rights. Not so long ago, that belief was the prevailing belief of the majority of the people in Europe. That didn't make it right.
I would expect a paladin to stand up against slavery. Even in places where it is accepted and legal, the paladin should still do what he can without breaking the law.
Quote:
Lore is biased by the race that is passing the lore down. I am sure elven lore is filled with stories about how humans are a short lived aggressive and savage race that cannot be trusted. Dwarves will probably tell you stories and swear up and down that elves are pointy eared tree-huggers that will murder you for pissing on the wrong tree.
I didn't mean wyvern lore as the lore wyverns passes down from generation to generation. That never even came to my mind. I think that idea is silly. I meant humanoid lore about wyverns, more precisely, the facts and stories gathered over generations.
And you don't think that human lore on wyverns might be biased against wyverns?
Quote:
In short, common lore is a mix of truth, half-truths, and outright falsehoods. A lot of it is probably very subjective to who is telling the story. I would expect an enlightened and educated paladin to know this and act accordingly. He knows enough to suspect the wyverns are a dangerous threat to the area, but he probably doesn't have enough information to be sure.
I still wouldn't blame the good guy for killing two monstrous predators, that would snatch up your children on their way to grandma, fly to their nest, and feed your child to its own offspring.
Actually, I don't even aggree with your definition of common lore. In my mind, common lore is something that everyone just knows, without rakns in a knowledge skill, such as wyverns are a threat. Avoid them if you are not trained in slaying them.
In my mind what you consider common knowledge among adventurers isn't, and a paladin should take a little time to try and separate fact from fiction before delivering a judgement as final as death.
Quote:misunderstanding about my point
Stuff about copper dragons mating with wyverns
I was mostly throwing out some examples of good aligned creatures that would look almost exactly like a viscious, aggressive wyvern to the untrained eye.
Charender |
My, my you are talking alot about animals, considering that you and I differ over the subject of wyverns.
I have seen a tiger in a zoo, I haven't seen a wyvern. Thus, dangerous animals are one of the few common reference point that we have for extrapolating what a wyvern might be like.
Charender |
The only thing I can derive from this, is that you are the meta-gaming type to the nth degree. MOAR EXPEES and MAGEEKUL LEWT! ? Ohkaaay... Well then DM seems like you can toss that great plot you've spent days and days on coming up with to the side. Your players are only interested in MOAR EXPEES and MAGEEKUL LEWT. Actually, I would like to recommend some cheesy korean mmo's to you, if you are only in RPG'ing for that.
I used to be. Hell, back then I didn't even know what metagaming was, much less that I was doing it. We are talking about roughly 16 years ago, back when the internet was IRC, usenet, and a collection of random FTP sites. There weren't exactly a whole lot of options for people who wanted to play RPGs.
this guy ate my previous avatar |
Charender I am surprised. Most of what you are saying in your last couple of posts actually makes a lot of sense to me. Alot of what you are saying even proves a lot of what I am saying right in a lot of ways. Thank you for the debate. I will let this thread together with my head get some much-needed rest now. Goodnight.
Kevin Andrew Murphy Contributor |
Being that any accurate knowledge about Wyverns requires a DC 16 Knowledge(Arcana) check and you cannot make that check untrained, I am afraid I have to disagree and say that knowing about Wyverns is not common place. To know even 1 piece of information about wyverns, you would have to have ranks in knowledge(arcana) and make a DC 16 knowledge check. That alone eliminates a significant portion of the general population. Knowing a significant amount of accurate information(like 3 pieces of useful information) would be a DC 26. Not exactly a check the every commoner can make untrained.
I would say that many people have heard of wyverns, but most of it is wild rumours and crazy tales. Actually knowing accurate information about them is not very common.
Odds are the paladin didn't have any ranks in Knowledge(Arcana), and thus didn't personally know anything about wyverns. So any knowledge he did have would have come from someone else in the party who did make their knowledge check.
The trouble here is that the paladin, without any Knowledge Arcana, should still at least be able to identify it as "some sort of dragon" but the GM is then shoehorning in some extra common knowledge about dragons being that "some dragons are good" just so the GM can present a moral dilemma.
So, anyway, you've got the paladin going "I see some sort of dragon" when then turns to the wizard who does have his Knowledge Arcana and makes his roll and get the three pieces of useful information aside from the name: "Omigod, that's a wyveryn! They have horrible poison stingers on their tails! They've got the same intelligence and temperament as the playground bullies who used to knock my spellbooks in the dirt and kick my familiar! They're the favored steeds of jewelry-wearing undead tyrants from a far realm that we're not licensed to talk about here! Kill them! Kill them before they kill us all!"
The paladin, having common knowledge, I think we can give it to him for free that he surmises that a winged creature in a nest can probably fly, the same as he has the common knowledge that, generally speaking, sticking something full of arrows and then chopping its head off generally deals with most threats.
As for the "not evil" problem, we've already answered that with the mimic--just because something is "not evil" doesn't mean that it's not a threat or that it shouldn't be gotten rid of for the good of society.
Charender |
As for the "not evil" problem, we've already answered that with the mimic--just because something is "not evil" doesn't mean that it's not a threat or that it shouldn't be gotten rid of for the good of society.
Not really. Whether the wyvern was actually evil or neutral is largely irrelevant. We are also talking about a place that sounds fairly remote from civilization, so I think don't think the wyverns were on immediate threat to any villages.
I am assuming if the party made any knowledge checks the OP would have mentioned them. Without that, I don't see how the paladin knew the creature was a wyvern, much less that wyverns are aggressive, territorial, and probably think the paladin tastes good with ketchup.
Death is a very final judgement. Paladins are paragons of justice, and thus have an obligation to make sure they are not sentencing an innocent creature to death. Without metagaming, I just don't see any justification for the paladin's attack on the wyverns.
I am willing to accept that the wyverns were quite possibly evil, and the world is better off for them being dead, but the paladins methods of judgement disturb me greatly. "Large dragon-like creature over there sleeping, kill it!" just doesn't cut it for me as justification.
Helic |
As for the "not evil" problem, we've already answered that with the mimic--just because something is "not evil" doesn't mean that it's not a threat or that it shouldn't be gotten rid of for the good of society.
For the sake of argument, I'd even take this further. Which of the following two questions should a paladin be more concerned about (i.e. the answer to which is more important to him):
A.) "Is it evil?"
B.) "Is is good?"
Paladins, being Lawful Good, are probably more concerned with question B. than question A. Why? Because things that are 'not good' are beneath the paladin's moral standards. Something that is 'neutral' is not per se interested in goodness (to be fair, they're not interested in doing evil either), but, from a paladin's viewpoint, that's a LARGE moral failing. That's why paladins are prohibited from non-good cohorts/followers, they're literally 'not good enough' (okay, bad pun...). I beginning to think that Detect Good would be a better/more useful power than Detect Evil, but then there's the usefulness of Smite Evil...if I was a paladin I'd want Detect Good as well (it's not on their spell list).
Of course, this doesn't warrant 'knee-jerk murder', but neither does a positive result on the Evil-Meter. A paladin should have a valid reason for killing anyone/thing.
The real question is therefore; "Was the paladin's reasons for killing the Wyverns valid?"
I'm in the 'yes' camp (obviously) - I think it was a fair assumption that the wyverns would attack the party, probably when they were at a disadvantage. The DM flat out told them (AFAIK) they were wyverns, so I don't know how he could accuse him of metagaming. Wyverns are definitely not nice and hostile to just about everything. Killing them is basically a community service.
Note that paladin's reasons were NOT "Let's kill it for XP" or "Let's kill them, they have loot for sure" or "I want a wyvern head for my mantlepiece"; it was to protect his allies, who are on a vital mission, from a highly likely and very dangerous threat. At the worst, this is a highly judgmental act (very lawful), and while a non-good act, it's not an evil act. Paladins don't fall for doing neutral acts.
For all the people banging the 'wyverns are neutral' drum, I'll repeat that for you: The paladin did exactly what you'd expect a neutral creature to do; eliminate a present threat to the safety and security of himself and his allies. That's not an evil act. If the wyvern isn't evil b/c it acts like this, neither can the paladin fall for doing it.
The 'killing while it's sleeping' argument is actually the most valid, but this depends on the definition of honor being applied. Most early adventuring parties kill helpless enemies (via sleep spell) regularly, and I don't see a lot of paladin-falling-because-of-this threads around here.
Kevin Andrew Murphy Contributor |
"Civilization" includes it outposts, including ancient tombs. Obviously there was once a work crew who came here and spent a while building it, and equally obviously the tomb is not forgotten if the adventurers are showing up to go in. It doesn't matter if this is one-a-year religious devotions or once-every-ten-years. Clearing out vicious predators is like maintaining the roads.
As for death being a very final judgment, in a world where reincarnation exists, afterlives exist and so on, and there's concrete proof that they do, death is hardly the worst thing in the world.
The paladin making a snap-judgment about all dragons being bad is basically hearkening back to European folklore where they were. Also, they were relatively stupid unless you got a Fafnir situation where someone already intelligent turned into a dragon. The good dragons were an Asian import, and now you've got the current situation where every dragon, even the wyvern, has become a Chatty Cathy.