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.
Actually yes, after fair warning that his/her god probably doesn't like that the paladin is loping the heads off of helpless enemies instead of bringing them to justice, or at least letting the other party members do the dirty work while he kneels and prays for atonement for their souls, he/she would lose their powers in my world (temporarily). A paladin stands up for all that is right and just, which includes the "no silly business" clause in the core rulebook.
core rulebook wrote:
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and lawbringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful. Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future.
I take this to mean that a paladin will do everything in their power to protect the weak and innocent, but also uphold all the moral truths and virtues that his god embodies, which includes not killing stuff unnecessarily, or as a last resort. Tying the unconscious bandits hands together after a sleep spell was cast on them and bringing them to the nearest town to be jailed would be a perfect example of what a paladin would do, as long as they could within reason take that time (aka if it's a hassle, tough, the paladin will do it anyways, because he lives by a pure standard that everyone else should look up to. If a greater darkness is threatening the world at the time, and the paladin is on a mission to stop it, then the paladin will just have to pray for his, his parties, and his enemies souls while his party does away with his unconscious enemies). That's what a paladin is, that is what a paladin embodies.
I take this to mean that a paladin will do everything in their power to protect the weak and innocent, but also uphold all the moral truths and virtues that his god embodies, which includes not killing stuff unnecessarily, or as a last resort. Tying the unconscious bandits hands together after a sleep spell was cast on them and bringing them to the nearest town to be jailed would be a perfect...
I tend to view that as an 'above and beyond' example - better suited to the Exalted stuff found in Book of Exalted Deeds. For me, paladins are supposed to uphold legitimate authority, protect the innocent, and punish the wicked. They can and do take the law into their own hands at times. Capture some bandits? What's the local punishment for banditry? Probably death. Assured of their guilt, the paladin administers punishment. Dragging them off to the local law enforcement agent is probably just a waste of time. What's he going to do? Kill them as bandits, that's what. How does tying them up and dragging them across the countryside accomplish anything other than wasting everybody's time?
This is, of course, at odds with modern law enforcement. Many modern societies DON'T have capital punishment and even the ones that do employ a hell of a lot of checks, delays and appeals to the process. But what's acceptable in modern society and what's acceptable in fantasy land are two different things. Fantasy land generally isn't burdened with lengthy trials or long prison sentences either - not even the Good ones.
So if the paladin goes around trying to reform every murderer and capture every barely intelligent monster alive to talk them down, well, good for him, offer him some exalted feats. But if he just sticks to upholding authority, defending the innocent and punishing the wicked, he's still pulling the paladin's weight class. I don't know why so many people have such huge expectations of them. Is it just the expectation that somebody who is LG is a reflection of modern day thinking? Personally, I think fantasy land LG is a lot less squeamish than most seem to*. I can totally see archons busting out a can of old fashioned whup-ass fury and judgment on a group of bandits, should they run across them.
*Again, fantasy land is a whole lot more accepting of violence and death as a whole than modern real life. This isn't a problem for me - if I want to play '4 color comics, no killing', I will (and have - it's a blast).
Let us say you were walking down the street and on the other side of the street a man was walking a bit further up and he was coming up to a house that had two dogs sitting on the porch, one obviously a female that had just given birth to a litter of puppies. As the man gets a bit closer he takes out a hand gun and proceeds to shoot the dogs from the sidewalk, killing one of the adult dogs outright and wounding the other severely enough that it takes to flight (and out of range from the shooter)leaving the litter of puppies behind.
Under any circumstances could you than say that this person was justified in shooting the dogs?
Personally, If I witnessed this act, not only would I consider this person totally unjustified in his actions, and not only an evil person, I would consider it my sacred duty to gut this person to death right than and there on the spot and in doing so feel completely justified as a person of conscience.
People will take different views on the code of conduct of Paladins, but certain things are beyond reasonable interpetation. It would be "wrong" if a Fighter did it, or a mage, or a Ranger, of good alignment. Paladins are creatures who view right and wrong in stark and clear terms, black and white, and are supposed to be paragons of virtue.
While I would allow to Paladin to atone for his actions if he sought to and did so appropriately, it is important to realize something and not lose sight of it just because its a game. A murderer is a murderer even if he later feels sorry for his actions. Stains like that cannot be removed completely no matter how sincere the remorse. A split second decsion is one thing, but this was not that. He just felt like killing. Even if this presented a potential danger, it was be no means assured. Besides, Paladins are also supposed to be brave. They'd take their chances that they might be attacked later because thats the virtuios way to go about it.
Consider this as well....
If some outsider saw the paladin do this, and he than told a nearby town what he saw, no matter how sincere the paladins atonement might later be, he has stained the perceptions of paladinhood who came to know what he had done. If he can make such "mistakes" how can he later stand in judgement of the deeds of others as a protector of justice?
Paladins are hard to play, no doubt, you run into problems with the code regularly in regards to how their actions apply with it in mind. The rules shouldn't be bent because it makes it hard to play otherwise. Thats what a Paladin is. If you don't like the restrictions, dont play a paladin. In my opinion the gamemaster totally justified in his call in this case.
You fool! Has this thread taught you nothing?! You'd fall for sure!
Surely you're not suggesting that he hasn't detected evil on it, woken it up and conducted a full biography interview cross-referencing every action it's ever undertaken and verifying them via at least five divinations, held a trial of its peers lasting a minimum of ten years and attained guilty verdicts both from said trial and every non-diabolical government on the planet, communed with his deity to receive forms in triplicate directly signed by said divine power authorizing the execution, had the aforementioned forms notarized by every other non-evil deity and a tribunal from every celestial power, provided copies of all of this not only to the thread but to every thread in existence, allowed it a minimum of ten years to appeal any of the above, started a fundraiser to support any young it may or may not have, and tearfully apologized no less than two dozen times for the terrible thing he must do...and, of course, arranged for an atonement since he will obviously fall for this heinous act.
Slaying evil beasts that have been hounding and devouring other adventurers and travelers outside a tomb of evil - literally the same thing as shooting someone's dog.
Ok, lemme weave the tapestry of the circumstance of this encounter:
Spoiler:
This tomb is located roughly 40 miles from the closest human settlement (Varnhold), and 120 from a large city (Restov). Wyverns are commonplace in this region, and the players learn of several knights trying to brave the tomb. If they climb the wyverns' nest, they find evidence of this. They share the region with other airborne predators like Rocs, Dragons, Chimeras, Giant Eagles, Gargoyles, Will-o'-Wisps, and Manticores. More than enough reasons there to NOT sleep out in the open (I am not done banging this drum, because the nature of the dilemma is caused by a blatant logical fallacy, which makes it a paladin-trap by it's very nature). The wyverns in question nests here PRECISELY due to the presence of the tomb. The adventurers and treasure-hunters coming here have to brave a horrid climb and cross the basin of a great water-fall, leaving them helpless against the flying menaces. So if killing the wyverns while they are helpless is an evil act, then THESE wyverns should have had their alignments changed to evil, because they kill helpless sentient life ALL THE FREAKING TIME.
The players are hunting the dread cyclopian lich Vordekai, who used an ancient artifact to mind-control and soul-trap the entire village. The players are the only hope for not only the survival of several dozen innocents, but for their eternal souls not being used for an evil lich's diabolic ends, fueling his power so he might regain his full potential as a LV20 Necromancer dread cyclops lich, a terror that would rend the peace and spell doom for all life in the entire REGION. Measuring THIS up to the life of a wyvern, and the paladin should fall for even CONSIDERING risking the mission due to some PETA bullcrap sentiment.
THAT is the situation, and NOTHING ELSE. And based on THAT, the party should have kicked the paladin down the cliff if he's even suggesting that they risk their lives, and much more importantly; the mission, to preserve the dumb freaking lizards gunning for Darwin Awards by sleeping in the open when they belong on the wimpy half of the encounter table.
It doesn't matter if the players know that. If you're putting bloodthirsty rampaging carnivors in an area where adventurers are dying and their nest is filled with bones and it's all just some wacky coinkidink to make people commit an evil act, guess what? That's not just a player trap, it's terrible DMing.
How do you know that? Can you read the brain of the DM?
How do the characters know that?
Because OP said he was running this AP, and I finished GMing it a month ago. I know how it works, because I own it and am currently LOOKING at it, and he did not say anything about huge augmentations.
Sure, there can be "maybe"s, like "maybe this whole thing could be avoided if the WHOLE situation was revealed off the cuff, instead of speculating and debating largely irrelevant factors for 800 posts?"
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.
Fail. By that reasoning, if i as player read the AP beforehand, i can base my decisions on actions and kills on the information i gained.
The "encounter in question" provided no information contained in the AP, and it suggests that something was changed about the encounter.
Kamelguru wrote:
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.
Lets see, in RAW:
Evil=Killing out of convenience
(Dishonorable=Killing defenseless nonhostile beings in their sleep)
Wyverns= Neutral dragons(not evil dragons, not neutral animals. Neutral Dragons)
Wyvern description= Upper parts could as well apply to a party member, even the paladin. NO explicit mentioning of sentient beings EXCEPT in the part about working together with them, with ONE of the two mentioned races also being NEUTRAL.
Paladin=Falls IF he willingly commits an evil act OR violates his code of conduct.
Paladin kills neutral dragon in his sleep with no attempt to identify it or based on any in-game information gained. Yes, by RAW it's very valid to consider that BOTH evil and dishonorable, since he failed to give an acceptable reason(and the one he did, was based on meta-game knowledge of them going to attack).
Basing it on RAW, we already defended our case.
So _YOU_ guys siding with the paladin started claiming relatives. That "Lawful good" shouldn't be so constricting.
In that case, if paladin's should have so much leverage, why wouldn't the wyverns, as well? Why do they have to be all the same?
It was stated that it should be "common knowledge" that wyverns are evil animalistic creatures.
Only they're not. If the paladin HAD any common knowledge, he should know them as possibly dangerous predators, but NO huntsman will kill predators on sight without a reason to do so. The "non-sportsman"-like part in hunting refers to "Take what you need". Not done here. He killed without need, and left corpses to rot.
Either way, you can easily say in YOUR game hunters kill all predators on sight, what the Paladin did was honorably, heroic even, and a good deed.
IN THAT CASE, we are coming into subjective Alignment views.
And based on that, you _ALSO_ have to allow other people to view alignments with their own eyes.
Yes, i am not playing by RAW, all the time, or interpret RAW differently. Thats my good right as DM. As it is yours.
But if YOU relax the code of conduct or Lawful Good, then it must ALSO be allowed that another DM runs the Wyvern as a True Neutral Dragon. Otherwise this is a double standard.
That is exactly what i said over and over:
By raw, you already failed to provide a reason why the paladin would not flal.
By subjective reasoning, you apply double standards to yourself and other DMs, respective the paladin and wyverns.
Kamelguru wrote:
* = 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.
Yep they do. ASIDE from the fact that they are dragons, not animals.
A cat is a predatory animal. They like sun, and sleep quite a lot. They are hardly the top predators in their environment, but sleep in open view quite a lot.
THEN again, they are the fastest-reacting animals in regards to going from "sleepy" to "full alert", and not on the regular diet of many other creatures.
So in the case of the wyverns, they are some of the top dogs. They may not be _THE_ top dogs, but it's enough if they are not on the "prey" list of anything stronger than them.
Besides, a nest on a cliffside is hardly easily accessible, now is it?
As to the Nest in the Adventure Path: Stop the assumptions. Unless your players are truly railway-minded, then you'll have to improvise now and then, during an AP. It is not written law. You can change things. Maybe the nest in the OP was a lot closer? Maybe there was no "treasure" in it? Maybe the Paladin did not mention that they attacked townsfolk because they NEVER DID?
Basing defense on something that was a.: not known to the paladin and b.: possibly doesn't even hold true courtesy of some facts changed by the DM is not exactly the most cunning way to do things. Claiming things should have been impossible(when they clearly were possible) may be a good indication that things were adapted/changed. AND BASED on the OP, no further information of that AP was given or should be needed in the judgement call. For all WE know, the OP could have played that AP and took a memorable encounter for use in his own Campaign, switching stuff around so not to bore other players. We DON'T know, and even if we did, it wouldn't change the fact that we have to work with the information given. And the information we have provides that the Paladin did not reason based on them being evil, having attacked humans, having seen "loot" in their nest, whatever..he only based his attack decision on "threat", against two sleeping, and as far as he knew, neutral creatures he knew NOTHING about.
Kamelguru wrote:
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..."
Oh, but no one said "Death to the paladin" or "Fall from Grace, nasty Paladin". Paladins are supposed to receive regular atonements for journeying with an evil character, without even doing something themselves or the evil character doing something evil. Getting an atonement to get back his abilities? Not a terrible price to pay.
The thing is, _YOU_ claim that we are doing it WRONG and you are doing it RIGHT:
I claim that WE are doing it RIGHT, and you are also doing it RIGHT.
It's your game. Run it as you want. But don't come and tell me how to run mine. You want homebrew wyvern that are always evil because every adventure path that uses them USES wyvern portrayed as evil? Go ahead. Don't go tell me my wyvern have to be bloodthirsty maniacal dire animals as well.
The thing is, for the judgement call to be fine, it's enough that we are right. There's no necessity for you to be wrong. The discussion goes on, however, because i see a necessity for you to admit that we are NOT wrong, because in "your" opinion, obviously, we are doing it "wrong", for whatever "reason" the whole "Yay paladin" crowd couldn't come up with in this endless thread.
Kamelguru wrote:
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.
Again, you are using outside knowledge to defend behaiviour.
If i READ an AP, and KNOW that the bartender of the first tavern we come to is a demon worshipper that sacrifices local youth, is it perfectly fine for my lawful good monk to instantly start a surprise round and kill him? After all, we will find evidence in the cellar when we search. So it was a good deed, right? Even if my character had no way or knowing what i knew.
Kamelguru wrote:
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.
The question is not about the "moral dilemna", its about the way he acted. He killed without any kind of research, knowledge, or in-game information. It's the way he acts, like a trigger-happy outlaw.
It was stated over and over that with proper reasoning, it may well have been a sound tactic and action. But there was none. It's not even Paladin, the reasoning would not have sufficed for ANY good character. For Paladins as pinnacles of "the forces of good", it happens to have repercussions.
Quote:
the whole mimics stuff
This is the mimics description::
Mimics are thought to be the result of an alchemist's attempt to grant life to an inanimate object through the application of an eldritch reagent, the recipe for which is long lost. Over time, these strange but clever creatures have learned the ability to transform themselves into simulacra of man-made objects, particularly in locations that have infrequent traffic by small numbers of creatures, thus increasing their odds of successfully attacking their victims.
Though mimics are not inherently evil, some sages believe that mimics attack humans and other intelligent creatures for sport rather than merely for sustenance. The desire to completely fool others is thought to be a part of their being, and their surprise attacks against others are a culmination of those desires.
A typical mimic has a volume of 150 cubic feet (5 feet by 5 feet by 6 feet) and weighs about 900 pounds. Legends and tales speak of mimics of much greater sizes, with the ability to assume the form of houses, ships, or entire dungeon complexes that they festoon with treasure (both real and false) to lure unsuspecting food within.
While dragons are superior to humans, they are living creatures, they have a similar understanding of good and evil, basically a similar value system(live, treasures, family, ...) They have a similar "mindset" as the humanoid races.
Mimics are animated objects, with a probably rather "distinct" mindset. In terms of needs and desires, a human will have a lot more in common with a monkey than with an Artificial Intelligence.
That all aside: Mimics are explicitly mentioned to be attacking intelligent creatures for sport. They "get off" on fooling and surprise attacking sentient beings.
So yep, if you just see a chair running from one end of the room to the other and turn into a box there? It's weird, but not exactly a reason to hack it into pieces. If you KNOW it attacked someone, SAW it attack someone, have been ATTACKED by it, have been attacked by ANOTHER before, OR made a lore check and identified it as dangerous to sentient beings and in a place where it WILL be a danger for people?
Go ahead, kill it.
The only difference from the wyvern is the big one: The wyvern lore check will reveal that it's aggressive, but not especially on the hunt for sentient creatures, rather that it's working together with them for bribes.
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
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.
Yes, if EITHER player knowledge, or LORE indicates that it _IS_ a threat reasonable enough to warrant killing. I'm perfectly fine with that.
Helic wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
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).
The point is that it comes down to what you see the paladin as. As a fanatic that sees everything that does not live up to his standards as shortcoming? Possible.
But the view i(and some others prefer) may well be as "protector of innocents", defender of good, and slayer of evil.
In that case, since whoever DOES evil, is evil, by default those people remaining neutral are "innocent" of doing evil. Not everybody is in a position to do much good, and a good heart alone will not do. A very nice farmer that can barely feed his own family, no matter how high his morales and believe in good, still remains bound by the fact that he can barely feed his own family. He will live out his live on the farm, working hard to make food for those he loves. Still, he'll be neutral. He is not actively seeking or furthering the cause of "good".
So yep, detect good may well make sense for a paladin in certain cases, but in my eyes, it makes sense they have detect evil. Not just to go hand-in-hand with their smite, but because they shouldn't "distinguish" between good and neutral innocents. Everybody not evil is worth protecting and being alive. In the same way, being that are not evil(thus good or neutral) should ONLY ever be attacked or even slain if there is necessity. And if the necessity is strong enough to slay a non-evil creature, again it should not matter if the person is good or neutral. If the necessity is not big enough to slay another good person, then it should not be high enough to slay a neutral one either.
Paladins are the shining examples and icons of virtue of the world, and the great many that out of a lack of options/skills/abilities/... remain neutral, are looking to them for protection against evil, in whatever form it cometh. Yep, it's a subjective view, and an oldskool-one at that, but i admit openly to prefer that kind of paladin over a "holy avenger" fanatic type.
Helic wrote:
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...
Yep, as you said, there should be a valid reason to kill.
As for wether the paladin's reason was valid: That's basically the only question here.
The DM later said in a post that the reasoning _WAS_ out of character. The player STATED that "They will attack us later, better to get it over with now!". It's not even about the loot or XP.
It's, in MY eyes, that the character either did not know anything about wyverns and didn't TRY to find out anything about wyverns.(Otherwise he could have reasoned thusly..."Those are the foul beasts that attacked the village, best attack them while we have solid ground underneath"). Possibly they DIDN'T do something evil in the OP's path, and thus he COULD not reason that way.
If he wants to reason in-character that they are dangerous and will attack them, he would need a reason to believe so/not believe so, which a knowledge check could have provided.
They were SLEEPING, and hardly a danger at that time, and most likely even IF they had to flee from the tomb, would still be sleeping, out hunting, or be possible to parley with.
Even if he contemplated that and then decided the SAVE way was attacking them, it may slide. Paladins can also make mistakes.
But he didn't. He didn't consider other options. He(the player) knew that they would attack them, and knew he would attack first(possible he read the AP). He didn't provide an in-game reason to know they'd be threatened by these beasts, nor one to take them out(because they've been attacked by one before, or they attacked the village).
I've seen too many "trigger-happy"-players. Paladins are held to different standards, and are harder to play properly. A undeliberating "kill-first"-strategy just doesn't seem to become them.
Aside from that, the DM explicitly stated that he talked the Code of Conduct OVER with this player, and included NOT to attack helpless creatures as being dishonorable. Sleeping _IS_ helpless. Violating the Code results in a Paladin losing his powers and needing atonement.
But as said, it's different from person to person.
If you have a perfectly streamlined group and do things fast? The reasoning may be enough to say "They are dangerous, they could attack later" and it's never even realized there could be a moral problem.
Here, i just "Saw" the same kind of problem player i met and had to DM for in a few groups. The reasoning "They WILL attack, better to attack now" already implies something very different from "They COULD attack". The fact that no other reason was given for the killing(while we already agreed he would need a good reason)...very questionable, especially because it would be very easy to provide any if it's truly exactly the AP everybody claims it is.
Also no attempt to find out if it truly is wyverns(again, that's group dynamics and different in many groups) or using a knowledge check(even hidden, as DM, and telling them what the character thinks about those creatures).
That he ALSO did not bring up any other reasons when the DM called him on that? Pretty clear to me. There was no other reason.
Possibly the player read the AP ahead of time, or he just deduced they are proper CR and placed in their way...i had players like that. That's enough of a reason to attack. As was later proven, this player was such a player, causing problems left and right even before.
The thing is, we didn't know. And as i said, if in your group the reason is good enough, then thats fine. I am not saying the Paladin HAS to lose powers and get atonement.
I merely say it's also a very valid point to say that reason is NOT good enough, and thus the call is fine that the Paladin DOES have to get atonement.
(That aside from the "helpless" part in the code of conduct, which is also outside information we didn't have at the beginning of the discussion, but would have caused a loss of powers ANYWAY)
Fine, we are discussing two different things then, and I retroactively request people to view my posts as means to shed light on the actual SCENARIO regarding wyverns that OP have confirmed are the ones of which I speak, rather than a stand-alone moment in a vacuum, with characters that possess no prior knowledge to why they got there, what they are doing there, what the wyverns in question are, even IF they are indeed wyverns, etc etc, subjective interpretation, etc etc, barbarians, etc etc dogs on the porch, etc etc, sleep real-world cats, etc etc, so that this bullcrap can END.
Summary:
- Player in OP's case did right by his friends, the quest and his god, albeit maybe the player's reasoning arguably was seeped in metagame, and does not deserve to fall.
- Imaginary "what-if" construct existing outside any confinement of context shows that shooting a sentient creature in their sleep is wrong no matter what in an imaginary "what-if" construct existing outside any confinement of context.
- Wyverns are more worthy of debate than any other monster.
i'm pretty sure someone just compared wyverns to cats. funny thing, that when i had three of them (cats that is, not wyverns, _that_ would be silly), i never saw a single one of them jump on the least armored creature and attempt to fly off with it and eat it... which IS WHAT WYVERNS DO.
my cleric sees a wyvern, or any other winged creature attacking the party, and she commonly fails to win initiative in a combat oriented party, she IMMEDIATELY casts freedom of movement on herself so that she cannot be grappled and flown away with. OMG, I don't have the appropriate knowledge check before the thing swoops down on the party, how could I assume that it might grab my character? META!! OMG, i didn't cast detect evil, how do I know the monstrous thing with fangs that's aiming directly for the wizard doesn't want to give him a hug and take him to the next hex to have tea and buttered scones?
Here's a story of truly awesome paladin might. Akiros Ismort, recently atoned paladin of Sarenrae pulls out his bow and shoots a single arrow at a Roc that is descending on the party and rolls a crit, confirms and chooses the option given on the paizo card of removing 1d6 from a single stat, in this case intelligence. The roc, robbed of every thought in its tiny head, immediately falls, whereupon the party rogue puts it out of its retarded misery. MY cleric immediately suggests we harvest some Roc feathers to put on display, a trophy not just for the people but because her paladin is freaking awesome. Should we both have fallen, Akiros for allowing the rogue to coup de grace an animal that could not fight back, and my cleric for selfishly wanting to take trophies to remind herself of her cohorts exploits?
Fine, we are discussing two different things then, and I retroactively request people to view my posts as means to shed light on the actual SCENARIO regarding wyverns that OP have confirmed are the ones of which I speak, rather than a stand-alone moment in a vacuum, with characters that possess no prior knowledge to why they got there, what they are doing there, what the wyverns in question are, even IF they are indeed wyverns, etc etc, subjective interpretation, etc etc, barbarians, etc etc dogs on the porch, etc etc, sleep real-world cats, etc etc, so that this bullcrap can END.
Summary:
- Player in OP's case did right by his friends, the quest and his god, albeit maybe the player's reasoning arguably was seeped in metagame, and does not deserve to fall.
- Imaginary "what-if" construct existing outside any confinement of context shows that shooting a sentient creature in their sleep is wrong no matter what in an imaginary "what-if" construct existing outside any confinement of context.
- Wyverns are more worthy of debate than any other monster.
We are discussing the same thing. Only there's two different viewpoints.
Player and DM
DM: You KNOW everything in there, you are familiar with it, and your knowledge suggests things to be a certain way.
Player: You know only what you learned, information you failed to learn in-game is not available to your character.
If the Player has no information regarding those Wyverns(which, by being 40 miles away from a settlement, are well beyond the 8-mile radius they claim as hunting ground), has never been attacked by one, never heared they attacked someone, etc....it's quite WRONG to justify his ACTIONS by information the DM has. The character obviously did not know about any problems, was never attacked by them, didn't know other fought them before, etc...
a defense based on MIXING DM and player-information ist just not valid as the players actions should not be based on intel not available to his character.
hustru wrote:
i'm pretty sure someone just compared wyverns to cats. funny thing, that when i had three of them (cats that is, not wyverns, _that_ would be silly), i never saw a single one of them jump on the least armored creature and attempt to fly off with it and eat it... which IS WHAT WYVERNS DO.
my cleric sees a wyvern, or any other winged creature attacking the party, and she commonly fails to win initiative in a combat oriented party, she IMMEDIATELY casts freedom of movement on herself so that she cannot be grappled and flown away with. OMG, I don't have the appropriate knowledge check before the thing swoops down on the party, how could I assume that it might grab my character? META!! OMG, i didn't cast detect evil, how do I know the monstrous thing with fangs that's aiming directly for the wizard doesn't want to give him a hug and take him to the next hex to have tea and buttered scones?
Here's a story of truly awesome paladin might. Akiros Ismort, recently atoned paladin of Sarenrae pulls out his bow and shoots a single arrow at a Roc that is descending on the party and rolls a crit, confirms and chooses the option given on the paizo card of removing 1d6 from a single stat, in this case intelligence. The roc, robbed of every thought in its tiny head, immediately falls, whereupon the party rogue puts it out of its retarded misery. MY cleric immediately suggests we harvest some Roc feathers to put on display, a trophy not just for the people but because her paladin is freaking awesome. Should we both have fallen, Akiros for allowing the rogue to coup de grace an animal that could not fight back, and my cleric for selfishly wanting to take trophies to remind herself of her cohorts exploits?
the comparison with cats was only in regards that it was claimed predatory animals don't "sleep in the open/in plain view", especially if they are not the absolute top dogs(lions) in their habitat.
Other than that: Cats are rather similar to the portrayed wyverns of pro-paladin. They kill for sport, they toy with their prey, playing with it for a long time. They have no qualms stealing little baby birds from their nests and crunching them. By that logic, killing all cats would be very justified, because naturally, they are evil.
It was also said that some information may well be reasonable to have. Huge flying creatures being able to carry you off? Reasonable information.
A certain copyrighted huge birdlike monster being able to petrify you with a touch? Not so much.
As for the Roc(other other flying clawed creatures steering directly for you), there was already a hostile intent proven. It attacked you. You made it helpless through an attack and seized the moment to kill. In some groups that may not be unquestioned, in mine it's perfectly fine.
If you find the Roc sleeping in it's nest and cut it's throat without reason or provocation? Different story.
As for the trophies: That actually makes the opposite true. Because you "use" what you killed. I'd even go as far as taking some good meat for the evening camp. It's a lot less honorable to just let the beast rot than to give it the "honor" of using the parts of it that it's body provides.
Fine, we are discussing two different things then, and I retroactively request people to view my posts as means to shed light on the actual SCENARIO regarding wyverns that OP have confirmed are the ones of which I speak, rather than a stand-alone moment in a vacuum, with characters that possess no prior knowledge to why they got there, what they are doing there, what the wyverns in question are, even IF they are indeed wyverns, etc etc, subjective interpretation, etc etc, barbarians, etc etc dogs on the porch, etc etc, sleep real-world cats, etc etc, so that this bullcrap can END.
Summary:
- Player in OP's case did right by his friends, the quest and his god, albeit maybe the player's reasoning arguably was seeped in metagame, and does not deserve to fall.
- Imaginary "what-if" construct existing outside any confinement of context shows that shooting a sentient creature in their sleep is wrong no matter what in an imaginary "what-if" construct existing outside any confinement of context.
- Wyverns are more worthy of debate than any other monster.
We are discussing the same thing. Only there's two different viewpoints.
Player and DM
DM: You KNOW everything in there, you are familiar with it, and your knowledge suggests things to be a certain way.
Player: You know only what you learned, information you failed to learn in-game is not available to your character.
If the Player has no information regarding those Wyverns(which, by being 40 miles away from a settlement, are well beyond the 8-mile radius they claim as hunting ground), has never been attacked by one, never heared they attacked someone, etc....it's quite WRONG to justify his ACTIONS by information the DM has. The character obviously did not know about any problems, was never attacked by them, didn't know other fought them before, etc...
a defense based on MIXING DM and player-information ist just not valid.
........
You're accusing me of WHAT now? This is so rich it's almost making me giggle.
Seems I need to elaborate even further: The PLAYERS come to the village of Varnhold to find the place deserted save some monsters. In there, they find clues that send them on a scavenger hunt for loose ends, meet a tribe of centaurs, learn of the ancient lich and his tomb, hear of the endless failed previous attempts to deal with him, and is shown the defended mountain path to GET there, which is so obscured and hard to discover that the possibility of stumbling over this place by CHANCE is next to nil.
The PLAYERS know that this fiend is the reason the villagers are lost. The PLAYERS know that several knights and adventurers have met their demise here. The PLAYERS know that if they fail, the lich will come into power and rule supreme. The PLAYERS are there based on THEIR knowledge, facing a do-or-die quest. And EVERYTHING that is flying around, with the exception of one VERY RARE encounter with a silver dragon, have been VERY BAD NEWS. The player MIGHT not have encountered winged death so far, but that is exceptionally lucky/unlucky on their part. Suffice to say, MY party ended up having to defeat 5 or 6 wyverns, 2 chimeras, 5 manticores, 2 rocs, a bunch of unique dragons called "Tatzlwyrms", saying "Hi!" to the rare silver dragon (double 0 in mountains), and more stuff I don't remember off the top of my head, before entering the tomb.
Now, sure, OP could have done all manner of alterations, but he did not say that he did, so I will go on assuming that he followed the AP, unless he tells me otherwise. An oversight is completely reasonable, since Paizo does have a tendency to put relevant information inside a wall of text one page after the stat-block, making it possible to miss stuff like the DC35-46 perception check to spot the nest. But until OP comes back and says differently, I will assume they somehow made the epic DC, and fired on the wyverns without the player formulating WHY in-game, which is a player mistake, not a slight of the character. The GM should have taken a time-out and asked the player "While I understand why you as a PLAYER think this, why is your CHARACTER doing this?" in which case the player might say "The centaurs told us that there is dangerous creatures here, and the book we found indicated that the passage to the tomb is fraught with peril. Sir Bob is worried for his companions safety and good Lord Perceptional the All-Seeing said there was a skeleton clutching a sword in their roost" Or apply any of the other pieces of character knowledge the players CANNOT have missed due to the fact that they needed to complete those steps to find the tomb.
Oh, and regarding the cats sleeping out: Do you see them sleeping out in a street that has heavy traffic? Or in kennel yards full of dogs? Or any other area where they are not safe to do so, because there are several things in close proximity that will descend upon them and kill them if they do?
Real world comparisons are flawed, because real life do not have invisible lightning-monsters, dragons and soul-eating undead to prove Darwin right. A cat sleeps outside in his own territory because he feels safe to do so, trusting that he can get away from the few things that might threaten it, like lv1 humans with NPC classes, or a bigger and slower animal.
Wyvern legends? I'll give you Wyvern legends!
A wyvern or wivern (pronounced /ˈwaɪvərn/) is a legendary winged reptilian creature with a dragon's head, the hindquarters of a snake or lizard with two legs or none, and a barbed tail. The wyvern was often found in mediaeval heraldry[1]. The word is derived from Middle English wyvere, from Old North French wivre "viper".[2] Wyverns are mentioned in Dante's Inferno (Canto XVII) as the body for one of his creatures in hell.
The wyvern is a frequent mascot, especially in Wales and Wessex, but also farther afield in Herefordshire and Worcestershire, as the rivers Wye and Severn run through Hereford and Worcester respectively. For example, one of the local radio stations is called Wyvern FM.[3] Vauxhall Motors had a model in its range in the 1950s called the Wyvern. The Westland Wyvern was a British single-seat carrier-based multi-role strike aircraft built by Westland Aircraft that served in the 1950s, seeing active service in the 1956 Suez Crisis. The wyvern is also a frequent mascot of athletic teams, particularly in the United Kingdom and United States, and is the mascot of the Korean Baseball Organization team SK Wyverns, established in 2000.
Wyverns frequently appear in video games, such as in the Warcraft series,[4] the Monster Hunter series, the Kingdom Under Fire series, the Fire Emblem series, the Dragon Quest series, and the Heroes of Might and Magic series. Wyvern is also used as a name for a supercarrier class capital ship for the Caldari race in the MMORPG EVE Online.[5] In the Disney cartoon series Gargoyles, "Castle Wyvern" was the ancestral home of the Scottish Gargoyles, who bore some resemblance to the mythical creature.
Some cryptozoologists[6] have interpreted wyverns as surviving pterosaurs, which were extinct around 65 million years ago. There are alleged sightings in remote areas of pterosaur-like creatures such as the Kongamato in Africa.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyvern
The DM later said in a post that the reasoning _WAS_ out of character. The player STATED that "They will attack us later, better to get it over with now!". It's not even about the loot or XP.
The player stated in character that they should kill the wyverns before entering the tomb. The fact that he further explained his reasoning OOC makes it metagaming? That's bull, that's just explaining his reasoning OOC. How deeply are they roleplaying in that campaign? We don't know, but I'm guessing that, like many games, OOC talk happens a lot. So the player explained 'his' thinking without using the 'paladin's' voice. It's still his, and by extension, his character's reasoning.
Not everyone is a master roleplayer who can pretend their character's thought processes work differently from their own, after all.
Quote:
It's, in MY eyes, that the character either did not know anything about wyverns and didn't TRY to find out anything about wyverns.
Given the fact that the GM told them they were wyverns, he's handed out all the basic information needed. If you tell a player it's a wyvern, you're assuming that the characters know basic info about wyverns. That's why I asserted that the GM was doing more metagaming than the players in this scenario.
The GM should not have said the word 'wyvern' to his players if the characters were not supposed to know what they were. He should have said 'large creature' or 'dragon' or 'lizard', or anything else appropriate. This forces the players to get more info, get more knowledge checks, etcetera. But he basically handed out the free information then punished the players for acting accordingly. It's just like telling the group you're facing 'ogres' instead of 'giant humanoids' or 'zombies' instead of 'staggering humanoid' (fresh zombies might be hard to distinguish in the dark, after all).
And yes, the whole helpless thing is a GM fiat specific to his campaign, so in that regard he'd be justified pulling the paladin's powers for violating his code. I just have to point to the thread title and continue to say "No, it wasn't an evil act."
We are discussing the same thing. Only there's two different viewpoints.
Player and DM
DM: You KNOW everything in there, you are familiar with it, and your knowledge suggests things to be a certain way.
Player: You know only what you learned, information you failed to learn in-game is not available to your character.
If the Player has no information regarding those Wyverns(which, by being 40 miles away from a settlement, are well beyond the 8-mile radius they claim as hunting ground), has never been attacked by one, never heared they attacked someone, etc....it's quite WRONG to justify his ACTIONS by information the DM has. The character obviously did not know about any problems, was never attacked by them, didn't know other fought them before, etc...
a defense based on MIXING DM and player-information ist just not valid.
You're accusing me of WHAT now? This is so rich it's almost making me giggle.
Not accusing. I only told you to STOP assuming that YOUR knowledge is the players knowledge. You know the AP inside out. Fine. Lets see.
I'll ruin my play experience and read through your spoilers, for sake of argument here.
Kamelguru wrote:
Seems I need to elaborate even further: The PLAYERS come to the village of Varnhold to find the place deserted save some monsters. In there, they find clues that send them on a scavenger hunt for loose ends, meet a tribe of centaurs, learn of the ancient lich and his tomb, hear of the endless failed previous attempts to deal with him, and is shown the defended mountain path to GET there, which is so obscured and hard to discover that the possibility of stumbling over this place by CHANCE is next to nil.
The PLAYERS know that this fiend is the reason the villagers are lost. The PLAYERS know that several knights and adventurers have met their demise here. The PLAYERS know that if they fail, the lich will come into power and rule supreme. The PLAYERS are there based on THEIR knowledge, facing a do-or-die quest.
Okay, fine. Nothing here mentions wyverns. There's an empty village. Lots of other stuff. Empty village means nobody there tells them anything about wyverns? The Lich also doesn't seem like a likely employer-nothing so far. So they were NOT there by chance, but well into the AP. But nothing about wyverns.
Kamelguru wrote:
And EVERYTHING that is flying around, with the exception of one VERY RARE encounter with a silver dragon, have been VERY BAD NEWS. The player MIGHT not have encountered winged death so far, but that is exceptionally lucky/unlucky on their part. Suffice to say, MY party ended up having to defeat 5 or 6 wyverns, 2 chimeras, 5 manticores, 2 rocs, a bunch of unique dragons called "Tatzlwyrms", saying "Hi!" to the rare silver dragon (double 0 in mountains), and more stuff I don't remember off the top of my head, before entering the tomb.
So, yep, your party was encountering them. Quite possibly, this one didn't. considering "everything" flying as very bad may stem from that. Doesn't mean they met ANY wyverns at all here. Lets not assume things, again.
If they HAD met a wyvern before, that would have been a good argument to use. Which he DIDN'T. So both assumptions stand without backup, we can't prove they HAD prior experiences nor that they HAD NOT. Since i don't have to prove you wrong, it doesn't matter if they HAD experiences. But for you to prove us wrong, you'd have to assume the "worst case" for your scenario, which is that they NEVER saw a wyvern in their entire adventuring career.
Kamelguru wrote:
Now, sure, OP could have done all manner of alterations, but he did not say that he did, so I will go on assuming that he followed the AP, unless he tells me otherwise. An oversight is completely reasonable, since Paizo does have a tendency to put relevant information inside a wall of text one page after the stat-block, making it possible to miss stuff like the DC35-46 perception check to spot the nest. But until OP comes back and says differently, I will assume they somehow made the epic DC, and fired on the wyverns without the player formulating WHY in-game, ...
Break here. Yep, he didn't state anything regarding changes. So lets say he followed the AP without changing anything. As far as i saw, there is a reasonable chance to assume they did NOT meet or hear anything about wyverns up to here.
Kamelguru wrote:
... which is a player mistake, not a slight of the character. The GM should have taken a time-out and asked the player "While I understand why you as a PLAYER think this, why is your CHARACTER doing this?"
Yep, it's a serious player mistake in this case, and the DM called him out for that. Now i know neither how it is at your nor at this DM's table, but at mine, that EQUALS a time-out and the player has a chance to formalize a in-character reasoning. Or answer "While i understand why you as a PLAYER think this, why is your CHARACTER doing this?"
Now, if the PLAYER comes up with a good reason, then it's fine. If he fails to do that, the call stands.
Only if it's a character that has built-in restrictions, calling him out like that has repercussions if he FAILS to produce an answer.
Kamelguru wrote:
in which case the player might say "The centaurs told us that there is dangerous creatures here, and the book we found indicated that the passage to the tomb is fraught with peril. Sir Bob is worried for his companions safety and good Lord Perceptional the All-Seeing said there was a skeleton clutching a sword in their roost" Or apply any of the other pieces of character knowledge the players CANNOT have missed due to the fact that they needed to complete those steps to find the tomb.
Hu, but, they slew the centaurs. They are monstrous humanoids with neutral alignment and were seen near a depopulated village. They didn't talk with them before the Paladin jumped to conclusions and started shooting.
But ok, lets assume there WAS any information they gained, such as from a book, centaurs, or any "other pieces of character knowledge the players CANNOT have missed" that directly relates to the wyverns. Then the player didn't use it.
Read the OP again:
Quote:
The paladin (Paladin of erastil) says "lets kill the wyverns before we enter the tomb" (he also said out of character that the wyverns are going to attack the party so it's best to kill em before they kill the party and was metagaming).
it already states in the original reasoning he used meta-gaming knowledge. But lets put that aside, the interesting part for this is here:
Quote:
I told the paladin that he lost his powers cause he committed an evil act by acting a sleeping sentient being that was not evil. And I told him that he essentially killed 3 wyverns as the pair had a nest and that the one wyvern wouldn't be able to properly hunt and feed her litter of wyverns (2).
His argument was that they were monster and needed to be purged from the land.
His argument was NOT that they attacked other creatures, that they've been attacked, that they heared from someone that they are dangerous or evil, or that they are associated with the tomb. The Paladins "argument" for his action after being called out was "They are monsters, they need to be purged".
So if he INDEED had any "better" reason for his action, i'd say that qualifies as player fail.
Aside from all that, the OP already posted that he talked the code of conduct over with the Paladin _BEFORE_ and it included that attacking helpless creatures would be dishonorable. That was SPECIFICALLY included as part contradicting "act with honor", and he did it anyway.
and as we know:
Code of Conduct wrote:
...
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
...
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see atonement), as appropriate.
Kamelguru wrote:
Oh, and regarding the cats sleeping out: Do you see them sleeping out in a street that has heavy traffic? Or in kennel yards full of dogs? Or any other area where they are not safe to do so, because there are several things in close proximity that will descend upon them and kill them if they do?
I also don't see wyverns nesting in the middle of the town. They don't sleep "on" the street, but sure enough on the asphalt next to it, preferably on the stone containments of garbage bins, e.g.(that may be a matter of architecture, but they are close to the street, flat, and in plain view). Going to extremes does not help here. That tomb was hardly next to a "kings highway" or something. The next settlement was 40 miles away and most of the other "flying predators" you mentioned would not exactly consider poisonous Wyverns a delicacy.
Kamelguru wrote:
Real world comparisons are flawed, because real life do not have invisible lightning-monsters, dragons and soul-eating undead to prove Darwin right. A cat sleeps outside in his own territory because he feels safe to do so, trusting that he can get away from the few things that might threaten it, like lv1 humans with NPC classes, or a bigger and slower animal.
Yep, they are flawed and regarding them, you are completely right. My point is that for a flying predator, especially with YOUNG, a cliffside may still be the best place to nest. Anything climbing is easier to attack, ground-based things have a hard time reaching them, and most air-creatures will likely choose easier prey. Even if it's easily visible, the same may hold true. They believe it's save to do so. Most things that can't fly, can't threaten them, most things that fly, they can see as early as the other stuff sees them and be ready to fight or flee, ASIDE from the fact that not many flying creatures will choose to attack THEM over other prey. Also, being backed into a cave may well be bad if a more powerful predator hunting wyverns follows their scent or sees one land at the entrance. Also, they are out hunting often, so any "predators" that have a taste for wyvern could get them then, just as easily.
The DM later said in a post that the reasoning _WAS_ out of character. The player STATED that "They will attack us later, better to get it over with now!". It's not even about the loot or XP.
The player stated in character that they should kill the wyverns before entering the tomb. The fact that he further explained his reasoning OOC makes it metagaming? That's bull, that's just explaining his reasoning OOC. How deeply are they roleplaying in that campaign? We don't know, but I'm guessing that, like many games, OOC talk happens a lot. So the player explained 'his' thinking without using the 'paladin's' voice. It's still his, and by extension, his character's reasoning.
Not everyone is a master roleplayer who can pretend their character's thought processes work differently from their own, after all.
Well, the question is WHY they should kill the wyverns. Technically, everything in the monster manual/bestiary is a "monster". After being called out, his reason was "They monster. Need purging."
The problem was that his WHOLE reasoning was based on the out-of-character _KNOWLEDGE_(not assumption, which you could say was "extending the paladins thought process) that the Wyverns are a LEVEL-approbiate encounter, that they are PLACED on their path, and thus must be SCRIPTED to attack.
Explaining reasoning OOC can be fine, if you don't use information for that reasoning that you can't have. So okay, you can do that in several rounds, but if you are then called out to produce an IN-character reason for your action, you should have something ready.
If you play a lawful good character that is bound to protect innocents, not do anything evil, with good defined as respect for life and evil as "killing for convenience", then yes, he needs a better reason than "they are monsters". OOC talk can be all fine, it also happens a lot in my groups(depending on the group), but all players are aware that serious decisions or questionable actions have to be justifyable for their CHARACTERS.
In the OPs case, the player failed to do so satisfyingly when called out on it. Not everybody can "master roleplay" their characters to every little bit, sure. But if you play a paladin, you're at least expected to put a little effort into it and try to play him according to the limitations put into that class.
Indiscriminatingly killing other creatures is not something a paladin does. When he kills, he has a reason to do so.
What reason is enough, may be different in different rounds.
With options as simple as trying to sneak by/ignoring them/trying a knowledge check/... and no BETTER reason delivered when called out on it, it's quite reasonable that the OP would see it as "not protecting innocent live"(good), but rather "kill out of convenience"(evil) action.
As you said, different people run different games, with different amounts of OOC-talk and different definitions. So by WHICH "right" exactly are you telling the OP that his call was wrong in the same paragraph that you admit not knowing how his game is run?
Helic wrote:
Quote:
It's, in MY eyes, that the character either did not know anything about wyverns and didn't TRY to find out anything about wyverns.
Given the fact that the GM told them they were wyverns, he's handed out all the basic information needed. If you tell a player it's a wyvern, you're assuming that the characters know basic info about wyverns. That's why I asserted that the GM was doing more metagaming than the players in this scenario.
The GM should not have said the word 'wyvern' to his players if the characters were not supposed to know what they were. He should have said 'large creature' or 'dragon' or 'lizard', or anything else appropriate. This forces the players to get more info, get more knowledge checks, etcetera. But he basically handed out the free information then punished the players for acting accordingly. It's just like telling the group you're facing 'ogres' instead of 'giant humanoids' or 'zombies' instead of 'staggering humanoid' (fresh zombies might be hard to distinguish in the dark, after all).
And yes, the whole helpless thing is a GM fiat specific to his campaign,so in that regard he'd be justified pulling the paladin's powers...
Yep, and i already said that the GM maybe did mishandle parts of it. He overlooked the distance penalty, he used "wyverns", he did NOT roll a hidden knowledge check for the characters to figure out what those creatures are(to provide them with the lore facts that they are intelligent neutral dragons).
All that, i'm really with you. If people are given information, they tend to use it. I worked around that by making sure to sometimes mix stuff up. Not in a "trap" way, usually in a clear-as-day way, but it keeps my players guessing and not assuming things to always be exactly the same way(know one wyvern, know all wyverns...).
Still, even then, when they knew it was wyverns, even if they assumed it was evil or had already fought one before. I would at least have expected them to CONSIDER their options. If they were at least discussing other possibilities. Sneaking by, using magic, whatever...i guess what really got me on the contra-paladin side was that the "first course of action" without discussion or deliberation was the "kill"-route. And the Paladin didn't just go along with it out of tactical practicality and because the group would do it anyway, he suggested it.
As i already told Kamelguru, i totally understand where YOU're coming from, and it's a very valid view. I am not trying to prove it wrong. I do claim, however, that my view is just as valid, and depending on the type of game played(how much OOC, how much knowledge, interpretation of good/evil/honor...) at a table, the call is very much justified.
For me, it was. For the DM of OP, it was, too.
If it's different at your table, thats perfectly fine with me, and probably most others. But the same tolerance should hold true the other way round, as well. If my table requires the players to identify their targets more clearly before starting a barrage against it, that should be a valid view, too.
How about this then; both player and GM admit that they are in the wrong?
The standards of what counts as part of the paladin code should be made abundantly clear, because no two people will ever agree COMPLETELY on any matter. What counts as evil and what does not is easily enough defined, but context IS relevant, and in the case of this encounter, there is 900 posts proving that.
The player should then, based on the CoC-judgment of the GM, contemplate if he even WANTS to play a paladin. I sure as cheese wouldn't want to play one with a GM that thinks attacking sleeping monsters that impede our quest for good = violation and punishment.
The GM posted several hundred posts ago that he and the player agreed that he get a metaphysical slap on the wrist, and both parties were fine with that. I do not agree that the paladin was in the wrong at all, based on my knowledge of the AP, and my perception and evaluation of real-world ethics and morality, and how/if they even CAN be applied in a fantasy universe where metaphysical concepts exist as tangible things (Celestials and Fiends, good and evil magic etc). While some people do believe that the paladin was wrong for their own reasons. I also think that whiskey is by FAR the superior brown liquor, others would cry foul until their throats grew hoarse in the name of brandy.
By RAW, the paladin is falling if he does an evil act willfully. There has been a long-winded argument about this too, some think that since the wyverns are applied in a similar manner as any given evil creature, they should be evil, and by extension that the bestiary entry is flawed, while others think that this is a poor portrayal, and by extension that every premade AP/module ever made featuring wyverns are wrong in their portrayal.
I have played almost a dozen paladins, from the blatant rip-off of Cecil in Final Fantasy 4 (Shut up! I was 12, and he was awesome), to my Tian-Min samurai-flavored paladin I am currently playing in Serpent Skull, who is courting the tiefling rogue, inspiring her to do good. Every one of them memorable, and I think people's love, expectations, hate, misconceptions and other forms of opinions on this unique class is well reflected in this madness-inducing thread.
Anyway, I am right, you are wrong, because I am stronger than you, and my dad could beat up your dad. On top of that; Neener neener neener, you suck, I rule! Get this undead turkey to 1000, and make it legend!
My father died of rectal cancer shortly after the bicentennial.
Your dad can't touch him, probably.
Back to the point, better to compromise with a slap on the wrist than to throw away game time with this kind of debate. It's barely tolerable here, but a disaster at the table.
By RAW, the paladin is falling if he does an evil act willfully. There has been a long-winded argument about this too, some think that since the wyverns are applied in a similar manner as any given evil creature, they should be evil, and by extension that the bestiary entry is flawed, while others think that this is a poor portrayal, and by extension that every premade AP/module ever made featuring wyverns are wrong in their portrayal.
Willful disreguard for the value of life is willful.
If I go out, get completely smash, then get behind the wheel, I just commited a crime even though no one got harmed. If I then go and run someone over because I can't control my car, now I committed felony manslaughter. What the paladin did was very close to the first one of those two.
The paladin's disreguard for life was both blatant and willful, but he is lucky in that no innocents were actually harmed. If his disreguard for life had gotten an innocent killed, then he would be an ex-paladin in my games.
Willful disreguard for the value of life is willful.
Value of whose lives? The wyvern's, or his companions, and all the people that would suffer if their mission failed?
I love these real-world comparisons. Until we actually get flying poisonous dinosaurs that can sort-of talk if they really must, it's all just apples vs oranges.
Okay, let's say the US government installs an experimental AI program into a fighter jet that runs on gasoline - and it goes rogue. So it needs to stop people's cars (usually with cannon fire or lasers, but sometimes it just siphons a bit of gas on the sly) to take some gas so it can keep operational. But heck, if you see one of these things sitting on a tennis court, cooling its jets, don't fire your rocket launcher at it, because maybe it hasn't killed somebody yet and darn it, it's a sentient machine!
Willful disreguard for the value of life is willful.
Value of whose lives? The wyvern's, or his companions, and all the people that would suffer if their mission failed?
I love these real-world comparisons. Until we actually get flying poisonous dinosaurs that can sort-of talk if they really must, it's all just apples vs oranges.
Okay, let's say the US government installs an experimental AI program into a fighter jet that runs on gasoline - and it goes rogue. So it needs to stop people's cars (usually with cannon fire or lasers, but sometimes it just siphons a bit of gas on the sly) to take some gas so it can keep operational. But heck, if you see one of these things sitting on a tennis court, cooling its jets, don't fire your rocket launcher at it, because maybe it hasn't killed somebody yet and darn it, it's a sentient machine!
And it's romantic. Can't you see it flirting with the tennis ball cannon? Who are you to come between their love?
You know, from the persective of a mouse or bird, cats are pretty much the most evil thing imaginable.
I hate to say it for like the fiftieth time, but nature is evil. Nature is messed up. There totally are creatures that would be classified as "neutral" that regularly and intelligently murder their own young, rape each other and other animals, and try to commit mass genocide for the giggles of it. Cats don't just hunt, they toy with their prey, batting it around and drawing out it's slow, painful death. Because they find it fun.
You know, from the persective of a mouse or bird, cats are pretty much the most evil thing imaginable.
I hate to say it for like the fiftieth time, but nature is evil. Nature is messed up. There totally are creatures that would be classified as "neutral" that regularly and intelligently murder their own young, rape each other and other animals, and try to commit mass genocide for the giggles of it. Cats don't just hunt, they toy with their prey, batting it around and drawing out it's slow, painful death. Because they find it fun.
Or, to put another spin on it, Good is Unnatural. ;-)
Willful disreguard for the value of life is willful.
Value of whose lives? The wyvern's, or his companions, and all the people that would suffer if their mission failed?
I love these real-world comparisons. Until we actually get flying poisonous dinosaurs that can sort-of talk if they really must, it's all just apples vs oranges.
Okay, let's say the US government installs an experimental AI program into a fighter jet that runs on gasoline - and it goes rogue. So it needs to stop people's cars (usually with cannon fire or lasers, but sometimes it just siphons a bit of gas on the sly) to take some gas so it can keep operational. But heck, if you see one of these things sitting on a tennis court, cooling its jets, don't fire your rocket launcher at it, because maybe it hasn't killed somebody yet and darn it, it's a sentient machine!
F#@@ yeah! I can't be the only one who thought THIS when I read that post? :D
And yes, the lives of goodly humans > the lives of non-good monsters. Appreciation of life is fine. Appreciation of non-good life at the cost of good friends, and dozens of innocents is... well, evil. Let's take the car example again; two drunks careen down the road, towards a pre-school, where 100 children are at play on the school grounds. You have a "guaranteed insta-kill, 101% hit rate"-rocket for your trusted rocket-launcher +3. You are killing two people who probably harbor no ill intent, and they MIGHT be able to swerve and not hit the kids, but it's not very likely. Now, imagine if Tom Cruise is hanging from a helicopter, and Will Smith is a robot assassin, but you don't know that, and the moon is cheese if you make a DC 15 Knowledge (Space-Logic), but the sun is going down. Does the paladin fall?
How about this then; both player and GM admit that they are in the wrong?
The standards of what counts as part of the paladin code should be made abundantly clear, because no two people will ever agree COMPLETELY on any matter. What counts as evil and what does not is easily enough defined, but context IS relevant, and in the case of this encounter, there is 900 posts proving that.
The player should then, based on the CoC-judgment of the GM, contemplate if he even WANTS to play a paladin. I sure as cheese wouldn't want to play one with a GM that thinks attacking sleeping monsters that impede our quest for good = violation and punishment.
The GM posted several hundred posts ago that he and the player agreed that he get a metaphysical slap on the wrist, and both parties were fine with that. I do not agree that the paladin was in the wrong at all, based on my knowledge of the AP, and my perception and evaluation of real-world ethics and morality, and how/if they even CAN be applied in a fantasy universe where metaphysical concepts exist as tangible things (Celestials and Fiends, good and evil magic etc). While some people do believe that the paladin was wrong for their own reasons. I also think that whiskey is by FAR the superior brown liquor, others would cry foul until their throats grew hoarse in the name of brandy.
By RAW, the paladin is falling if he does an evil act willfully. There has been a long-winded argument about this too, some think that since the wyverns are applied in a similar manner as any given evil creature, they should be evil, and by extension that the bestiary entry is flawed, while others think that this is a poor portrayal, and by extension that every premade AP/module ever made featuring wyverns are wrong in their portrayal.
I have played almost a dozen paladins, from the blatant rip-off of Cecil in Final Fantasy 4 (Shut up! I was 12, and he was awesome), to my Tian-Min samurai-flavored paladin I am currently playing in Serpent Skull, who is courting the tiefling rogue,...
Whisky _IS_ the superior brown liquor. Single malt, that is.
By RAW, there is more than "falling from grace" because of an willful evil act. There's also "losing their features until they receive atonement" for breaking of their code. It's not as black and white as pictured in this thread.
I have played paladins now and then, vastly different, and always felt challenged in a positive way when playing them. Chaotic Neutral? That's "easy mode". Actually playing evil is kind of a challenge in itself. Proper evil, that is. But Paladins? They are exceptional. And as evil as that may sound, not every player happens to be fit to play one. Personal opinion, of course.
Kamelguru wrote:
Anyway, I am right, you are wrong, because I am stronger than you, and my dad could beat up your dad. On top of that; Neener neener neener, you suck, I rule! Get this undead turkey to 1000, and make it legend!
I am not quite certain if i should take this as a jest to lighten the spirit, or if i should feel offended and made fun of. Please do clarify.
As for the intelligent rogue fighter drones: If they all run independent programming, and only SOME of them are evil, i'll have them named decepticons and try to ally with the non-evil ones i'll have named autobots.
As for the car heading towards children: Yeah, if you see the wyvern heading for children, than it's quite a reasonable reflex to shot it if it looks hungry.
If there's no children, though, maybe you should keep that guaranteed instakill-rocket for your +3 vicious rocket launcher for another day, and not blast the two wasted guys on interstate because SOMEWHERE down the road there may be a kindergarten class having a picknick on a parking lot. Do stop them if you have the means to, sure. But don't blast them into oblivion on the off-chance something MAY happen later.
Are we done with the real-life examples? I thought we agreed they didn't work out?
And as Professor Cirno agreed with me on the cat example: Yes, nature is pretty much f*#~ed up. Animals often kill/rape/whatever...heck, weasel males rape and pre-impregnate baby females before they even open their eyes. How's that for sick?
By reasoning of behaviour, pretty much any animal, no, wait, lets include humans in that, are "generally" fair game to be killed by being guilty of something that is considered "evil" in terms of a enlightened society. There are exceptions, possibly. But all in all, i'd also put human right there with most of those animals, along neutral with evil tendencies with a borderline "usually evil". Nature just is that f!*&ed up.
So judgement calls on what IS killworthy should be handed out quite carefully, lest you be judged. Let him who is without guilt throw the first stone, or something among those lines. Naturally some paladin would rise and have "throw anything" for that, still, the description of wyverns is pretty tame if you don't go in pre-opinionated.
And yes, the lives of goodly humans > the lives of non-good monsters.
Here lies the heart of you problem...
Maybe I can clear this up with a remedial pathfinder lesson.
Humans are neutral. That makes them not-good too.
So saying lives of not-good humans > lives of not-good monsters makes you a bigot against other species.
The problem is that most people believe they are "the good guys". Go check out some of the interviews with serial killers. Quite a few of them actually believe they are doing society a favor.
In my campaigns, if the players want to be the good guys, then they have to actually act good. If they run around acting like a bunch of thugs with swords, then everyone will treat them like a bunch of thugs with swords.
If I want to play a game where I am by definition the good guy, and anything I attack is by definition the bad guy, I'll go play WoW.
And yes, the lives of goodly humans > the lives of non-good monsters.
Here lies the heart of you problem...
Maybe I can clear this up with a remedial pathfinder lesson.
Humans are neutral. That makes them not-good too.
So saying lives of not-good humans > lives of not-good monsters makes you a bigot against other species.
In my campaigns, if the players want to be the good guys, then they have to actually act good. If they run around acting like a bunch of thugs with swords, then everyone will treat them like a bunch of thugs with swords.
Oh my sides! This is too much :D
You use the term "bigot" with a straight face regarding imaginary MONSTERS! Oh lawdy, I is laughing up a storm in here, massa!
Hooooo.... pokémon generation gonna get me for being a bigot when I say monsters are less than humans, what is next? The furries line up to get a shot at my racialist behind when I refuse to sign their "Werewolves and wererats are people too!" petition?
You know what goes through my head when I kill a neutral monster as my paladin? "Goddamn smite-dodger!" Then I kill it dead, and get XP, and maybe loot. And should a monster show itself to be willing to talk, my paladin talks very well, got a +11 or +12 bonus to talking right about now. Just that it never freaking happens unless it is a completely harmless encounter, such as a single CR1-2 creature against our lv5+ party, and then it is because the monster is SMART enough to realize that it is gonna die if it follows it's usual game-plan, and has to ACT his alignment and Int-score to survive. Semi-intelligent monsters =/= people. They just have a better sense of tactics, and justify GM ass-pulls and "metagaming".
You know what happens if I stop to detect evil against everything we meet, and refuse to the party the option to apply "dishonorable" tactics (attacking a sleeping opponent is not defined as dishonorable in RAW, just cheating, lying and using poison and so on, meaning anything beyond that is PERSONAL INTERPRETATION, and then the argument goes on until 2000 posts) against dangerous foes? I get a room full of raised eyebrows, sighs of disbelief, a ticked off rogue player that just got nerfed, and a wasted round where I could have attacked the monster going for the squishier party members. ONLY good thing that might come out of it is that I know if I should use a smite or not. Then I'd get held responsible for crap outcomes of battle due to my hesitance, along with a few "Some paladin YOU are" and "What's WRONG with you?" comments. And if I keep it up, people will ask my character to leave, or ask me to STOP playing the paladin as Lawful Stupid. Because we play for immersion and suspended disbelief, not bickering about nuances in the bestiary, and if I act like a moralist douche who spends his day considering the plights of monsters, I detract from the experience, and ruin the game for everyone.
*chuckle* "Bigot against monsters"... aw man, I should screencap this one.
And yes, the lives of goodly humans > the lives of non-good monsters.
Here lies the heart of you problem...
Maybe I can clear this up with a remedial pathfinder lesson.
Humans are neutral. That makes them not-good too.
So saying lives of not-good humans > lives of not-good monsters makes you a bigot against other species.
In my campaigns, if the players want to be the good guys, then they have to actually act good. If they run around acting like a bunch of thugs with swords, then everyone will treat them like a bunch of thugs with swords.
Oh my sides! This is too much :D
You use the term "bigot" with a straight face regarding imaginary MONSTERS! Oh lawdy, I is laughing up a storm in here, massa!
Hooooo.... pokémon generation gonna get me for being a bigot when I say monsters are less than humans, what is next? The furries line up to get a shot at my racialist behind when I refuse to sign their "Werewolves and wererats are people too!" petition?...
Hum. yeah, you are? It's not about pokemons. Why should elves act any differently? Because they are humanoid? They are a different race.
Also, per definition he is right. Humans are not "good" per definition, they are neutral. Placing different value on lives based on things outside of a creatures influence _IS_ racist. and thats a slippery slope.
That neutral Human is obviously worth more than a neutral non-humanoid.
That neutral Human is obviously worth more than a neutral humanoid.
That neutral Human with class levels is obviously worth more than the one without(since he can better further my cause).
That neutral Human in a position of power is obviously worth more than the peasant(since he can better further my cause).
I believe you can see for yourself where this goes? This is a LE way of thinking. Classifying people as worth something and worthless.
In a world FULL with intelligent creatures that are _NOT_ human, yep, it's rather reasonably to assume sentient creatures of different races are not actively attempting genocide against each other. A few high level mages would be quite sufficient for the task if they put their minds to it and work together.
The thing is, you are applying double standards, yet again.
If the Paladin kills the Wyvern because it COULD be a threat, then its perfectly fine, because "Human>non-human" and at WORST, it's a neutral act, instead of a good one.
If the Wyvern kills a creature of unknown alignment that possibly attacked it first or treespassed on it's nest with it's young, then it's a evil creature preying on sentient beings doing evil acts and should be considered as such?
So, lets remove flavor and only leave context.
If the Lawful Good Creature kills the Neutral creature because it could be a threat, then its perfectly fine, because "LG Creature type>N Creature Type" and at worst, it's a neutral act, instead of a good one.
If a Neutral Creature kills a creature of unknown alignment that possibly attacked it first or treespassed on it's home with it's young, then it's a evil creature preying on sentient beings doing evil acts and should be considered as such?
heck, for fun lets swap them around and see if it seems right. Wyvern as neutral should have more leverage than the paladin, right?
If the Wyvern kills the Paladin because it could be a threat, then its perfectly fine, because "Dragon>Humanoid" and at worst, it's a neutral act, instead of a good one.
If a Paladin kills a Wyvern that possibly attacked it first or treespassed on it's home where his kids are, then it's a evil human preying on sentient beings doing evil acts and should be considered as such and fall?
Yep, sounds perfectly reasonable, right?
Basing the fact that the call is wrong on the precondition of etablished racism in the game world? Wrong, but at least you are creatively trying to explore new possibilities.
But still wrong, especially because people that would give IN to this racism would be neutral at best. From GOOD people it would be expected to look beyond racism and see other for who they are, not what propaganda makes them out to be.
Innocent life=Innocent life. No matter if Lawful or Chaotic, no matter if Neutral or Good. Innocent is innocent, and life should be valued without "ranking" it. The moment you start to have tables of which innocent good creature is worth "more" than another innocent good creature, you are in the area of neutral.
while flying back into the thread on the back of the Evil Wyvern the Bard who sings Faerie tales sings the epic and very original Never-Ending Thread theme and throws flyers out describing the basics of wyverns, so that every man, woman and child in the lands below him will recieve appropriate knowledge of the danger that these awesome beasts-of-the-sky possess
Please sir, sing me tales of these wondrous beasties and their magical ways, for nanny would only try to scare me with stories that they'd swoop me up and eat me!
Of course, Little Timmy. Stay awhile and listen.
They are every bit as cute and cuddly as My Little Pony
You can tame them and ride them like Pokémon
This song does not rhyme it is not it's intention
The wyverns are man's best friend, and woman's because I'm not a bigot
Have you heard mention of the very good serpent of the sky
Their heroic deeds are many, that's a fact no one can deny
or their asses get fried by a flaming troll
who likes magic loot and xp and to roll
the highest of numbers, if not they get angry
looks at gamemaster with hate like he (or she) deserves the spanky
wyverns never cranky, wyverns never lie
to that this merry bard can testify
what would become of wonderful Fantasia,
if it wasn't for wyverns and rainbows and faerie
Now run back to your nanny Timmy-boy, and tell her about me. If she says I am misguiding you, tell her to come to this thread, and someone will definetely correct her properly. Ok my little buddy? Do you want to say hi to the Evil Wyvern before you go?
