Let's take a looky - loo at ol' Mr. Erastil and see what he thinks
"In many cases, art depicts him fighting off wild animals
and other beasts."
He fights to protect people from wild things. No help there.
"and enjoys hunting for
sustenance but not for sport."
Ooooo. There's a strike.
"paladins in
lands where monsters and active evil threaten survival."
Ok.
"to the rare paladins of the faith, most of
them self-taught, brave men and women who through
the ages have stepped up in times of need to destroy
evils that threatened farm, ranch, and family."
Ok.
"Though these wanderers appear to be fish
out of water, their stubborn dedication to helping those
back home has guaranteed the survival of many a poor
village, either through sent money or by eradicating foul
beasts that lurk in the shadows."
Hmm, indeed.
This leads us to: Are these Wyverns out in some gods-forsaken place or have they been known to prey on people? If they have been shown to have killed humans I would say they fall under "foul beasts that lurk" and no-holds-barred approach is fine.
However saying that, if these where simple Wyverns living out on a cliff near some woods, preying on deer and not bothering anyone really, they fall under "Neutral Animal". Hell they might even be a step above that with their intelligence. Hell they might be smarter than the paladin!
Erastil does not condone random killing of wild creatures that are just living out their lives.
In this instance, trying to talk the Wyverns down, or frightening them off would have been the correct route, unless the paladin was purposely hunting these things down to a)eat them or b)eradicate them for threatening a community.
That leads to: Did the paladin actively kill one of the Wyverns? If he took the shot the shot that actually slayed one it will make the decsion to cast him down easier, otherwise hooo boy you have some moral ground to tread. It does mention some of the things Erastil does to those he dis-favors, maybe you could try some of those for a bit instead of straight falling him for some more amusing role-playing?
"His anger is reserved for followers who betray his
principles, and he usually punishes them by changing
them into something more useful to their community,
such as a pig or fruit tree."
I'm sure a day of being a pig would make the paladin think twice the next time he caused hostilities with beasts.
If he shows remorse and starts doing things more inclined with Erastils teachings, feel free to reward him with some RP based goodness, like the bear you encounter in the woods thinking better of attacking you after solemnly gazing at the paladin, or:
"Old Deadeye shows his approval through bountiful
hunts and harvests, but he prefers to limit his direct
intervention to helping needy people in lean times,
as he does not want to encourage laziness. A hungry
family might find their tiny garden provides bushels of
vegetables, an old cow might start giving milk again, a
weary hunter’s prey might stumble or become entangled"
IF the OP is asking for the alignment rules to make sense, then that is not going to happen.
Is killing neutral or even good things an evil act? Well, it can't be or else the first time someone summons an angel with Summon Monster or Gate to murder you the Paladin lose his powers. Even the idea that you have to wait for a neutral creature to attack you is not playable from the standpoint of adventurers who go into other people's houses and murder them for the change in their pockets. Basically, you are not asking a player to be Lawful Good, but to be Lawful Stupid.
Is killing something sleeping an evil act? If it is, tell the Wizard that he shouldn't cast any sleep, holds, paralyzes, or other effects like that because most enemies can't be imprisoned and must be killed.
The OPs mistakes are twofold. First, he should have told the player of the Paladin he was going to take his powers away if he killed the wyvern.
Second, he should have told the player well before the Paladin's character was created that he was going to hold the character's powers hostage based on a moral code that only the DM would have any knowledge of. I suspect that player would have just played a Fighter rather than have his character arbitrary punished all the time.
IF the OP is asking for the alignment rules to make sense, then that is not going to happen.
Indeed. The worst example of this is to be found in the Book of Exalted Deeds. Which basically said "Good in a D&D campaign is defined pretty much by modern moral standards of good and evil" (pg 11, "Being Ahead of Your Time").
Problem is, the average D&D has people dealing with a vastly different life experience than the modern person (whatever that means). We don't have definitely different (often hostile) intelligent species running around. We don't have raise dead spells (wrongful death isn't nearly as big a problem if you can pay to bring somebody back). We don't have absolute proof of an afterlife and judgment of souls. "Kill them all and let the gods sort them out" is a LOT more valid when you have this - "Darn, I killed a good guy. Well, he went to his reward in heaven, at least. Maybe I'll go Plane Shift and apologize." We have vast legal and penitentiary systems which make live capture much more reasonable. We don't have access to speak with the minions of our gods, or our gods themselves, with irrefutable proof of being able to do so. And those gods don't necessarily agree on the application of good (law/neutral/chaos), yet they're the highest authorities on it!
Bottom line, violence is much, much more acceptable in any D&D game than the 'real world', taking prisoners is a poor option for most adventurers, and most monsters are sword-bait. Wyverns are not nice, they are aggressive, territorial, vicious, ravenous, poisonous monsters.
The only reason the GM is whacking the paladin is because Paizo put an "N" in its alignment column (quite wrongly, IMO - the description paints the wyvern as pretty much evil).
|
"I'm sorry, but even with no knowledge from reading any edition of the MM or bestiary, only an idiot would think that a creature with huge predatory jaws and a huge poison-dripping stinger is not a poisonous predator."you're welcome.
Unless your characters carry around a copy of the bestiary.
As mentioned, a dragon also has huge predatory jaws, and that poisonous stinger? 200 feet away and sleeping...assuming the CHARACTER knows the wyvern is a dangerous predator, but a proper dragon is not, is mixing knowledge, especially since the wyvern is described as a "A dark blue dragon"
I'd like to thank Kevin for setting the record straight. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt Mordred in that you thought I was one of the people arguing with you before. The only post I made previously was condemning the DM for expecting the player to read his mind.
Your claim was full of hyperbole and misrepresentation of the opposing argument. It was about as useful as saying 'the POTUS is Hitler'. Thus I cannot take you seriously.
Firstly, any players of a Paladin who are not absolutely certain that they and the DM are on the same page concerning the code are idiots who deserve to have their character nerfed. It's not like the rules don't say that there are extremely vague ways your character can lose all his powers. If you read this and still can't be bothered to talk to you DM you deserve it.
Second, FACT: Wyverns are intelligent creatures who are capable of reason. If Int 7 is not intelligent, I can think a whole lot of PCs that just became NPCs. It is perfectly reasonable for a DM to say "Wyverns are people too" If it's perfectly fine to murder violent people with 7 Int then a lot of Half-Orc Barbarians are going to die. It's also reasonable (if not common sense) to consider killing a foe who is unable to defend himself (i.e. sleeping) to be dishonorable Whether or not this is a gross violation or just a regular violation of the Paladin's Code is up to the DM.
Third, while a small *ahem* from one friend to another when a Paladin is about to do something stupid may be appropriate, a DM is under no obligation to warn a Paladin before they fall. If a Paladin does something major enough to fall on the spot, it's his own fault if he doesn't know any better. If a Pally's has a list of minor infractions, he should be aware that he's been doing things he shouldn't. In the latter case, I'd say under no circumstances should the player get a heads up before the "Final Straw" Furthermore, I'd say telling a player "If you do X, you will lose your powers" is just in bad form and is basically telling the player how to play his character how to play their character. It's not like they can't atone, and you're robbing the player and character of a valuable lesson on what it means to be a Paladin.
I see a lot of people giving their interpretation of "good". Good for one might sound evil to another.
In the middle east, a woman will be stoned for adultery. Most people I know see that as severly wrong... maybe even evil, but to them, it seems reasonable.
The man throwing the switch to execute a murderer might feel he's doing a good deed by removing a murderer from the world, but there are people who think execution is wrong and evil.
Bottom line is, this is only something that can be handled by the GM and the player. Discuss what each of you feel is "good" and "fair". If you both disagree, maybe try to come up with a cultural reason for the Paladin's beliefs... If that doesn't work, then maybe the player shouldn't play a paladin because his views will, more often than not, be different than the DM and they will probably bump heads a lot in game.
As a side not... MY opinion... IF the paladin attacked a sleeping gold dragon because it is a giant predator and he doesn't know the difference... I might have the dragon ask why the paladin attacked it... as it's beating the crap out of the paladin. Maybe he'll stop attacking and talk. If he kills the gold dragon, I would give him nightmares... maybe be fatigued for a day. As a warning, his god is teaching him to try talking before attacking. If he attacked out of ignorance, trying to do good (i.e. the "lawful stupid" aspect), his god can't fault him for trying, but the god can teach him a lesson.
And... It's not metagaming if a paladin attacks a wyvern because it's dangerous... It obviously a very big predator. Those teeth ain't made for grazing. If he doesn't use Detect Evil and says "It's a wyvern... it's not evil so let's leave it alone." That IS metagaming unless his character knows what it is... in game.
Quantum Steve posted when I was typing... and cooking...
I am 100% in agreement with you. That is how I run a game and it's how a lot of DMs run games that I play in. If the player asks me, I'll tell him or he can make a Knowledge Religion check, if it's an iffy question.
If a Paladin wants to burn down a forest because it's full of goblins, I let him... after all, it's a viable medieval war tactic. Afterwards, when he finds charred remains of faeries and treants, he should feel horrified that he was responsible for all the innocent lives lost... and maybe a few nightmares or bad omens from his god. If he doesn't feel bad after seeing the carnage... THEN maybe he should need attonement.
But, definately don't try to sway a player's actions. That's what NPC's are for. ;)
It's not metagaming if a paladin attacks a wyvern because it's dangerous... It obviously a very big predator. Those teeth ain't made for grazing. If he doesn't use Detect Evil and says "It's a wyvern... it's not evil so let's leave it alone." That IS metagaming unless his character knows what it is... in game.
That's species-ist just because something isn't humanoid doesn't mean it doesn't have rights! :D In a fantasy setting, creatures good and evil come in all shapes and sizes. I would take issue with a Paladin code that allowed a Pally to kill willy-nilly anything that looked dangerous regardless of other factors. What if a bumkin Paladin, who's never seen a non-human before, runs into a Half-Orc? It's big, it's mean, and it's carrying a huge frickin' axe. KILL IT! Oh, wait... it was a Paladin, too... of your God. But it looked dangerous, so, no harm, no foul. Except for the harm you cause the Half-Orc, and his wife and kids. But definitely no foul.
FYI A Wyvern is just as intelligent as many Half-Orc Paladins and may have just as strong family values, you don't know.
I think the question then comes whether knowing that wyverns have an Int of 7 is metagame knowledge.
If you look at the roleplaying notes, it says stuff like "roars a challenge" and "nasty, brutish and violent" and "always aggressive and impatient" and "quick to resort to force" and dragons considering them "nothing more than primitive savages" and finally and most damningly "most wyverns simply can't be bothered with the subtlety of diplomacy."
In other words, it would take a pretty high Knowledge Arcana check for the wizard in the party to say, "Actually, wyverns are not quite as unintelligent as they appear. The elven naturalist, Janeus Goodalleus, spent a lengthy study of the wild wyverns of..."
After all, short of metagame knowledge or knowledge checks, how does anyone know that anything isn't sentient? That tree could be a treant. That owl in the tree could be a wild shaped druid. That wolf over there could be a werewolf, or a wolf that someone cast Awaken on, or a wizard using shapeshifting magic.
At some point you need to let characters have the benefit of the doubt. If you want to chop down a tree, you do, and you only stop if it says "Ow" or an angry dryad pops out with a nasty gash on her leg. Monsters who have gone out of their way to make people think that they're dumber than they are really have no cause for complaint if people treat them as rude beasts until they prove otherwise.
I'd also point out that, given the roleplaying notes, it sound like wyverns are more NE than true neutral if all they are is rude bullies who would rather attack someone than talk to them, and it's kind of silly to have a monster with all the hallmarks of evil except for detecting as it, unless this was specifically put in to annoy paladins.
The wyverns may actually have been good aligned and willing to protect nearby villages. So, yes it is VERY evil and dishonorable. The paladin should have found out for sure about the wyverns before assaulting the wyverns.
I think it's fair to have players respond to 'monsters' per their write up or general reputation (ravenous, territorial, poisonous monster). Yes, there might be that one in a million 'good' wyvern that only eats deer and feels bad about it. Do you risk the lives of your friends on a one in a million chance?
A paladin can go to war with his rightful liege, on a 'legitimate' war (let's call it a defensive battle vs. an invading force) and STILL he'll probably end up fighting non-evil people, as well as some genuinely 'good' folks - whom he'll probably kill, because it's war, they're the enemy, and life sucks that way. Do you take away his paladin powers because of it? No, of course not.
Things like wyverns, orcs, trolls and the like are pretty much 'at war' with the main humanoid races, all the time. There are no 'peaceful' relations with orc kingdoms in most fantasy realms. There are no benevolent groups of wyverns floating around either - they're aggressive bullies that only respect something that's obviously just as powerful as them.
D&D does us the favor of giving us uniformly evil targets for fantasy violence. There's pretty much a list of things that are 'okay to kill', another 'not okay to kill', and a third of 'it depends what they're doing'. Ravenous poisonous monsters generally fall into the first category.
I mean, there are waaay better moral dilemmas to stick paladins with than a sleeping monster who is almost certainly going to try to eat him on sight.
"That's species-ist just because something isn't humanoid doesn't mean it doesn't have rights! :D In a fantasy setting, creatures good and evil come in all shapes and sizes. I would take issue with a Paladin code that allowed a Pally to kill willy-nilly anything that looked dangerous regardless of other factors. What if a bumkin Paladin, who's never seen a non-human before, runs into a Half-Orc? It's big, it's mean, and it's carrying a huge frickin' axe. KILL IT! Oh, wait... it was a Paladin, too... of your God. But it looked dangerous, so, no harm, no foul. Except for the harm you cause the Half-Orc, and his wife and kids. But definitely no foul.
FYI A Wyvern is just as intelligent as many Half-Orc Paladins and may have just as strong family values, you don't know."
Exactly! You don't know... and neither did the paladin. How many city-slickers want to kill a snake outside their house to protect their kids? It doesn't matter that it was a simple Black Snake and not a water moccasin. They only want to protect their kids... A "good" deed.
The same can be said for this situation. Obviously the paladin knew they were dragons... dragons eat people... the party of adventurers are people. By that rationale, the wyverns were a very possible threat. That's not even considering that there might be a town nearby that is a very good food source for the beasties. He probably thought he was doing a "good" deed by killing the large carnivores. After all, it's not in dispute that wyverns are dangerous. As I said, they are buiult to eat meat and they're big. If he believes he is doing a good deed, but unintentionally does something that can be viewed as bad, I think that action falls in the middle. He should be warned and taught a lesson for acting before thinking, but I don't think he should be punished unless he KNEW it was evil and did it anyway.
As I said before... "Good" isn't always good to everyone. That's obvious by everyone voicing different views on what they think is good. That has always been an issue with alignment in D&D (and now Pathfinder) and it always will be. Different people have different views of what good is and should be. A player shouldn't be punished because he had a different idea of "good" than his DM had. Maybe a warning, but not a punishment.
|
one tought that might help this discussion is "why are they neutral?"
And 'why are they intelligent?'
The mechanics for a Wyvern say Int 7 and 'usually Neutral' but the flavor text goes on to describe them as being basically Animalistic in behavior. If they were to be considered sentient, based on their violent, unreasonable and eating-of-other-sentients habits, they should be 'usually evil.'
I tend to tweak things as needed for my games, to suit my own perverse whims, and I'd have made them either evil and more-than-animal-intelligent, or neutral and Int 2. In either case, the Paladin would have been fine with killing them, as their stats (alignment and Int) would have better fit their flavor text.
If this was a pair of Owlbears, or Bulettes, or whatever, I don't think it would be an issue, but since the Wyvern has an Int 7, that it doesn't freaking use, it's suddenly a moral issue.
Occam's Razor. Get rid of the Int 7. (Or change the alignment to 'usually evil', to otherwise suit their vicious flavor text.)
Because apparently, when they're not intelligent enough it's free game. Just don't let these fellows around your cousins if they have down syndrome.
Yes I would consider it a evilish act. But I would have him receive a warning first before yanking the powers. Unless he has done this before and ignored the warnings.
Slot headband; Price 1,000 gp; Weight —
Description
This item is a tiny box containing religious scripture. The box is
affixed to a leather cord and tied around the forehead, worn so
that the box sits upon the wearer’s brow. There is no mundane
way to determine what function this religious item performs
until it is worn. The wearer of a phylactery of faithfulness is
aware of any action or item that could adversely affect his
alignment and his standing with his deity, including magical
effects. He acquires this information prior to performing such
an action or becoming associated with such an item if he takes
a moment to contemplate the act.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, detect chaos, detect evil,
detect good, detect law; Cost 500 gp
No warning is required without this. Unless there is specific reason to believe that the wyverns were a threat (i.e. local townspeople specifically mention a wyvern problem, a knowledge check or two leads you to believe that they have done X, Y, and Z, etc.), then they are neutral, non-threats that you could instead walk past.
The only exception I would make on this is if you had specifically had conversations with the player about the honor code prior to the session to hash out what it means to be a paladin of Erastil and this happened to fall into that.
I suppose part of the trouble is that some of us remember 1st edition where the wyverns weren't chatty beasts but just lower level draconic monsters you didn't have to have any greater moral qualms about than killing an owlbear.
This may be metagame knowledge, but you have to look at a world through a character's eyes.
Yes, in your world, wyverns of the north may be nasty beasts that carry orcs into battle while in the southern isles their languid peace-loving creatures that befriend the fey and spend all day sipping mai-tais. Fine. That's your world.
What I'm saying is, whatever your world, the characters should know what people generally know, even if this is mistaken or wrong.
Lets change the scenario around. Lets say the party wants to get into some tomb, but the entrance to the tomb goes through a cave, and in the cave there is a mother owlbear sitting on her nest, asleep.
Now, should the paladin tiptoe through without waking the peacefully sleeping monster and hope that the ancient crypt has a particularly well-oiled and noise free door.
Yes, the owlbear has Int 2. That's also metagame knowledge, the same as it's metagame knowledge that the wyverns have Int 7.
But wait! Maybe this is a Wise Old Owlbear, which has an intelligence closer to the magic giant owls, and it has an Int of 12 or something. And the wyverns are lesser wyverns and have an Int of 2.
How does the paladin know? If he wakes up the owlbear, is the incomprehensible roaring maybe just hers screaming for these strange interlopers to get out of her house and get away from her eggs?
At some point, if you're GM, you have to level with them about what their characters know about the world. If you put in Narnian talking stags, someone should have noticed, and the paladin of Erastil who would usually not think twice about plugging a stag full of arrows if he wants dinner now suddenly has to run around the forest going "Excuse me, can you talk? Are you a talking stag, Mr. Stag? I'm about to loose some arrows at you." And it becomes even worse when he finds out, on his way back from a successful hunting trip, that the local hag cursed the talking stags with laryngitis. He killed a sentient creature! Alas! Break out the penitential whips!
You also need to figure out what qualifies as "sentient." An owlbear at 2? A griffin at 5? A wyvern at 7? And is there any variation with individuals and with subspecies so it's possible to have a sentient owlbear and and non-sentient wyvern?
"Where do you catch they eat other sentient beings?
As a matter of fact: Where do you read they attack humans?
Assuming from the part of hunting large prey in groups, they may well live of smaller animals."
If you want to go solely by the flavor description in the book, they don't anything specific. Only generic "food".
Think about it... when you have a predator that big... and has to expend a large amount of energy to fly... It MUSt eat any meat it can. Hence the "always hungry". Is there anyone who would dispute that a wyvern would hessitate to eat a human, elf, dwarf, halfling... anything made of meat and will fit in it's mouth? Think about it. It's a meat eater. It's basically a barbaric dragon. Heck, I'd even have it eat another wyvern if it had to and not feel bad about it. the "neutral" aspect is survival above all else. Not evil or greed... FOOD. Anything with a heartbeat will sustain it. They will accept gold (and food) probably because of the dragon instict in them... or maybe they see the smarter races hoard it, so they want to hoard it too.
And you can't say "they don't attack on sight" when the description you insist on referencing implies that they usually do. They're violent, aggessive, quick to resort to force, prefer to fight first and parley later, constantly hungry and prone to mayhem. See? I can pick out the same quotes you do. Notice, I said USUALLY. Not every wyvern will act according to the description, but the average wyvern will attack or prompt an attack and eat what it kills since it'll probably be hungry.
Yes. They are man-eaters... as well as bear-eaters, horse-eaters, alligator-eaters... any meat, since they are always hungry. And, if they only ate small animals, there would be no small animals in the region because they would be forced to hunt them to extinction to fuel that massive flying engine, then they would starve to death.
You guys keep showing Wyverns as nasty-man-eating beasts that prey on nearby settlements. NOTHING in the flavor-text even remotely suggests so, they are Aggressive, but not stupid in a suicidal way. And well intelligent enough to teach their children to "stay away from the pinkies, they gather people with weapons and try to kill us if we don't"
There's absolutely nothing in the flavor text to say that they would do such a thing.
I mean, mama wyvern is taking her babies out to hunt for the first time, and in the middle of the field, the hatchlings have found Goldilocks.
MAMA WYVERN: "OMGWTFBBQ! Get away from it, hatchlings! Get away! It's a pinkie!"
HATCHLING 1: "Yeah, mom, but it looks young!"
HATCHLING 2: "And tender! Can I sting it, ma? Can I? Can I?"
MAMA WYVERN: "No! By Lamashtu, Mother of Monsters, no! A baby pinkie is the most dangerous thing because the mama pinkie is always nearby! They're worse than owlbears! Sometimes they even give the babies things to protect themselves with."
HATCHLING 1: "She doesn't have any weapons, ma."
HATCHLING 2: "Yeah, all she's got is a tiny stick. What can she hurt with--"
GOLDILOCKS: "Avada Kadavra!"
HATCHLINGS: "Mama!"
Amusing as all this is, somehow, with the flavor text, I don't think so.
Now, I can easily create a world where this is the case, where some paladins have wyvern mounts, where some wizards have friendly wyverns to guard their towers and play checkers with, where wyverns are as likely to be seen with the legions of light as with the legions of darkness.
That said, as Set pointed out a couple posts ago, the flavor text doesn't match the stat block. Either wyverns need their Int lowered to remain neutral or else they need to have their alignment changed to "usually NE" to reflect the the fact that they're sentient but have made a conscious choice to be jerks and bullies.
|
|
I would say that knowingly killing or attacking any sentient helpless creature that poses no real threat to you would constitute an evil act.
Not necessarily one that would shift alignments permanently or make a pally fall, but the loss of class abilities for one day is appropriate in this case I do believe yes.
Wyvern : Int 7 Alignment : Neutral.
So they are as Smart as a Minotaur. But Minotaur are CE in Alignment.
So why are Wyvern's not listed as evil ?
Wyverns are nasty, brutish, and violent = But would that make a human evil?
Aggressive and impatient.
Wyvern sound to me like the neighborhood bully. Big, dangerous, and not all that bight. But does that make them evil ??
----------------------------------------------------------
Ok lets change the word Wyvern in the example to Human. So you have a pair of 7th level humans fighter, living in a cave. You know that there tribe is nasty, brutish, and violent. There clan is aggressive and impatient to oustsiders, and do not like to do diplomancy. The clan perfers to fight first and parley latter.
Question: Would the paladin have any problem killing these 2 people in there sleep? Would murdering these two people cause the paladin an alignment shift? Maybe these 2 people might do evil in the future, but then again maybe not.
You say. "poses no real threat". They are large carnivors. It's quite possible they are the top of the food chain in that area. I would constitute that as a possible threat... not a definate threat, but possible.
In Oliver's example, if the "humans" had mouths that could bite off a human head in one bite, they are always hungry (possibly cannibles) and they have that same reputation, it would be questionable... Like I said about 30 posts back. :)
It still all comes down to culture and people's views of good and evil.
Oh... about the whole, making excuses for the paladin because he didn't make them himself that somebody mentioned before... It's like watching a movie with plot holes. You either complain and laugh at it or you think of reasons why something acted a certain way... both are acceptable reactions.
Firstly, any players of a Paladin who are not absolutely certain that they and the DM are on the same page concerning the code are idiots who deserve to have their character nerfed. It's not like the rules don't say that there are extremely vague ways your character can lose all his powers. If you read this and still can't be bothered to talk to you DM you deserve it.
Is there a reason the DM can't talk to the player since he is running the game and should therefore be expected to lay out ground rules on issue? That is what I do for paladins in my games.
After re-reading the original post and reading about Erastil in Gods and Magic, I think he was making a legitimate attempt at role-playing.
He said they were monsters and should be purged from the land.
That goes with the tennents of Erastil's Paladins. ""paladins in lands where monsters and active evil threaten survival"
That can interpreted as monsters are enemies of the faith and should be purged... not challenged. Or, it could be read as they only attack monsters that threaten towns. I would see it as, Paladins don't hunt down monsters unless they are a threat to survival, but if encountered, I could see a paladin killing it without challenging it. It might not deserve a challenge.
Again... It's up to the DM and player to interpret it, but I think he made an attempt at role-play and gave a reason. Erastil is an enemy of monsters.
I also don't see it as metagaming when he said, out of character, they should kill them because they will probably attack them later... since it's something his character would probably assume.
So, we have one person's interpretation of the faith or Erastil and an attempt to role-play the character's hatred of monsters. He shouldn't be punished... maybe warned, but certainly not punished.
The party is about to enter a tomb in between two cliffs roughly around 200 ft apart. On the opposite side of the tomb, the party notices a pair of sleeping wyverns.
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).
The party pulls out it's bows and wakes up the wyverns, kills one of the wyverns. And the other one runs away because she was mortally wounded.
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.
So my question is that is what he did an evil act in killing the wyverns while they are asleep. At the very least the action is cowardly, as paladins' should not attack sleeping foes.
Questions =
*)Did the paladin know that the wyverns were sentient beings?*)Did you give a hint to the paladin that this action would result in him losing his ability's?
While i can see a paladin attacking a animal or monster with animal int, while its sleeping.. Killing a sentient being without giving it a chance to surrender to me would be a evil (or neutral at best) act. So my question is did the paladin know that the wyvers were sentient beings ??
If not, well ignorance is bless :)
IF so, then GM & Player need to get together and talk about what code, rules, alignment, & religion the paladin follows and what the GM expects .
Just a comment about the sleeping part. Waking up the Wyverns before you kill them is the kind of act that gets Paladins called "Lawful Stupid." Giant lizards aren't exactly enemy champions seeking trial by combat. Indeed, the only remotely evil act I see in the whole situation is failure to track and kill the suffering escapee.
Kill a sentient creature in its sleep, without giving it a chance to surrender is called murder. This is an evil act, and a good creature must give a very good reason to do this and even then, just because its easer does not might it right.
Adventurers kill a lot of sentient creatures. No actual nonevil person racks up a body count like that. Sentience is just less precious in a fantasy universe.
Sentience is less precious in a fantasy universe = That depends on your GM, game play, how long your players have played, and how lazily everyone is about alignment.
Alignment = PFphb page 166 good vs evil = Good = Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good character make personal sacrifices to help others.
Being good is not easy, and many players write good down on there character sheet, and then play neutral.
Just a comment about the sleeping part. Waking up the Wyverns before you kill them is the kind of act that gets Paladins called "Lawful Stupid." Giant lizards aren't exactly enemy champions seeking trial by combat. Indeed, the only remotely evil act I see in the whole situation is failure to track and kill the suffering escapee.Kill a sentient creature in its sleep, without giving it a chance to surrender is called murder. This is an evil act, and a good creature must give a very good reason to do this and even then, just because its easer does not might it right.
Adventurers kill a lot of sentient creatures. No actual nonevil person racks up a body count like that. Sentience is just less precious in a fantasy universe.Sentience is less precious in a fantasy universe = That depends on your GM, game play, how long your players have played, and how lazily everyone is about alignment.
Alignment = PFphb page 166 good vs evil = Good = Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good character make personal sacrifices to help others.
Being good is not easy, and many players write good down on there character sheet, and then play neutral.
What do you think the wyvern will do when asked to surrender? Even if the idea is entertained they have no proof the monster has killed any people, they only know that it will if it has the chance.
If they wake it up and give it a chance by talking to it that is no better than baiting it so they can kill it.
Just because the creature refused to surrender, does not change the fact that you gave it a chance to.
Neutral & Evil = means you can kill it, without making the personal sacrifice of giving it the option.
Good = means you will give it a chance to surrender, even if you do not think it is likely to do so. Good people do not kill stuff unless they have no other option, self-defense, or to protect others. Being good is not easy, and is the hardest alignment to play. While i might fudge on fighting monsters, the whole killing the sentient creature while asleep part is just not a good act.
Sounds like you're punishing your player more for metagaming vs "breaking the paladin code."
The wyverns were a potential threat. How long were they going to be in these caves/crypts? Were they going to be out there long enough that the wyverns could have potentially woken up?
Lets say you're a level 1 commoner, doing your field on your farm land, and you see a couple of these beasts fly overhead. Are you going to stay working in your field or flee for cover?
I guess it comes down to another situation:
The paladin and his party cross a wolf who starts growling at them.
The paladin slays the wolf to defend his party.
They then find out the wolf was protecting its cubs, is the paladin evil for killing the wolf , however protecting his own party?
IMHO, the paladin was alleviating a potential threat that could have troubled the party down the road. Again, the paladin's code doesnt mean they have to be stupid... what did you want him to do? Throw some rocks at them and yell "I CHALLENGE THEE!" ? lol
A wolf is not a Sentient being but an animal, and make for a bad example.
A human would be a better example since it is a Sentient being, or dwarf, gnome or elf.
------------------------------------
Ok that 1st level commoner would also run and hide if he say a Armored Knight ride by with an unknown crest. Commoner are easily frighted and normal flee for cover from anything unknown or possible dangerous.
The Paladin is not evil for killing the wolf, because he was defending his party (good), but once the paladin finds out that the wolf had cubs, that paladin would have to decide what to do with the cubs. At best, find the cubs a home, and worst kill the cubs (( because they are not Sentient creatures, but animals)). If the paladin thought that these were magical cubs (say awakened by the druid spell), then it would fall on his should to take responsible for them, and killing them would be an evil act.
Alleviating a potential threat was not the problem, Killing Sentient creatures in their sleep was the problem for a character with a GOOD Alignment.
Feels like flogging a undead horse here, but I can never shut up anyway..
GM: "So, you sneak up like a ninja, silently draw your blade and find the unprotected spot at the base of its throat. You want to try to some kind of stealth check to see if you can kill it without its mate waking up?"
Pally: "Sure!"
Evil-schmevil is the wrong question! The correct question is: did the act violate the paladin code?
Answer: unless you have re-written the code, the YES. "Always act honorably" does not include acting like an assassin.
Conclusion: Correct call, regardless of whether wyverns are neutral, intelligent, metagaming munchkins, polymorphed bellydancers or whatnots.
People keep saying lawful good, but i would even go so far as leave the lawful part off. This topic would also apply to Neutral good and Chaotic good priest, fighter, bards, or any class.
Question is Good vs evil = Good people do not kill other intelligent being in there sleep. They will give them a chance to surrender. Is this the safest thing to do, NO. But is it the right thing to do, yes. Even a NG or CG character should offer a drow or duergar the chance to surrender, before attacking them if given the chance.
This does not mean, taking them at there word, being dumb, or giving them a chance to attack you. This just means, Drow with your hands up, away from your weapons, on the ground and but your hands behind your backs, while the ranger covers them with a bow.
Hey guys, thanks for all the thoughtful replies on BOTH sides of the argument.
I did give this paladin a list of things not to do, including attacking sentient beings while they are asleep and being honorable in his way of combat. Not killing innocents or being the cause that innocents die (like the unborn hatchlings) The only reason he is allowed the use of a bow, is cause erastil uses a bow as his favoured weapon.
In the past he has botched many encounters and near started a war with a tribe that the party just signed a treaty of non-aggression (thereby saving multiple villages of raids/getting attacked). And in one occasion he even managed to kill his allies mount which was under his care because he attacked people that the party was helping(the ally was a cavalier based on horseback riding combat, so he was uber pissed off).
After reading all the comments, I am sticking to my guns, and the paladin requires an atonement spell although he doesn't need to do anything further like take care of the hatchlings, and he is going to get a phylactory of faithfulness so that he can straight up ask me if something is evil/unlawful/ or cowardly/unbecoming of a knight.
Again thank you for all the comments/opinions.
How about this...
A Paladin can't be a an adventurer in a common adventure because, in a common adventure, you go into someone elses home and kill them all for their money.
Lizard folk, duergar, drow, goblins. Sure, sometimes you go to destroy the goblin menace by wiping out an entire tribe, in their own home, rather than trying to use diplomacy to stop them from raiding the town. That can be viewed as "evil".
By the way, killing another sentient being is evil... not just if they are asleep. You walk in somebody's house, they draw a gun and shoot, but you end up killing them, you're on trial for murder... Just like 90% of adventures.
Good / Evil... it's all relative to what you believe is right. Some people think killing a sleeping wyvern is good, some people think it's evil... some think it's in the middle. No one person can determine how someone else should think. This discussion will go on forever because people will continue to have opinions and voice them.
The bottom line is, it's a game and should be fun for all. As a DM, ask yourself... "Am I having fun? Is the guy playing the Paladin having fun? Is the rest of the group having fun?" If any of those questions are no, then as a group, you should decide what to do... not us. We don't know you or the guy playing the paladin. If you're friends, give him a chance... let him slide. That's what friends are for. :)
Yes I would consider it a evilish act. But I would have him receive a warning first before yanking the powers. Unless he has done this before and ignored the warnings.This. Also, I'd point out he's metagaming.
Metagaming would be 'Those are Wyverns and they are intelligent so we shouldn't sneak up on them while they are sleeping and bash their brains in so they don't kill us in a protracted fight."
You know, the argument of everyone agreeing it was an evil act.
Hey guys, thanks for all the thoughtful replies on BOTH sides of the argument.
I did give this paladin a list of things not to do, including attacking sentient beings while they are asleep and being honorable in his way of combat. Not killing innocents or being the cause that innocents die (like the unborn hatchlings) The only reason he is allowed the use of a bow, is cause erastil uses a bow as his favoured weapon.
In the past he has botched many encounters and near started a war with a tribe that the party just signed a treaty of non-aggression (thereby saving multiple villages of raids/getting attacked). And in one occasion he even managed to kill his allies mount which was under his care because he attacked people that the party was helping(the ally was a cavalier based on horseback riding combat, so he was uber pissed off).
After reading all the comments, I am sticking to my guns, and the paladin requires an atonement spell although he doesn't need to do anything further like take care of the hatchlings, and he is going to get a phylactory of faithfulness so that he can straight up ask me if something is evil/unlawful/ or cowardly/unbecoming of a knight.
Again thank you for all the comments/opinions.
In the face of that, I can understand your actions.
In the case of the Marine Corps, being ruthless is not the same as being evil.
if you want a good example of how a good paladin acts from literature, look at the Belgariad's Mandoralen. He's honourable, noble, works for the best for his comrades ... and in warfare he's also ruthless and doesn't shy from practicality.
And Wyverns are totally Evil anyway. A racial descriptor of "kill ya just as soon as look at ya" is the reason most of the evil races are evil.
