SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEAK TIMMYYYYY!!!! I AM A WYVERN!!!!!! SQUEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAK!!!!!! RUB MY FEATHERS AND TOUCH MY BEAK AND I WILL GRANT YOU A WISH!!!!!!!!!
SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEAK TIMMYYYYY!!!! I AM A WYVERN!!!!!! SQUEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAK!!!!!! RUB MY FEATHERS AND TOUCH MY BEAK AND I WILL GRANT YOU A WISH!!!!!!!!!
You don't look like a wyvern. You look more like that seagull whose picture I saw at the Post Office that said, "Warning to Kids and Parents."
So if i was a Lawful Good Wyvern, and i saw a Armored Humans sleeping in the forest. Could i bite his neck, while he was a sleep, because all humans are mean, greedy, little creatures, that hurt wyvern every chance they get. Can i keep my Lawful Good alignment, since the humans are a clear and present damager to all wyvern nests located nearby ?
Okay. Okay. You are right little Timmy. I am not a true wyvern. Oliver McShade is. Now fork off! Faerie Dragon flies up in the sky in a circle and s@~!s on Carp, a DM's gaming master screen. real life faerie dragon
Hum. yeah, you are? It's not about pokemons. Why should elves act any differently? Because they are humanoid? They are a different race.
Elves are not MONSTERS. They are ELVES. Rich culture, art, history, cooperation with others, host of mostly good gods. I never said a paladin should favor a human over an elf on merit of birth. This is your assumption. I DO however, say that a human paladin should favor a human over an Otyugh, Wyvern, or any of the other so-called "sentient life" in the neutral bracket of monsters. Why? Because those MONSTERS have forever been, and will forever be, a threat to INNOCENT human life. They are not angry dogs, nor are they gun-owners. They are MONSTERS.
MordredofFairy wrote:
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 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.
I said paladins protect the human over the monster, and SHOULD be held responsible if his hesitation cost human lives. This is you twisting my words and trying to annul the legitimacy of my argument with political correctness and human sociology and psychology that DO NOT APPLY to the vast majority of slobbering monsters in fantasy worlds. Sure, the REAL dragons, and some of the magical races have enough mental capacity to be regarded in a different light, but that's the exception. 90% of the neutral entries of the bestiary have little or no need for anything in the realm of intellect and reflection beyond "Kill and eat! Shiny stabby ones hard to kill, go for small screamy ones next time!"
Have you ever READ any of the setting-specific novels for AD&D, D&D or Pathfinder? Beyond the Core races of humans and demi-humans, you do not see cooperation between monster and (demi)human outside necessity for survival, one entering servitude to the other, or monsters working with like-minded humanoids with common interests (Good dragons with good knights to fight the evil dragons, evil darkland monsters working with drow to raid the surface etc). Sure, there are some crappy mary sue characters that befriend all manner of creatures, but I consider those about as relevant as the average cartoons mentioned earlier.
Humans and monsters fight for all kinds of reasons. The paladin fights for his own team. If he CAN find a peaceful solution without bloodshed, that is satisfactory to both parts, then all good, he has Diplomacy for a reason. But if he ever needs to choose sides because reality just kicked in and peace-talks went south, it SHOULD be the side of the humans, because otherwise, his church would excommunicate him, hunt him down and LYNCH him for treason. (Might just be my campaigns, I don't know if there is such a thing as consequences for silly actions in other GMs' campaigns)
MordredofFairy wrote:
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?
You people are like my brother eating pizza; picking away what doesn't work for you, and keeping only half the original product, then altering it to work for you with ketchup and/or pepper flakes, claiming that it is still the same pizza.
I have been banging the "Why in the name of Odin's hairy bum is it EVIL for a human to kill and eat sentient life indiscriminately, and NOT evil for a monster?"-drum in a futile effort to point out the inherent weakness in making dumb monsters neutral. If there is ONE thing I could import from 4e D&D, it would be the alignment "Unaligned", in the sense that they do not HAVE values, because they do not even KNOW right from wrong. Hungry is bad, full is good. Who cares if the meal had ambitions to save the world?
Branding them as equal to humans due to the fact that they have the same base alignment is a gross oversimplification of humans, and a huge stretch for a monster. One is a rich and varied race, capable of great good and inherently weak and largely innocent in the sense that 99% of all humans never take a sentient life. The other EATS BABIES BECAUSE THEY ARE TASTY, and have NO concept of community beyond mating to obey their genetic imperative, no culture, no diversity, NOTHING. They merely have the neutral alignment because they do not KNOW better, which begs the question as to why they don't have Int3 or 4, which seems more in line with their behavior.
They are NOT equal unless you create an inherently flawed context based on cherry-picking and subjectively applying alignment rules and stat-block entries, disregarding the setting's existing fluff (monsters are bad) in favor of a cartoon-like mindset where everyone can really get along if they would only TRY.
MordredofFairy wrote:
So, lets remove flavor and only leave context.
Yeeeaaaah... no.
Context without flavor is a double abstract in a role-playing game. A weak and ultimately pointless exercise of arguing perception for 900 posts. This is not human paladin attacking farmer Ed for carrying a sword. Nor is this human paladin murdering all the dogs in town because they can bite for 1d4+1 and thus might be a threat to innocents. This is a human paladin eliminating an IMMEDIATE and REAL threat, so his noble quest to defeat the horrible evil, and rescue his god's flock can go on with a minimal cost to their innocent human life. If I were the GM, I would definitely have the wyverns swoop in and gorge themselves on the buffet of lv1 commoners that emerge, and hope to have a camera ready when the paladin player realize that his indulgence and inaction led to several dead innocents that just recently sang his praise for freeing them from the lich.
And before you ask; YES, the paladin knows there are people in there. And YES, he knows he needs to bring them safely home. And YES, escort missions suck big-time.
Elves are not MONSTERS. They are ELVES. Rich culture, art, history, cooperation with others, host of mostly good gods. I never said a paladin should favor a human over an elf on merit of birth. This is your assumption. I DO however, say that a human paladin should favor a human over an Otyugh, Wyvern, or any of the other so-called "sentient life" in the neutral bracket of monsters. Why? Because those MONSTERS have forever been, and will forever be, a threat to INNOCENT human life. They are not angry dogs, nor are they gun-owners. They are MONSTERS.
Actually, it was meant the other way round. Humans are aggressive, expansionist, short-lived, greedy.
Why should an elf act differently in regards to humans than the paladin in regards to a wyvern.
If the "humanoid" is a problem for you, lets take it further.
Why should a GOLD Dragon, Lawful Good, not slay humans on sight? They are usually neutral, but dangerous, aggressive. They are VASTLY inferior in regards to character and intelligence.
It's a technicality, but humans are nothing except "sentient monsters" to most others classified as such.
Also: Threat to innocent human life: Just not true. Even _IF_ you were right in that they threat humans not any different from other "food", then they are not a threat unless they are anywhere near humans. In a campaign setting that per definition has HUGE stretches of wilderness without a city or village every other mile, 90% of those creatures never pose a threat to ANYBODY. Killing them all on the mishaps of the remaining 10%? Thats genocide.
Kamelguru wrote:
I said paladins protect the human over the monster, and SHOULD be held responsible if his hesitation cost human lives. This is you twisting my words and trying to annul the legitimacy of my argument with political correctness and human sociology and psychology that DO NOT APPLY to the vast majority of slobbering monsters in fantasy worlds. Sure, the REAL dragons, and some of the magical races have enough mental capacity to be regarded in a different light, but that's the exception. 90% of the neutral entries of the bestiary have little or no need for anything in the realm of intellect and reflection beyond "Kill and eat! Shiny stabby ones hard to kill, go for small screamy ones next time!"
Have you ever READ any of the setting-specific novels for AD&D, D&D or Pathfinder? Beyond the Core races of humans and demi-humans, you do not see cooperation between monster and (demi)human outside necessity for survival, one entering servitude to the other, or monsters working with like-minded humanoids with common interests (Good dragons with good knights to fight the evil dragons, evil darkland monsters working with drow to raid the surface etc). Sure, there are some crappy mary sue characters that befriend all manner of creatures, but I consider those about as relevant as the average cartoons mentioned earlier.
Humans and monsters fight for all kinds of reasons. The paladin fights for his own team. If he CAN find a peaceful solution without bloodshed, that is satisfactory to both parts, then all good, he has Diplomacy for a reason. But if he ever needs to choose sides because reality just kicked in and peace-talks went south, it SHOULD be the side of the humans, because otherwise, his church would excommunicate him, hunt him down and LYNCH him for treason. (Might just be my campaigns, I don't know if there is such a thing as consequences for silly actions in other GMs' campaigns)
As said above. If you consider that a vast majority of wyverns, to keep the example, merely live in their 8-mile radious nests without EVER interacting with humans, with only some misguided ones taking up preying on them(which naturally are the ones used in quests), a reasonable assumption since they have to come from SOMEWHERE, and those slain by adventurers won't procreate, then calling a genocide on the innocent 90% of the race because of the evil 10% needs no "real world political correctness". By the same logic you could kill humans left and right, because according to the campaigns i saw, at least 10% of humans show evil tendencies, both on NPC and PC side.
Basing the reasoning that Humans are fine and Non-Humans are not, then, as said, becomes a slippery slope. If that non-humanoid is worth less, why not the non-human, too? It's another human here and just an elf there. How about a half-elf? Once you START attaching "value tags" to the lives of creatures, you are neutral.
Someone killing INNOCENT neutrals because they are "worth less" for not being human and they are not up to taking the risk that sometime later another human(not even necessarily good) MAY be threatened by them IF they are not really neutrals, but not even trying to find that out?
That sounds mighty convenient to me, but definitely not Lawful Good.
Yep, humans are bound in a social structure, and when it comes down to decide for a side, the natural instinct is to side with your own race. So if there's a battle between two innocent sides and one is human, the other not, naturally the paladin will choose the human side.
If the Paladin doesn't even _CARE_ which side is innocent and chooses the human side on basis of it being human? Nay. This was hardly a situation of "having to choose a side". It was just more convenient to assume.
Kamelguru wrote:
You people are like my brother eating pizza; picking away what doesn't work for you, and keeping only half the original product, then altering it to work for you with ketchup and/or pepper flakes, claiming that it is still the same pizza.
And thats different from what you do _HOW_?
Kamelguru wrote:
I have been banging the "Why in the name of Odin's hairy bum is it EVIL for a human to kill and eat sentient life indiscriminately, and NOT evil for a monster?"-drum in a futile effort to point out the inherent weakness in making dumb monsters neutral. If there is ONE thing I could import from 4e D&D, it would be the alignment "Unaligned", in the sense that they do not HAVE values, because they do not even KNOW right from wrong. Hungry is bad, full is good. Who cares if the meal had ambitions to save the world?
Uhm, no, the thing is, if you were banging that drum, you'd actually agree that it's a double standard as we claim.
Read that again:
"Why in the name of Odin's hairy bum is it EVIL for a human to kill and eat sentient life indiscriminately, and NOT evil for a monster?"
It doesn't have to be "Evil/Not Evil" for us to be right.
It's enough if it's "Evil/Evil"(then the wyvern is evil as you claim, but so is the paladin).
It's also enough if it's "Not Evil/Not Evil"(because then the wyvern is a neutral sentient creature and while killing such is fine, the paladin as a avatar of good failed to protect innocent life, and violated his code by acting dishonorably...AND yes, GOOD is held to a different standard than NEUTRAL, as it should be)
Kamelguru wrote:
Branding them as equal to humans due to the fact that they have the same base alignment is a gross oversimplification of humans, and a huge stretch for a monster. One is a rich and varied race, capable of great good and inherently weak and largely innocent in the sense that 99% of all humans never take a sentient life. The other EATS BABIES BECAUSE THEY ARE TASTY, and have NO concept of community beyond mating to obey their genetic imperative, no culture, no diversity, NOTHING. They merely have the neutral alignment because they do not KNOW better, which begs the question as to why they don't have Int3 or 4, which seems more in line with their behavior.
They are NOT equal unless you create an inherently flawed context based on cherry-picking and subjectively applying alignment rules and stat-block entries, disregarding the setting's existing fluff (monsters are bad) in favor of a cartoon-like mindset where everyone can really get along if they would only TRY.
99% of humans are all goodie-two shoes never taking a sentient life? You are aware this is a medieval setting? In the kingmaker part there's even rules for large-scale warfare? Don't forget crime/murder/robbery, intrigues at court, and adventurers. We don't even need to bring in other sentient races for humans to break well beyong the 90%-mark.
Unless you are basing this on real life, which you wouldn't do now, would you?
The point is, just because they have no "overarching culture" we know of does not automatically make them less valuable. It also nowhere suggests that other dragons work together to build up a civilization, they are solitary creatures, and as such, have little use for creating art like plays, poems, music. But still a Silver Dragon is a noble creature for good, and a Wyvern is a savage beast? Even though they have the same shortcomings? Not that weird considering they are BOTH DRAGONS.
Double standards, again?
Killing someone because they are different caused much grief in the history of mankind.
Why would that be different in a fantasy world? As was already mentioned, casting someone as "not worth living" and "animalistic savage" were prime reasons for the european imperialism and slavery.
Good times? Not in my book. Just because someone doesn't hold up the same value systems or created a culture similar to my own does not mean he's worthless. EVEN if i have more book smarts and he doesn't speak my language.
And for a "convenience kill" to be justified, given the fact he's neutral, his life would HAVE to be "worthless".
It's not about "everybody get along if you really try", nobody said the paladin should have a tea party with the wyvern. It's about _NOT_ going out of your way for wanton murder of another sentient species.
Wyverns may well cause problems. Just as other humans. Just as other sentient beings. If they do, you act. You don't kill sentient beings before it's clear there is a reason to do so.
Kamelguru wrote:
Yeeeaaaah... no.
Context without flavor is a double abstract in a role-playing game. A weak and ultimately pointless exercise of arguing perception for 900 posts. This is not human paladin attacking farmer Ed for carrying a sword. Nor is this human paladin murdering all the dogs in town because they can bite for 1d4+1 and thus might be a threat to innocents. This is a human paladin eliminating an IMMEDIATE and REAL threat, so his noble quest to defeat the horrible evil, and rescue his god's flock can go on with a minimal cost to their innocent human life. If I were the GM, I would definitely have the wyverns swoop in and gorge themselves on the buffet of lv1 commoners that emerge, and hope to have a camera ready when the paladin player realize that his indulgence and inaction led to several dead innocents that just recently sang his praise for freeing them from the lich.
And before you ask; YES, the paladin knows there are people in there. And YES, he knows he needs to bring them safely home. And YES, escort missions suck big-time.
Well, abstracts help see where our logical thinking messes up. The fact remains that you are using double-standards.
So a SLEEPING, intelligent neutral carnicore 40 miles away from the next settlement that the Paladins knows nothing about constitutes a "real and immediate threat" for innocent human life?
But an awake, barking, animalistic carnivore right inside the human settlement that the paladin knows some stuff about(including that it's species has a history of attacking humans, savage members of the same family attack humans on sight(wolves in AP's usually do that), and they are trained as guards and war animals) is "perfectly fine" in regards to innocent human life?
You'd have that wyvern swoop in and attack commoners, as DM Fiat to punish the Paladin for choosing not to kill them when you obviously meant them to be killed. Punish him for choosing to sneak past.
Okay, then i have that Dog your Paladin didn't kill attack 2 playing children the next day, killing one and maiming the other.
The problem is: If you reason by protecting "innocent humans" you are entering territory in which you can kill pretty much EVERYTHING with a natural attack.
In order not to leave that open: If there's a wyvern with a HISTORY of attacking humans? Sure, go ahead.
If there's one that has the outer range of his hunting ground 32 miles away from the next human settlement? Not exactly a inmediate threat, ESPECIALLY with all the other nasty stuff in the air you mentioned. Any human that even MAKES it to his claimed area deserves to die for stupidity by venturing in these areas. Better to remove them from the gene pool.
Really, the points are all moot. Many dragons have spells at their disposal. Assume, for a moment, that the Wyvern had a spell-like ability similar to alter self...assume humanoid form.
If it HAS to use this ability to turn itself human every time it sleeps because otherwise any human running into it will take the chance to slit it's throat, then to me it's pretty clear who the "evil guys" are here.
Again, if you, as DM, want to be an ass about it and have them attack the freed commoners because your paladin was resourceful enough to bypass the encounter without slaughtering them? Thats your sauce.
To me, thats playing them stupid AND punishing your player for creative thinking.
What to gain from slaughtering them peasants? Why invoke the wrath of the adventurers? ESPECIALLY if they knew about their lich neighbour? I mean, those guys obviously just kicked his ass, do i really want him to exact revenge on me and my young? Same stupidity as playing them as attacking until dead. Suicidal, so to say. Realistically, unless they figure it's close, they should retreat while they still have a chance to do so.
As said, animal threats cannot be "reasoned" with, and quite obviously, someone in the campaign setting agrees that a "kill-on-sight" policy is not the way to go. Any powerful organization could pretty well make(and keep) natural predators of any sort extinct in a huge sway of land.
I guess most beings work on a "Kill-by-need" basis both in regards to need(if you need meat, you kill ONE animal, not 20), and in regards to self-defense(if i am attacked by a bear, i kill it. I don't go searching out all bears and killing them).
That LATTER part holds especially true if you bring in sentience. If you change THAT from a "kill-by-need"-self defence basis over to a racist "kill-on-sight" basis, then you'd pretty quickly get yourself a fine vendetta.
Have yourself a racial vendetta and a few high-level Casters, and enjoy Genocide.
Sentient beings that kill other sentient beings are shunned as killers for good reason. That way, balance holds. If your government endorses and promotes killing all elves, or, to not use another humanoid since you have difficulty placing the same value on sentient beings that look different, promotes killing ALL dragons, then you can be pretty sure the situation is going to escalate if you are powerful enough to be taken seriously. Somebody is going to come knocking on your door and set things right. Without this balance, which only holds if all sentient life is respected and threated as valuable, while viewing those who would take it without reason as criminal and evil, the game world would look much different. (Most likely that Humans try to take out every other race over this/that/minor stuff.)
So yes, there is evil wyverns. Yes, go ahead, kill them. But that's not to mean you are free to genocide their species or assume every single one is the same. They are dragons, intelligent, and neutral. Obviously they can choose their own fate. Think of them as akin to tieflings. Maybe their "instincts" even are towards evil(which i don't see in the description, but others do), but they are intelligent and neutral, and thus able to choose for themselves.
Heck, what _IS_ so unlikely about a wyvern selling itself out as a guardian mercenary to a village? Just give it a guarantee for food if the hunt went bad, and during winter. A good deal for the wyvern, and depending on need, also for the village.
The thing is, the whole base of argumentation AGAINST the call being right is based on complete stereotypes, and even THEN, it fails on several occasions.
The fact that you said you'd punish your paladin player by killing the innocent commoners via the wyverns if he is NOT playing into your stereotypes or finding a way to pass by them without killing them in their sleep, it tells me pretty much everything i ever needed to know.
When someone mentioned this thread is teaching you at who's table you would play a paladin, i thought it was one-way in that the pro-paladin players would feel too restricted with people that saw the code or alignment with too little leverage. Now i realized it's also the other way around. Pro-Paladin DM's requiring them to be railwayed on a killstreak. Nope, wouldn't play one at that table.
OK, fine, we are discussing two different monsters. You have your interpretation of a bestiary entry, and I have the experience of EVERY G+$%+!N wyvern EVER presented in any given form of pre-made adventure, fantasy literature, video-game and p&p roleplaying game in any given edition since I first learned that there are more shapes of dice than the d6.
NO wyvern in recorded history since I started playing have EVER been scripted to be anything but a monster that is there for one or both of these two purposes:
- Killing players
- Providing a mount for a bad guy
Actual DRAGONS have (with the exception of the dumbest and most aggressive ones) an appreciation for art, gather items aesthetically pleasing to them, learn languages, communicate in a meaningful way with others, and have time and again been proven to have social structures, but preferring solitude due to their massive egos and vulnerability when they sleep for a decade or two. A wyvern, by comparison, is the freaking raptors from Jurassic Park, just with wings and a stinger. Sure, they are clever, but they just want to eat delicious children.
Regarding the double standards: The whole point I am trying to make is that I WANT a single standard, where EVERYTHING that is smart enough to count as sentient, NEED to face the same set of rules as player-races. You prefer eating sentient life? Then you're EVIL. A wyvern is smart enough (by the entry in the bestiary) to tell the difference, but he _chooses_ to eat people, instead of sticking to a diet of non-sentient creatures. But this ISN'T the case, and thus, the creatures that kill intelligent life by CHOICE do not get the same treatment as those who refrain from doing "evil". Tell me in ONE way, apart from the choice of habitat, abilities and penchant for frozen dinners, that the wyvern act different from a white dragon (Chaotic Evil).
- Choose to attack first, ask questions later, if at all? Check
- Can be intimidated, bribed into alliance? Check
- Possess high enough intelligence to understand basic morality? Check (Interesting note: a wyvern is SMARTER than a white dragon until they get to age category 3)
- Creature type dragon? Check
THIS is the beef I have with the wyvern, the otyugh, the remorhaz, etc etc. They are supposedly smart enough to know that killing sentient life is bad, but they never, in my rather vast experience, seem to care. And THAT is the justification that makes it OK to kill them, because they never want to do anything but kill YOU.
The ones in the AP are no different. Actually, there is nothing about them having children either, just that they are mated. (Yes, the AP has been very meticulous about mentioning the existence of eggs or young in nests before this encounter, so it is not just assumed or omitted) There is no REASON stated for their attack, as the players need to go out of their way to GET to their lair, so they just behave like monsters usually do, just a little smarter, as they apply the following tactics: Unless the PCs are stealthy when they approach the central island, the wyverns are swift to notice and swoop down to attack at some point when the PCs are relatively spread out, so the creatures can focus their violence on one or two foes at a time.
And if they did not spot the players on the approach, they WOULD spot the several dozen villagers, and acted just like the adventure path describes them. That is not me "punishing players for being clever" that is me playing the game like the designers made it, and playing the monsters like they are presented.
:shrug: It doesn't make you necessarily evil, just paranoid and well... people may come to avenge the things you destroy/kill.
Charender wrote:
Paranoid is one thing, when you start acting on that paranoia and killing the thing you think are out to get you, you cross the line into something completely different.
It's not paranoia, if they really ARE out to get you.
OK, fine, we are discussing two different monsters. You have your interpretation of a bestiary entry, and I have the experience of EVERY G++$@$N wyvern EVER presented in any given form of pre-made adventure, fantasy literature, video-game and p&p roleplaying game in any given edition since I first learned that there are more shapes of dice than the d6.
Okay. Which one is raw again?
No, let that go, too obvious. The problem is that i could just as well ask for representations of good dragons: There are none in legends, lore, movies or games NOT based on AD&D/D&D/Pathfinder. At least not more than Wyverns. So why is it that Gold Dragons are fine but Wyverns are not? Heck, if you play other kinds of P&P, coming from, say, World of Darkness, you may well not understand why werewolves or vampires have to be evil stereotypes in pathfinder.
Don't get me started on different portrayal of orcs. Or Barbarians. Or wizards, for that matter.
And you better not be playing a witch then, because they usually get rather bad publicity as well, if you count out discworld and dislike "buffy-style rebellios bad guys stuff".
Kamelguru wrote:
NO wyvern in recorded history since I started playing have EVER been scripted to be anything but a monster that is there for one or both of these two purposes:
- Killing players
- Providing a mount for a bad guy
Uhm, someone even mentioned an adventure module with a family descended from wyverns.
I also remember that playing the adventure before crown of the kobold king, where you travel through the woods trying to find incredients, we spotted a wyvern as random encounter flying far overhead not caring about us. Considering we were Level 1 at that time, i'd feel justified to say it was there for flavor, and we weren't supposed to take it down to protect innocent villagers.
Obviously, there was also rulebooks supporting the idea of "celestial" wyverns and the like.
The tools are all there, together with the neutral bestiary entry, for people actually willing to use them, or script their own campaigns.
For someone too lazy to do that, it's a lot easier to keep to stereotypes in modules and AP's, and only see what they want to see.
Kamelguru wrote:
Actual DRAGONS have an appreciation for art, gather items aesthetically pleasing to them, learn languages, communicate in a meaningful way with others, and have time and again been proven to have social structures, but preferring solitude due to their massive egos and vulnerability when they sleep for a decade or two. A wyvern, by comparison, is the freaking raptors from Jurassic Park, just with wings and a stinger. Sure, they are clever, but they just want to eat delicious children.
SOURCE or it didn't happen.
Yep, you made me look up dragons in the bestiary. I found no mention of "appreciation for art", gathering aethetically pleasing items(except for "treasure", which arguably the wyvern also did), them learning languages, or having social structures. The Metallic Dragons also have very little flavor text to go with them, while for example
black dragon:
Lording over the darkest swamps and marshes, black dragons are the undisputed masters of their domain, ruling through cruelty and intimidation. Those who dwell within a black dragon's reach live in fear. Black dragons tend to make their lairs in remote parts of the swamp, preferably in caves at the bottom of dark and fetid pools. Inside, they pile up their filthy treasure and sleep amid the roots and muck. Black dragons prefer their food a bit rotten and will often allow a meal to sit in a pool for days before consuming it. Black dragons prefer treasures that do not rot or decay, making their hoard, full of coins, gemstones, jewelry, and other objects made from stone or metal.
with int 14(adult) does not exactly sound like your description. But hey, it's a true dragon. Or are we further limiting this to only apply to the metallic dragons? The thing is, are you just making up fluff about the dragons based on _YOUR_ sources again or is there anything based in their description. Except for the assumption that a gold dragons "treasure: triple" stems from it being a collector of art that increased in value over time.
Kamelguru wrote:
Regarding the double standards: The whole point I am trying to make is that I WANT a single standard, where EVERYTHING that is smart enough to count as sentient, NEED to face the same set of rules as player-races. You prefer eating sentient life? Then you're EVIL. A wyvern is smart enough (by the entry in the bestiary) to tell the difference, but he _chooses_ to eat people, instead of sticking to a diet of non-sentient creatures. But this ISN'T the case, and thus, the creatures that kill intelligent life by CHOICE do not get the same treatment as those who refrain from doing "evil". THIS is the beef I have with the wyvern, the otyugh, the remorhaz, etc etc. They are supposedly smart enough to know that killing sentient life is bad, but they never, in my rather vast experience, seem to care. And THAT is the justification that makes it OK to kill them, because they never want to do anything but kill YOU.
Single standard: fine.
Eating sentient life=Evil:fine.
Wyvern smart enough to choose:fine.
He _chooses_ to eat people: Source?
Honestly, especially considering the old, more stupid wyverns already were mentioned to be wary of humans, knowing them to be more dangerous than they look, and with NO part of their description indicating they DON'T stick to a diet of non-sentient creatures, i find your assumptions tiring.
It is a beef you have with them based on YOUR view of them. Give me the source, then we can talk RAW, and on a basis of absolutes.
Fail to do that, and we are talking about homebrew or personal interpretation. In both of THESE cases, it's irrational of you to consider your view as the only valid one. I mentioned over and over again: You do it however you want, thats fine. In your game they eat humans because they are tasty. Great.
Don't tell me how they have to act in my game. If i make a demon into a teacher and it acts all neutral Good, call me out on that.
If i play a sentient neutral creature that is not defined as keeping a diet including sentient creatures as a sentient neutral creature that is not keeping a diet including sentient creatures, you can't.
This is the beef i have with your argumentation, and why i feel that you are dodging.
Either you stop ALL assumptions and work with RAW.
Or you include assumptions, but accept there's different views.
I am fine with both approaches, but don't mix and match by including YOUR views and YOUR interpretations, then trying to make them RAW for everybody else.
Kamelguru wrote:
The ones in the AP are no different. Actually, there is nothing about them having children either, just that they are mated. (Yes, the AP has been very meticulous about mentioning the existence of eggs or young in nests before this encounter, so it is not just assumed or omitted) There is no REASON stated for their attack, as the players need to go out of their way to GET to their lair, so they just behave like monsters usually do, just a little smarter, as they apply the following tactics: Unless the PCs are stealthy when they approach the central island, the wyverns are swift to notice and swoop down to attack at some point when the PCs are relatively spread out, so the creatures can focus their violence on one or two foes at a time.
Well, so a little stuff maybe WAS changed around by the OP. No matter. So possibly they do that because they feel threatened? Maybe they were bribed by the lich to do so? Does it state that counter-parley is impossible?
What _IF_ the PC's are stealthy? Which, if they were asleep, is a definite option? Could you just bypass them? Do the players have to spread out, or, if they have to pass a part what requires them to split, be in the "dangerous" part all at the same time?
Could it be that they, as territorial creatures, are merely attempting to scare the PC's away from their nest? Do they give pursuit?
Heck, even if they ARE sadistic little bastards that just like killing stuff, there'd be no way to KNOW beforehand.
Kamelguru wrote:
And if they did not spot the players on the approach, they WOULD spot the several dozen villagers, and acted just like the adventure path describes them. That is not me "punishing players for being clever" that is me playing the game like the designers made it, and playing the monsters like they are presented.
Uhm, let me get that right, if we played modules until we are level 10, then we decide to slip into an AP and just "race" through the lower parts to get people knowing the background story, that level 1 commoner still challenges my level 10 monk to a fist fight because the designers made it so?
As said, i guess that's your interpretation here. Maybe the wyverns attack them because they are APPROACHING the nest, and if you leave, thats fine? Maybe they know about the lich, and know better than to mess with people that took him out? Even if they are deciding to attack after spotting all those people, wouldn't it make MORE sense to focus attacks on those guys that fight back(bows, magic), rather than the commoners?
By deciding that they "attack no matter what because thats scripted", and going on that they will attack the villagers, it's already an interpretation. Let alone that they were sleeping in OP. In that case, i'd at least roll a die and see, with 1-5 they are still sleeping, 6-10 both are out hunting, 11-15 one is out hunting, 16-20 they are both still there.
Even _IF_ you base your decision on the fact that the AP hardcodes them to assault, unless stealthy(which to me already indicates that there is an option to bypass the encounter without bloodshed), that does not mean a player should "have" that knowledge. Even if the options with the die roll above are NOT valid in your game, because the SCRIPT says they are both there and will attack, then the players shouldn't assume so.
I'll give you an example: On my table, the players, realizing they are asleep, may sneak in. They rescue those commoners they know are there, and come back to the entrance. The Wyverns are still there. Good, they make camp in the ruins, with one person to watch, and will proceed once the wyverns go out hunting.
How do you handle that? The wyverns starve to death waiting for something to show up in the river?
Also, as far as i caught, there is some perilious crossing/climbing towards a center island. So _IF_ you have to retreat, you'll be messed up anyway. Wyverns or not, if whatever you were running from is behind you, you'll be more vulnerable and incapable of fighting back because of the crossing/climbing stuff than if you just attempted to make a stand at a chokepoint. If worse comes to worse, break out that scroll of dimension door and draw straws.
Wyverns are still aggressive eating machines... but then so are humans. Wyverns and humans both compete for food, shelter, and resources in the same area's. They are both aggressive, think they are right, and do not like talking to others who are not like themselves.
If a human kills a sleeping wyverns, because they think they are a threat, in there sleep without checking. Then that human is neutral in alignment. Most humans are neutral, and do not spend the effort or time needed to verify if they are right or correct in their actions.
If a wyvern kills a sleeping human, because they think they are a threat, in there sleep without checking. Then that wyvern is neutral in alignment. Most wyvern are neutral, and do not spend the effort or time needed to verify if they are right or correct in their actions.
Humans or Wyvers who kill out of sport, fun, money, or greed. Well then you have evil alignments.
At last!
You're agreeing with us!
You're finally coming round to the fact that it was not an evil act.
It's not necessarily a good act.
But it's not an evil act either.
It's just 'meh'.
And you don't make paladins fall for morally neutral actions.
...
If a human kills a sleeping wyverns, because they think they are a threat, in there sleep without checking. Then that human is neutral in alignment. ...
At last!
You're agreeing with us!
You're finally coming round to the fact that it was not an evil act.
It's not necessarily a good act.
But it's not an evil act either.
It's just 'meh'.
And you don't make paladins fall for morally neutral actions.
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.
Where's the problem? Or are YOU agreeing to US, after all?
As a matter of fact, yes, you DO make paladins lose their powers for morally neutral actions if they are serious or numerous enough to warrant an alignment change.
You make them _FALL_ for commiting willful evil acts.
One of those equals a slap on the wrist of a player that wants to keep being a paladin and allows atonement to get all the funny stuff back.
The other usually happens after the player decided he wants to go that path, and usually mentioned that to the GM beforehand.
The problem is that i could just as well ask for representations of good dragons: There are none in legends, lore, movies or games NOT based on AD&D/D&D/Pathfinder. At least not more than Wyverns.
Except a metric ton of legends, lore, movies, and a bunch of non D&D based games where they are much more complex than having their manner dictated by the color of their scales. In most occurrences their motivations are much more grey, or rather primal, and closer to their representation of elemental forces of creation.
As a matter of fact, yes, you DO make paladins lose their powers for morally neutral actions if they are serious or numerous enough to warrant an alignment change.
You make them _FALL_ for commiting willful evil acts.
Wait... Losing your powers and becoming an ex-paladin is not the same as falling? I've only played a Paladin in Pathfinder, but there's a difference? I didn't see that anywhere in the RAW
The problem is that i could just as well ask for representations of good dragons: There are none in legends, lore, movies or games NOT based on AD&D/D&D/Pathfinder. At least not more than Wyverns.
Except a metric ton of legends, lore, movies, and a bunch of non D&D based games where they are much more complex than having their manner dictated by the color of their scales. In most occurrences their motivations are much more grey, or rather primal, and closer to their representation of elemental forces of creation.
yep, but thats exactly that. They are portrayed DIFFERENTLY than in pathfinder, and as "elemental forces".
Not as "noble beings of good and law". I am aware there's plenty of different dragons, but that just supplements the problem: It matters a lot where you come from.
The Twilight-Generation may well wonder why vampires don't glitter in sunlight, instead turning to dust. Not my beer, but i can't even blame them.(Well, not in a reasonable objective way).
Saying that the "lore" YOU know about a being supports a way of thinking, perfectly fine for you, but in kamelguru's case, he is applying this way of thinking to be compulsory for everybody else as well, by defaulting to any other, contradicting view to be "wrong".
Ion Raven wrote:
MordredofFairy wrote:
As a matter of fact, yes, you DO make paladins lose their powers for morally neutral actions if they are serious or numerous enough to warrant an alignment change.
You make them _FALL_ for commiting willful evil acts.
Wait... Losing your powers and becoming an ex-paladin is not the same as falling? I've only played a Paladin in Pathfinder, but there's a difference? I didn't see that anywhere in the RAW
yep, falling is covered under "Anti-Paladin". Thats the "one-way-road".
Of course, APG may not be RAW in that regard.
As for becoming an Ex-Paladin: It's also reasonable to asume(also from reading atonement) that for more serious offenses, more "atonement" is needed. That means there may be well cases where a character quests for several sessions in order to restore his paladinhood.
And other cases where it's a minor remainder of his deity, taking his powers for a little time with no further requirement than an honest atonement.
Think about it that way: An Ex-Paladin that willfully commited an evil act and an Ex-Paladin that acted dishonorably to save his friend, are both, per their class requirements, losing their power.
It's quite reasonable to interpret that the gods punishment is adequate to the "crime" that invoked it.
So in that regard, i used "lose your powers" as a way of stating that there is a way to recover them(with the difficulty based on the "crime" commited), while i used "fall from grace" in a way of stating there not being a way to recover them(such as when becoming an anti-paladin and trading in paladin levels).
So yes, there is a difference.
And it felt necessary to point that out because many people in favor of the paladin make it seem like people against the paladin want to have him become an ex-paladin permanently loosing access to all his class abilities, when in fact, that's not true. I for one only called for the "slap on the wrist", where he can get an atonement(possibly even from the party cleric) and be done with it. Heck, usually atonement doesn't even have a COST involved, unless you make it.
would it be justified to permanently lose everything his class offers over something like this? Nah, unless it's a repeat offender.
Is it justified to be punished for not acting like you should? Yep, in my eyes. The thing is, losing your powers technically makes you an ex-paladin, but it even states in that part:
She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see atonement), as appropriate.
so it seemed to make sense to also differ verbally between "minor offense" and "major offense". If that confused you, i hope i managed to clarify what i mean.
Lots of stuff that boils down to "How dare you have a different opinion than THE ONE monster-stat book?!"
Ok, you have the holy bibl- ahem, bestiary, and if it doesn't say so in there, it is at BEST an opinion, but mostly just wrong. I am starting to see that this is moot, and why. Anything I say, even with the full force of 20 years of fantasy literature behind me, will be countered with either "NOT RAW!" or "That's what YOU (or that author) think!" depending on what I say in order to counter it, or just skipped if a counter cannot be produced ("Show me how the flavor text of a wyvern is different from a white dragon?"). And any statement, no matter how inane, like WotC's "Lookit all the messed up stuff you can do to a wyvern with templates!" is held aloft as a shining beacon of enlightened understanding.
The example of "people descended from wyverns" was the forgotten realms series about the Wyvernspurs, where some members of the petty noble family have the ability to turn into wyverns, and thus their last name. The good guys think it a curse, since the wyvern is a terrifying poisonous monster, and the bad guys think it a blessing for much the same reasons. Finder Wyvernspur became the god of dinosaur-people and some silly bunk like that, and the inner sea region have another dragon-themed band of NPCs, which they were very fond of back in the gray box.
But whatever. Not RAW!
MordredofFairy wrote:
Honestly, especially considering the old, more stupid wyverns already were mentioned to be wary of humans, knowing them to be more dangerous than they look, and with NO part of their description indicating they DON'T stick to a diet of non-sentient creatures, i find your assumptions tiring.
Bestiary 282: "A dark blue dragon, its wings immense and its tail tipped with a hooked stinger, lands on two taloned feet and roars a challenge."
Yeah, sure sounds like a monster that would never attack sentient creatures. Guess I'll just take my "assumptions" and realize that I will never beat a rules-zealot.
MordredofFairy wrote:
Saying that the "lore" YOU know about a being supports a way of thinking, perfectly fine for you, but in kamelguru's case, he is applying this way of thinking to be compulsory for everybody else as well, by defaulting to any other, contradicting view to be "wrong".
The f$+#? I am saying that I have yet to SEE a wyvern portrayed as anything but all the stuff I said earlier. And I have never HEARD of anyone speaking with a wyvern, teaming up with one, hiring one to guard a village, and so on. All the stuff that you insist it COULD and even SHOULD do, since you shoehorn it into one of the only NINE ways to view the world, instead of giving a flying expletive about what they have ALWAYS been used for/portrayed as, or even dismissing it as subjective drivel, since the one-page entry of the bestiary doesn't cover it.
But sure, I am called out as a racist bigot already, so why not be an opinion-fascist while I am at it.
So if i was a Lawful Good Wyvern, and i saw a Armored Humans sleeping in the forest. Could i bite his neck, while he was a sleep, because all humans are mean, greedy, little creatures, that hurt wyvern every chance they get. Can i keep my Lawful Good alignment, since the humans are a clear and present damager to all wyvern nests located nearby ?
So.... does this mean i can eat the human in his sleep and keep my Lawful Good Alignment, since humans are a clear and present danger to all wyvern nests located nearby ??
So anyway, has anyone else notice that alignments are used for the standard "good" party in terms of good = allies, evil = enemies, lawful = patient, chaotic = impatient and neutral is anything in between / undecided? These aren't my personal views of good, evil, lawful, and chaotic but that's how I often see it being used in DnD games.
Let me be the first to defend cats. If not, I'll do it anyway.
Cats are generally neutral.
Some are good, some evil, most are caotic.
Some cats are so sweet that they can't even scare away mice.
(I won't tell you where I work, but a customer had this problem).
Drow are Generally caotic evil.
Humans are generally neutral.
Again, I don't think we have the same logic or the same taste in game flavoring, you and I.
Wyverns are natural to a fantasy world just as wolves were natural to medieval times in the real world.
Not like some mythical beings that were told about around the campfire but didn't exist, because in the game world these beings exist. They are there. You see them flying around. Of course you know what they are and what they do. Heck, you can even buy (in-game) Ye Olde Bestiary to read about it.
Charender wrote:
Being that any accurate knowledge about Wyverns requires a DC 16 Knowledge(Arcana) check and you cannot make that check untrained, I am afraid I have to disagree and say that knowing about Wyverns is not common place. To know even 1 piece of information about wyverns, you would have to have ranks in knowledge(arcana) and make a DC 16 knowledge check. That alone eliminates a significant portion of the general population. Knowing a significant amount of accurate information(like 3 pieces of useful information) would be a DC 26. Not exactly a check the every commoner can make untrained.
Open question to those who state that PCs cannot know even general rumours about a creature, unless the gathering of that info has been personally overseen by the GM, in session, or was the result of a needlessly high Knowledge check*;
Do you force the PCs to roll Knowledge(nature) checks for seeing a cow?
Assuming average Int, and no ranks; hey, even allowing for positive Int and some ranks, the DC is still failable.
GM: "You see a strange, hybrid creature, with the body of a gorgon, but hairy, and topped with the head of a minotaur..."
Paladin: "Forsooth, this be a devilish creation of witchery! We must slay it, ere it eats up all in yonder farmstead!"
*Basing Knowledge DCs on CR is a BAD way to do it.
By this ruling, people know more about microscopic insects that inhabit the remotest jungles, on the opposite side of the world, than they do about large, obvious creatures native to their homelands.
The higher the CR, the more legendary a creature is, and the more tales would be told about it.
Those tales may be wrong, but there would be tales.
So anyway, has anyone else notice that alignments are used for the standard "good" party in terms of good = allies, evil = enemies, lawful = patient, chaotic = impatient and neutral is anything in between / undecided? These aren't my personal views of good, evil, lawful, and chaotic but that's how I often see it being used in DnD games.
Good, Protecting life were possible. Helping other when at all possible.
Evil, Killing when it suits you. Going out of your way to hurt other possible.
Law, Trying to be follow your code, want things to follow an orderly hierarchy.
Chaos, Wanting to be free at all costs, Doing as you please & changing your mind on a whim to suit your current needs.
Neutral, Falling some were in between good and evil, law and chaos. Or Not caring about about good,evil, law, or chaos because i want to live my life and be left alone.... or because i am to dumb to know the difference between them (aka animals).
Now then, i am getting hungry, their is that armored human sleeping under a tree. Since humans are a clear and present danger to wyverns, their greedy, untrustworthy, savage, and civilized (aka not one with nature, and polluter of their environment), I as a lawful good wyvern want to know if i can go bite his neck off, and eat him, for the betterment of Wyverns kind, and keep my Lawful Good Alignment.
So anyway, has anyone else notice that alignments are used for the standard "good" party in terms of good = allies, evil = enemies, lawful = patient, chaotic = impatient and neutral is anything in between / undecided? These aren't my personal views of good, evil, lawful, and chaotic but that's how I often see it being used in DnD games.
I think it is because D&D and pathfinder is a heroic fantasy game where you kill bad things with swords and magic, and not a milquetoast ambiguous angst-simulator where you pretend to care about the struggle between the beast and your humanity, like Vampire. And good thing too.
Agent SIX wrote: "Every Choice has a Consequence."
Men In Black should kill anything that poses a threat to humanity.
Inquisitors should probably slay anything their church does not approve of.
This was a Paladin, and a slap on the wrist, as was done, was right to keep the game going. Paladins are supposed to represent. The path of Lawful Good Paladins is truely the hard narrow path.
I'll tattle a tale that is terribly true
Started out with a few posts and suddenly grew
And it deals with a wyvern and a "bad" paladin
So settle on in and our thread shall begin
Sir_Shayir started a thread bout his kingmaker game
His paladin did something he thought was quite lame
Asking "Is this an act of evil, you think?"
Started out OK, but soon started to stink
One hundred posts about the same silly old stuff
Escalating wars between interpretations of fluff
It grew bigger and long, and it gets plain to see, that this is the tale of the wyvern-din thread!
Oh, Wyvern-din thread, oh wyvern-din thread, you're big and scary and eeeevil~ who could it be that set you free, causing such great upheeeaval~
Oh, four hundred posts by the end of the week
This thread is definitely not for the meek
The war goes on, "why are they not evil if they act like beasts!"
But the arguments are many, so take your pick and join the feast!
And if they should ever agree, then you should all know to flee, because that is a sure-fire sign; the end-days are nigh and sure ain't benign!
*pipes solo*
Oh, Wyvern-din thread, oh wyvern-din thread, you're droll, boring and massive~ when will you end, no-one can tell, but soon we should all grow passive~
Now every knows that no two people in this world are in agreement~
On stuff like paladins and codes of alignment
And if you ever consider to start one again, this you should learn
This one is coming close to 1000 and its starting to burn
So one final though before I depart, and this my friends come straight from the heart; We'd all be fine if not for that poster's query,
that created this mess and left everyone weary
Oh, Wyvern-din thread, oh wyvern-din thread, you're coming close to one thousand~, long since you got way out of hand~
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.
Helic wrote:
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.
The player is obviously at fault, for not making it explicitly clear when he was talking in character.
Next time, he'll know to get out of his chair, spin three times anticlockwise, roll up his right trouser leg, expose his left nipple, perform the Scout Salute, and declare "I solemnly do declare, that the following words are those of my character, and not my own!".
At which point, he could then say "They will attack us later, better to get it over with now!".
Lots of stuff that boils down to "How dare you have a different opinion than THE ONE monster-stat book?!"
Ok, you have the holy bibl- ahem, bestiary, and if it doesn't say so in there, it is at BEST an opinion, but mostly just wrong. I am starting to see that this is moot, and why. Anything I say, even with the full force of 20 years of fantasy literature behind me, will be countered with either "NOT RAW!" or "That's what YOU (or that author) think!" depending on what I say in order to counter it, or just skipped if a counter cannot be produced ("Show me how the flavor text of a wyvern is different from a white dragon?"). And any statement, no matter how inane, like WotC's "Lookit all the messed up stuff you can do to a wyvern with templates!" is held aloft as a shining beacon of enlightened understanding.
The example of "people descended from wyverns" was the forgotten realms series about the Wyvernspurs, where some members of the petty noble family have the ability to turn into wyverns, and thus their last name. The good guys think it a curse, since the wyvern is a terrifying poisonous monster, and the bad guys think it a blessing for much the same reasons. Finder Wyvernspur became the god of dinosaur-people and some silly bunk like that, and the inner sea region have another dragon-themed band of NPCs, which they were very fond of back in the gray box.
But whatever. Not RAW!
Fail, and quite a lot. Did you even READ what i wrote. It's not about the "ONE BOOK". You also skipped the encounter for flavor in the Level 1 Adventure i mentioned.
The point i made was: If you want to discuss RAW, then leave everything else out. Either there is a base for it somewhere in RAW, or not. This is where you can find absolutes. Rolling a 20 on an attack roll hits. If my personal opinion is that a untrained peasant with an improvised sling will not hit the dragon 10 range increments away 1 time out of 20, then thats my personal opinion, and as logical as that may seem to me, RAW says that a natural 20 is a hit.
RAW:
Automatic Misses and Hits: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit (see the attack action).
It doesn't need to make sense and even if his AC is 45 and your "to-hit" is -15 after range and nonproficiency, a 20 still hits. May as well use deadly aim and rapid for more damage, your hit chance is the same.
So it may seem sound to change that. But then it's no longer RAW.
So lets go there.
If we are _NOT_ RAW, and i'd actually prefer that, then we no longer have ABSOLUTES. We have personal opinions and interpretations. You may rule out that if a 20 could not hit, then it's always a miss. I may rule that a 20 results in another roll with a +20 bonus, and see if that hits.
Factually, we can discuss all day about that, and still, in the end, it will be a personal opinion. You have that full force of 20 years of fantasy literature behind you. Well, great for you, i prefer science fiction books and low-magic fantasy. I have no image of wyverns shaped in the same way. I mainly know them from history, heraldry and old buildings. So what does that mean, my opinion doesn't count because i haven't read the same books?
Here is the point where as mature adults we should realize that we have a different view on a subject and be able to accept that both views are valid. That both our points of view are perfectly reasonable based on our respective backgrounds.
Oh wait, i already said that your view is perfectly valid and i wish you luck at your table. Well, welcome to the internet, hu? So yep, you got that _MOSTLY_ right. I refute what you say as "_YOUR_ opinion" once we enter the are of non-RAW, not because your's is wrong, but because wether that pleases you or not, i am entitled to my OWN.
And you're definitely not in a position to be able to judge my opinion as being any more irrelevant in the grand scheme of things than your own.
Kamelguru wrote:
MordredofFairy wrote:
Honestly, especially considering the old, more stupid wyverns already were mentioned to be wary of humans, knowing them to be more dangerous than they look, and with NO part of their description indicating they DON'T stick to a diet of non-sentient creatures, i find your assumptions tiring.
Bestiary 282: "A dark blue dragon, its wings immense and its tail tipped with a hooked stinger, lands on two taloned feet and roars a challenge."
Yeah, sure sounds like a monster that would never attack sentient creatures. Guess I'll just take my "assumptions" and realize that I will never beat a rules-zealot.
you guys should make up your mind. One time you use the OLD text of 3.5, then the new one from pathfinder, whatever seems convenient, hu?
So yep, it says its a dragon(which are sentient beings). Also, in the given example, they were SLEEPING. Thats hardly "roaring a challenge". It can snore at you in a funny way, but that's hardly a reason to kill...oh wait, for you, it is.
The problem is, you try to cherry-pick whatever part seems convenient and ignore everything else. Thats the "situation"-specific entrance text, as a possible description of the creature. And as was ALREADY agreed, a very reasonable one, as most likely thats how most encounters with evil wyverns will begin for the party.(except, of course, that is has flyby attack and a con-poison stinger, so landing may well not be the smart thing)
Kamelguru wrote:
MordredofFairy wrote:
Saying that the "lore" YOU know about a being supports a way of thinking, perfectly fine for you, but in kamelguru's case, he is applying this way of thinking to be compulsory for everybody else as well, by defaulting to any other, contradicting view to be "wrong".
The f~~&? I am saying that I have yet to SEE a wyvern portrayed as anything but all the stuff I said earlier. And I have never HEARD of anyone speaking with a wyvern, teaming up with one, hiring one to guard a village, and so on. All the stuff that you insist it COULD and even SHOULD do, since you shoehorn it into one of the only NINE ways to view the world, instead of giving a flying expletive about what they have ALWAYS been used for/portrayed as, or even dismissing it as subjective drivel, since the one-page entry of the bestiary doesn't cover it.
But sure, I am called out as a racist bigot already, so why not be an opinion-fascist while I am at it.
Actually, as mentioned, in a history way of looking at them, they are not treated much different from any other dragons.
If you never came up with one doing anything except be mindless beasts, thats also quite "shoehorning", no?
Or your DM/Players weren't too creative? Maybe courtesy of being locked into viewing them in the "only" way you know them? While technically it's slavery, there's even a entry in Goods and Services, a Wyvern Egg is 4k gold. Never had a player consider rearing one themselves, having one as mount or companion?
It's a sentient creature, and quite reasonable you can imprint values on it while raising it. And it's not even that whole chaotic-good-drow thing. They are neutral to begin with, and while the wyvern may never become "good" it's quite reasonable to assume one reared by a trainer will not ever attack humanoids without good reason.
I am not the one doing the shoehorning here, i even claimed that from a certain point of view, another alignment entry may be justified(along with other predatory beings, omnivores and carnivores alike, like humans or dogs).
My problem with you is that you base your whole "allmighty" image of a wyvern on your o-so-great literary knowledge of fantasy books of your choice. Guess what? I don't care what you read or what you base that image on. I already said, it's your opinion and be happy with it.
I have NOT read those books, i have only history, very little fantasy and the books to go by. And those sources to me don't indicate them as chaotic evil suicidal humanocidiac maniacs acting like a rabid dragon that was feebleminded, taking joy in killing sentients(when other entrys, like the mimic, point that out), or having a diet including humans(when other entrys, like the guardian naga, point that out).
Maybe it was omissions, the alignment is wrong, and they are truly meant to be exactly the way you picture them. Still, nothing in RAW contradicts _MY_ image of them, from the sources _I_ have. And for that sole reason i attempted to get you to accept(not admit, not change your opinion, not apologize, ...), yes, just to accept that there ARE other points of view, differing from yours, that are just as valid .
you denying that, pretty much qualifis as opinion-fascist, yes.
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.
Helic wrote:
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.
The player is obviously at fault, for not making it explicitly clear when he was talking in character.
Next time, he'll know to get out of his chair, spin three times anticlockwise, roll up his right trouser leg, expose his left nipple, perform the Scout Salute, and declare "I solemnly do declare, that the following words are those of my character, and not my own!".
At which point, he could then say "They will attack us later, better to get it over with now!".
You know, just like he did.
oh, sorry, i didn't know you where there.
oh, you weren't?
oh, okay, but you know the DM and the player, right?
oh, you don't?
okay, then i'll just take the DM's word for it that the player WAS metagaming on that.
For example because he had NO reason to believe they would be attacked from sleeping creatures at a later time.
Unless he knew the CR and assumed they would be an encounter. Or the DM never mentions anything except creatures they end up fighting(DM fault). Or he read the AP.
Substitute an obvious evil creature. An Ancient Red Dragon, sleeping there(i know it wouldn't, but bear with me), instead of the wyvern.
Will the Lvl5 Paladin then try to sneak by, hoping not to wake it? Or will he also assume that he will have to fight it anyway, so lets attack it right away?
What about substituting a flight of crows(reskinned bat swarm)? There's awfully many birds, they are a flight. Will he assume they'll attack?
"Common Knowledge" includes "The birds" after all, the behaviour is unnatural and IF they decide to turn against humans, the effects would be fatal.
If other creatures don't result in the same line of thought, because they are seen as "too powerful" or "too weak" then the argumentation fails because the "we will have to fight it anyway" becomes a meta-game reasoning.
I'll tattle a tale that is terribly true
Started out with a few posts and suddenly grew
And it deals with a wyvern and a "bad" paladin
So settle on in and our thread shall begin
Sir_Shayir started a thread bout his kingmaker game
His paladin did something he thought was quite lame
Asking "Is this an act of evil, you think?"
Started out OK, but soon started to stink
One hundred posts about the same silly old stuff
Escalating wars between interpretations of fluff
It grew bigger and long, and it gets plain to see, that this is the tale of the wyvern-din thread!
Oh, Wyvern-din thread, oh wyvern-din thread, you're big and scary and eeeevil~ who could it be that set you free, causing such great upheeeaval~
Oh, four hundred posts by the end of the week
This thread is definitely not for the meek
The war goes on, "why are they not evil if they act like beasts!"
But the arguments are many, so take your pick and join the feast!
And if they should ever agree, then you should all know to flee, because that is a sure-fire sign; the end-days are nigh and sure ain't benign!
*pipes solo*
Oh, Wyvern-din thread, oh wyvern-din thread, you're droll, boring and massive~ when will you end, no-one can tell, but soon we should all grow passive~
Now every knows that no two people in this world are in agreement~
On stuff like paladins and codes of alignment
And if you ever consider to start one again, this you should learn
This one is coming close to 1000 and its starting to burn
So one final though before I depart, and this my friends come straight from the heart; We'd all be fine if not for that poster's query,
that created this mess and left everyone weary
Oh, Wyvern-din thread, oh wyvern-din thread, you're coming close to one thousand~, long since you got way out of hand~
while we clash heads otherwise, let me tell you thats a fine piece of art there :) i like. i'll get around to listen the music again.
oh, okay, but you know the DM and the player, right?
oh, you don't?
okay, then i'll just take the DM's word for it that the player WAS metagaming on that.
For example because he had NO reason to believe they would be attacked from sleeping creatures at a later time.
Unless he knew the CR and assumed they would be an encounter. Or the DM never mentions anything except creatures they end up fighting(DM fault). Or he read the AP.
Substitute an obvious evil creature. An Ancient Red Dragon, sleeping there(i know it wouldn't, but bear with me), instead of the wyvern.
Will the Lvl5 Paladin then try to sneak by, hoping not to wake it? Or will he also assume that he will have...
Mr. of Fairy I'll have you know that I have indispensible proof that you are wrong. The Great Horned Radishes of the Mnaentost has decreed that on every Flotinday there will be a....
So if i was a Lawful Good Wyvern, and i saw a Armored Humans sleeping in the forest. Could i bite his neck, while he was a sleep, because all humans are mean, greedy, little creatures, that hurt wyvern every chance they get. Can i keep my Lawful Good alignment, since the humans are a clear and present damager to all wyvern nests located nearby ?
One more post closer to 999
One more post were i am hungry, and want to know if i can keep my Lawful Good Alignment if i eat that armored sleeping human sitting under the tree, since humans are a clear and present danger to wyvern kind. ??
