Is this an evil act?


Advice

201 to 250 of 1,233 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Cartigan wrote:


...that isn't a distinction. Sleeping creatures are helpless.

Except not all helpless creatures are sleeping. Placing coup-de-grace in there makes it a blanket statement that would apply to all scenarios where a creature is helpless. That is a distinction.

Quote:


Uh, what? Paladin's Code is a Paladin's Code, NOT an alignment compass that only applies to Paladins. His alignment wouldn't change if he repeatedly violated his code. If it did, EVERY character EVER would be Evil except for Paladins.

Then please inform me what the purpose of the code is for if it's entirely by RAW ignorable.

Everyone's alignment can shift. Repeated actions and motives that are differing from their alignment are exactly what cause such shifts. Calling for a bit extra of lawful good from the paladin is how I see the code of conduct. Therefore, if that's true, acting differently is acting out of his alignment.

Quote:

Again, I wouldn't take his powers away, but I would count it as a violation of his code.

Which it probably would be.

Glad we can agree on this.


Uncoerced killing of sleeping creatures for no reason other than to gain the initiative was ruled as a violation of the Paladin code?????????? Get out!

Saaaaaaaaarcasmmmmm!


Swivl wrote:


Except not all helpless creatures are sleeping.

Yes, thank you, I know how the circles work. Killing a sleeping creature is still a coup-de-grace.

Would killing a Wyvern being held be an Evil act?
Would killing an unconscious Wyvern be an Evil act?

Quote:
Placing coup-de-grace in there makes it a blanket statement that would apply to all scenarios where a creature is helpless.

Which is convenient because that is the point I'm making.

Quote:


Then please inform me what the purpose of the code is for if it's entirely by RAW ignorable.

So you are arguing that a Paladin's code is a magical alignment compass that only applies to Paladins and breaking it is an inherently evil act?

I don't know what the purpose the code is for. The game rules don't bother to tell you. Presumably, it is a hard-coded role-playing manual.


it becomes clear to you that the wyvern wants to become the paladin's mount oh too late...

Scarab Sages

Swivl wrote:
Everyone's alignment can shift. Repeated actions and motives that are differing from their alignment are exactly what cause such shifts.

Except it won't.

Because no other PC class apart from Paladin's have their actions put under such a microscope, even LG clerics of LG gods.
When was the last time you saw a Rogue involuntarily shifted from Good through Neutral to Evil, for using Sneak Attack? Or a Ranger, for using a bow (which the OP seems to regard as an abhorrent weapon for a Paladin, except when the choice of god forces his arm)?

Swivl wrote:
Calling for a bit extra of lawful good from the paladin is how I see the code of conduct.

As a double standard?

'These acts are evil and abhorrent, except when other Good people do them'?


Seems there should be ample interest in my upcoming book about a good-aligned wyvern dual-wielding ranger, striving to overcome the well-deserved prejudice his people suffer, due to their violent and aggressive nature, completely disregarding the damage they do to the goodly races of the world.

It's gonna be a 15 book series, so get your first copy of "Brizzt Bo'Burden - Misunderstood Wyvern Ranger", where he meets his magical lion companion, finds his fire-sword and eludes evil humans who wish to kill him due to his heritage, trying as hard as he might not to kill them back, because then he would be as bad as his kin.

He will find many companions with the same plight, such as Blargahr, the stern but fatherly Otyugh, and Frozoburno, the jovial Remorhaz that enjoys walks in the brisk weather. All sentient creatures that overcame their kin's tendencies to hunt down other sentient races, they work to raise cattle, and hilarity ensues.


Kamelguru wrote:

Seems there should be ample interest in my upcoming book about a good-aligned wyvern dual-wielding ranger, striving to overcome the well-deserved prejudice his people suffer, due to their violent and aggressive nature, completely disregarding the damage they do to the goodly races of the world.

It's gonna be a 15 book series, so get your first copy of "Brizzt Bo'Burden - Misunderstood Wyvern Ranger", where he meets his magical lion companion, finds his fire-sword and eludes evil humans who wish to kill him due to his heritage, trying as hard as he might not to kill them back, because then he would be as bad as his kin.

Foreword by me. Everyone's favoritist person.


Cartigan wrote:


Yes, thank you, I know how the circles work. Killing a sleeping creature is still a coup-de-grace.
Would killing a Wyvern being held be an Evil act?
Would killing an unconscious Wyvern be an Evil act?

I wasn't arguing in circles. I didn't bring up coup-de-grace, you did. Plus, it goes one way. Sleeping is helpless, but helpless isn't sleeping. That's all I've stated, and there's nothing circular about that.

Quote:


Which is convenient because that is the point I'm making.

The point is that you're making the argument bigger than it is by including irrelevant additions to the scenario presented to us.

Quote:


So you are arguing that a Paladin's code is a magical alignment compass that only applies to Paladins and breaking it is an inherently evil act?

No. I said breaking the code is decidedly non-lawful, and/or non-good. Why do I have to say this again: I wouldn't take the pally's powers away in this scenario.

Quote:


I don't know what the purpose the code is for. The game rules don't bother to tell you. Presumably, it is a hard-coded role-playing manual.

That could be right after all, but I'm making the call as I see it. It's in the same feature as losing all powers, though, so it should be related.


Snorter wrote:
Swivl wrote:
Everyone's alignment can shift. Repeated actions and motives that are differing from their alignment are exactly what cause such shifts.

Except it won't.

Because no other PC class apart from Paladin's have their actions put under such a microscope, even LG clerics of LG gods.
When was the last time you saw a Rogue involuntarily shifted from Good through Neutral to Evil, for using Sneak Attack? Or a Ranger, for using a bow (which the OP seems to regard as an abhorrent weapon for a Paladin, except when the choice of god forces his arm)?

Swivl wrote:
Calling for a bit extra of lawful good from the paladin is how I see the code of conduct.

As a double standard?

'These acts are evil and abhorrent, except when other Good people do them'?

I get the feeling that we're on entirely different subjects.


Swivl wrote:


Quote:


Which is convenient because that is the point I'm making.
The point is that you're making the argument bigger than it is by including irrelevant additions to the scenario presented to us.

Uh no. Killing sleeping creatures is coup-de-grace'ing a helpless creature. That is a fact. So what about that action is an evil act? The fact that they are asleep or the fact that they are being coup-de-graced?

Quote:


No. I said breaking the code is decidedly non-lawful, and/or non-good.

Sadly, both of those are decidedly false. Otherwise, NO ONE would be Lawful OR Good except Paladins.


Kamelguru wrote:

Seems there should be ample interest in my upcoming book about a good-aligned wyvern dual-wielding ranger, striving to overcome the well-deserved prejudice his people suffer, due to their violent and aggressive nature, completely disregarding the damage they do to the goodly races of the world.

It's gonna be a 15 book series, so get your first copy of "Brizzt Bo'Burden - Misunderstood Wyvern Ranger", where he meets his magical lion companion, finds his fire-sword and eludes evil humans who wish to kill him due to his heritage, trying as hard as he might not to kill them back, because then he would be as bad as his kin.

He will find many companions with the same plight, such as Blargahr, the stern but fatherly Otyugh, and Frozoburno, the jovial Remorhaz that enjoys walks in the brisk weather. All sentient creatures that overcame their kin's tendencies to hunt down other sentient races, they work to raise cattle, and hilarity ensues.

Looking forward to read each one of the 15 books in that series. It sounds awesome, and reminds me so much of my own life. I hope it gets published in draconian.

Scarab Sages

Swivl wrote:
I get the feeling that we're on entirely different subjects.

Not at all.

It's telling that the OP didn't mention any of the other PCs.

He didn't say (for example) 'There's a ranger in the party, who offered to plug the wyverns with Multi-Rapidshot favored enemy favored terrain bane arrows, to kill them while they slept. What should I do about slapping him down for such an evil act?'.

If there wasn't a Paladin in the party, he wouldn't have posted.
Because, even if every single PC were LG, he wouldn't even be tracking alignment at all.
And even if he was, the action above would never have occurred to him to mark down an evil point, because he wouldn't have any problem with it.
Yet the same action, for the same reason, but from a different class, suddenly morphs from 'tactical decision' to 'evil act'.
And that's not how it works.
Either slap everyone with an alignment shift, or no-one.

Liberty's Edge

sir_shajir wrote:
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.

In general if you have to ask you already know it's evil.

BTW the death of the hatchlings would not be on the Paladin's shoulders, otherwise killing *any* parent would then be an evil act as the spawn *might* die.


Cartigan wrote:


Uh no. Killing sleeping creatures is coup-de-grace'ing a helpless creature. That is a fact. So what about that action is an evil act? The fact that they are asleep or the fact that they are being coup-de-graced?

One more time: I didn't make this claim. My claim was that the action was dishonorable, not evil.

Quote:


Sadly, both of those are decidedly false. Otherwise, NO ONE would be Lawful OR Good except Paladins.

Except the Paladin has a code AND an alignment, while everyone else has an alignment. A lawful good character is acting out of alignment if he lies. The difference is that the paladin can lose a lot for changing alignment, while everyone else has very different, likely RP, consequences.


Snorter wrote:
Swivl wrote:
I get the feeling that we're on entirely different subjects.

Not at all.

It's telling that the OP didn't mention any of the other PCs.

He didn't say (for example) 'There's a ranger in the party, who offered to plug the wyverns with Multi-Rapidshot favored enemy favored terrain bane arrows, to kill them while they slept. What should I do about slapping him down for such an evil act?'.

If there wasn't a Paladin in the party, he wouldn't have posted.
Because, even if every single PC were LG, he wouldn't even be tracking alignment at all.
And even if he was, the action above would never have occurred to him to mark down an evil point, because he wouldn't have any problem with it.
Yet the same action, for the same reason, but from a different class, suddenly morphs from 'tactical decision' to 'evil act'.
And that's not how it works.
Either slap everyone with an alignment shift, or no-one.

I do slap everyone at my table with alignment shifts when it's warranted, regardless if there's a mechanical impact or not. I discuss motivations with my players all the time; it helps them with their character's ideals.

If you don't like the idea of a paladin being so restricted by alignment, change it in your game and be done with it. Maybe more players would like to play one if you did; I know they would at my table.


Swivl wrote:


Except the Paladin has a code AND an alignment, while everyone else has an alignment. A lawful good character is acting out of alignment if he lies. The difference is that the paladin can lose a lot for changing alignment, while everyone else has very different, likely RP, consequences.

Lying is out of alignment with LG? Hurray, Lawful Stupid.


Cartigan wrote:
Swivl wrote:


Except the Paladin has a code AND an alignment, while everyone else has an alignment. A lawful good character is acting out of alignment if he lies. The difference is that the paladin can lose a lot for changing alignment, while everyone else has very different, likely RP, consequences.
Lying is out of alignment with LG? Hurray, Lawful Stupid.
Core Rulebook p.167 wrote:


Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good
person is expected or required to act. She combines a
commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight
relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps
those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful
good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion.

Never mind if you like the idea, it's right there on the page. If that's not lawful good in your games, please, say so when discussing alignment.


Lying is not a commitment to never tell the truth.

Troll: "Where is the princess so I can eat her?"
Paladin/LG character: "Hiding behind the hedge out back. Take a left at the elephant topiary, go another 30 yards and take a right. Can't miss it."


An alignment war is always stirring. But some people here try their darndest to not answer anything they are asked and continually change the subject, including blaming others for things they never said. That's flat out pathetic.

Every creature in D&D has an alignment. Some can change this, the intelligent ones who are not "Always LG" or whatever. If they can change their alignment, and act in accordance with another alignment, they will eventually shift to or toward that alignment. How long this process takes is never detailed.

Paladins have two main restrictions: They may never commit acts that are chaotic or evil, and they must act in accordance with their code. It is clear that this code is an example, and alternate (but very similar) codes have been published in certain supplements (2nd edition FR campaign setting box, IIRC).

So for a paladin, they must adhere completely to the lawful and good end of the spectrum for what they do, or lose their powers, permanently or not, and they must make sure to follow their code. Failing to uphold that code will result in various (roleplaying) penalties, such as trust of superiors faltering, getting a bad reputation, and so on.

Quite simply, a paladin must make sure to follow both these principles, while other people only risk penalties when their alignment actually changes. Yes, it's harsh. Don't play a paladin if you don't like it. There are enough who do.


Cartigan wrote:

Lying is not a commitment to never tell the truth.

Troll: "Where is the princess so I can eat her?"
Paladin/LG character: "Hiding behind the hedge out back. Take a left at the elephant topiary, go another 30 yards and take a right. Can't miss it."

Or, he could have ignored the question and challenged the troll to a duel. That's probably just as stupid, really, but the point is he doesn't have to answer to evil. Looking elsewhere in the alignment description, you'd know he wouldn't let the troll get away with eating a princess if he could help it. A small conflict of interest, maybe, but nothing as big as the kobold nursery one in that adventure that I can't remember the name of for the life of me.

Really, we can find better examples alignment conflicts than a lie, so maybe I shouldn't have brought it up.


Snorter wrote:


Except you're happy to apply a double standard.

Wyvern refuses to negotiate, and attacks anything smaller than itself on sight - weeeell, hey, it probably has a good reason. Who are we to judge?

Paladin attacks a creature famous for being a bloodthirsty monster who attacks anything smaller than itself on sight - What? How could you? That's EEEEEEVVVILLLLLLL?!?!?!?!?!?

How is it famous for being a bloodthirsty monster?

An orc is also a "classic" bad guy. Stumbling upon a sleeping orc in his camp in the woods? He doesn't detect as evil. But hey, ORCS ARE classic bad guys, so killing him in his sleep without even deliberating about the act? Perfectly fine. The world is one orc saver.

Snorter wrote:


d20srd.org wrote:
Wyverns speak Draconic, but usually don’t bother with anything more elaborate than a loud hiss or a deep-throated growl much like that of a bull alligator.
d20srd.org wrote:
Wyverns are rather stupid but always aggressive: They attack nearly anything that isn’t obviously more powerful than themselves.
MordredofFairy wrote:

thats from old wyverns in 3.5

The flavor text and description was changed for no good reason.

So, you admit, this is a classic case of bait and switch?

The GM is punishing the player (vicariously, via his PC) for not metagaming?
The player is being punished for not reading the Bestiary, for not ignoring the description of them as bloodthirsty killers, for not memorising their Int score, and for not noticing their inexplicable N alignment.
He instead chose that his character would react to them, in character, based on the way they have been described in four decades of D&D, and thousands of years of myth and legend.
For that, he must be punished.

Dragons, in myth, legend, and most other tales, also take a "bad guy" role. By using those assumptions, he _WAS_ metagaming. He has a certain image of what a Wyvern should be, and applies that.

Point in case: Even _IF_ the thing was not RAW(which it can be) and the DM homebrewed a wyvern into a chaotic good poisonous fairie dragon, which is his right as reskinning or changing stuff is a way to keep stuff interesting, even IF the DM went out of his way to _make_ it a paladin-trap, they were still peacefully sleeping.
And obviously, IN-GAME, IN-Character, lore should tell them that those things are not evil.
If they HAVE no knowledge checks available IN-character to ask the DM what those things are, or the PLAYERS simply don't care to check first, then they'd best not use _WRONG_ player knowledge based on assumptions to base their actions on.

They were basing an in-game decision to kill on what image they had in mind. It may be a "bait and switch", but for those people, the penalty is in meta-gaming their assumptions into the world.
They were peacefully sleeping. Not like you can't ask the DM WHAT you know about them, or have your character try to remember something.

Defaulting to the bloodiest path on basis of faulty assumptions resulting in killing creatures not guilty? Definite hit for a paladin.

If a person, in-game, explains to the paladin that the people in the next village are all cannibalistic, brutal demon-worshippers and the paladin doesn't verify that claim before starting to slay the peasants, he'll get an hit as well.

If i, as player, assume that those wyverns are evil creatures because MY information makes me think that, and as such should be killed for being man-eating beasts, i may try to weave that into my in-character explanation as to WHY i intend to kill them when they are sleeping. Then my DM can correct me, telling me that my character actually believes they aren't evil creatures.
If i don't even care about that and just kill them because they are a threat, thats "killswitch-on" mode, which is usually ending in atonement for a paladin sooner or later.

If i made a genuine mistake in their assessment, usually the DM will let you change your decision. But who or what they were wasn't of importance to the paladin here. The only reasoning to kill them was that they are a threat. Either he didn't care or he meta-gamed them into something they're not/(no longer). In both instances: For someone with code of conduct, verify first that your target is valid, THEN kill it. Thats the way it should be done. Not kill first, ask later.


Quote:
They were basing an in-game decision to kill on what image they had in mind.

Yeah, instead they should have just known what Paizo's bestiary says about wyverns.


Snorter wrote:
Or a Ranger, for using a bow (which the OP seems to regard as an abhorrent weapon for a Paladin, except when the choice of god forces his arm)?

Many people at times have regarded the bow as a cowards weapon or a peasents weapon because it allows you to damage your foe but at the same time keeps you safe from harm in return. There is some truth to that but it seems to be more for the real hardline or fanatical branches of chivalry than the main body of lore that most knights tried to adhere to. Especially given that archery was one of the chief skills a knight was expected to master.

I've found several discussions of knightly virtues over the years and the abbreviated code below seems one of the best. Notice the emphasis on how the knight is not shackled to a list of bullet points to be ticked off by accountants, but follows a living, breathing Code of Conduct that illustrates what he should strive for.

Given that wyverns are sentient if savage and violent creatures, the paladin should probably have to do some mild atonement for trying to kill them in their sleep, but not lose his abilities or paladinhood. It's almost impossible to reason with them, so the paladin should be penalized for not walking up to them and proposing a nice sit-down.

He probably should have chucked a rock at the first one and said 'Face me, beast! Begone from this place or taste my blade!'. If the wyverns don't flee, then go to combat as normal. That's if it was possible to win a straight-up fight. If not, then certainly a certain degree of deception could be employed. Heck, just stampede some deer in the valley below - wyverns wake up, go to snack on deer, party goes past that area.

If living up to a higher standard was easy, everyone would do it and if all you had to do was follow a list then no-one would ever fail. The whole snarky 'lawful stupid' arguements can apply, if you consider that looking out for something other than yourself or serving an ideal greater than yourself is stupid. Hopefully, no-one does.

The Code

Prowess -- Strive for excellence in all endeavors expected of a Knight, especially martial, yet also otherwise. Embody strength which is used in the service of justice, rather than for personal aggrandizement and gain.

Justice -- Seek always to understand and follow the “right” path, unencumbered by bias or personal interests. Recognize that the sword of justice can be a terrible thing, so its use must be tempered by humanity and mercy. Learn the difference between enforcing the letter of the law, and living within its spirit.

Loyalty -- Be known for unwavering commitment to the people and ideals you choose to live with, and have professed to others. There are many circumstances where compromise is expected. Loyalty is not among them. While your loyalty must never be blind, it also must never be for sale. Be prepared for people to condemn you for your loyalty, when they lack understanding for the basis of your faith.

Defense -- The ideal Knight swears to defend his liege, and all those who rightfully depend upon him. Although this path may be hard, costly, and even seem bitter to others, the Knightly Defender accepts this as an honor, rather than an obligation. In such times, a Knight inspires all with his example and good nature, even his enemies.

Courage -- Being a Knight often means choosing the more difficult path; often the personally expensive one. Be prepared to absorb losses in service of the precepts and people you champion. At the same time, a Knight must remember that stupidity and courage are cousins – pointless risk or sacrifice is not noble. Courage means taking the side of truth in all matters, rather than allowing for the expedient lie.

Faith -- A Knight must have faith in his beliefs. Whatever the Knight’s beliefs may be, they root the Knight with the strength of certainty, and give hope in the face of despair created by human failings. Faith, like Justice must never be blind, yet must persist without compromise.

Humility -- Value first the contributions of others, and give respect where it is due. Do not boast of your own accomplishments; if they are worthy, others will naturally do this for you.

Largesse -- Be generous, in so far as your resources reasonably allow. Be known as a giver of gifts, who expects nothing in return.

Nobility -- Live with dedication to the greatness of character, by holding to the virtues and duties of a Knight. Remember that these ideals can rarely be reached or maintained, and that it is the quality of striving towards them which ennobles your soul. In certain ways, living into his Nobility gives the Knight his greatest reward, for if he is successful, he will be surrounded by noble friends; a band of great strength against the forces of mediocrity, cynicism, cowardice and corruption.

Franchise -- Seek to live these virtues as they were meant to be lived. Accept no compromises in your commitment. When you err, make amends in as public or powerful a fashion as that in which you made the error. Own not only your own mistakes, but the mistakes of others when theirs resulted from yours.


This is a classic "Good guy thought he was doing right, but turns out to be mistaken" It happens, and I'm not saying that him losing his powers is wrong either. I would revoke powers from a paladin that innocents, even if he was under the hallucination that they were a horde of orcs attacking him. It's not like the powers are irrevocable, that's why there's an atonement.

The DM is the final arbiter of what acts are "good" and "evil" and what is "honorable" and "dishonorable". Not the internet, not even the players unless the DM tells the players that they get to define good, evil, and honorable for themselves, likewise the DM is responsible for explaining to the players his/her interpretation of good/evil/honorable at the start of the game. From what I can tell the character was justified in his own belief. As MordredofFairy pointed out, even Lawful Good characters can do harm in trying to do what they believe is Lawful Good.

However what I do have a problem with is the belief that the player was metagaming. His character obviously had some valid belief that there was eminent danger had they not dealt with the beasts. What bothers me more is that the DM later pointed out that the player had constantly taken out challenges before they could happen. It really grates on me to see a player thinking outside of the box taken as metagaming. Unless his character had low intelligence and wisdom scores, tactical planning and good observations are not metagaming.

-_-

Maybe this is a new DM and he just doesn't have the creativity to plan encounters with his party's tactics in mind. I understand that having your plans crushed before they are hatched is frustrating, but that's no reason to take it out on the player, and this just feels like an excuse to do it. They're playing the game, it's the DM's job to provide the game. Someone else pointed out that the DM was using an adventure path, for which I sympathize with the DM, but this party needs twists and surprises that haven't been created yet to accommodate the group's play style. Even if you nerf the player's powers his tactics may still continue to surprise you and you will still be at a loss.

EDIT: Also I should reinstate my first post, though within the DM's right, that was rather harsh considering that Wyverns are generally seen as dangerous pests... especially considering they were right about to enter a cave of dangerous evil. >_>

Scarab Sages

MordredofFairy wrote:
Dragons, in myth, legend, and most other tales, also take a "bad guy" role. By using those assumptions, he _WAS_ metagaming. He has a certain image of what a Wyvern should be, and applies that.

No. He. Was. NOT.

You obviously have some bizarre definition of metagaming that is the exact opposite of the official definition.

By treating the creature as it is portrayed in myths and legends, he is using the character's eye view. Little Paladin Jr, sitting by the fire has been told for years by his elders and betters, that wyverns are 'vicious and sinister creatures of pure evil', that they 'delighted in killing young maidens, other wyverns and relishing the taste of human flesh', 'are constantly hungry and prone to mayhem', 'often serve monsters as guardians', 'prefer to fight first and parley later', ...need I go on?
So when he sees one, he says "That's a dangerous monster that can't be trusted. We should kill it to make the land a safer place.".
That is a little thing we call 'role-playing'.
You might like to try it sometime.
Instead of 'guess what's in the GM's head, and go through the motions, dragging our Non-Player characters along the railroad tracks so the GM can tell us his story about the Wilfred the Wise Kindly Wyvern.', which is what the paladin-haters on this thread advocate.

If he were to stop the other players, with "Hold on guys, I've read the Bestiary. These things are Int 7, despite the fact that they don't act it, and True Neutral, despite the fact that they don't act it, so this is obviously a trap the GM has set, just to screw me over.
He knows I've got a god-given mission, and the powers to back it up, to kill every evil dragon I see, so he's relying on an obvious typo in the Bestiary to trip me up and shout 'Gotcha!'.
I'll go 'check on the horses', and when I get back, I expect you lot to have done them in, and the GM won't be able to act out his childish vendetta against me, since he won't have a leg to stand on.", THEN he would be metagaming.

If he were to say "Hold on guys, remember what the GM's flat looks like? It's covered in sickly cute dragon statues. He's obviously got a huge 'thing' about dragons, and if we kill these, we'll never hear the end of it.", THEN he would be metagaming.

If he were to say "Hold on guys, I heard the GM on the phone to his buddies, bragging how he was going to 'sort me out' for some unspecified transgression. If it was something I did in or out of game, who knows? But instead of being a man about it, and dealing with it at the time, he's let it fester. This is probably his passive-aggressive attempt to 'teach me a lesson'<rolls eyes>.", THEN he would be metagaming.

Learn what meta gaming means, please.
When your players are breaking character, smashing down the fourth wall to wink at the audience, THEN it's metagaming.
Using their characters own knowledge, even if that knowledge turns out to be wrong, is good roleplaying.
The OP is punishing the player for roleplaying his character, doing what any inhabitant of his world would do.

Scarab Sages

Ion Raven wrote:
This is a classic "Good guy thought he was doing right, but turns out to be mistaken"

Except for the part about being mistaken.

This is actually a case of the player thinking he was doing right, justifying it in character (which the detractors constantly lie about*, claiming he made no in character justification), did the exact right thing, and was punished for no reason.

*sir_shajir wrote:
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).

So he did give his reasons?

Hands up who kept saying he didn't. Do you want gravy with your humble pie?
How do YOU know it was out of character?
Did he roll up his trouser leg and make the 'out of character' secret handshake?

How do YOU have any right to call this metagaming?
You tell them 'The Fell Beast of Minas Morgul' lives above the tomb, and then expect the PCs to do nothing about it?
What do you expect them to do?
Bake it a cake?

Scarab Sages

Swivl wrote:
A lawful good character is acting out of alignment if he lies.

Looks like LG people have to stay single all their lives.

The soon to be Mrs Paladin: "Honey, does my bum look big in thiiiiis?"

Mr Paladin "...<aw, crap>..."

Scarab Sages

MordredofFairy wrote:
How is it famous for being a bloodthirsty monster?

Because it's a wyvern.

MordredofFairy wrote:
And obviously, IN-GAME, IN-Character, lore should tell them that those things are not evil.

No, it tells them the exact opposite.

One letter in the statblock incorrectly states they are not evil.

Every line of their description says it is a bloodthirsty abomination.

But, hey, having the players talk about statblocks trumps having characters discussing flavor text. Especially if you're trying not to metagame. Right?


Snorter wrote:
MordredofFairy wrote:
How is it famous for being a bloodthirsty monster?

Because it's a wyvern.

MordredofFairy wrote:
And obviously, IN-GAME, IN-Character, lore should tell them that those things are not evil.

No, it tells them the exact opposite.

One letter in the statblock incorrectly states they are not evil.

Every line of their description says it is a bloodthirsty abomination.

But, hey, having the players talk about statblocks trumps having characters discussing flavor text. Especially if you're trying not to metagame. Right?

+1 Post, 2d6 Sick Burn.


Snorter, I think you're making a few assumptions.

First, that the GM was intent on screwing his player over. I disagree; he was trying to rule fairly with what was expected of a paladin, and made a call. Whether you like the ruling or not has nothing to do with whether somebody is out to screw over a PC. Nerfing a paladin isn't childish.

Second, that anyone who does nerf a paladin hates paladins. Wrong, they're trying to play the game as it says in the book. The fact they came here means there might be some clarification needed, and saying the GM hates paladins gets us nowhere.

Third, that the GM doesn't know what he's talking about. It's his game, man, he was there, he could probably tell when his players are talking out of character and/or metagaming. The fact he glossed over some details is irrelevant as the question didn't involve whether something was meta or not.

Maybe I'm just not used to your posting style, but the way I read it doesn't sound very civil.


Snorter wrote:
MordredofFairy wrote:
Dragons, in myth, legend, and most other tales, also take a "bad guy" role. By using those assumptions, he _WAS_ metagaming. He has a certain image of what a Wyvern should be, and applies that.

No. He. Was. NOT.

You obviously have some bizarre definition of metagaming that is the exact opposite of the official definition.

By treating the creature as it is portrayed in myths and legends, he is using the character's eye view. Little Paladin Jr, sitting by the fire has been told for years by his elders and betters, that wyverns are 'vicious and sinister creatures of pure evil', that they 'delighted in killing young maidens, other wyverns and relishing the taste of human flesh', 'are constantly hungry and prone to mayhem', 'often serve monsters as guardians', 'prefer to fight first and parley later', ...need I go on?

See? Thats where i think you are wrong.

To me, it's metagaming if he brings stuff from OUTSIDE the game, into the game. If he uses information that HE, as PLAYER, believes to have, to represent something that his CHARACTER should now.
Wether that is abstact concepts such as saving throws or hit points, or lore.
If the PLAYER knows that a golem is immune to magic, but his tribal sorcerer has NEVER seen one, has no applicable knowledge skill, and decides to not throw a fireball as he usually does, but rather become invisible and hide, thats ALSO metagaming.
Assuming that a creature is acting in-game the exact way you picture it OUT-of-game, without verifying that your assumption is correct, is also metagaming.
If a new player only played in another game system in which all half-orcs are associated with evil, and at your table starts killing innocent half-orcs in their sleep as a paladin, you'd likely have a word with him.
Same thing here, if it WAS a genuine mistake of the paladin to assume they were really not Wyverns, but Fell Beasts of Nazgul that likely live in the tomb and parked them over there, something can be worked out.
If he didn't even care? Not really. His character should know what wyverns are in his world. If they are intelligent predators avoiding humans, he'll know. Not caring what your character learned and instead defaulting to what the player thinks he knows? Thats bringing in outside information.
The descriptions of the bestiary? Including those parts of the stat-block that deal with vulnerabilities or resistances and the like? They're there to provide the knowledge available to characters in-game if they happen to have appropiate skills at hand. Using that information is not metagaming if your character has access to it.
Thats _NOT_: "Oh, we should use cold spells against that beast, it's got resistance 15 to fire, but cold vulnerability."
Its: "I read about these creatures in my uncles library, they are said to be highly resistant to heat and flames, but anything cold seems to cause it great pain."
Its NOT: "Oh, it has flyby attack and improved grab, and the tactics say he'll pick someone up and drop him."
It's: "My instructor thought me to be careful with such huge winged creatures. It's a common tactic for them to stoop down to grab a victim, then fly up high and let them fall."
THATS where your tales from the campfire come in. If you don't want that, you don't have to roleplay the conveying of information in such a way. Still, thats what knowledge is good for and where the stuff your character knows comes from. If you have no knowledge-skills whatsover? Hope that you happen to know random bits of information, many DM's will allow untrained knowledge checks for "generic" information that you MAY or MAY NOT have heard about.

If i change my game world up just for sake of argument so that Shiny Dragons are EVIL and colored dragons GOOD, then obviously the lore in that game world would represent that. Characters acting against game world lore because their PLAYERS have differing information, it a way of metagaming.

Since they were out of his detect-evil-range, the least the paladin could have done was contemplate if he knows anything about these beasts. Even as simple as asking the DM: "Do i believe them to be evil?", heck, even if the paladin doesn't even have nobility or religion for some legend or heraldry regarding wyverns, roll a hidden check and tell him yes or no. If he believes them to be evil, and reasons thus for his attack, it's just not honorable to kill them in their sleep,(which provides, based on views on the code of conduct, another dilemna) but he probably wouldn't fall from that alone. As it stands, the player didn't care, so the character didn't care. Paladins should always "care", being shining examples and all that.

Snorter wrote:


No, it tells them the exact opposite.

One letter in the statblock incorrectly states they are not evil.

Every line of their description says it is a bloodthirsty abomination.

But, hey, having the players talk about statblocks trumps having characters discussing flavor text. Especially if you're trying not to metagame. Right?

Barbarians are nasty, brutish, and violent humans akin to more powerful monstrous humanoids. They are always aggressive and impatient, and are quick to resort to force in order to accomplish their goals. For this reason, noble warriors generally look down upon barbarians, considering their distant cousins nothing more than primitive savages with a distinct lack of style or wit. In most cases, this generalization is spot-on. Although far from animalistic in intellect, and capable of speech(but not reading or writing), most barbarians simply can't be bothered with the subtlety of diplomacy, and prefer to fight first and parley later, and even then only if faced with a foe they can neither defeat nor flee from.

Yep, you are right. All Barbarians are bloodthirsty abominations and should be killed on sight.
You can read pretty much what you WISH into such a passage. Their alignment is neutral, they are not described as particularily cruel or preying on humans, they have an int score.
Fix them in your games by changing their alignment to evil and have them be how you envision them. But don't claim they HAVE to be the way you want them to be based on a pretty generic text that will just as easily apply to a party member.


Snorter wrote:
MordredofFairy wrote:
Yep, they prefer to fight first and parley later. Just as the Paladin.

Except you're happy to apply a double standard.

Wyvern refuses to negotiate, and attacks anything smaller than itself on sight - weeeell, hey, it probably has a good reason. Who are we to judge?

Paladin attacks a creature famous for being a bloodthirsty monster who attacks anything smaller than itself on sight - What? How could you? That's EEEEEEVVVILLLLLLL?!?!?!?!?!?

Wyvern are Neutral. Wyvern could kill a sleeping paladin, because he was a treat and not worry about losing his alignment.

Paladin are Good. A GOOD Person killing an innocent wyvern in his sleep without giving a good reason why is committing murder ((unless X,Y,Z rule give for person no choise )), and might cause Alignment shift to neutral. The Alignment shift, would then, cause a Paladin or Cleric of good to lose some class ability until the atone/quest to shift there alignment back to Good.

Alignment is a Double Standard = It is easer to be evil than to be neutral. It is easer to be neutral than to be good. Life is not fair.


MordredofFairy wrote:
Snorter wrote:


Except you're happy to apply a double standard.

Wyvern refuses to negotiate, and attacks anything smaller than itself on sight - weeeell, hey, it probably has a good reason. Who are we to judge?

Paladin attacks a creature famous for being a bloodthirsty monster who attacks anything smaller than itself on sight - What? How could you? That's EEEEEEVVVILLLLLLL?!?!?!?!?!?

How is it famous for being a bloodthirsty monster?

An orc is also a "classic" bad guy. Stumbling upon a sleeping orc in his camp in the woods? He doesn't detect as evil. But hey, ORCS ARE classic bad guys, so killing him in his sleep without even deliberating about the act? Perfectly fine. The world is one orc saver.

Again, You are killing a sentient creature in its sleep while helpless. If it is helpless, then you should subdue it, take it prisoner, and take that ore to jail. Were it can stand trial, under the Law. OK, so you are to lazy to do that. fine. Wake the Orc up without subduing it, and tell it to surrender (your allowed to hope it will not), and then fight it to the death. But what happens if the orc does surrender.... well no one said being Good was easy, or that life was fair. You now have a Prisoner.

Paladin has a code of conduct = That code does not, i repeat, does not override the fact that a Paladin must still be Lawful AND Good. The code of conduct should help a paladin do this, not prevent this.

But if the Paladin god has a law that all first born children must be killed, well thats the law. Sorry, that god should not have paladins in the first place. If it does, then those paladin while lawful, should question the law, ignore the law, Change the law, or change gods.... or the GM should create a Lawful Neutral paladin class for that world.


OK, I was trying to stay out of this, because my views on paladins are much more "put the fear of Good in the hearts of evildoers, show them no mercy for they deserve none, bring justice to the unjust at swordpoint for I've been divinely endowed to be judge, jury, and executioner" than most.

But Lawful doesn't mean they follow the laws of the land to a tee. It just doesn't. Or, at the very least, it doesn't always.

PRD wrote:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good combines honor with compassion.

Nothing in there says they follow the laws of the land. Lawful, by all rights, should be called "Orderly". it means they're disciplined, they follow a code very closely, they have rules they follow (not necessarily any given country's rules, though). It doesn't mean they're police, taking people to trial and whatnot.


DrowVampyre wrote:

OK, I was trying to stay out of this, because my views on paladins are much more "put the fear of Good in the hearts of evildoers, show them no mercy for they deserve none, bring justice to the unjust at swordpoint for I've been divinely endowed to be judge, jury, and executioner" than most.

But Lawful doesn't mean they follow the laws of the land to a tee. It just doesn't. Or, at the very least, it doesn't always.

PRD wrote:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good combines honor with compassion.

Nothing in there says they follow the laws of the land. Lawful, by all rights, should be called "Orderly". it means they're disciplined, they follow a code very closely, they have rules they follow (not necessarily any given country's rules, though). It doesn't mean they're police, taking people to trial and whatnot.

While I find your interpretation of the Paladin to be pretty close to my own, the "obedience to authority" part of Lawful is functionally identical to "follow the laws of the land."

If a Paladin is going to break local laws, he/she needs a very good reason to do so.


Evil? Nah.

Honorable? Definitely not.

But I agree you should have given him warning that what he is planning to do could violate his Code. I also agree that you should consider giving him a non-RAW way to Atone this time and have a discussion about honor and its meaning.


Oliver McShade wrote:
MordredofFairy wrote:
Snorter wrote:


Except you're happy to apply a double standard.

Wyvern refuses to negotiate, and attacks anything smaller than itself on sight - weeeell, hey, it probably has a good reason. Who are we to judge?

Paladin attacks a creature famous for being a bloodthirsty monster who attacks anything smaller than itself on sight - What? How could you? That's EEEEEEVVVILLLLLLL?!?!?!?!?!?

How is it famous for being a bloodthirsty monster?

An orc is also a "classic" bad guy. Stumbling upon a sleeping orc in his camp in the woods? He doesn't detect as evil. But hey, ORCS ARE classic bad guys, so killing him in his sleep without even deliberating about the act? Perfectly fine. The world is one orc saver.

Again, You are killing a sentient creature in its sleep while helpless. If it is helpless, then you should subdue it, take it prisoner, and take that ore to jail. Were it can stand trial, under the Law. OK, so you are to lazy to do that. fine. Wake the Orc up without subduing it, and tell it to surrender (your allowed to hope it will not), and then fight it to the death. But what happens if the orc does surrender.... well no one said being Good was easy, or that life was fair. You now have a Prisoner.

Paladin has a code of conduct = That code does not, i repeat, does not override the fact that a Paladin must still be Lawful AND Good. The code of conduct should help a paladin do this, not prevent this.

But if the Paladin god has a law that all first born children must be killed, well thats the law. Sorry, that god should not have paladins in the first place. If it does, then those paladin while lawful, should question the law, ignore the law, Change the law, or change gods.... or the GM should create a Lawful Neutral paladin class for that world.

sorry, that was actually meant sarcastically put.

I am all with you, i'd never let it fly to kill that orc based on assumption.

Aside from that, for all the "guilt by association" fans.

An assassin with a few wizard levels(unbeknown to the group) casts alter self and attempts to look exactly like a certain person he wants to frame, then kills the king.

The Paladin later meets that certain person on the road. For all he knows, before him stands the murderer of the king. An assassin(who even HAS to be evil as a class requirement). He strikes him down swiftly and justly.

Only, he just slew an innocent person that was framed. Even IF the paladin thought that he was acting the right way, doesn't change the fact he just spilt innocent blood because he acted rashly instead of veryfying the person was REALLY responsible for the crime.
It doesn't even take an "evil twin" scenario for that in a world ripe with magic.

Had he cast detect evil, veryfiing that the person in front of him is INDEED evil(leader of a crime organization rivalling the one that hired the assassin), apprehending him for questioning and finding out there is no alibi(he was doing crime business elsewhere), he can assume guilt for the moment(even if it was wrong). Kill him on the spot? No, hand him over to justice and have him get a trial.
If the justice system of the country is corrupt and highly likely to be suspectible to bribes, only then i would let it fly that the paladin, based on wrong information but BELIEVING he does justice, and having done at least a reasonable amount of TRYING to be informed, kills the suspect.

Trying not to be informed in order to claim the defense of being ignorant to the truth is not a tactic my gods support.
Blindly believing the first thing coming to mind, even if it means the taking of a life, without trying to find proof, definitely falls into that category.


Mynameisjake wrote:

While I find your interpretation of the Paladin to be pretty close to my own, the "obedience to authority" part of Lawful is functionally identical to "follow the laws of the land."

If a Paladin is going to break local laws, he/she needs a very good reason to do so.

No it isn't...the authority the paladin obeys could be their church, their god, their order, a specific mentor, a different country, a different noble, the traditions of their parents, or, yes, the laws of the land they happen to be in. There's a whooooole lot of authorities a paladin can obey that don't include the laws of that specific land, though.


Nodes..

""He Strikes him down swiftly and justly"".
As someone good, he would give them a chance to surrender.

Even an unredeemable demon or devil, if it surrenders, should not be killed; unless you have no other options. Jailed or imprisoned, yes, killed no.

((( unless you have no other options = yes this does include the fact that you do not have any way to imprison it in a jail or render it harmless))).

After all, all those magic bottles, boxes, and gems with demons and devils, stuck inside have to come from some were. :-)

--------------------------------------------------

If a paladin slays someone who he things is evil. Then latter finds out that he killed someone innocent, he would immediately seek out a atonement spell + quest.


DrowVampyre wrote:
Mynameisjake wrote:

While I find your interpretation of the Paladin to be pretty close to my own, the "obedience to authority" part of Lawful is functionally identical to "follow the laws of the land."

If a Paladin is going to break local laws, he/she needs a very good reason to do so.

No it isn't...the authority the paladin obeys could be their church, their god, their order, a specific mentor, a different country, a different noble, the traditions of their parents, or, yes, the laws of the land they happen to be in. There's a whooooole lot of authorities a paladin can obey that don't include the laws of that specific land, though.

Lawful doesn't give you the option of picking and choosing the authorities that you obey. Picking and choosing which authorities you wish you to obey is Neutral, at best, and Chaotic, at worst.

In the case of a Paladin, he/she will certainly choose to obey his/her "higher authority" over a lower one, but absent that conflict, Lawful is functionally the same as "law abiding".

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

So is it a Chaotic act to disobey a law stating 'you must sacrifice a child on the eve of the new year'?

Sovereign Court

caith wrote:

edit: Didn't see...ERASTIL!? God of the hunt...finding a sleeping creature is a Hunter's dream, and they killed them with bows...Erastil's holy symbol! It's like an offering! Eradicating threats to civilized life and hunting are Erastil's portfolio. A Paladin of the Hunt should be allowed tactics - possibly even using poison - that a normal Paladin of a good god might be denied. Code of conduct should ALWAYS vary by deity.

bingo

Sovereign Court

Jarl wrote:
So, you punished the knight for killing the dragon(s)... Awesome.

+1

Jarl wrote:
This is a very good example of why Paladins don't belong in most games.

no, this is a very good example that some people are not meant to be DMs

Sovereign Court

MordredofFairy wrote:

There was no REASON and no RESEARCH. It was a killing of something that was neither reasoned for nor based on knowledge.

Thus, an evil act.

Poppycock! DMs throwing savage monsters at players and expecting the big armored warriors with swords to sweet talk the uglies are an evil act.

Sovereign Court

Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
The question here is, is your interpretation of Erastil, LG god of the hunt, who is written up as terribly old-fashioned, going to be okay with a paladin killing giant flying poisonous chimps?

Erastil is going to be awesome with it, and love that paladin, provided that paladin's safari hunts are not hindering his duties to find a good homely wife to start a family of at least 12 kids...

Sovereign Court

Ice Titan wrote:
It is, on the other hand, acting without honor. He should have woken up the Wyverns and allowed them to flee if they chose to. It doesn't matter if the wyverns wouldn't have fled, it matters that the paladin chose a cowardly and honorless way of combat by surprising a sleeping opponent.

Erastil would strip this paladin of all powers if that paladin goes on a bear hunt and WAKES the effin bears before he stabs them dead!!! to maim and hurt and cause suffering to a prey/monster/game instead of delivering death in its sleep or an instant killshot at close range would be sacrilegeous to Erastil. Any real world hunter understands this: the humane way to kill when hunting is to do it the quickest way possible.

Scarab Sages

Swivl wrote:

Snorter, I think you're making a few assumptions.

First, that the GM was intent on screwing his player over. I disagree

I don't have to assume anything. He lays his cards on the table right here;

sir_shajir wrote:
The only reason he is allowed the use of a bow, is cause erastil uses a bow as his favoured weapon.

That's big of him.

Allowing him to use a weapon all members of the class are automatically proficient in.
What hoops did he make him jump through to be allowed to wear armour?
He has to buy pizza every week?
If you want to be allowed to use a shield as well, you'll have to wash the GM's car?

Is anyone else in the party using a bow? Or a sling? Or a Magic Missile? Or a Spiritual Weapon? Or any ranged attack forms at all?
Is he in their face, every week, warning them of the dire consequences to their alignment, if they continue to use cowardly, dishonourable tactics?
Has he mentioned slapping down any of the other PCs at all, for their equal complicity in the slaying of the noble wyverns?
No, of course he isn't. Because that would be silly. And the players would walk.
But because someone had the nerve to play a paladin, they're fair game.

Sovereign Court

tandres wrote:
You punished a paladin because he killed a beast. That is ridiculous in my oppinion. Aren´t paladins allowed to kill any creature that is not evil?

yes they are, and in fact, expected to at war; in the grand chessboard of international politics, kings have set paladins against paladins in the past!

Scarab Sages

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
no, this is a very good example that some people are not meant to be DMs

Yay!

I knew if I held the pass long enough reinforcements would come!

Hail and well met, Sir Knight!
Wouldst thou join me in my feast?
Help me pull this wishbone, and grab yourself a drumstick.


Snorter you got me laughing hardcore. Thanks for picking up the standard, my fingers were getting tired.

151 to 200 of 1,233 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Is this an evil act? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.