|
Hail and well met, Sir Knight!
Wouldst thou join me in my feast?
Help me pull this wishbone, and grab yourself a drumstick.
I would not rob you of this juicy drumstick. Pray the gods, keep it! Je préfère les poitrines, if you get my meaning... Pass the carving knife and let us do honour to thy turkey!
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.
PF phb p166 = Law vs Chaos = Lawful character tell the truth, keep their word, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short on 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 decision 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 speak out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
While a lawful person must have obedience to authority; this does not mean that they can not pick and choose which people have that authority.
If they follow the law of a kingdom, they will try to follow all the laws that kingdom has. That does not mean that a lawful person has to follow the law of a kingdom that they reject.
A paladin must follow the laws of his god. (((And i would say that god would have to be LG, LN, or NG. Any rules a LN god has that prevents a paladin from being LG would also be out)).
A paladin should follow the laws of his kingdom. ((On the other hand, a paladin can reject the laws of his kingdom. A evil kingdom with unjust laws will be rejected by a paladin.))
A paladin should follow the laws of the local authority's. ((Again, evil laws and unjust authoritys can and will be rejected)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
If a paladin is going to break local laws, he/she needs a very good reason to do so
In other words, if a paladin finds out that innocent people are unjustly hung buy the town sheriff, she has a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. To helps those in need, from being hung.
The paladin should follow the local laws, but can reject the laws of this town if they are evil, unjust, and require the paladin to break his alignment.
|
There's a reason I've posted so often and so vociferously on this thread, and it's precisely because it involves a wyvern.
This very same situation came up 30(?) years ago, when a player complained to Dragon Magazine that his DM had stripped his ranger of his powers (since they had a Code of Honour, back then, too) and taken over control of his PC, because they ruled the ranger had to protect two sleeping wyverns, even to the extent of forcing him to attack the other PCs.
Can someone find the quote from Gary Gygax, where he blew his top, and tells the DM not to be so utterly, maliciously stupid? That the DM is not fit to be behind a screen, and brings the whole hobby into disrepute?
If you won't take it from me, will you at least accept it from the writer of the game?
|
|
I would not rob you of this juicy drumstick. Pray the gods, keep it! Je préfère les poitrines, if you get my meaning...Aren't we all?
As the fair Lady Jenny has found!
"You mean *our* Jenny right?" says the knight, pointing to this http://paizo.com/image/content/Conventions/GenCon2010JennySeoni.jpg
"If so, I take it that you have also consulted with the oracles on the fate of her other quests?" (i.e. you've checked her bountiful website right? :) )
Indeed, welcome.
I'm really tired with the "dragons are my sacred wubbie" vibe with some player and DMs, even down to their considering several acts which are considered vices among humans to be virtues among dragons or at least pardonable sins.
If a kid beats up another kid and takes his lunch money, he's a schoolyard bully.
If a dragon does the same thing, he's a dragon demanding tribute which he somehow deserves because he's a dragon, and everyone is supposed to suck up and toady to dragons, because they're supposedly so ancient and wise, even if most of them seem less cultured than your average drug lord.
Honestly, if that's your kink, fine, but lets be honest here: Wyverns as written up are not wise ancient fonts of wisdom. They're schoolyard bullies with fangs and poison stingers and deserve about as much respect.
A LG god like Erastil at his most egalitarian would be at best considering dragons to be the moral peers of humans. Frankly, I think Erastil would probably think of dragons as lesser beings, as he's a god of humanoids, but he might be forcing himself to treat them nicer via the "little brown cousin" school of social Darwinism. One thing he would not be doing, however, is considering them superior beings and giving them a pass for antisocial behavior because "they're just being dragons, and dragons do stuff like that."
Also, and it should probably be brought up here, Erastil as LG is not the druidic sort of god of the wild woodsy woods with the circle of life and all that rot, but more the forester of the maintained hunting preserve where the humans like to hunt. Other predators, such as lions, tigers, bears, etc. are rather undesirable if you're going to be competing with them for venison, so thinning them down if not completely eradicating them is in order if there are enough humanoid hunters to take up the same ecological niche.
Dragons? Those things eat a ton of meat, so even if they're smart/nice enough to not snack on humanoids, they're competing for the same resources. Imagine the hunter telling his wife and children, "I'm sorry, I stalked the deer all day, but just when I had it tired out, it was snatched up by a wyvern who went off to his crag to eat it. We have nothing to eat tonight."
People seem to have no concept of famine, subsistence and scarcity. Unless the dragons are supported by endless caribou and/or or buffalo migrations--in which case they're probably too fat to get out their nests--a top predator like that is going to be a real threat simply by the nature of its existence.
There's a reason I've posted so often and so vociferously on this thread, and it's precisely because it involves a wyvern.
This very same situation came up 30(?) years ago, when a player complained to Dragon Magazine that his DM had stripped his ranger of his powers (since they had a Code of Honour, back then, too) and taken over control of his PC, because they ruled the ranger had to protect two sleeping wyverns, even to the extent of forcing him to attack the other PCs.
Can someone find the quote from Gary Gygax, where he blew his top, and tells the DM not to be so utterly, maliciously stupid? That the DM is not fit to be behind a screen, and brings the whole hobby into disrepute?
If you won't take it from me, will you at least accept it from the writer of the game?
Yes in 1st & 2nd Ed Rangers had to keep a Good alignment.
I would blow my top to, if a GM took over my character and started playing it for me. This is wrong. GM should not take over characters, with a few excepts like undead. I even would let the player keep playing his character as undead for the remainder of the session, so long as he played in character and could justify his alignment until destroyed or game session was over.
On the other hand, in 1st and 2nd AD&D, I would have enforce the rangers alignment of being Good. If the player was told that said action would cause him to have an alignment shift, and player chose to take that action anyway, then his character would have shifted in alignment. Player would then have a fighter for remainder of game, until he atoned for his actions.
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".
Sure it does. Otherwise it'd be impossible for lawful people to exist, because they'd have to obey everyone's laws, all of the time. Picking the authorities you recognize is something every lawful character does - for a paladin, it means they've chosen some authority that is LG, NG, or LN, almost certainly their god's church (but possibly not - they could be following their own reading of the deity's rules that doesn't quite line up with the church's, or their order's rules, or what have you).
Neutral people would probably recognize an authority, and kinda follow it, but not to the letter and would be quite willing to bend, or even break, many of the rules...just not as a matter of principle. For a modern viewpoint, people that speed, do work for cash without reporting it as income, etc. are neutral.
Chaotic people simply wouldn't recognize that any authority actually exists - not to say they don't recognize that there's a group with the power to punish them if they don't behave, but they don't see them as the authority but rather as "jackbooted thugs", most likely. Or they may be committed to acting against a power group, being actual anarchists, or the like.
Indeed, welcome.
I'm really tired with the "dragons are my sacred wubbie" vibe with some player and DMs, even down to their considering several acts which are considered vices among humans to be virtues among dragons or at least pardonable sins.
If a kid beats up another kid and takes his lunch money, he's a schoolyard bully.
If a dragon does the same thing, he's a dragon demanding tribute which he somehow deserves because he's a dragon, and everyone is supposed to suck up and toady to dragons, because they're supposedly so ancient and wise, even if most of them seem less cultured than your average drug lord.
Honestly, if that's your kink, fine, but lets be honest here: Wyverns as written up are not wise ancient fonts of wisdom. They're schoolyard bullies with fangs and poison stingers and deserve about as much respect.
A LG god like Erastil at his most egalitarian would be at best considering dragons to be the moral peers of humans. Frankly, I think Erastil would probably think of dragons as lesser beings, as he's a god of humanoids, but he might be forcing himself to treat them nicer via the "little brown cousin" school of social Darwinism. One thing he would not be doing, however, is considering them superior beings and giving them a pass for antisocial behavior because "they're just being dragons, and dragons do stuff like that."
Also, and it should probably be brought up here, Erastil as LG is not the druidic sort of god of the wild woodsy woods with the circle of life and all that rot, but more the forester of the maintained hunting preserve where the humans like to hunt. Other predators, such as lions, tigers, bears, etc. are rather undesirable if you're going to be competing with them for venison, so thinning them down if not completely eradicating them is in order if there are enough humanoid hunters to take up the same ecological niche.
Dragons? Those things eat a ton of meat, so even if they're smart/nice enough to not snack on humanoids, they're competing for the same...
As a LG God of humans, he should have respect for life and concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
While he should not consider them superior beings, he would not think of them as lesser being. Well no more than we would think of all creature less power than himself as lesser beings, including humans.
-----------------------------------------------------------
While i expect Paladin of LG alignment to follow there gods & alignment.
I would also hold the same for LG Gods/Goddess. I also except them to follow there alignment as listed for them. If they do not, then it is time for an alignment shift.
And, you thought you had it rough with one paladin losing his powers. Imagen a god who shifts out of the LG, LN, NG range would most likely have paladin fleeing like crazy looking for other gods to worship, to regain there paladin powers.
So is it a Chaotic act to disobey a law stating 'you must sacrifice a child on the eve of the new year'?
If such a law were created by the legitimate authority, then disobeying it would be either neutral or chaotic. A Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral person would be shocked at the abuse of authority, but still oppose it.
Obeying it would be both Lawful and Evil.
In the case of a Paladin, since the law is not *both* lawful and good, he/she would be free to oppose it in any way necessary.
Everyone else:
LG: Does not promote both order and is evil, opposed
LN: Same.
LE: Would obey, happily.
CG: Would oppose on all counts.
CN: Interferes with personal freedom and is evil, opposed
CE: I'll kill whenever I want to, and on that day, too.
NG: Evil, opposed
N: Evil, opposed
NE: Doesn't care one way or the other.
You said:
If a paladin is going to break local laws, he/she needs a very good reason to do so
I said:
If a paladin is going to break local laws, he/she needs a very good reason to do so
Here's the link.
|
|
Can someone find the quote from Gary Gygax, where he blew his top, and tells the DM not to be so utterly, maliciously stupid? That the DM is not fit to be behind a screen, and brings the whole hobby into disrepute?
If you won't take it from me, will you at least accept it from the writer of the game?
On the other hand, in 1st and 2nd AD&D, I would have enforce the rangers alignment of being Good. If the player was told that said action would cause him to have an alignment shift, and player chose to take that action anyway, then his character would have shifted in alignment. Player would then have a fighter for remainder of game, until he atoned for his actions.
Did you even read that post?
If not, it's bad form to quote it.Player would not have a fighter for the remainder of the game, since there would be no game. Just a DM sat at home on his own, as his group go look for another DM who'll run the game as it is meant to be run, as ruled by the writer of the game, who expressed in print how horrified, angry and appalled he was that anyone would consider the preservation of monsters a Good act.
Sure it does. Otherwise it'd be impossible for lawful people to exist, because they'd have to obey everyone's laws, all of the time....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".
Not exactly sure what you mean by "everyone." Lawful people abide by the laws of "everyone" who has legitimate authority over them. If those laws contradict, then they obey the higher authority.
If a higher authority contradicts a lower authority, then you obey the higher authority. That's not a "choice," that's what Lawful means.
Picking the authorities you recognize is something every lawful character does....
No, it isn't. Picking and choosing which authority you recognize is what neutral characters do.
They don't get to obey the sheriff, but disobey the king. That's what lawful means, "obedience to authority." It says so right in the definition of "Lawful." Lawful people obey the law, absent a conflict with their moral code (good v. evil) or conflicting/unclear authority.
A Paladin considers his/her code, as handed down by his/her God, to be the highest of authority. Absent a conflict with this authority, a Paladin obeys the law. Not really sure what's so controversial about that.
TO: Snortey
No, i did not read the original post by Gary Gygax. As you did not have a link to the post, and did not know were to find the post.
What i did read from you was:
""This very same situation came up 30(?) years ago, when a player complained to Dragon Magazine that his DM had stripped his ranger of his powers (since they had a Code of Honour, back then, too) and taken over control of his PC, because they ruled the ranger had to protect two sleeping wyverns, even to the extent of forcing him to attack the other PCs.""
Now, to be honest, back then wyvern were not intelligent, were treated as animals and monsters.
Then again, all drow were running around with a weapon in each hand, had magical armor & weapon, and started of as 2nd level class right off the bad.
Things change, the game changed, and wyverns in pathfinder are now int sentient creatures. As i said before, if the paladin did not know this, fine ignorance is bless, but if he ever found out later, then he would have to atone for it. For killing sentient creatures in there sleep without giving them a chance to surrender is an evil act.
A paladin must follow the laws of his god. (((And i would say that god would have to be LG, LN, or NG. Any rules a LN god has that prevents a paladin from being LG would also be out)).
A paladin should follow the laws of his kingdom. ((On the other hand, a paladin can reject the laws of his kingdom. A evil kingdom with unjust laws will be rejected by a paladin.))
A paladin should follow the laws of the local authority's. ((Again, evil laws and unjust authoritys can and will be rejected)).
The paladin should follow the local laws, but can reject the laws of the town if they are evil, unjust, and require the paladin to break his alignment.
Just a heads up, neutral and good are two different alignments.
Crazy I know!
Also apparently if I play a wizard all I have to do is cast sleep or hold monster on everything we encounter and the paladin can never attack anything! And people say the paladin is overpowered! In fact, if you're ever attacked by a paladin, just fall asleep! It renders him entirely helpless!
I'm sorry I didn't see in your article where you stated that Gary was angry over the preserving the creature part instead of the take over the character part.
In the end the alignment, creature, description are all irrelevant. The paladin's first act should have been a knowledge check, followed by a Detect Evil. Based on the results of those, avoided bloodshed first, resorted to it if there were no other option.
A LG god of hunters (don't know the PF gods) I would imagine, follows the tradition of hunting in the aspect that it is for survival: Food, Skins, has attacked the community, or in defense of someone. Not kill every wolf, cause wolves eat sheep. Or even kill a wyvern you happen to see, just because as a race they have eaten worse and might choose to attack you if they saw you.
Are preemptive strikes safe and easy ways to neutralize threats. They sure as heck are. At what point has it ever been implied that it was okay for a Paladin to perform certain acts just because it was the safe and easy way?
Snorter, you did spin a fine tale of all the information the Little Paladin Jr had from tales of wyverns growing up.... which would be reflected by him having made a knowledge check. Oh, wait he didn't make a knowledge check? Then anything he assumes to know about a wyvern other than what may have been picked by encountering them before is metagaming. Plain and simple. ANY information used to evaluate a monsters alignment, powers, capabilities without having faced them before, having been supplied them by DM description (wings assume flight, stinger assume poison), having made a check for what you know, or having been written into a backstory seen by the DM is metagaming. It is knowledge your character simply doesn't have, therefore can't use to make a decision. By your rationale, all my characters from now on have a backstory that they have heard tales of the vagaraies of each creature in the Bestiary, that way I don't have to waste points in those pesky knowledge skills.
For those of you that assume that holding the paladin to a higher standard is hate, how wrong. I myself do it because I love the paladin, and believe that the true test of a ROLE-player is how well they can maintain LG, a Code and Religious following and truly stay in character despite the simple decline into choosing the easy wrong that comes up so often in D&D.
My next BBEG will create a spell that causes creatures to fall asleep for a year. His dastardly plan will be to have animals attack cities all over, and then fall asleep. When they're killed right after wards, all the townspeople and city folk will become evil.
World domination will be simple once the whole world is evil from killing innocent sleeping animals!
The next time I see a paladin use disarm, trip, or sunder on an enemy, they're falling. Jeez, way to gain an unfair advantage! What's that, your class power specifically gives you better sundering abilities? Yeah whatever, learn to roleplay.
When I think of chaotic good, I think of a character that is mildly disrespectful of the law and believes staunchly in personal freedom as the best source of good.
When I think of neutral good, I think of a character that doesn't pay much mind to either law or chaos, sees society as having both good and bad, and instead focuses on trying to do good by whatever means they can.
When I think of lawful good I think of extremist pacifists because, dude, it says lawful right there in the name!
Last time I had a paladin in my game, I had an evil king walk up and command him to execute an innocent girl.
Check and mate, HEH.
Seriously these are the arguments I'm seeing in this thread
Also apparently if I play a wizard all I have to do is cast sleep or hold monster on everything we encounter and the paladin can never attack anything! And people say the paladin is overpowered! In fact, if you're ever attacked by a paladin, just fall asleep! It renders him entirely helpless!
Good Alignment vs Sentient beings = If in the heat of battle, against creatures your are fighting, casting sleep on them, is neutralizing them.
If, you can tie them up, while their helpless, and take them prisoner, you should do so.
If, you can no tie them up or if the sleep will fail before the battle is over, and you know they are hostile because THEY started the fight. Then slaying them while under a sleep spell would not be a problem for a good person.
If, you come across a band of sentient creatures, out of the blue, who are not aware of you, cast sleep on them. Well, since you do not know if they are evil or not, if the will surrender to you or not, if they are friend or foe. Then a good person should not be slitting their throats, just because it is the easy and safe thing to do.
Paladins can attack anything they like, so long as they can justify their actions. But paladins should not be attack innocent children, helpless adults, surrendering enemy's, or Prisoners; just because they are to lazy to take care of them.
The problem is missing subtle statements made by the others here.
Sleeping enemies may be seen as evil. But at no point has anyone argued that alignment shifted to evil the first time anyone did a single evil act. In fact most of those that had sided with the OP said that they WOULD NOT have stripped powers, but given a warning that the act was evil.
No one said that in a fight a paladin could not use combat maneuvers that hindered the enemy to their advantage.
I haven't seen anyone say that LG didn't fight, just that fighting is a last resort, when all else fails.
Nor did I see it said that they follow all authority blindly. All authority to them follows a precedent. And anyone of them can be disregarded if it's not a Good command.
God (The Paladins highest beliefs)
Country (The laws of the land)
Community (The laws of Society)
Personal (inn keep has the authority to kick out patrons)
Heck in the Army, we had Command Authority (Those that had a position over you) and general military authority (Those that have rank but may not be in your chain of command). Even with all that you are able to disregard any order that is not a lawful order (in accordance with the piles of army regulations).
Paladins can attack anything they like, so long as they can justify their actions. But paladins should not be attack innocent children, helpless adults, surrendering enemy's, or Prisoners; just because they are to lazy to take care of them.
Again a military statement. According to Geneva convention, by taking a prisoner of war we are required to protect them, even at risk to our own lives as long as they are under our authority. Even in that I wouldn't consider (just my opinion, not trying to upset) U.N. to be a LG organization.
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 and Yes.
Lawful = obedient to a hierarchy, logical and orderly. A paladin will respect local laws as much as possible, but he is obedient only to those authorities deemed to be above him by his order. He considers his authority to be above all others, therefore in any conflict it is that which he obeys, not the local law.
A historical example of this might be the Knights Templar - they had to obey the Grand Master of the order first, local laws second, something that annoyed a lot of monarchs.
Not exactly sure what you mean by "everyone." Lawful people abide by the laws of "everyone" who has legitimate authority over them. If those laws contradict, then they obey the higher authority.
If a higher authority contradicts a lower authority, then you obey the higher authority. That's not a "choice," that's what Lawful means.
By everyone, I mean every country, noble, group that claims to control any area, institution that claims authority over any aspect of life. And nowhere in the description of lawful does it ever say they obey the laws, it says they respect and obey authority, not any authority, or anyone who claims to have authority. Lawful is about being disciplined, not following the local laws and customs.
No, it isn't. Picking and choosing which authority you recognize is what neutral characters do.
They don't get to obey the sheriff, but disobey the king. That's what lawful means, "obedience to authority." It says so right in the definition of "Lawful." Lawful people obey the law, absent a conflict with their moral code (good v. evil) or conflicting/unclear authority.
A Paladin considers his/her code, as handed down by his/her God, to be the highest of authority. Absent a conflict with this authority, a Paladin obeys the law. Not really sure what's so controversial about that.
Picking and choosing what specific laws to obey is what neutral people do. More importantly, they don't have strong codes, they're very adaptable, and while they probably do have guidelines for behavior, they are willing to do things differently from those guidelines if the situation warrants it.
It says nowhere in the lawful description that they obey the law, it says they obey authority, but it's still a question of what authority. For example, let's take, say, Shaolin monks. Are they disciplined? Very. Are they lawful? Absolutely. What authority (historically) do they obey? Well, pretty much they obey the senior monks. Which brought them more than once into conflict with the government.
Now, if the paladin is actually a retainer of a noble or the like, then yeah, they'd obey that person - they would be an authority the paladin owes allegiance to. Likewise their order, their church, and so on. But unless they're actually a licensed agent of the realm, they're not police.
Not only that, but they wouldn't likely actually be able to be adventurers if they had to obey every law of the land. Not a licensed and recognized agent of the government? Then forget the question of murder - you can't actually conduct many investigations because you're breaking and entering, trespassing, etc. Suspect a local landowner is abducting peasants and ritually sacrificing them to Pazuzu? Well, since you only have a suspicion, tough luck, you're not gonna look around his estate, because unlike an agent of the crown, reasonable suspicion means nothing to your legal rights.
Even if you look beyond all of that, though, even if you want to try to follow every local law...a lot of those are going to come into conflict with your higher authority. Remember, a paladin is a holy warrior. Which do you think is the higher authority for them, the kingdom or their god? And who did their god endow with holy powers and a divine commandment to seek out, judge, and destroy evil, themselves or the local ruler? Yeah, they're agents of their gods, not of the realm - barring a commandment from their deity or a higher member of their faith, their authority supercedes the local laws. They don't have to, and indeed often shouldn't, try to bring the smited in for trials and sentencing, because they've been tasked with destroying evil and carrying out divine judgement, not with apprehending lawbreakers for temporal "justice".
Does that mean they don't respect the local authorities (which, by the way, is what the code calls for - respect for, not obedience to, legitimate authority)? Of course not! Provided the local authorities are just, fair, righteous, and, of course, legitimate, they'll respect them and try to work within their bounds. But they don't answer to local authorities, they answer to their deities, and their deities charged them with carrying out justice, not the local authorities.
As for the original question about the wyverns, note that part of the paladin's code is to punish those who harm or threaten innocents. A large, poison dripping, nasty-tempered carnivore is definitely a threat to innocents, provided it's close enough to any sort of settlement, trade route, or what have you to reasonably come in contact with the people there. Whether it's intelligent or not.
Not to mention that, regardless of whether or not a wyvern can potentially be reasoned with, the chances of it are slim at best...and given a wyvern's general disposition, even if you could bribe them to not attack you, how are you going to bribe them enough to not attack anyone ever? As soon as you, the threat, are no longer present, they're gonna go back to their normal activity. Maybe they'll kill people, maybe they'll just extort them (would you punish a paladin that came across a bandit's den and punished them, even if the bandits didn't actually attack them?), but they're a threat either way.
And that's all ignoring the likely situation, as others have said, that the paladin wouldn't even know they're sentient. If they don't have Knowledge (Arcana), all they'd know are the rumors and general knowledge...which would be something along the lines of "those things attack anything that comes close! They're like flying poisonous wolverine-lizards! You see a shadow, your horse screams, the thing lands and roars at you, and if you're lucky you can run away while it's eating the horse!"
Not to mention that it specifically says they're prone to mayhem, only mentions monstrous races befriending them (more like bribing them until they get annoyed enough with the monstrous people to run amok), and, on the off chance that the wyvern were to speak to a humanoid...they only speak draconic. With the voice of a large reptile. And almost certainly an aggressive tone. What are the chances the random farmers these tales come from speak draconic to even recognize that as speech and not a wyvern's version of a dog's angry barking and growling?
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 and Yes.
Lawful = obedient to a hierarchy, logical and orderly. A paladin will respect local laws as much as possible, but he is obedient only to those authorities deemed to be above him by his order. He considers his authority to be above all others, therefore in any conflict it is that which he obeys, not the local law.
A historical example of this might be the Knights Templar - they had to obey the Grand Master of the order first, local laws second, something that annoyed a lot of monarchs.
Precisely. And for a paladin, the hierarchy would go deity > elders of their order/church > their own judgement on what's just and right > only then local laws...which they're still not the enforcers of, only try to work within when it doesn't get in the way of their mandate.
As a LG God of humans, he should have respect for life and concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
While he should not consider them superior beings, he would not think of them as lesser being. Well no more than we would think of all creature less power than himself as lesser beings, including humans.
As a lawful god, I'd expect him to understand something about Law, and that concern about "dignity" and "sentience" requires him to define these things.
What INT score defines sentience? What INT score is below it? In some species that are right on the border are there some members who count as sentient and thus get one set of laws while the rest are classed as animals?
If it's wrong to kill, say, an awakened hedgehog, is it okay to kill a retarded human?
Also, what exactly is dignity? Dragons go naked all the time. So do some humans. Some humans get really upset if you take their clothes. Dragons get really upset if you take their hoard. Is it equivalent? Is the embarrassment of a dragon without his hoard like the embarrassment of a human forced to be naked in public? Are dragon nightmares about having their hoards stolen akin to human nightmares where you realize you're standing there in your underwear?
Also, what you expect Erastil to do has little bearing on what he will do. I fully expect that Erastil makes value judgements all the time. The desire of a human to cover their nakedness with warm clothes is more important than the desire of a dragon to deck out their caves with shiny bling.
This isn't to say that the princess, robbed of her furs and jewels and dumped in the wilderness, is going to have the god show up and give her an ermine cloak. I expect, if he gave her any aid, he'd tell her where to find a dead deer from which to fashion a practical deerskin gown, and if she really wants the ermine cloak, she can jolly well set out to trap the weasels and skin them herself.
Now, if a wyvern were to pray to Erastil.... Let's assume first that we sand of off all the "wyverns are jerks and bullies" flavor text so they can be straight neutral and thus, like humans, able to choose any alignment, and the wyvern decides to pray to Old Deadeye for aid with hunting. One supposes Erastil might help him, but would also be expecting some LG behavior: protecting the weak and defenseless is and easy start. And it turns out there's also a lost princess whining for aid and protection, and while unicorns are somewhat more traditional protectors for wholesome maidens, Erastil is practical enough to suggest that the wyvern take the princess back to his nest to keep house for him. Hell, she might in gratitude even give him her tiara, which Erastil thinks would be a good lesson for the dragon, since bling is just ostentation unless it's some token of affection.
A little bit of character leveling later, the princess may pick up some ranger or cavalier to go with her aristocrat levels and she may end up a dragonrider with the wyvern her boon companion.
However, to get there, you need a complete overhaul of the wyvern flavor text, because it doesn't say they worship Erastil and hook up with lost princesses anymore than it says that unicorns are known to beat up school children and steal their lunch money.
As a lawful god, I'd expect him to understand something about Law, and that concern about "dignity" and "sentience" requires him to define these things.
Well i am please to hear that you are a Lawful god.
So my question for you is = Are you a Good god.
Paladin's code to punish those that harm or threaten innocents.
Yes, they would punish the wyverns WHEN they harmed or threatened. Not because they have the capacity to harm or threaten. in this context I do believe punish is used as a reactive measure to an action taken.
See Punish
pun·ish
–verb (used with object)
1. to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for some offense, transgression, or fault: to punish a criminal.
2. to inflict a penalty for (an offense, fault, etc.): to punish theft.
(emphasis mine)
I see it is not a proactive step. We do not punish or kill those that have the capability to do harm or threats (as all humans have that capability, and as a race have used it since the dawn of man), we punish those that we learn HAVE used harm or threats. Sometimes to go so far as to require the burden of proof. Luckily for D&D, powerful creatures that are Evil, can be detected with spells and helps with said burden of proof.
Yes, they would punish the wyverns WHEN they harmed or threatened. Not because they have the capacity to harm or threaten. in this context I do believe punish is used as a reactive measure to an action taken.
See Punish
pun·ish–verb (used with object)
1. to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for some offense, transgression, or fault: to punish a criminal.
2. to inflict a penalty for (an offense, fault, etc.): to punish theft.(emphasis mine)
I see it is not a proactive step. We do not punish or kill those that have the capability to do harm or threats (as all humans have that capability, and as a race have used it since the dawn of man), we punish those that we learn HAVE used harm or threats. Sometimes to go so far as to require the burden of proof. Luckily for D&D, powerful creatures that are Evil, can be detected with spells and helps with said burden of proof.
What's a powerful creature? A bear is a powerful creature in comparison to a commoner. A wyvern is a nightmare in comparison to a commoner. For better comparison, we'll go with a crocodile, as people before me have, since they're carnivores rather than omnivores. Except this crocodile can fly, so you can't just build a wall to keep it out. And it's meaner and nastier than most crocodiles. And in all likelihood the entirety of the average village couldn't kill it without some serious luck, and even with said luck they'd take major losses.
Now...if a particularly mean croc decided to start nesting near a village (near being relative, since wyverns probably have a much larger territory than crocs - I don't know, I'm not the Crocodile Hunter), don't you think it would be a threat to the people by its very nature? What does it have to do to be considered threatening the people? Kill their livestock? Kill their pets? Kill one of them?
It's like asking what you do with a rabid dog - do you wait until the dog bites someone, or do you see that it's rabid and kill it as soon as you can so that it doesn't bite someone? And since when do paladins, or anyone else, need burden of proof to remove a threatening monster from the area? They're not lawyers...and even if they were, I would bet that juuuust about every country around actively encourages killing wyverns when possible.
My question is simple: Would it had been any different if it was humans sleeping in a barbarian camp, members of a tribe known for being territoral?Please. If you want to make comparisons, compare apples to apples. What about sleeping members of a tribe of cannibalistic, xenophobic territorial humans? They'll attack you on sight, and they'll eat you without hesitation - because you're not part of their tribe, and you taste good with BBQ sauce. But of course, they have a neutral alignment, right? ;-)
How do cannibalism come into this? Wouldn't it be the same regardless of what intelligent creatures they ate? And is eating intelligent creatures evil in and of itself? I've never viewed it as such, seeing as how even good dragons might do that, if someone's an ass towards them.
I guess we just have different viewpoints. I could see a lot of neutral humanoids that would kill on sight as a general rule. For example, a lawful neutral dwarven city might have a law declaring anyone who hasn't got special permission to enter should be seen as an invader and killed on sight, especially in a time of war (which it certainly is if someone's trying to stab you in your sleep).
And in what way is the paladin not xenophobic if he kills people out of race alone? What we have is you arguing the wyvern should be evil because:
- It's territorial
- It's aggressive and attacks humans on sight
- Without proof of the humans being evil
- It eats intelligent beings
And that the paladin isn't doing anything wrong when:
- Humans are known to be territorial (even amongst themselves - that's why there are nations!)
- He's being aggressive and attacks wyverns on sight
- Without proof of the wyverns being evil
- "Always good" creatures are known to eat intelligent beings (at least in 3.5)
Exactly why is the paladin good when he does X (attacks intelligent beings on sight based purely on them being of a certain race) but the wyverns are evil when doing exactly the same thing?
Using the term powerful was to avoid quoting game mechanics I am unclear of as I don't play PF. I believe they are 5 HD for evil creatures to radiate evil, via Detect Evil. Now I think I'm safe to assume that Wyverns are more than 5 HD?
After detecting evil, one can say that they are not, and shouldn't be presumed to be an threat anymore than any other large predatory creature. Intelligent or not, they are large predatory creatures, and could do considerable damage to one's livestock or local wildlife, even small groups of hapless people if the food is scarce enough. Much like an aforementioned Giant Eagle (Large predator, not evil, intelligent) driven I would say mostly by survival instinct of eat to survive over their even heightened Int.
Coming to the tomb in this scenario, the PC's got either info from the local populace about it's threat or it is removed enough from society that it required research to find. Again, without the Adventure, I am uncertain where the nearest populace is situated. But if it was local populace and the wyverns were a threat, they would have been included in the information I would think "Going to the tombs Eh? Hear tell there be a few beasties up that way also been flyin of with Harben's cattle". If outside of populace, there is no local threat to anything other than the wildlife.
If it were a croc, nowadays anyways, they actually catch and relocate them when they learn from the locals that it's in the area. Now I doubt anyone gonna try and relocate a wyvern, but then again there is nothing that says a Paladin can't let those same wyvern know that if they deign to prey on the locals, that the Paladin will return with the vengeance of the gods, and the wyverns would not like to see that.
Exactly why is the paladin good when he does X (attacks intelligent beings on sight based purely on them being of a certain race) but the wyverns are evil when doing exactly the same thing?
Out of consistency reasons, they either don't do the same evil thing or the killing is not evil. If you accept that the described behavior is evil, then the description of the behavior of the paladin has to be extended by
- He's being aggressive and attacks evil wyverns on sight.
and he fights therefore against evil beeings. If you say it is not an evil behavior, it is true for both. And a paladin don't lose his powers if he takes an neutral action.
Yes, they would punish the wyverns WHEN they harmed or threatened. Not because they have the capacity to harm or threaten. in this context I do believe punish is used as a reactive measure to an action taken.
See Punish
pun·ish–verb (used with object)
1. to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for some offense, transgression, or fault: to punish a criminal.
2. to inflict a penalty for (an offense, fault, etc.): to punish theft.(emphasis mine)
I see it is not a proactive step. We do not punish or kill those that have the capability to do harm or threats (as all humans have that capability, and as a race have used it since the dawn of man), we punish those that we learn HAVE used harm or threats. Sometimes to go so far as to require the burden of proof. Luckily for D&D, powerful creatures that are Evil, can be detected with spells and helps with said burden of proof.
What's a powerful creature? A bear is a powerful creature in comparison to a commoner. A wyvern is a nightmare in comparison to a commoner. For better comparison, we'll go with a crocodile, as people before me have, since they're carnivores rather than omnivores. Except this crocodile can fly, so you can't just build a wall to keep it out. And it's meaner and nastier than most crocodiles. And in all likelihood the entirety of the average village couldn't kill it without some serious luck, and even with said luck they'd take major losses.
Now...if a particularly mean croc decided to start nesting near a village (near being relative, since wyverns probably have a much larger territory than crocs - I don't know, I'm not the Crocodile Hunter), don't you think it would be a threat to the people by its very nature? What does it have to do to be considered threatening the people? Kill their livestock? Kill their pets? Kill one of them?
It's like asking what you do with a rabid dog - do you wait until the dog bites someone, or do you see that it's...
In your example you say "particularly mean croc decided to start nesting near a village".
First problem = Crocodiles, are of animal intelligence and do not know any better. They lack the ability to understand their action, and as such are unable to surrender. This is the reason that animals or creatures with animal intelligence, do not cause alignment problems for good people to kill. Any attacking animal is hostile, good people can defend themselves when being attacked.
Second problem = Your not talking about all crocodiles, your talking about a particularly mean crocodile, near a village. I do not recall the wyvern being called particularly mean, more so than normal for their kind. I do not recall anyone saying they were anywhere near a village.
third problem = While good people might hunt down and kill a crocodile that was threating a village, this does not mean they go out of their way to exterminate all crocodiles.
fourth problem = The rabid dog, is a animal. It is not a sentient creature. It is a clear and present damager, because it can not control its actions. No you do not wait till it bites someone, you if possible cure it. If you have no way to cure it, you put it out of its misery by killing it.
fifth problem = Yes it is big, Yes it can be dangers. So can the 15th level human, with a tower who owns 5 square miles around the tower. Who is territorial, and has the same traits as the wyven, like being neutral. So what is your reason for killing the wizard??
Sixth problem = No one bother to find out if the wyven was friend or foe. No one bother to find out if the wyven would have surrender... although why it should considering your the one trespassing on its lands, and threating it will body injury... you sure this was not an Anti-Paladin we were talking about??
|
Hmm well if the assumption that it is the kingmaker Wyvern pair I would say the fact they have a treasure horde
complete set of Ustalavic silverware worth 75 gp, a pouch
holding 37 gp among other odds and ends, an old +3
greatsword stamped with the Issian coat-of-arms, and a
messenger’s parcel containing 5 green spinels worth 100
gp each.
Kind of eliminates the possibility of them not having attacked Innocents (Again assuming of course this is the Kingmaker one)
Hmm well if the assumption that it is the kingmaker Wyvern pair I would say the fact they have a treasure horde
** spoiler omitted **
Kind of eliminates the possibility of them not having attacked Innocents (Again assuming of course this is the Kingmaker one)
Was it shown before the fight that they had the leavings of a killed passerby, or to find that out you would have had to kill first and then search for proof that it had killed someone else?
Hmm well if the assumption that it is the kingmaker Wyvern pair I would say the fact they have a treasure horde
** spoiler omitted **
Kind of eliminates the possibility of them not having attacked Innocents (Again assuming of course this is the Kingmaker one)
So were there any dead body in the nest ?
Even if there were, do you know anything about these dead bodies?Were they the remains of evil humans, who invaded the wyvens territory?
Were they the remains of evil humans, who tired to kill the wyvens in there sleep?
Were they the remains of neutral dwarf, who attack the wyvens without provocation, and the wyvens killed them in self-defense?
Could the treasure have been bartered for by the wyvens, for helping the local lizard people avoid the undead. Which is why they were nested so close to the entrance?
The answer is we will never know. Because the wyvens were killed in their sleep, without every being giving a chance to explain themselves.
[In the tone of a tootsie roll commercial]
"How many minutes does it take a Paladin to convince the sleeping wyverns that they should relocate for the safety of their young? The world may never know."
Attacking them on the mere BASIS that they could have, different thing.
A dog MAY have bitten someone in the past, and it MAY become rabid in the future.
Doesn't mean you indiscriminatingly kill every dog you meet, and feel justified if it DID bite someone, and defend yourself with ignorance if it didn't.
This.
I've said it before, the 'attack it because it might be a threat' logic is a slippery slope.
The wyverns might be a threat to the local village, so you kill them.
You go into the dungeon, and find a number of creatures that might be a threat to the locals, and kill them too.
You kill the baby orcs because they might grow up to become man-eating big orcs.
On your way back to the village you see a pack of wolves in the distance, and kill them because they might pray on the local sheep, and a shepherd might get hurt protecting his flock.
You return to the village, and a guardsman at the gate hails you, taking up his spear. You kill him because a spear is a dangerous weapon and he might use it against other villagers.
You kill the local innkeeper because he might poison the beer and kill the village (and anyway, alcohol isn't good for you).
At which point have you gone from a noble paladin of Erastil to being a paranoid homicidal maniac? My point here is that whether or not the killing of the wyverns was an evil act, it was part of a trend the character had already established. With this kind of behaviour, it's best to nip it in the bud.
Odds were good that the wyverns were dangerous, and would attack the party, and would pray on the locals given the chance. Maybe the characters didn't know that they were sentient, but here is the thing: no attempt was made to establish if they were a threat. Nobody sneaked up, peeked into the nest and saw human bones. Nobody detected evil. Nobody checked their Knowledge (local) to recall if there had been any reports of these creatures, or their Knowledge (arcana) to recall what features wyverns have. Maybe it was the smart way to fight, but it wasn't the smart way to do good - paladins have awesome powers to do good because it TAKES awesome powers to do good, doing good is not easy - evil is easy, good takes effort. That's the way of things.
Ignorance is an unforgivable sin.
As a lawful god, I'd expect him to understand something about Law, and that concern about "dignity" and "sentience" requires him to define these things.Well i am please to hear that you are a Lawful god.
So my question for you is = Are you a Good god.
Amusing, but rather than jump on the ambiguous semantics, could you address the argument my post?
And yes, Erastil is both Lawful and Good, but I wasn't going to open the can of worms of defining "good" when already dealing with the can of worms of "law," especially with beings being equal before the law despite having highly different cultures and priorities.
Hmm well if the assumption that it is the kingmaker Wyvern pair I would say the fact they have a treasure horde
** spoiler omitted **
Kind of eliminates the possibility of them not having attacked Innocents (Again assuming of course this is the Kingmaker one)
So were there any dead body in the nest ?
Even if there were, do you know anything about these dead bodies?
Were they the remains of evil humans, who invaded the wyvens territory?
Were they the remains of evil humans, who tired to kill the wyvens in there sleep?
Were they the remains of neutral dwarf, who attack the wyvens without provocation, and the wyvens killed them in self-defense?Could the treasure have been bartered for by the wyvens, for helping the local lizard people avoid the undead. Which is why they were nested so close to the entrance?
The answer is we will never know. Because the wyvens were killed in their sleep, without every being giving a chance to explain themselves.
They were remains of all of the above
Edit: And then some...
And this is why I was trying to stay out of this. The paladin almost certainly didn't know they were sentient. If he needed a knowledge skill to know anything about them, he probably didn't have it - without that, all he'd know is either a) they've dangerous, aggressive, and nasty, or b) they look dangerous, aggressive, and nasty, and he has no idea what they are. Either way, you don't put your mission in jeopardy on the off chance that they're possibly not beasties - your mission needs to be done, and without knowing they're sentient, most people would assume it's not something they can reason with. And if they did know that it's sentient, they'd know that...there's little chance they can reason with it. Nor did the paladin go out of his way to kill the things - they were in his way, else he wouldn't have ever noticed them, no?
To people arguing that the paladin should lose his powers for this, or even suggesting he should have tried to get the monsters to surrender...I thank all that is holy I don't play in your games, because it would be a constant argument, every session.
There is an easy fix to this: Put a label on the GM screen saying "Req: Int10 & Wis10"
Seriously, we are sitting here, discussing the sanctity of barely intelligent slobbering monsters that serve no other role than to bring misery into the world.
So I guess all fledgling paladins out there should also show caution around otyughs and rehmorazes, as they, like the wyvern, are sentient (more than int2) neutral creatures that attack humans on sight and try to devour them. And like wyverns, their utterly remorseless and antisocial behaviour does NOT earn them an alignment-change, because those are only for paladins when you play with bad GMs.
I can mention a SERIES of occasions where my current paladin would have fallen if this idiot were the GM:
- He has attacked and killed several trapped animals, all non-evil creatures who are equal to him in crazy care-bear land.
- He has had "unlawful carnal knowledge" with his lover (oooh, chaotic!)
- He hunted down and killed neutral beasts that posed no real threat, but they wanted to capture one for the ranger so he might raise it as a companion, and others attacked them.
- He did not intervene when the party rogue interrogated and killed a chaotic evil, fiend-worshiping, cannibal barbarian. Even if he was helpless. He voiced his protest to not killing them in battle, but was voted down by party majority, since the rest wanted to find out where these monsters wearing human hides were hiding, so we might stomp them out and not be fearful of losing more good and honest people to them.
And to top this off, as I already stated in my earlier post: Unless by some freak accident, and the GM made up an encounter completely identical, THESE wyverns, as part of encounter area Z3 of Varnhold Vanishing, WERE the kind of wyverns who attacks people, there were remains of PEOPLE (and their sweet loot) in their nest, and they WERE within hassling-range of human settlements (a settlement that worships Erastil to boot). I have GMed it, and have the AP in front of me.
THIS PALADIN DID RIGHT!