That's because it is so subjective and everybody thinks they are right.
That's because it is so subjective and everybody thinks they are right.
Unfortunately, the paladin always seems to be the one that suffers.
You never hear of DMs making monks fall because they act too chaotic. When was the last time a barbarian lost their abilities for acting too lawful that you recall?
No, the problem boils down to DMs that think paladins need to fall at some point because, to them, it provides better drama.
It boils down to DMs who can't tell the difference between a good STORY and a fun GAME.
Of course, the paladin who fell for killing two evil wyverns though he wasn't 100% sure they were evil as he hadn't taken them to a court of law yet...that doesn't make for either a good story or a fun game.
|
A few people need to dial it back a bit in this thread.
I run a game in the same FLGS as the OP.
The GM had a series of minor disagreements with a player over "code of conduct". He made a ruling in game, which is reversible thru an Atonement, over a culminating incident. After, he second-guessed himself, and came on to the boards to solicit opinions.
That hardly makes him an idiot.
My opinion:
Paladins ARE held to a higher standard of behaviour than other Good characters, except possibly clerics.
As an isolated incident, this did not justify the paladin falling.
As a pattern of behaviour? Possibly.
The nature of the creatures (alignment) matters less to me than the paladins lack of knowledge about the creatures. Hunter of Erastil or not, I question whether a paladin should be slaying any large sleeping creature at first sight, without any indication of dangerous intent.
Were I in the OP's position, I may have done the same, but I would ensure that the paladin has access to atonement. And sit down with the player to discuss what we could agree on as a code of conduct.
And folks, remember that almost none of us start as perfect GM's. Asking for opinions on this board should be a way to receive constructive feedback, not a dogpile.
My husband and I were doing some solo RP where his paladin of Irori was courting my CN tiefling rogue, and at various times I would joke about this thread, which I told him to stop reading several pages ago. I was teasing him about his paladin's desire and how somewhere, some GM on these message boards would cause him to fall for having all the selfish, naughty intentions of a young man towards the girl he loves. And we wake up this morning, and he comes back here and its still the same silly argument.
The common expression of lawful and good I'm reading is that the paladin should never do ANYTHING even remotely human, ever, he should be RoboCop before Murphy realized he was still human, simply acting on directives. That is a silly standard to set for ANY class, like saying that the rogue and bards should always max Sleight of Hand because they are the only character classes that can. And that if the paladin ever should act out of the alignment that is forced upon them in PF, even on the law/chaos scale he should be punished with the full extent of the GMs wrath by falling IMMEDIATELY without even a previous expression of the god's displeasure in his actions. They are warriors ORDAINED BY GODS to fight evil, not machines. I thought that that was the essence of roleplaying a paladin, dancing around that which makes him/her a human being vs. a instrument of divine retribution sworn to uphold a code higher than any human court of law.
I don't understand why such a drastic measure was taken for a first offense. The GM said that his reasoning was evil, or whatever, but there's steps you can take before making a character fall completely. Just arbitrarily saying "hey, that one act was completely out of your alignment, kiss your character goodbye buddy," is unacceptable. Take away some spells, or have that white stag thing just suddenly show up and charge him, but make him fall, that's just bad GMing.
If a barbarian is always following the law, following rule, never doing anything chaotic. Yes he should be called on this.
If a monk is always breaking the rules, never following the laws, and does not even care about practicing his skill except in combat. Yes he should be called on this.
IF a paladin is always being lawful, but does not care about the lives of innocent beings, to lazy to take care of the problem he himself creates just because its to hard. Just because he wants to fight, kill, fight, kill, fight, kill, regardless of who, where, how, and why. Yes he should be called on this.
Barbarian = has one alignment fraction he has to worry about.
Mon = has one alignment fraction he has to worry about.
Paladin = Has 2, i repeat 2 alignment fractions he must stay within. Not just one.
By the way = Clerics use to have the same problem as paladins, until they loosened the ropes on clerics, by letting them slide a step.
Barbarian = has one alignment fraction he has to worry about.
Mon = has one alignment fraction he has to worry about.
Paladin = Has 2, i repeat 2 alignment fractions he must stay within. Not just one.By the way = Clerics use to have the same problem as paladins, until they loosened the ropes on clerics, by letting them slide a step.
I agree. In fact, for the Paladin it is even stricter than for Lawful Good. A monk can be a bit chaotic now and again, and get away with it. A barbarian can be a bit lawful and get away with it.
But a paladin cannot afford to be deliberately evil once and not have consequences. You get the power. You also get the grief.
I don't understand why such a drastic measure was taken for a first offense. The GM said that his reasoning was evil, or whatever, but there's steps you can take before making a character fall completely. Just arbitrarily saying "hey, that one act was completely out of your alignment, kiss your character goodbye buddy," is unacceptable. Take away some spells, or have that white stag thing just suddenly show up and charge him, but make him fall, that's just bad GMing.
Never said they should automatically change alignment. Only said that, when the GM says you are about to do something evil, and the player does it anyway, then this might cause an alignment shift.
What i find is funny, is everyone trying to describe a Lawful Neutral player as Lawful Good. Yes the Lawful Neutral is a lot easier to play, since your just following the law. But paladin are Lawful good, and must be good and follow the law.
As a LG God of humans, he should have respect for life and concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
Like Orcs, Trolls, Ogres, Devils, Demons, etc
The paladin's first act should have been a knowledge check,
Paladins - masters of arcane lore and the Draconic language
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.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.
You've been taking notes from LillithsThrall on arguing haven't you?
Also, as the DM later confirmed, it wasn't a first offense, the paladin was in kill-mode for a while.
"Offense?"
He could spend his entire day coup-de-grace'ing dangerous creatures. Why exactly does that make him lose his powers?A Paladin doesn't have to be a mindless samaritian, he IS out to fight evil. Killing everything on sight has nothing to do with that. That ogre? Just a cursed princess that never did any harm. Shrek would like to have a word with you about killing his girl from afar after she cried herself to sleep near the river.
Hurray! More arguments from the "let's use this completely unrelated thing from a completely different fictional universe to make an argument!" school.
Thats ignorance armor +5. Be an uneducated paladin with int 7 and slay everything you see?
Why not? Doesn't make wyverns evil apparently.
People already tried defending his actions by arguing that heraldry(knowledge nobility) might imply evil guys use the wyvern as symbol
Wow, that's some asshattery. Evil guys use "x" creature in heraldry, let's kill every one we see. Hopefully liches don't like unicorns.
there may be a legend of another paladin of his order(knowledge religion) slaying a evil wyvern somewhere.
Which means what?
And what should he do instead? Attempt to perform charades with the wyverns that don't speak Common where he doesn't speak Draconic?
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....
"He has attacked and killed several trapped animal" = No problem there. Does not see all creature in the Good vs Evil listing, only sentient creates. Trapping animals for food, clothing and for shelter would not be a problem for a good person.
"He has had ""unlawful carnal knowledge"" with his lover = ok this has nothing to do with alignment.
"He hunted down and killed neutral beast that posed no real threat, but they wanted to capture one for the ranger so he might raise it as a companion, and other attacked them" = So when you say neutral beast, were they animals or sentient beings ?? = Capturing an animal should not cause any alignment problems, Capturing an sentient creature is slavery = When they attacked, a good person does have the right to defend themselves.
"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 protect to not killing them in battle, but was voted down by party majority, since the rest wanted to find out were these monster wereing humans hides were hiding, so we might stomp them out and not be fearful of losing more good and honest people to them" = So did the paladin kill the helpless barbarian, no. Did he voiced his protect to not killing them, yes. Was the rogue Lawful good, i dough it. Was the rogue neutral or evil, most likely since he killed helpless barbarian. Did the party give a good reason why the barbarian was interrogated, yes. Was this a good enough reason for the paladin to have done the interrogation, yes. When they found the tribe, should they have been given a chance to surrender = that depends on each character personal alignment, but the LG paladin should say yes to this.
On to the Wyverns = Then have human like intelligence, and are listed as neutral. This does not mean, evil, this does not mean good. That being said, while most wyverns are neutral... not all are. Some might be good, some might be evil.
The problem with these are the kind of creatures that attack people is this. People attack other People. Does this mean you go killing people in there sleep that you do not know.
Now granted, as i have said before, if the paladin did not know they were sentient intelligent creatures, and he killed them because he thought they were dangerous animal. I would not have a problem with this, if that was his reasoning. If at a latter time he found out they were sentient sentient creatures, then he should seek out an atonement spell.
As a LG God of humans, he should have respect for life and concern for the dignity of sentient beings.Like Orcs, Trolls, Ogres, Devils, Demons, etc
Yes, respect for life. This does not mean you can not kill to defend yourself, protect other, or challenge evil were you see it.
This means that when you are given a chance not to kill, because you do not have to, you take that option.
Hey guys, thanks for all the thoughtful replies on BOTH sides of the argument.
I did give this paladin a list of things not to do, including attacking sentient beings while they are asleep and being honorable in his way of combat. Not killing innocents or being the cause that innocents die (like the unborn hatchlings) The only reason he is allowed the use of a bow, is cause erastil uses a bow as his favoured weapon.
In the past he has botched many encounters and near started a war with a tribe that the party just signed a treaty of non-aggression (thereby saving multiple villages of raids/getting attacked). And in one occasion he even managed to kill his allies mount which was under his care because he attacked people that the party was helping(the ally was a cavalier based on horseback riding combat, so he was uber pissed off).
After reading all the comments, I am sticking to my guns, and the paladin requires an atonement spell although he doesn't need to do anything further like take care of the hatchlings, and he is going to get a phylactory of faithfulness so that he can straight up ask me if something is evil/unlawful/ or cowardly/unbecoming of a knight.
Again thank you for all the comments/opinions.
The non-bow thing is not a paladin issue. That was a class from 1st edition D&D that could not use bows. Over the years its limitations have subconsciously been put on the paladin. There is a wonderful thread on the issue. There were actually two of them going at the same time.
It makes him lose his powers because his assessment of "dangerous" is flawed.
Dogs have been known to bite people, they can be rabid, too. Spend your entire day walking around the city cou-de-grace'ing all dogs you find, see if your god praises you(unless its a cat goddess, she won't).
So coup-de-grace'ing creatures is Evil?
As for the other argument, not at all. But a campaign is not a RAILSHOOTER, you can have that on the console. You can't be sure that always everything is exactly as it seems. Maybe someone was dominated? Someone had a veil thrown on them? Was Polymorphed? Was framed?
I am not saying it happens every other evening, but you shouldn't just assume it never happens and then, when you kill someone innocent, shrug your shoulders and go *my bad* and search for the next thing with CR similar to your level.
Every player in D&D is evil except non-fallen Paladins.
wyverns also don't go out of their way to exterminate everything they see. They hunt for food, not for XP.
What is with all the "The Paladins aren't metagaming so they are doing Evil." arguments?
Wyverns also kill creatures that they consider a threat to their hunting territory or any one weaker than them.
As a LG God of humans, he should have respect for life and concern for the dignity of sentient beings.Like Orcs, Trolls, Ogres, Devils, Demons, etcYes, respect for life. This does not mean you can not kill to defend yourself, protect other, or challenge evil were you see it.
All of those are evil. Especially Devils and Demons.
Evil Wyvern hunts for advancement.
Somewhere in the core rulebook it should caution players to make sure that before they play a paladin that their DM is okay with it. Some DMs just shouldn't have paladins in their game because they will have a moral debate anytime they see a paladin being in anyway other than their view of how a paladin should be played. Some DMs just aren't meant to DM games with paladins. If a moral debate comes up any time the paladin doesn't play by the unwritten script set by the DM, that's a good sign the DM shouldn't allow Paladins in their game because the paladin players are going to feel their fun being chained down.
Anyway, anyone with a good enough sense motive should have seen that the DM wasn't having problems with the player invalidating his code, he was having a problem with the player doing actions that invalidated his plans for which he had no back up.
Not to use real life examples,...
..and then you go and use one, and a bad one at that. Unless burly men normally rob/rape/kill people in the same way a wyvern would rather kill you than talk to you due to it having a bad attitude your argument has no merit.
In a more realistic game setting wouldn't the templar knight (paladin) actually wait a long time in hiding for the wyvern to fall asleep, in order to avoid the same fate, that met other templar knights who attempted to slay the beast?
Are people intentionally ignoring my issue that in the case of the OP's paladin, they are in an AP where wyverns are a problem, killing livestock and people in a land that is already harsh and unforgiving, and even that the adventure path makes no shadow of doubt that THESE wyverns in question have indeed killed humans before, as evidence is found in their lair if the players investigate?
The wyvern is a common random encounter in that AP, and people even offer a quest to take them down, if I am not mistaken (might have been some other flying menace, as there are lots of them in that one). Also, the wyverns are hassling communities that worship Erastil, whom the paladin also serves.
Just because wyverns are slightly different mechanically (they sure as heck doesn't behave like they have more than Int2 in any regard except tactics, nor do they have any regard for whom they kill) they are a different cup of tea compared to other giant menaces, even though they serve hardly any other purpose other than being muscled/bribed into serving as mounts for people who are irredeemable champions of evil 9999 out of 10000 times.
BUT, since we are discussing sentient creatures here, why not make the same argument we make for other sentient creatures: If you are a murderous and conscienceless bastard, you are EVIL. A wyvern is smart enough to post on a forum, so it should be smart enough to know right from wrong. And like a human that eat elves or pixies, a wyvern that eats members of other sentient races, becomes just as evil.
In a more realistic game setting wouldn't the templar knight (paladin) actually wait a long time in hiding for the wyvern to fall asleep, in order to avoid the same fate, that met other templar knights who attempted to slay the beast?
more realistic
*spits some chewing tobacco and shakes a dirty fist* We dun take kindly to yer sort 'round here!
It makes him lose his powers because his assessment of "dangerous" is flawed.
Dogs have been known to bite people, they can be rabid, too. Spend your entire day walking around the city cou-de-grace'ing all dogs you find, see if your god praises you(unless its a cat goddess, she won't).So coup-de-grace'ing creatures is Evil?
As for the other argument, not at all. But a campaign is not a RAILSHOOTER, you can have that on the console. You can't be sure that always everything is exactly as it seems. Maybe someone was dominated? Someone had a veil thrown on them? Was Polymorphed? Was framed?
I am not saying it happens every other evening, but you shouldn't just assume it never happens and then, when you kill someone innocent, shrug your shoulders and go *my bad* and search for the next thing with CR similar to your level.Every player in D&D is evil except non-fallen Paladins.
wyverns also don't go out of their way to exterminate everything they see. They hunt for food, not for XP.What is with all the "The Paladins aren't metagaming so they are doing Evil." arguments?
Wyverns also kill creatures that they consider a threat to their hunting territory or any one weaker than them.
Is coup-de-grace'ing creatures is Evil? That depends on your reasons for doing it. If you can give a very good reason, no. But if you are a good person, and have the option of disarming, subduing, or making the target helpless, then that should be your first option, since good people would rather do this than kill. Is killing an intelligent creature in there sleep, who you do not know, and who you did not give a chance to surrender and evil act, Yes.
Every player in D&D is evil except non-fallen paladins. Not at all, there are also Neutral Good and Chaotic good creatures that are Good, and have the same respect for life as a paladin, even if they do it in a less lawful way. There is also Lawful neutral, True Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral creatures that while they prefer not to harm other creatures, might do so just because it is more convenient and less trouble for them. And then there the Lawful evil, Neutral evil, and chaotic evil that is out there killing anytime someone gets in there way and they think they can get away with it.
What is with all the ""The paladins are meta-gaming so they are doing evil" arguments.
Will let other people argue this point since as far as meta-gaming goes, i could care less. Character in my world live in a high fantasy world, which means if a new player has not read throw the Bestiary, the game will come to a 15-30 minute halt. Book will be placed in his hands, and other players are encouraged to help him learn the basic of the Bestiary. What players remember about monster, is what there character remember about monster ((They are not allowed to look at bestiary during the game )) This usually hurts them as much as it helps, since players remember things wrong, creatures get re-skinned with different ability, and that book has lots of details. If i want to use a creature for the first time, as is, i just let the players know that this is the first time their character have seen this creature. Problem solved. Rolling on skill checks if the players ask question, or during role-play is also done. Yes, to some extent i still treat it as a board game, fun override role-play, but role-play should be fun.
Are people intentionally ignoring my issue that in the case of the OP's paladin, they are in an AP where wyverns are a problem, killing livestock and people in a land that is already harsh and unforgiving, and even that the adventure path makes no shadow of doubt that THESE wyverns in question have indeed killed humans before, as evidence is found in their lair if the players investigate?
Get used to it(not said in a rude way). You may have to call posters out on ignoring the parts of your post that matter just to get a response around here.
In their defense sometimes people do overlook things. We will see if anyone has an answer for you this time, but be prepared to repeat if necessary.
.
Yep, much like dangerous animals are usually not going out of their way to kill humans. Even if they ARE predators.
I used that man as an example that leads to anxiety and uneasiness. Giving in to that feeling may result in a reaction that in inapprobiate to the situation. Without KNOWING, there should be no ACTING.Which is pretty much the same with wyverns. You may FEEL they are threatening, you may FEEL it could be saver to kill them, but unless your character KNOWS, thats vain. You're acting just on an instinct, and with lethal force.
And according to bestiary, it's never implied wyverns happily attack every human they see. They're aggressive and territorial, just like the weird old veteran living further down the street. That means you don't cross them and can reasonably expect that they may ignore you, too. If they don't? Well, you took the chance, you did what was right.
Just because in a GAME the chance is higher that things will turn out to be a problem(otherwise it could quickly get boring) doesn't mean your character, in-game, should take it for granted that a problem MUST arise.
If you are not meta-gaming, your character should be unsure about what will happen, at best. And then it's not becoming of a paladin to preemptively use lethal force against a sleeping creature that may not even be hostile.
A burly man with a wyverns attitude would be a bad thing. If it the attitude of most wyverns that is the issue. Does it mean all of them eat humanoids? No. Does it mean that most of them do? According to my interpretation of the bestiary yes, and if these are the ones from the Kingmaker AP, then they should be killed.
Wyverns are nasty, brutish, and violent reptilian beasts akin to more powerful dragons. They are always aggressive and impatient, and are quick to resort to force in order to accomplish their goals. For this reason, dragons generally look down upon wyverns, 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, most wyverns 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.
They are not animals, but their attitude, most likely due to the fact they know they can kill most things does not make them much better.
All of those are evil. Especially Devils and Demons.As a LG God of humans, he should have respect for life and concern for the dignity of sentient beings.Like Orcs, Trolls, Ogres, Devils, Demons, etcYes, respect for life. This does not mean you can not kill to defend yourself, protect other, or challenge evil were you see it.
Orcs, Trolls, Ogres have the general alignment as evil as a culture, which means individual might or might not have different alignments.
Devil and demons have a set alignment that does not change, so i would not hold it against a paladin to slay them on sight in a traditional game. (In my homebrew games, this is not the case, see above comment about Orcs.)
Even evil creatures should be give a chance to surrender and be your prisoners, like orcs, trolls, ogres. If you are Good alignment, and have another option other than killing, you should take it unless you have a good reason not to.
Are people intentionally ignoring my issue that in the case of the OP's paladin, they are in an AP where wyverns are a problem, killing livestock and people in a land that is already harsh and unforgiving, and even that the adventure path makes no shadow of doubt that THESE wyverns in question have indeed killed humans before, as evidence is found in their lair if the players investigate?
The wyvern is a common random encounter in that AP, and people even offer a quest to take them down, if I am not mistaken (might have been some other flying menace, as there are lots of them in that one). Also, the wyverns are hassling communities that worship Erastil, whom the paladin also serves.
Just because wyverns are slightly different mechanically (they sure as heck doesn't behave like they have more than Int2 in any regard except tactics, nor do they have any regard for whom they kill) they are a different cup of tea compared to other giant menaces, even though they serve hardly any other purpose other than being muscled/bribed into serving as mounts for people who are irredeemable champions of evil 9999 out of 10000 times.
BUT, since we are discussing sentient creatures here, why not make the same argument we make for other sentient creatures: If you are a murderous and conscienceless bastard, you are EVIL. A wyvern is smart enough to post on a forum, so it should be smart enough to know right from wrong. And like a human that eat elves or pixies, a wyvern that eats members of other sentient races, becomes just as evil.
no, not at all, if it truly ARE those wyverns, then it seems very reasonable.
The problem discussed is that either the characters didn't have knowledge about this, or did not reason based on this knowledge.
Their decision was merely based on the observation that those wyverns COULD be a threat later, on which basis they killed them.
If they had KNOWN those are a menace, they are attacking people, they are causing problems, then yes, they can...
I am more impressed that they made the (lemme see base 35, add 11 for range, according to my map... total of...) DC 46 perception check to spot their nest, to be honest. To me, it smells like shenanigans from the part of the GM, as if he ignored the AP since he wanted to set the player up.
In a more realistic game setting wouldn't the templar knight (paladin) actually wait a long time in hiding for the wyvern to fall asleep, in order to avoid the same fate, that met other templar knights who attempted to slay the beast?Only if they wanted to turn to a life of evil ;)
Or if they wanted to even the odds against the menacing creature, so as to avoid being killed in their heroic quest to secure the near-by village, since every templar knight who had tried to slay it prior to that had been no match at all against the reptilian monster...
Spot on!Somewhere in the core rulebook it should caution players to make sure that before they play a paladin that their DM is okay with it. Some DMs just shouldn't have paladins in their game because they will have a moral debate anytime they see a paladin being in anyway other than their view of how a paladin should be played. Some DMs just aren't meant to DM games with paladins. If a moral debate comes up any time the paladin doesn't play by the unwritten script set by the DM, that's a good sign the DM shouldn't allow Paladins in their game because the paladin players are going to feel their fun being chained down.
Anyway, anyone with a good enough sense motive should have seen that the DM wasn't having problems with the player invalidating his code, he was having a problem with the player doing actions that invalidated his plans for which he had no back up.
True. This is also True of some players, who do not know how to play alignments.
So, ya
Spot on!
Or if they wanted to even the odds against the menacing creature, so as to avoid being killed in their heroic quest to secure the near-by village, since every templar knight who had tried to slay it prior to that had been no match at all against the reptilian monster...In a more realistic game setting wouldn't the templar knight (paladin) actually wait a long time in hiding for the wyvern to fall asleep, in order to avoid the same fate, that met other templar knights who attempted to slay the beast?Only if they wanted to turn to a life of evil ;)
Which actually is kinda accurate, you find a b#$&+inly awesome greatsword, with the coat of arms of a knight in their lair.
They did not do so. Neither when they formulated the attack plan, nor in defense of their actions when the DM made his call.
It's still unhonorable to kill them in their sleep if you know they're evil, which could bring problems on it's own, BUT it's a lot better than _NOT_ knowing and still deciding to kill.
.
How is it dishonorable to do a coup d grace?
Anything worth killing is worth willing when it's sleep. Whether you wake it up to stab in the eye or not has nothing to do with honor. As I said before being tactical has nothing to do with dishonor.|
|
I am more impressed that they made the (lemme see base 35, add 11 for range, according to my map... total of...) DC 46 perception check to spot their nest, to be honest. To me, it smells like shenanigans from the part of the GM, as if he ignored the AP since he wanted to set the player up.
Or he just forgot the range penalties. I know I do at times. 47 is not impossible at 7th level, and 35 is much easier.
In a more realistic game setting wouldn't the templar knight (paladin) actually wait a long time in hiding for the wyvern to fall asleep, in order to avoid the same fate, that met other templar knights who attempted to slay the beast?
So the paladin knows that the creature is evil.
He knows that other members of his LG order have tired to talk to this evil creature, and failed.
He knows that his best chance is to kill it, is in its sleep.
These are all good reason for killing said evil creature in its sleep, it was give a chance to surrender by previous paladin, you have proof that its evil, your allowed to kill it to protect others.