Is this an evil act?

[MordredofFairy]

Kerym Ammath wrote:

Oliver McShade wrote:

Kerym Ammath wrote:

Spot on!

True. This is also True of some players, who do not know how to play alignments.

So, ya
Spot on!

Who don't know how to play alignments according to one person the DM. It has been my experience on the rare instances that I have gotten to play instead of DM in any game actually, that issues of alignment are almost always the refuge of an inexperienced or domineering DM. When you ask the players around the "OFFENDER" they will generally be in favor of telling the GM he is using the Alignment system as a hammer instead of as a guideline.

Both true.

But also, inexperienced players often don't care about those guidelines, as do powergamers. a DM telling you that you don't seem to be acting according to your alignment shouldn't be a big deal. I've also shifted from neutral good to chaotic good to chaotic neutral, over time, with one character.
Maybe you have one concept in mind earlier, but play it differently. For all but a few classes, there is significant leverage here, and usually, you can work out with a DM what it is that he thinks you are doing differently than you should.
A good character that indiscriminatingly kills? Not good for long. It's easier to shift down towards evil, and the law/chaos axis can be very tricky, even as guidelines.

But it's not a problem only sitting with the DM's, i have seen that problem more often with players(also accusing each other of not playing their "roles" properly.). So i'd say THAT problem resides on both sides of the table.
If EITHER the DM or the player fall into that category, something that is generally considered to be difficult to play properly, such as a paladin, should not hit the table until people are more comfortable/experienced with the system and their roleplaying ability.

[Kerym Ammath]

MordredofFairy wrote:

Thats the cavalier, not the paladin.
Paladin still has to act according to his code of conduct. If you want a different experience, find something that works for you and the DM.
Just be CLEAR on that before, and don't play a "chaotic neutral Ranger with Paladin Goodness".
Traditional Paladins may be old-school, but for a reason. The virtues of good and law obviously haven't changed that much since 1978. They're kind persistant, it would seem.

No, so sorry that is the Paladin in any game where the DM does not use alignment as a line in the sand, or a hammer to bash the player over the head. Sorry a Paladin falling to evil should be a slow process, in fact a Paladin playing a Paladin should be a long series of mistakes and triumphs otherwise he is the inevitable cookie cutter hero alot of people seem to thing he should be.

No the virtues of law and good have not changed much, and clearly people who see these in an inorganic mechanical way that breathes no life into the characters, have also not changed much since 1978 in spite of all the changes to the game over the years.

[MordredofFairy]

Kerym Ammath wrote:

Oliver McShade wrote:

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.

The operative issue here is that the bold part means Paladins should only have candidates for the Darwin Awards accepted into their ranks, due to the extremely high mortality rate created by being overly sensitive to the needs of not necessarily evil but extremely aggressive, territorial, brutal, predators, who will only talk to you after you kick their ass. I guess more Paladins should have the appropriate knowledge so they can kick the crap out of it ahead of time instead of being a statistic.

i think that was more a reference to the loot being a mighty sword with holy symbol, rather than a generic description, it was a special one tailored to this AP.

Regardless of that, i know a Paladin has MAD, but making int a dump stat?
He can still TRAVEL with knowledgeable guys. If he doesn't know it? And nobody else does? Just ignore it.

[Swivl]

Kerym Ammath wrote:

Kamelguru wrote:

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.

this guy ate my previous avatar wrote:

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?

this guy ate my previous avatar wrote:

more realistic

*spits some chewing tobacco and shakes a dirty fist* We dun take kindly to yer sort 'round here!

...

Anything I've contributed has nothing to do with any AP, just the scenario he posted, so that's why I didn't address this (plus, I just got back from work). Many people have pointed out that more information was needed on one side or the other, whether it be the paladin needing to learn more, or that the situation needed more details for figuring this out. Since you have knowledge of the AP this apparently comes from, you'd know ahead of time what the wyverns were doing there, and why the answer is so obvious to you. Keep in mind that the paladin didn't have a clue as to what purpose the wyverns were there in the AP, so anyone defending them is merely pointing out what might be, not what was written in the AP (especially since nobody brought it up until you did).

I've had people ignore my arguments before (on and off this board), especially the points that invalidate what they're talking about, only to have them repeating themselves using the same flawed argument, and it can be a bit frustrating. Seeing this thread go the distance, it seems some of us are at an impasse.

tl;dr: YMMV and all that jazz.

[Kerym Ammath]

MordredofFairy wrote:

Both true.

But also, inexperienced players often don't care about those guidelines, as do powergamers. a DM telling you that you don't seem to be acting according to your alignment shouldn't be a big deal. I've also shifted from neutral good to chaotic good to chaotic neutral, over time, with one character.
Maybe you have one concept in mind earlier, but play it differently. For all but a few classes, there is significant leverage here, and usually, you can work out with a DM what it is that he thinks you are doing differently than you should.
A good character that indiscriminatingly kills? Not good for long. It's easier to shift down towards evil, and the law/chaos axis can be very tricky, even as guidelines.

But it's not a problem only sitting with the DM's, i have seen that problem more often with players(also accusing each other of not playing their "roles" properly.). So i'd say THAT problem resides on both sides of the table.
If EITHER the DM or the player fall into that category, something that is generally considered to be difficult to play properly, such as a paladin, should not hit the table until people are more comfortable/experienced with the system and their roleplaying ability.

You see for me this is the height of metagaming. I have never had to tell someone they were not playing their alignment. They figured it out real soon when peoples attitudes changed towards them based on their actions. I might discuss it with them between sessions if there is a continuing trend simply because of all the mechanics in the game which us it as a metric, but never in the middle of a session. The few times I have had someone make a radical shift in behavior in a single session words were not needed for what was happening.

[wraithstrike]

MordredofFairy wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

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.

see, and thats my point. As long as you know what they are and can based on that knowledge decide to fight them, you're all set. But acting on a hunch when it is not a given they are evil? No.

bestiary wrote:

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

...

this from page 5:

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.

You can read plenty into something like that, and every DM might interpret it differently. They are dragons, not very smart, but most dragons are aligned on good or evil. If i, as DM, believe that their neutral alignment was choosen for a reason, and they're just really bad-tempered locals with no specific interest in killing or causing problems for other sentients? Should be fair...

Most barbarian tribes will attack someone to get what they want so they are not too much better. History has tribes of barbarians warring with nations. The Valenar elves of Eberron, while not barbarians, are barbaric in nature and do make raids on nations.

[MordredofFairy]

Kerym Ammath wrote:

MordredofFairy wrote:

Thats the cavalier, not the paladin.
Paladin still has to act according to his code of conduct. If you want a different experience, find something that works for you and the DM.
Just be CLEAR on that before, and don't play a "chaotic neutral Ranger with Paladin Goodness".
Traditional Paladins may be old-school, but for a reason. The virtues of good and law obviously haven't changed that much since 1978. They're kind persistant, it would seem.

No, so sorry that is the Paladin in any game where the DM does not use alignment as a line in the sand, or a hammer to bash the player over the head. Sorry a Paladin falling to evil should be a slow process, in fact a Paladin playing a Paladin should be a long series of mistakes and triumphs otherwise he is the inevitable cookie cutter hero alot of people seem to thing he should be.

No the virtues of law and good have not changed much, and clearly people who see these in an inorganic mechanical way that breathes no life into the characters, have also not changed much since 1978 in spite of all the changes to the game over the years.

yep, a paladin FALLING should be a slow process. That does not rule out needing an atonement to fix inmediate damage.

Heck, a Paladin travelling with an evil character in the same group is expected to regularily get an atonement cast.

Atonement after losing your powers is saying sorry to your good for messing up in some significant way. Continuing along that path, and 2 or 3 atonements later, the paladin may eventually fall from grace. That'll take several months real-time, and several levels.

Thats a long process, but it's also starting somewhere. And a significant warning is a good thing showing he's going down a dangerous path.

As for breathing live into a character, thats perfectly fine, mixing up things, perfectly fine. Playing rambo on crack? Not a paladin.

Make your stereotypical knight in armor or a batman clone and claim he qualifies, switch up gods and races and what not. Play a tiefling paladin that permanently aims to proof himself and always doubts if his nature will eventually overcome. Whatever you want. But if there's a ruleset such as the code of conduct, EITHER accept it OR find a solution together with your DM to chance things up. Don't blame the DM if you didn't when he brings up something about the code.

Heck, a religious fighter can be Chaotic something, and if you work something out with your DM, you may be a paladin of different alignment and different code. All options. If you play it as written, there's still those same virtues to play it by. The decoration can change as you want to breathe life into it. The core is hardcoded.

[wraithstrike]

wraithstrike wrote:

MordredofFairy wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

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.

see, and thats my point. As long as you know what they are and can based on that knowledge decide to fight them, you're all set. But acting on a hunch when it is not a given they are evil? No.

bestiary wrote:

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

...

this from page 5:

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.

You can read plenty into something like that, and every DM might interpret it differently. They are dragons, not very smart, but most dragons are aligned on good or evil. If i, as DM, believe that their neutral alignment was choosen for a reason, and they're just really bad-tempered locals with no specific interest in killing or causing problems for other...

I can't seem to find that quote on page 5 on the core book. You got another page?

I did get this:
Barbarians
For some, there is only rage. In the ways of their people, in the fury of their passion, in the howl of battle, conflict is all these brutal souls know. Savages, hired muscle, masters of vicious martial techniques, they are not soldiers or professional warriors—they are the battle possessed, creatures of slaughter and spirits of war. Known as barbarians, these warmongers know little of training, preparation, or the rules of warfare; for them, only the moment exists, with the foes that stand before them and the knowledge that the next moment might hold their death. They possess a sixth sense in regard to danger and the endurance to weather all that might entail. These brutal warriors might rise from all walks of life, both civilized and savage, though whole societies embracing such philosophies roam the wild places of the world. Within barbarians storms the primal spirit of battle, and woe to those who face their rage.

[Ion Raven]

MordredofFairy wrote:

Walk over to your neighbour, shot his sleeping dog and tell him you were just protecting him,

O.o... but... it was an evil dog, it was luring you into a false sense of security so it could slay you with no resistance.

x3

[this guy ate my previous avatar]

MordredofFairy wrote:

Kerym Ammath wrote:

Tactical play from a Paladin? WTF? They are supposed to run up to things and you know fight them honorably. I mean let a Paladin lead your army, ruin never quicker. It is an old saying. All Paladins are good for is canned food for dragons.

Seriously I completely agree with you, but there appears to be a continued contingent of individuals playing like it is 1978. Railroad tracks seem real popular, along with dictators in funny costumes.

Thats the cavalier, not the paladin.

Paladin still has to act according to his code of conduct. If you want a different experience, find something that works for you and the DM.
Just be CLEAR on that before, and don't play a "chaotic neutral Ranger with Paladin Goodness".
Traditional Paladins may be old-school, but for a reason. The virtues of good and law obviously haven't changed that much since 1978. They're kind persistant, it would seem.

1. I think code of conduct varies from Order to Order, dependent on which deity the paladins in said Order venerates, and what that Deity's specific dogma is.

2. Cavalier is a rather new invention in d20. Paladin has always been cavalier, prior to its creation.
3. The only Paladin code of conduct I think I have ever seen was an example of one.
4. Don't follow the example code of conduct, instead look in a Pantheons book and play your paladin according to the dogma of your god.
5. Is the paladin's god a fool? If not, then why should the paladin be one?

[wraithstrike]

this guy ate my previous avatar wrote:

MordredofFairy wrote:

Kerym Ammath wrote:

Tactical play from a Paladin? WTF? They are supposed to run up to things and you know fight them honorably. I mean let a Paladin lead your army, ruin never quicker. It is an old saying. All Paladins are good for is canned food for dragons.

Seriously I completely agree with you, but there appears to be a continued contingent of individuals playing like it is 1978. Railroad tracks seem real popular, along with dictators in funny costumes.

Thats the cavalier, not the paladin.

Paladin still has to act according to his code of conduct. If you want a different experience, find something that works for you and the DM.
Just be CLEAR on that before, and don't play a "chaotic neutral Ranger with Paladin Goodness".
Traditional Paladins may be old-school, but for a reason. The virtues of good and law obviously haven't changed that much since 1978. They're kind persistant, it would seem.

1. I think code of conduct varies from Order to Order, dependent on which deity the paladins in said Order venerates, and what that Deity's specific dogma is.

2. Cavalier is a rather new invention in d20. Paladin has always been cavalier, prior to its creation.
3. The only Paladin code of conduct I think I have ever seen was an example of one.
4. Don't follow the example code of conduct, instead look in a Pantheons book and play your paladin according to the dogma of your god.
5. Is the paladin's god a fool? If not, then why should the paladin be one?

There was a cavalier in 1st or 2nd edition that had to fight you in direct melee combat. No ranged weapons at least. Some of his honor(suicidal) traits have been falsely laid upon the paladin.

[Cartigan]

MordredofFairy wrote:

The Paladin did metagame and thats why he was doing evil, not the other way round.

No. He didn't. End of discussion.

[Steelfiredragon]

not going to read through all this have to be somewhere.

put th OP, not evil act.

wyverns may tend to be n, but that does mean they are likely will attack an evil group as well as an all female bardic troup that worships the goddess of desna.

the paladin should not of lost his powers over this.

uncalled for killing, yes.

evil act, not really more slightly chaotic

[Evil Wyvern]

flies away

[Kamelguru]

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

That is the extent of the paladin's code of conduct (minus associates). Not exactly manacles in word-form, is it? Not unless you make it so. This leaves a lot of room for making everything personal and tailored, unless you are a douche about "honor". Archery is not dishonorable, it was just made so because faggy knights didn't want combat to be fair. A peasant could take down a knight with a well placed bow-shot, and thus it was deemed "dishonorable" by corrupt leaders back in the dark ages. Etc ad infinitum.

I am playing a Tian paladin, following a tailored code of Bushido. He was exiled because of his strange belief that law should serve good, and not the lords, and wanted to make a difference. Law became his undoing, and he traveled west. He follows Irori, an odd god for a paladin, sure, but he is a god of self-discovery, enlightenment and tolerance, and allows my character to be fun and interesting to play. I have played him from lv1 to 4, and plan to play him for a good while longer.

I love making my character diverse, deep and complicated. So I can achieve a greater sense of immersion and get more out of the game. And if I were to have my GM screw over a character I have played for several levels and months, due to not wanting to put my party at risk (and remember, I am a hardline rp'er, so I forge real bonds of friendship, and feel responsible for their lives, since I serve as party leader and "face") by killing what my character identifies as violent monsters that could become a real danger if we surrender a tactical advantage... I would stop playing with the GM, and caution others to not play with him either.

What disturbs, and even DISGUSTS me in this debate is that the banal perceived purity of a paladin is supposed to supersede the lives of GOOD creatures, and that non-good monsters become some manner of holy cow. I have played with some bad, and I do mean _BAD_ GMs in my time, but this just baffles me. It's like demanding that some guy who kills a rabid dolphin that might come over and attack his family should get the death penalty.

[Oliver McShade]

this guy ate my previous avatar wrote:

MordredofFairy wrote:

Kerym Ammath wrote:

Tactical play from a Paladin? WTF? They are supposed to run up to things and you know fight them honorably. I mean let a Paladin lead your army, ruin never quicker. It is an old saying. All Paladins are good for is canned food for dragons.

Seriously I completely agree with you, but there appears to be a continued contingent of individuals playing like it is 1978. Railroad tracks seem real popular, along with dictators in funny costumes.

Thats the cavalier, not the paladin.

Paladin still has to act according to his code of conduct. If you want a different experience, find something that works for you and the DM.
Just be CLEAR on that before, and don't play a "chaotic neutral Ranger with Paladin Goodness".
Traditional Paladins may be old-school, but for a reason. The virtues of good and law obviously haven't changed that much since 1978. They're kind persistant, it would seem.

1. I think code of conduct varies from Order to Order, dependent on which deity the paladins in said Order venerates, and what that Deity's specific dogma is.

2. Cavalier is a rather new invention in d20. Paladin has always been cavalier, prior to its creation.
3. The only Paladin code of conduct I think I have ever seen was an example of one.
4. Don't follow the example code of conduct, instead look in a Pantheons book and play your paladin according to the dogma of your god.
5. Is the paladin's god a fool? If not, then why should the paladin be one?

1) While the religion code of conduct would very from order to order, that code of conduct should help support the paladin Lawful Good alignment.

2) True, new for d20. Cavalier though first appeared in the 1st ed AD&D "Unearth Arcana", along with Barbarians. Both were major damage hitter that many called as power creep. Paladin in OD&D box sets were a prestige class of Fighter. When a Fighter became 9th level, if he did not settle down, and became a traveling fighter.. he could become a Paladin Lawful, Knight Any, or Avenger Chaotic.

3) Regardless of the code, a Paladin must meet game listing for Alignments: Good and Lawful.

4) True, but said god must be LG. The god dogma should support his alignment of LG.

5) No one said a paladin should be a fool.(well except those arguing against Lawful Good Alignment) I do not find anything about being good foolish. One can play smart, strong, brave, and just, while still playing Lawful Good. Give good reason why something needs to be fought, or killed. Give good reason why you need to do something thats neutral, that is unavoidable. Understand, that sometimes you will have to take the long way to do things, like handle prisoners. Mostly these will give you good reason to role-play your character, if you think about it.

[MordredofFairy]

Kerym Ammath wrote:

MordredofFairy wrote:

Both true.

But also, inexperienced players often don't care about those guidelines, as do powergamers. a DM telling you that you don't seem to be acting according to your alignment shouldn't be a big deal. I've also shifted from neutral good to chaotic good to chaotic neutral, over time, with one character.
Maybe you have one concept in mind earlier, but play it differently. For all but a few classes, there is significant leverage here, and usually, you can work out with a DM what it is that he thinks you are doing differently than you should.
A good character that indiscriminatingly kills? Not good for long. It's easier to shift down towards evil, and the law/chaos axis can be very tricky, even as guidelines.

But it's not a problem only sitting with the DM's, i have seen that problem more often with players(also accusing each other of not playing their "roles" properly.). So i'd say THAT problem resides on both sides of the table.
If EITHER the DM or the player fall into that category, something that is generally considered to be difficult to play properly, such as a paladin, should not hit the table until people are more comfortable/experienced with the system and their roleplaying ability.

You see for me this is the height of metagaming. I have never had to tell someone they were not playing their alignment. They figured it out real soon when peoples attitudes changed towards them based on their actions. I might discuss it with them between sessions if there is a continuing trend simply because of all the mechanics in the game which us it as a metric, but never in the middle of a session. The few times I have had someone make a radical shift in behavior in a single session words were not needed for what was happening.

Oh, i never said i'd address them in the middle of a session. But usually, when packing up and cleaning, we're talking to each other. And they brought stuff up. Including questionable acts by characters that would not be expected from what others imagined the character to be.

Only a warning may come up during the session. If an inexperienced player of a cleric pf pharasma didn't read up on his god, and decides to create undead because skellys are cool, i'll let him KNOW through a very simple, asked for, knowledge(religion) check that it's not a good idea. If he still pulls it off, i'll bring it up later to find out if he deliberately wants to get rid of spellcasting power or what his plan is.

Peoples attitudes changing based on actions they know nothing about? Welcome, metagaming. If you rob and kill innocent people in the woods with no witnesses, does the whole world know? Obviously. -_-

It's also nice that you have epic and radical shifts. They make for memorable moments.
However, my characters also tend to change over time. The most extreme was a chaotic good young wizard that, through events in the campaign, became disillusioned and slowly drifted towards neutral, seeing that his believe in good and rebellious nature caused more harm than than good, then later became apprentice to a powerful NPC wizard that showed him how to get things done, corrupting him towards lawful evil.
It was a long-running campaign with several-year breaks between story arcs, and that happened over close to 20 levels. Still, it was a slow process, and as such, there were grey phases where it wasn't clear _WHAT_ his alignment at that time was.

But in such cases, it's a GOOD idea to talk with players. They may act on purpose or because they have different views. They may have a goal or just not realize they are still playing their "Other" character from the previous round. Either way, talking about these things, out of game, helps clarify stuff for all affected. wouldn't call that a bad form of metagaming, unless it's also a bad form of metagaming for the DM not to try for a TPK every single session.

[Mr.Fishy]

If we fall into darkness to defeat evil, we have failed to end suffering as we have caused it.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and walk by men of honor.
Fishy wisdom.

The paldin should have identified the threat first. The DM should have warned the paladin of a known act of evil.

Also people who curse the DM should check the otherside of the story before slaying a sleeping beast.

[this guy ate my previous avatar]

Oliver McShade wrote:

this guy ate my previous avatar wrote:

MordredofFairy wrote:

Kerym Ammath wrote:

Tactical play from a Paladin? WTF? They are supposed to run up to things and you know fight them honorably. I mean let a Paladin lead your army, ruin never quicker. It is an old saying. All Paladins are good for is canned food for dragons.

Seriously I completely agree with you, but there appears to be a continued contingent of individuals playing like it is 1978. Railroad tracks seem real popular, along with dictators in funny costumes.

Thats the cavalier, not the paladin.

Paladin still has to act according to his code of conduct. If you want a different experience, find something that works for you and the DM.
Just be CLEAR on that before, and don't play a "chaotic neutral Ranger with Paladin Goodness".
Traditional Paladins may be old-school, but for a reason. The virtues of good and law obviously haven't changed that much since 1978. They're kind persistant, it would seem.

1. I think code of conduct varies from Order to Order, dependent on which deity the paladins in said Order venerates, and what that Deity's specific dogma is.

2. Cavalier is a rather new invention in d20. Paladin has always been cavalier, prior to its creation.
3. The only Paladin code of conduct I think I have ever seen was an example of one.
4. Don't follow the example code of conduct, instead look in a Pantheons book and play your paladin according to the dogma of your god.
5. Is the paladin's god a fool? If not, then why should the paladin be one?

1) While the religion code of conduct would very from order to order, that code of conduct should help support the paladin Lawful Good alignment.

2) True, new for d20. Cavalier though first appeared in the 1st ed AD&D "Unearth Arcana", along with Barbarians. Both were major damage hitter that many called as power creep. Paladin in OD&D box sets were a prestige class of Fighter. When a Fighter became 9th level, if he did not settle down, and became a...

IMO it's foolish not to gain an obvious advantage over the reptilian monsters who are some kind of sentries guarding the entrance to some dungeon, or at least the paladin has stumbled upon something as rare as the actual nest where these beasts who prey on farmers and their lifestock, and whom the paladin has been lucky enough to catch sleeping. IMO it's neither evil nor illegal to slay these monsters, and to not use the advantage given to him, would be foolish. Why wake up a sleeping monster? How would you parlay with a draconian being? The way envision paladins, they should almost have favored enemy: draconians as they tend to be the stereotypical goodie-two-shoes knights in shining armor, who aspire to slay such monsters.

[Cartigan]

Oliver McShade wrote:

5) No one said a paladin should be a fool.(well except those arguing against Lawful Good Alignment) I do not find anything about being good foolish. One can play smart, strong, brave, and just, while still playing Lawful Good.

Of course you can. You just can't fight anything when it can't fight back. At least not first without a thorough examination of its character and a personal interview to ascertain its qualities and demeanor.

Nor shall there be any sneaking it. Dishonorable and all.

[wraithstrike]

Cartigan wrote:

..... At least not first without a thorough examination of its character and a personal interview to ascertain its qualities and demeanor.

Nor shall there be any sneaking it. Dishonorable and all.

LoL. I was just imagining a paladin taking a chair with him, and getting the monsters to sit in it while he asked questions to determine if he would fight it or not.

[Oliver McShade]

Cartigan wrote:

Oliver McShade wrote:

5) No one said a paladin should be a fool.(well except those arguing against Lawful Good Alignment) I do not find anything about being good foolish. One can play smart, strong, brave, and just, while still playing Lawful Good.

Of course you can. You just can't fight anything when it can't fight back. At least not first without a thorough examination of its character and a personal interview to ascertain its qualities and demeanor.

Nor shall there be any sneaking it. Dishonorable and all.

I never said a paladin could not be sneaky.

As for Dishonorable, depends on what your definition is.

[MordredofFairy]

wraithstrike wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

bestiary wrote:

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

...

this from page 5:

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.
/quote]...

It was in reference to page 5 of this thread, not the rulebook, where i already used this text as example that you can read this text pretty much the way you want. It can apply to a potential party member just as easily as to a homicidal cannibal.

[Mr.Fishy]

Honor is not an easy path to walk, if it were people would not gauge their worth by it.

[Confused Paladin]

I always thought the code of conduct prohibited us from parlaying with evil monsters and wretched demon. If that's not the case, then now I can finally hit on that succubus I've always had a crush on. Then we can build a house on a hill with a fence and a guard wyvern and all, and have alot of little tieflings who can play ball with the heads of those who intrude on our territory.

[wraithstrike]

MordredofFairy wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

bestiary wrote:

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

...

this from page 5:

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.
/quote]...

It was in reference to page 5 of this thread, not the rulebook, where i already used this text as example that you can read this text pretty much the way you want. It can apply to a potential party member just as easily as to a homicidal cannibal.

If a there are a group of cannibals nearby the pally should wipe them out. If they are just violent(not cannabalistic, but territorial), but don't bother anyone that is different. Generally speaking wyverns do kill with provocation. It does not mean they can't be talked down, but you better have something to offer if you want them to listen. At least that is my interpretation of the bestiary description anyway.

Something to offer means feeding it(or paying it) so it does not attack others as a bribe. I guess having a pet wyvern would be cool, but what happens when it misses a meal(or monthly stipend) or two due to reasons beyond the party's control? <---rhetorical question.

[Oliver McShade]

All i can say is, what goes around comes around. How players treat the NPC monsters in game, is how the GM should treat the players in game.

If the players play good, and spend time capturing NPC and role-playing it out, cool. If the players play neutral or evil, and slit every NPC neck in the middle of the night and role-play it out, cool.

With that said, i am calling it a morning. Have tons of stuff qued on Hulu, and want to go watch warhouse 13 and bleach.

[MordredofFairy]

Cartigan wrote:

Oliver McShade wrote:

5) No one said a paladin should be a fool.(well except those arguing against Lawful Good Alignment) I do not find anything about being good foolish. One can play smart, strong, brave, and just, while still playing Lawful Good.

Of course you can. You just can't fight anything when it can't fight back. At least not first without a thorough examination of its character and a personal interview to ascertain its qualities and demeanor.

Nor shall there be any sneaking it. Dishonorable and all.

no, you just changed my mind.

Now, can my paladin take assassin levels? Death attack stacks with coup-de-grace, right?

Or, just maybe, if you want to play "easy mode" of not caring about other beings life, don't play a lawful good character. If there is a reason to act, you act. If there is no reason to act, you don't frantically search for one so your blade can taste blood.

Claiming we argue you can't act? Simply not true.

We just advocate making informed decisions and using the least bloody decision reasonably available.

In-so-far as honor is concerned. I already said. Tactical and Honorable are two different words. Poison a well? Tactical: Yes. Honorable? No.

Fight a duel with an illegal magic buff and a poisoned blade? Tactical, sure. Honorable? No.

Cut down fleeing enemies before they could possibly reform themselves? Tactical, yes. Honorable? No.

It's two different things. It doesn't mean you CAN'T do them, it just means you need a better reason than "It was the easiest, most efficient thing to do".
If you can't find that reason, it's probably not something a lawful good character should do.

[Mr.Fishy]

Did the paladin check "the list"?

[Confused Paladin]

Oliver McShade wrote:

All i can say is, what goes around comes around. How players treat the NPC monsters in game, is how the GM should treat the players in game.

So if the players kill the monsters, the GM should kill the players?

[wraithstrike]

Mr.Fishy wrote:

Honor is not an easy path to walk, if it were people would not gauge their worth by it.

There is a fine line between being nice and being naive.

Quotes aside:
I would have liked for the paladin to be here to defend himself. These things always take a spin when both sides of the story are presented.

[Confused Paladin]

wraithstrike wrote:

Mr.Fishy wrote:

Honor is not an easy path to walk, if it were people would not gauge their worth by it.

There is a fine line between being nice and being naive.

Quotes aside:
I would have liked for the paladin to be here to defend himself. These things always take a spin when both sides of the story are presented.

Who, me?! I didn't make love to the sleeping wyvern, I swear!

[Evil Wyvern]

Confused Paladin wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Mr.Fishy wrote:

Honor is not an easy path to walk, if it were people would not gauge their worth by it.

There is a fine line between being nice and being naive.

Quotes aside:
I would have liked for the paladin to be here to defend himself. These things always take a spin when both sides of the story are presented.

Who, me?! I didn't make love to the sleeping wyvern, I swear!

*Squeeeeak!*

[Mr.Fishy]

wraithstrike wrote:

Mr.Fishy wrote:

Honor is not an easy path to walk, if it were people would not gauge their worth by it.

There is a fine line between being nice and being naive.

Quotes aside:
I would have liked for the paladin to be here to defend himself. These things always take a spin when both sides of the story are presented.

Nice who said anything about nice? Honor has nothing to do with nice.

Mr. Fishy would also like to hear both sides of this story.

[MordredofFairy]

Evil Wyvern wrote:

Confused Paladin wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Mr.Fishy wrote:

Honor is not an easy path to walk, if it were people would not gauge their worth by it.

There is a fine line between being nice and being naive.

Quotes aside:
I would have liked for the paladin to be here to defend himself. These things always take a spin when both sides of the story are presented.

Who, me?! I didn't make love to the sleeping wyvern, I swear!

*Squeeeeak!*

Calm now, my dear friend. I'm here to defend you, i won't let any harm come to you(just so long as you get rid of that "evil" part in your name.)

Now, can you show the witnesses on this cushy wyvern doll where the paladin "poked you with his lance"?

[wraithstrike]

MordredofFairy wrote:

Cartigan wrote:

Oliver McShade wrote:

5) No one said a paladin should be a fool.(well except those arguing against Lawful Good Alignment) I do not find anything about being good foolish. One can play smart, strong, brave, and just, while still playing Lawful Good.

Of course you can. You just can't fight anything when it can't fight back. At least not first without a thorough examination of its character and a personal interview to ascertain its qualities and demeanor.

Nor shall there be any sneaking it. Dishonorable and all.

no, you just changed my mind.

Now, can my paladin take assassin levels? Death attack stacks with coup-de-grace, right?

Or, just maybe, if you want to play "easy mode" of not caring about other beings life, don't play a lawful good character. If there is a reason to act, you act. If there is no reason to act, you don't frantically search for one so your blade can taste blood.

Claiming we argue you can't act? Simply not true.

We just advocate making informed decisions and using the least bloody decision reasonably available.

In-so-far as honor is concerned. I already said. Tactical and Honorable are two different words. Poison a well? Tactical: Yes. Honorable? No.

Fight a duel with an illegal magic buff and a poisoned blade? Tactical, sure. Honorable? No.

Cut down fleeing enemies before they could possibly reform themselves? Tactical, yes. Honorable? No.

It's two different things. It doesn't mean you CAN'T do them, it just means you need a better reason than "It was the easiest, most efficient thing to do".
If you can't find that reason, it's probably not something a lawful good character should do.

tactical does not equal cheating.

It means removing unneeded risk. I am not sure you knew what we mean by tactical.

The issue may be that the wyvern is normally a monster that behaves in an evil manner in most games regardless of its alignment in the book, while in your games you run them by their alignment.

In a world where they are neutral(ran by a DM as neutral) I would say the pally was wrong. In most games they are ran as evil, and are a threat so I don't think he was wrong. Drow are evil, but you can probably talk your way past one. If something sees you as food, well good luck without some bribery in place.

[wraithstrike]

Mr.Fishy wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Mr.Fishy wrote:

Honor is not an easy path to walk, if it were people would not gauge their worth by it.

There is a fine line between being nice and being naive.

Quotes aside:
I would have liked for the paladin to be here to defend himself. These things always take a spin when both sides of the story are presented.

Nice who said anything about nice? Honor has nothing to do with nice.

Mr. Fishy would also like to hear both sides of this story.

Honor and niceness are often hand in hand, not always but more often than not.

[Cartigan]

MordredofFairy wrote:

Claiming we argue you can't act? Simply not true.

We just advocate making informed decisions and using the least bloody decision reasonably available.

And how better to make informed decisions than to approach the monster with a white flag and ask for a discussion of the monster's intent.

[Mr. Swagger]

Cartigan wrote:

MordredofFairy wrote:

Claiming we argue you can't act? Simply not true.

We just advocate making informed decisions and using the least bloody decision reasonably available.

And how better to make informed decisions than to approach the monster with a white flag and ask for a discussion of the monster's intent.

Maybe the monster will only intend to take nibbles out of several people so as to not kill anyone. That way everyone lives, and he does not go hungry.

Why are you looking at me like that? It is totally reasonable to me.

[Mairkurion {tm}]

MONSTER

[Evil Wyvern]

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:

MONSTER

*Squeeeeeeeeeak?*

[MordredofFairy]

wraithstrike wrote:

MordredofFairy wrote:

no, you just changed my mind.
Now, can my paladin take assassin levels? Death attack stacks with coup-de-grace, right?

Or, just maybe, if you want to play "easy mode" of not caring about other beings life, don't play a lawful good character. If there is a reason to act, you act. If there is no reason to act, you don't frantically search for one so your blade can taste blood.

Claiming we argue you can't act? Simply not true.

We just advocate making informed decisions and using the least bloody decision reasonably available.

In-so-far as honor is concerned. I already said. Tactical and Honorable are two different words. Poison a well? Tactical: Yes. Honorable? No.

Fight a duel with an illegal magic buff and a poisoned blade? Tactical, sure. Honorable? No.

Cut down fleeing enemies before they could possibly reform themselves? Tactical, yes. Honorable? No.

It's two different things. It doesn't mean you CAN'T do them, it just means you need a better reason than "It was the easiest, most efficient thing to do".
If you can't find that reason, it's probably not something a lawful good character should do.

tactical does not equal cheating.

It means removing unneeded risk. I am not sure you knew what we mean by tactical.

Oh i can agree with that. Tactical need does not mean cheating. But often, deceit or cheating can be the tactically sound options available. That does not make them honorable.

There's tactical options that ARE honorable, sure. But there's also those that are not.
Sacrificing 1 human a day so a powerful devil protects your tower? Great tactical option for an LE wizard. Not exactly so for a good character.

Including innocents in a spell area that makes them into barbeque to hit the bad guy? Great for chaotic evil, see how many you can line up.
Doubtful action for a lawful good one.

Not every alignment should have equal freedom with all tactical options available, or at least have a very good reason to use them if
regularily they probably shouldn't.

wraithstrike wrote:

In a world where they are neutral(ran by a DM as neutral) I would say the pally was wrong. In most games they are ran as evil, and are a threat so I don't think he was wrong. Drow are evil, but you can probably talk your way past one. If something sees you as food, well good luck without some bribery in place.

Yep, and i also said: If it was a genuine mistake, let him retcon that encounter and play it through again. If it was just player lazyness in easy-mode? Not so much.

In that case, probably, the punishment is equal amounts for meta-gaming and slaying them. Technically speaking, unless his character run into one before or had a reason to know about them, they could be those fabled fairie dragons the bard in the tavern was singing about.
Without knowing or caring WHAT they are, he acted in-character in a lethal way.

Problem of both him and DM, really.
If my DM tells me some beasty shows up, i think about what my character knows, even if i already know it's a clay golem.
The problem is, reskinning stuff or changing things around aside, it's just a lot easier on game time to tell players outright that whats sitting there is this and that thing, showing the fitting image at the same time.
I learned to not take things granted as player.(I like it when things ARE mixed up.) But i can see the temptation to meta-game in such a situation.

Really, a lot depends on group-style. It also sounds like the group just fast-forwards through whole plot parts in auto-kill mode, while the DM wants a bit more focus on the roleplaying aspect. I could be totally wrong with that, but i can well imagine that.

For the player, the Paladin could be just a nice package that looks good statwise, and the god was choosen because he wanted ranged full attacks with smite.
If you can just play that like a fighter of a different alignment, i'd say something is wrong. But really, it's a problem at the table then, that needs to be worked out. Slapping his extra-features off for a little while until he gets an atonement is not a bad way to show the player that more "in-character" is expected from him.

As said, even if the player knows those are wyverns, and the player knows those are evil(in this world). No reason the CHARACTER knows, anything. Even if he has knowledge(nature) as paladin of erastil, he could botch the roll with a natural 1 and deduct those are the aforementioned fairie dragons, and call out to one to ask it about the tomb.
I'm not saying he can't know anything without an approbiate check, but then it's at least good form to ask the DM:"What does my character know about those!" instead of assuming he knows everything you do.

Sure he's living in this world, but eventually, there was 3 Monster Manuals for 3.5, and many AP have their own beasts. There's plenty of stuff in the Bestiary, but probably much more to come, revisited or new. Assuming your character automatically knows basics about everything in there? Questionable.

Sorry for the rant. I'll leave this topic for now, today's my gaming evening, so don't expect another answer too soon.

[Dabbler]

MordredofFairy wrote:

yep, a paladin FALLING should be a slow process.

Does this mean they take less damage?

[Cartigan]

The ONLY people metagaming are the people insisting he should have known wyverns are intelligent dragons and not slathering beasts - aka everyone pissing and moaning that he was metagaming and should have known better.

Very clever. Accuse him of metagaming by saying he didn't metagame enough!

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Evil Wyvern wrote:

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:

MONSTER

*Squeeeeeeeeeak?*

::exhales::

Whoa...dude, you remind me of a very young Ollie the Dragon.

[Faerie Dragon]

MordredofFairy wrote:

Technically speaking, unless his character run into one before or had a reason to know about them, they could be those fabled fairie dragons the bard in the tavern was singing about

Well, I must admit we look alot alike, except for the size difference..

[MordredofFairy]

Cartigan wrote:

The ONLY people metagaming are the people insisting he should have known wyverns are intelligent dragons and not slathering beasts - aka everyone pissing and moaning that he was metagaming and should have known better.

Very clever. Accuse him of metagaming by saying he didn't metagame enough!

So metagaming player knowledge INTO the game that supports a kill-first strategy(such as they are evil because they always are) is perfectly fine, but asking him to attempt gaining information in-character is wrong?(such as by a knowledge check revealing they are intelligent dragons, or...chaotic good fairie dragons...or...bloodthirsty evil beasts he can slay, whatever is approbiate in your world.)

Way to go.

[Cartigan]

MordredofFairy wrote:

Cartigan wrote:

The ONLY people metagaming are the people insisting he should have known wyverns are intelligent dragons and not slathering beasts - aka everyone pissing and moaning that he was metagaming and should have known better.

Very clever. Accuse him of metagaming by saying he didn't metagame enough!

So metagaming player knowledge INTO the game that supports a kill-first strategy(such as they are evil because they always are) is perfectly fine, but asking him to attempt gaining information in-character is wrong?(such as by a knowledge check revealing they are intelligent dragons, or...chaotic good fairie dragons...or...bloodthirsty evil beasts he can slay, whatever is approbiate in your world.)

Way to go.

Congratulation, you know NOTHING about the scenario presented but you know that the Paladin was metagaming for killing monstrous creatures while asleep instead of waking them up and having tea with them.

[Confused Paladin]

I LUV TEA! Tea is an essential part of our Code of Conduct. We actually made up the Code of Conduct while drinking tea with a pair of rather nice demons.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Tea? That's not the kind of leaves we dragons prefer, man.

::drags::