Is this an evil act?


Advice

401 to 450 of 1,233 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

We must bring religion, sophistication and law to the wyverns of this country, and the best way to do it is by leaving our swords in our scabbards, as always, and have a nice, hot warm cup of tea with them :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Dabbler wrote:
MordredofFairy wrote:
yep, a paladin FALLING should be a slow process.
Does this mean they take less damage?

Only if they multiclass monk.

I support this tea initiative.


*Squeeeeeeeak!* Eats the head of Confused Paladin and points eagerly at Puff's doobie with a bloody talon. *Squeeaak?"


But what if wyverns are allergic to a certain type of tea? Then you would be poisoning them and lose your Paladin powers!


Confused Paladin wrote:
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.

I think the current code of conduct agreement expires soon. I will bring the tea this time.


Speaking of tea, I am going to enjoy a cup, while I make plan for my advancement in the paladin/assassin/monk build that this thread has inspired me to partake.


Evil Wyvern wrote:
*Squeeeeeeeak!* Eats the head of Confused Paladin and points eagerly at Puff's doobie with a bloody talon. *Squeeaak?"

Whoa, man! Look at how big your talos are!

::Passes doobie::

If only these paladins got what kind of vegetation we were into, dude!


stringburka wrote:
Helic wrote:
stringburka wrote:
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 added that in to point out that the barbarians would happily kill the PCs in order to eat them, just as the wyvern would. I'm talking cannibal in the 'happy to kill you for food' variety here.

Quote:
- "Always good" creatures are known to eat intelligent beings (at least in 3.5)

Yeah, I was wondering when somebody would drag this up. Here's the difference. A gold dragon might kill somebody in self defense, then eat them, because hey, waste not want not. Once it's dead, it's just meat. It doesn't fly over human communities and snatch them up like bon-bons because it's got the munchies. It doesn't go, "Hey, I'm hungry, YOU'LL DO."

A wyvern, OTOH, doesn't care as long as it's made of meat and can't defend itself against poison stings and big sharp teeth.

Off topic, cannibalism is more of a social than a moral taboo. We don't eat people because we're top predators (at least in our world) and lots of toxins build up in top predators, making them less palatable. Plus the chance of disease transmission is higher when eating your own species. Eating people just isn't a smart idea. In fantasy settings, however, Cannibal = Murderer is usually the proper assumption.

Quote:
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...

Rarity of counter examples, for one. The chance of those wyverns being 'nice' to humans is vanishingly small.

What this whole scenario boils down to is "How much risk does the paladin have to take to establish moral authority?" Unfortunately, in the scenario provided, the scale of risk goes from 0 to 11 in a heartbeat. The paladin knows his companions are good, otherwise he wouldn't associate with them in the long term. Is it right to risk all of their lives on the small chance that said wyverns might not be the 'attack on sight' variety?

IMO, risking the whole party's life in this case would be irresponsible on the part of the paladin. Turn a sure-win scenario into a desperate battle (remember that poison! very nasty!) for a one in a million chance they might be 'the reasonable wyverns'?

"Forgive me, my friends, but your lives are of less concern to me than the chance that yon beasts might indeed not be the slathering monstrosities that every other wyvern to date has proven to be. While it pains me to think that we might soon all be writhing in pale agonies upon the venomous stingers of such creatures, I must be of absolute certainty before I commit to slay any creature, regardless of how foul and monstrous all of their kind have acted in the past. Such is the moral burden of one of my order."

Assuming they survive the encounter, I can foresee the following:

"Behold, a great red dragon approaches us upon the wing. Let us not hasten to drive it away, for it may indeed be of noble character, a misunderstood scion of its people. Let us not hurl arrow, bolt, quarrel or spell in its direction in hopes of slaying it or driving it off. We surely cannot leap to such assumptions."

"Wait, let us not ambush these drow priestesses. The bloodstains upon their altar may only be of animals. Perhaps they are worshipers of some virtuous spider-diety with no association to vile Lolth. Let us draw closer so that I may use my powers of evil detection, despite the risk of discovery."

Hooray. Be a complete idiot, or lose your paladin powers.


The thing is, according to Mordred of Fairy (?) they can't discern wyverns from us Faerie Dragons, because they listened to the song of the bard.


Faerie Dragon wrote:
The thing is, according to Mordred of Fairy (?) they can't discern wyverns from us Faerie Dragons, because they listened to the song of the bard.

The Paladin was ensorceled! It wasn't his fault!


1} I was originally swayed by the argument that Erastil should permit and encourage a hunt. Upon further reflection, this wasn't hunting. This was slaughter. If the paladin was hungry, fine. Otherwise baseline this was slaughter of neutral creatures. You don't kill anything and everything that can threaten you or others. You do it if you have to. Let the poisonous spider live unless it is webbing in the baby's crib.

2} There absolutely should have been a divine warning. "You drop your bow accidentally. Then you fumble your arrows, dropping them on the ground. Looks like someone doesn't want you to do this."

3} Single person versus party. The paladin should have recognized that ambushing the creatures wasn't in line with his code but still tactically useful. "Guys, I cannot condone, encourage, or participate in this course of action. I'm not even sure I can explain why but I have reason to believe Erastil does not approve. Do what you will but I cannot participate." The paladin could still defend the party, say with a melee weapon.

4} Severity. If the paladin had insisted on this, I might nerf him for a day as Erastil makes it clear what the divine standard is. Not RAW, but reasonable. This isn't a horrifically evil act, so it shouldn't have horrific consequences.

There's a difference between necessity and convenience. This paladin opted for a lightly evil act out of convenience.


Anguish wrote:

1} I was originally swayed by the argument that Erastil should permit and encourage a hunt. Upon further reflection, this wasn't hunting. This was slaughter. If the paladin was hungry, fine. Otherwise baseline this was slaughter of neutral creatures. You don't kill anything and everything that can threaten you or others. You do it if you have to. Let the poisonous spider live unless it is webbing in the baby's crib.

2} There absolutely should have been a divine warning. "You drop your bow accidentally. Then you fumble your arrows, dropping them on the ground. Looks like someone doesn't want you to do this."

3} Single person versus party. The paladin should have recognized that ambushing the creatures wasn't in line with his code but still tactically useful. "Guys, I cannot condone, encourage, or participate in this course of action. I'm not even sure I can explain why but I have reason to believe Erastil does not approve. Do what you will but I cannot participate." The paladin could still defend the party, say with a melee weapon.

4} Severity. If the paladin had insisted on this, I might nerf him for a day as Erastil makes it clear what the divine standard is. Not RAW, but reasonable. This isn't a horrifically evil act, so it shouldn't have horrific consequences.

There's a difference between necessity and convenience. This paladin opted for a lightly evil act out of convenience.

What do you think the pally should have done, knowing these creatures are not ones to participate in a conversation. I am sure they would have had to kill it eventually. They just killed it before it had a chance to kill them.


Tea anyone?


Confused Paladin wrote:
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?

*Squeeeeeak!* wyvern nods his head approvingly *cough* *cough* passes the doobie back to Puff


Anguish wrote:
1} I was originally swayed by the argument that Erastil should permit and encourage a hunt. Upon further reflection, this wasn't hunting. This was slaughter. If the paladin was hungry, fine.

Does anyone else fancy some delicious wyverntail meat to go with their tea? I sure am hungry! Maybe we should catch some monstrous spiders for dessert.


Paladins must be vegans! I dub thee, Antipaladin!


Cartigan wrote:
Faerie Dragon wrote:
The thing is, according to Mordred of Fairy (?) they can't discern wyverns from us Faerie Dragons, because they listened to the song of the bard.
The Paladin was ensorceled! It wasn't his fault!

All I said was Faerie Dragons have wings!


Carp, a DM wrote:
Paladins must be vegans! I dub thee, Antipaladin!

Yes I actually hunted and killed evil monsters, not to eat them, but to secure the future of the children of my homeland, and thus I was stripped of my powers and forced to become an Antipaladin.


Cartigan wrote:
But what if wyverns are allergic to a certain type of tea? Then you would be poisoning them and lose your Paladin powers!

Not if you were justifiably ignorant of the fact by failing a Knowledge (wyvern allergies) skill check. Then it's just an unhappy accident.


Uther Lightbringer, Antipaladin wrote:
Carp, a DM wrote:
Paladins must be vegans! I dub thee, Antipaladin!
Yes I actually hunted and killed evil monsters, not to eat them, but to secure the future of the children of my homeland, and thus I was stripped of my powers and forced to become an Antipaladin.

We honor your sacrifice for us and our children, and will pray for your soul to be redeemed from whichever of the 9 layers you are eventually cursed to roam.


MordredofFairy wrote:
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. -_-

The party knows about these actions, they were there. Cohorts know about these actions they were there. How often does something happen in full public view? How well do people keep their mouths shut? You would be amazed how quickly a rumor you started on one end of an LHA makes it to the other and how rapidly it warps into something horrific. Sorry not metagaming when they literally bring it upon themselves, and half the time unknowingly start the ball rolling. If you want to brag at the bar, don't be surprised if someone takes exception to something you did.


Why would wyverns willfully wish woe wherever wings would wander? When were wyverns woefully wanting weal when wooing wistful wenches? Wither went warring webjockeys weaselly word-wringing?

Based on the amount of love for wyverns, one would think there was a letter-wyvern on sesame street, just like the count did numbers.

"The letter of today is W, as in W-SKREEEEEEEE!!!!"

Sovereign Court

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 ... takes the cookie! bingo! well done! in my view, Golarion *is* that "realistic game setting".

If you want cuddly bubble blowing wyverns, chaotic good drow and other nonsense, try that "other high fantasy" setting...


At the end of the day, some people think paladins falling is a good thing and that one should try to find reasons for them to do so.

The other group of people think that paladins shouldn't fall save for extreme cases because this is a fantasy heroic roleplaying game and it makes for a piss-poor gaming experience.

The difference is, the first group is objectively wrong


ProfessorCirno wrote:

At the end of the day, some people think paladins falling is a good thing and that one should try to find reasons for them to do so.

The other group of people think that paladins shouldn't fall save for extreme cases because this is a fantasy heroic roleplaying game and it makes for a piss-poor gaming experience.

The difference is, the first group is objectively wrong

Hmm. Paladins have a moral code, therefore facing them with moral dilemmas is a valid narrative tactic. Setting them up to fail those dilemmas is not.

In this case, it can be seen from the past actions of the paladin in the OP's later posts that he's not engaging on a moral level at all - he just takes the path of convenience every time to win with minimal effort on his part and grab the loot. I'm happy to concede that the wyverns are at best borderline case on the scale of 'was it an evil act or not', however the point is that the paladin in question is clearly not actually interesting in finding out if the things he kills are deserving of death. Potential obstacle = kill it in the most efficient way possible; that code could as easily be an assassin's creed, or a mercenary's, or a thief's, but it sure isn't a paladin's. This event for the OP is the straw that broke the camel's back, and I can understand that even if I am not sure I agree with it.

Edit: Somebody earlier mentioned that the true paladin always tries to find the 'third way' between two evils, such as the dilemma of being able to save one person of two but not both. If that's the case I get the feeling this paladin probably wouldn't try and save either, I think he'd attack the BBEG instead and write off the innocents as collateral damage.


wraithstrike wrote:
What do you think the pally should have done, knowing these creatures are not ones to participate in a conversation. I am sure they would have had to kill it eventually. They just killed it before it had a chance to kill them.

"Guys, I cannot condone, encourage, or participate in this course of action. I'm not even sure I can explain why but I have reason to believe Erastil does not approve. Do what you will but I cannot participate." The paladin could still defend the party, say with a melee weapon.

That's what. The paladin's player should have role-played the paladin as what he is. Unprovoked slaughter of creatures isn't Good. Just because they're in between you and a tomb you want to visit doesn't justify ambushing them.

Part of being a paladin involves assuming responsibility. Really, ideally the paladin would have warned his team-mates and fired a warning shot at the wyverns, giving them a chance to move out of the way.

In short, he should have offered surrender even if the wyverns weren't likely to accept it.

So here's a twist. What if the wyverns were actually some other sort of creature in disguise? What if they were human children behind an illusion? What if they were dominated Good human children behind an illusion. That preemptive strike doesn't look so brilliant now, does it? Yes, the scenario is a huge stretch, but the point is that the paladin acted unwisely.


Anguish wrote:


So here's a twist. What if the wyverns were actually some other sort of creature in disguise? What if they were human children behind an illusion? What if they were dominated Good human children behind an illusion. That preemptive strike doesn't look so brilliant now, does it? Yes, the scenario is a huge stretch, but the point is that the paladin acted unwisely.

Huge doesn't even begin to describe that stretch. Looking beyond the outrageous hyperbole, if that were to happen the paladin would not be at fault, because one has to willingly commit an evil act. Any GM that would make the Paladin fall in that situation needs to be Falcon-punched repeatedly.


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

Is that what the devil told you?


Anguish wrote:


"Guys, I cannot condone, encourage, or participate in this course of action. I'm not even sure I can explain why but I have reason to believe Erastil does not approve. Do what you will but I cannot participate." The paladin could still defend the party, say with a melee weapon.

This will work exactly once until the party makes it back to town and ditches the village bumpkin. The Paladin has never been the idiot that you seem to be purporting he is in any edition, only an anal retentive view on alignment and the Paladin's code produces pure comedy like this.

Quote:
That's what. The paladin's player should have role-played the paladin as what he is. Unprovoked slaughter of creatures isn't Good. Just because they're in between you and a tomb you want to visit doesn't justify ambushing them.

He did roleplay his character. A noble war leader on a quest to clear out a tomb. He saw a potential threat covering their escape route and took action to protect his friends. You do realize that 200 ft. is less than 70 yds. so even for a human running that means they are less than 12 seconds away. You might have time to set for a charge if you are lucky. Oh wait they can fly, what a fun time to look forward to.

Quote:
Part of being a paladin involves assuming responsibility. Really, ideally the paladin would have warned his team-mates and fired a warning shot at the wyverns, giving them a chance to move out of the way.

At which point his companions would have been well served to butcher him and use him as a bribe for the wyverns. Really? Really?

Quote:
In short, he should have offered surrender even if the wyverns weren't likely to accept it.

Wow!!! This is literally the most retarded stuff I have ever heard in 30 years of gaming.

Quote:
So here's a twist. What if the wyverns were actually some other sort of creature in disguise? What if they were human children behind an illusion? What if they were dominated Good human children behind an illusion. That preemptive strike doesn't look so brilliant now, does it? Yes, the scenario is a huge stretch, but the point is that the paladin acted unwisely.

Mistakes breed sorrow, and quests for redemption. In other words stories, but that is something a Paladin that you describe will never have, because he is following a script written and enacted by the GM, the voice of the Paladins God who apparently never read the Dragonlance series. I suggest you read it, it might change your view of the intent of a Lawful Good Paladin like character, and how they are meant to behave, because frankly what you suggest is so sad it makes me laugh.

Sovereign Court

Kerym Ammath wrote:
Anguish wrote:
In short, he should have offered surrender even if the wyverns weren't likely to accept it.
Wow!!! This is literally the most retarded stuff I have ever heard in 30 years of gaming.

Wow... this is indeed retarded. You want real roleplay? tempt the paladin with a hot woman spy that works for the bad guys... lust, greed, revenge, etc. used in the context of human interactions or semi human interactions...

To lay "alignment traps" with fanged beasts/monsters is indeed piss poor DMing/RPing and a bit immature if you ask me...


The paladin should have stated he was making an offering to his diety. The paladin should have allowed one shot each so the wiverns would have been awake but not dead so there would be a valid hunt. I like tea and cofee, but I don't mess with the wacky tobaccee. Find the favorite plant of a god of peace and make some tea from that.
Maybe take away the paladin's powers for that one day to teach them a lesson and have a minor servant of their diety visit their dreams to explain.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Goth Guru wrote:
Maybe take away the paladin's powers for that one day to teach them a lesson and have a minor servant of their diety visit their dreams to explain.

Curious. What lesson would be taught by that?


Play many paladins do you? Dragonlance? I hope your not talking about that lunatic Michael. Sturm yes, the rest of those so call defenders of good were thugs in armor. They were willing to lose every man in their command to save face. That is not a honorable or good man.

Sturm was a hero and he died a heroes death with honor. He was also unwilling to flee from the inn until Tanis reminded him that there was the woman to protect.

Play as you will. Killing a monster is not evil, however attacking an unconscious opponent is in fact dishonorable.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
Maybe take away the paladin's powers for that one day to teach them a lesson and have a minor servant of their diety visit their dreams to explain.
Curious. What lesson would be taught by that?

I'm pretty sure this is the lesson: Obey Your Master


I think people want the code to be an active penalty on the paladin rather then something cool and fluffy. I guess you could do it that way, but I can't imagine why you would - or why anyone would want to play a paladin under such conditions.


Anguish wrote:


In short, he should have offered surrender even if the wyverns weren't likely to accept it.

So paladins in your game have to question the bad guys no matter what? What do you do when the rogue is about to sneak attack someone from stealth for about 59909d6?

Are you really saying that putting the party at risk in the hopes that this one wvyern is the Drizzt of wyverns is a good idea?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Kerym Ammath wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
Maybe take away the paladin's powers for that one day to teach them a lesson and have a minor servant of their diety visit their dreams to explain.
Curious. What lesson would be taught by that?
I'm pretty sure this is the lesson: Obey Your Master

You and I can speculate and misrepresent his argument all we like, but I really want to hear what he actually meant.


Mr.Fishy wrote:

Play many paladins do you? Dragonlance? I hope your not talking about that lunatic Michael. Sturm yes, the rest of those so call defenders of good were thugs in armor. They were willing to lose every man in their command to save face. That is not a honorable or good man.

Sturm was a hero and he died a heroes death with honor. He was also unwilling to flee from the inn until Tanis reminded him that there was the woman to protect.

Play as you will. Killing a monster is not evil, however attacking an unconscious opponent is in fact dishonorable.

How so?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:


How so?

According to his definition of honorable.


Mr.Fishy wrote:

Play many paladins do you? Dragonlance? I hope your not talking about that lunatic Michael. Sturm yes, the rest of those so call defenders of good were thugs in armor. They were willing to lose every man in their command to save face. That is not a honorable or good man.

Sturm was a hero and he died a heroes death with honor. He was also unwilling to flee from the inn until Tanis reminded him that there was the woman to protect.

Play as you will. Killing a monster is not evil, however attacking an unconscious opponent is in fact dishonorable.

Sturm yes, good example but nothing like what many seem to be advocating here. No I am thinking more along the lines of the events leading up to the cataclysm and the Lawful Good Knights of Solamnia who can't seem to grasp the reality of their situation at assorted periods of time, though if you want to refer to them as thugs which is essentially what they are because of their blinding devotion to "Law" and "Good", which is what seems to be advocated by many here. In other words what has been suggested just is not organic to a story, it is actually offensive, and smells of just another form of railroading, except instead of the party you just need to railroad one character into your personal vision of Paladin and hopefully he will railroad everyone else for you.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


How so?
According to his definition of honorable.

Mr. Fishy's defintion? Really? hold on...

"honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions."
http://dictionary.com

Hey crazy ass Mr. Fishy and his crazy ideas, WTF?

Two words "The List"

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Yes, because we don't all have different opinions on what is fair. *eyeroll*


I tend to agree that the paladin's actions were morally questionable without being unequivically chaotic or evil. However, they were certainly reasonable (and even justifiable) from an adventuring standpoint.

Being an APG anti-paladin is way easier. Not only would the anti-paladin be justified in killing the wyvern he would even be justified in torturing the wyvern while it was still alive and animating its corpse as a steed afterwards. Sounds like a lot more fun to me!

This does make me wonder however, what GMs are willing to tolerate from their paladins (or good-aligned clerics) in terms of alignment and actions. Here are a few situations I would like people to comment on with regards to paladins, actions and alignment.

1. The party spies a wyvern tending to her three screeching babies. The female wyvern would definitely be hunting more than normal to raise her chicks. Is the paladin committing an evil act if he kills the mother and abandons or kills the chicks? What if he kills the mother and takes the chicks to raise? What if he kills the mother then sells the chicks to a merchant (can anyone say dancing wyverns)?

2. The paladin runs across a badly injured unarmed ogre (one that can barely protect itself) after the rest of his tribe were slaughtered by mercenaries. The paladin knows that ogres are monstrously evil creatures (in fact horribly depraved). Is he committing an evil act if he kills the defenceless ogre? Is he committing an evil act if he heals the injured ogre and then lets him go?

3. A paladin enters a tavern where a bound troll is being used as a living dartboard by the locals. Does the paladin free the troll since it is obviously being tortured knowing full well that if set free it will return and slaughter everyone in the Inn?

4. The high-level paladin sees a wyvern being ridden by a robed figure some 200 feet way. He knows that an evil wizard in the area has tamed a wyvern. Does he and his party kill the wyvern (that they could easily kill in a single round) knowing that the rider will possibly plunge to his or her death or without parleying with the rider at all?

5. The paladin's party arrives at the tomb of an elven hero that is being used as a base by an evil necromancer. Is he committing an evil act by looting the treasure-laden bodies of the fallen warriors that have yet to be animated by the necromancer (they are just corpses after all)?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yes, because we don't all have different opinions on what is fair. *eyeroll*

To clarify, we have people in this very thread saying attacking a sleeping opponent is both dishonorable and not, and that archery is an honorable/dishonorable fighting style.

Thus, you use your own definition of honorable to determine if killing a sleeping foe is dishonorable.


Yark! Yark! I am the Righteous-Albeit-Bloody-Beaked Wyvern of Innosence and I-Know-Betterness! And I Command Thee, Paladin, who must be Humble and Honorable, to do the Only Right and Honorable Thing (and to Obey the newest revisition of the Code of Conduct!): SurrendeR!


Sooo, when ever has killing a sleeping enemy been a mark of honor. Archery has a place in battle and so do tactics. Paladins [lawful good]


Actually let's turn this situation around 180 degrees.

Let's say an anti-paladin (and his equally psychotic companions) spy a pair of wyverns sleeing 200 feet away just before they enter a crypt. Is the anti-paladin committing a good act if he let's the sleeping wyverns live? What if he uses a statement like "they are not hurting us, so let's just leave them be"? Would this be a good person speaking?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Mr.Fishy wrote:
Sooo, when ever has killing a sleeping enemy been a mark of honor. Archery has a place in battle and so do tactics. Paladins [lawful good]

Sorry, edited that for clarity. The point you're avoiding is that honorable is a subjective term that you have to define, and your definition will vary from mine. Just like alignment.


Yes! and the bastard should lose any abilities on the spot and the DM should beat him with a stick. If he does not at least steal their loot he should not be allowed to play evil any more. Everyone knows the antipaladins are paragons of evil. If it lives the AP most destroy it in the most dramatic and brutal fashion possible. Kill!


Phil. L wrote:

Actually let's turn this situation around 180 degrees.

Let's say an anti-paladin (and his equally psychotic companions) spy a pair of wyverns sleeing 200 feet away just before they enter a crypt. Is the anti-paladin committing a good act if he let's the sleeping wyverns live? What if he uses a statement like "they are not hurting us, so let's just leave them be"? Would this be a good person speaking?

If the antipaladin lets an enemy live then he should lose his powers. Now if the antipaladin does not care if the wyvern will kill the townsfolk, and the wyvern won't be harrassing the antipaladin for whatever reason then it does not matter if he kills it or not.

401 to 450 of 1,233 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Is this an evil act? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.