Paladin PC - I think he just fell.

[Stephen Ede]

I have a player who is using the Paladin of Freedom - CG https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/extras/community-creations/hous e-rules/classes/paladin-of-freedom

In this session the party was flying above the forest canopy when the Paladin was jumped by a Wyvern. The Wyvern did some damage before attacks from the party caused it to flee closely pursued by the Sphinx Wizard and Gnome Sorcerer riding a Dire Bat. They called on it to parlay in Draconic. Badly wounded and unable to easily outrun the hasted PC's itagreed to parlay landing on a solid part of the forest canopy. The 2 PC casters had started negotiating for 2 rounds when the angry Paladin caught up. The Paladin couldn't speak Draconic but could see that the PC's and Wyvern were communicating and not fighting. He charged in dropping the Wyvern to -1hit points. The Sphinx PC stopped the unconcious Wyvern from falling at which point the Paladin delivered a Coup De Grace decapitating it.

My thought is that the Paladin has just fallen and lost his Paladin abilities until he has atoned.
1st he attacked the creature when it was in some sort of parlay even if he couldn't understand the words.
2nd After knocking it unconcious he proceeded to decapitate it.

Does anyone think this is an unreasonable view by me? And if so can you clarify why you think the Paladin shouldn't fall.

Thanks

[Ciaran Barnes]

Yeah your player was pretty stupid.

[LazarX]

Did you ask him why he attacked? If Wyverns regularly go around attacking and eating people, then maybe he's justified in killing it no matter what since he's Chaotic?

Or is your player one of those who thinks the Chaotic Good alignment is the "good" is whatever I decide it is alignment.?

You sort of opened the door for this behavior by allowing Chaotic paladins.

[Bardess]

I disagree. A Chaotic paladin isn't a whimsy character- he's a character who follows his own moral code.
And killing a monster who's not attacking is not unlawful. It's evil. He fell and fell hard, unless he can give a VERY good explanation.

[Ascalaphus]

Did you warn him that he would be crossing the line BEFORE he did so?

Paladins (of any kind) are not meant to be a "Gotcha!" class. As a GM you should be working with the player to make sure a paladin never falls due to ooc misunderstanding or suchlike. If a player is about to do something you consider to be a Falling offense, ask him "Doing that will cause you to Fall. Do you really want to do that?"

It gets awkward if you forgot to do so, in the heat of the moment. But afterwards you start thinking about it and realize that you let it happen, without warning. At that point it's not fair to come back and make him Fall. But you do have to send a Message of some kind.

Plagueing the PC with god-sent nightmares for a while [preventing normal rest and recovering daily abilities], in which his deity is basically yelling at him and telling him to Make Things Right, Or Else, seem to be the way to go.

[Davick]

LazarX wrote:

Did you ask him why he attacked? If Wyverns regularly go around attacking and eating people, then maybe he's justified in killing it no matter what since he's Chaotic?

Or is your player one of those who thinks the Chaotic Good alignment is the "good" is whatever I decide it is alignment.?

You sort of opened the door for this behavior by allowing Chaotic paladins.

A Lawful character seems more likely to me to lump all wyvenrs together because of a bad few (or in general stereotype or be a specist) than a chaotic one, who should value them individually.

This is as clear a fall as I've seen posted on these boards. The part I'm confused by is why the other PCs didn't intervene if they were interested in talking to the wyvern. Communication Breakdown.

[Gregory Connolly]

I'm not sure the wyvern deserved mercy here. It attacked the PCs, lost and was negotiating the terms of surrender when the paladin catches up. He chaotically decides it doesn't matter what his friends think. He decides that no quarter would have been given the other way and so gives the wyvern a quick death. Killing evil creatures is not murder. Murder is a social construct. The paladin doesn't go around killing sociable humanoids because sociable humanoids don't attack each other on sight. Wyverns do attack people on sight generally and don't respect the rights of others.

[Stephen Ede]

From what he said he was operating on two levels -
A) In game - "It attacked me and damaged me and made me angry so it has to die".
B) Metagame - The player was pissed about the Trolls in the last encounter not been killed thanks to (in his mind) an agreed mutual withdrawal. Note in the last encounter the party ceasefired with the the trolls while the Paladin was down. He thought they should have kept fighting and killed them or gone after them after we had healed up. (1 almost untouched Advanced Troll 2nd level Barbarian with a Bardiche and Combat Reflexs and 2 seriously unconcious Trolls and 1 dead troll vs Paladin down but stable, Spriggan Barbarian/Ranger prone but healed to single digit hit points and dropped weapon, Half Grown Sphinx Wizard on about 10-20 hit points with Chill touch and 6th lev Gnome Sorcerer with half her spells having watched the Troll save against every spell cast at it. All but the Sorcerer were within reach of the Troll. The Troll had offered mutual withdrawal to which the Paladin said "surrender or die", at which point the Troll dropped him, and then did a non-lethal attack on the Gnome as it attracted an AOO to heal the Spriggan and offered the same terms on seeing the Spriggan get healed to conciousness and the Sphinx get it's Chill Touch spell off. The party accepted and stopped the Paladin charging after the Troll and attempting to kill him as he dragged his companions away.

[Gregory Connolly]

I wouldn't have him fall, but if I was one of the other party members I would probably stop associating with the guy who thinks doing the right thing (in his opinion) is worth getting us all killed.

[Stephen Ede]

Ascalaphus wrote:

Did you warn him that he would be crossing the line BEFORE he did so?

Paladins (of any kind) are not meant to be a "Gotcha!" class. As a GM you should be working with the player to make sure a paladin never falls due to ooc misunderstanding or suchlike. If a player is about to do something you consider to be a Falling offense, ask him "Doing that will cause you to Fall. Do you really want to do that?"

It gets awkward if you forgot to do so, in the heat of the moment. But afterwards you start thinking about it and realize that you let it happen, without warning. At that point it's not fair to come back and make him Fall. But you do have to send a Message of some kind.

Plagueing the PC with god-sent nightmares for a while [preventing normal rest and recovering daily abilities], in which his deity is basically yelling at him and telling him to Make Things Right, Or Else, seem to be the way to go.

I had made previous warnings that when your party makes a deal with someone then you are included in that deal unless you have clearly stated you will not be part of the deal beforehand. And that Parlys are a "deal".

I did not say "if you do this you will fall" because he doesn't have one of those magic items that has the GM tell you that. I did repeatedly say "Are you sure you want to do that", "Are you realluy sure", "you can tell they appear to be talking with him in a language you don't know and they aren't fighting", "it's unconcious and helpless but not dead and your fellow party members have just told you they were negotiating with it. Are you sure you want to kill it". I really don't think there was any "Gotcha" in it.

[LazarX]

Davick wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Did you ask him why he attacked? If Wyverns regularly go around attacking and eating people, then maybe he's justified in killing it no matter what since he's Chaotic?

Or is your player one of those who thinks the Chaotic Good alignment is the "good" is whatever I decide it is alignment.?

You sort of opened the door for this behavior by allowing Chaotic paladins.

A Lawful character seems more likely to me to lump all wyvenrs together because of a bad few (or in general stereotype or be a specist) than a chaotic one, who should value them individually.

This is as clear a fall as I've seen posted on these boards. The part I'm confused by is why the other PCs didn't intervene if they were interested in talking to the wyvern. Communication Breakdown.

Wyverns as generally presented in the bestiary are bruthish, nasty, man-eating monsters, which makes them appropriate Paladin targets. The DM has not stated he's made his world an exception in this.

He also hasn't stated one very important fact. How did the Paladin in question, break his code? That's the litmus test here. The Paladin at most may be doing some questionable and unwise decisions, but I don't think it's neccessarily time to turn him into a featless fighter yet. There are a spectrum of things a DM can inflict on an errant Paladin short of completely turning him off.

[Stephen Ede]

Gregory Connolly wrote:

I'm not sure the wyvern deserved mercy here. It attacked the PCs, lost and was negotiating the terms of surrender when the paladin catches up. He chaotically decides it doesn't matter what his friends think. He decides that no quarter would have been given the other way and so gives the wyvern a quick death. Killing evil creatures is not murder. Murder is a social construct. The paladin doesn't go around killing sociable humanoids because sociable humanoids don't attack each other on sight. Wyverns do attack people on sight generally and don't respect the rights of others.

Wyverns aren't normally evil. And this one was no exception.

This is a unclaimed wilderness zone that the PC's are trying to set up a Kingdom in (Kingmaker campaign). The Wyvern had attacked the Sphinx before oin a hunting strike and had been beaten off (although the party didn't recognise it). When the Sphinx pounce did over half it's hit points it did protest "hey I didn't attack you I left you alone after the other time" at which point the Sphinx and Gnome decided to try negotiating with it to teach it boundries about what could be hunted and to recruit it. But they weren't willing to get in the way of the Paladin's sword.

[Davick]

LazarX wrote:

Davick wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Did you ask him why he attacked? If Wyverns regularly go around attacking and eating people, then maybe he's justified in killing it no matter what since he's Chaotic?

Or is your player one of those who thinks the Chaotic Good alignment is the "good" is whatever I decide it is alignment.?

You sort of opened the door for this behavior by allowing Chaotic paladins.

A Lawful character seems more likely to me to lump all wyvenrs together because of a bad few (or in general stereotype or be a specist) than a chaotic one, who should value them individually.

This is as clear a fall as I've seen posted on these boards. The part I'm confused by is why the other PCs didn't intervene if they were interested in talking to the wyvern. Communication Breakdown.

Wyverns as generally presented in the bestiary are evil man-eating monsters, which makes them appropriate Paladin targets. The DM has not stated he's made his world an exception in this.

He also hasn't stated one very important fact. How did the Paladin in question, break his code? That's the litmus test here. The Paladin at most may be doing some questionable and unwise decisions, but I don't think it's neccessarily time to turn him into a featless fighter yet. There are a spectrum of things a DM can inflict on an errant Paladin short of completely turning him off.

Oh, so the paladin got out his bestiary and checked first. I missed that part I guess. It's not like they were operating in his airspace or anything that he has a right to defend as his home.

[Rynjin]

However, from your Paladin's perspective (not speaking Draconic), there is this creature that has attacked them with deadly force on at least one prior occasion, just talking to his friends.

Considering the creature is known for being violent, impatient, and not prone to diplomacy, and with nobody IC telling him what was going on (since they were only speaking a language he didn't understand), I don't think it's grounds for a fall just yet.

A general trend towards this, however, will shift him to CN at best. At which point he falls.

[Davick]

Stephen Ede wrote:

Gregory Connolly wrote:

I'm not sure the wyvern deserved mercy here. It attacked the PCs, lost and was negotiating the terms of surrender when the paladin catches up. He chaotically decides it doesn't matter what his friends think. He decides that no quarter would have been given the other way and so gives the wyvern a quick death. Killing evil creatures is not murder. Murder is a social construct. The paladin doesn't go around killing sociable humanoids because sociable humanoids don't attack each other on sight. Wyverns do attack people on sight generally and don't respect the rights of others.

Wyverns aren't normally evil. And this one was no exception.

This is a unclaimed wilderness zone that the PC's are trying to set up a Kingdom in (Kingmaker campaign). The Wyvern had attacked the Sphinx before oin a hunting strike and had been beaten off (although the party didn't recognise it). When the Sphinx pounce did over half it's hit points it did protest "hey I didn't attack you I left you alone after the other time" at which point the Sphinx and Gnome decided to try negotiating with it to teach it boundries about what could be hunted and to recruit it. But they weren't willing to get in the way of the Paladin's sword.

If there's one person you should feel comfortable stepping in front of, it's a paladin. If his own companions were afraid of being cut down, that is evidence in itself that he wasn't acting very paladin-y.

Also the fact that detect evil wouldn't have pinged the wyvern, and smite evil would have failed...

[Stephen Ede]

LazarX wrote:

Wyverns as generally presented in the bestiary are evil man-eating monsters, which makes them appropriate Paladin targets. The DM has not stated he's made his world an exception in this.

He also hasn't stated one very important fact. How did the Paladin in question, break his code? That's the litmus test here. The Paladin at most may be doing some questionable and unwise decisions, but I don't think it's neccessarily time to turn him into a featless fighter yet. There are a spectrum of things a DM can inflict on an errant Paladin short of completely turning him off.

The standard alignment for Wyverns is Neutral. While they will eat most things they aren't noted as particuly eating "men" and sinc ethe party consists of a Half-Celestial Paladin, a Gnome Sorcerer, a half grown Sphinx Wizard and a Spriggan Barbarian/Ranger (only 1 humanoid and no Humans) there's a limit to how hard you can push the "man-killing" part. Since the Spriggan and the Sphix are perfectly aware about how "men" happily kill their species.

Because the player had just retrained his Paladin from a different archtype because it wasn't working for him we hadn't fully gone over a new code of conduct. I consider atoning a perfectly doable process (albeit embarrassing/potentially expensive)

[quote - SRD]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.

Wyverns are territorial creatures. Though they occasionally hunt in small groups for large prey, they are generally solitary creatures, hunting in areas ranging in size from 100 to 200 square miles. Wyverns have been known to fight to the death among themselves for the right to hunt a territory rich with prey.

Although constantly hungry and prone to mayhem, a wyvern that can be befriended (usually through a delicate combination of flattery, intimidation, food, and treasure) becomes a powerful ally. They often serve giants and monstrous humanoids as guardians, and some lizardfolk and boggard tribes even use them as mounts, although such arrangements are quite costly in terms of food and gold, for few are the wyverns who would willingly serve as steeds for lesser creatures for long.

[Gregory Connolly]

I could have sworn they were NE not N. Perhaps I am confusing editions, but I remember a book from when I was a kid "The Wyvern's Spur" and they seemed like BBEGs back then. I agree that the paladin is being disruptive. I still say the wyvern is being a sleazy weasel trying to attack them and then negotiate, but if the other PCs know it is not evil and intelligent then the paladin is on much shakier ground. This type of situation is why I think chaotic paladins are a problem. He has a code that tells him to do what he thinks is right and to not care about the opinions of others.

[Sub_Zero]

Quote:

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.

I'd say that if you were attacked by a beast that considered it beneath you and therefore you deserve death, he was within his rights. Assuming the Wyvern attacked first, this description seems to indicate that it would not have shown mercy had the group lost, and asked for parley. Not showing mercy to a creature who intended to kill you, is not an evil act. It's not good either, it falls along the line of neutral really.

Of course this is a generalization and not representative of all Wyvern's.

I'd definitely give the player a warning, but Gm warning item or not, having a player fall for reason that you both dispute will only lead to bad times for all. If he felt he was justified, you two need to hammer out why he was wrong, since you're the GM. Making him fall when he considered his action in line, won't make anyone happy.

As others have said, a few nights rest that are disrupted by his deity is a good way to represent his digression.

[Jaelithe]

Stephen Ede wrote:

The Paladin couldn't speak Draconic but could see that the PC's and Wyvern were communicating and not fighting. He charged in dropping the Wyvern to -1 hit points. The Sphinx PC stopped the unconscious Wyvern from falling at which point the Paladin delivered a coup de grace, decapitating it.

If an intelligent being is clearly engaged in negotiation (and this one was), it should at least for the duration of talks have immunity from attack. From the description, the "paladin"—I don't buy into chaotic good "paladins," hence the quotation marks—acted out of rage at having been attacked, and let his anger guide his actions when staying his hand was both called for and clearly possible.

It's a fall, unquestionably, in that attacking someone so engaged is an evil act, as well as being incredibly dishonorable. I certainly wouldn't make it irredeemable, but ... this "paladin" needs a lesson in restraint.

[Kryzbyn]

You thought paladins were difficult to adjudicate, now we's gots Notadins!

I thought allowing non LG Paladins would clear up this kind of stuff?

[LazarX]

You can't fall a Paladin for breaking a code when you haven't set one yet.

That's supposed to be the thing you do first before letting one out the gate.

[Jaelithe]

LazarX wrote:

You can't fall a Paladin for breaking a code when you haven't set one yet.

Sure you can. A code is unnecessary when you do something that's obviously evil. Swooping in and whackin' someone—twice—when they're conversing with your companions, especially in the described context, is evil—not chaotic, evil.

[Stephen Ede]

The Wyvern was simply hunting in what it considered it's general hunting territory.
If the other party members had killed it I wouldn't have blinked an eyelid. If he had knocked it unconcious and left it bleeding I would have frowned. But topping it off with killing it. Oh, he also got the Spriggan to skin it.

I will say I was reluctant to have a Paladin in the party because about half the Paladins I've seen played have been problems in the party/campaign. This is straight up nLG Paladins, and to be honest I suspect he may well hacve done this if he had still been a standard Paladin Archtype. I don't think been CG rather than LG had much to do with his actions.

[Matt2VK]

The real problem here is 'What might be excepted paladin behavior is interrupted differently from player, to player, to GM.'

If you,as a GM, think a players action will cause him to fall, you need to come out and tell that player. Then allow the player to a chance to defend that action and try to change your mind. If you still don't agree with the action you need to be ready to defend why you think the action could be a fall from grace.

Since this already happened, I'd have a representative of his faith show up, either in person or dreams, and demand a accounting of his actions and a warning for the future.

[Davick]

LazarX wrote:

You can't fall a Paladin for breaking a code when you haven't set one yet.

That's supposed to be the thing you do first before letting one out the gate.

Acting outside an alignment that your class is restricted is breaking that class' code.

It may be not cool for the wyvern to turn to talk when it's clear he'll lose and he wouldn't have done so if the tables were turned, but if we look at Shelyn's code (the closest to CG a paladin that has to be LG can get) it says to ALWAYS accept surrender and NEVER kill when unnecessary. And that's definitely the code I would use as a starting point for a CG paladin. Unless the paladin happens to follow a NG deity that already has a code.

[StrangePackage]

It's evil to kill monsters that have attacked you?

[Davick]

StrangePackage wrote:

It's evil to kill monsters that have attacked you?

Yep.

I can't really think of a situation where Paladin + Coup de Grace = OK.

[LazarX]

Jaelithe wrote:

LazarX wrote:

You can't fall a Paladin for breaking a code when you haven't set one yet.

Sure you can. A code is unnecessary when you do something that's obviously evil. Swooping in and whackin' someone—twice—when they're conversing with your companions, especially in the described context, is evil.

I'm not going to make that judgement based on the information presented thus far. At the most it's a questionable action, but it's not an open and shut Fall case.

That said, Paladins are a class I use with reluctance. I won't let players that I know who are subject to "lightsaber syndrome" as this player seems to be, play them. Nor will I play one under a GM I don't know.

[Stephen Ede]

LazarX wrote:

You can't fall a Paladin for breaking a code when you haven't set one yet.

That's supposed to be the thing you do first before letting one out the gate.

You can fall for doing an evil or dishonorable act.

Killing people your side are in parley with when they haven't broken the parley is considered evil and/or dishonorable in pretty much every fantasy trope I've ever come across in over 40 years of reading fantasy.

[Davick]

From Shelyn's code

Quote:

I act to prevent conflict before it blossoms.

Quote:

I accept surrender if my opponent can be redeemed—and I never assume that they cannot be.

Quote:

I lead by example, not with my blade. Where my blade passes, a life is cut short, and the world's potential for beauty is lessened.

You won't find a code for a paladin of any good alignment who OKs killing a surrendered enemy. It shouldn't even need to be written out or discussed beforehand.

[Jaelithe]

Matt2VK wrote:

If you, as a GM, [decide] a player's [decision] will cause hi[s character] to fall, you need to come out and tell that player. [Edit for clarity.]

I agree, for the most part.

On the other hand, if an action is self-evidently, horrifically evil (like, say, spitting a baby on your spear for fun a la a Scythian horseman), it doesn't need to be explained as such. Any "paladin" who does something so heinous deserves neither an explanation nor a second chance. (Any other character, from adept to zealot, should have his or her alignment summarily changed to evil as a result of willfully doing something so horrible.)

This is not remotely one of those situations. What the "paladin" did was evil, but not irredeemably so, so long as it doesn't become a pattern of behavior. I agree he should have been warned beforehand, and if you want to say, "You'd normally, obviously fall for this, but ... since it's in some measure my bad, I'ma let you off with a severe warning. Don't do it again."

[Matt2VK]

Folks,

I can think up a couple, possible, arguments for why the paladin did what he did. Some I consider legit reasons for why and others are border line reasons for the paldins action. The problem is I really don't know why the paladin did what he did.

You need to ask the paladin WHY.

From there the GM needs to make a decision.

*Edited*
If he did it because he was ANGRY and so stated this (which from one of the posts it looks like). I'd strip him of his powers but allow him to do a atonement to get them back.

[Davick]

Matt2VK wrote:

Folks,

I can think up a couple, possible, arguments for why the paladin did what he did. Some I consider legit reasons for why and others are border line reasons for the paldins action. The problem is I really don't know why the paladin did what he did.

You need to ask the paladin WHY.

From there the GM needs to make a decision.

I don't know if that really matters. What I would be interested in is why did the player choose paladin? It doesn't really seem like an appropriate choice for the character he's playing. Maybe he should retrain as a cavalier.

[Jaelithe]

Matt2VK wrote:

Folks,

I can think up a couple possible arguments for why the paladin did what he did. Some I consider legit reasons ... and others are borderline ...

Care to elaborate on what you think would justify the actions? Nothing I can think of rings true, from what we were told.

[StrangePackage]

Davick wrote:

StrangePackage wrote:

It's evil to kill monsters that have attacked you?

Yep.

I can't really think of a situation where Paladin + Coup de Grace = OK.

What other Full Round actions do you believe are incompatible with being a Paladin?

Imagine this scenario- the Paladin advanced on a troll who still has the legs of the child it was eating dangling from it's mouth. When he gets w/in 10 feet, the troll lashes out and strikes the paladin. The next action is the Cleric, who gets Hold Person on the Troll.

You're saying the Paladin would fall if he took the 5 foot step and CDG the troll?

[Stephen Ede]

I think there have been some very good points made for at least partial mercy.

I will talk to the player and make clear that I'm very unhappy with what occurred and to a degree what I see as something of a pattern. I will make a point of laying out what will be required as a Code of Conduct and give him a chance to justify why he shouldn't be considered to have fallen.

If after discussion I decide that he has fallen I'll probably let him atone by raising the Wyvern and doing his best to civilise the Wyvern and covert it by speech and deed into a good member of society. No Atonement spell as such required (the Raise dead is costly enough)

Do people think this sounds reasonable?

[Matt2VK]

Don't know the situation but I've played a paladin where a similar situation came up and got hit with a evil act with out a chance to defend my action.

A possible reason why -
The paladin thinks the monster is evil and untrustworthy and the party has no way to punish the creature except by death. Letting the creature free will allow that creature to cause more evil and death in the future and would be the parties fault.

This is a very generic reason and depends a lot on the paladins knowledge of creatures and events which we don't know.

I'm also probably giving the paladin more benefit of the doubt then I should.

[Davick]

StrangePackage wrote:

Davick wrote:

StrangePackage wrote:

It's evil to kill monsters that have attacked you?

Yep.

I can't really think of a situation where Paladin + Coup de Grace = OK.

What other Full Round actions do you believe are incompatible with being a Paladin?

Imagine this scenario- the Paladin advanced on a troll who still has the legs of the child it was eating dangling from it's mouth. When he gets w/in 10 feet, the troll lashes out and strikes the paladin. The next action is the Cleric, who gets Hold Person on the Troll.

You're saying the Paladin would fall if he took the 5 foot step and CDG the troll?

Why wouldn't he remove said child first? Barring that, why not restrain the troll and take him to the dungeons?

[Daenar]

Davick wrote:

StrangePackage wrote:

It's evil to kill monsters that have attacked you?

Yep.

I can't really think of a situation where Paladin + Coup de Grace = OK.

So no coup due grace? Letting it bleed to death is OK? No? He needs to try to heal it? Where does one draw the line? If a paladin can't kill stuff that is a threat it can come back later to hurt or kill someone else. I don't think being a paladin means you can't permanently end a creature that has tried to kill the party or some innocent defenseless traveler. Negotiations with such monsters could be considered evil. I guess pacifism is some posters only ideal of good, don't think it works in pathfinder.

[Matt2VK]

Actually, make the Wyvern a mother and she was defending her territory with small hatchlings nearby.

Go from there.

[Davick]

Matt2VK wrote:

Don't know the situation but I've played a paladin where a similar situation came up and got hit with a evil act with out a chance to defend my action.

A possible reason why -
The paladin thinks the monster is evil and untrustworthy

This is why they get Detect Evil.

[Davick]

Daenar wrote:

Davick wrote:

StrangePackage wrote:

It's evil to kill monsters that have attacked you?

Yep.

I can't really think of a situation where Paladin + Coup de Grace = OK.

So no coup due grace? Letting it bleed to death is OK? No? He needs to try to heal it? Where does one draw the line? If a paladin can't kill stuff that is a threat it can come back later to hurt or kill someone else. I don't think being a paladin means you can't permanently end a creature that has tried to kill the party or some innocent defenseless traveler. Negotiations with such monsters could be considered evil. I guess pacifism is some posters only ideal of good, don't think it works in pathfinder.

What do you mean draw the line? Are you saying at some point being good becomes so inconvenient that one shouldn't bother? Then a paladin you are not.

"I accept surrender if my opponent can be redeemed—and I never assume that they cannot be."

Striking down Devils? Demons? Ok. Animals? people? Not ok.

[Rynjin]

Davick wrote:

StrangePackage wrote:

It's evil to kill monsters that have attacked you?

Yep.

I can't really think of a situation where Paladin + Coup de Grace = OK.

Paladins aren't allowed to kill people now?

Wonder what that full BaB, weapon proficiencies, and Smite Evil is for then.

[Jaelithe]

StrangePackage wrote:

Davick wrote:

StrangePackage wrote:

It's evil to kill monsters that have attacked you?

Yep.

I can't really think of a situation where Paladin + Coup de Grace = OK.

What other Full Round actions do you believe are incompatible with being a Paladin?

Imagine this scenario- the Paladin advanced on a troll who still has the legs of the child it was eating dangling from it's mouth. When he gets w/in 10 feet, the troll lashes out and strikes the paladin. The next action is the Cleric, who gets Hold Person on the Troll.

You're saying the Paladin would fall if he took the 5 foot step and CDG the troll?

Has the troll surrendered? No.

Is the troll currently engaged in evil? Yes.

Did the cleric employ a spell used in combat? Yes.

Is the paladin simply completing a series of tactical moves? Yes.

In other words, the two situations are not remotely comparable.

The wyvern is conversing. The troll is eating a kid. Please, people, don't be intentionally obtuse.

[Sub_Zero]

I'd like to point out that all this assumes that the OP is fairly conveying the paladin's side of events.

Actually, I wonder how old the players are? I ask because: ""It attacked me and damaged me and made me angry so it has to die" seems like a really juvenile reason to do anything. I find it hard to believe that an adult would actually say this as his paladins reason.

[Solidchaos085]

Davick wrote:

From Shelyn's code

Quote:

I act to prevent conflict before it blossoms.

Quote:

I accept surrender if my opponent can be redeemed—and I never assume that they cannot be.

Quote:

I lead by example, not with my blade. Where my blade passes, a life is cut short, and the world's potential for beauty is lessened.

You won't find a code for a paladin of any good alignment who OKs killing a surrendered enemy. It shouldn't even need to be written out or discussed beforehand.

Unless you're a paladin of Torag, then you slay the enemies of your people, no questions asked, no mercy given.

There's a reason Torag and Sarenrae don't get along.

[StrangePackage]

Rynjin wrote:

Davick wrote:

StrangePackage wrote:

It's evil to kill monsters that have attacked you?

Yep.

I can't really think of a situation where Paladin + Coup de Grace = OK.

Paladins aren't allowed to kill people now?

Wonder what that full BaB, weapon proficiencies, and Smite Evil is for then.

Only evil outsiders. And then only when he's sure they're not some special snowflake, because Always Evil races are stereotypical and biased.

[Davick]

Rynjin wrote:

Davick wrote:

StrangePackage wrote:

It's evil to kill monsters that have attacked you?

Yep.

I can't really think of a situation where Paladin + Coup de Grace = OK.

Paladins aren't allowed to kill people now?

Wonder what that full BaB, weapon proficiencies, and Smite Evil is for then.

Non Sequitor. Unless you were failing to add in the part of this discussion that was relevant to the straw man Strange was making.

StrangePackage wrote:

It's evil to kill monsters that have attacked you, when they have surrendered and are in the middle of talking to your allies?

[Rynjin]

Sub_Zero wrote:

I'd like to point out that all this assumes that the OP is fairly conveying the paladin's side of events.

Actually, I wonder how old the players are? I ask because: ""It attacked me and damaged me and made me angry so it has to die" seems like a really juvenile reason to do anything. I find it hard to believe that an adult would actually say this as his paladins reason.

I dunno, seems like a reasonable turn of events for any thinking creature. Turn it around into a real life scenario.

Some crazy a%%%~!+ just stabbed you with a knife.

They are now talking to your friends.

Your first instinct is to let him sit there and talk with your friends, knowing that at any minute said crazy a!&!*&~ could pull his knife out and start stabbing them again?

Once someone has attacked you, unprovoked, with lethal force they've pretty much forfeited their right to reasonable doubt.

[Stephen Ede]

Coupe de Grace is a particular action that can only be done to a helpless creature.

While in some cases the helpless feature may be very temporary (i.e. a Hold Monster spell) in the case of a creature with negative hit points they are indeed helpless for sometime.

BAB and Weapon proficiencies make no difference to a Coup de Grace. Smite does.
Those features are for killing in combat which is perfectly fine for a Paladin to do.

PS. I have no problem with a Paladin Coup de Gracing a Troll in the given scenario. Expecially since no one mentioned any flaming or acid damage been applied.