Yeah no. If you walk through my yard I'm not going to shoot you in the leg.
This creature savagely attacked with the intent to kill.
Let's examine the actual situation, not hyperbole, shall we? You live in an area with no laws or authorities, and a group of armed strangers enter your land uninvited. They are, in fact, scouting it to expand their community onto it without consulting with you. Is attacking them justified now?
Personally, I'd say attacking them without warning them is highly excessive, but it's a pretty understandable reaction in context. Should they put up with that? No. Are they justified in fighting back? Sure. Is defending your property from interlopers a crime worthy of death? I'm gonna go with no.
Actually the Wyvern has no knowledge of that.
The actual situation is that the Wyvern "claimed" land that it likely TOOK from whatever lived here previously. It sees a 4 man group, 2 scholarly individuals evidenced by their lack of armor and two armed individuals. The Wyvern now attacks without warning with lethal force. It doesn't know that they are chartering any expansion of any kingdom in this direction. It likely sees the group pondering over parchment if it was overlooking for a long period of time but I highly doubt that was the case. Quite more likely, it attacked as soon as it found them.
Quite vile behavior for an "intelligent" creature.
|
Which again, would be valid if the Paladin and the Enemy knew of that universal standard beforehand and agreed to it.
The Paladin code doesn't state "OH and you must obey the Geneva Convention."
One more try to get you to understand what I'm saying:
When a paragon of Good is doing things that are considered war crimes when done to enemy combatants in reality, you are doing it wrong.
Yiles. Don't play any Paizo Adventure Paths. There's murder-hoboing a'plenty.
Heck, the foundation of this RPG is hostile entry into the homes of often sentient beings, killing them all, and taking their stuff.
The Geneva Convention isn't in line with this idiom.
Uh...invading another country to conquer it and take it's stuff isn't against the Geneva Convention. Nor is killing enemy combatants when they object to this behavior.
That's just war. The Geneva Convention deals with war crimes, which are a somewhat different category of thing.
Also, having just recently re-read Legacy of Fire, Curse of the Crimson Throne, Reign of Winter, Serpent's Skull, and Wrath of the Righteous...at no point are you forced to make unprovoked attacks against the homes of other creatures. Unless those homes belonged to your countrymen before the creatures in question murdered them and took said homes, of course. And that's not exactly unprovoked, now is it?
Provocation isn't an escape clause in the Geneva Convention.
Which again, would be valid if the Paladin and the Enemy knew of that universal standard beforehand and agreed to it.
The Paladin code doesn't state "OH and you must obey the Geneva Convention."
One more try to get you to understand what I'm saying:
When a paragon of Good is doing things that are considered war crimes when done to enemy combatants in reality, you are doing it wrong.
Oh no I understand. And it gets completely thrown out if you consider the basis of Kingmaker.
These adventurers are likely officials of the government and on the spot mandated execution is certainly an option should they see fit.
You see "war crime", I see swift trial and execution. The Paladin knows what happened, they were attacked without warning with lethal force. Deciding the creature is too dangerous to let live when it takes extremely violent and excessive actions is a perfectly acceptable and logical course of action when letting it go could potentially result in the endangerment of others.
|
|
Actually the Wyvern has no knowledge of that.
Possibly. We don't actually know how much of a reputation the PCs have gotten at this point, or how common such attempts have been in the past.
The actual situation is that the Wyvern "claimed" land that it likely TOOK from whatever lived here previously.
Or that Wyvern's family could've been there for generations. And even if it did take it from something...if that something was an animal, it's hard to argue that was an immoral act. Do you or I know that's what happened? No. Could it have? Sure. Y'know who else didn't know? The Paladin.
It sees a 4 man group, 2 scholarly individuals evidenced by their lack of armor and two armed individuals.
In a setting with magic, spellbooks count as being armed. And people (including Wyverns) know that.
The Wyvern now attacks without warning with lethal force. It doesn't know that they are chartering any expansion of any kingdom in this direction. It likely sees the group pondering over parchment if it was overlooking for a long period of time but I highly doubt that was the case. Quite more likely, it attacked as soon as it found them.
Yep. I never said it was a saint, or that what it did wasn't a crime by reasonable definitions, just that there were some mitigating factors that should probably keep it from being a death penalty offense.
Quite vile behavior for an "intelligent" creature.
I reserve 'vile' for things quite a bit worse than that.
They called on it to parlay in Draconic....it agreed to parlay landing on a solid part of the forest canopy. The 2 PC casters had started negotiating for 2 rounds...The Paladin...could see that the PC's and Wyvern were communicating and not fighting.
I wanted to re-paste this point from the OP. The neutral wyvern and the party were currently engaged in parlay, not combat.
Therefore, interpretation must include how a CG paladin respects, or does not, the right of parlay, both in general and with a non-evil entity.
Understanding needs to happen with the DM and player as part of an ongoing conversation, and hopefully in such a way as deepens the story itself.
|
|
Provocation isn't an escape clause in the Geneva Convention.
Certainly not. But invasion isn't a crime under it either. The second part was me making a separate moral statement that had nothing to do with the Geneva Convention.
Oh no I understand. And it gets completely thrown out if you consider the basis of Kingmaker.
These adventurers are likely officials of the government and on the spot mandated execution is certainly an option should they see fit.
You see "war crime", I see swift trial and execution. The Paladin knows what happened, they were attacked without warning with lethal force. Deciding the creature is too dangerous to let live when it takes extremely violent and excessive actions is a perfectly acceptable and logical course of action when letting it go could potentially result in the endangerment of others.
Logical? Sure. Legal? Maybe so. Good and moral? Nope. And that last one makes Paladins fall.
The game isn't played in the modern world - the game lays out black and white moral laws (not grey ones) that says killing an innocent or something that hasn't threatened or attacked you is evil.
It doesn't say that refusing to give quarter is evil - The paladin doesn't need to respect what his party is doing in terms of good and evil - so the fact that it was trying to speak to the other members doesn't have anything to do with it. Or are you trying to say that when the Glabrezu shows up and offers the CN thief a wish - and the thief starts to parley with the demon that the paladin is committing an evil act for ignoring that and smiting the demon?
The creatures alignment doesn't matter - it could have been good aligned for the sake of argument - it attacked without provocation and tried to kill the party (which is an evil act as laid out in the rules)- at that point (in the game world) it gave up it's right to mercy (depending on the paladins code - most don't require trying to redeem). In this case the act wasn't evil - but depending on the code being followed and circumstances he may still have broken his code.
In a setting with magic, spellbooks count as being armed. And people (including Wyverns) know that.
Spellbooks are in bags and the Sorcerer doesn't have one. And most people don't assume that unarmed individuals are capable of warping reality.
So unless the Wyvern rifled through their bags or as I said watched for a long long period of time, it would have no knowledge of that.
And whose the Wyvern going to get rumors of reputation from? The level and book you fight wyverns at are about 5-6th level when the City hasn't even been developed maybe 5 or 6 hexes and unlikely to be in the direction of the Wyvern's lair. You're in unexplored territory so it's not like other people are wandering through it can accost for knowledge.
To top it all of claims of land is silly at best and to flat out attack someone without warning is an incredibly evil act.
It totally committed a crime how can vicious assault NOT be a crime? You claim it may not be enough for the death penalty but to which I reply it doesn't really matter. It's close enough and personal emotions can easily sway that.
Paladin comes onto the scene, hes feeling slightly vindictive since he was forced to retreat from evil trolls earlier, sees the monster that attacked his allies and him with lethal force and charges.
The Wyvern is a threat to society. Leaving it alive would endanger others and be a decidedly evil act unless you could somehow prove without a shadow of a doubt that it wouldn't harm another which is incredibly unlikely when it attacked without warning in the first place.
Druid: Congrats, you just killed an apex predator that was probably helping to keep some sort of fast breeding, overeating, gluttonous pest population in check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if a wyvern flew into a city but didn't attack anyone, any city guard or adventurer who attacked it would be a psychopath?A group adventurers represent just as much a potential danger to the inhabitants of an 'untamed' territory as the wyvern does to the inhabitants of a civilized territory.
How many adventuring parties actively go hunting 'monsters' for treasury/spell components without being attacked first?
The difference here is that wyverns have a deserved reputation for being "violent, brutish creatures" who will attack people on sight.
Coupled with the fact that the average person won't know they're intelligent, and won't speak its language even if they do...no. Ignorance is not evil.
However, if, say, the wyvern flies into the territory of some Wizard who looks at it and goes "Yep, that's a Wyvern" and tries to lightning bolt it out of the sky for no reason, that Wizard is the bad guy in this scenario.
If it's not evil, it's neutral. And paladins aren't neutral.
No, they're not, but committing "Neutral acts" is not grounds for a Paladins, of Freedom or otherwise, to fall.
Unless you have the Paladin fall every time he eats a piece of toast or something.
When your Paladin is violating the Geneva Convention, you are doing it wrong.
The Geneva Convention does not exist here. It has no relevance on this discussion.
This game takes place in a time period analogue that has no in-built concept that keeping your enemies alive after you've captured them is the norm. Especially not when said enemy is a bigass reptile that was trying to eat you a minute ago.
I reserve 'vile' for things quite a bit worse than that.
Then you and I have far different moral views because I'd say attempted murder is pretty vile.
|
|
Spellbooks are in bags and the Sorcerer doesn't have one. And most people don't assume that unarmed individuals are capable of warping reality.
So unless the Wyvern rifled through their bags or as I said watched for a long long period of time, it would have no knowledge of that.
Wait...are you a player in this game? If not, how do you know this?
Most wizards and sorcerers I've seen played carry weapons on them, just in case. Hell, the Sorcerer in my current game carries a Heavy Flail.
And whose the Wyvern going to get rumors of reputation from? The level and book you fight wyverns at are about 5-6th level when the City hasn't even been developed maybe 5 or 6 hexes and unlikely to be in the direction of the Wyvern's lair. You're in unexplored territory so it's not like other people are wandering through it can accost for knowledge.
I haven't actually played Kngmaker, and am thus unfamiliar with these details. You're very probably correct here.
To top it all of claims of land is silly at best and to flat out attack someone without warning is an incredibly evil act.
Evil? Probably. Incredibly Evil? Again, I think you're overstating things.
It totally committed a crime how can vicious assault NOT be a crime?
I never claimed otherwise.
You claim it may not be enough for the death penalty but to which I reply it doesn't really matter.
So...doing the right thing doesn't matter for a Paladin? Paladins are supposed to do what's right, not what's convenient.
Paladin comes onto the scene, hes feeling slightly vindictive since he was forced to retreat from evil trolls earlier, sees the monster that attacked his allies and him with lethal force and charges.
Indeed. I never said his actions weren't explicable. I said they weren't Paladin-safe. Paladins aren't supposed to murder people out of personal pique.
The Wyvern is a threat to society. Leaving it alive would endanger others and be a decidedly evil act unless you could somehow prove without a shadow of a doubt that it wouldn't harm another which is incredibly unlikely when it attacked without warning in the first place.
Because the PCs clearly can't handle keeping it in check and are clearly outmatched by it. Wait...who won the fight again? Oh, that's right, the PCs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with situations like this is that some GMs only apply this level of scrutiny to Paladins. If a Lawful Good character that wasn't a Paladin did what this Paladin did, this discussion wouldn't even be happening. If it doesn't affect a non-Paladin character, it doesn't affect the Paladin either.
Druid: Congrats, you just killed an apex predator that was probably helping to keep some sort of fast breeding, overeating, gluttonous pest population in check.
In other words, it has been denying some low-level parties much needed XP!
|
|
Then you and I have far different moral views because I'd say attempted murder is pretty vile.
Attempted murder is unpleasant and certainly wrong under most circumstances (definitely the ones listed), but I reserve 'vile' for things I don't think there's any justification for under any circumstances.
Murder isn't on that list, things like torture, rape, and abusing children are.
But this is basically just a difference in terminology, not a meaningful difference of opinion, I don't think.
You claim it may not be enough for the death penalty but to which I reply it doesn't really matter.So...doing the right thing doesn't matter for a Paladin? Paladins are supposed to do what's right, not what's convenient.
Letting emotion dictate your actions at times makes more interesting characters. The "right" thing in this case is vague at best and the Paladin's course of action is justifiable.
Paladin comes onto the scene, hes feeling slightly vindictive since he was forced to retreat from evil trolls earlier, sees the monster that attacked his allies and him with lethal force and charges.Indeed. I never said his actions weren't explicable. I said they weren't Paladin-safe. Paladins aren't supposed to murder people out of personal pique.
Because this is clearly murder when the Wyvern JUST attempted to murder them all.
The Wyvern is a threat to society. Leaving it alive would endanger others and be a decidedly evil act unless you could somehow prove without a shadow of a doubt that it wouldn't harm another which is incredibly unlikely when it attacked without warning in the first place.Because the PCs clearly can't handle keeping it in check and are clearly outmatched by it. Wait...who won the fight again? Oh, that's right, the PCs.
Yeah no. If you think just because the PCs "beat" the monster in a fight it can't torment their people or cause harm afterwards you're quite naive especially since it may be feeling vindictive from being defeated and would certainly fit the brutish and violent nature the Wyvern is described as having. If it goes on to kill 30 farmers, that's 30 lives the Paladin could have prevented. In this case you're just wrong. The party can't ensure that it won't cause harm to others and thus leaving it alive is an evil act. They do not have the ability to keep it from doing so without slaying it.
|
|
The difference here is that wyverns have a deserved reputation for being "violent, brutish creatures" who will attack people on sight.
Coupled with the fact that the average person won't know they're intelligent, and won't speak its language even if they do...no. Ignorance is not evil.
Absolutely not. The Paladin in question knew it was intelligent, though, since he saw it talking to his friends...so he lacks that excuse.
The Geneva Convention does not exist here. It has no relevance on this discussion.
This game takes place in a time period analogue that has no in-built concept that keeping your enemies alive after you've captured them is the norm. Especially not when said enemy is a bigass reptile that was trying to eat you a minute ago.
Uh...not really. Medieval armies took prisoners pretty regularly. And besides, Pathfinder isn't an analogue for any time period, it's a fantasy world where the moral rules are clearly based on modern notions of right and wrong. Which makes discussing one of the ways we measure that in the real world relevant.
Uh...not really. Medieval armies took prisoners pretty regularly.
Yes, and you know what was perfectly acceptable? Keeping your prisoners in horrible conditions, torturing them for information, and then hanging them for being enemies of the state.
And besides, Pathfinder isn't an analogue for any time period, it's a fantasy world where the moral rules are clearly based on modern notions of right and wrong. Which makes discussing one of the ways we measure that in the real world relevant.
It lines up pretty clearly with the start of the Renaissance era if you look into it some.
And it quite clearly is not based on modern notions of morality. An objective alignment system is incompatible with the real world in ANY time period.
|
|
Letting emotion dictate your actions at times makes more interesting characters.
Totally. But there are consequences to that, and if your Paladin's emotions lead him to commit an Evil act...he falls.
The "right" thing in this case is vague at best and the Paladin's course of action is justifiable.
I disagree. It is not.
Because this is clearly murder when the Wyvern JUST attempted to murder them all.
Killing unconscious people is murder, regardless of what they've done previously.
Yeah no. If you think just because the PCs "beat" the monster in a fight it can't torment their people or cause harm afterwards you're quite naive especially since it may be feeling vindictive from being defeated and would certainly fit the brutish and violent nature the Wyvern is described as having. If it goes on to kill 30 farmers, that's 30 lives the Paladin could have prevented. In this case you're just wrong. The party can't ensure that it won't cause harm to others and thus leaving it alive is an evil act. They do not have the ability to keep it from doing so without slaying it.
This again makes the assumption that the PCs are letting the wyvern go, which I never suggested once. There are a lot of ways to keep such a creature or individual under control that don't involve death. Hell, at the most basic level we have these things called jails...
Letting emotion dictate your actions at times makes more interesting characters. The "right" thing in this case is vague at best and the Paladin's course of action is justifiable.It's vague in-game to the PCs, and out of game to all involved; however, in-game, the "right" thing to do is precisely and exactly whatever the GM says it is - end of discussion. The PC may not like it or understand it; the player may not agree; and the GM may be poorly modeling the real world's morality (if such a thing exists)... but them's the breaks. Rule Zero. There is a "right" thing and it's not vague, unless the GM so adjudicates.
By arbitrarily deciding whether theres a one "right" thing to do, you have taken player choice and a by product of that is creating...really boring characters.
If you want to decide how your players should act and punish them for it should they act out of accordance, I don't recommend that game. It's not indicative of the RPG experience where player choice is the big draw.
Killing unconscious people is murder, regardless of what they've done previously.
*Sigh*
No, it is not.
Murder is UNLAWFUL killing.
This PoF is there with explicit permission and instruction to wipe out the bandits, monsters, and other threats from the area and found a new kingdom.
Anything he kills that resides in that area is lawfully killed
It is not murder.
Murder is not "killing someone who is helpless". That would be silly.
"Yes I was perfectly justified in killing him while he was conscious but now that I've knocked him out, killing him to make sure he doesn't get back up and try to kill us again is EEEEEEEVIL!"
|
|
Yes, and you know what was perfectly acceptable? Keeping your prisoners in horrible conditions, torturing them for information, and then hanging them for being enemies of the state.
True to a large degree (though it depends on the army and the period).
It lines up pretty clearly with the start of the Renaissance era if you look into it some.
Technology-wise? Absolutely. Culturally? Not nearly as much.
And it quite clearly is not based on modern notions of morality. An objective alignment system is incompatible with the real world in ANY time period.
I strongly disagree, the morals of Pathfinder are different from the real world in that they are objective and measurable...but not in the nature of what is right and wrong, which matches up quite closely with prevailing modern societal norms. Those are just objectively true in-setting.
Davick, that is a straw man argument.Nope. I didn't make an absurd argument, I merely changed the trappings of the one at hand. Wyvern->Man woods -> hall
If you're saying the scenery affects what is good and evil, then no amount of logic will help you. The same could be said if you think it's good for a person to kill one half of a diplomatic meeting.
Would it be good for Obama to shoot Putin at their next Summit?
Except that isn't at all what this would amount to. Good job on missing the point.
This situation would amount to Putin Bombed the US then called a peace summit with California and Texas while talking in a secret code then Obama shows up and shoots him in the face twice. It seems fine to me, no falling imo.
No no no. You mistake the aggressor. This is more akin to Obama flying f-22s into Russian airspace and then killing Putin after he shoots them down. But I think the analogies are getting out of hand.
"Yes I was perfectly justified in killing him while he was conscious but now that I've knocked him out, killing him to make sure he doesn't get back up and try to kill us again is EEEEEEEVIL!"
Yep. What are you a sociopath?
This again makes the assumption that the PCs are letting the wyvern go, which I never suggested once. There are a lot of ways to keep such a creature or individual under control that don't involve death. Hell, at the most basic level we have these things called jails...
I highly doubt that 5-7th level PCs have the required tools to take a Wyvern prisoner.
|
|
*Sigh*
No, it is not.
Murder is UNLAWFUL killing.
This PoF is there with explicit permission and instruction to wipe out the bandits, monsters, and other threats from the area and found a new kingdom.
Anything he kills that resides in that area is lawfully killed
It is not murder.
You are technically quite correct. But in the context of moral discussion, murder is also often used for unjustified killing as well as illegal killing. Which is how I was using it (somewhat improperly) there.
Murder is not "killing someone who is helpless". That would be silly.
"Yes I was perfectly justified in killing him while he was conscious but now that I've knocked him out, killing him to make sure he doesn't get back up and try to kill us again is EEEEEEEVIL!"
Uh...no, that's actually how that works. Killing someone in combat and coup de graceing them while they can't fight back (and have no hope of getting back up...regeneration and healing magic can change the situation, but neither was in play here) are not morally equivalent acts. The second can be justified under some circumstances (especially if the creature in question can't be effectively restrained)...but these are not such circumstances (wyverns stay tied up just fine).
The party was attacked in the woods by this wyvern. Why is it that some people always want to try and negotiate with something that just tried to kill you? He's a Paladin, not a Monk with a Vow of Peace. There is a difference. A wyvern just attacked them in the woods, if he lets that wyvern live, think of who else that wyvern will attack. In the interest of protecting people, and for the good of the weak, he can't let this creature live. The wyvern was a coward who fought without honor by ambushing the Paladin. There is no discussion to be had. Who cares if the party is full of foolishly forgiving diplomats?
This is why I always refrain from playing a Paladin. Many GMs try to distort just about anything you do and label it an evil act.
You guys know Kore is the bad guy right? Cause the way a lot of you talk, that seems like how you'd play your paladins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I highly doubt that 5-7th level PCs have the required tools to take a Wyvern prisoner.
This again makes the assumption that the PCs are letting the wyvern go, which I never suggested once. There are a lot of ways to keep such a creature or individual under control that don't involve death. Hell, at the most basic level we have these things called jails...
Ok, so you're arguing that Good is inconvenient. That's fine. It doesn't excuse not doing it. Especially not when you're a paladin. You can't just take a pragmatic view of morality like that and say all's fair cause otherwise it's a pain in the butt.
I highly doubt that 5-7th level PCs have the required tools to take a Wyvern prisoner.You mean rope and a cart?
And then what do they do with him?
Keep him chained to a post in the middle of town or something?
but these are not such circumstances (wyverns stay tied up just fine).
Claws, teeth and a sharp stinger require quite a bit of rope. I would imagine transporting the Wyvern would also be quite difficult.
Much likely beyond what a 5-7th level party could realistically accomplish on short notice.
Ok, so you're arguing that Good is inconvenient. That's fine. It doesn't excuse not doing it. Especially not when you're a paladin. You can't just take a pragmatic view of morality like that and say all's fair cause otherwise it's a pain in the butt.
No, I'm saying that the party is likely not to have that much rope and a cart laying around on hand to do so.
What do you do when you can't take someone prisoner and letting them go is too dangerous?
I highly doubt that 5-7th level PCs have the required tools to take a Wyvern prisoner.You mean rope and a cart?And then what do they do with him?
Keep him chained to a post in the middle of town or something?
By that point in KM they almost certainly have a castle or two and barracks and dungeons. They have literally an entire nation's resources at their disposal.
By that point in KM they almost certainly have a castle or two and barracks and dungeons. They have literally an entire nation's resources at their disposal.I highly doubt that 5-7th level PCs have the required tools to take a Wyvern prisoner.You mean rope and a cart?And then what do they do with him?
Keep him chained to a post in the middle of town or something?
Dungeons are not sized for Wyverns (who are Large, unless I'm mistaken), they are sized for Medium humanoids.
So their options are give it an entire castle to play with (waste of resources, and is essentially rewarding him for trying to kill you), or cram it into a box sized far too small for it for...how long? I'm sure it would rather be dead after a few years of being softened up into Wyvern veal.
And that's not even considering that they'd have to trek back to civilization to even get a cart in the first place, and that getting a cart through untamed forest is an infeasible options, and it COULD very well have woken up and slunk off by then if it had stabilized.
Something about that original story sounds a bit off...Hm.
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 are not evil though. They are neutral and very territorial. They are always hungry and consider themselves top of the food chain. The PCs were just prey and meal to be had. As well they were trespassing in its territory. Being brutish beast that is quick to anger and acts with violence first is just its nature. The fact that the PCs got the wyvern to parlay is a rare thing, these beast typically fight to the death.
Killing the wyvern in this case I'd rule as Chaotic Evil act.
|
|
And then what do they do with him?
Keep him chained to a post in the middle of town or something?
As mentioned, they likely have a dungeon at this point...
EDIT: And even if that's a bit cramped, they can store it there until they have some large sized cells built (probably a good idea anyway).
Claws, teeth and a sharp stinger require quite a bit of rope. I would imagine transporting the Wyvern would also be quite difficult.
Much likely beyond what a 5-7th level party could realistically accomplish on short notice.
I'd imagine my current PC group (who are level 7) could do it quite easily, actually. It'd be slightly harder if they were lower level, but hardly impossible.
No, I'm saying that the party is likely not to have that much rope and a cart laying around on hand to do so.
Uh...it was unconscious. From lethal damage. So...they had at least 24 hours to figure something out. If a PC group can't rig up a sled and some rope in that time, they're in serious trouble.
What do you do when you can't take someone prisoner and letting them go is too dangerous?
You kill them. But that's not remotely the situation here.
By that point in KM they almost certainly have a castle or two and barracks and dungeons. They have literally an entire nation's resources at their disposal.I highly doubt that 5-7th level PCs have the required tools to take a Wyvern prisoner.You mean rope and a cart?And then what do they do with him?
Keep him chained to a post in the middle of town or something?
Dungeons are not sized for Wyverns (who are Large, unless I'm mistaken), they are sized for Medium humanoids.
So their options are give it an entire castle to play with (waste of resources, and is essentially rewarding him for trying to kill you), or cram it into a box sized far too small for it for...how long? I'm sure it would rather be dead after a few years of being softened up into Wyvern veal.
And that's not even considering that they'd have to trek back to civilization to even get a cart in the first place, and that getting a cart through untamed forest is an infeasible options, and it COULD very well have woken up and slunk off by then if it had stabilized.
Now you're just moving goal posts. Let me check my copy of Rivers Run Red for how large the dungeon cells are. Hmmmmmm, It's not saying. Let me ask my GM if a wyvern could fit in one BEFORE. I. KILL. IT. He said yes it could. Problem solved. You wouldn't have to worry about all that trekking to and fro and slinking if they had negotiated its surrender peacefully first. Something that in the 2 KM campaigns I've played was common with the more intelligent creatures. I inevitably ended up with a council that had kobolds, fey, and such on it. Running the damn country! And one of those games had a paladin in it.
Uh...it was unconscious. From lethal damage. So...they had at least 24 hours to figure something out. If a PC group can't rig up a sled and some rope in that time, they're in serious trouble.
And then pull it through untamed wilderness?
Now you're just moving goal posts. Let me check my copy of Rivers Run Red for how large the dungeon cells are. Hmmmmmm, It's not saying. Let me ask my GM if a wyvern could fit in one BEFORE. I. KILL. IT. He said yes it could. Problem solved. You wouldn't have to worry about all that trekking to and fro and slinking if they had negotiated its surrender peacefully first. Something that in the 2 KM campaigns I've played was common with the more intelligent creatures. I inevitably ended up with a council that had kobolds, fey, and such on it. Running the damn country! And one of those games had a paladin in it.
I'll note that I had much the same experience with Kingmaker. It's a very good AP.
However I find it unlikey that the Brutish and naturally violent Wyvern is going to submit meekly and just follow along for you to imprison it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure. Nobody said being Good was easy.And then pull it through untamed wilderness?
Uh...it was unconscious. From lethal damage. So...they had at least 24 hours to figure something out. If a PC group can't rig up a sled and some rope in that time, they're in serious trouble.
Pulling a large makeshift sled through the wilderness incredible distances while continuing to be attacked by various wild life, hoping the makeshift sled doesn't just break or the Wyvern doesn't free himself in the middle of the night and just fly away. Moving at a snail's pace due to being overburdened...
Basically telling the DM, Hold on with the plot, lets do this side thing for weeks. And obviously having no idea what adhoc survival and wilderness travel is like.
Now you're just moving goal posts.
That would imply we'd set some specific criteria beforehand.
Let me check my copy of Rivers Run Red for how large the dungeon cells are. Hmmmmmm, It's not saying.
Which is because they're no different from real dungeon cells. Which were quite small.
This is backed up by the one depicted prison I can recall from official material: The Haunting Of Harrowstone.
Where dungeon cells were mere 5 ft. squares the prisoners were left to rot in.
Because imprisonment for the purpose of rehabilitation was not a thing (People were sent to Harrowstone to be executed).
Let me ask my GM if a wyvern could fit in one BEFORE. I. KILL. IT. He said yes it could. Problem solved. You wouldn't have to worry about all that trekking to and fro and slinking if they had negotiated its surrender peacefully first.
So they're obligated to negotiate surrender with everything that tries to kill them? I'd imagine they'll end up dead pretty quick then.
And you assume that the GM is going to say yes. Why?
Something that in the 2 KM campaigns I've played was common with the more intelligent creatures. I inevitably ended up with a council that had kobolds, fey, and such on it. Running the damn country! And one of those games had a paladin in it.
Which is just dandy.
But "It's different from how we did it" and "I's evil! FALL FALL FALL!" are very different things.
Basically telling the DM, Hold on with the plot, lets do this side thing for weeks. And obviously having no idea what adhoc survival and wilderness travel is like.
I thought you played KM? The plot IS wandering around the woods for weeks. And in RL time it takes 2 seconds.
Players: "We're gonna tie up the wyvern and put him in the dungeon to parlay with him later."
GM: "K"
P: "Because doing what's right can mean doing what's hard!"
GM: "Geez, I said ok. Chill out."
My players spent 2 real life sessions on befriending and curing the werewolf from book 2, several days in game time. They had a blast. So I see no point to argue this from a "this is boring" point of view.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically one side is arguing "No theres only 1 way for a Paladin to play this situation, this Paladin didn't so he must fall."
The other side is "Things aren't so cut and dry and there are tons of justifiable ways to play out this situation."
One side limits characters the other side diversifies them.