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.
If not just moving goal posts, then you're just being argumentative. This post is possibly the best example of that. I'm going to ignore the rest of your posts until you're done being whiny.
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.
There are tons of ways to do this, coup de gracing a captive just isn't one of the ones that works for a paladin.
It's like you refuse to acknowledge what a Paladin is. Are you a Smighter? Quit being a Smighter.
Not giving a paladin a code at all would diversify them, but it's part of the class, and it is part of the balance of the class.
|
| 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.
Diversifying Paladins into "I can kill people for pissing me off." isn't really something I consider a positive...
It seems like the argument against what the Paladin did being Evil is that there were no viable Good options. What reason is there to think that there can't be lose-lose situations? Being a paragon of virtue is intended to be a strength and a weakness... Paladin's aren't just fighters with smite (I'm thinking of coining the term "Smighters" to describe players with this mindset; thoughts?)
If all the paths point to loss then you're really taking the virtues of tabletop gaming and stomping them to death. I'd rather play a video game because I'd have more player agency than that.
The whole point is to give players loads of options because "You can use your imagination to accomplish whatever you desire!"
I thought RPGs were meant to be conclusive to ideas. But apparently we should punish players when they make decisions we don't like.
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.
There are tons of ways to do this, coup de gracing a captive just isn't one of the ones that works for a paladin.
It's like you refuse to acknowledge what a Paladin is. Are you a Smighter? Quit being a Smighter.
I mentioned that Coup de grace was a bit much though if the alternative is just them bleeding to death I'm okay with it. All it is is execution.
I am a Smighter and proud of it dammit. I believe that concept has room in RPGs. Not that it even applies in this scenario.
|
|
If all the paths point to loss then you're really taking the virtues of tabletop gaming and stomping them to death. I'd rather play a video game because I'd have more player agency than that.
The whole point is to give players loads of options because "You can use your imagination to accomplish whatever you desire!"
I thought RPGs were meant to be conclusive to ideas. But apparently we should punish players when they make decisions we don't like.
Uh...all paths didn't lead to loss. There were lots of ways out of that situation without falling. The PC didn't pick one of those. He picked the convenient, homicidal and immoral, option. That's a valid choice for most PCs...but if you're playing a Paladin, you've taken the conscious choice for that kind of option to have additional consequences.
It's not like I'm arguing he can't go get an Atonement or that his Alignment changed or anything, he totally can and it didn't. But, well, that action was not Paladin safe.
Uh...all paths didn't lead to loss. There were lots of ways out of that situation without falling. The PC didn't pick one of those. He picked the convenient, homicidal and immoral, option. That's a valid choice for most PCs...but if you're playing a Paladin, you've taken the conscious choice for that kind of option to have additional consequences.
It's not like I'm arguing he can't go get an Atonement or that his Alignment changed or anything, he totally can and it didn't. But, well, that action was not Paladin safe.
Except we can't really decide on the morality since you're applying present day morals which aren't necessarily applicable to the universe.
On top of which your assertion that it is better to beat the crap out of something then leave it to bleed to death slowly in the woods is somehow more just than ending it's life makes roughly no g~@ d*$n sense.
Uh, no. Modern day morality does play a role because Good and Evil are things in Pathfinder. Objective at that, and they line up pretty well to our modern day morals. No one said beat the crap out of it and leave it to deed to death either. It was only in that situation because the paladin put it there.
If all the paths point to loss then you're really taking the virtues of tabletop gaming and stomping them to death. I'd rather play a video game because I'd have more player agency than that.
The whole point is to give players loads of options because "You can use your imagination to accomplish whatever you desire!"
I thought RPGs were meant to be conclusive to ideas. But apparently we should punish players when they make decisions we don't like.
Uh...all paths didn't lead to loss. There were lots of ways out of that situation without falling. The PC didn't pick one of those. He picked the convenient, homicidal and immoral, option. That's a valid choice for most PCs...but if you're playing a Paladin, you've taken the conscious choice for that kind of option to have additional consequences.
By arbitrarily deciding that the Paladin cannot take even slightly ambiguous actions you have stolen player agency. Homicidal and Immoral? Hardly. Can you ensure that they'll be able to keep the Wyvern without endangering others? Can you ensure that when the guard comes to give the Wyvern his daily gruel that it doesn't plant a spike through his chest? Do you think years of imprisonment won't leave the Wyvern feeling vengeful?
You have decided that the Paladin doesn't get to justify his actions. You have painted certain rather ambiguous actions as ALWAYS BAD MUST FALL. The world is far more diverse than that. He didn't know they were parleying he couldnt understand them. The Dragon could have been taunting them or his allies begging for mercy. They were just attacked without warning with lethal force.
Lets also point out that the vast majority of thing you fight in this game aren't killed outright, merely they reach -1 or lower hitpoints and we write them off as dead.
The GM specifically broke the rule to allow it to be at -1 hp (which is fine, but not the norm) and the Paladin finished it off.
This rule of coup de grace is never ok is just silly. You fight an army of Kobolds, I guarantee you a large number won't be killed outright, and will instead be at -1 or lower dying on the ground. Are you seriously suggesting that the Paladin must save them all? Or if not, can you really say it's better for him to watch them slowing die slowly as they die from hideous wounds? This entire line of argument is silly.
At the end of the day, I agree with Scavion. You could have a Paladin who might fall for this, and you could have a Paladin be completely fine with this, and you might even have a Paladin fall somewhere in between. The fact that the GM hadn't hammered out the Paladin's code is a big issue.
To sit here and spout off that there is a single way this should go down is absurd. It's absurd, because as you can see there are varying opinions on the matter.
The moral system that defines the Paladin is going to change depending on what values he holds, and what you're definition of good is. Deadmanwalkings version of a Paladin might very well deserve to fall for killing a Wyvern, because it breaches his definition of good. Scavion's Paladin might be completely justified because it fits what his definition of good is.
Finally, I keep seeing a double standard being used about the Wyvern's intelligence. On the one hand it's "but he is smart sentient being how dare you kill him during parley (that the Paladin didn't understand)" and on the other "It's just an Apex predator doing it's thing, it didn't know it was wrong to start slaughtering people it thought were weaker then itself". The fact is it's a smart sentient being who decided it'd rather ambush and kill people in it's territory rather then talk/warn them. The fact that it's monster entry says Neutral is almost irrelevant to the fact that it was doing an entirely evil act, and only stopped because it was beat. Something tells me if this was an ancient Liche we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Then again that entire point is predicated upon my understanding of good, which is again the point.
Anyways, my overall opinion on this is that it is poor form to make someone fall because they aren't falling you're standard of good, unless this was made explicitly clear to them early on. Doing so just ruins peoples times and makes people play lawful stupid (or in this case Chaotic stupid) since that seems like the only way to play the Paladin.
|
|
Except we can't really decide on the morality since you're applying present day morals which aren't necessarily applicable to the universe.
Except that universe's morals are based on those of the present day.
To quote:
Good Versus Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Bolded some relevant sections there.
On top of which your assertion that it is better to beat the crap out of something then leave it to bleed to death slowly in the woods is somehow more just than ending it's life makes roughly no g@# d+&n sense.
I never made this assertion. Leaving it to bleed to death would also be morally objectionable. On the other hand, the other PCs were going to save it...so that was never going to happen. And thus hasn't been discussed.
If all the paths point to loss then you're really taking the virtues of tabletop gaming and stomping them to death.Who's to say all paths lead to loss? It's entirely possible that the players might come up with a resolution the GM hadn't considered, and that the GM wouldn't have considered Evil. Killing the monster isn't very creative, as far as solutions go, and if the GM decides that killing the monster is Evil, then the paladin falls.
You said lose-lose situations. If you lose whatever you do, you have stomped on the virtues of tabletop gaming. Period. Full stop.
If on one hand you are aware beforehand of the consequences of your actions than you deserve what you get. If I answer the riddle wrong but the tools were all there and it told me I'd suffer a burning demise then yes I expect conflagration.
However this wasn't the case. A Code was not hammered out. This is a vague circumstance. The DM in question did not inform the Paladin aforehand that this action can cause a fall.
And yet there are people calling for Fall without question.
|
|
By arbitrarily deciding that the Paladin cannot take even slightly ambiguous actions you have stolen player agency.
Uh...of course he can. He can eat babies if he likes, but it'll have repercussions like the loss of Paladin powers. And killing unconscious people who were in the process of negotiating with your allies, over said allies objections, is not particularly ambiguous.
Homicidal and Immoral? Hardly.
That seems a fair description.
Can you ensure that they'll be able to keep the Wyvern without endangering others? Can you ensure that when the guard comes to give the Wyvern his daily gruel that it doesn't plant a spike through his chest? Do you think years of imprisonment won't leave the Wyvern feeling vengeful?
Prison is only one option. Community service is another one. I've always wanted a wyvern mount...
And with some Diplomacy (which you ought to have, being a Paladin) you can probably even convert the creature onto the path of righteousness, if you play your cards right.
You have decided that the Paladin doesn't get to justify his actions. You have painted certain rather ambiguous actions as ALWAYS BAD MUST FALL.
Killing unconscious non-Evil opponents when other options are available is not an ambiguous situation.
The world is far more diverse than that. He didn't know they were parleying he couldnt understand them. The Dragon could have been taunting them or his allies begging for mercy. They were just attacked without warning with lethal force.
His allies caught the falling wyvern and asked him to spare it. The situation stopped being ambiguous at that point and became "Whoops, sorry guys." only that's not what he did...
Good Versus Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Lemme show you why this is vague.
"I will personally take on this execution so that my people can live a happy life safe from the unwarranted savage attacks from this...MONSTER. To leave such a creature alive would endanger my people as I cannot guarantee with absolute certainty that it will not go on to harm more people in it's life."
Respect for the lives of his people, execution by beheading is a dignified death by the standard of his people, and is personally heading the task instead of passing it on to others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bolded some relevant sections there.
Good Versus Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
and I've re-bolded other relevant sections
You're making the judgment that the point of this was for the sake of convenience, when it could have been to protect the innocent.
Actually, under this definition, Paladin's should put away their swords unless it's undead.
Heck:
1. Killed a giant Dire Bear intent on eating you: Fallen, you didn't show respect for Dire Bear's life
2. Killed a murderous band of Orc's who invaded a village: Fallen you didn't have respect for their life.
3. Killed... Fallen, you killed something.
Heck, under you're definition of Paladins must be good, not just neutral:
4. Watched a Lawful execution of an serial killer: Fallen, didn't make a sacrifice to protect others.
Prison is only one option. Community service is another one. I've always wanted a wyvern mount...And with some Diplomacy (which you ought to have, being a Paladin) you can probably even convert the creature onto the path of righteousness, if you play your cards right.
A Wyvern mount is a fast track to it getting it's vengeance rather early. Dat armor check penalty.
Diplomacy won't work if it doesn't care to listen. It is by nature a brutish, violent creature.
Either way it's still a danger to society.
"I will personally take on this execution so that my people can live a happy life safe from the unwarranted savage attacks from this...<insert anything you feel like killing>. To leave <insert anything you feel like killing> alive would endanger my people as I cannot guarantee with absolute certainty that <insert anything you feel like killing> will not go on to harm more people in <insert anything you feel like killing>'s life."
Except that doesn't hold up in actual play mate. This Wyvern is a provable threat. It attacked without warning with the intent to kill. Are you saying it's not safe to assume it would have done so to any traveler who came upon it?
Please. Don't be argumentative for the sake of it.
"I will personally take on this execution so that my people can live a happy life safe from the unwarranted savage attacks from this...<insert anything you feel like killing>. To leave <insert anything you feel like killing> alive would endanger my people as I cannot guarantee with absolute certainty that <insert anything you feel like killing> will not go on to harm more people in <insert anything you feel like killing>'s life."Generalized that for you.
I get the feeling you have an "Play the Paladin my way or you're doing it wrong" kinda perspective on this.
If not just moving goal posts, then you're just being argumentative. This post is possibly the best example of that. I'm going to ignore the rest of your posts until you're done being whiny.
That post?
The one where I point out exactly how large dungeon cells are?
Don't be a petulant brat just because someone has some facts on their side, it's unbecoming of you.
Now this might be open to interpretation, but do we at least agree that it's possible for a Paladin to fall? Do we agree it's possible for a Paladin to fall, even if the Paladin wouldn't want to? Do we agree that it's possible for a Player's character to fall, even if the Player would have preferred otherwise?I'm legitimately trying to understand at what point these alignment rules stop making sense.
Should the Paladin fall without the GM letting him know beforehand what actions will cause his fall when they are ambiguous?
A Fall should never be "AHAH Gotcha." Which is essentially what is happening here. The Paladin did a vague thing and the DM did not inform him beforehand that it was fallworthy. Now the GM is retroactively deciding whether the action was fallworthy.
And that is a terrible thing to do. If you lose something because I decide after the fact to tell you something I should have told you beforehand, you would be pretty mad no?
But for all the paladin knew the wvyern was defending it's young, or thought all adventures were dragon hunters. The fact that he didn't bother learning what the situation was (which he could have done without significant risk) before killing an intelligent being makes it an evil act.Actually for all the Paladin knew the wyvern was bribing his party members into killing the paladin to get a cut of some treasure or it had magically brainwashed them and was issuing commands. They never actually explained anything to the Paladin in character so I don't see why he'd assume it was surrendering.The paladin could have asked the party members if they were being bribed and paladins of freedom get Detect Charm at will.
It didn't have to be surrendering, it was clearly negotiating. Not an immediate danger.
Clearly speaking. You cannot tell negotiation, surrendering, or much of anything when you hear people speaking in a language you can't understand.
1. Killed a giant Dire Bear intent on eating you: Fallen, you didn't show respect for Dire Bear's life2. Killed a murderous band of Orc's who invaded a village: Fallen you didn't have respect for their life.
3. Killed... Fallen, you killed something.
Heck, under you're definition of Paladins must be good, not just neutral:
4. Watched a Lawful execution of an serial killer: Fallen, didn't make a sacrifice to protect others.
1. Dire bears are not intelligent, and killing them is no more immoral then killing any other animal. This wyvern was clearly and demonstrably intelligent.
2. If they die in combat, oh well. If they're lying unconscious on the floor and no longer pose a threat you don't stab them in the face. If they're defeated and trying to negotiate you sure as hell don't stab them in the face.
3. Killing is okay in many situations. If you are performing an act of self-defense or defending others and kill the person in question, that is not immoral. If you slit their throat after they're unconscious when you have the ability to turn them in to the proper authorities or try to redeem them, that definitely is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you would be pretty mad no?No... is this a trick question? It's a game and it's the GM's job to make these decisions, not the player's. I'd have as little problem with what you describe as I would with my GM amending any other decision retroactively, which, while not ideal, does happen from time to time.
Then we have a difference in opinion on the duty of the GM.
In my book the GM isn't the end all be all which I'm getting the feel that it is for you. In my games we work together to find a favorable ruling for everyone.
The GM is another player whose opinion is no more or less valuable than any others.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The incredible nonsense that comes out in these Paladin fall threads regarding morality is why I will never play a Paladin. If you sit five people down and ask them to define any alignment, you will get five different answers. and a shouting match for your trouble.
Alignment should be scrapped.
Clearly speaking. You cannot tell negotiation, surrendering, or much of anything when you hear people speaking in a language you can't understand.
Do you realize how incredibly f@$!ed up it is to kill an enemy because the possibility exists that they were saying something bad? When someone plays a paladin they agree to hold themselves to a specific and rigid moral standard, one which does not include killing non-evil sentient creatures who are not in the process of attacking anyone. If the paladin does not hold themselves to that moral standard they fall. And you know what? Falling sucks, but it's not like there aren't options available to redeem yourself.
Do you realize how incredibly f#$&ed up it is to kill an enemy because the possibility exists that they were saying something bad?
Clearly speaking. You cannot tell negotiation, surrendering, or much of anything when you hear people speaking in a language you can't understand.
Sure does suck in a world full of magic. Damned if you might, Damned if you might not. The nice thing is if you have a good DM is that if things are vague he usually lets things slide.
But that doesn't mean the Wyvern wasn't committing an evil act. It attacked without warning when it could have communicated peacefully. It reserved that ability in case it lost. It attacked with lethal intent.
Are you saying that the Paladin should drop everything and be like "Ohh you poor thing, you only intended to kill us, let's just imprison you for the rest of your life or let you work it off in a few years." And most importantly they can't guarantee that it might go off and harm more innocents.
The paladin could have asked the party members if they were being bribed and paladins of freedom get Detect Charm at will.
It didn't have to be surrendering, it was clearly negotiating. Not an immediate danger.
Yeah because negotiating with evil blood hungry monsters is totally to be expected.
Seriously I said this in the last thread about this kind of stuff and I still stand by it. You aren't obligated to accept an enemies surrender under any circumstances.
Negotiating with evil blood hungry monsters is totally unexpected, which is why seeing your friends TALKING with something is a big red flag that the situation might not be so black-and-white.
There is no situation where a PALADIN is require to accept a surrender? If group of PCs steals an artifact from an evil nobleman and a couple of good aligned city guards try to stop them, you think a paladin shouldn't fall for killing the the guards even if they surrender and could be incapacitated?
Wyverns aren't evil. And a paladin would know that because his deity saw fit to give him the magical ability to discern evil. If it were a demon, this would be a different discussion.
Wyverns aren't evil. And a paladin would know that because his deity saw fit to give him the magical ability to discern evil. If it were a demon, this would be a different discussion.The paladin could have asked the party members if they were being bribed and paladins of freedom get Detect Charm at will.
It didn't have to be surrendering, it was clearly negotiating. Not an immediate danger.
Yeah because negotiating with evil blood hungry monsters is totally to be expected.
Seriously I said this in the last thread about this kind of stuff and I still stand by it. You aren't obligated to accept an enemies surrender under any circumstances.
Negotiating with evil blood hungry monsters is totally unexpected, which is why seeing your friends TALKING with something is a big red flag that the situation might not be so black-and-white.
There is no situation where a PALADIN is require to accept a surrender? If group of PCs steals an artifact from an evil nobleman and a couple of good aligned city guards try to stop them, you think a paladin shouldn't fall for killing the the guards even if they surrender and could be incapacitated?
Just because your alignment isn't evil doesn't excuse you from the consequences of decidedly evil actions.
The Wyvern attacked without warning with lethal force intending to kill. Upon discovering it was outmatched it, quite cowardly, wished for parley. This is most dishonorable.
Any Paladin would find negotiating with such a dishonorable creature distasteful. While I can see some allowing the insult by, it is also perfectly reasonable for a Paladin to deny the Wyvern right of surrender as due forfeit for ambushing them(Dishonorable).
Wyverns aren't evil. And a paladin would know that because his deity saw fit to give him the magical ability to discern evil. If it were a demon, this would be a different discussion.The paladin could have asked the party members if they were being bribed and paladins of freedom get Detect Charm at will.
It didn't have to be surrendering, it was clearly negotiating. Not an immediate danger.
Yeah because negotiating with evil blood hungry monsters is totally to be expected.
Seriously I said this in the last thread about this kind of stuff and I still stand by it. You aren't obligated to accept an enemies surrender under any circumstances.
Negotiating with evil blood hungry monsters is totally unexpected, which is why seeing your friends TALKING with something is a big red flag that the situation might not be so black-and-white.
There is no situation where a PALADIN is require to accept a surrender? If group of PCs steals an artifact from an evil nobleman and a couple of good aligned city guards try to stop them, you think a paladin shouldn't fall for killing the the guards even if they surrender and could be incapacitated?
Just because your alignment isn't evil doesn't excuse you from the consequences of decidedly evil actions.
The Wyvern attacked without warning with lethal force intending to kill. Upon discovering it was outmatched it, quite cowardly, wished for parley. This is most dishonorable.
Any Paladin would find negotiating with such a dishonorable creature distasteful. While I can see some allowing the insult by, it is also perfectly reasonable for a Paladin to deny the Wyvern right of surrender as due forfeit for ambushing them(Dishonorable).
1. why does a chaotic paladin care what is dishonorable?
2. A paladin of Shelyn ALWAYS accepts surrender. So, no. The punishment for defending one's home shouldn't be death. And in this specific case we have the knowledge that the player was not attempting to punish the wyvern, but trying to get even with it.
1. why does a chaotic paladin care what is dishonorable?
2. A paladin of Shelyn ALWAYS accepts surrender. So, no. The punishment for defending one's home shouldn't be death. And in this specific case we have the knowledge that the player was not attempting to punish the wyvern, but trying to get even with it.
You don't know if this is a Paladin of Shelyn. That is something you have pushed from page 1 but isn't true. Cayden cares about Glory Freedom and Booze. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't mind a bit of eye for an eye.
We don't know if the Wyvern WAS even defending it's home. It could've been just ranging out for something to hunt.
Chaotically aligned characters care about individuality and oftentimes equality. If the Wyvern treats you less than you would treat it, well I'll be damned if it desires me to treat it as an equal when I bested it despite it taking measures to get the upper hand on me.
We don't know if the Wyvern WAS even defending it's home. It could've been just ranging out for something to hunt.
And WHY don't we know that? Because the paladin killed it.
Chaotically aligned characters care about individuality and oftentimes equality. If the Wyvern treats you less than you would treat it, well I'll be damned if it desires me to treat it as an equal when I bested it despite it taking measures to get the upper hand on me.
Yeah, as a pro-equality person myself I'm always saying people should have equal rights except for the people I don't like.... It's called taking the high road Scavion, and it's what paladins do
We don't know if the Wyvern WAS even defending it's home. It could've been just ranging out for something to hunt.
And WHY don't we know that? Because the paladin killed it.
Yeah, as a pro-equality person myself I'm always saying people should have equal rights except for the people I don't like.... It's called taking the high road Scavion, and it's what paladins do
Chaotically aligned characters care about individuality and oftentimes equality. If the Wyvern treats you less than you would treat it, well I'll be damned if it desires me to treat it as an equal when I bested it despite it taking measures to get the upper hand on me.
Ah but you were wrong about always needing to accept surrender.
The Wyvern took the immediate most aggressive action. If it was merely trying to defend it's home it would have warned. "Go away or I'll eat ya." Then it'd have an argument for attacking. As it stands it didn't. It could have communicated peacefully but didn't.
And life and death situations tend to paint how you treat people when they are the cause of those situations.
You claimed the Paladin had to accept surrender. You were wrong. The Paladin is within his right to deny the Wyvern when the Wyvern took backhanded and evil approach to combating them.
Thus we know that the Wyvern can't be trusted.