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.
Ok ignore what we *know*
Paladin and party chases Wyvern - Paladin comes upon two others cornering the Wyvern (they brought it down!) and they are shouting at each other in a roaring manner that makes no sense to you.
Yup - I can tell they were in parlay. Oh wait thats metagaming. If the players aren't willing to step up and stop the paladin or inform him of what they are doing he had no way to know they were in surrender negotiations.
Again that doesn't even matter - make the Wyvern a demon - that is offering a wish to the other party members - again if killing a foe in parlay is an automatic fall he's toast - all a demon needs to do to be safe from paladins is to make sure they have someone to negotiate with any time they feel free.
That's a silly interpretation.
You can't have it both ways, if the paladin can't tell if the creature is negotiating or surrendering then the paladin also has no idea if the wyvern is performing a cowardly surrender, apologizing for an honest mistake, or explaining why he was perfectly justified in attacking the PCs.A good PC would learn the circumstances before killing an intelligent creature when he could do so without serious risks.
For all he knew the wyvern was saying "Very well, you have won, but if you let me live I will tell you where I have hidden the kidnapped childre-URK!!!"
Also, finding someone distasteful is not justification for killing them.
The Knight's Code doesn't require one to treat one honorably if they are beneath it. A Code the Paladin's is loosely based on.
By ambushing the Paladin, the Wyvern gave up the right to surrender. The Paladin is fairly justified with killing the Wyvern now since the Wyvern attacked him intending to kill him. Later the Paladin comes onto a scene. The 2 casters are facing off with the Wyvern and they're speaking in a foreign tongue.
THAT could mean loads of things. The Wyvern could have them ensorcelled or could be threatening them or whatever. His party members didn't see it fit to inform him quickly so he charged. Even if the case of the kidnapped children, the Paladin and co could then comb the area looking for them. Unless this is an ultra contrived scenario where the Paladin simply can't find them without that specific route in which case you're not exactly following the 3 clue guideline to good DMing.
If you think the Paladin should stay his blade in case every enemy has some kidnapped children somewhere, then you're going to have far less Paladins.
Nice try but no. There is a huge difference between one creature and a group of creatures. There is a huge difference between the chase in the air through the woods and the aftermath of a group battle in a field near a hall. In your changed example you have created a gap of more than 12 seconds between when the gnome and sphinx start the parlay and when the paladin catches up. The characters never left combat rounds in the original example.They had dropped out of inititive.
Re: other posters comments on other PC's not caring - As for the other players trying to stop him. He attacked, then did a Coup de Grace. The others players didn't notice the initiial attack until just before the blow was landed and had 6 secs to try and persuade him to stop.
Short of attacking the Paladin physically or with spells how exactly were they supposed to stop the Paladin doing a Coup de Grace? And if the Sphinx had let the Wyvern go it would've fallen to it's death anyway.If people think what the Paladin was OK that's fine. But justifying it on the basis of "the other PS's didn't really try and stop him, is ridiculous.
Oh cool you're back. Can you get the player on here so we can have the complete story?
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.
I never said THIS paladin had to accept surrender. I was pointing out that it's not about being dishonorable because paladins can do it, and some HAVE to. Torag is apparently crazy. But, none of that changes that the paladin is supposed to be a beacon for other people to follow. If you watch the paladin kill the wyvern and walk away thinking "Man that guy is awful, I don't want to be like that." Then the paladin has screwed up, just like when people in the real world stop trusting police because of brutality and misuse of power. We can't have trustworthy authority figures here in real life, can we at least try not to corrupt the fictional ones too?
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.
Ok ignore what we *know*
Paladin and party chases Wyvern - Paladin comes upon two others cornering the Wyvern (they brought it down!) and they are shouting at each other in a roaring manner that makes no sense to you.
Yup - I can tell they were in parlay. Oh wait thats metagaming. If the players aren't willing to step up and stop the paladin or inform him of what they are doing he had no way to know they were in surrender negotiations.
Again that doesn't even matter - make the Wyvern a demon - that is offering a wish to the other party members - again if killing a foe in parlay is an automatic fall he's toast - all a demon needs to do to be safe from paladins is to make sure they have someone to negotiate with any time they feel free.
That's a silly interpretation.
I don't know if you're failing to understand or intentionally distorting things. Detect Evil is a thing. Look it up.
I never said THIS paladin had to accept surrender. I was pointing out that it's not about being dishonorable because paladins can do it, and some HAVE to. Torag is apparently crazy. But, none of that changes that the paladin is supposed to be a beacon for other people to follow. If you watch the paladin kill the wyvern and walk away thinking "Man that guy is awful, I don't want to be like that." Then the paladin has screwed up, just like when people in the real world stop trusting police because of brutality and misuse of power. We can't have trustworthy authority figures here in real life, can we at least try not to corrupt the fictional ones too?
Are you comparing killing a known threat after it attempted to ambush and kill you with no warning which it then promptly surrendered when it couldn't do so to police brutality?
Because the two are grossly different.
And it's insulting for you to compare the two.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if you're failing to understand or intentionally distorting things. Detect Evil is a thing. Look it up.
Not having an evil alignment doesn't excuse you from the consequences of evil actions.
Attacking people with lethal force without warning is pretty damning. The Wyvern intended to kill them. Are you saying every party should roll over and let creatures go when the creature wouldn't do the same for them?
When your Paladin is violating the Geneva Convention, you are doing it wrong.I didn't know the Geneva Convention was in the game as a international standard between countries and individual monsters. Remember, for it to be valid, the parties must have agreed to it beforehand.Just a note here that I thought had been made clear but appears to have been missed by a number of posters.
The PC's initiated the parlay/surrender that was occurring. The Wyvern didn't go - attack, get beaten, lets talk.
The events were -
Wyvern attack, Wyvern gets badly damaged and runs with a comment to 1 of the PCs as he flees, 2 of the PC's including the one it spoke to followed and said stop and talk or else, the Wyvern stopped and talked, the Paladin catches up a couple of rounds later and knccks it unconcious in a surprise attack and then Coup de Gras it as another PC tries to stop it falling to it's death.
Ah so the Paladin didn't accept the Surrender his companions offered. I don't see the issue here. This is an issue about player dynamics.
I don't believe the Paladin should fall in any case. His party members don't speak for him and the Paladin isn't required to uphold their word of surrender. If anything the other players should get a slap on the wrist for not upholding their word.
If anything the other players should get a slap on the wrist for not upholding their word.man what
Hehe. It was meant as a sorta joke.
Basically, one side of the party wanted to do one thing and someone didn't want to do that so he did his thing.
Player dynamic issue. Gm should wash his hands of it.
I never said THIS paladin had to accept surrender. I was pointing out that it's not about being dishonorable because paladins can do it, and some HAVE to. Torag is apparently crazy. But, none of that changes that the paladin is supposed to be a beacon for other people to follow. If you watch the paladin kill the wyvern and walk away thinking "Man that guy is awful, I don't want to be like that." Then the paladin has screwed up, just like when people in the real world stop trusting police because of brutality and misuse of power. We can't have trustworthy authority figures here in real life, can we at least try not to corrupt the fictional ones too?
Are you comparing killing a known threat after it attempted to ambush and kill you with no warning which it then promptly surrendered when it couldn't do so to police brutality?
Because the two are grossly different.
And it's insulting for you to compare the two.
No. You must have overlooked the relevant portion.
No. You must have overlooked the relevant portion.
I never said THIS paladin had to accept surrender. I was pointing out that it's not about being dishonorable because paladins can do it, and some HAVE to. Torag is apparently crazy. But, none of that changes that the paladin is supposed to be a beacon for other people to follow. If you watch the paladin kill the wyvern and walk away thinking "Man that guy is awful, I don't want to be like that." Then the paladin has screwed up, just like when people in the real world stop trusting police because of brutality and misuse of power. We can't have trustworthy authority figures here in real life, can we at least try not to corrupt the fictional ones too?
Are you comparing killing a known threat after it attempted to ambush and kill you with no warning which it then promptly surrendered when it couldn't do so to police brutality?
Because the two are grossly different.
And it's insulting for you to compare the two.
You definitely did. If I was an onlooker I would have thought, "Wow that was some monster. I'm glad he took care of that beast that attacked him from out of nowhere."
Ah, the classic dilemma of the wounded orc who was smart enough to surrender instead of die at the end of the PC's blade. A paladin's players worst nightmare but I'd say if your paladin is well within his rights to deliver divine justice (especially since he's chaotic and not bound by any sort of lawful code aside from, "don't do an evil deed"). This wyvern attacked first and even though it tried to surrender it still has to pay the consequences of it's actions. So, sorry for Mr. Sphinx, but I feel your Paladin of Freedom is well within the boundaries of his ethos.
You definitely did. If I was an onlooker I would have thought, "Wow that was some monster. I'm glad he took care of that beast that attacked him from out of nowhere."No. You must have overlooked the relevant portion.
I never said THIS paladin had to accept surrender. I was pointing out that it's not about being dishonorable because paladins can do it, and some HAVE to. Torag is apparently crazy. But, none of that changes that the paladin is supposed to be a beacon for other people to follow. If you watch the paladin kill the wyvern and walk away thinking "Man that guy is awful, I don't want to be like that." Then the paladin has screwed up, just like when people in the real world stop trusting police because of brutality and misuse of power. We can't have trustworthy authority figures here in real life, can we at least try not to corrupt the fictional ones too?
Are you comparing killing a known threat after it attempted to ambush and kill you with no warning which it then promptly surrendered when it couldn't do so to police brutality?
Because the two are grossly different.
And it's insulting for you to compare the two.
If by nowhere you mean in his own home which they were invading (with the express intent of taking it over no less).
If by nowhere you mean in his own home which they were invading (with the express intent of taking it over no less).
To be fair the Wyvern was in the Paladin's hunting territory and it's not unethical to CdG something if you need to feed on its XP.
I have no more issues to pursue in this thread.
The party wanted the Wyvern to surrender. The Paladin didn't care for it. The Wyvern specifically attacked the party without warning. One side of the party wanted the Wyvern to surrender, the Paladin didn't. Again this is a player dynamic issue. The Paladin of Freedom(CG) isn't required to respect the offered surrender by his companions. If he thinks better good is done by killing the Wyvern, well that's his choice. If you think he should fall for believing that good is better served by making sure the Wyvern can't go on to harm others than so be it.
I don't understand your whole tirade about carnivores and sentient life. If the Wyvern was hungry, it has no reason to attack the armed party since the Stolen Lands are so rife with wildlife.
Your comparison would be important if it wasn't so verdant in the Stolen Lands. It has the same int as some other humanoids.
Starting to feel like we're getting into druid territory here...
If by nowhere you mean in his own home which they were invading (with the express intent of taking it over no less).You definitely did. If I was an onlooker I would have thought, "Wow that was some monster. I'm glad he took care of that beast that attacked him from out of nowhere."No. You must have overlooked the relevant portion.
I never said THIS paladin had to accept surrender. I was pointing out that it's not about being dishonorable because paladins can do it, and some HAVE to. Torag is apparently crazy. But, none of that changes that the paladin is supposed to be a beacon for other people to follow. If you watch the paladin kill the wyvern and walk away thinking "Man that guy is awful, I don't want to be like that." Then the paladin has screwed up, just like when people in the real world stop trusting police because of brutality and misuse of power. We can't have trustworthy authority figures here in real life, can we at least try not to corrupt the fictional ones too?
Are you comparing killing a known threat after it attempted to ambush and kill you with no warning which it then promptly surrendered when it couldn't do so to police brutality?
Because the two are grossly different.
And it's insulting for you to compare the two.
Except we don't know if they were in his home or not. And if the creature wanted to avoid a confrontation it could have. It has flight and speech. It could have communicated. It could have just flown away. Instead it attacked.
|
Good Sentient Carnivore Predators don't kill high order sentients for the purpose of eating them, but will eat them if they kill them for some other reason. Yes, that Gold Dragon will eat you if you are stupid enough to pick a fight with it that ends up with it killing you.
And that Paladin will end you if you are stupid enough to pick a fight with him.
Can we get back to the idea that the Paladin of Freedom takes prisoners?
Because that's never getting unfunny. Or logically consistent.
Oh god. I never even thought about that.
Hilarious.
If you haven't noticed that your society has people who are inclined to be a bit brutish and physical bullies when they think they can get away with it, and yet still be functional members of society then I would respectfully suggest you haven't been observing your fellow citizens very closely.
Paladins?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually the PC's talking to it were in the process of explaining the idea that there are general classes of "not acceptable prey" rather than just individuals that weren't acceptable prey (which he had already indicated he understood) and had beaten the crap out of it relatively easily. They were going to try and convince it to become a member of their Kingdom with a significant chance of success. Where it would either purchase it's food or hunt creatures not on the "not acceptable prey" list.Would it have made a sterling member of their Kingdom? Probably not. Would it have made an acceptable citizen that roughly followed the rules of their society. Probably. If you haven't noticed that your society has people who are inclined to be a bit brutish and physical bullies when they think they can get away with it, and yet still be functional members of society then I would respectfully suggest you haven't been observing your fellow citizens very closely.
I don't know how many times I'm gonna say this but this is quite clearly a player dynamic issue.
The Paladin wants to kill stuff. The rest of the party wants to befriend everything. You support the befriending everything. Either get the Paladin on board or accept his playstyle.
EDIT: As for using the Code to batter him in line, just remember the Paladin of Freedom has a good bit more freedom in what actions he can take.
Either way, I'm washing my hands of this. Later peeps, I should be making a dungeon instead of posting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we get back to the idea that the Paladin of Freedom takes prisoners?
Because that's never getting unfunny. Or logically consistent.
Oh god. I never even thought about that.
Hilarious.
Page 2:
Being a Paladin of Freedom, for all he knew, the Wyvern was being forced into an unwanted partnership (servitude) by the party by virture of having been defeated. Maybe the paladin felt that the more merciful option was to kill it.
I doubt that's what happened, but I felt like saying something.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An example of (I think) a non-evil kill: I played a ranger who's favored enemy was orcs; in the course of a campaign in an area known to have a high percentage of evil humanoids, the party eventually captured an orc who was clearly a scout for something and refused to budge in divulging any sort of information. Orcs were the perennial enemies of those living the the area, and this one, once captured, had been spectacularly unhelpful.
The ranger explained to the orc that they currently simply didn't have the time to properly come to trust the orc/keep it captured: they were in a major time-crunch/rush to save a comrade/ally who'd been captured (semi-ironically-in-the-dramatic-sense-or-whatever, probably the one comrade/ally that could have convinced said orc to cooperate), and they couldn't afford to let the orc go, given the racial tensions that had run so very high of late between the ranger's chosen people and the orc's.
So, the orc had two options: cooperate and divulge his purpose, the location of his military force, and why he was scouting (and what), or take a beheading for his people, as they couldn't, in good conscience, allow him to return to scout wherever he was going or to return with said information. He was surprised at the idea, and angry, but took the beheading instead, silently accepting the reality of the situation: he refused to betray his people. The ranger noted that he respected the orc and his decision, and tried to make it a clean chop, and did (a coup-de-grace against what is effectively a helpless enemy with a high STR and halberd meant that the orc was entirely dead and beheaded). The group then made a quick, but "honoring" burial in "the orc custom" (insomuch as there was one), and created a sign for other orc scouts (in orc, if any could read) that might come through the area, detailing the death of the orc, how he died (honorably), and that he'd divulged no information in doing so, in case other scouts came through and wanted to recover the body (though they couldn't give a name, as he refused to surrender even that).
Frankly, the group did what they could: they were in a situation that they couldn't afford to trust the guy, and they couldn't take the time to properly capture him and win his trust.
So, to that end, I would say that good people, even paladins, can, in fact, use coup-de-grace against effectively helpless enemies.
That said, I think the paladin in this case acted rashly, and willfully - chaotically, yes (going with the "individual" over "group"), but evilly (going with his desire for bloodshed over the general desire for peace). I think there's certainly justification in that the Wyvern attacked first (and thus the paladin had every "right" to kill it in combat, or even down it and the coup-de-grace), but the paladin was ultimately in the wrong in this specific instance - in this case, simply because it was obvious that his friends were attempting to save the thing, and then he beheaded it, including in conversation telling him (or the player) as much, while trying not to get in the way of his sword, for some reason.
Scavion is right in that this is a player dynamic problem.
Rynjin is right that in most similar cases the paladin would be in the right.
Many, many others are right that the paladin committed a willfully evil act - not because of a coup-de-grace, not because it's killing a wyvern that attacked them, but because he had time to assess the situation and didn't.
EDIT: minor clarification
I could possibly do so but I'm not sure that would help me manage the situation within the game. Indeed since the thread has significantly devolved into highly aggressive "sides" discussion I strongly suspect it could make the situation harder to bring to a mutually satisfactory resolution. And my game is more important to me than your desire to try and "win" a internet thread.
And by the way I completely disagree with your concept of the position of the GM in a game. The GM is not 1 person with an equal place on deciding how things go/operate.
IMO The GM, as the person that conceives and operates the world the PC play in, has significantly more authority on the rules of the game and what happens. They have to because if they aren't comfortable mentally with the world they are operating in their head then the campaign will rapidly come to an end.
This doesn't mean they have absolute authority and don't need to take player views into account. They most definitely do have to have to give weight to player views. But the GM has more authority than any other player, or couple of players, at the table so long as it's a game issue. And when I'm a player the same is true that the GM...
Thats a shame. I have no desire to win an internet argument whatsoever. The only thing I care about is genuinely helping you and your players come to a congenial agreement. I don't believe that operating from a higher authority is necessary or even desireful. In fact between mature players it comes off as a bit pretentious. "I have more authority than you because its MY game." Which comes off as childish as it sounds. The GM isn't an authority on the rules of the game because that is what the rulebook is for. Your reading of the rules is no more valid than me reading the rules. Ultimately the group will decide how it plays and should because that makes the most people happy. If it's a world issue that is free for you to adjudicate but as far as most rules go, I'd rather follow what everyone wants the rules at the table to play out rather than what 1 person decides.
Regardless, I consider my view as a gm equal to what my players view and I serve almost solely as a tie breaker or arbiter when the rules are very vague.
Still it's quite characteristic of your view of GM authority to refuse getting the player on here. Clearly your view is the only one we need to see.
Oh well. I would still like to have you and your player sit in a chatroom while I mediate and hope you come to a satisfying conclusion on the matter.
The Paladin wants to INDISCRIMINATELY kill stuff, that is an alignment issue.
Clearly indiscriminately includes killing stuff that just threatened to kill you.
The voice of reason
In defense of not taking the time to assess the situation, I would rebuttal with there could have been a great deal going on where hesitation might result in something bad happening.
Though like I said at the beginning, I believe the Coup de Grace was a bit much and delivering the blow despite I assume his party members telling him otherwise(If they did, I don't know, information is purposefully limited), he was probably overstepping his boundaries.
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.(bold by me)
It was clearly not a threat. It was helpless. It was easy prey and vulnerable so he decided to kill it because it was more convenient to kill it than to worry about it coming back later.
The creature is sentient and thus worthy of having it's life protected and should have been forgiven ESPECIALLY because of it's nature and because it simply doesn't know any better.
That's like kicking your dog for eating some ham that you dropped on the floor. It looks delicious, smells good, and it's hungry. It's nature is to eat tasty things.
Had he ambushed it, knocked it out, and then asked if the party was ok we could have assumed he was looking after the welfare of the party/himself. But to kill it with no regard for it's life knowing that it is sentient and now helpless is evil plain and simple.
If you feel that an immediate drop is too severe then my opinion is that you should have him have a vision at the start of the next game where he is explaining his side to his god, if he doesn't have an incredibly good reason for his actions I would have him fall. If he can't take being a powerless paladin for the time it will take for an atonement then I would have him retire his character to a life of atonement and allow the player to make a new character.
Not only is this obviously evil, but this will set a bad precedent for your players. You will be saying it's good to trick someone into a conversation and then attack them when their guard is down for an easy kill and loot.
** spoiler omitted **
It was clearly not a threat. It was helpless. It was easy prey and vulnerable so he decided to kill it because it was more convenient to kill it than to worry about it coming back later.
The creature is sentient and thus worthy of having it's life protected and should have been forgiven ESPECIALLY because of it's nature and because it simply doesn't know any better.
That's like kicking your dog for eating some ham that you dropped on the floor. It looks delicious, smells good, and it's hungry. It's nature is to eat tasty things.Had he ambushed it, knocked it out, and then asked if the party was ok we could have assumed he was looking after the welfare of the party/himself. But to kill it with no regard for it's life knowing that it is sentient and now helpless is evil plain and simple.
If you feel that an immediate drop is too severe then my opinion is that you should have him have a vision at the start of the next game where he is explaining his side to his god, if he doesn't have an incredibly good reason for his actions I would have him fall. If he can't take being a powerless paladin for the time it will take for an atonement then I would have him retire his character to a life of atonement and allow...
Is it sentient, or is it like a dog and doesn't know better?
Pick one, you can't argue both.
sen·tient
[sen-shuhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
con·scious
[kon-shuhs] Show IPA
adjective
1.
aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings
It can't be both?
What I meant by the dog example was that it is simply acting on instinct. You look like a tasty morsel so it tried to eat you, no harm no foul. It was outmatched and running and then found out that it could talk to you and have better chances of survival so it did. YOU can reason better than it can so YOU have that responsibility, it doesn't so you cant expect it to.
|
|
Okay, my internet died for several hours before I could post this, and it seems relevant even considering how many more posts there have been in the interim, so here it is:
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.
I'm seriously suggesting that, if the fight is over and he has no more pressing concerns (including seeing to the injured on his own side) the Paladin should treat the enemy wounded, yes. That's the right thing to do, so he should do it. What he does from there depends highly on the situation.
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.
I agree that the lack of a code is an issue. However, I'd strongly argue this falls under an Evil act and thus all Paladins would fall from it regardless of specific Code.
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.
Certainly there are. People all have different definitions of Good in real life, and thus inevitably in the game.
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.
This is why it's an excellent idea to discuss how your GM defines Alignment before you play a Paladin. Really, this should be required for all Paladin players and GMs.
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.
I'd like to note that I've never referred to the wyvern as anything but a sentient creature and never denied that it's attack was unwarranted.
And the difference with the Lich is that you know, by the nature of becoming a Lich and having an Evil alignment, that this is far from the Lich's only crime. You know nothing of the sort about the wyvern.
Then again that entire point is predicated upon my understanding of good, which is again the point.
Indeed. :)
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.
I agree with this to some degree. Definitions should be made very explicit from the beginning. But...killing a helpless foe over the objections of the rest of the party is pretty egregious.
..
.
I'll probably post a couple more responses to a couple of other posts in a bit.
so much depends on perspective. I think worrying too much about good or lawful for a paladin is kind of a straight jacket. I would consider more what would his god think of it than an alignment. The god of woodland creatures might be upset over this, but the god of protecting farmers sheep might not be. I always think of sir galahad in le Morte dárthur (the ultimate paladin'hevanely knight). He kills a whole bunch of people and no one can figure out how he can be so close to god and slaughter all these people. He tells them the people he killed werent christians so its all good. It is all perpective.
|
|
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.
Wait...what? This post makes no sense. Initiating a fight unprovoked and keeping your word are two entirely separate things that have absolutely nothing to do with each other. In Pathfinder, a LE guy is the obvious example, because he'd absolutely do the first, but quite possibly never do the second. Historically, a number of raiding/warrior cultures are also excellent examples, with vikings coming immediately to mind.
Attacking people does not equal having no honor.
This admittedly a bit of a digression...but the whole end of that post just makes no damn sense at all.