| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: And Aazhog, apparently it is not clear as many have disagreed with you across several pages of debate. Many even stated that him "executing" it, even without trial and such, is not in fact an evil action. The only thing you really have to stand on right now is intent, and the only thing you have intent off of is that he's willing to allow it to be raised later. You don't know why he's willing.
Fortunately, I’m not required to “stand on” anything. I’m not lobbying to win a popularity contest of some sort. I’m merely attempting to engage in sharing my opinion. Which I think I have, fairly reasonably and unbiased if I do say so myself. As far as intent, we know the intent, as I stated above and the OP stated at the outset of discussion. Angry paladin, murderous intent for personal perception of crime. Which I may add, is only a crime by the laws of human society. Animals and beasts hold no such courts regarding slaughter. Must have something to do with that whole neutral thing.
Did it ever occur to you that in a world where everyone gets a free raise dead, killing it and then converting it to good by any number of ways of speaking with spirits while its dead is far safer to the general populace? There's no chance of it breaking its word, no chance of running amok, it felt no extra pain cause it was already unconscious and frankly decapitation is a very quick way to go.
I think Korthis answered this pretty brilliantly in his Edit 2. But Sure, I’ll go one step further. In the PF setting Raise Dead is NOT a mulligan by anyone’s measure. The slain creature must be willing to accept the spell or it fails. Now why would a purely instinctive creature accept a raise dead from the very people that slew it after seeking parlay?
Edit to include: Additionally Raise Dead will only work if the creature slain is raised within 1 day of its demise per caster level. Are you suggesting that you're going to perform a complete and total alignment shift in your dead wyvern inside of 20 days time? Interesting notion.At the end of the day, this paladin eliminated a threat that had attacked him that could still be spoken with, still be negotiated with, and subsequently brought back if it did change alignment.
It was no longer a threat of any kind the second it was incapacitated. Please note that I’m not saying that killing the creature was in and of itself an evil act. I’m saying killing a defenseless creature that poses no further threat is. I’d have had NO issue whatsoever had the paladin left the wyvern to bleed out or not – presumably at the will of the Gods ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aazhog, thank you for your kind words!
Except that it is a treacherous ruling to assume that “fighting evil” is in anyway identical to “slaying evil”. What is the definition of a paladin if not holding to a significantly higher moral compass than the rest of the world? Are paladins not, by their very nature the embodiment of heroic qualities like Honor, Valor, and indeed Mercy?
I don't disagree with those notions on face value. That having been said, I - respectfully speaking - think it takes a stretch to ignore the lethality behind a paladin's convictions.
A parallel that comes to mind is that of a policeman. Ideally, such an individual would be lawful (on the basis of his occupation, serving the law) and good (he is genuinely interested in "protecting and serving" the people of his community). Policemen are expected to act judiciously and proportionately to the situation - it's why they have batons, mace, tasers, and handcuffs in addition to their service sidearms. A police officer claiming that he sought to non-lethally subdue a suspect by shooting him with his pistol would not be taken seriously.
Paladins - from classic Dungeons and Dragons all the way to Pathfinder - don't traditionally arm themselves with bolas or batons; they come to battle with swords, lances, war hammers, axes, and the like. A paladin who enters combat armed thusly is clearly demonstrating lethal intent unless it's qualified otherwise. Much like the police officer and his pistol, it would be at the very least irresponsible for a paladin to attack someone (notice I'm not saying to act in self-defense) with a naked blade if subduing them non-lethally was his intent.
I will admit that I disagree very strongly with permitting a chaotic paladin in the first place, since in my opinion it is the component of LAW that truly makes a paladin a paladin. To speak in broad stroke generalizations, a chaotic paladin that takes lethal action based off of subjective and personal directive is at best an example of vigilante justice, and not an example of a holy crusader that fights for things much larger than him or herself.
I agree wholeheartedly. The paladin, as defined in this game, is a heroic champion whose code of ethics is tied to religious doctrine. Take away the lawful conviction to codified right and wrong, and I agree with you that we're really talking about a different class altogether.
The component of Law in a paladin’s alignment ensures that even a clearly evil force has an inherent right to judgement. Note I said judgement and not trial. Trial indicates a mortal set of laws and stricture to determine guilt of deed. Judgement suggests that there exists accountability and effect stemming from one’s actions, determined by a structured power. That being said, I realize that has little to nothing to do with the question posed by the OP so I won’t elaborate overmuch here.
I agree with you in principle, but we're not so much at odds regarding judgment as we are in terms of the deserved punishment. Again, unless a paladin comes armed to deliver non-lethal punishment, it's at least irresponsible to dispense it with a longsword and hope things play out ideally.
I suppose what I am saying is that if a given player has no interest in following things like moral compasses, codes of conduct, chivalric dogma or in general acting like what I would call the “classic” examples of paladin-like behavior, why would they not play an entirely different class progression?
At the risk of playing Devil's Advocate, you can play a character who has a moral compass, follows a code of conduct, adheres to chivalry, etc., but is nonetheless a very black-and-white individual. I'll grant you that this is a difficult proposition in the real world, but within the confines of the Pathfinder game, it is rather easy to take an absolutist stand against evil and the depravity it represents. Consider:
He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order, but not about freedom, dignity, or life.
She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience.
A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do.
Unless a paladin and/or his church has access to magic that can permanently/irreversibly change alignment, I have no problem with a paladin upholding the tenets you listed and also lethally dispatching credible threats.
Great conversation! :)
Well, gee, I think that...hang on, let me scroll down to go to the Quick Post box so I can post my opinion on this—
Holy s~@%, ten PAGES?!
That would be relevant if the creature was evil, it wasn't.
** spoiler omitted **
I never claimed otherwise, Korthis. Nor did I take the side of the player. That much is obvious (I think!) throughout my post. What I pointed out is that, had the player not already expressed a reasoning that was incompatible with a paladin ("I was angry, so I attacked"), there would in fact be justification for a paladin to lethally attack a non-evil creature. :)
Again, not to rehash old points...but neither I nor anyone else have spoken against a Paladin being able to perform summary executions under the right circumstances (and I'd actually peg this exact situation plus an Evil Alignment on the victim as close enough to the right circumstances...I'll explain why in a moment).
I hope my post didn't seem like a direct challenge to any one specific poster - that wasn't my intent. :)
The issue, in this specific situation, is that first the only crime they knew the wyvern had performed (attempted murder) had some mitigating factors, and was the only crime they knew it had committed, now a detectably Evil character who'd done the same thing...you have pretty good evidence he'd done that sort of thing before, and a pattern of theft and murder is a valid reason for execution, interrogating him before executing him would be ideal...but probably not absolutely required. A Neutral person? They might've done this before...or not. Hard to say.
I'm not sure about "mitigating factors". My intent here is not so much to absolve the player (since he did, after all, engage on incorrect reasoning) but to point out that the GM as well bears some responsibility.
I think a truly neutral wyvern would be willing to kill unintelligent creatures for food and/or sport. I think it would use brute force and intimidation to coerce and drive off intelligent creatures it viewed as a threat of some sort. I do not believe that it's tenable, however, to argue that an intelligent creature attacking another intelligent creature with lethal force is not evil - when there is no valid reason for said attack.
And second, the Paladin didn't execute the wyvern to keep it from hurting people or anything like that. He was fine with the other PCs raising it, remember? He did it because it angered him. That's...pretty Evil.
Again, I don't disagree with that point of view at all!
As I recall the only reason this thing is neutral is because its straight out of the bestiary, alignment wise. Something I virulently disagree on. How on earth is something that always resorts to violence first ever neutral?
Someone Someone compared it to organized crime vs a murderer. Both of those fit on the evil spectrum. Heck this thing pretty blatantly falls under neutral evil!
As compared to neutral evil ...
Thomas, you'll note I mentioned a racketeer/extortionist - someone willing to use intimidation and/or violence for profit. The most explicit qualifier for an evil alignment in this game is the willingness to take life.
That having been said, I agree with you that it is difficult to reconcile the wyvern in this specific scenario with a neutral alignment. This ties back to my points earlier, regarding lethal intent and means. A mercenary of neutral alignment who likes to bully and rob peasants could very well make his point by beating them, bashing them with the pommel of his sword, etc. A wyvern could very well try to terrify a traveller by buffeting him with a wing, smacking him with a tail, etc. The second the mercenary starts swinging a naked sword with the intent of hitting that peasant, though, or when the wyvern tries to bite that traveller as hard as it can, all bets are off in my humble opinion. That's when you're attacking with lethal force and showing disregard for the value of human life.
Hence why I felt the GM bore some responsibility for the situation. The Bestiary entry may very well say that the default is Neutral, but the creature's action was evil. The paladin's player ended up acting out with rash reasoning and was wrong but he was nonetheless put in a situation where he could have reasonably gone after the creature.
Well, gee, I think that...hang on, let me scroll down to go to the Quick Post box so I can post my opinion on this—
Holy s&!~, ten PAGES?!
Couldn't just go for the OBVIOUS could you?
Absolutely my pleasure Kalthanan. Having played many a paladin myself since Chainmail (yes, I'm THAT old) haha and as my current group is in the midst of Way of the Wicked. It's a topic I feel pretty educated regarding. I've enjoyed the discussion a lot. And I suppose ultimately what it will come down to is the good old DM having to decide, and set precedent in his or her game.
|
Deadmanwalking, I hope my post didn't seem like a direct challenge to any one specific poster - that wasn't my intent. :)
Nah, it's cool, just noting the specific reason I and others disagreed with your point. I never for a moment thought it was personal.
I'm not sure about "mitigating factors". My intent here is not so much to absolve the player (since he did, after all, engage on incorrect reasoning) but to point out that the GM as well bears some responsibility.
Mostly the 'invading my territory' thing. It's not enough to make the act not Evil, but it is enough to explain it and maybe make it not worth a death sentence.
I think a truly neutral wyvern would be willing to kill unintelligent creatures for food and/or sport. I think it would use brute force and intimidation to coerce and drive off intelligent creatures it viewed as a threat of some sort. I do not believe that it's tenable, however, to argue that an intelligent creature attacking another intelligent creature with lethal force is not evil - when there is no valid reason for said attack.
There have been various possibilities suggested (mostly coming down to it being tired of humans invading it's territory)...but you may be right that the GM should've thought that out and didn't.
Then again...maybe they did. Neither the Paladin nor his player paused to even consider it.
Again, I don't disagree with that point of view at all!
Glad we agree on some things then! :)
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It's evil to kill monsters that have attacked you?
If they have or are in the process of surrendering it is evil to kill them.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who knew that the words "I surrender" were really a villain's invulnerability cheat code.
Who knew that the words "I surrender" were really a villain's invulnerability cheat code.
Wholehearted agreement.
This is swiftly turning into a morality play, and a bad one at that. There are just too many mitigating circumstances and a strong pull towards modern ethics and western cultural mores in a situation that really wouldn't happen in real life here for me to judge against the paladin subtype in question. There is a clash of playstyles here, and possibly of personalities and even old guard vs. young turk. The OP has probably already moved on, but I would encourage him to kick this guy out of the group and keep on playing with the people who play in the playstyle he is clearly accustomed to.
Intent makes up part of how an act is aligned. Just because what he did saves some people, doesn't make it neutral* if he did it for evil reasons**.
* Killing a sentient being who doesn't want to die is an inherently evil act. In my view of alignment, the goodness of the intent and consequences will hardly ever, if at all, swing the resulting alignment of the act further than neutral.
** Killing a sentient being just because you want to kill something is evil.
Excuse me, intent only matters in modern day times, and not even in all portions of the world here. Even then, many people do not agree intent matters at all.
And no, killing a sentient being who doesn't want to die is not an inherently evil act. There is no such thing as "inherent" evil. If you cannot find a reason for your argument, that means it does not have a logical premise behind it and thus is wrong. You do not just get to say "This is true because i say so."
Maybe I could've expressed myself more clearly. In my defense it was the middle of the night and writing that was the last thing I did before leaving my computer in favour of my bed.
First off, that "in my view of alignment" in my first footnote should have extended to the entire post. I do get to say "this is true to me because I say so". Please understand that everything I say in this discussion is to some degree based on my own subjective opinion, since it is impossible to discuss alignment without bias from personal morality.
Excuse me, intent only matters in modern day times, and not even in all portions of the world here. Even then, many people do not agree intent matters at all.
I would agree that intent doesn't matter had we been talking law/chaos, but in the good/evil discussion I find that intent should play a role.
And no, killing a sentient being who doesn't want to die is not an inherently evil act. There is no such thing as "inherent" evil.
Okay, I'll try to rephrase: As a standard, killing a sentient being is evil. Circumstantial modifiers may apply and change the final alignment of the act, but without any such modifiers present it will always be evil. (positive circumstantial modifiers include, but are not limited to, self-defense, protection of others, mercy-killing of a consenting being)
I will note that an anti-paladin is allowed to take good actions if those further his evil goals, yet if a paladin tries to subvert that by using evil actions to further good, he will instantly fall. Somehow it seems that intent matters to the anti-paladin's code, yet not to the paladin's.
Is there anything to conclude from this? I don't know, but I thought it was an interesting point.
Protecting its territory from a perceived threat can be viewed as a valid reason (from a neutral standpoint) especially if it had been attacked by previous adventurers.
With respect, this is why I have cited the Alignment descriptions. Morality is not a simple topic. Institutions of higher learning offer advanced degrees that require intense study on the topics we're barely skimming on. On the other hand, the Pathfinder game provides guidelines to easily differentiate between good, neutral and evil, and between lawfulness, neutrality and chaos. From the perspective of those guidelines, you can't attack people with lethal force on account of them walking through a forest on which you claim squatter's rights by dint of brute force without being ruled evil.
Okay, I'll try to rephrase: As a standard, killing a sentient being is evil. Circumstantial modifiers may apply and change the final alignment of the act, but without any such modifiers present it will always be evil. (positive circumstantial modifiers include, but are not limited to, self-defense, protection of others, mercy-killing of a consenting being)
That's an injection of OOG morality. The game states:
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, ...
Paladins are warriors whose religious conviction is specific to fighting evil. Limiting their ability to slay said evil to incidents of self-defense or mercy-killing cannot be reconciled with this class and its crusading* ethos.
* I mean this in the general sense conveyed by the class description, not as a reference to historic groups and events.
|
|
With respect, this is why I have cited the Alignment descriptions. Morality is not a simple topic. Institutions of higher learning offer advanced degrees that require intense study on the topics we're barely skimming on. On the other hand, the Pathfinder game provides guidelines to easily differentiate between good, neutral and evil, and between lawfulness, neutrality and chaos. From the perspective of those guidelines, you can't attack people with lethal force on account of them walking through a forest on which you claim squatter's rights by dint of brute force without being ruled evil.
Well, I think the action is undeniably Evil. In fact, I think everyone can agree on that. But...people can commit a single Evil act without being Evil. Maybe the Wyvern also performs a variety of Good acts to balance out the scales, or (more likely) maybe it doesn't usually do this sort of thing but was having a particularly frustrating day and acted out of anger. Much like the Paladin.
There are a lot of reasons a Neutral character might commit an Evil act without actually falling down to a full-on Evil Alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Protecting its territory from a perceived threat can be viewed as a valid reason (from a neutral standpoint) especially if it had been attacked by previous adventurers.
Could be, might be, can be, but the fact of the matter is that you keep fabricating elaborate scenarios that justify the wyvern's actions when it is literally just a randomly rolled encounter so any scenario other than "Dude it's a f+%$ing wyvern from nowhere!" is kinda hard for you to prove, eh?
Seriously, all of this argument is over a damned random encounter. It's silly, and the OP should feel bad for ever starting this conversation over something so trivial in the first place.
Why are you so Fall happy? A Fall should be reserved for something truly heinous not killing a randomly generated Wyvern who only exists to give the party EXP (that is the only reason random encounter tables exist). He's not relevant in any sense. There was no need to make a big deal of him killing the damned thing, just move on to the next randomly generated beastie.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are you so Fall happy? A Fall should be reserved for something truly heinous not killing a randomly generated Wyvern who only exists to give the party EXP (that is the only reason random encounter tables exist). He's not relevant in any sense. There was no need to make a big deal of him killing the damned thing, just move on to the next randomly generated beastie.
Except, in world, it's a thinking feeling creature with it's own right to live.
Hell, by this argument the Paladin could kill whole villages with no special or named characters and be fine because "they didn't really matter". It's metagamaing on a level that's poison to actually using the game to tell a story, or actually portraying Good as Good.
Why are you so Fall happy? A Fall should be reserved for something truly heinous not killing a randomly generated Wyvern who only exists to give the party EXP (that is the only reason random encounter tables exist). He's not relevant in any sense. There was no need to make a big deal of him killing the damned thing, just move on to the next randomly generated beastie.Except, in world, it's a thinking feeling creature with it's own right to live.
Hell, by this argument the Paladin could kill whole villages with no special or named characters and be fine because "they didn't really matter". It's metagamaing on a level that's poison to actually using the game to tell a story, or actually portraying Good as Good.
On the other hand if the Paladin really falls, that random encounter ate up way more resources than it was supposed to.
Who knew that the words "I surrender" were really a villain's invulnerability cheat code.
Note that pretending to surrender is not surrendering. Nor is trying to escape after surrendering.
A very good example of this is David Weber's War God's series where the bad guys often when losing throw down their weapons and surrender. This pisses off the good guys, because they have to honor this (the gods of this universe are extremely active in their followers lives).
Well, I think the action is undeniably Evil. In fact, I think everyone can agree on that. But...people can commit a single Evil act without being Evil. Maybe the Wyvern also performs a variety of Good acts to balance out the scales, or (more likely) maybe it doesn't usually do this sort of thing but was having a particularly frustrating day and acted out of anger. Much like the Paladin.
Again, I'm not defending the paladin in this case. :)
I'm pointing out that the GM also has a responsibility to present the antagonists in a manner that is consistent with the rules. The paladin is wrong for wishing to kill the wyvern out of anger for the assault he suffered. The paladin would not have been wrong for killing a wyvern that is attacking random passers-by with lethal force. In an ideal situation the paladin may or may not have used Detect Evil (I personally think it's a moot point given that the monster attacked with lethal force), but in an ideal situation the GM would have had the wyvern attack in a manner consistent with being territorial, aggressive, bullying, but not murderous.
You make that sound like a bad thing, but what other option does a Wyvern (who only speaks Draconic) have besides claiming its territory by dint of brute force? What authority can the Wyvern look to, to recognize/enforce its claim on the hunting grounds it needs to survive?
I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't feel as if I should have to answer this. Why? Because the Bestiary entry for the Wyvern qualifies that such creatures can co-exist with others and don't need to kill whatever enters their perceived territory.
Bringing back the extortionist/racketeer versus murderer example from earlier, one of the oldest draconic tropes out there is of the monster demanding tribute from the local village. A wyvern that nonetheless develops good leanings could even provide a service: beating up on monsters, bandits, and the like in exchange for hunting rights, food, an annual tax, etc., but also doing so because they are fond of the humans. A normal wyvern could be simply mercenary - such as the example of those that serve as bodyguards or mounts for powerful creatures. A wyvern with evil leanings might beat and terrify the villagers into accepting a deal they didn't even seek out with it.
If the other players are unhappy enough with this paladin that they don't want to associate with him any more and the DM refrains from turning the ex-PC into an NPC, then the question of whether he falls does not even need to be raised. The other players would boot him from the party and never see or hear from him again.
Presumably, the DM's instructions would be, "Try to create a non-jerk character this time".
Why are you so Fall happy?Who says I'm "Fall happy"? My position all along has been that the GM determines what's evil and is well within his rights to adjudicate on the basis of rules. It's not as though having paladins fall is a house-rule.
A Fall should be reserved for something truly heinousA couple of things here: first, this is an opinion or house-rule unless cited; second, whose job is it to determine what's "heinous" if not the GM's?
not killing a randomly generated Wyvern who only exists to give the party EXP (that is the only reason random encounter tables exist).EXP's given for overcoming encounters, and while killing is definitely the go-to solution for most encounters, it doesn't always need to be.
He's not relevant in any sense.Just to be clear, this has no bearing on whether the action is evil or not, right? I get that bringing every little problem to the forums can be a problem, but if the point is that a paladin doesn't need to worry about committing acts of evil unless they're against somebody that's relevant...
There was no need to make a big deal of him killing the damned thing, just move on to the next randomly generated beastie.... would the situation have been any different, in your opinion, if the random encounter had been with a Nymph? If so, why? Or, what if the Wyvern hadn't attacked? I mean, it's still just a random encounter... killing is still a viable way to end a random encounter, moral implications aside.
My point here is that it's quite obviously not clear cut whether thus is evil or not (or he wouldn't have posted in the first place) so you're spending a billion times more time asking advice on it than just moving on because it simply doesn't matter in the slightest. It's like people are allergic to having fun in this game instead of acting like a normal person and saying "F*$~ it, doesn't matter, I wouldn't even be giving this a second thought if it were anyone else, let's get back to having fun."
And IIRC that bit about only falling for big, clearly evil acts is from JJ. I'd find the quote for you but I'm on my phone right now.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand if the Paladin really falls, that random encounter ate up way more resources than it was supposed to.Why are you so Fall happy? A Fall should be reserved for something truly heinous not killing a randomly generated Wyvern who only exists to give the party EXP (that is the only reason random encounter tables exist). He's not relevant in any sense. There was no need to make a big deal of him killing the damned thing, just move on to the next randomly generated beastie.Except, in world, it's a thinking feeling creature with it's own right to live.
Hell, by this argument the Paladin could kill whole villages with no special or named characters and be fine because "they didn't really matter". It's metagamaing on a level that's poison to actually using the game to tell a story, or actually portraying Good as Good.
They often do when players make poor decisions in how to deal with them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^ I see. I think we agree that it's iffy and that it probably doesn't merit a 10 page discussion. Where we disagree is that I think he should have just went with his gut and had the paladin fall, requiring a minor atonement, and you feel like he should have just ignored it.
So here we are, ten pages in, and the outcome of the great discussion is that it's up to the GM to decide what happens, there is no right or wrong answer. It's a game. Move along.
Honestly, I can only see Atonement as this big ugly cliche of redemption and so forth so if I really had an issue with a Paladin or whatever he did, I would just retcon it.
Saves time, saves effort, he doesn't lose all his powers and knows that sorta thing isn't okay.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just a 5th level divine spell, right? For minor offenses it might even be free, whereas I think it's a few thousand GP, tops, for pretty much any offense, except those requiring quests (which I would probably think is going a bit far here).^ I see. I think we agree that it's iffy and that it probably doesn't merit a 10 page discussion. Where we disagree is that I think he should have just went with his gut and had the paladin fall, requiring a minor atonement, and you feel like he should have just ignored it.
So here we are, ten pages in, and the outcome of the great discussion is that it's up to the GM to decide what happens, there is no right or wrong answer. It's a game. Move along.
Honestly, I can only see Atonement as this big ugly cliche of redemption and so forth so if I really had an issue with a Paladin or whatever he did, I would just retcon it.
Saves time, saves effort, he doesn't lose all his powers and knows that sorta thing isn't okay.
Nah. It's either a token mention or the big dumb redemption quest which is interesting if you haven't already read or played that scenario out atleast a hundred times.
Either way, Retcon takes care of it best. I'd rather not devote in game time to fixing a mistake in communication than just saying, "Well that didn't happen." A Paladin is trained in the philosophy of their cause. These issues shouldn't happen. If the Player regrets doing it or didn't know the fall was the penalty(Which should have been mentioned beforehand, a fall should be forewarned), I retcon.
Dealing with a fall is a pain in the arse for the whole table. The party has to put up with your loss of powers, the player has to put up with being a glorified Fighter and you as a DM have to adjust your encounters(If you carefully balance encounters like me) so you don't kill the party till he can get his redemption.
|
|
Nah. It's either a token mention or the big dumb redemption quest which is interesting if you haven't already read or played that scenario out atleast a hundred times.
Either way, Retcon takes care of it best. I'd rather not devote in game time to fixing a mistake in communication than just saying, "Well that didn't happen." A Paladin is trained in the philosophy of their cause. These issues shouldn't happen. If the Player regrets doing it or didn't know the fall was the penalty(Which should have been mentioned beforehand, a fall should be forewarned), I retcon.
Dealing with a fall is a pain in the arse for the whole table. The party has to put up with your loss of powers, the player has to put up with being a glorified Fighter and you as a DM have to adjust your encounters(If you carefully balance encounters like me) so you don't kill the party till he can get his redemption.
I actually agree with this, more or less. I'd personally never retcon, but I'd also always warn the Paladin pre fall-causing act. "Are you sure you want to execute the helpless prisoner who was trying to surrender? That doesn't sound very Paladin-like..." That sort of thing. In the absence of such a warning, a retcon may be the best solution.
Except, in world, it's a thinking feeling creature with it's own right to live.
Nahhhh... First of all, its a WYVERN. Crazy carnivorous monster doesn't get that right.
secondly... it attacked them first. Probably attacked many others on the road in the past. Predators don't get to play the 'Its my right to eat you' card...
I'm pointing out that the GM also has a responsibility to present the antagonists in a manner that is consistent with the rules. The paladin is wrong for wishing to kill the wyvern out of anger for the assault he suffered. The paladin would not have been wrong for killing a wyvern that is attacking random passers-by with lethal force. In an ideal situation the paladin may or may not have used Detect Evil (I personally think it's a moot point given that the monster attacked with lethal force), but in an ideal situation the GM would have had the wyvern attack in a manner consistent with being territorial, aggressive, bullying, but not murderous.
This is kind of where I lean too.
Wyverns aren't known for diplomacy. they swoop in, kill and fly away. If the DM wants to play them differently... then good for them... but the players may still respond differently.
ESPECIALLY when it already attacked them like 12 seconds ago and have vicious vicious poison... It's wounded. it's weak... It can still kill half the party if it wanted to.
Now, did the Paladin KNOW that it surrendered? It's stated that he doesn't understand draconic, but knew they were talking... Did the wizards yell out 'we're working this out!!!' or did it look like the Dragon-kin was monologuing to whoever would listen?
Or did it just sound like angry hissing and growling?
Seriously, all of this argument is over a damned random encounter. It's silly, and the OP should feel bad for ever starting this conversation over something so trivial in the first place.
I don't think it's possible to create a thread about a paladin falling without it inspiring hundreds of forum posts of heated back and forth.
|
|
Nahhhh... First of all, its a WYVERN. Crazy carnivorous monster doesn't get that right.
So...you're arguing Alignment itself is racist, and killing intelligent carnivores somehow doesn't count?
secondly... it attacked them first. Probably attacked many others on the road in the past. Predators don't get to play the 'Its my right to eat you' card...
Never said they did, or that the Wyvern wasn't committing an evil act. The Paladin defending himself was entirely legitimate, and even that last hit while it was parleying was justifiable. It's the coup de grace where the problems come in. Because he didn't know if it ever attacked anyone else and assuming it did...isn't very Paladin-like, is it?
Especially not when his party members tried to save it. Hell, for all he knew it could've been mind-controlled into attacking them and the other PCs just freed it. He never even bothered to check.
Nahhhh... First of all, its a WYVERN. Crazy carnivorous monster doesn't get that right.So...you're arguing Alignment itself is racist, and killing intelligent carnivores somehow doesn't count?
YEP!!!
Sounds about right to me. If you have two teams... and one is planning on EATING the other... then THEY are the bad guys and you can defend yourself.
No moral dilemmas here.
secondly... it attacked them first. Probably attacked many others on the road in the past. Predators don't get to play the 'Its my right to eat you' card...Never said they did, or that the Wyvern wasn't committing an evil act. The Paladin defending himself was entirely legitimate, and even that last hit while it was parleying was justifiable. It's the coup de grace where the problems come in. Because he didn't know if it ever attacked anyone else and assuming it did...isn't very Paladin-like, is it?
Especially not when his party members tried to save it. Hell, for all he knew it could've been mind-controlled into attacking them and the other PCs just freed it. He never even bothered to check.
HAD the paladin made a Knowledge check to know anything about Wyverns... what he would have gotten would be this.
Wyverns are nasty, brutish, and violent reptilian
beasts akin to more powerful dragons. They are always
aggressive and impatient, and are quick to resort to
force in order to accomplish their goals
The fact that there may be SOME nice ones out there... is irrelevant if THIS one jumped out and attacked them in a violent manner. That isn't mind control... that's baseline wyvern.
The Paladin could have done a lot of things differently. I could definitely see a warning in there, but I'm hesitant to hit with the 'insta-fall hammer' without having been at the table.
Wyverns are intelligent.... but not VERY intelligent. Honeslty, MOST of the time they are played as 'hungry beast' with a dash of 'cruel cunning.' Again, this table could have been different. If a creature is going to act like a rampaging beast, attack like a beast, and then it will be treated like a beast.
If the creature is smart enough to surrender... then it needs to be obvious to all that the battle is over. Otherwise it's simply 'the next 6 seconds' of the battle, and frankly that monster is just as dangerous NOW... as it was in the BEGINNING of the battle.
Paladins are warriors whose religious conviction is specific to fighting evil. Limiting their ability to slay said evil to incidents of self-defense or mercy-killing cannot be reconciled with this class and its crusading* ethos.
* I mean this in the general sense conveyed by the class description, not as a reference to historic groups and events.
I did say "not limited to". I gave a few examples of what I consider to be circumstances that might shift the alignment from evil, not an exhaustive list.
Although constantly hungry and prone to mayhem, a wyvern that can be befriended (usually through a delicate combination of flattery, intimidation, food, and treasure) becomes a powerful ally.Whatever risk the Wyvern represented, the Gnome and Sphinx took the brunt of that risk in order to secure a powerful ally (flying scout/guard) for their kingdom. Not only is that outcome best for the Wyvern, it could have saved a lot of lives in the kingdom as well. The Paladin ruined that in the service of his petty pride and anger.
Pshhhh... Soooo the dreature known for mayhem... can be pacified with constant treasure and food and praise??
What CAN'T?? That's kind of a lame thing to even put in a book ;)
Honestly, Wyverns are too dangerous to trust, and it sounds like to expensive to boot... Just because it could be of use... doesn't mean its good to have around. A rabid dog makes a great watchdog too... but I wouldn't invite into the kingdom. I really have no issue with the killing of the thing.
EXCEPT.... that the Paladin PLAYER was kind of a jerk. When it was falling out of the sky and the wizard is saving it with Feather Fall... then it is a SERIOUS Jerk move to just kill it. Especially if it was unconscious and there was time and safety to talk it over.
Heard there was a dead horse beating competition going on over here? Am I too late or is the horse still dead?
Heard there was a dead horse beating competition going on over here? Am I too late or is the horse still dead?
Someone cast raise dead on it, figured there were a few more hits for it to take.