|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gotta point out, what counts as an evil act in pathfinder is nowhere near what we consider an evil act, as canon material from the deities book outright says it is a legitimate action for a lawful good character to mash the heads of baby goblins if he doesn't think they'll turn out to be good and non violent.
Honestly, I don't understand how a creature that is in the description inherently violent towards everything that doesn't give it stuff and is intelligent enough to know right from wrong isn't evil. Regardless, if he knows enough to know that its going to be a continual threat to civilized lands, per mashing goblin baby head rule, he can kill it surrender or not.
Edit: and yes, i'm calling it the mashing goblin baby head rule.
I'm just gonna link a thing here. And given that's from James Jacobs and he is the guy who has the last word on this in Golarion...no, killing babies isn't Good.
'Most' is not the same as 'all'?"Although far from animalistic in intellect, and capable of speech, most wyverns simply can't be bothered with the subtlety of diplomacy, and prefer to fight first and parley later, and even then only if faced with a foe they can neither defeat nor flee from."
Maybe the GM should read the monster description. I believe the GM making the paladin fall would be a controlling move by the GM - not in accordance with what should make a paladin fall.
It's not, but in this case it obviously held true.
|
|
| 1 person 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...
I agree with this post in it's entirety. My point has always been that this action was Evil because there were viable alternatives that the Paladin didn't even bother to think about. He didn't even try to avoid killing the helpless creature, quite the reverse. The situation described above had none of those options and what ones they had were tried.
|
Many people have already called out that bit from Champions of Purity as being downright contradictory, especially since much of the surrounding information stresses that simply being evil isn't just cause for being murdered.
That's what happens when you have to throw something out there to appease mutually exclusive playstyles.
Personally, the guy murdering children of any race is the one good-aligned PCs should be cutting down.
|
|
He outright admits in the first paragraph that he disagrees with the published material. Sorry to tell you, that's not clarification, that's his opinion that the book shouldn't have been written that way.
I read the rest of the post, which was him saying "this is how it is in my games, and i feel the rest of paizo agrees with me" but flat out he is stating right here that he disagrees with the published material.
He's not clarifying it, he's saying that its wrong. He has the right to say he doesn't believe it, but until errata or FAQ comes out to the contrary, the section stands.
By that reasoning we aren't allowed to have Iomedaean tieflings and planetouched races don't become adults until they're several decades old.
I'm going with the Creative Director on this matter.
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.
We're gonna work through this nice and easy.
1. Ambush is dishonorable. There is a massive difference in tone between meeting your foe in the field of combat and jumping them in the alley with their pants down.
2. If this creature is willing to take dishonorable actions to guarantee it has an upperhand in combat, why then would we not assume that it may take other underhanded means? Such as lying as to it's purpose for attacking the party.
Basically, the Wyvern was dishonorable in it's choice to take the adventurers by surprise and attempt to kill them. It didn't need to fight them, it just did. Food is plentiful in the Stolen Lands. If it was in it's so called territory it could have warned them off but it didnt. Thus it isn't a stones throw away to assume it may contain other dishonorable qualities.
I really don't see a problem with what the paladin did. The wyvern ambushed the party without provocation, the paladin doesn't speak draconic, and no one informed him there was negotiations. Even if the paladin knew they were negotiating, the paladin has absolutely no reason to believe the wyvern wouldn't simply use it's shot at survival to assail more people; it's track record certainly implies it would love to take the chance to attack a weaker group of travelers given the opportunity. The monster manuel even says that wyverns are normally very aggressive creatures, and that it dislikes diplomacy. I'd say your paladin listened to his better judgement, and made a perfectly justified choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When your Paladin is violating the Geneva Convention, you are doing it wrong."This creature is a danger to civilized society and should be put down for the good of all. It attacks passerbys at random and quite likely wouldn't have given quarter should it have won. Can we guarantee that it won't go on to harm others after we've left?"
Putting others in danger is definitely an evil act if you're hoping this "brutish" monster is going to keep to it's word and not attack the next travelers who happen by if it is attacking first and asking for parley if it loses. I certainly wouldn't trust the word of a creature that attacked without warning.
Coup de grace is a bit much though better than just watching the thing bleed out.
Theres plenty of justification that can be made, the question is Stephen...
Do you want to punish your player for this action? Would this make the game more enjoyable for you and your players?
Wait, when was the wyvern dressed up like a soldier? It only applies to soldiers. Terrorist like Wyverns get nothing: http://www.aei.org/article/foreign-and-defense-policy/international-organiz ations/terrorists-have-no-geneva-rights/
I do also very much agree that under any perspective, the paladin should know beforehand that his action will cause a fall. He spends countless hours studying his religion and being instructed in his ethics code. Falling should not be a surprise.
Killing a sentient creature when other options are available is neutral or evil, and far from good. Yes the neutral creature ambushed the party but that doesn't justify a good person doing the same. An eye for an eye is no way to judge or choose actions.
The Wyvern is acting on it's nature (description) and in said description it states that they do parley (eventually).
Regardless of the situation I don't believe you should ever base your alignment on someone else's alignment. If they are neutral then they have options that you don't, if they are evil then they have options that you don't. That is simply the way that alignment works. For you to say well he did X so it's ok for me to as well, I would say yes you are right if you are also willing to adopt that alignment (which in this case will lead to falling).
Clearly, the paladin fell! He should become an anti paladin immediately!
Clearly, the Wyvern fell! He should become an anti paladin immediately!
Clearly, this thread fell! It should become an anti paladin immediately!
Clearly the party failed! They should become an anti paladin immediately!
(Wait, something might be off on that last one. Anyway, I'm going with it!)
Regardless, they should all come into my office immediately! I have some GREAT deals for them all!
(Heehee, those suckers! I'm going to clean up SO GOOD, er, EVIL, yes, I mean SO EVIL!)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, it's not the paladin that fell, it's the Wyvern! That's why the sphinx was trying to rescue it! Man, and you guys call ME dumb...
You are.
It wasn't the paladin OR the Wyvern that fell! It was the Wyverns head!
Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck! I'm here all week!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was Col. Mustard, in the Library, with the lead pipe!
No, it was me. I just let the paladin THINK it killed the Wyvern.
EDIT: I admit it. This makes me a killer.
EDIT 2: I mean, it IS in my name. You shouldn't be surprised.
EDIT 3: what? I'm an EDITOR. It's my job. READ MY PROFILE. *mumble grumble*
EDIT 4: It's funny, dang it! Laugh! ... or else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you alright TacticsLion?
Are you alright TacticsLion?
Not for a long, long time, Scavion. Not for a long, long time. :)
The Paladin 'has absolutely no reason to believe' because he didn't bother asking the people who could actually TALK to the Wyvern.
As the situation was described, the paladin didn't see the negotiations start. If you are in the heat of battle, it's perfectly in character to not realize that negotiations are taking place. Given that draconic is commonly depicted as sounding really violent language to people who don't understand it, "is this a negotiation" isn't exactly the first thing to come to mind. If I see a wyvern in my friend's face, I'm more concerned for their safety and would rather defend them from a potential threat rather than pause, mull over the morality of my action, and risk the life of someone else because I was scared I might lose my powers.
If he hears everyone out and still decides it is too dangerous to let the Wyvern live that is one thing.
Given that wyverns are aggressive creatures and attacked a group of people without due cause, it's pretty fair to assume it will just do the same thing once the party lets it go. If the wyvern was, say, a group of bandits, chances are, beating them up and letting them go because they said they were sorry would be considered negligent on behalf of the paladin. Why would it be any different for a wyvern?
Was the paladin underhanded? yes, most certainly. then again, since he's a paladin of freedom, this isn't inherently code breaking.
Was he evil? Not really. He picked an imperfect solution that likely saved quite a few lives.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you alright TacticsLion?
Well, he's not all wrong.
|
|
We're gonna work through this nice and easy.
1. Ambush is dishonorable. There is a massive difference in tone between meeting your foe in the field of combat and jumping them in the alley with their pants down.
Here, I agree with you to some degree. I'm not sure I'd go as far as ambush being dishonorable, but what the hell, let's go with it for the sake of argument.
2. If this creature is willing to take dishonorable actions to guarantee it has an upperhand in combat, why then would we not assume that it may take other underhanded means? Such as lying as to it's purpose for attacking the party.
Uh...ambushes are not the same as oathbreaking. In the same way casual murder is not the same thing as rape. The first two are dishonorable, the second two are Evil. But not everyone who does one would do the other and assuming they would is, frankly, crazy.
What you're saying is on par with saying "Well he killed that guy so obviously he was gonna rape the corpse!" It flies in the face of all logic and knowledge of how people actually behave.
Basically, the Wyvern was dishonorable in it's choice to take the adventurers by surprise and attempt to kill them. It didn't need to fight them, it just did. Food is plentiful in the Stolen Lands. If it was in it's so called territory it could have warned them off but it didnt. Thus it isn't a stones throw away to assume it may contain other dishonorable qualities.
'May' sure. 'Does'? Not so much. It could've betrayed them...or it could've been grateful they let it live, served them loyally, and eventually converted to the worship of the Paladin's God. We don't know because the Paladin just killed it.
And the risk of betrayal, when you have quite a few ways of checking for that sort of thing and are likely to have more in the future, is kind of a poor excuse for killing someone out of hand. Generally, killing people for things you think they might do in the future when you have no good evidence of that is a bad policy.
In the same way casual murder is not the same thing as rape. The first two are dishonorable, the second two are Evil. But not everyone who does one would do the other and assuming they would is, frankly, crazy.What you're saying is on par with saying "Well he killed that guy so obviously he was gonna rape the corpse!" It flies in the face of all logic and knowledge of how people actually behave.
And the risk of betrayal, when you have quite a few ways of checking for that sort of thing and are likely to have more in the future, is kind of a poor excuse for killing someone out of hand. Generally, killing people for things you think they might do in the future when you have no good evidence of that is a bad policy.
No. What I said is that, he was willing to perform actions to ensure he had the upperhand. That action was dishonorable. What other actions are dishonorable? We have proof that it is willing to commit a dishonorable act to get an advantage.
Also lying is different from oathbreaking. One is to straight up give false information. The other is to break your word after you have given it. Oathbreaking is far more severe than lying. AND! in most medieval settings punishable by death. Heck in a TON of settings Oathbreaking is punishable by death.
I'd love to know how you can irrevocably know whether or not someone will betray you. Quite a few ways apparently.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the wyvern was, say, a group of bandits, chances are, beating them up and letting them go because they said they were sorry would be considered negligent on behalf of the paladin. Why would it be any different for a wyvern?
Was the paladin underhanded? yes, most certainly. then again, since he's a paladin of freedom, this isn't inherently code breaking.
Was he evil? Not really. He picked an imperfect solution that likely saved quite a few lives.Bandit 1 : "The Sheriff of Nottingham has been..*SLICE*"
Bandit 2 : "We were going to give the money to the...*CUT*"Bandit 3 : "Prince John is a...*EXECUTE*"
And once again the Paladin of Freedom has delivered justice without bothering to get the whole story.
It is evil because he doesn't even LOOK for a good solution or check for mitigating circumstances, instead he casually kills a sentient being.
Well if people wanted me to listen to them they shouldn't try to f*@%ing kill me, now should they?
Robin Hood was a bit of an idiot in that regard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you alright TacticsLion?Not for a long, long time, Scavion. Not for a long, long time. :)
To be clear, the above series of posts is my very silly, ham-handed way of indicating that, just probably, at this point, everyone has pretty clearly stated their positions and are just immovably arguing their positions back and forth, trying to find that perfect set of words to convince the "other side" (whatever side that is) that this is the way to view it.
I mean, I certainly felt like I'd picked a clear, winning example and argumentation, that certainly addresses the broad strokes and primary elements of argumentation, and yet the debate rages on, with people iterating and reiterating the same arguments that were being made on page 1 (or at least on page 2 or 3) with no clear end or agreement point in sight.
I would encourage the GM that, despite what some have said, I fully understand the difficulty with making that form of decision in the heat of the moment - the need to have the world be a living, breathing, responsive place that functions as it functions regardless of the PCs, while simultaneously allowing the PCs to have a great impact on it, is a difficult road to walk - more like a difficult tight-rope to balance.
To me, despite being a paladin of freedom, he didn't do what paladins of freedom do.
The only dialogue that we've seen indicates that said paladin knew that his party didn't want the Wyvern to die, it was helpless (in the negative hp), and they were desperately trying to save it. His stated reasons (that we've seen) include that he wanted to kill it, and he was frustrated that the party hadn't killed trolls. The GM asked him numerous times if he was sure.
It feels very much so that this is a play-style clash that lead the paladin to feeling that life is relatively cheap - something that the alignment system very clearly indicates is a evil mindset.
If we want to go, "I would have...", while I don't know for sure (I wasn't there), in the heat of the moment, I would have ruled that it was an evil act (worthy of cessation of all paladin benefits), but been willing to hear out argumentation otherwise, after a brief recession and snack break. If I was unconvinced, but felt the paladin would have known it was an evil act, I would have allowed him to take back the action.
Actually, given what's actually happened at my tables, I might would have gone, "Look, I'm just going to tell you: this is evil. Don't do it. I know you want to kill something, but this party isn't really doing that right now, and, you know, you've got enough evidence around you to tell your character that continuing on this path is a really bad idea." If they persist in their choices, they would have fallen.
But given other things that have actually happened at my tables, I might would have gone, "You... what? Wait, why?" <insert the explanation given>, "But, you realize that it's... not attacking you, and it was in negotiation. I mean, sure, it's unconscious, but... you don't have to behead it." <listen to reasoning and insistence on the action, "Uh, okay, but you know it's willing to negotiate." and then let the action happen, and strip him of his powers, and wonder where I went wrong in describing that it wasn't currently an enemy.
There's a lot of different "what ifs" to the story.
I presume, until otherwise shown, that the GM in question is coming here with his stated goal: trying to understand opposing viewpoints and make a final decision - in other words, weighing his options and broadening his own understanding - when he's already come to a tentative one.
There's a lot of good stuff in this thread from people on "opposite sides" (which are often really more like, "right angle" sides, or even "45-degree different sides", it seems to me), in which they're trying to argue that "everything you just said is wrong, because this" and ignoring the good points with the bad. That's a shame, really.
I can see the potential justifications of why a paladin might do that sort of thing. There are many. In this case, he knew (at least out of character) that he was being disruptive to the over-all party dynamic, while in-character he was making a very foolish decision in the face of (by all accounts) obvious information.
In a generic but similar situation, it would not be obvious.
In a generic but similar situation, it wouldn't be fall-worthy action.
In a generic but similar situation, I suspect there would be a great deal more agreement.
In the specific situation, as presented, as more explanation churns up, it seems that the paladin should fall - not for killing creatures, not because he coup-de-graced an unconscious foe, not because he attacked without using detect evil, not because he was killing a "sentient creature" that had surrendered; but because he took the low road; ignored his party (and their communication with him), the situation he saw, the nature of good as defined by D&D (specifically respect to life), and killed because he wanted to, knowing full-well that he was killing a sentient creature that had a limited possible amount of raising, and was costing his party money in order to raise a creature he killed for no justifiable reason (according to the words that we've gathered from the GM).
I might recommend offering a complete "ret-con... PUUUUUNCH" to the character, and suddenly trade out all of his paladin levels for levels in barbarian (with the animal totem, superstitious, and blah-blah you know the drill rage powers) to effectively create the kind of "kill it forever!" character that he's playing.
But, above all, communicating with the player is key. Explaining that his actions were evil and would, due to that, cause him to fall from being a paladin. Explain - talk - to him, and get him to understand that he's not playing in the party dynamic... he's playing his character in a disruptive manner that is un-fun for the rest of the group* and against that which is expected of his character. Come up with some possible solutions, and talk to the rest of the players, working them out together. Some examples (though feel free to come up with your own):
1) changing the character from a paladin to a barbarian, inquisitor, or some other similar role; he can still be a "paladin of freedom", that just uses different mechanics (it may help if you come up with an interesting build that would allow his character to be in some regards similar to how he is now); this can be done in terms of "oh, it was always this way!" or "the gods strip you of your powers, but find that there is good within you: they open a new doorway for you, and allow you to change" or something else.
2) offering to ret-con of the end of the encounter and changing several options; it is possible that certain things were misunderstood, or unclear (though this doesn't seem to be the case), and generally allowing people to make more rational decisions based on in-character knowledge that they might have been lacking out-of-character, or out-of-character knowledge that can be explained away as "character growth" or something else
3) let the paladin be stripped of his powers, and continue playing from there; in this scenario, the paladin must atone in some manner or the other - perhaps it is by raising the Wyvern (and paying for that out of his wealth-by-level), or by doing some other charity that allows the party to raise the Wyvern; perhaps he owes the Wyvern a life-debt "a life for a life" (though, obviously, he won't be using this to do an evil thing); perhaps he has to personally champion the cause of one or more otherwise monstrous-seeming creatures into the kingdom, that the rest of the party would otherwise just kill (this one is especially difficult out-of-character, though, and should be handled with caution); perhaps something else along those lines
4) Let the paladin retain his powers, but have a severe and direct warning. He's a half-celestial... let it be known by having him feel suddenly ill, as if he's been the teensiest bit corrupted, possibly taking a step toward becoming a half-fiend instead of a half-celestial (in the same way a celestial can fall and become a fiend, a half-celestial can fall and become a half-fiend, leaving their mortal half intact); or perhaps by visions, or some other powerful sign of the displeasure of the forces that empower him (be it deity, ideal, or other spirit).
5) Something else. I don't know, I can't think of everything.
The ultimate thing, though, is to talk with the guy privately, talk with the group and the guy, and figure out how to play together. Clearly his style isn't meshing - that can cause a game to crash and burn badly, if you're not careful, or cause inter-player conflict, even if the game itself soldiers on. Ultimately, make the call that works best for your group. And don't worry - there are lots of "correct ways" to play Pathfinder. :)
* At least, it seems un-fun from this side, based on what's been said and comparing that to both my own anecdotal experience and the stories of many on these threads. I dunno, perhaps they're having a blast. If that's so, then ignore this whole thing and continue playing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Killing people your side are in parley with when they haven't broken the parley is considered evil and/or dishonorable in pretty much every fantasy trope I've ever come across in over 40 years of reading fantasy.
Perhaps PCs charmed?
How Paladin know valid parley?
If the wyvern was, say, a group of bandits, chances are, beating them up and letting them go because they said they were sorry would be considered negligent on behalf of the paladin. Why would it be any different for a wyvern?
Was the paladin underhanded? yes, most certainly. then again, since he's a paladin of freedom, this isn't inherently code breaking.
Was he evil? Not really. He picked an imperfect solution that likely saved quite a few lives.Bandit 1 : "The Sheriff of Nottingham has been..*SLICE*"
Bandit 2 : "We were going to give the money to the...*CUT*"Bandit 3 : "Prince John is a...*EXECUTE*"
And once again the Paladin of Freedom has delivered justice without bothering to get the whole story.
It is evil because he doesn't even LOOK for a good solution or check for mitigating circumstances, instead he casually kills a sentient being.
Paladin : "I already know, Prince John is about to institute legal reforms that will cause local law cases to go before the courts instead of the local Barons."
Paladin of Freedom = Detect Charm at will.Perhaps PCs charmed?
How Paladin know valid parley?
Which is just defeated by more magic.
Woo.
> Paladin: standard action to detect charm
> Wyvern: may or may not eat wizard
Sometimes paladar isn't the best option. even if it's not a charm, there's nothing saying the wyvern didn't just bully the group into negotiation. If someone has a split second to make a choice, they will go with what their instinct tells them. From the paladin's perspective, he did the most reasonable thing with what information he was privy to.
|
|
No. What I said is that, he was willing to perform actions to ensure he had the upperhand. That action was dishonorable. What other actions are dishonorable? We have proof that it is willing to commit a dishonorable act to get an advantage.
Codes of honor vary wildly and drastically. Most societies in history didn't consider ambushing foes dishonorable. Most did consider breaking your word to be so.
Also lying is different from oathbreaking. One is to straight up give false information. The other is to break your word after you have given it. Oathbreaking is far more severe than lying. AND! in most medieval settings punishable by death. Heck in a TON of settings Oathbreaking is punishable by death.
Indeed. Which is why you have it swear to you to Not Do X Again, to not escape, things like that. Which would make it an oathbreaker if it broke it's word. And that proves it's untrustworthy, a threat to innocents, and the need to slay it. You gave it a chance, though.
I'd love to know how you can irrevocably know whether or not someone will betray you. Quite a few ways apparently.
Well let's see, Sense Motive, them having a history of betrayal, Discern Lies, Zone of Truth...the list goes on. It doesn't need to be 100%, but there were literally no indications it wasn't a creature of it's word, and they could've at least talked to it to see if it was (ie: Sense Motive checks).
|
|
> Paladin: standard action to detect charm
> Wyvern: may or may not eat wizard
Sometimes paladar isn't the best option. even if it's not a charm, there's nothing saying the wyvern didn't just bully the group into negotiation. If someone has a split second to make a choice, they will go with what their instinct tells them. From the paladin's perspective, he did the most reasonable thing with what information he was privy to.
Then why the coup de grace? I mean...the initial attack is potentially justified for the reasons you list. But then, after the threat was dealt with and the foe unconscious, he killed the creature despite his allies going out of their way to keep it alive. That's...a lot more problematic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
> Paladin: standard action to detect charm
> Wyvern: may or may not eat wizard
Sometimes paladar isn't the best option. even if it's not a charm, there's nothing saying the wyvern didn't just bully the group into negotiation. If someone has a split second to make a choice, they will go with what their instinct tells them. From the paladin's perspective, he did the most reasonable thing with what information he was privy to.
Come on now. It's eminently clear that this wasn't the case. Neither player nor character were thinking in this way. It was explicitly about taking out frustration, IC and OOC, according to the player's description of his character's and his own thoughts.
Yeah, the GM should probably sit down with his player and develop a code of conduct (CG paladins should have CG codes of conduct, not no codes of conduct) so that they are on the same page with this sort of thing in the future, rather than handing the player a fall this time based on a code the player didn't have in hand yet.
But this whole narrative of IC split second decisions and battlefield necessity and maybe the wyvern had coerced the party into talking, and whatever, doesn't hold up at all:
I did repeatedly say "Are you sure you want to do that", "Are you realluy sure", "you can tell they appear to be talking with him in a language you don't know and they aren't fighting", "it's unconcious and helpless but not dead and your fellow party members have just told you they were negotiating with it. Are you sure you want to kill it".
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....
all in all I think we agree.
Sorry about the sentient creature part, I probably mixed your response up with others.
To me this all comes down to a giant mix up of different players/GM's definition of good, and what's expected of the paladin. I don't deny at all under certain definitions and interpretations this paladin could fall and fall hard.
I just also can see how under different definitions and interpretations this could be justified, or at least not fall worthy.
As a rule of thumb if you have to go to a forum to ask, if it's fall worthy, I definitely wouldn't make the paladin fall, although it does signal that the GM needs to hash out the Paladin code, Party issues, and probably what they see as being good within the system.
For instance, I don't see that a good character needs to heal injured enemies after a fight. Of course this depends on the situation, but overall, a swift death to their foes might be what is just. Then again, that's what you get when you have situational ethics.
Sometimes paladar isn't the best option. even if it's not a charm, there's nothing saying the wyvern didn't just bully the group into negotiation. If someone has a split second to make a choice, they will go with what their instinct tells them. From the paladin's perspective, he did the most reasonable thing with what information he was privy to.The Wyvern ran away from the party, the PCs chased after it. That doesn't point to the Wyvern being in a position of strength. And even of it did 'bully the group into negotiation', a good character has an obligation to LISTEN to its demands rather than killing it out of hand. If the demands are unreasonable or evil THEN violence may be the answer.
maybe. This entire talk comes down to peoples preconceptions of good, and how they interpret it within the setting.
You're claim that they have an obligation to listen to the Wyvern is no more and no less valid then someone elses, although this should have been adjudicated by the GM long before this issue cropped up.
|
Are you alright TacticsLion?Not for a long, long time, Scavion. Not for a long, long time. :)To be clear, the above series of posts is my very silly, ham-handed way of indicating that, just probably, at this point, everyone has pretty clearly stated their positions and are just immovably arguing their positions back and forth, trying to find that perfect set of words to convince the "other side" (whatever side that is) that this is the way to view it.
I mean, I certainly felt like I'd picked a clear, winning example and argumentation, that certainly addresses the broad strokes and primary elements of argumentation, and yet the debate rages on, with people iterating and reiterating the same arguments that were being made on page 1 (or at least on page 2 or 3) with no clear end or agreement point in sight.
I would encourage the GM that, despite what some have said, I fully understand the difficulty with making that form of decision in the heat of the moment - the need to have the world be a living, breathing, responsive place that functions as it functions regardless of the PCs, while simultaneously allowing the PCs to have a great impact on it, is a difficult road to walk - more like a difficult tight-rope to balance.
To me, despite being a paladin of freedom, he didn't do what paladins of freedom do.
The only dialogue that we've seen indicates that said paladin knew that his party didn't want the Wyvern to die, it was helpless (in the negative hp), and they were desperately trying to save it. His stated reasons (that we've seen) include that he wanted to kill it, and he was frustrated that the party hadn't killed trolls. The GM asked him numerous times if he was sure.
It feels very much so that this is a play-style clash that lead the paladin to feeling that life is relatively cheap - something that the alignment system very clearly indicates is a evil mindset.
If we want to go, "I...
Cheers.. very eloquent wording I wholeheartedly agree with you
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, I'm going to say from the get go that I feel the Paladin handled this situation poorly, both in and out of character (as a face-player myself I always feel ripped off when Conan beheads the guy I'm trying to talk to).
Is it worth falling? Not in and of itself, in my opinion.
Here's my reasoning:
Wyverns are dangerous, aggressive, and are very difficult to restrain or bring before a lawful authority. From that point of view executing it was the pragmatic way to handle the situation, with hitting it while its guard was down then performing a coupe de grace being the most practical way to do that. If it were the group Rogue who did this it wouldn't be an issue.
HOWEVER, the Wyvern had also surrendered and it was fairly obvious that some form of communication was taking place between it and the rest of the party. Since there seemed to be a break in the combat it wouldn't be too difficult for the Paladin to simply ask "what's going on?" of one of the other party members. Failing to do so indicates recklessness, but that's often a trait associated with chaotic characters (not exclusively or universally by any means, though) and so simply being reckless shouldn't be a ding for the Paladin either, as this variant is chaotic.
As you can see, this indicates recklessness and ruthlessness that are generally a bad sign in a Paladin and may be the for-warnings of a fall, but the isolated incident should not cause a fall in and of itself.
BUT: Upthread it was mentioned there was a strong possibility that the Paladin killed the creature solely for revenge. In that instance either a strong warning or a fall may well be called for, as Paladins are held to the highest of standards and succumbing to the sin of Wrath without magical or other outside influences is definitely fall material. And of course it looks really bad for a good patron if their mortal instruments of their divine will start giving in to their base instincts as it implies they may not have made that great a choice after all.
Wyverns are dangerous, aggressive, and are very difficult to restrain or bring before a lawful authority. From that point of view executing it was the pragmatic way to handle the situation, with hitting it while its guard was down then performing a coupe de grace being the most practical way to do that. If it were the group Rogue who did this it wouldn't be an issue.That would fall under the heading of 'killing without qualm if doing so is convenient' part of the definition of evil.
The GM stated that the other PCs had a significant chance of success for their attempt at recruiting the Wyvern into their kingdom. The Paladin could have found that out in less than a minute without serious risk to the party. His failure to do so indicates a callus disregard of the lives of others.
And it would still be an issue for a Rogue who claimed to be good (à la Robin Hood).
I don't know all of the circumstances in play here, so I'm going with the most generous description of the act possible: Ruthless.
Now if the Paladin felt that the Wyvern was irredeemable then his behavior would be walking the line.
That said, given the information available, I'd hesitate to call the character a 'Paladin' in the Pathfinder sense of the term, and much less a 'Paladin of Freedom' as from what we've been told he seems to resort to violence as his favored solution even when it's actively hindering his group and their (presumably good) goals.
The GM stated that the other PCs had a significant chance of success for their attempt at recruiting the Wyvern into their kingdom. The Paladin could have found that out in less than a minute without serious risk to the party. His failure to do so indicates a callus disregard of the lives of others.
This I feel is the least important aspect of the conversation and least helpful to what I hope the GM was trying to get out of this thread i.e a different view. I'll also mention that the players and their characters wouldn't and shouldn't know the chances of success. It being likely is just as meaningful as the chance it doesn't happen.
The GM literally said what his bias was. If you're using it to justify your argument, then we may as well not have a discussion at all since clearly Stephen was just looking to hear people parrot his own thoughts.
If there's a solid chance that something as obvious as the Wyvern simply not keeping it's word and it goes on to harm more people, the Paladin shouldn't do it. That is gambling with the lives of others. Which I might add would be a callus disregard to the lives of others.