Can those of you who who KNOW help me here? Is there a difference in english between lie and bluff?** spoiler omitted **
OK more stuff on Bluff. Anyone is wellcome to help out
In one election in my home country our previous prime minister said: the health care sector need more money (money from taxes). When they won the election the didn't give the health care sector more money. When asked about their promise to give more money that sector he just said: We never promise more money, we just said health care sector need more money. If we hade the financing we would give more money, but we don't and we never promised more money.
A bluff but not a lie?
In poker you don't really say I got a great hand. You indicate: I got a great hand or not, but I'm betting like hell and if I have a great hand you will lose. So it's not a lie is it?
So is bluff and lie the same thing?
Zark, your pushing this much farther left field than what I am argueing.
Sorry you feel that way. ...what does "much farther left field" mean?
Have you ever seen Boondock Saints?
No but if you say it's good I will check it out (do they "message from God"?)
I'm just suggesting it would be fun to play a paladin (extremely dedicated, uncompramissing, and idealistic) based on those characters. It is very paladin, just in an unconventional way.
Sure, do It. I just say I don't like NG. And I still think you can go undercover as LG if you have a sane DM/GM. But it will take some hard work and you have to be smart/tricky.
|
I agree. Too many people why try and play a paladin get the lawful part just fine but have no idea how to act good. I suspect it may have something to do with their not knowing how to act good in real life, either, because I've seen some wonderfully played paladins created by people who happen to be very good people in real life as well.O-Chul is a good example of a Lawful GOOD Paladin.
...and Miko would be an example of a "jerk" paladin. And she fell out of her state of grace...
;)
Can those of you who who KNOW help me here? Is there a difference in english between lie and bluff?** spoiler omitted **
There's definition and common usage. I agree with DM_Blake's definition of bluff/lie.
In the US (can't say for sure anywhere else), Bluff is used to represent a deception (not an outright lie necessarily) where someone is convinced of something that isn't true. It's a little slippery I admit, but here's a few situations.
In the US (again, can't say for sure anywhere else), a lie is a spoken statement that is patently false that is used for personal, and usually selfish, reasons. It's usually associated with a falsehood that's for some personal gain.
#1: Poker. The classic 'Bluff'. I bet in such a way as to convince you that my pair of deuces is actually three kings. I'm not telling you I have three kings, I'm misleading you through my actions. I'm not lieing to you since I'm not speaking.
#2: Fast Talk. Another classic 'Bluff', but it could also turn into a Lie. For example, take James Bond. He puts on a tuxedo, makes himself look very nice, and then waits for an unescorted woman to approach the embassy for the party. He steps forward before she gets to the door, compliments her on her appearance tonight, walks forward with her, basically as if they are a couple. This is a bluff to get into the party, bluffing the door guards. Instead of James Bond, take Danny Ocean from Ocean's Eleven. He bluffs as part of his con job, but because it's a con job, we usually say he's lieing through his teeth. The reason for the difference? Bond is bluffing his way in as an undercover cop (he'll probably kill 2 or 3 people, but his motives are the important factor, they are for 'Queen and Country'), Danny will never kill anyone, and is probably fleecing someone who deserved it, but his motive is selfish for money, so he's lieing.
I remember all of the great discussions and proposals about the paladin. As such, I hope Vult, minkscooter, and the others are happy as well.
Hey Iron Sentinel! This kind of feels like a reunion, so I have to restrain myself from going nostalgic and listing off names of all the people I'm happy to see again :) The giant paladin thread was my favorite part of the beta playtest. Hopefully Vult will chime in, though I haven't seen his posts in a while. Seems like Jason Nelson ought to make a celebrity appearance as well.
But yeah, I know what you mean. Glad to see that most of the people who showed up for this party seem pretty happy :)
|
I guess I have always seen paladins as examples. They stand in the light. They have the charisma to sway crowds and inspire others. When I think of an under cover operative.. I think more of a ranger.. a stalker. A skilled agent working good behind the scenes.
Superman vs Batman.
Both are good...but supes would be the paladin style I imagine.
The mention of paladins as symbols and the comic book references reminded me of Ed Brubaker's run on Captain America:
That in turn reminded me of one of the most awesome roleplaying experiences I've ever seen:
There was this Neutral wizard, absolutely cynical, travelling with a mostly good party. Eventually, the paladin started getting to her, all through leading by example, not through preaching directly to her. She really started to want to believe in the ideals the paladin stood for, and came to see him a symbol of good and hope that the world(which she saw as a "Sick Sad World") desperately needed.
But she still lacked the faith that those ideals could survive on their own in such a world. She started going about in secret to watch his back and clean up loose ends that she believed would wind up getting him killed. She dirtied her hands handling matters she believed the paladin couldn't, or more importantly, shouldn't. She became more and more devoted to the task of protecting him both as a person and as a symbol that couldn't afford to be sullied by what she considered necessary evils.
When the party left enemies alive, she murdered any who she believed might come looking for revenge on the paladin. If she found out about a problem that could even slightly put the paladin at risk of breaking his code, she would either cut through the problem with brutal efficiency or guide the party away from ever seeing it, consequences for anyone else be damned.
She covered her tracks well, and kept it up for a long time. But while she started off believing whole-heartedly that she was doing what was right, the guilt just started to pile up. While the paladin was sleeping the sleep of the just, she was getting anything but. Eventually the rest of the party started to notice her cracking up, and it all came out in the open when she tearfully confessed(in a church of the god she had come to believe in but whose tenets she could not find the faith to truly follow) everything she had done and why to the paladin she had turned into a sort of idol. He was horrified by what had been done for his sake and in his name, and saddened by who had done it. The wizard is full-on weeping at this point, not even daring to ask for the forgiveness she believes she doesn't deserve. The paladin(AND THE PLAYER) is shedding Manly Tears as he hugs her, forgives her without any hesitation, and then gently places her under arrest. THE DAMN GM IS TEARING UP AT THIS POINT.
The party is shocked when they learn the details in-character, and a good chunk of the campaign after that was dedicated towards the wizard's trial(with the paladin and most of the party serving on her defense) and her long and arduous parole(under the paladin's watchful eye) and struggle towards redemption. She eventually made it to NG.
The paladin and wizard were married by the end of the campaign, but that was an even longer and bumpier road.
So yeah, paladins can be drama magnets. But it can be in a goo-AWESOME way if done right.
Can those of you who who KNOW help me here? Is there a difference in english between lie and bluff?** spoiler omitted **There's definition and common usage. I agree with DM_Blake's definition of bluff/lie.
In the US (can't say for sure anywhere else), Bluff is used to represent a deception (not an outright lie necessarily) where someone is convinced of something that isn't true. It's a little slippery I admit, but here's a few situations.
In the US (again, can't say for sure anywhere else), a lie is a spoken statement that is patently false that is used for personal, and usually selfish, reasons. It's usually associated with a falsehood that's for some personal gain.
#1: Poker. The classic 'Bluff'. I bet in such a way as to convince you that my pair of deuces is actually three kings. I'm not telling you I have three kings, I'm misleading you through my actions. I'm not lieing to you since I'm not speaking.
#2: Fast Talk. Another classic 'Bluff', but it could also turn into a Lie. For example, take James Bond. He puts on a tuxedo, makes himself look very nice, and then waits for an unescorted woman to approach the embassy for the party. He steps forward before she gets to the door, compliments her on her appearance tonight, walks forward with her, basically as if they are a couple. This is a bluff to get into the party, bluffing the door guards. Instead of James Bond, take Danny Ocean from Ocean's Eleven. He bluffs as part of his con job, but because it's a con job, we usually say he's lieing through his teeth. The reason for the difference? Bond is bluffing his way in as an undercover cop (he'll probably kill 2 or 3 people, but his motives are the important factor, they are for 'Queen and Country'), Danny will never kill anyone, and is probably fleecing someone who deserved it, but his motive is selfish for money, so he's lieing.
OK, that's my point Bluff and lie is not necessarily the same. Just as deception and lie is not the same. What James bond did was not a lie. (Hardly even a bluff?), but some sort of deception. Using the spell "undetectable alignment" is also deception since all Paladins have an aura of good. No aura of good = not Paladin = deception.
And the bluff skill is not exclusive to all classes but the paladin so the Paladin can add ranks in bluff ...and use it.So my point is. Paladins can't lie, but I think they can bluff and use deception so long as it's not an outright lie.
I know it's DM's call, so the Paladin might wake up one morning to find all her spells and all her Paladin stuff are gone. ...Atonement.
Beckett
your not overly fond of cats are you?
No why? But I do like them better than dogs
bluff stuff
Lying pretty much requires written or spoken words. Sometimes we say "Your actions lie" but that's just a figure of speech - lying is a form of verbal or written communication.
Bluffing can be done without words at all. Body language, attitude, gestures, etc. Or it can be spoken. I can't think of any written examples where a written falsehood would be called a bluff rather than a lie, but I suppose it's not expressly excluded from the definition of "bluff".
As for whether paladins can bluff, I would say it's not the word we use that defines our moral conduct.
We often say "paladins cannot lie". But what I think we mean to say is "paladins cannot deceive".
Deceit is unlawful. Even deceit in the name of goodness, or in the intent of enforcing a law. The ends do not justify the means. So while movies and fiction novels are abundant with questionable heroes who lie, cheat, and deceive the bad guys in order to overcome adversity, this behavior is never truly lawful.
It may be good, but never lawful.
Paladins must be both, hence, paladins cannot deceive.
Others may argue differently, and discussing ethics and morality, especially pertaining to a fictional character class in a fantasy game with a loosely defined paragraph that vaguely defines their conduct will be about as rewarding as hunting the dodo. And as productive. Suffice it to say, my take on law and paladin's ethics is purely my own.
I think when you bluff you're playing a game. I don't imagine paladins being so playful, even though the player of a paladin might be.
I think when you bluff you're playing a game. I don't imagine paladins being so playful, even though the player of a paladin might be.
Now, that's an interesting thought.
Certain games accept that bluffing is part of the game. Within the rules. I would suspect that should a paladin decide to play such a game, it would be in no way ethically reprehensible for him to bluff according to the game's rules.
Though he may be really bad at it; after all, he lives a whole life entirely devoid of bluffing, so it's likely he'd be way out of practice.
I don't see any reason why paladins cannot be playful. Just because they're LG and dedicated to laying righteous smackdown on evildoers doesn't mean they can't let their hair down and go party once in a while, or even daily if they so choose (although different deities, different religions, may have varying views on such things - these views would most likely sway the paladin's predilections).
|
In poker you don't really say I got a great hand.
LOL. Well, you can, but you show yourself up as a total n00b.
Which brings up the issue of the reverse-bluff; what if you do hold a great hand, and want to ensure that your opponent doesn't fold?
That's when you 'accidentally' let your poker-face slip, or act really confident about your hand, but do it in such a way that it looks clumsy and nervous, leading the others to believe that you are bluffing about a rotten hand.
They bet the farm, you reveal your four aces, and they realise you were bluffing that you were bluffing.
Would this still be covered by the Bluff rules? After all, bluffing that you're bluffing is still bluffing, right?
paladins cannot deceive.
Using the spell "undetectable alignment" is also deception since all Paladins have an aura of good.
No aura of good = not Paladin = deception.Undetectable alignment is on the paldin spell list.
Others may argue differently, and discussing ethics and morality, especially pertaining to a fictional character class in a fantasy game with a loosely defined paragraph that vaguely defines their conduct will be about as rewarding as hunting the dodo.
LOL
|
|
The above is not a frivolous question; the fact is, there's little guidance on how to resolve a situation where one side is actually telling the truth, and has no intention of bluffing, but the listener thinks the information could be suspect.
"Officer, Officer, insects from Yuggoth have cut out my friend's brain and put it in a canister to take him back to their homeworld! Come quick!"
"Yeah, right..."
"No, it's true! True, I tell you!"
<picks up phone> "Can I have the mental home, please?"
You could rule that the truth-teller 'takes zero' on his Bluff check, or you could give a bonus to the listener, you could decide not to roll at all, but it still boils down to the DM saying 'You detect no falsehood'. It's all down to the listener, with little ability for the speaker to contribute to the result.
I'm hesitant to suggest that they use Diplomacy, since it's such an overloaded skill already.
|
|
Using the spell "undetectable alignment" is also deception since all Paladins have an aura of good.
No aura of good = not Paladin = deception.
Undetectable alignment is on the paldin spell list.
I am so glad they created a specific spell list for the paladin in 3.5.
This pretty much seals the deal for me.
It proves it's not only allowed, but expected, that the paladin will have to mask his alignment at times, and he is given the tools, and blessing to do it.
Previous editions devolved into endless arguments on this subject, because the paladin simply took his spells from the cleric list, or in 2nd Edition, from specific spheres (a concept similar to domains), some of which contained some morally-dodgy spells.
Then there was the question of 'could he allow a fellow PC to cast such a spell on him?'.
Add in the fact he could accidentally and unknowingly pick up an item of non-detection, and be carrying it around, unidentified.
Having the spell explicitly included on his own list puts an end to the debate.
Deceit is unlawful. Even deceit in the name of goodness, or in the intent of enforcing a law. The ends do not justify the means. So while movies and fiction novels are abundant with questionable heroes who lie, cheat, and deceive the bad guys in order to overcome adversity, this behavior is never truly lawful.
It may be good, but never lawful.
I thought deceit was a natural tactic for devils making contracts to mortals. Carefully wording deals in such a way to make the mortal think he was getting a great deal when in fact it was not and was going to almost wholy benefit the devil. Devils are LE.
|
Getting into the bluff/lie thing always makes me think of Captain Carrot from Discworld. It's in one of the early books, I think Men At Arms, and he's trying to get into a building. All of the following is paraphrased, I have no hope of remembering the exact dialogue.
The inhabitants say he can't come in and he says something like 'I'd really like you to open this door in the next minute or so and let me in. If you don't, I'll have to do something that I really don't want to do.'
He says this all very politely, without any menace at all. Then he just stands there and waits. They crack and let him in, and the person with him asks 'What would you have done if they hadn't let you in?' In response, Carrot says 'I'd have left.'
Now, would you let a paladin get away with that tactic? Carrot isn't a paladin, but I think he's about as LG as the Discworld gets.
your not overly fond of cats are you?
Getting into the bluff/lie thing always makes me think of Captain Carrot from Discworld. It's in one of the early books, I think Men At Arms, and he's trying to get into a building. All of the following is paraphrased, I have no hope of remembering the exact dialogue.
The inhabitants say he can't come in and he says something like 'I'd really like you to open this door in the next minute or so and let me in. If you don't, I'll have to do something that I really don't want to do.'
He says this all very politely, without any menace at all. Then he just stands there and waits. They crack and let him in, and the person with him asks 'What would you have done if they hadn't let you in?' In response, Carrot says 'I'd have left.'
Now, would you let a paladin get away with that tactic? Carrot isn't a paladin, but I think he's about as LG as the Discworld gets.
That is so good. I never read it but our told me about that episode.
As a matter of fact, our DM used that example to justify tu use of bluff by a Paladin.
And Paksenarion from "The Deed of Paksenarrion" will always be an example of a paladin to me.I keep hearing this series held up as a prime example of paladins done right, and I have had the collected volume sitting in by bookshelf for around seven years now. I really need to get around to reading it....
Read it, its a truly enjoyable tale ;)
|
|
I remember a guy like you in a game once. We fought the big evil demon with the big evil sword. We killed the demon. We identified the sword and found out it was really evil. So I destroyed it.
That caused the wizard in the group to fly into a hissy fit because we destroyed money. Nevermind that this was a frikkin sword of unholy power (yes, the epic stuff), which existed for only one reason: Killing Good people.
Grr. Don't get me started on the lich's soul-eating tapestry in 'Fate of Istus'.
My paladin was attacked by this (my first 3.0 PC), and so, quite understandably went at it with my sword, to be told it healed itself up (I suspect the DM was jerking me around, but I couldn't prove it), then another player called dibs on it, for his future residence.
There then followed weeks of sidetrack, as we alternated trying to destroy or hide this stupid item, with it being immune to fire, slashing, or anything else I tried. I considered tying it to the back of a mule and sending it off to drown in the marsh, then faking an attack by bandits, but I stopped myself. If the DM and other players were willing to put me through this much grief over it, they would likely rule that I'd broken my code, by lying to the others.
It got to the point where I said "I'm going to have to lie to your face, kill you, or leave the group, if this carries on." So the others stepped in and told me they'd got rid of it. Probably a total lie, but it allowed us to put the whole mess behind us, and finish the campaign.
The stupid thing is, all the players involved were perfectly easy to get on with, in-game and out, but put a paladin in a party, and for some folk, it's like a red rag to a bull, that they just have to screw with him.
|
|
Getting into the bluff/lie thing always makes me think of Captain Carrot from Discworld. It's in one of the early books, I think Men At Arms, and he's trying to get into a building. All of the following is paraphrased, I have no hope of remembering the exact dialogue.
This may not be the exact example you were thinking of, but since my Discworld stack is literally within arm's reach I pulled out Men at Arms and skimmed until I found this (rather long) bit that I think illustrates the concept (spoilered for length and slight Men At Arms story spoiler):
Dr. Whiteface stared at him in silence.
Then he said, "If I don't?"
"Then," said Carrot, "I'm afraid I shall, with extreme reluctance, be forced to carry out the order I was given just before entering."
He glanced at Colon. "That's right, isn't it, sergeant?"
"What? Eh? Well, yes-"
"I would much prefer not to do so, but I have no choice," said Carrot.
Dr. Whiteface glared at the two of them.
"But this is Guild property! You have no right to ... to ..."
"I don't know about that, I'm only a corporal," said Carrot. "But I've never disobeyed a direct order yet, and I am sorry to have to tell you that I will carry out this one fully and to the letter."
"Now, see here-"
Carrot moved a little closer.
"If it's any comfort, I'll probably be ashamed about it," he said.
The clown stared into his honest eyes and saw, as did everyone, only simple truth.
"Listen! If I shout," said Dr. Whiteface, going red under his makeup, "I can have a dozen men in here."
"Believe me," said Carrot, "that will only make it easier to obey."
Dr. Whiteface prided himself on his ability to judge character. In Carrot's resolute expression there was nothing but absolute, meticulous honesty. He fiddled with a quill pen and then threw it down in a sudden movement.
"Confound it!" he shouted. "How did you find out, eh? Who told you?"
"I really couldn't say," said Carrot. "But it makes sense anyway. There's only one entrance to each Guild, but the Guild Houses are back to back. Someone just had to cut through the wall."
"I assure you we didn't know about it," said the clown.
Sergeant Colon was lost in admiration. He'd seen people bluff on a bad hand, but he'd never seen anyone bluff with no cards.
(prior to entering the Guild, Sergeant Colon ordered Corporal Carrot that if Dr. Whiteface refused to answer questions, they were to leave peacefully and "oh, I don't know, think of something else.")
To me a rather perfect Paladin type would be the Mounty from Due South, he was able to go undercover and such or bluff as it were but he tended to avoid outright lying. So if while undercover he was asked directly are you a cop, he would likely give away his cover in his answer, so he did his best to avoid that by giving those he was bluffing no reason to question him.
Interestingly enough he also makes a fine example of a ranger....
"There was this Neutral wizard..."
Wow! that must've been- wow....
one of the great moments.
GRU
|
|
This may not be the exact example you were thinking of, but since my Discworld stack is literally within arm's reach I pulled out Men at Arms and skimmed until I found this (rather long) bit that I think illustrates the concept
That is indeed the exchange I was trying to outline, subject to not having my books with me and not having read Men at Arms in a number of years. :)
"There was this Neutral wizard..."
Wow! that must've been- wow....
one of the great moments.
Amen. That's an incredible story...I'd love to know how it was all roleplayed out. What kind of relationship was there between the owners of the two characters, I wonder? That whole story is just..wow.
I know this is of topic but...next week the bard. Oh how I have waited.
Hope he is as good as the Paladin.
I know this is of topic but...next week the bard. Oh how I have waited.
Hope he is as good as the Paladin.
Honestly, I suspect there won't be much difference from the Beta version for the bard.
Now the monk should have some differences (or I'll be a bit disappointed).
Paladins should be able to bluff. Remember that bluffing can also extend to combat, paladins should be allowed to feint in combat (which, just as other forms of bluffing, entails using deciet to acheive a goal i.e. making the enemy think you're moving in one direction whilst going in another to catch them off-guard).
Theres a reason why the word "Bluffing" exists rather than just folding it into the word "Lying".
|
|
I too fear they have become too good, but also better pure healers than the clerics. Mind you the cleric is still a better overall booster, but as healbot the paladin may be encroaching a little too much on the cleric's territory since they get free healing and status removal all in one.
I just thought I'd commment on this, as I see this sentiment a lot (nothing personal, you're just the nearest example).
I thought players hated being the 'healbot', so spreading the ability further round the classes would be a good thing?
Maybe they'll get to cast the spells they want, instead of converting most of them to cures?
And on that note; now that we have Channeled area healing, is it time to drop the automatic ability to spontaneously convert cleric spells to cures, as it's no longer required?
At least alter it, so clerics spontaneously convert to their domain spells, instead?
They then get more use out of those domains, become more visible ambassadors of their deity's portfolio, and no longer look, or act so similar to each other?
|
I think when you bluff you're playing a game. I don't imagine paladins being so playful, even though the player of a paladin might be.
And yet that's a very limiting stereotype. A paladin can be playful, have a sense of humor, not take himself too seriously, be good with kids, have copious amounts of (legal and appropriate) sex, etc. Hang out with the right priests at a wedding or whatever, and they can be hilarious people, particularly when they've got a few drinks in them (and I'm talking the Catholics here, the ones known for stuffiness!). And they can do all that and remain law-abiding decent folk with a deep wellspring of compassion and empathy.
While I've never played with a paladin who wasn't a self-righteous party-attacking game-disruptive jerk, they *don't have to be that way.*
Can a Paladin swing his sword one way at the hobgoblin warchief and then swing it back around to catch him off-guard? Are his fighting tactics going to be limited by not doing anything that might seem deceptive, such as a Bluff / Feint maneuver, or even standard sword-fighting tactics like turning sideways to make it harder to tell where the sword is aiming? Can a Paladin function at all in one of the many adventures where the party has to sneak into another community? Is he required to obey the laws if the laws are wicked?
Is allowed to bluff a monster or humanoid chieftan, telling them to clear out or his order will come cleanse them from the lands, knowing full well that his order consists of three other paladins, all of whom are busy at the moment, to save the village their depradations, or must he absolutely tell them the truth, 'Yeah, I can't do anything to stop you and your 200 friends, but if I ask nicely, will you go away?'
Where does the line between 'good' and 'stupid' go? Are Ghouls truly deserving of being treated as honorable combatants, or can he bluff them, ambush them, set a trap for them, etc? If his party outnumbers the Troll, does he have to challenge it to single combat, because 'anything else would be dishonorable?'
There's a ton of baggage that gets carried along with the Paladin, baggage that might fit the absolute worst caricatures of the 'chivalric noble knight,' but aren't really part of the paladin class code.
I'm fine with a worldly Paladin, one who will quietly acknowledge that some laws are unjust (such as slavery) and that, while perfectly 'lawful,' are not for him, and that there are times when the good of the people outweighs his own desire to remain unsullied. A Paladin who is willing to fall from grace, to save lives, IMO, is better than a shining paragon who watches them die, secure that at least he didn't 'get any on him.'
Someone whose *pride* is worth more to him than taking risks and possibly sacrificing everything to do great deeds in the name of good is no Paladin at all, in my book. Standing before Heironeous, with a thousand deaths on one's hands, and saying, 'But I never lied, your honor,' isn't gonna cut the mustard.
Based on the tradition of temporarily 'firing' a samurai who has disagreed with his lord on some point, there's a somewhat cynical saying, "You aren't a real samurai until you've been a ronin at least three times."
Sometimes, you gotta disagree. Perhaps the law is unjust. Perhaps the order is unlawful. Perhaps the code doesn't apply to demons from the blackest pit, who aren't to be treated with any sort of respect or honor. Every Paladin is going to have to make a hard choice at some point. Some are going to protect themselves (and their class abilities) by hewing to strict interpretations of doctrine, and allowing others to suffer the consequences of their paralysis. Others are going to roll up their sleeves, get their hands dirty, and may or may not be punished for it, if not by external forces, then by their own doubts as to whether or not they've crossed a line or put their virtue up for sale on the altar of expediency.
And that's when the whole annoying Paladin's code can be fun.
Finally! It was worth the wait! Once again, I can be Superman in Fullplate! (though my touch AC may still suck!) On another note: I feel quite prideful because I know in my heart that I helped this happen. It was my (forgive the expression...) 'crusade' to ensure a paladin worthy of praise, and the threads and message thread on their playtesting was nearly twice as long as any other class (nearly 1100 posts). This is why I chose to play a paladin of the Beta rules in our CotCT...I remember all of the great discussions and proposals about the paladin. As such, I hope Vult, minkscooter, and the others are happy as well.
Good to see all the replies from the people who put in so much effort in that HUGE thread.
I for one am extremely happy with what I have read here so far. It looks like we are gonna get to see a true champion of justice/good/judgement/light/....whatever virtue you follow with your paladin.
It is about time Evil had something to fear!
I just like paladins being lawful good. It seems umm... Iconic. Everthing else seems to be something else. I truely enjoyed the Forgotten Realms comic with Priam Agrivar as the recovering alcoholic paladin. Never seemed pompus to me. And Paksenarion from "The Deed of Paksenarrion" will always be an example of a paladin to me.I don't mean to imply that I think paladins should be a liitle rogueish(?). I just think an undercover cop should be an allowable concept, and that would be not lawful.
That, and there is nothing that has ever made want to play a paladin more than Boondock Saints. . . If you can find it it is well worth it.
Best movie EVER!
[...] I just think an undercover cop should be an allowable concept, and that would be not lawful.[...]Why not? So undercover cops are criminals? I guess some cops would not agree with you.
When undercover it's nice to see a player get out of certain situations without a lie.
There is a difference in english between lie and bluff, yes?
I am a cop...I work with the Drug Task Force and the SWAT team. That said I think the idea of an undercover cop that is a paladin is great. To go undercover you have to sacrifice so much....who more likely to be able to survive this than a paladin? Going into the belly of the beast and coming out unshaken and untainted ....that is a paladin to me!
I agree with Seeker...a paladin does not bend, but the background of your paladin can bend a little to fit the role.
bluff stuff** spoiler omitted **
As for whether paladins can bluff, I would say it's not the word we use that defines our moral conduct.
We often say "paladins cannot lie". But what I think we mean to say is "paladins cannot deceive".
Deceit is unlawful. Even deceit in the name of goodness, or in the intent of enforcing a law. The ends do not justify the means. So while movies and fiction novels are abundant with questionable heroes who lie, cheat, and deceive the bad guys in order to overcome adversity, this behavior is never truly lawful.
It may be good, but never lawful.
Paladins must be both, hence, paladins cannot deceive.
Others may argue differently, and discussing ethics and morality, especially pertaining to a fictional character class in a fantasy game with a loosely defined paragraph that vaguely defines their conduct will be about as rewarding as hunting the dodo. And as productive. Suffice it to say, my take on law and paladin's ethics is purely my own.
Agreed,
James Bond is in no way a Paladin. A Paladin would never deceive, even for the greater good. Why? Because to his mindset, it's not for the greater good. The ends never justify the means to a Paladin. The means and the ends are intrinsically linked to a Paladin.
details of an amazing campaign
That is why I roleplay. THAT had to be an immensely satisfying campaign. I wish I could have been in that one. I am filled with envy.
I thought deceit was a natural tactic for devils making contracts to mortals. Carefully wording deals in such a way to make the mortal think he was getting a great deal when in fact it was not and was going to almost wholy benefit the devil. Devils are LE.Deceit is unlawful. Even deceit in the name of goodness, or in the intent of enforcing a law. The ends do not justify the means. So while movies and fiction novels are abundant with questionable heroes who lie, cheat, and deceive the bad guys in order to overcome adversity, this behavior is never truly lawful.
It may be good, but never lawful.
Evil has it's own rules. A devil doesn't lie, he just creates a very convoluted contract, and then lawfully applies it to the letter of the law.
Devil: "You will give me your soul, and I will make you proof against any mortal wound."
Human: "Deal." <Signs contract>
Devil: <Rips out humans throat> "You are now proof against any mortal wound. After all, a corpse cares not about mortal wounds, and I am not mortal."
I think when you bluff you're playing a game. I don't imagine paladins being so playful, even though the player of a paladin might be.And yet that's a very limiting stereotype. A paladin can be playful, have a sense of humor, not take himself too seriously, be good with kids, have copious amounts of (legal and appropriate) sex, etc. Hang out with the right priests at a wedding or whatever, and they can be hilarious people, particularly when they've got a few drinks in them (and I'm talking the Catholics here, the ones known for stuffiness!). And they can do all that and remain law-abiding decent folk with a deep wellspring of compassion and empathy.
<snip>
Agreed,
I think the best example of such a Paladin is from The Dresden Files, Michael Carpenter. He's a Knight of the Cross, and wields Excalibur, which is a sword forged with one of the Nails in it's hilt.He's charasmatic, caring, laughs at himself, is good with kids, isn't holier than thou...
However, he never deceives, never lies, and gives Harry grief about doing such things. He's honorable and honest to a fault.
I guess I have always seen paladins as examples. They stand in the light. They have the charisma to sway crowds and inspire others. When I think of an under cover operative.. I think more of a ranger.. a stalker. A skilled agent working good behind the scenes.
Superman vs Batman.
Both are good...but supes would be the paladin style I imagine.
The mention of paladins as symbols and the comic book references reminded me of Ed Brubaker's run on Captain America:
** spoiler omitted **
That in turn reminded me of one of the most awesome roleplaying experiences I've ever seen:
There was this Neutral wizard, absolutely cynical, travelling with a mostly good party. Eventually, the paladin started getting to her, all through leading by example, not through preaching directly to her. She really started to want to believe in the ideals the paladin stood for, and came to see him a symbol of good and hope that the world(which she saw as a "Sick Sad World") desperately needed.
But she still lacked the faith that those ideals could survive on their own in such a world. She started going about in secret to watch his back and clean up loose ends that she believed would wind up getting him killed. She dirtied her hands handling matters she believed the paladin couldn't, or more importantly, shouldn't. She became more and more devoted to the task of protecting him both as a person and as a symbol that couldn't afford to be sullied by what she considered necessary evils.
When the party left enemies alive, she murdered any who she believed might come looking for revenge on the paladin. If she found out about a problem that could even slightly put the paladin at risk of breaking his code, she would either cut through the problem with brutal efficiency or guide the party away from ever seeing it, consequences for anyone else be damned....
That is very cool. It's also nice to know that tabletop D&D gaming can be real roleplaying and not just about mechanics. I play in two different systems GURPS and D&D and while I don't think the system matters as much I've noticed that the GURPS game takes place on couches with no table and it much more comfortable and so it's hard to focus on your character sheet. That game tends to have an amazing amount of roleplaying. The D&D game is on a traditional table and we focus a lot more on our character sheets and there's not as much roleplaying. I'm just curious, in this kind of session, what's your physical setup?
That is very cool. It's also nice to know that tabletop D&D gaming can be real roleplaying and not...
Not that my story can touch that one for coolness but I was in a Cthulhu game at a local Michigan convention (U-Con for anyone that cares) last fall and the level of roleplaying was amazing, fully immersive. I don't think I sat down more than 5 minutes during the 4-hour session. I don't even know what was written on the character sheet I was given other than some character trait details the GM had sketched out ahead of time. Very intense and fun stuff. Normally I don't enjoy Con games much but I think specifically because of that one I'm going to go more often.
It's downright amazing just how big threads about paladins can get.
I would *love* to see an anti-paladin with 'Cruelty'. The opposite of 'Mercy'. Not only does he inflict damage with a touch attack, he stacks on Fatigued, Diseased, Shaken, Stunned, etc.
That would be a very very scary opponent.
That's a really good idea...
Agreed,
I think the best example of such a Paladin is from The Dresden Files, Michael Carpenter. He's a Knight of the Cross, and wields Excalibur, which is a sword forged with one of the Nails in it's hilt.He's charasmatic, caring, laughs at himself, is good with kids, isn't holier than thou...
However, he never deceives, never lies, and gives Harry grief about doing such things. He's honorable and honest to a fault.
I was actually just about to mention Michael, and I have to agree with you that he's the best literary paladin I can think of.
With regards to D&D, though, my problem has always been that the Paladin class didn't equal the Paladin mythos. In 3e/3.5 (2e as well), a Paladin was a mighty warrior for Good. Sure, they were required to be Lawful, but in the end, that was just window dressing.
In fact, I played a paladin once where I focused on Law instead of Good as best as I could. It was a very tight line, and I nearly lost my powers more than once (with a GM I respect very much, and I agreed with his analysis). Is this something that the PF Paladin is going to handle?
With regards to paladins of other alignments--everyone seems to be gung-ho about the mythos of the Paladin, and I can understand that--but why, then, are we not of the same mindset on the Barbarian (who is really just a native--where'd the rage or required Chaos come from)? Change the name from Paladin to...Godtouched Warrior...or something like that, and have the exact same powers (or choices of similar ones)...I don't see anything wrong with this. You could even give the class different names for different alignments. Paladin for LG, Liberator for CG, Pilgrim for N, Dominator for LE, etc. It wouldn't take another class, just a list of additional powers.
That said, it's obviously way to late for that to happen; I love the preview as it is, and I'm definitely looking forward to the book arriving at my doorstep.
That's a really good idea...I would *love* to see an anti-paladin with 'Cruelty'. The opposite of 'Mercy'. Not only does he inflict damage with a touch attack, he stacks on Fatigued, Diseased, Shaken, Stunned, etc.
That would be a very very scary opponent.
I think what people are clamoring for with non-LG paladin's is some cool alignment-specific class for their favorite alignment and deity.
I play a cleric of Desna who can never have a paladin. Does Desna have any holy champions? Who does she send when she needs someone to beat down the BBEG?
I don't see any reason why paladins cannot be playful. Just because they're LG and dedicated to laying righteous smackdown on evildoers doesn't mean they can't let their hair down and go party once in a while, or even daily if they so choose (although different deities, different religions, may have varying views on such things - these views would most likely sway the paladin's predilections).
I have a Paladin in my game who fits the definition of playful. He worships Cayden Cailean (I'm not sure that's technically allowed, but I watch his Chaotic/Lawful alignment quite closely).
He enjoys heading down to the pub after a long day of smashing [evil] skulls together and relaxing with his barroom buddies. Relaxing at the end of a day is a thoroughly neutral act, on both axes of alignment.
However, he is uncompromising about being good and following the law. He's not a jerk about either of these things - and the rest of the party haven't been jerks by opposing him.
With regards to paladins of other alignments--everyone seems to be gung-ho about the mythos of the Paladin, and I can understand that--but why, then, are we not of the same mindset on the Barbarian (who is really just a native--where'd the rage or required Chaos come from)?
Oh don't get me started on the barbarian. If it were up to me it'd just be fighter and I'd make rage into feats. If you want to make a berserker warrior who is NOT a barbarian, go for it. Make a fighter who got kicked out of the military for always losing control in battle and killing everything in his path friend or foe alike. I personally don't see why only primitive "barbarian" sorts get to get all angry but alas, that's a battle that I'm not going to win.
Change the name from Paladin to...Godtouched Warrior...or something like that, and have the exact same powers (or choices of similar ones)...I don't see anything wrong with this. You could even give the class different names for different alignments. Paladin for LG, Liberator for CG, Pilgrim for N, Dominator for LE, etc. It wouldn't take another class, just a list of additional powers.
That said, it's obviously way to late for that to happen; I love the preview as it is, and I'm definitely looking forward to the book arriving at my doorstep.
I could even get behind that. I just don't want some namby-pamby neutral "oh I can't commit to anything" type of pc getting to have the name Paladin. Call him "Mr. Undecided" or "Mr. The World is Shades of Gray Not Black and White" or something, just don't give him the honor of being allowed to wear the title of Paladin... because he's not.
