While I think a prohibition by Paladin code on the use of Dirty Trick might be appropriate, I disagree for the monk. I think a lot of what you see Jackie Chan do in some of his movies can be approximated by what "Dirty Trick" does (usually with improvised weapons to boot). Smack the guy on the helmet to make his visor fall down (apply the blinded condition). Smack the guy in the solar plexus to make his belt fall down (apply the entangled condition). Pull down on his shield and release so he smacks himself in the chin.
Especially if you combine this with doing non-lethal damage with your unarmed strikes, this is all perfectly within a monk's way of doing things. Don't get hung up on the title "Dirty Trick".
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dirty trick is just a name. The effects of the maneuver can be flavored any number of ways. It would be silly to tie alignment restrictions to types of attacks. What would be next someone claiming a paladin should fall because he was attacking with full force and without mercy (a.k.a. Lethal Power Attack)?
Just my thoughts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's fighting to the death. It's kill or be killed. I can see why some Lawful Good characters might have inhibitions about dirty fighting, but there are equally good reasons for Lawful Good characters to believe that it's suicidial to not use any option that couls save your life or the people you want to protect, when everything else has failed.
I don't think there is any broad class restrictions here. Most Pally's probably would look down on throwing dirt in an opponents eyes or something of the like but I could think of some goods who wouldn't mind. Might work well for a redeemed pally who grew up on the streets and learned to fight how ever they could. As for monks there is a ton of variation between flavors of monk. Ones that place a high value on honor or one particular fighting style might shun this but most would be indifferent or ok with it. Do you think a drunken master is going to refuse to use dirty tricks?
|
|
Dirty Trick is not unlawful, or evil.
You are basically using an attack to apply a condition, a more nonlethal way of attacking.
It has the same effect on alignment that tripping, grappling, disarming, repositioning, bull rushing, or any other combat maneuver has on alignment.
Meaning none.
Think about it.
"Gee, I could temporarily blind this guy, incapacitate him, but that would be evil, so I'll stab him to death, because that's the good thing to do."
If any thing, I could see a Paladin using the maneuver often, combined with nonlethal, as alternate to just chopping people up.
Fits flavor and alignment.
|
The only time a character should be concerned about using a 'dirty trick' is if he has a personal code he follows AND the situation is one where 'fighting dirty' is frowned upon...such as a public dual where such tactics are deemed unacceptable.
Some players (and GMs) forget that we are playing a game in which one or more people/creatures are fighting to defend themselves...If you have someone standing in front of you that you KNOW wants to run you through with a sword, throwing a bit of sand in their eyes or kicking at their knee doesn't quite compare.
As a fellow champion of justice and bastion of light against the darkness I take offense to your insinuations that being pragmatic on the battlefield is somehow evil. I have been trained to use my weapons, gear, and surroundings to their fullest to either incapacitate or--if they are beyond reasoning with or saving--put them down as efficiently and painlessly as possible. Better to knock them about a bit and resolve things when they see reason than to immediately resort to lethal force against petty thieves or misguided people.
I'd say it depends on the situation.
When a knight challenges a pally to a duell it might be problematic if the pally pulls dirty tricks.
If a bunch of bandits jump some travellers, one of whom is a pally I would in no way object to a pally kicking one of the bandits in his groin (for me a classic dirty trick). Not nice at all but legitimate under the right circumstances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say it depends on the situation.
When a knight challenges a pally to a duell it might be problematic if the pally pulls dirty tricks.
If a bunch of bandits jump some travellers, one of whom is a pally I would in no way object to a pally kicking one of the bandits in his groin (for me a classic dirty trick). Not nice at all but legitimate under the right circumstances.
This.
In a formal duel with established rules, a Paladin would be honor bound to follow the rules he agreed to.
In a random battle to the death where he is outnumbered two to one, the line is more blurry. Having already decided that stabbing him to death is a legitimate course of action... a Groin Kick isn't in any way 'more' bad for him do.
Monks??? 70% of all martial arts moves involve groin shots, throat punches and nerve clusters. Monks have one basic rule. Don't fight. If you DO have to fight.... end it fast.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, the Paladin Code of Conduct is stupid enough that this probably is cause for a fall.
Eh, the Paladin Code of Conduct is stupid enough that this probably is cause for a fall.
Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Doesn't say anything abut being pragmatic or using nonlethal alternatives. It DOES say not to cheat, so using the dirty trick maneuver in an honorable duel would be bad for their alignment if the keep doing it, yes.
personally I'd think sarenrae would be a big advocate of it, since her whole shtick is "change those who can be saved, brutally murder (in as efficient a way as possible) anything that cant/wont."
Replace the term "Dirty Trick maneuver" with "Trick maneuver". Is there a perceived problem when the name doesn't make it sound dastardly?
I wouldn't have a problem with a paladin throwing dirt in the eyes of an enemy to gain an advantage.
I think it might be a situational thing for a paladin. For example, if he is in an honor duel with a similarly equipped cavalier, both would probably consider the use of dirty tricks dishonorable. But if he loses his weapon and his opponent will not allow him to retrieve it? I have yet to see even the most honorbound warrior balk at a dirty trick in that situation.
To me its not a question of whether in an isolated situation a pally might use a dirty trick. The question should be is it a big enough part of the pally's repertoire that he's taking feats for it. Most iconic pally builds would not work well with this concept(the honorable, chivalric warrior). How ever there is nothing in the pally class that says you couldn't. I just think you need to come up with a good back story/role playing reason for why you went down an unusual route.
I know RAW that Dirty trick doesn't have any affect on alignment but something about a lawful good paladin (or monk) using it doesn't jive right with me.
What do you guys think, should dirty trick affect/change alignment if used all the time?
Dirty trick should never be an alignment issue for a paladin or any other class. They're lawful good not lawful stupid, and if throwing sand in the eyes of a demon gives the Paladin an unfair advantage that's fine!
Of course YOU don't have to use dirty treat if you don't want to...
I think it is a very LG thing to do. Instead of damaging someone you are debilitizing them. Is that better than cutting them in twane with your great sword?
I think it is a very LG thing to do. Instead of damaging someone you are debilitizing them. Is that better than cutting them in twane with your great sword?
By that logic sleeping poison would be more honorable than Smite Evil. But...
Poison is directly against there code of ethics
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
You sure about that?
In 3.5 sleeping poison was the only poison good chars were allowed to use. I don't think that view transferred to pathfinder but I might make an exception and allow pally's to use it. I wouldn't make a pally fall for using it especially one who focuses on keeping foes alive.
blackbloodtrolll you are usually one of the best references on here you surprised me.
I do not play Paladins.
Just sort of doesn't suite my tastes.
Now, if there was a CG or LE version, I could do it.
Besides, no one is infallible.
You have no idea how much I'd love to see those as well. I'm tired of playing antipaladins as smart and my DM saying I'm playing to LE instead of CE. Also i hear 3.5's paladin of freedom gave people some fun times.
As a side topic to palas using maneuvery:
Does smite evil work with maneuvers? The bonus to hit, that is.
While I think a prohibition by Paladin code on the use of Dirty Trick might be appropriate, I disagree for the monk. I think a lot of what you see Jackie Chan do in some of his movies can be approximated by what "Dirty Trick" does (usually with improvised weapons to boot). Smack the guy on the helmet to make his visor fall down (apply the blinded condition). Smack the guy in the solar plexus to make his belt fall down (apply the entangled condition). Pull down on his shield and release so he smacks himself in the chin.
Especially if you combine this with doing non-lethal damage with your unarmed strikes, this is all perfectly within a monk's way of doing things. Don't get hung up on the title "Dirty Trick".
I'd argue that Jackie Chan is not playing a lawful monk but a (non-lawful) rogue with a fetish for unarmed combat :).
Personally, a lot of the alignment restrictions can get in the way of a good story. If monks all have to be trained at a monastery, and they need to maintain a lawful alignment to stay there, they can still change alignment afterwards. Have them make a bluff test to "fake it" when they go back for training, perhaps?
As a side topic to palas using maneuvery:
Does smite evil work with maneuvers? The bonus to hit, that is.
I think the bonus to hit from smite does apply to CMB, also there's this:
You can alter your smite ability, channeling the power of your deity into divine inspiration that grants you greater aptitude for performing combat maneuvers.
Prerequisites: Smite evil class feature, base attack bonus +5.
Benefit: While using your smite evil class feature, as a swift action at the start of your turn, you can forgo the bonus on damage rolls and instead gain half that bonus as a bonus oncombat maneuver checks against the target of your smite. The effects of your smite evil feature return to normal at the start of your next turn.