Paladin - penalties for bluffing?


Rules Questions

51 to 96 of 96 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Nothing wrote:

1) Point to the wrong house and say "Go there" without answering his quation.

2) Quickly glance at the wrong house and say "I will never tell you, fiend".
3) Recall a building where you once saw a child long ago and say "I saw a child in that building".
4) Attempt to bluff by saying "Your pathetic hunger is beneath me, go away and stop bothering your betters"
5) Lie and later get an Atonement Spell cast.
4 of those options are lying by omission. Specifically, what we are arguing they should be capable of doing.

Most are not lying by omission, (1) is simply not answering the question that the monster posed, instead telling it what the paladin wants it to do.

Option (2) is speaking the plain truth while hoping that the creature will turn their attention in the direction of a glance instead of attacking.
Option (3) really is a lie of omission, but I disagree that failing to explain every fact in every sentence spoken by the paladin breaks his oath.
Option (4) merely "lies" by portraying the paladin as being in a more powerful negotiating position than he feels he actually has, and if that counts as lying then he should cut out his tongue or he will quickly lose his powers in any normal conversation.


I've always interpreted a paladin code as doing right. A paladin doesn't have to always say the truth. A lie is not inherently evil or chaotic, but is a subtle shift in that direction. There's instances, however, when I'd say it wasn't. Say that paladin, a lowly level 1 or 2 paladin, is sitting in the room where the child is hidden. In walks a glabrezu (why or why a glabrezu would waste time talking a paladin, ignore that for a sec) in which the paladin stands no chance of winning. So instead, the paladin says "The child was taken to X", perhaps knowing that a strong enough group of the guard is there, or simply state "I haven't seen any children". Perhaps he dies, but he did so doing everything within his power to end the evil and protect the child.

But an important question I'd have also is whom is the paladin's god? Does that god specifically have an issue with lying? Sarenrae has a portfolio of "honesty", she would likely have an issue with lying, perhaps even in this case. A paladin of Sarenrae should seek redemption, and so perhaps would ask the demon willing to talk "why do you seek this child?" and answer "I cannot in good conscious assist you if wish harm on the child". Meanwhile, a paladin of Shelyn would likely have less of an issue, especially since they're code involves "I am peaceful. I come first with a rose. I act to prevent conflict before it blossoms.
I never strike first, unless it is the only way to protect the innocent."


(The paladin is infiltrating an evil cult)

Paladin: "Urgathoa is great and mighty."
GM: "Make a Bluff check."

(The paladin is pretending not to eavesdrop on the evildoer)

GM: "Make a Bluff check."


blahpers wrote:

They actually can. Part of being a paladin is having free will. If you, as an agent of LG, are in a no-win situation, breaking your Code is an option, and you may be able to atone--that's what the atonement process is for. You must be repentant of your deeds to atone, and that may entail communing with the source of your power to determine whether there was another way or whether you were essentially coerced into breaking your Code.

If you poisoned the water supply...well, yeah, generally that's the kind of thing it's hard to do and then be truly repentant, but without a much more specific context than that it's pointless to discuss the scenario. In general, that would violate the Code, obviously.

Sure. I did mention the Atonement fix in my post. But generally for me that feels like an end-around the whole point.

After all, if you make a decision based off of the idea that "Well, I can just get an Atonement later", it sorts of makes one wonder if you can actually "be repentant and desirious of setting right your misdeeds". That's at least how I feel like some people treat the ability to Atone. It's not being used in the truly damned if you do/don't situation; it's being used in the "Meh, it's easier to do it this way and just atone for it later" situation. So it's kind of a cop out. In the truly no-win situation, then yeah I'd agree it's a viable solution.

But, as I'm sure you're probably agree, a GM should never put a Paladin is such a no-win situation without giving the player some input into it. If the player's on board with the process, then by all means. It might even make for a fun story hook (the process of your atonement isn't simply to get the spell cast, but to complete [X] task to make up for your misdeeds, etc.).

What I was really speaking to then was more of the philosophical aspect, as opposed to the game mechanics.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

To me, the code is not something that paladins follow because it's required, but because they believe it is the right thing to do. There's never a contradiction between following the code and seeking the greater good; the code is the greater good. This is a matter of faith, not knowledge. A paladin isn't omniscient; it's doesn't matter that she doesn't understand how refusing to answer the monster's question about the delicious child is a better choice than lying. She simply believes that it is.

By this view, a paladin doesn't fall because she committed an act that violated the code, but because she stopped believing that the code is the greater good. If she just doubted in a moment of weakness, well that's what Atonement is for. But if she stops believing that the world will be a better place if she lives according to the code than if she doesn't, then she has definitely fallen.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When a paladin wants to tell the party rogue that she doesn't look fat in her new leather armor when she does indeed look like an overstuffed sausage, a bluff check is necessary and would not impinge on his alignment or class.

But with more seriousness, deception isn't necessarily the same thing as lying. Nor is deception always incompatible with exemplary Lawful Goodness. Subterfuge and deception are essential tenets of warfare, whether on the battlefield or in the king's court.


claudekennilol wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
blahpers wrote:
In other words, just because you believe the paladin's Code to be flawed does not mean that a paladin need not follow it.
Yes, a Paladin does RAW have to follow it. That doesn't stop it from being stupid, poorly done, or/and arbitrary in places.

RAW: lie: an intentionally false statement

None of my examples above of what a bluff could be are intentionally false.

"What's new, Mr. Paladin?"

"Well, back is out of joint, my genitals itch, I'm getting a minor headache, had diarrhea last night ..."
"Whoa, TMI!"
"Sorry, but if I don't tell you everything, I lose my powers."

Grand Lodge

Zhayne wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
blahpers wrote:
In other words, just because you believe the paladin's Code to be flawed does not mean that a paladin need not follow it.
Yes, a Paladin does RAW have to follow it. That doesn't stop it from being stupid, poorly done, or/and arbitrary in places.

RAW: lie: an intentionally false statement

None of my examples above of what a bluff could be are intentionally false.

"What's new, Mr. Paladin?"

"Well, back is out of joint, my genitals itch, I'm getting a minor headache, had diarrhea last night ..."
"Whoa, TMI!"
"Sorry, but if I don't tell you everything, I lose my powers."

rofl.

But you do bring up a good point, if a "lie by omission" is in fact a lie, then where you do draw the line?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
blahpers wrote:
In other words, just because you believe the paladin's Code to be flawed does not mean that a paladin need not follow it.
Yes, a Paladin does RAW have to follow it. That doesn't stop it from being stupid, poorly done, or/and arbitrary in places.

RAW: lie: an intentionally false statement

None of my examples above of what a bluff could be are intentionally false.

"What's new, Mr. Paladin?"

"Well, back is out of joint, my genitals itch, I'm getting a minor headache, had diarrhea last night ..."
"Whoa, TMI!"
"Sorry, but if I don't tell you everything, I lose my powers."

rofl.

But you do bring up a good point, if a "lie by omission" is in fact a lie, then where you do draw the line?

You draw the line at the point that it's intentionally deceitful.


If someone asks 'how are you?' and you say 'fine' when you are, in fact, not fine, is that not 'intentionally deceitful'?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Seltyiel: Honey, does this dress make my butt look big?

Seelah: ....uh...sweats uncomfortably


Paladin code of Torag wrote:
I am at all times truthful, honorable, and forthright, but my allegiance is to my people. I will do what is necessary to serve them, including misleading others if need be.

Paladins can be intentionally deceitful.

link


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
Paladin code of Torag wrote:
I am at all times truthful, honorable, and forthright, but my allegiance is to my people. I will do what is necessary to serve them, including misleading others if need be.

Paladins can be intentionally deceitful.

link

Side note: I see they took out the "scatter their families" part of the code for Inner Sea Gods. Interesting.

Suffice it to say that it wouldn't be the first time a specific code (even this particular code) contradicted the spirit of the core code. That's kind of the point of having specific codes--to emphasize certain aspects over others. Torag emphasizes defense of the paladin's people over all other concerns. When two aspects of the paladin code conflict, the specifics of the code should dictate which aspect wins out. If the choice is between the good of showing mercy and the good of defeating your enemies with certainty, Torag's code dictates that the latter takes precedence. Similarly, if the only choice is between honesty and defending her people, a paladin of Torag will err on the side of defending her people--while still striving to behave in honorable fashion. This does not give the paladin carte blanche to lie any time it would aid her cause--rather, it guides the paladin in the correct direction when a true, unavoidable dilemma arises.


blahpers wrote:
Anguish wrote:
Oh the other hand, an unarmed paladin in a room with a small child hiding in a closet, and a nasty foe comes in and asks "have you seen a tasty little kid"? Totally different situation. The right thing to do is lie, even if it's a soft lie like "not recently" without defining "recently".
The right thing to do is to stop the bad guy, not lie. A paladin does not compromise the Code.

The paladin did not compromise the code. The paladin stopped the bad guy. That's my whole point... when equipped with no weapons but his mouth, a paladin who is not Lawful Stupid gets the job done. 'Cuz it's stupid to say "why yes, Mr. Monster, I'm standing right in front of the door behind which the child is hiding, and you'll have to go through me to get to him... which by the looks of things will be trivial, but I'd rather throw my life and the child's life away than speak words that are in any way incorrect."

Quote:
However, this is why players and GMs should work out a more specific code for their paladins. There's nothing wrong with playing a paladin in that fashion, only that it conflicts with the (vague) default Code.

Absolutely. 100%. I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm just explaining what I tell my players: I don't expect, demand, or want you to play a character who is Lawful to the point of being suicidal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
Choosing selfishness ("Sorry kid, it's who I am") over a child's life is what makes Paladins the paragons of lawful good.

There is - on a scale of 1 to 100 - roughly zero Good in that standpoint. What makes a paladin a paladin would be the willingness to fall if that's what it takes to save lives. Yes, that's paradoxical, and that's why any deity worth its worship should smile broadly that the paladin Gets It.


It's not a lie to say; "Be gone beast, back to whatever abyss you crawled out of. I'll never help you."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:

It's not a lie to say; "Be gone beast, back to whatever abyss you crawled out of. I'll never help you."

Then the monster kills you 'cause you ticked it off (more), and eats the kid anyway. You accomplished absolutely nothing.


Anguish wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Anguish wrote:
Oh the other hand, an unarmed paladin in a room with a small child hiding in a closet, and a nasty foe comes in and asks "have you seen a tasty little kid"? Totally different situation. The right thing to do is lie, even if it's a soft lie like "not recently" without defining "recently".
The right thing to do is to stop the bad guy, not lie. A paladin does not compromise the Code.
The paladin did not compromise the code. The paladin stopped the bad guy. That's my whole point... when equipped with no weapons but his mouth, a paladin who is not Lawful Stupid gets the job done. 'Cuz it's stupid to say "why yes, Mr. Monster, I'm standing right in front of the door behind which the child is hiding, and you'll have to go through me to get to him... which by the looks of things will be trivial, but I'd rather throw my life and the child's life away than speak words that are in any way incorrect."

The rest of the thread goes over some other options and also addresses situations in which there truly is no choice--which should come up in with vanishingly small frequency.

Quote:
Quote:
However, this is why players and GMs should work out a more specific code for their paladins. There's nothing wrong with playing a paladin in that fashion, only that it conflicts with the (vague) default Code.

Absolutely. 100%. I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm just explaining what I tell my players: I don't expect, demand, or want you to play a character who is Lawful to the point of being suicidal.

It isn't the suicidal nature of the situation that rankles--a paladin is expected to lay down her life if her death would be a greater good than her life. It's the hopelessness of the situation--that dying wouldn't even help. But if the situation is truly so narrow that there truly exists only two options (Paladins Fall or Everybody Dies), that situation probably shouldn't have come up. If such a dilemma does occur through happenstance rather than deliberate GM provocation, the paladin must choose between falling and communing with the source of her power for advice and atonement later or ending the game right there.

Fortunately, most dilemmas really aren't. There should always be a choice--however hard that choice is. The original scenario is plausible but suggests plenty of options that do not compromise the paladin's code.


Zhayne wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

It's not a lie to say; "Be gone beast, back to whatever abyss you crawled out of. I'll never help you."

Then the monster kills you 'cause you ticked it off (more), and eats the kid anyway. You accomplished absolutely nothing.

Or the paladin manages to hold off the monster just long enough for the kid to escape.

Or the enraged monster attacks recklessly and is killed by the paladin.

Or the monster utters a horrible threat and stalks off to search somewhere else.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

None of your -effing- business and -eff- off are not lies.


I would say that if Paladin gets shoved into a situation where lying is the only way to prevent a great evil (However contrived it might be) then his patrons shouldn't judge him too harshly for lying. One thing I do wish they'd kept from 3.5 was that a Paladin only falls for grossly violating his code of conduct. A minor lie is still going against the code, and not something the Paladin should make a habit of, but one lie in a very bad situation should not be an insta-fall.


Mystic_Snowfang wrote:
None of your -effing- business and -eff- off are not lies.

Neither is 'the child is hiding and good luck finding him'.


JoeJ wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

It's not a lie to say; "Be gone beast, back to whatever abyss you crawled out of. I'll never help you."

Then the monster kills you 'cause you ticked it off (more), and eats the kid anyway. You accomplished absolutely nothing.

Or the paladin manages to hold off the monster just long enough for the kid to escape.

Or the enraged monster attacks recklessly and is killed by the paladin.

Or the monster utters a horrible threat and stalks off to search somewhere else.

Or, more likely, the monster is going to have a much tastier treat in the form of a Paladin. You're not hitting for much when you're unarmed. You're hitting for less if you have any form of magic glove, since you have to switch out your gauntlets for these. 1d3+Str+Paladin level, and most likely non-lethal, just isn't enough for our neighborhood Paladin to be able to be giving out any kind of orders to the monster.

Though the monster may not be completely satisfied afterwards.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm thinking the biggest penalty for Paladins against 'lying' (Bluffing) is the complete lack of skill ranks they have.


Suichimo wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

It's not a lie to say; "Be gone beast, back to whatever abyss you crawled out of. I'll never help you."

Then the monster kills you 'cause you ticked it off (more), and eats the kid anyway. You accomplished absolutely nothing.

Or the paladin manages to hold off the monster just long enough for the kid to escape.

Or the enraged monster attacks recklessly and is killed by the paladin.

Or the monster utters a horrible threat and stalks off to search somewhere else.

Or, more likely, the monster is going to have a much tastier treat in the form of a Paladin. You're not hitting for much when you're unarmed. You're hitting for less if you have any form of magic glove, since you have to switch out your gauntlets for these. 1d3+Str+Paladin level, and most likely non-lethal, just isn't enough for our neighborhood Paladin to be able to be giving out any kind of orders to the monster.

Though the monster may not be completely satisfied afterwards.

Then she dies heroically, but maybe she manages to hold off the monster just long enough for the kid to get away. Or perhaps she discovers that this monster is unusually susceptible to her Smite ability, or her Channel Energy, or her spells. Or perhaps, if she stays true, her god will intervene.

The paladin can't possibly know what the final outcome will be, but she does know that she has been given supernatural power to fight evil. She also believes that the outcome will be better if she follows her code than if she doesn't, no matter how high the personal cost might be.


Matt2VK wrote:
I'm thinking the biggest penalty for Paladins against 'lying' (Bluffing) is the complete lack of skill ranks they have.

Yeah, that definitely doesn't help.


JoeJ wrote:


Then she dies heroically, but maybe she manages to hold off the monster just long enough for the kid to get away. Or perhaps she discovers that this monster is unusually susceptible to her Smite ability, or her Channel Energy, or her spells. Or perhaps, if she stays true, her god will intervene.

Whole lotta ifs, maybes, coulds and perhaps in that paragraph. Assuming maxed-out bluff, diverting the monster sounds like it gives the best possibility of success.


Zhayne wrote:
Matt2VK wrote:
I'm thinking the biggest penalty for Paladins against 'lying' (Bluffing) is the complete lack of skill ranks they have.
Yeah, that definitely doesn't help.

It's not a class skill, but there's nothing in the rules to stop a paladin from putting skill points into Bluff. As a GM I would require the player to have a good reason before I'd let them do that, but it wouldn't be impossible for a creative player to come up with something.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lying:
Lying by omission dishonorably:"Have you seen my wallet around here?" "Sure, I saw it under that couch the other day" and then put it in my pocket and used the money in it to buy a TV.

Lying by omission honorably:"Have you seen this child? My stomach has the rumblies that only child hands can satisfy." "Sure, he was over there" an hour ago, now he is secretly in the basement next door.

Difference:One is done so that the person doesn't realize you are stealing from them and burning their money. The other is done to keep someone from sawing off some child's hands and eat them.

Dying:
Fighting and Dying heroically:Going up against an injured wizard with very few spells left, while you are unarmed but still have little injuries on you.

Fighting and Dying stupidly:Going up against an uninjured wizard with all of his daily allotment of spells[including the levels 2, 3, 4, and 5], while you are unarmed and have significant damage on you.

Difference:One is a fight you have a chance of winning[even if not entirely good]. Another is a fight you will almost certainly lose. Is it certain you will lose in the latter? No, but its illogical to think that the best-case-scenario will happen v. the worst-case-scenario. Why should you believe that you're god will intervene for you when he/she didn't intervene for the hundreds of similar 1st-level paladins that died in that battle last spring?

Note:
When I say "stupid" I don't mean it in a derogatory way, or a way that implies taking the "stupid" option is badwrongfun. I mean that taking the "stupid" death is not any more honorable than taking the "dishonorable" path of omitting the truth to save lives of the good and punish the evil.
~2cp

Silver Crusade

Pity dirty fighting is dishonorable because you could just kick the monster in the nards.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mystic_Snowfang wrote:
Pity dirty fighting is dishonorable because you could just kick the monster in the nards.

There ain't no such thing as a fair fight.

The Exchange

I like your Aes Sedai example because I think it hits on the main point behind a paladins code.

The Paladin code isn't about strict adherence, it's about intention. Note that the emphasis is on honour. So a lie may be ok in the interests of protecting the innocent or delaying those who would do evil.

On the other hand the example you gave is one of people using careful wording to speak the literal truth, but using that in itself as a way of deceiving a person. This would go against the code. I see the paladin code as being more concerned with why something as said and less about what is said. I would suggest that for a lie to break the code it would be need to be deceptive for personal gain.


JoeJ wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Matt2VK wrote:
I'm thinking the biggest penalty for Paladins against 'lying' (Bluffing) is the complete lack of skill ranks they have.
Yeah, that definitely doesn't help.

It's not a class skill, but there's nothing in the rules to stop a paladin from putting skill points into Bluff. As a GM I would require the player to have a good reason before I'd let them do that, but it wouldn't be impossible for a creative player to come up with something.

First, since Bluff can be used for multiple things including passing messages and feinting... no 'good reason' should be needed to assign your skill points as you see fit. If he uses the skill in a way you don't like it... take his powers, but don't just tell him he can't have it...

Second... 2+ int is REALLY painful and the idea of a 'maxed out bluff' for my guy is REALLLY farfetched. It IS a CHR based skill so he'll get a lit bump on that... but otherwise, He is really skill deprived and if he wants to put slots into that... it just means he cheated himself on diplomacy, heal, and ride...

I have an 11th level paladin who is human and stays favored class... I top out at 5 a level... I can't afford to put any in perception let alone bluff ;)


I think a lot of this particular thread is splitting hairs. A paladin speaks the truth. When he says something, you know it's true...

That's pretty much it.

What the other person HEARS... or Assumes.. or infers... is REALLY not the Paladin's problem. There isn't a shade of grey here. Did he lie? Yes or No...

My Paladin weighs his words very carefully. There are a lot of time he either stays silent or says little... Once he says something, he stands by it. Therefore he is very careful about what he says.

If he's interrogating a prisoner, and they say 'I want the paladins word I won't die in this prison if I talk...' My paladins response would be 'absolutely. You have it.'

If the crime was severe enough... You'll be executed out in front of the courthouse for the people to see Justice... It serves no purpose to have you die in here!!!

THAT part is left unspoken. Still the truth. Not a deception. Every time someone fails to get the upper hand in a conversation... is NOT a result of my 'misleading' you... it's a result of you no listening
carefully.

As an added bonus... No bluff roll needed when telling the truth :P

The Exchange

Phantom that is a deception and it's what I was saying about the intention being more important than the words spoken. The paladin code is about behaviour and belief. It's not a thing to be manipulated to achieve personal ends.


Rushley son of Halum wrote:
Phantom that is a deception and it's what I was saying about the intention being more important than the words spoken. The paladin code is about behaviour and belief. It's not a thing to be manipulated to achieve personal ends.

It's truth or dare.

When something is or is not 'deceptive' is really beside the point. He offered no pardon. He didn't say she'd go free. He made no promises beyond what he was asked. And that he intended to keep.

What is or is not 'deceptive' is going to change depending on who you talk to. Whether something is a LIE.. that's black and white.

Diplomacy is a class skill and politics are all about trying to get the upper hand in the conversation.


When I read this thread title, I had this image of Spock in a suit of plate telling an evil archwizard, "Paladins never bluff."

The Exchange

phantom1592 wrote:
Rushley son of Halum wrote:
Phantom that is a deception and it's what I was saying about the intention being more important than the words spoken. The paladin code is about behaviour and belief. It's not a thing to be manipulated to achieve personal ends.

It's truth or dare.

When something is or is not 'deceptive' is really beside the point. He offered no pardon. He didn't say she'd go free. He made no promises beyond what he was asked. And that he intended to keep.

What is or is not 'deceptive' is going to change depending on who you talk to. Whether something is a LIE.. that's black and white.

Diplomacy is a class skill and politics are all about trying to get the upper hand in the conversation.

No. The Paladin code is about honour. Its about following the spirit of the code. The letter of the law is less important than it's intent.

Paladins aren't politicians. If you tried to pull that kind of nonsense on one of my tables your paladin would fall. It wouldn't even be a question. It's deception for personal gain, plain and simple. There is no good to be brought from such a thing.

Stop trying to play paladins as politicians. That's not the intent of the code and you damn well know it.


phantom1592 wrote:
Rushley son of Halum wrote:
Phantom that is a deception and it's what I was saying about the intention being more important than the words spoken. The paladin code is about behaviour and belief. It's not a thing to be manipulated to achieve personal ends.

It's truth or dare.

When something is or is not 'deceptive' is really beside the point. He offered no pardon. He didn't say she'd go free. He made no promises beyond what he was asked. And that he intended to keep.

What is or is not 'deceptive' is going to change depending on who you talk to. Whether something is a LIE.. that's black and white.

Diplomacy is a class skill and politics are all about trying to get the upper hand in the conversation.

You may call it diplomacy, I call it a lie and betrayal. The prisoner is offering to give information to save his life. The paladin is deliberately trying to fool the prisoner into thinking that he'd accepted the deal when he actually did not.


Rushley son of Halum wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
Rushley son of Halum wrote:
Phantom that is a deception and it's what I was saying about the intention being more important than the words spoken. The paladin code is about behaviour and belief. It's not a thing to be manipulated to achieve personal ends.

It's truth or dare.

When something is or is not 'deceptive' is really beside the point. He offered no pardon. He didn't say she'd go free. He made no promises beyond what he was asked. And that he intended to keep.

What is or is not 'deceptive' is going to change depending on who you talk to. Whether something is a LIE.. that's black and white.

Diplomacy is a class skill and politics are all about trying to get the upper hand in the conversation.

No. The Paladin code is about honour. Its about following the spirit of the code. The letter of the law is less important than it's intent.

Paladins aren't politicians. If you tried to pull that kind of nonsense on one of my tables your paladin would fall. It wouldn't even be a question. It's deception for personal gain, plain and simple. There is no good to be brought from such a thing.

Stop trying to play paladins as politicians. That's not the intent of the code and you damn well know it.

To be fair, my Paladin is in Kingmaker... and he's the king. So there IS a lot of overlap between Paladin and Politician. It's one of his biggest RP hurdles and been a lot of fun trying to BE the good and honorable paladin while still dealing with the less virtuous politicians.

Been a Lot of fun and haven't fallen yet. Frankly most of the other Players get frustrated over his dislike of stealth or spy missions, and of course the blatant honesty. he's set back many a treaty by being TOO forthcoming...

The above situation WOULD have been when an invading horde of 10,000 hobgoblins attacked our kingdom and killed thousands... Some of the other PCs were interogatting a prisoner, and she wanted to deal with only the 'king'... She'll talk about their leaders and such if HE promises she won't die in the dungeon...

HAD he been there, he would have said that very thing. For the deaths of all his people... her life was already forfeit and he wouldn't have let himself be blackmailed into leinancy... That would have gone against his 'lawful' side.

As it played out, the magister laughed at her and told him that the king had bigger duties then to talk to prisoners.. she'd talk to him or she'd rot there...

This idea that just because someone was is honorable or honest... that they should walk into every diplomatic situation With every card out on the table and reveal all their secrets and weaknesses is pretty ridiculous.

Beowulf Fought Grendel naked and unarmed... because that's how his enemy was... Paladins don't DO this. They have the best weapons .. they have the best armor... they have god given abilities in battle.

Diplomacy is just as much a battle. Just a different battlefield

Silver Crusade

Suichimo wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

It's not a lie to say; "Be gone beast, back to whatever abyss you crawled out of. I'll never help you."

Then the monster kills you 'cause you ticked it off (more), and eats the kid anyway. You accomplished absolutely nothing.

Or the paladin manages to hold off the monster just long enough for the kid to escape.

Or the enraged monster attacks recklessly and is killed by the paladin.

Or the monster utters a horrible threat and stalks off to search somewhere else.

Or, more likely, the monster is going to have a much tastier treat in the form of a Paladin. You're not hitting for much when you're unarmed. You're hitting for less if you have any form of magic glove, since you have to switch out your gauntlets for these. 1d3+Str+Paladin level, and most likely non-lethal, just isn't enough for our neighborhood Paladin to be able to be giving out any kind of orders to the monster.

Though the monster may not be completely satisfied afterwards.

The paladin should be grappling in that situation, not punching for damage. Against any enemy that's not way outside his pay grade, he should stand a decent chance of pinning it down and waiting for re-enforcements.

But again, that whole thing is just a nonsense hypothetical. Any GM who would pull something like that just to try and get a paladin to lie is violating the "Don't be a jerk" rule, and shouldn't be allowed to continue GMing.


Read through some of the earlier posts and skimmed through the rest. Got reminded of the time when I had a debate with a friend over similar issue.

A good reference I always go back to is the earlier D&D's "Book of Exalted Deeds". It explains several grey areas rather well, here's an excerpt:

"When do good ends justify evil means to achieve them? Is it morally acceptable, for example, to torture an evil captive in order to extract vital information that can prevent the deaths of thousands of innocents? Any good character shudders at the thought of committing torture, but the goal of preventing thousands of deaths is undeniably a virtuous one, and a neutral character might easily consider the use of torture in such a
circumstance. With evil acts on a smaller scale, even the most virtuous characters can find themselves tempted to agree that a very good end justifies a mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to prevent a minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe? A world-shattering catastrophe?" -pg 9

Link redacted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:

To me, the code is not something that paladins follow because it's required, but because they believe it is the right thing to do. There's never a contradiction between following the code and seeking the greater good; the code is the greater good. This is a matter of faith, not knowledge. A paladin isn't omniscient; it's doesn't matter that she doesn't understand how refusing to answer the monster's question about the delicious child is a better choice than lying. She simply believes that it is.

By this view, a paladin doesn't fall because she committed an act that violated the code, but because she stopped believing that the code is the greater good. If she just doubted in a moment of weakness, well that's what Atonement is for. But if she stops believing that the world will be a better place if she lives according to the code than if she doesn't, then she has definitely fallen.

It's one of the best comment in this thread IMO.

Yeah, a paladin with the Core Code would not lie, because it's not an option.

Some thoughts a paladin could have about lying:
- If I lie, my god won't be able to help the poor child.
- A lie is a step to Chaos and Evil. And soon enough I'll be no better than this monster.
- A lie is a step to Chaos and Evil. It will give powers to monsters like this thing, or even more powerful. I can't allow that.
- If I lie, one or more people will be harmed.


Lying in and of itself is no biggie,why should the Paladin be any less convincing when he says "No,your ass does not look fat in those jeans."
There is no listed penalty to bluff,sometimes lies are needed.People lie constantly in the course of everyday small talk.
"How are you today?" the teller asked.
"Good"-said the lying lyer thru his lie hole. :)

If the Big bad asks the Pally if the orphans are hiding in yonder building..should he remain silent? Or tell him they've been spirited away to safety.

Scarab Sages

If a paladin lies, he falls.

Is lying evil? It doesn't really matter what we think. He falls.

Should a paladin lie? I think not, and not under any circumstances, but I have a very black/white philosophy when it comes to the nature of good and evil, and really that's all that this thread is about.

If you believe lying is evil, you'll probably go with the side that believes that Paladins don't lie, or they fall if they do. If you don't believe lying is evil, you probably are okay with all but the most blatant, obvious lies against the code.

That's really, I think, all it boils down to. >_>

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed a link. Filesharing isn't OK here.

51 to 96 of 96 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Paladin - penalties for bluffing? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.