|
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 :)
Ouch and I didn't even get an honorable mention :'(
You'd think I wasn't on that discussion from about page three when I first saw it to the very last page arguing till I was blue in the face. Oh well, nobody loves me, everybody hates me, guess I'll eat some worms.
Oh well, nobody loves me, everybody hates me, guess I'll eat some worms.
Mmmm, worms! Almost as good as brains :)
Ouch and I didn't even get an honorable mention :'(
You'd think I wasn't on that discussion from about page three when I first saw it to the very last page arguing till I was blue in the face. Oh well, nobody loves me, everybody hates me, guess I'll eat some worms.
Or maybe some worms will eat you ...
|
I don't have to be evil to dislike people who are jerks. I see no reason not to use an evil weapon to fight for good, or try to redeem the weapon through feats of heroism.
As it happens I usually play TN, CN or CG characters.
so... you say you would sell the evil weapon... yoursef being good... so it can later be again in the market and used agains you... (ok only in 1 on 3 of your cases, but it could be used to kill your other allies, and the allies besides the party)
interesting... not the smartest choice I would say... but any master knows it worth would use that against the party... they are basically arming their future enemies :P for a bit of gold...
really smart let me tell you.
an evil weapon serves one purpose... its not a person that becoem evil... its a weapon infused with evil so througly that it will corrupt or destroy anyone who uses it...
Boromir used your argument and sacrificed his life after discovering that the One Ring had corrupted him so throughly that he could not serve his people any more... "Let use against its master" was his saying... it didn't serve him well
|
It is just an example.Ok.
Let's get back on track. Paladin no fun can't do bad things if he is undercover. "Hey my paladin suck. I'm undercover and can't kill, torture, and rape men, women and children. My evil master wants me to prove myself evil before I can meet the big boss".
No good character would do that!!! The cool thing about playing a Paldin (or good character) as a undercover cop is the way you salve the problem. I'm good but I must pretend to be evil. I'm lawful but must pretend to break the law. dilemmas. But your DM needs to help you. If he/she don't the too bad. :-( I sure would have.
You could just smite the bad guy in a fit of rage and announce you just promoted yourself so you could see the big boss. Chaos in a can= Chaotic paladin in full plate.
|
|
Well, besides wondering to myself "just who is that girl", I myself would mind seeing a succubi paladin.
"I'm good. . . Honest . . ."
There was a published Adventure where the background for it had a succubi fall in love with a paladin and turn good. I think it was called "The Silver Skeleton" or something.
|
|
Personally, I think derailing is like drow. Everyone agrees that drow are bad things, but people frequently (dare I say usually) play drow characters as misunderstood good guys.
So think of thread derailing as drow. I think it will make the drailed threads more angsty.
/wink
very emo :P good drows are the emos of fantasy gaming... :P
and we can blame Drizzt...that is why I liked when James said : "no... there are NO good drows in Golarion"
|
|
You could just smite the bad guy in a fit of rage and announce you just promoted yourself so you could see the big boss. Chaos in a can= Chaotic paladin in full plate.It is just an example.Ok.
Let's get back on track. Paladin no fun can't do bad things if he is undercover. "Hey my paladin suck. I'm undercover and can't kill, torture, and rape men, women and children. My evil master wants me to prove myself evil before I can meet the big boss".
No good character would do that!!! The cool thing about playing a Paldin (or good character) as a undercover cop is the way you salve the problem. I'm good but I must pretend to be evil. I'm lawful but must pretend to break the law. dilemmas. But your DM needs to help you. If he/she don't the too bad. :-( I sure would have.
undercover cops would be rogues... why?
lets get real no one else has the skills to do the job!
the paladin might try, but he has no bluff even if he is not LG, no sneak to go to the secret meetings with his real bosses... so whoever goes undercover needs to learn a set of skills and be ready to do things no one else will do...
that is why jedies were no good as undercovers, they would corrupt themselves soon enough...
the paladin is an icon... you use him to distract the criminal while the rogue gets close to the kill... of course never tell the paladin... that is why you never tell anyone of who are the undercovers... a besides the rats of course... there is always the NE rat that would sell his mother and country...
the paladin might try, but he has no bluff
Looky at that, Chaotic Pally has Bluff as a skill.
|
|
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.
Much like one can be a lawful good fighter or cleric that follows the tenants of ( lets pick a LG ) Iomedae. They all may be stand up people...the pally just embodies those ideals in the form of a poster boy warrior champion. ( complete with trumpets and fanfare )
Aside. could there be a paladin feat Trumpets and Fanfare?
wasgreg :P
for posterboy I would go for Captain America... even if different company he is more in par with Batman
its easy to stay on top of everything if you can be reached by most of it... Captain America was not the most powerful, STILL he commanded the MOST powerful superheroes... why?
he was an icon, he was virtue, he moved hearts... so even thosee who would not agree with his viewpoints would do what he said... even the Punisher look up to him...
and yet the man was very good making undercover ops...
|
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 :)
Ouch and I didn't even get an honorable mention :'(
You'd think I wasn't on that discussion from about page three when I first saw it to the very last page arguing till I was blue in the face. Oh well, nobody loves me, everybody hates me, guess I'll eat some worms.
Hey, lkl. I remember your significant contributions as well, and thus the "and others" notation. Good times. So, overall, what do you think?
|
|
Or maybe some worms will eat you ...Ouch and I didn't even get an honorable mention :'(
You'd think I wasn't on that discussion from about page three when I first saw it to the very last page arguing till I was blue in the face. Oh well, nobody loves me, everybody hates me, guess I'll eat some worms.
The Age of Worms...
|
|
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.
haven't read that particular book, but a few years ago i was throughly told msot what i needed to know about discworld (and the bastards didn't leave their books alone)
but actally Carrot sounds as the ONLY LG person in the whole damn Discoworld, who in his 1st day of work went to the Thieves guild and arrested everyone (or killed those who resisted) taking the Boss to the king... who for i don't know which reason has this deal about crime that sounds sort like Korvosa... but with control...
|
|
the paladin might try, but he has no bluffLooky at that, Chaotic Pally has Bluff as a skill.
don't believe in splatbook variants comes to the table :P
but that is me :Pwhile i liked the dragon's articles, i wgree they are no Paladin... liberator maybe
|
|
Something to consider in all these arguments about a Paladin being able to bend his moral code is the grey guard from the complete champion. Essentially this is a PrC for a paladin who has proven himself enough to his god that he gets a bit of leeway to stray a bit from the path in the pursuit of his duties.
The important part of this, they still have the paladin code, but if they break it in the line of duty they are able to be atoned again without the caster having any of the costs normally associated with the spell. It gives a number of examples of this, things like the paladin killing a cult leader who is helpless because he would kill others if left to live, breaking his word(they gain bluff and such), ect. The list of things the grey guard can get away with now is a good way to see some things that a normal paladin probably shouldn't do.
-Tarlane
|
|
Hey, lkl. I remember your significant contributions as well, and thus the "and others" notation. Good times. So, overall, what do you think?
Overall I'm happy with most of the changes, from actual playtesting I learned just how great the new LoH and mount features work, well balanced and no where near stepping on the other classes toes.
The thing that I'm not happy with is the channel energy taking two uses of LoH, I broke down the math in the Paladin thread, but it actually gives the paladin less healing than before. And while I'm reserving final judgement on it till I see the final rules, the version he made in the beta ruined backwards compatability with Divine and Domain feats as a paladin suddenly couldn't afford to use any of them as they would suck up most if not all of your LoH, also there was major confusion on what if you took feats like extra channeling, or multiclassed with cleric levels. If those issues are resolved I'm fine with the change, but as I said I can't see the final so I have no idea if he even paid the issues lip service despite being pretty significant to the class IMO.
The change to Smite is quite welcome, I'll admit that I'm not happy with the creature types that it deals more damage too, but I can live with it, and the fact that I don't have to worry about a bad attack roll loosing my only offensive class benefit till level 5 is a major improvement.
I think about the only thing that really bothers me and I mean seriously bothers me is that casting moved to charisma and stayed as memorization based. This goes against what I feel the game set up as while not a written rule, an unwritten one that charisma casting was the spontaeous casting stat. Oh well, I'll houserule it in my games, paladins will be spontaneous casters.
|
Someone mentioned Lay on Hands as attack against Undead (w/ Smite),
I wonder if there will be guidelines requiring an actual weapon (melee/ranged) and not spells/ SLA's. I mean... What if you've cranked out multiple Spiritual Weapons ready to go when you Smite?
IT'S HAMMER TIME!
(Can't touch this...doo, dedoo, doo, dodoo dedo dedoo do...)
|
|
Someone mentioned Lay on Hands as attack against Undead (w/ Smite),
I wonder if there will be guidelines requiring an actual weapon (melee/ranged) and not spells/ SLA's. I mean... What if you've cranked out multiple Spiritual Weapons ready to go when you Smite?IT'S HAMMER TIME!
(Can't touch this...doo, dedoo, doo, dodoo dedo dedoo do...)
LOL.
|
|
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?
her clerics?
that is the cleric's role... holy warrior for her god/dess cause...|
|
Ouch and I didn't even get an honorable mention :'(
You'd think I wasn't on that discussion from about page three when I first saw it to the very last page arguing till I was blue in the face. Oh well, nobody loves me, everybody hates me, guess I'll eat some worms.
You do realise your Divine Health doesn't kill those Kyuss worms, don't you?
<makes quick getaway, after roping in another contentious thread>
|
|
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?
Errr....
MOTHRA?
My understanding is that a paladin cannot take extra turning since they don't actually have a channel energy pool, just a lay-on-hands pool.
My understanding is that a paladin cannot take extra turning since they don't actually have a channel energy pool, just a lay-on-hands pool.
A Paizo staff member will have to confirm but based on the preview and beta rules I would have to agree that a paladin could not take extra turning.
Doug
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?
her clerics?
that is the cleric's role... holy warrior for her god/dess cause...
So some deities have clerics, but some other deities have clerics and paladins. It just always seemed a little unbalanced. But then again I've had way too much math in my life and real life is all icky and unbalanced.
|
|
So some deities have clerics, but some other deities have clerics and paladins. It just always seemed a little unbalanced. But then again I've had way too much math in my life and real life is all icky and unbalanced.
considering most ogds have servantsof 3 alignments... and the Paladin is LG... and a hard work... believe me historically it should ballance tiself... not eevryone si cut to be a paladin as this thread has shown.
So some deities have clerics, but some other deities have clerics and paladins. It just always seemed a little unbalanced. But then again I've had way too much math in my life and real life is all icky and unbalanced.considering most ogds have servantsof 3 alignments... and the Paladin is LG... and a hard work... believe me historically it should ballance tiself... not eevryone si cut to be a paladin as this thread has shown.
Play nice.
Anyways to me a paladin is someone who believes in the greater good. They're someone who is selfless, but that doesn't mean that they can't lie or can't do things that real people do. They try not to. It's not as if it's not in their toolkit, it's just not the first thing they reach for.
And as to the question of lying. Everything that is a non-truth is a lie. Bluffs are lies. White lies are lies. Lies of Omission are lies. And don't forget the American oath in court which covers the three primary forms of lying.
The Truth (not a falsehood)
The Whole Truth (no lies of omission)
And Nothing but the Truth (no lies mixed in with truths. i.e. no half-truths).
undercover cops would be rogues... why?lets get real no one else has the skills to do the job!
I'd have to agree. I've always thought (L/N)G Rogues of more as undercover cops or special ops guys or retrievers of evil artifacts. A good example of this is Patrick Jane from The Mentalist (played by Simon Baker). A former con-man who uses all the skills he developed as a con-man to spot con-men and liars and get them caught by the police.
|
|
Ouch and I didn't even get an honorable mention :'(
You'd think I wasn't on that discussion from about page three when I first saw it to the very last page arguing till I was blue in the face. Oh well, nobody loves me, everybody hates me, guess I'll eat some worms.
Hey LKL - look back throught the threads and you'll see I called you. I said something to the point, "I wonder if LKL has seen this yet and if he likes it."
I of course remember you and Vult and Jason N and scoot and snorter, a few others that were very heavily involved in that thread that went for a long time! :-)
Glad to see it made a difference.
Robert
|
|
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!
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.
LOL
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.
65 posts since this was written - I bet someone already tackled this, but here's my take.
There are many uses for Undectable Alignment.
Hiding is not deceit. If the bad guys are looking for you to kill you, or kill someone you're protecting, you have 3 choices. Fight, flee, or hide. Some of these options are more or less valorous than others, but none of them are more or less deceitful.
Having a big old magical aura that many enemies can spot automatically no matter how well you hide is a crippling disadvantage if you need to hide. Paladins are fortunate that they have an option to flip that switch, as it were, to turn off the aura.
It is also possible for a paladin to attempt deceit with this spell. "Hey, I'm no paladin, I'm just a fighter. Detect my aura? See, nothing. Can't be a paladin without an aura, can I?"
Now that would be a deceitful use for the spell, and would almost certainly cost a paladin his stripes.
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.
I think cases where one character is trying to convince another character of the truth fall under the Diplomacy skill rather than Bluff.
In this case, the officer is probably indifferent at first. Maybe even friendly ("protect and serve", right?) a successful Diplomacy check of DC 15 (or 10) should get him to become helpful.
In the case of the doubting officer, helpful might be "Well my demented friend, why don't you take me to this insect and show me your friend's brain in a jar." But at least he'll come along.
|
|
It's downright amazing just how big threads about paladins can get.
You know I was going to post the same thing, Eric.
Ironic because historically it is one of the least played classes.
I think that on some level, its because regardless of how often it's played, the "ideal" of a paladin carries so much inspiration in our collective imaginations. Being the embodiment of so much unending goodness and righteousness that on some level all (most) of us are truly moved by that selfless devotion to making the world better.
And so it motivates and inspires us to at least be moved to think about the class's ideals and make it discussion-worthy.
To others - such is irritating - and either way it's worth discussing - because you either love em or hate em.
Robert
Heres my take on the Pally alighnment discussion:
Paldain=Holy Warrior(or something similiar)
Holy=Good
Good need not be lawful.
So I see no reason for a paladin to always be lawful.
Holy warriors are versions of the Paldin.
The Paladin is LG. You may houserule differentA devil is LE, you may houserule different
A demon is CE, you may houserule different.
We use a CG paladin / Holy Liberator.
Se use the beta version, but he gets the 3 lvl aura at lvl 8 and he got the lvl 8 aura at lvl 3.
So some deities have clerics, but some other deities have clerics and paladins. It just always seemed a little unbalanced. But then again I've had way too much math in my life and real life is all icky and unbalanced.considering most ogds have servantsof 3 alignments... and the Paladin is LG... and a hard work... believe me historically it should ballance tiself... not eevryone si cut to be a paladin as this thread has shown.
Also, if the PF Chronicles supplement on gods serves as a good indicator, "servants of the gods" do not have to be of the cleric class. Many default PF gods (Golarion setting) are listed as having servants or priests from other classes. E.G., Desna's and Cayden's Bard-priests, or Nethys' Wizard-priests. The paladin class is dependent on certain religion's outlook and approach and would be compatible with LN, LG and NG deities. That quite reduces the "paladin factor advantage".
Of course, some historical or social factor might produce a paladin order for a different, but compatible deity. IIRC, the FR campaign setting had an explicit special rule for paladins of Sune, a CG goddess. Of course, the LG interpretation of that deity's creed would produce friction and debate within the cult, more extremely than argument between LG and CG followers of a NG god.
Of course, that 1-step removed mechanic is quite realistic when compared to RW disagreements and sectarian beliefs, and a great source for role-playing in a fantasy setting.
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.
Devils are not simply lawful - they are formed of law. Almost as if they are Law Elementals (though not exactly true, it's a useful analogy).
Devils can no more lie than a human can breathe water. In fact, D&D offers ways for humans to gain waterbreathing as an ability, even if it's usually only temporary, but there is no way for a devil to gain the ability to lie. Ever. Just like there is no way for a fire elemental to gain the ability to swim. (Sure, magic is wonky, and extreme magic - maybe a Wish - might grant either of thsoe abilities in very rare cases, but it's otherwise unheard of).
So how do devils do it?
They don't lie, certainly not that. What they do instead is give the mortal exactly what he contracted for. Exactly.
They fulfill their contract to the letter, carrying out their contracted requirements exactly as promised. It's certainly not lying to offer a mortal a deal, then fulfill that deal completely.
Devils have infinite lifespans. They can afford to be patient. They can afford to earn this mortal's soul today and not collect on it until he dies 60 years from now. They can also earn this mortal's soul today, then arrange an "accident" tomorrow and collect the soul immediately - unless the mortal's contract explicitly prevents such an "accident".
The best is when a devil plans it to fulfill two contracts and then collect immedately. Example:
A queen bargains with a devil to be the most beautiful woman in the kingdom. A stableboy bargains with the same devil to have the most beautiful woman in the kingdom fall in love with him. The devil grants both wishes and the two lovers sneak out to the stables for a romp in the hay. Then the devil goes and whispers a little secret in the king's ear. The king finds the lovers and has them put to death.
Two souls harvested, free and clear. All in a good day's work.
And most importantly, not a single lie told.
|
|
It is also possible for a paladin to attempt deceit with this spell. "Hey, I'm no paladin, I'm just a fighter. Detect my aura? See, nothing. Can't be a paladin without an aura, can I?"
Now that would be a deceitful use for the spell, and would almost certainly cost a paladin his stripes.
I don't have any constructive comment about this, I just got the amusing thought of the paladin going 'I'm no paladin, I'm just a fighter.' Then a pause and 'Oh yeah, I guess I really am now.'
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.
You know, I think I would.
The paladin knows the guy on the other side of the door could ask "What will you do?" If they choose not to ask and make false assumptions about the paladin's implied course of action, that's really their own fault.
Now, it may just boil down to inflection. If the paladin uses tones and body language to imply a threat, then he's deceiving the people into believing they're in danger.
If he simply states a fact, without deliberately implying any threat, I probably wouldn't have a problem with it.
But that's me. I've never been overly strict with paladins. I let them execute summary justice, practice a spoils of war mentality, and do other things that many DMs often disallow. As long as I cannot brand a paladin's actions as clearly chaotic or clearly evil, and I cannot clearly characterize the paladin overall as non-lawful or non-good, then I'm fine with it.
|
|
I doubt that could ever go away, Jason. Even if the alignment descriptions had gotten dropped the arguments would still be there, just starting from the opposite direction.
As a note though, I did want to put in my support for the new paladin. Love the built, it looks like it will be a lot of fun to play.
I know this is of topic but...next week the bard. Oh how I have waited.
Hope he is as good as the Paladin.
He would almost have to be.
As it is, the class was near-worthless. Now every class is getting an overhaul, if they don't give the bard a double-dose of overhauly goodness, they'll be just that much more useless in pathfinder.
|
|
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?
her clerics?
that is the cleric's role... holy warrior for her god/dess cause...
A good answer, Montalve.
Heres my take on the Pally alighnment discussion:
Paldain=Holy Warrior(or something similiar)
Holy=Good
Good need not be lawful.
So I see no reason for a paladin to always be lawful.
I believe you are mistaken. It goes more like this:
Paladin=Lawful Good
Done.
It's right there in the rules... its not really an interpretation thing. It's not even like its a new thing, or a Paizo thing... Paladins = Lawful Good has been the case pretty much since the very beginning of the Paladin class. Where exactly did they deviate from this? Sure there have been some optional variant classes, but the core class named paladin has *always* been Lawful Good.
If you want a class JUST like the paladin, with all of the same rules and mechanics as the paladin, go for it. Make some new class and call it Holy Warrior. Just don't call it "Paladin" because you didn't make a paladin.
The longer this goes on, the more difficult it is to keep from lobbing a Molotov cocktail into it.
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".
This is both true and not true.
In actual combat terminology, the word feint is used frequently. Not just with swords. "General Patton sent a regiment up the middle, but it was a feint to draw the enemy's attention off of the 4 regiments closing in from the flanks" is a perfectly good use of the word too.
But people don't rally talk about bluffing in combat. If you feint with a sword thrust at my face to get me to overcommit to the defense, then make a real attack at my unprotected belly, then you have executed a feint. If you call that feint a bluff, your fencing instructor will correct you and tell you it's not a bluff, it's a feint.
Really, it's both - this is just a matter of which terms we use where and how those terms are employed in common usage.
In D&D, we use the Bluff skill to handle the feint mechanics, but that doesn't change the terminology. Use that skill in combat, it's a feint. Use it in poker, it's a bluff. Use it to deceive someone, it's a bluff.
So I think what you were intending to say was "Paladins should be able to feint by using their bluff skill according to the feint rules" or something along that line, which is perfectly correct.
And here I thought that the 75 posts since I last checked last night meant that some huge argument had broken out about the paladin mechanics...
Nope.. just the usual paladin arguments. I even saw the classic Batman vs Superman comparison...
Good times. Continue...
Jason
That's a good thing.
We all looked at the changes and for once there was an almost universal approval. Then, since we had no arguments to hash out about the mechanics, we turned to the old ethical turf wars instead.
Good job on the paladin!