Yes, a paladin can ally with evil creatures. It's a trope of the standard fantasy fare; you find unlikely allies, including former enemies, to fight a common, greater threat. Building alliances and overcoming intolerance is bread and butter to Good. However, allying with evil characters does not mean you can start doing evil yourself, nor does it let you look the other way as your bastard allies torture children. If your allies behave themselves reasonably, even if they employ questionable tactics, that's okay, but the moment they cross the line into evil actions, you still have just as much a duty to prevent this as you always did.
So, allying with an evil creature is not in and of itself evil. Evil is expressed through actions, and that's where the line between acceptable and unacceptable goes.
Ion Raven: No, it's not fate that has it out for you. It's the DM that has it out for you, and has put you in this situation to prove to you that it's okay to do evil acts.
You are probably aware that the game assumes you to be carrying a certain amount of equipment. This depends on your level, but so should the orc threat, right? In other words, the exceptional situation would be if you also had NO EQUIPMENT.
A village that could be threatened by orc raids should have proper militia training and a readiness to repel the savages. It's quite unrealistic that you have a completely unprotected settlement out on the frontier, at least if you wanted it to remain there for very long.
As for meleeing with orcs, perhaps you could challenge one of them to single combat? You're a wizard, not a spellcasting ability. You have skills, some combat ability, and so on. Even offering the orcs a goodly sum of money might get them to relent. Or offering them all the wine in town, throwing a feast for them with the food reserves, spending money to replace them when the orcs are gone? Or offering yourself if they'll leave the village alone. After all, the services of a wizard for some length of time should be valuable to the orcs. Learning something about the orcs would also be a good thing, because understanding them would make a truce easier to achieve.
You have tons of options in any situation. Some of them are more dangerous than you'd like, sure, but what of it? I'm sure you didn't become an adventuring NG wizard because you wanted to stay away from anything that could be dangerous.
Gorbacz: Please, do tell me about the two situations in the RotR AP.
|
Gorbacz: Please, do tell me about the two situations in the RotR AP.
1. Burnt Offerings, goblin raid. Nobody sees it coming, nobody is prepared for it and they hit, convinently, during a festive day. Classic fantasy trope.
2. Fortress of Stone Giant - see above, minus festivites, plus far stronger attack. Also, no forewarning.
Of course, both instances assume that there is a rested party with full resources ready to take it all on. However, in both cases nobody sees it coming, the town guard is inadequate to repel the threat, and unless the PCs shove it there will be casualties. Actually, both adventures assume casualties, and in FoSG I would argue that you can't really do the event without having to bury innocent bodies (my party failed in rather a spectacular manner).
Code of Conduct v2.0:
A paladin must be ultra-lawful mega-good in all things, and never be played as a player character, because if you are retarded, and not nearly pious enough to play one, unless you swear to automatically spell doom for your party, as you are required to give up any element of surprise, grant the enemy the advantage in every fight, and always have your cohort diviner ready to see through illusions, even if it is risking his life. You are also expected to die in every encounter, so you can be SURE that the enemy doesn't want to surrender. Also, you must take their surrender, even if they spat on your offer to surrender before it was the only option to save their hides after defeat, fully knowing that corrupt officials will free the culprit so he can return to kill your children and serve their souls to Asmodeus. Because if you care more for your beautiful children than a godless man-eating monster, you simply are not PURE enough to play a paladin.
A paladin may never flank, use higher ground, strike from horseback, attack someone under any form of debilitating effect (yes, having a runny nose counts), cast spells, use a magical weapon/armor, fight anyone with a CR lower than his, roll a natural 20, use a reach or ranged attack in any shape or form, as any of these WILL be considered "dishonorable" by someone. Also, never eat meat (might be from a sweet little LG orphan that was killed, cooked and served to trap you), drink (contents of the cup might be a polymorphed LG baby girl with blue eyes, that is now trapped as a fine-sized water elemental) or breathe (as he might accidentally inhale and swallow a sentient LG insect)
You should always roleplay your paladin as a whiny betterwisser, and annoy the party at least once per 10 minutes, ruin their plans if they can be seen as "dishonorable" in even the most contrived out-of-context hyperbole, and definitely never do anything that might come off as "Cool" because that might offend the GM. Also check with your GM if you have done anything to slight his sensibilities regarding what a paladin is and is not, or otherwise annoyed him, because if you have, you should accept that your character WILL fall, and you should burn the sheet, give the GM all your gaming snacks as penance, go home and go to your room, hide under the covers, and THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU HAVE DONE!
Ah, those events.
Well, both adventures assume casualties, but it's quite clear that the 30 or so town guards do fight the goblins well in Burnt Offerings, and will eventually manage to destroy the raid. If I recall, the PCs only fight about 10 of the goblins, and the town has managed to capture a few gobbos too without their aid. Without the heroes, it might cost a few more lives, but the toll wasn't massive even without them. I really fail to see the "no-win" situation here.
I haven't played Fortress of the Stone Giants yet, but while some in town will die, it is clearly possible for the heroes to minimize the losses and repel the giants. Again, I am not sure where the "no-win" would be here.
Sure, with less people, the situation would become more dire, and call for more desperate measures, but really, the scenarios are for 4-6 characters of an appropriate level IIRC, so why is that a problem?
Try this scenario instead: You're in a town consisting only of silos of low-power smokepowder. You have no weapons and no other equipment except for a torch. You have 1 hp left, and are sickened, frightened and so on. The town is situated in a long valley with unscalable, infinitely high walls. The silos are also unclimbable and can only be destroyed by lighting the fuses to the smokepowder, which will destroy the silo and anything close to the silo. At one end of the valley is a group of innocent children chained by unbreakable chains to the unbreakable ground. At the other end is a bloodthirsty horde of heavily armored orcs, running to slaughter the children. All the orcs are deaf and don't know common, so you can't talk to them. Oh, and chained to each silo by unbreakable chains is a bunch of innocent children. The silo children are fewer than the other children. The orcs will have to pass close to the silos to get to the other group of children.
You're a paladin, with no allies, your god won't hear you, you have no spells or the like. What do you do?
See? You blew up the children! Now you understand, it's okay to do evil, even good to do evil, because you protect at least some of the children. And this situation is clearly entirely general, so it's always okay to do evil.
A long-winded, over-the-top, highly exagerated, taken to the farthest extreme way of saying, You shouldn't play a paladin if you can't handle the role-playing difficulties involved
I agree, if you lack the Role-playing chops to play a LG character with the dilemma of a code of conduct added on, then you shouldn't. I enjoy DragonLance, and have ran DL campaigns, I still expect the person that chooses to play a kender to role-play a kender, and let them know beforehand that it will be very hard.
As for pre-cataclysm Knights of Solamnia Kerym, they were losing their powers if you read all the DL books I read, and the Kingpriest, the Icon of good at the time, caused said cataclysm due to his pride is demanding that the gods help him eradicate all not human races (even the elves, created by Paladine) due to their propensity for evil. And to think it all started because he thought killing all evil races was a good act.
Also, sadly for the core rules of the 3.5/PF game alignment loses the ability to be subjective once it becomes a core rule for adjudicating the restrictions of classes, the means for maintaining one's power, the effect that drives many spells/powers/abilities. If game mechanics are reliant on it, then it must be codified. Any variation is simply a house-rule.
Edit: Darn, off to bed, all the good discussions happen while I'm asleep. Stupid night shift.
Code of Conduct v2.0:
A paladin must be ultra-lawful mega-good in all things, and never be played as a player character, because if you are retarded, and not nearly pious enough to play one, unless you swear to automatically spell doom for your party, as you are required to give up any element of surprise, grant the enemy the advantage in every fight, and always have your cohort diviner ready to see through illusions, even if it is risking his life. You are also expected to die in every encounter, so you can be SURE that the enemy doesn't want to surrender. Also, you must take their surrender, even if they spat on your offer to surrender before it was the only option to save their hides after defeat, fully knowing that corrupt officials will free the culprit so he can return to kill your children and serve their souls to Asmodeus. Because if you care more for your beautiful children than a godless man-eating monster, you simply are not PURE enough to play a paladin.A paladin may never flank, use higher ground, strike from horseback, attack someone under any form of debilitating effect (yes, having a runny nose counts), cast spells, use a magical weapon/armor, fight anyone with a CR lower than his, roll a natural 20, use a reach or ranged attack in any shape or form, as any of these WILL be considered "dishonorable" by someone. Also, never eat meat (might be from a sweet little LG orphan that was killed, cooked and served to trap you), drink (contents of the cup might be a polymorphed LG baby girl with blue eyes, that is now trapped as a fine-sized water elemental) or breathe (as he might accidentally inhale and swallow a sentient LG insect)
You should always roleplay your paladin as a whiny betterwisser, and annoy the party at least once per 10 minutes, ruin their plans if they can be seen as "dishonorable" in even the most contrived out-of-context hyperbole, and definitely never do anything that might come off as "Cool" because that might offend the GM. Also check with your GM if you have done anything...
*puts down teacup* In favor of this newest revisement of the Code! *mumbles: As I would loose my powers if I wasn't*
flies back into thread *Squeeeeak!*
In favor.
"There once was a faerie dragon who had wings
nothing like a wyvern with a tail that stings
The faerie dragon was a pal-a-din
against the forces of malice and sin
always honoring the Paladin's Code
never cutting sleeping monster's throat
Only killing what he knows he can eat
cause he don't wanna loose powers from his Character Sheet
So faerie dragon paladin eats many a thing
but he never had a tail with a venomous sting"
Just realized that paladins are bears: If you want to stop it from tearing into you, just drop down and play dead.
I think the best thing about a thread like this is that it makes it very clear (to me, at least) who I would, or would not, be willing to play in a game with, especially when it comes to running a Paladin.
:)
I think the best thing about a thread like this is that it makes it very clear (to me, at least) who I would, or would not, be willing to play in a game with, especially when it comes to running a Paladin.
:)
+1
Since we have some strongly opinionated posters here, keeping in line with the thread's intended spirit, is it dishonorable to trip an orc down a flight of stairs?
It's pathetic, ludicrous and stupid... Seriously, if the orc was actively hunting for people to kill, tripping him down some stairs isn't going to make the paladin fall, only the orc would. =)
Since we have some strongly opinionated posters here, keeping in line with the thread's intended spirit, is it dishonorable to trip an orc down a flight of stairs?
Only if you did it without telling him first.
"Hello good sir, I am Sir Goddrick, Paladin of Erastil, and I hereby inform you that you shall soon be falling down some stairs."
Depends is the orc or the stairs evil?
Out of hand, no it is not honorable, funny but not honorable.
Fighting with honor is very difficult that's the point. No one talks about the Honor and Glory of snipers. Or the courage of road side bombers. Assassins are not renown for steadfast bravery in the face of overwelming odds. Knights stand strong to the battle line. Knights and Paladin are held to a high standard because of their honor.
Honor are not the chains that bind you, Honor is the steel in your spine. The strength to stand againist the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
Honor is holding to you code even when it's difficult.
If good and honor were easy then the world would be perfect and every child would be loved and fed. Every man and woman would be safe and happy. Crime would be unknown, war undiscovered, but it isn't. The world is an ugly and cruel place which is why honor is held in such high regard.
Since we have some strongly opinionated posters here, keeping in line with the thread's intended spirit, is it dishonorable to trip an orc down a flight of stairs?
Well, it certainly isn't honorable, in my opinion. If I were playing a paladin, I wouldn't do it.
Mr Fishy: +1.
A code of honour is not a weakness. It is a strength, just like a vow or a dream. The necessity of following the code and never cut those corners makes you walk that extra mile. And because you do, and take the risks you do to act honourably, you get a reward in the thanks and admiration from those in your care, in the pride your superiors show of you, and the gratitude of those you command. This makes you a leader and an ideal, and THAT is what truly makes you a force for Good.
And of course, if you have no interest in being an ideal, you wouldn't want to follow a code of honour.
Back at you Sissyl. +1
TIER FISHY!!!
|
And of course, if you have no interest in being an ideal, you wouldn't want to follow a code of honour.
Personally, I have no problem following a code of honour. I just want the code clearly explained to me. The player in the original post had the code explained, and violated it, thus the DM is right to punish him. The extent of the punishment is debatable. The question of was the act evil/dishonorable is debatable. The fact that the paladin violated his code is not.
Also, +1 to learning who you'd play a paladin for and who you would not. A bonus purpose to this thread!
I can't believe I read the WHOLE THING.
Some parts of it made me laugh. Others made me cry. Overall, it's the feel-good thread of the year!
Interestingly enough, all I got out of it is whether or not Paladins should use coup de grace on a sleeping opponent or whether or not that would be an evil act.
Doubly interestingly enough, the party I'm DMing for that is mostly evil has been in a similar situation and has run away every time.
Code of Conduct v2.0:
A paladin must be ultra-lawful mega-good in all things, and never be played as a player character, because if you are retarded, and not nearly pious enough to play one, unless you swear to automatically spell doom for your party, as you are required to give up any element of surprise, grant the enemy the advantage in every fight, and always have your cohort diviner ready to see through illusions, even if it is risking his life. You are also expected to die in every encounter, so you can be SURE that the enemy doesn't want to surrender. Also, you must take their surrender, even if they spat on your offer to surrender before it was the only option to save their hides after defeat, fully knowing that corrupt officials will free the culprit so he can return to kill your children and serve their souls to Asmodeus. Because if you care more for your beautiful children than a godless man-eating monster, you simply are not PURE enough to play a paladin.A paladin may never flank, use higher ground, strike from horseback, attack someone under any form of debilitating effect (yes, having a runny nose counts), cast spells, use a magical weapon/armor, fight anyone with a CR lower than his, roll a natural 20, use a reach or ranged attack in any shape or form, as any of these WILL be considered "dishonorable" by someone. Also, never eat meat (might be from a sweet little LG orphan that was killed, cooked and served to trap you), drink (contents of the cup might be a polymorphed LG baby girl with blue eyes, that is now trapped as a fine-sized water elemental) or breathe (as he might accidentally inhale and swallow a sentient LG insect)
You should always roleplay your paladin as a whiny betterwisser, and annoy the party at least once per 10 minutes, ruin their plans if they can be seen as "dishonorable" in even the most contrived out-of-context hyperbole, and definitely never do anything that might come off as "Cool" because that might offend the GM. Also check with your GM if you have done anything...
The gaming snacks thing at the end is a little much don't you think?
The only problem I have with code of honor/conduct is that they are silent in areas that they shouldn't be. The pushing an orc down the stairs thing is hilarious, but it is actually part of what I'm talking about- what advantages should a paladin take advantage of, which ones should they not, and which ones should they avoid?
If anything this thread has made me reexamine the paladin in hard game terms, not roleplaying terms.
What I learned from this thread was that Wyverns were Neutral.
Honestly, before needing to upgrade one for an encounter, I didn't even know they had sentience beyond that of an animal. I'd never heard of one speaking let alone conversing and making deals.
Quite honestly, every adventure and campaign setting that had them implied that they were either wild animals or tamed beasts used as flying mounts... not as thinking speaking creatures.
This tread opened my eyes to the incongruity of the alignments for the Wyvern though.
The description specifically describes evil creatures: a creature that doesn't care if it eats an innocent sentient being is EVIL not Neutral. How this creature can be tagged as Neutral and sentient, baby-eating machines makes no sense whatsoever.
Either the Wyvern is not NEARLY as bad as they are described in the bestiary and every single adventure and campaign that has every included them, or their alignment entry is a mistake at best (and a Paladin trap at worst), and it should be changed to "usually Evil".
Mr. Fishy thinks that wyverns aren't evil because they don't pursue an evil agenda. They're man eaters out of hunger or in defence of territory, not a malious intent to cause suffering to other creatures. Hunters aren't evil for the same reason. Killing to eat is a neutral act. Killing for pleasure is a human trait.
As for the rest of the conversation...
I lost all interest in entertaining the actual original situation after I heard the words "allowed using a bow".
I prefer my Paladins to not be used as a party griefing machine, nor be caught in constant catch-22s or idiotic, "good people" endangering practices.
For this reason, I allow my Paladin players to use fairly normal tactics, unless it causes undue suffering or pain, or could hurt innocent people. So usually no poison (depending on if it causes pain or not, or if pain to capture is the alternative to outright killing), and probably no to the idea of inciting a riot or burning a village down to cover an escape (due to the potential for ancillary innocent harm).
Killing someone in their sleep? If they are evil and are going to be killed on sight anyways, then yes... killing them with a coup-de-grace is much more respect to their life than going through the torture and pain of a full fledged battle first. It also prevents harm to others: his allies (potentially good innocent people), and cuts short the harm that could have been caused should the evil creature awaken at manage to escape or kill the paladin.
Giving quarter to someone you've decided to kill outright anyways is not exactly honorable either. Killing someone in their sleep, while not necessarily honorable, is not necessarily dishonorable either.
A Paladin euthanizing a rabid animal while it's sleeping would not be breaking his code of honor. I mean... even the PETA does it. ;)
Since we have some strongly opinionated posters here, keeping in line with the thread's intended spirit, is it dishonorable to trip an orc down a flight of stairs?
It depends.
Does the orc know you're there? Is the orc engaged in some sort of evil act or crime? Is the orc known to be a criminal? Are you in the middle of a fight with this orc?
Or are you just pushing because he's in your way? Or because it's funny to watch intelligent creatures fall down and go boom? Or because someone dared you to do it? Or perhaps the paladin is just racist and likes to see orcs suffer and just stabbing it to death is too quick.
To those of you quoting BoED, you do realize that the book flat out states "This is not the standard to which you hold players, even paladins," right? Being an "exalted" character was it's own thing - it's not what good characters or even paladins had to be.
Also, the dumbest thing Paizo ever did was remove the line in paladins that stated you only fell for grossly violating the code, though I suspect they did so because so many terrible DMs never paid attention to that part in the first place.
I can't believe I read the WHOLE THING.
Some parts of it made me laugh. Others made me cry. Overall, it's the feel-good thread of the year!
Interestingly enough, all I got out of it is whether or not Paladins should use coup de grace on a sleeping opponent or whether or not that would be an evil act.
Doubly interestingly enough, the party I'm DMing for that is mostly evil has been in a similar situation and has run away every time.
INTERVENTION:
Freehold, we're you're friends. We won't stand by and watch this. You must get help.
Mr. Fishy thinks that wyverns aren't evil because they don't pursue an evil agenda. They're man eaters out of hunger or in defence of territory, not a malious intent to cause suffering to other creatures. Hunters aren't evil for the same reason. Killing to eat is a neutral act. Killing for pleasure is a human trait.
The difference being that Hunters kill non-sentient creatures... not just any old innocent sentient creature that wanders within 200 miles of his home.
Killing an innocent sentient creature is evil. This is part of the rules.
From my experience with wyverns in the various materials that included them, and the implications of the bestiary text, they are perfectly fine with killing an innocent sentient person.
You don't have to have an evil "agenda", simply "kill(ing) without qualms if doing so is convenient" is enough (quote is directly from the Evil description).
A sentient creature that will eat a baby because it's hungry is evil, plain and simple.
So... can a Neutral PC kill the wyvern (or a baby!) because he was hungry and get a pass? I don't think so..
Mr. Fishy thinks that wyverns aren't evil because they don't pursue an evil agenda. They're man eaters out of hunger or in defence of territory, not a malious intent to cause suffering to other creatures. Hunters aren't evil for the same reason. Killing to eat is a neutral act. Killing for pleasure is a human trait.
This is so hilariously untrue.
Animals kill for pleasure all the time. Hell, if dolphins - cute cuddly dolphins that everyone loves - had their way, there'd be no porpoises left, since they enjoy murdering them so much.
So animals that kill competion for resourses v.s. a creature that kills for sneakers, that the same?
Umm kill to wear or mount, at least the wyvern eats his kill.
Mr. Fishy doesn't like dolphins they're uppitty.
This is so hilariously untrue.
Not a Quentin Tarantino fan?
Please stop with the animal comparison, as it's really just comparing apples to oranges.
A wyvern killing because it's hungry is no where near the same as an animal killing because it's hungry. For crying out loud, you are the one trying to say that it should be treated differently for being sentient!
Compare apples to apples. Transpose "Neutral human" for Wyvern in your sentences:
"Mr. Fishy thinks that Neutral Humans with 7 Int aren't evil because they don't pursue an evil agenda. They're man eaters out of hunger or in defence of territory, not a malious intent to cause suffering to other creatures."
"at least the Neutral Human with 7 Int eats his kill."
This is a more apt comparison.
If you treat the wyvern as a base animal, and thus exempt of morality and retaining neutral alignment despite committing morally evil acts... then he can be slaughtered as you would a dangerous animal that threatens innocent people.
You can't have it both ways.
Killing an innocent sentient creature is evil. This is part of the rules.
From my experience with wyverns in the various materials that included them, and the implications of the bestiary text, they are perfectly fine with killing an innocent sentient person.
You don't have to have an evil "agenda", simply "kill(ing) without qualms if doing so is convenient" is enough (quote is directly from the Evil description).
A sentient creature that will eat a baby because it's hungry is evil, plain and simple. So... can a Neutral PC kill the wyvern (or a baby!) because he was hungry and get a pass? I don't think so..
So then the paladin in the OP did commit an evil act because Mr. Fishy doubts the fledgling wyverns killed anyone and were thus innocent. At least the wyvern ate the baby they [allegedly] killed.
Convenient? Hunting a 200 square mile range for babies sounds like a pain in the butt.
Wyverns aren't human or humanoid. Does the wyvern know the humans are sentient? Lots of animals scream [Int 7/doesn't understand common].
Stupid isn't always evil sometimes it just stupid. Does a 7 Int human kill an animal that does not look anything like him, does not talk and is unknown to be intellgent evil or just hungery. Stupid human doesn't known that the giant chicken isn't food. He just knows that he's hungery and his mother has fed him an animal that looks like this one.
Thing is, let's say the situation was reversed. The wyverns came upon the group of sleeping adventurers outside the Cave of Ehvyll(tm):
"Hey, lookit em pinkies. They in our territory, Cletus! Me hungry! Lesseat em!"
"But Jules, we Neutral, can we jes kills the pinkies while they sleepin?"
"Thass okay, Cletus. We jes takin advantage of proper tactics. S'not evil, right?"
"But isn't it wrong to poison sleepin pinkies and shred em with our big claws an fangs? Like, not neutral, Jules. We might becomes evil, an then all those pallidin pinkies will start goin beserk on us alla time!"
"Don't be Neutral Stupid, Cletus. What you gonna do, wake em up before stingin em? They pinkies! They don't unnerstand stuff like Good, Evil, justice and so on. I mean, lookit em! Small, smooth-skinned, wearing stuff robbed from dead pinkes! Goin round the country killin evrythin they meet!"
"But Jules, they's sentient, they lives should be worth sumthin!"
"You whiny pinkie hugger! If we don't kills em now, you respunsible for evry wyvern they kills forever!"
"Okay, I guess. If the books say they're monsters, I guess we can kills em an remain Neutral..."
Mayhaps the intelligence portion of alignment should be increased a bit?
So animals that kill competion for resourses v.s. a creature that kills for sneakers, that the same?
Umm kill to wear or mount, at least the wyvern eats his kill.Mr. Fishy doesn't like dolphins they're uppitty.
Dolphins and porpoises don't compete for resources. The two animals have different diets and different food sources.
As far as we know, dolphins literally do it because it amuses them.
You also have cases where animals enslave each other, engage in infanticide, and use brood parasitism to kill another animal's young and trick it into raising your young for you.
Nature is pretty messed up, and pretty Evil aligned, quite frankly.
Thing is, let's say the situation was reversed. The wyverns came upon the group of sleeping adventurers outside the Cave of Ehvyll(tm):
"Hey, lookit em pinkies. They in our territory, Cletus! Me hungry! Lesseat em!"
"But Jules, we Neutral, can we jes kills the pinkies while they sleepin?"
"Thass okay, Cletus. We jes takin advantage of proper tactics. S'not evil, right?"
"But isn't it wrong to poison sleepin pinkies and shred em with our big claws an fangs? Like, not neutral, Jules. We might becomes evil, an then all those pallidin pinkies will start goin beserk on us alla time!"
"Don't be Neutral Stupid, Cletus. What you gonna do, wake em up before stingin em? They pinkies! They don't unnerstand stuff like Good, Evil, justice and so on. I mean, lookit em! Small, smooth-skinned, wearing stuff robbed from dead pinkes! Goin round the country killin evrythin they meet!"
"But Jules, they's sentient, they lives should be worth sumthin!"
"You whiny pinkie hugger! If we don't kills em now, you respunsible for evry wyvern they kills forever!"
"Okay, I guess. If the books say they're monsters, I guess we can kills em an remain Neutral..."
Except this is exactly what they do. They don't growl or talk to each other like terrible stereotypes, but if wyverns chanced on a group of adventurers outside a dungeon asleep, damn right they'd attack and kill them.
But if a paladin does it we call it tactics.
