|
Paladin Code of Conduct from SRD:
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
The question:
Are the following lies or cheating:1) Feint in combat - this question is 2 fold, one is the combat maneuver and the other is more general.
Can a paladin use feint (combat maneuver) without violating his code of conduct? Feigning is basically a lie with body language no?
All combat styles incorporate feints into the fighting style. If you don't or can't feint you can't be a good fighter (full BAB)? So does this mean paladins who fight at full BAB needs an atonement?
2) Can a Paladin lead men into battle? Sun Tzu said "The Art of War is the Art of Deception." So can paladins use strategies and tactics when leading men into battle? Or are they restricted to the mindless charge which would guarantee their utter and total loss almost every battle?
very good questions.
I would suspect that most Paladins can and do use the Feint Combat Maneuver in combat and as a GM I think I would allow it. As a PC I think I would not do so as a Paladin but that is a personal choice on how to play the class. Ask your GM before making a Paladin.
Yes a Paladin can and should lead men in Battle.The tactics involved would be ones fairly strait forward and overt. Sun Tzu would not be pleased. That being said some deception in combat is not in my opinion a lie but rather taking the best advantage of a situation. Such as attacking at dawn, with the sun at your back, when archers can see the least. This would be a tactic from someone with a high wisdom score. Sending specifically deceptive messages to the opposing side to lead them into a trap would not be done by a Paladin commander, in my opinion. Once again ask your Gm before you play the Character so that the code is specific enough for both of you but does not cripple the character in play.
They have specific prohibitions. do not try to apply them too broadly or suddenly every Paladin is sitting at temple in a strait jacket saying "Sorry, my code prohibits me from existing".
If someone walks away from you in a straight line, are they lying when they turn left?
If they turn left are they lying when later they also turn right? Of course not. They are just walking.
If we are in combat and I move to the left, and so you move to take advantage of that, and so I stab you from the right (or whatever) I haven't lied. I moved, you moved, you lost.
This is different from a lie. A lie is "I am going to only use a shortsword and this battle will be between you and me only, to the death" and when You are losing your buddy steps in with the longbow and kills the other guy in the duel.. or you fetch a hand-crossbow from under a desk and hit him with it or draw a longsword or whatever.
Do not over-broaden the code to encompass things it doesn't already encompass or suddenly they can't walk down the street without someone saying "Omg you liar, I thought you were going straight!".
-S
|
|
very good questions.
I would suspect that most Paladins can and do use the Feint Combat Maneuver in combat and as a GM I think I would allow it. As a PC I think I would not do so as a Paladin but that is a personal choice on how to play the class. Ask your GM before making a Paladin.
Yes a Paladin can and should lead men in Battle.The tactics involved would be ones fairly strait forward and overt. Sun Tzu would not be pleased. That being said some deception in combat is not in my opinion a lie but rather taking the best advantage of a situation. Such as attacking at dawn, with the sun at your back, when archers can see the least. This would be a tactic from someone with a high wisdom score. Sending specifically deceptive messages to the opposing side...
Isn't taking advantage of the enviroment in battle cheating? You are gaining a considerable battlefield advantage.
What about luring? Pretending to retreat so the enemies give chase but you have an ambush waiting for them.
Personally I would allow paladins in my game to feint and use tactics, it is really more of a philosophical discussions on the code of conduct itself. If people don't consider feigning to be lying, then can paladins lie with body language in other situations? Like shrug their shoulders when they know the answer.
to feign is not lying, it is using a weapon.
I do not get your point, I think it is much simpler and you are over-thinking it, both from a practical stand point and a philosophical one.
|
What are people's thoughts on this interpretation?
It's not valid. Read the paragraph on ex-Paladins, it specifically says things other than evil actions can cause one to lose abilities.
That said, I don't think Paladins are forbidden from lying. The actual code restriction is "act with honor". Not lying is merely an example of that, and IMO, one that does not always apply.
I'm actually currently playing a Paladin, and during the first session with the character, I was with a group of...morally ambiguous PCs. The entire village we were in was under mind control and coming to kill us, and someone dying was almost inevitable, so my Paladin acted to save lives. Specifically, she assumed the form* of the guy who had them all under mind control (but not a psychic link) and told them that this was merely a test and they should all go home. I burned a Hero Point, got something ridiculous total, and they believed her and went home.
Was that something that should cost the character her Paladin abilities? Was it dishonorable? I really don't think so. And even more importantly, would it make sense for the same thing not to be a breech if she didn't technically lie, just be misleading? By a literal reading of the "don't lie" passage, you can get around it just by lawyering about what you technically say being truthful, and that doesn't sound to me like what a Paladin should be focusing on.
I mean, can a Paladin never be a conductor on the underground railroad or the equivalent? Because that totally involves lying, but I wouldn't call it dishonorable. Can they never hide people in their basement to protect them from genocide? Are those dishonorable things?
A lie, or something that's not technically a lie but still deceives, is usually a dishonorable act, but by no means always.
*The character's a Doppleganger. Yeah, Doppleganger Paladin. I was told I could use anything CR appropriate in the Bestiary...
|
I inclined to agree with what people are saying here, you're over thinking this. Can a paladin use battle tactics? Of course espeically if they're a paladin of a more military oriented god such as Iori, Tyr, or Heironeous, just to name a few. In fact in many descriptions of these various gods it says that the clerics and paladins of these orders are some of the most brilliant military strategists of their various worlds. So can a paladin use smart battle tactics? Most definitely, it perserves him/her so they can further pursue good without the loss of their talents or a compromise on thier code.
A paladin may not feel that claiming an "unearned" advantage is chivalrous, but such tactics aren't specifically forbidden. Many paladins would think it more important to preserve innocent lives than to avoid an unfair fight. I picture a paladin in such a situation riding out in front of his foes to suggest they surrender.
"You know me for a man of honor: Now know that my allies have you at a disadvantage. If you choose to fight, you shall all surely die, but if you lay down your arms, you will be treated honorably."
If his foes choose to seek combat after being warned that they're at a disadvantage, the paladin can hardly be blamed.
There is no hard and fast rule on what a paladin can do tactically, nor should there be one. It will always be a judgment call. Certain tactics like simple deception on the battlefield or a feint in personal combat, really don't raise any code of conduct issues for me. Others, like poisoning a blade or your Genghis Khan example, certainly would. Others like night attacks or attacking by surprise, fall in grey areas.
It might also make a difference who the opponent is, and what the stakes are. In personal combat, is it a pit fiend caught in the act of murdering children, or a petty thief stealing to feed his family? In mass combat is it the undead hordes of the Whispering Tyrant bent on enslaving the world, or is the paladin leading his liege lord's army against a neighboring nation over a minor border dispute? Context can be important.
Arguments about the proper course of action for holy knights date back before the European Middle Ages. As an example, one of the Crusaders penned a chronicle of his travels. During one running battle, a small group of crusaders found themselves cut off from their allies. Faced with a numerically-superior enemy force, the knights took a stand in a ruined farmhouse. There they fought off several waves of attacking enemies.
Between assaults, the knights had a lively debate about whether it would be considered chivalrous for one of them to go get help. They eventually concluded that since one of their number was already seriously wounded, it would be appropriate for him to ride to get help (and incidentally save all thier lives).
Unfortunately, in most battles announcing your advantage will almost certainly remove your advantage immediately.
It may, but with careful planning the enemy's reaction can be anticipated, making his situation even worse. The paladin is under no obligation to reveal all his hole cards; his hidden allies may not be where the enemy thinks they are.
|
|
There is no hard and fast rule on what a paladin can do tactically, nor should there be one. It will always be a judgment call. Certain tactics like simple deception on the battlefield or a feint in personal combat, really don't raise any code of conduct issues for me. Others, like poisoning a blade or your Genghis Khan example, certainly would. Others like night attacks or attacking by surprise, fall in grey areas.
It might also make a difference who the opponent is, and what the stakes are. In personal combat, is it a pit fiend caught in the act of murdering children, or a petty thief stealing to feed his family? In mass combat is it the undead hordes of the Whispering Tyrant bent on enslaving the world, or is the paladin leading his liege lord's army against a neighboring nation over a minor border dispute? Context can be important.
I had to re-read your second paragraph. I thought at first that you said it would make a difference, not that it might.
Context can be a deciding factor. It could also be used by a villain to force a Paladin's hand, by making him choose whether to follow the spirit of the code or the letter of the law.
This would make for a good game, in my opinion.
I'm really thinking this is an April Fool's joke that you all just fell for, hook line and sinker!
Can a paladin use feint (combat maneuver) without violating his code of conduct? Feigning is basically a lie with body language no?
Yup. The Paladin is not obligated to tell you which part of your anatomy he's sticking his sword into. If you think he's going high because he's gone high the last 50 times and then he suddenly goes low thats your problem.
2) Can a Paladin lead men into battle? Sun Tzu said "The Art of War is the Art of Deception." So can paladins use strategies and tactics when leading men into battle? Or are they restricted to the mindless charge which would guarantee their utter and total loss almost every battle?
It would depend very heavily on the particular deception. Putting on the enemies uniform to march deeper into enemy territory? Hell no. Leaving your campfires burning and marching to a spot in the middle of the night to take advantage of the high ground: yes.
A lie is not a lie when it is really a mistaken assumption on the other party. This is a good guideline when it comes to battle tactics. The other is nothing that would be considered against the geneva convention.
Example:
Writing a letter posing as the enemy gereral to implicate him has a traitor. WRONG
Building a series of dummys that cause the enemy to deploy troops to a useless front. FINE.
its a fine line to be sure, but you go with your gut on these things anyway.
I always assume that a Paladin can of course use tactical stratagies within reason. For example, feinting in combat is completely ok, and even using steathed forces to set up flanking maneuvers and such is probably also ok.
On the other hand, things like smuggling a bomb into the enemy camp, or infiltrating with sabataurs/assassins/spies is not ok.
I always, however, strugge with whether a Paladin is allowed to maintain plausible deniability if he thinks that the rest of the party is planning something unaceptable, eg, tell the other party memebers "I don't want to know what you are planning" If he thinks they are the sort of people to try something dishonorable. I would argue that he can, if only to prevent inter-party strife.
Hmmmm… I kind of disagree with the last poster about his "paladin = generally good guy" premise. In my perfect gaming world, it really means something to be a Paladin. He's a paragon of his (Lawful Good) god's will and ways. He's not just a "good guy", he lives, breathes, and always does The Right Thing.
All those "generally good guys" have a lot of leeway and grace-grounds for the times they do bad things - even if they had good intentions. After all… they did have good intentions, right? I mean, "he meant well." So we forgive him.
The Paladin, though… that guy should be meditating a couple of times a day, and I don't just mean "mentally relaxing". His meditations are long, deep, thoughts about what has happened to him recently. Really diving into all the possible interpretations of his actions and words to make sure that he did what was Right and Good. Okay, i'll get off that, you all get the point.
Now, mechanically, people do look for ways to screw over the Paladin. Sometimes because they're sick of how the paladin makes a lot of encounters look like a plastic butterknife fight, and sometimes because the DM likes to watch a player have to squirm through the moral ramifications of his actions. in this, I agree with the general sentiment of the above poster. Don't jack with the player's tools just because it's fun for you as the DM (or as another player, for that matter). Unless the players have all agreed to run a type of campaign where that is going to be considered "fun".
I agree that any time a player runs a paladin, he and the DM should go over (in a fairly in-depth manner) what that means in this DM's world. Usually all these issues are simply mis-aligned expectations.
Now, to the actual issue the OP posed. I agree with the general sentiment I'm reading that these situations are kosher within a normal Paladin's code. My goal of a Paladin is to spread what is right and good in a right good manner. If you and I join into open combat together, and i slide from a fake over-hand chop into a fast horizontal slash, catching you unprepared. Great! My martial skill is just greater than yours. The fact that the Bluff skill is involved doesn't mean I'm acting under-handed.
And if I'm fighting evil, and the way to keep the forces of good alive to fight another day is to draw my evil opponents into a trap by ordering a false retreat with the sun setting behind me? How is that evil?
Again, this is my interpretation - and how it would roll in my DM world. I had a DM that I played with that disallowed even this under the Paladin Code. We went round and round about it, and to this day disagree on the finer points of the Paladin Code. What does that mean? Well, in his game, that's how it is and I'll not a play a paladin because of it. I'll just play a fighter with ranks in religion. I get to roleplay it how I want and be the champion of good that everyone can rally around.
I think I agree with you up to a certain degree. I think as a paladin levels he should eventually become a shining example and a paragon of good. For a high level paladin, even minor transgressions or gray actions can lead him to if not an atonement, he will at least need to spend a few days reflecting about his actions. However, I don't think I'll hold a low level paladin to quite the same moral standards as a level 20 paladin.
The paladin should eventually grow into the paragon of goodness, I just don't think someone in his late teens, eary twenties with at most a couple of ranks in religion can quite understand the moral and ethical consequences of all his actions in totality.
Good point, I guess i wasn't considering levels... just the concept. Lol. Maybe this supports the old idea of the Paladin being a prestige class instead of Core class, huh?
Note that "not lying" is a parenthetical example of the actual requirement of the paladin---act with honor.
A feint is an established maneuver in certain styles of fighting. I learned to feint when I took fencing many years ago. I would not be considered "dishonorable" for feinting while in a fencing match--I would indeed be expected to use the skill as part of the endeavor, and be not be called out on "cheating" if I did it well.
If a paladin is fighting to the best of his ability, and "to the best of his ability" includes feinting, then that's just part and parcel of the nature of combat. Who the paladin is fighting and why they are fighting should surround the more notable moral issues when discerning a paladin's "proper" behavior. (The bigger issue for a paladin trying to feint is that a paladin doesn't have Bluff as a class skill so probably isn't very good at it. ;) )
These really should all be matters that fall under the line of common sense. RAW should not be used to drum up philosophical arguments between GM and players; the intent of the passage is clear---paladins should not be dishonorably deceptive. Leave it to your personal interpretation of that to the very best that you can and carry on.
As for the Sun Tzu question... as Sun Tzu doesn't exist in Golarion or most of our homebrewed worlds or other favorite settings, I don't think a paladin has to worry about what an ancient war strategist from our world has to say about his actions. ;)
Back to lying with body language
Someone indicated that shrugging ones shoulders when asked where someone is is lying in that you are indicating you do not know....
A shrug of the shoulders can mean several things such as....
a hidden meaning...similar to a wink
"I do not know"
uncertainty
"Search me"
What?
He doesn't have to lie.
He can simply say. "Search me." A direct invitation to search him for the person. He didn't say he didn't know where they were.
"Somewhere I'm sure." He's telling the truth, he's sure they are somewhere, he's just not telling where.
"Why would I know?" Again, not saying where they are, nor is he denying knowing where they are.
"Why are you asking me?"
"If you want to know, I suggest you go find them."
"Ask someone else."
"If I knew, I wouldn't tell you." He does know, and isn't telling.
"He's in the last place you would look." Very true, the guy will be in the last place the guy looks.
A feinting paladin is not much of a problem in itself, I do not think most paladins would dedicate themselves to such tactics to the point of putting feats and a large number of skillpoints into the art of deception.
It would absolutely be unsuitable for the straight-jacket paladin knight, but not every paladin is the walking (wannabe) perfection of Law and Goodness, a considerable number might be, but many paladins will not.
Since paladins tend to be very religious, you might want to look at the dogma of his/her patron deity to see what kind of behaviour would be enforced more tightly than other.
Usually use the good old intimidation stuff, half-orc paladins especailly.....
Roll intimidation
Scream
"What is the meaning of this!"
"I do not answer to you!"
"You dare?"
A paladin seems unlikely to manipulate another person to make him believe the paladin is telling the truth, that kind of behaviour might be lawful, but isnt per definition more honorable than straight up lying in my opinion. The typical paladin will uphold the spirit of his words not twist it into elaborate deception, I have no real problem with anyone playing a paladin like this on occasion if the situation calls for it, I just do not think it deserves paladin bonus points.
I don't think that was the idea, TOZ.
That response can mean any different number of things, and when you use it with your army buddies, they can quickly figure out what you mean in any given circumstance when you use that word.
I believe what was being referenced was when you use a word, phrase, or body language like that (which can - without context - be interpreted any number of ways), but you use it intentionally in a situation where you know the other person will draw an erroneous conclusion.
That is still deception.
Now, there are any number of ways the paladin can respond without giving up the answer.. many of which have been covered here.
After re-reading my post...
I was just commenting on whether or not that type of response is deceptive. I didn't intend to suggest that a Paladin couldn't/shouldn't use that type of response without fear of losing his God-powers.
|
|
I believe what was being referenced was when you use a word, phrase, or body language like that (which can - without context - be interpreted any number of ways), but you use it intentionally in a situation where you know the other person will draw an erroneous conclusion.That is still deception.
I must have been unclear, because this is exactly what I meant. So you are saying I am being deceptive.
After re-reading my post...
I was just commenting on whether or not that type of response is deceptive. I didn't intend to suggest that a Paladin couldn't/shouldn't use that type of response without fear of losing his God-powers.
One of my favorite quotes from the King James version of the Bible is :
Be thou wise as a serpent, and harmless as a dove.
I think that really ought to be part of the Paladin Code. Everyone wants to play a Paladin as big and dumb and full of himself. A Paladin should really be Wise (unfortunately, most use it as a dump stat). Not deceiving to be deceptive, but only when it's needed to protect innocents.
A paladin should always give forthright answers if it's just him and his companions in the cross-hairs. However, if it's something like protecting an innocent (the hypothetical orphans scheduled for execution for example) then I see no reason why the Paladin should not be allowed to be as evasive as he chooses in his answers, so long as he doesn't out and out lie. The Paladin is not deceiving for personal gain, he's doing so to protect those who can't protect themselves.
|
|
I have issue with any GM that makes a paladin fall, or even warns them for that matter, when he lies to a bad guy. Their job is to fight evil, not allowing them to lie to evil people hobbles them somewhat, especially when dealing with villains more powerful than themselves.
@Kenderkin: Where did he get the note that says all of that then? He literally cannot communicate with anyone in that note, how does he know what it says, or is waiting to be called out for having a piece of paper that is lying for him?
I must have been unclear, because this is exactly what I meant. So you are saying I am being deceptive.
Lol. No, you can't be faulted for my mis-understanding.
For the truth or lie thing... I like to think of Mr Spock in Star Trek (of course you know he in Star Trek, what am I thinkin' lol) when he solemnly swears that Vulcans never lie. But when caught himself in the act, he playfully dissmisses it on something else.
...
Captain Spock - "Mr. Scott, I understand you are experiencing difficulties with the warp drive?"
Captain Montgomery 'Scotty' Scott - "There's nothing wrong with the bloody..."
Captain Spock - "Mr. Scott, if we return to Spacedock, then not only will we lost the chance to discover who is behind all this, then it is also likely that we will never see Captain Kirk or Doctor McCoy alive again."
Captain Montgomery 'Scotty' Scott - "Could take weeks, sir."
Valeris - "A lie?!?"
Spock - "An error."
...
Young Spock - "But why did't he (Kirk) just tell me about you?"
Old Spock - "I told him that if he did, it would cause a time paradox."
Young Spock - "You Lied?"
Old Spock - "I implied."
...
You catch my drift... Little white lies ARE permitted.
The question:
Are the following lies or cheating:1) Feint in combat - this question is 2 fold, one is the combat maneuver and the other is more general.
Can a paladin use feint (combat maneuver) without violating his code of conduct? Feigning is basically a lie with body language no?
All combat styles incorporate feints into the fighting style. If you don't or can't feint you can't be a good fighter (full BAB)? So does this mean paladins who fight at full BAB needs an atonement?
2) Can a Paladin lead men into battle? Sun Tzu said "The Art of War is the Art of Deception." So can paladins use strategies and tactics when leading men into battle? Or are they restricted to the mindless charge which would guarantee their utter and total loss almost every battle?
OK, Rule #1: ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR
Basically, a paladin does not have to be Lawful Stupid. A paladin should be honourable, but not stupidly so. If someone is trying to kill you, you are under no obligation to fight fair. Feinting, using strategy, gaining the element of surprise are all vital tactics in battle. A paladin that does not use them at need is guilty of placing the lives of others in danger, which ever way you look at it and whatever the circumstances. Yes, a paladin should negotiate in good faith (but with sane precautions knowing others may not do so), and yes they should attempt to be honest in their dealings. Once the weapons come out and blood is about to be drawn the time to talk and be honest is over and the paladin has an obligation to use any tactic their foe would use that does not unduly endanger the innocent.
For example, a paladin has the task of retaking a castle from the evil creatures that have seized it. They are outnumbered and out-gunned. The paladin's code requires honourable dealings, and in many cases an opportunity to redemption. Riding up to the gates and calling upon the occupants to yield the keep or suffer the consequences is all but mandatory. However, fleeing their response and luring their sally into an ambush are perfectly acceptable as they have willingly rejected the offer of peaceful resolution, and the paladin now has a duty to not just fight, but to win.