For question 1:
The feint combat maneuver is not something a paladin should be doing in my opinion. Bluffing and trickery are not fair or honest – are not honorable. I just flat-out don’t buy the ‘if you don’t feint you are playing stupidly’ argument.
That said, even I wouldn’t take it to the extreme of ‘if you are fighting you are by default feinting – that’s how you get full BAB – so you lose your class features if you fight unless you penalize your attack rolls in some way to simulate this restriction’. If that were the case then I’m sure it would be mentioned somewhere in the rules, or the paladin class would just get a lower BAB to start out with to reflect this.
For question 2:
Lead people into battle? Of course! Be the optimal choice for developing the tactics and strategies used for said battle? No! (Other professions they would not be best qualified for include lawyer, marketer, public relations liaison, diplomat, actor… you get the idea.)I’m not a military/war buff by any stretch of the imagination, but I’m pretty sure there is a wide berth between ‘not using dishonorable tactics’ and ‘charging ahead mindlessly’. I have read Sun Tzu’s Art Of War and I would say he would not qualify as lawful good, much less honorable.
The purpose, I feel, of the code of conduct is two-fold. First, is fluff to explain why paladins are so damn special that a deity would claim them among its chosen few. Second, is to balance out the otherwise OP class features. A paladin is the type of gal that would insist on fighting with one hand tied behind her back if that’s what it takes to ‘even the odds’ against someone who really needs to die (or be captured or whatever) in the name of good or the law. Otherwise, she is just a fighter that gets to be more awesome than a fighter, just because the player that’s playing a fighter is ‘too stupid’ to have chosen to roll up a paladin instead. Yes, paladins will not always be able to follow the best tactic or strategy, but that’s why they get more power to work with – to make up for that fact.
On Lying in General:
Your best bet is to say something to the effect of, “I will not answer that question.” For example, the hellknights have come to ‘disappear’ someone who in the paladin’s opinion does not deserve it.
Hellknight: Do you know where Mr. Civil Right is?
Paladin: I wouldn’t tell you if I knew.
Feint is fine.
Lead to battle is fine.
Lying is not always 'evil' (Does my rear look big in this?).
A Good person is someone who tries to do the right thing all the time and succeeds most of the time. The difference between a Good person and a Paladin isn't perfection, it's forgiveness; a Good person can forgive himself his occasional moral failings, while a Paladin cannot. A Paladin remembers every mistake he's made and constantly tries to set them right.
As long as the player of a Paladin remembers this and his character acts accordingly, stripping him of his powers for the slightest perceived infraction is nothing but pure and malicious dickery on the part of the DM.
If someone needs to be killed because they are Evil and because they are a threat to innocent people, then the right thing to do is kill them; a Paladin might regret that it was necessary or wonder if there wasn't a way to redeem his enemy, but once the fighting starts, the Paladin is going to fight to the best of his ability. Throwing his life away uselessly in battle is just as much a failure of his duties as refusing to fight.
A Paladin won't lie to his companions, to his superiors, or to rightful authorities, but if he has to lie to Evil to protect the innocent he'll do so without a second thought. His obligation to Good outweighs his obligation to his word.
^^^This^^^
For question 1:
The feint combat maneuver is not something a paladin should be doing in my opinion. Bluffing and trickery are not fair or honest – are not honorable. I just flat-out don’t buy the ‘if you don’t feint you are playing stupidly’ argument.
That said, even I wouldn’t take it to the extreme of ‘if you are fighting you are by default feinting – that’s how you get full BAB – so you lose your class features if you fight unless you penalize your attack rolls in some way to simulate this restriction’. If that were the case then I’m sure it would be mentioned somewhere in the rules, or the paladin class would just get a lower BAB to start out with to reflect this.
For question 2:
Lead people into battle? Of course! Be the optimal choice for developing the tactics and strategies used for said battle? No! (Other professions they would not be best qualified for include lawyer, marketer, public relations liaison, diplomat, actor… you get the idea.)I’m not a military/war buff by any stretch of the imagination, but I’m pretty sure there is a wide berth between ‘not using dishonorable tactics’ and ‘charging ahead mindlessly’. I have read Sun Tzu’s Art Of War and I would say he would not qualify as lawful good, much less honorable.
The purpose, I feel, of the code of conduct is two-fold. First, is fluff to explain why paladins are so damn special that a deity would claim them among its chosen few. Second, is to balance out the otherwise OP class features. A paladin is the type of gal that would insist on fighting with one hand tied behind her back if that’s what it takes to ‘even the odds’ against someone who really needs to die (or be captured or whatever) in the name of good or the law. Otherwise, she is just a fighter that gets to be more awesome than a fighter, just because the player that’s playing a fighter is ‘too stupid’ to have chosen to roll up a paladin instead. Yes, paladins will not always be able to follow the best tactic or strategy, but that’s why they get more power to work with –...
No war has ever been fought without trickery. That is what tactics do, allow you to get the upperhand. There is another thread on this issue, but what it boils down to is that any army fighting under such rules will lose, and the honor nonsense was never something made for knightw(whom paladins are based off of), but so the peasants can't kill them.
PS:You either charge straight ahead or you try to gain an advantage. There is no in between. Archery was also frowned upon in the other thread, but bows which give a definite advantage are on the paladins list of weapons. I doubt he would have been given that weapon if it was not intended for use.
Generally, I think the requirement not to lie stems from the general idea of the paladin being honorable and dependable, someone whose word is their bond. In the most basic form, if a paladin makes you a promise, they will go to the end of the world to keep their promise. They are a champion and an inspiring example of what heroes were - and should be. However, that doesn't mean they can't be smart about it.
Regarding the first question - can a paladin feint - I would generally say yes. Feinting is basically an attack with the intent to change the direction of a strike. You aim to draw an opponent's weapon or shield elsewhere so you have a clean blow. I think that the misdirection involved is part and parcel of fighting, and not a serious issue in most cases. Considering that the two are fighting to the death, issues such as feinting, headbutting, biting, hits to the shins/groin/wherever are fairly trivial. You are fighting to the death - them's the rules, and the paladin is keeping them. If someone isn't paying attention to what the opponent is doing in a battle has only himself to blame. The paladin imo may, and is welcome to, fight to subdue less capable foes whose only error is being drafted into his enemies' army - which imo is much more important than whether he punched their lieutenant's nose in.
There are, obviously, exceptions. A paladin who isn't fighting a battle and just wants to fight someone - say, he wants to interfere in an attempted lynching or challenges someone on a duel - should make sure their opponents are not caught unaware. In a regulated fight, like a joust or duel, he again keep to the rules - since by participating the paladin accepted those rules, thus gave his word to adhere to them. The whole "lying" issue is imo more of a matter of the paladin keeping his word than the minor details of what is a "lie" and not.
The second question is trickier. A paladin shouldn't use tactics to, say, intentionally start a plague in the city wall or terrorize the defenders by taking the nearby villagers hostage and threatening to impale one for every hour the castle stands. On the other hand, ordering a retreat so the enemy may pursue into a trap will imo not be a problem. Likewise, a paladin would probably be ok with using information obtained by spies in the enemy camp, but would likely not ask them to poison the enemy's water before the battle. Starting a fire in the supply wagons or ordering a night attack, perhaps.
Generally, I think there should be middle zone in the paladin's code for offenses serious enough to be atoned for (not by the spell, but by actual acts of penitence on part of the paladin), but not grave enough to cause the patron's ire. For example, a paladin might not fall for killing someone who was forced by the BBEG to fight him, but might feel obligated to help his family.
Being honorable and not using tactics are two different things. It should also be realized that honor is based on one's society so it is really hard to enforce it.
If the paladin announces that the party is entering the BBEG's fortress, and puts all the bad guys on guard then the paladin might die in his sleep.
|
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?
From the party scribe after painful hours of pantimyme until it is right.....
Note the note would be true!
But no one who got the note would believe it.
I just think you need to have a good understanding with your GM before considering to play a paladin that is any less than the perfect noble warrior, most GM's will be fine with it as long as the player makes a serious effort to play well.
A paladin continually twisting the spirit of his code to receive the least possible hindrance can reroll the paladin as a fighter.
Someone said that a paladin tries to do the right thing and tries to make up when he falls short of his high standards, that is basically it.
Stuff
To respond in kind would take too long and make me a jerk, so I’ll leave it at: Bickering with your own straw man lends nothing to the discussion.
No war has ever been fought without trickery. That is what tactics do, allow you to get the upperhand. […] You either charge straight ahead or you try to gain an advantage. There is no in between.
The first statement is probably true (again not a war historian), but I’d say that could easily be explained by the fact that no war has ever been commanded on all sides by only people who are honorable to the point of being saintly (for good reason), so of course the tactics used would reflect that.
The second statement I basically agree with, but I think you are over simplifying things here. In other words, ‘effective’ doesn’t equal ‘honorable’ or ‘dishonorable’. That said, unfair is generally more effective.
The rest is a false dichotomy. Otherwise sports and many other games just could not exist as they do now. Honorable does not equal stupid or defeatist, just restricted – sometimes quite severely depending on the situation – otherwise why not just make the requirement be that a paladin must be lawful-good and leave it at that?
As the DM, you can make the most noble action "evil"; that baby they save is the reincarnation of Hitler, McGuffin blows up the nation, etc.
I don’t see how saving a baby could ever be construed as an evil action, same with killing one being not good (neutral or evil depending on the situation). See guys, having an actual line to cross CAN simplify things in alignment discussions. :) Just to clarify further, ‘honorable’ for me is above and beyond plain ol’ lawful-good, otherwise what’s the point of the honor code?
Finally, I posit some questions for discussion. Can we all agree that evil is evil and start discussing the finer points of honor and lying? Examples like poisoning wells, killing babies, terrorizing innocent civilians and such are things a good character without an honor code would not do. If honor means nothing more than good, what’s the point of the code? What battle tactics (please give examples) would you consider to be lawful and good, but not honorable?
What battle tactics (please give examples) would you consider to be lawful and good, but not honorable?
1) Throwing dead bodies over a wall to make an evil city under seige diseased. Not evil, but certainly not honoroble.
2) Parading the heads of enemy men/women/children on pikes in front of the opposing army to demoralize them (note the heads could have come from corpses not killed by the people using the tactic, they could be disease victims, or victims who were killed by bandits, etc). Lawful and Good (didn't kill innocents to do it, doing it to weaken the enemy, thus cutting down on the loss of life).
3) Kidnapping the enemy commander's children to force him to surrender (good, minimizes fighting and dieing, lawful in that they are the enemy). Not honorable though.
4) Slipping spies into the enemy camp to put laxatives into the enemies food the night before the battle. Not honorable, but certainly effective, and is a neutral act in and of itself.
5) Firing light catapults loaded with jars of skunk oil extract into the enemy lines. Effective, not honorable.
6) Shooting the enemy commander with 30 crossbows when he signals a challenge to a duel with your own commander, rather than accepting the duel.
Just off the top of my head.
Mdt, Thanks for the reply.
1) Infecting a city with a disease is not evil? Maybe. It’d have to be an overwhelmingly evil city full of enemy combatants, not just an enemy city full of the usual commoners.
2) Displaying the severed heads of innocents, I agree, is not evil or honorable, but it’s certainly not good. I’d go with neutral, distasteful and more than likely ineffective – I don’t see a lot of people surrendering and offering themselves up for that type of treatment, but in some situations maybe.
3) Forcibly falsely imprisoning innocent children is not evil? This is the exact type of thing where honor doesn’t even need to a debated, it’s just evil. I don’t care how many people you think it may save.
4) Agree, not honorable, but not good either.
5) Agree, not honorable, but not good either.
6) Agree, not honorable, but not good either and probably evil unless like for #1 the situation has extreme circumstances.
Maybe there isn’t such a thing as a ‘good’ battle tactic and ‘neutral’ to ‘not necessarily evil’ is the best you can hope for? (At least in my games.)
StuffTo respond in kind would take too long and make me a jerk, so I’ll leave it at: Bickering with your own straw man lends nothing to the discussion.
No war has ever been fought without trickery. That is what tactics do, allow you to get the upperhand. […] You either charge straight ahead or you try to gain an advantage. There is no in between.The first statement is probably true (again not a war historian), but I’d say that could easily be explained by the fact that no war has ever been commanded on all sides by only people who are honorable to the point of being saintly (for good reason), so of course the tactics used would reflect that.
The second statement I basically agree with, but I think you are over simplifying things here. In other words, ‘effective’ doesn’t equal ‘honorable’ or ‘dishonorable’. That said, unfair is generally more effective.
The rest is a false dichotomy. Otherwise sports and many other games just could not exist as they do now. Honorable does not equal stupid or defeatist, just restricted – sometimes quite severely depending on the situation – otherwise why not just make the requirement be that a paladin must be lawful-good and leave it at that?
As the DM, you can make the most noble action "evil"; that baby they save is the reincarnation of Hitler, McGuffin blows up the nation, etc.I don’t see how saving a baby could ever be construed as an evil action, same with killing one being not good (neutral or evil depending on the situation). See guys, having an actual line to cross CAN simplify things in alignment discussions. :) Just to clarify further, ‘honorable’ for me is above and beyond plain ol’ lawful-good, otherwise what’s the point of the honor code?
Finally, I posit some questions for discussion. Can we all agree that evil is evil and start discussing the finer points of honor and lying? Examples like poisoning wells, killing babies, terrorizing innocent civilians...
Are you trying to put your own spin on it or you going by what you think is developer intent, because from a fluff point view paladins are leaders of men, even in war, and your idea makes that impossible in the game, and in fantasy novels. Even if 2 good people were waging the war they are not going to run their armies straight ahead and hope for the best. Tactics is just as much a part of being a soldier as being able to swing a sword is. I don't think limiting your intelligence is any more honorable than trying to fight with one hand because the other guy is smaller than you, just to try to even things out.
I thought we were already discussing honor, but we just happen to disagree on what honor its.
Mdt, Thanks for the reply.
1) Infecting a city with a disease is not evil? Maybe. It’d have to be an overwhelmingly evil city full of enemy combatants, not just an enemy city full of the usual commoners.
2) Displaying the severed heads of innocents, I agree, is not evil or honorable, but it’s certainly not good. I’d go with neutral, distasteful and more than likely ineffective – I don’t see a lot of people surrendering and offering themselves up for that type of treatment, but in some situations maybe.
3) Forcibly falsely imprisoning innocent children is not evil? This is the exact type of thing where honor doesn’t even need to a debated, it’s just evil. I don’t care how many people you think it may save.
4) Agree, not honorable, but not good either.
5) Agree, not honorable, but not good either.
6) Agree, not honorable, but not good either and probably evil unless like for #1 the situation has extreme circumstances.Maybe there isn’t such a thing as a ‘good’ battle tactic and ‘neutral’ to ‘not necessarily evil’ is the best you can hope for? (At least in my games.)
1) As I did specify evil city, I think I'm safe on that one. :)
2) It would depend on the circumstances, but I agree, mostly neutral.3) We forcibly imprison innocent children all the time. It's called school. On a more serious note, this was a very time honored way of handling diplomacy, Prince Whatsit goes to live in a different country as a hostage. It started out as people taking them forcibly. No one said you had to kill or even harm the kids. You could just threaten the enemy commander and instead send them to an orphanage 6 kingdoms away and tell him they will be killed. Not good, but not evil either. More neutral. If you take them, torture them, and then send him body parts, then you're evil. Now, how about another spin on it. The enemy is an evil guy. By kidnapping the kids and sending them off to a good country, you are not only stopping the evil guy, but giving them a better life and turning them to good, potentially. :)
6) Not evil either. Just not lawful. There's a difference. If you've got 100 CG barbarians, they aren't interested in that hoity toity 'parley' stuff. You wanted to fight, you shouldn't put your weapons down without saying 'I give up!' really loud. :) Don't mistake Lawful with Good. A Lawful Evil knight will always respect a parley flag, because it's lawful to do so. No reason a Chaotic Good barbarian would have to respect a challenge to a duel. If you wanted to just fight one on one, why did you bring your army? ;)
In a game loaded with Divination spells, where you can and DO know the future, you can face the classic
"Would you go back in time and kill Hitler as a baby? Or kill his parents to prevent him being born?"
AKA Justified Punishment before the crimeBut where do you really draw the line? Is killing Baby Joseph Stalin such an evil thing? Especially given that you have the magic to KNOW its baby Joseph Stalin.
Just curious, what spells exactly let you KNOW any of that for sure?
Just curious, what spells exactly let you KNOW any of that for sure?In a game loaded with Divination spells, where you can and DO know the future, you can face the classic
"Would you go back in time and kill Hitler as a baby? Or kill his parents to prevent him being born?"
AKA Justified Punishment before the crimeBut where do you really draw the line? Is killing Baby Joseph Stalin such an evil thing? Especially given that you have the magic to KNOW its baby Joseph Stalin.
No spells and at least in Golarion there will not be, the developers have said they do not like the dead beaten horse that is prophecy.
Also I must say that in fiction killing a child that later grows up to be an evil tyrant is still considered evil, and it makes sense ; if you can change the future by killing the child you can most likely change the future in other ways, by taking the child away from his evil stephfather for example to raise him in a monastary.
|
What are people's thoughts on this interpretation?That's exactly how it's written for all the sheep that follow RAW.
Paladins, according to RAW, can lie, cheat, use poison, bang the farmer's wife, disrespect legitimate authority, etc., etc. -- they just can't commit an evil act (whatever that means).
I never really looked at it before because I have such a low opinion of running games RAW -- and have to ridicule any attempt at Alignment RAW.
But now, even for those who are into RAW, this is great ammo.
Not true.
From the PRD:
Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies).
Not saying that I 100% agree with the RAW, but there it is.
Are you trying to put your own spin on it or you going by what you think is developer intent, because from a fluff point view paladins are leaders of men, even in war, and your idea makes that impossible in the game, and in fantasy novels.
Not impossible, just more difficult. Some people won’t like that, but it has been somewhat backed up by developers on theses boards. Can’t remember the exact posts, but I do distinctly remember smiling with vindication upon reading them. They never (that I saw) come down on the specifics of this or that tactic, but do make it clear that good, evil, law, and chaos are tangible things, not relative things that can be worked around with so-called good intentions or justifications. Why wouldn’t honor work the same way?
I’ve read a few fantasy novels with paladin characters over the years. I may be misremembering, but I don’t recall those characters turning their back on their deity and ideals so they get an upper hand in a battle. I know I’ve never seen it in a game as a player or GM. For me and my groups, we’ve always played paladins for the restrictions, not in spite of them. They do tend to die in a blaze of glory while the less scrupulous PCs run for their life or dabble in the ‘dark side’, but that’s a given – it’s all there in the class description.
Even if 2 good people were waging the war they are not going to run their armies straight ahead and hope for the best.
How many times is this going to come up? You are arguing a point no one is making. I’m here advocating for a pretty strict reading of the honor code, but I’m not even going this far. I may not be very knowledgeable about large-scale battle tactics, but I’ve personally seen plenty of fights (not movie fights – real ones). Most of them did not involve the people running straight at each other mindlessly or dirty tricks like ripping-out jewelry or the like. I think it’s pretty safe to assume larger battles can have a similar spectrum. The disagreement between us, it seems, is based on your stance that battle tactics are by default either dishonorable or stupid – I just don’t agree, but fair enough.
this was a very time honored way of handling diplomacy, Prince Whatsit goes to live in a different country as a hostage. It started out as people taking them forcibly. No one said you had to kill or even harm the kids. […] By kidnapping the kids and sending them off to a good country, you are not only stopping the evil guy, but giving them a better life and turning them to good, potentially. :)
I do count stealing the children away from their home and family and keeping them as enemy hostages to be harm. But for this one I’m not arguing it’s not honorable, but that it’s evil. Treating certain people as property, gang-rape and many other utterly evil actions were/are ‘time-honored’ traditions. That doesn’t make them good.
Now you do have me with the evil parent’s angle. :) But then again, if you are saving the children from abusive parents you can’t also in good conscience sell them back to those evil parents as part of a peace deal now can you.:)
If you've got 100 CG barbarians, they aren't interested in that hoity toity 'parley' stuff. You wanted to fight, you shouldn't put your weapons down without saying 'I give up!' really loud. :) Don't mistake Lawful with Good. A Lawful Evil knight will always respect a parley flag, because it's lawful to do so. No reason a Chaotic Good barbarian would have to respect a challenge to a duel. If you wanted to just fight one on one, why did you bring your army? ;)
Yeah, for me ‘if you show up with an army and suggest an alternative to full-fledged battle, I’ll slaughter you outright as an answer’ is most likely flat-out evil, but maybe neutral – it depends on the specifics.
But where do you really draw the line? Is killing Baby Joseph Stalin such an evil thing? Especially given that you have the magic to KNOW its baby Joseph Stalin.
You’ve got to give me credit, I do try to be consistent. So, yes killing babies is evil – no exceptions. Let me ask you this about divinations and the like – can the future be changed? Anyone who advocates killing baby Stalin must believe so right? So… why not try the whole not-evil-don’t-kill-any-babies strategy? Sometimes good means taking risks and making sacrifices, if you’re not into that sort of thing, you’re neutral at best.
Honorable implies any "Lawful" alignment actually, no matter which of the hundreds of honor codes in reality you use. Mafia Gangsters were considered "Honorable"; as were samurai, both "good" and "evil" ones; we wont dissect all the endless different versions of honor codes. Suffice it to say that honor was more about fitting into the society they were from.
So for you honorable = lawful, fair enough. It just seems like the paladin code has zero purpose if that’s the case, so I disagree.
Baby Hitler rapes for the good of us all… you weren’t aware of this? :P
Are you trying to put your own spin on it or you going by what you think is developer intent, because from a fluff point view paladins are leaders of men, even in war, and your idea makes that impossible in the game, and in fantasy novels.Not impossible, just more difficult. Some people won’t like that, but it has been somewhat backed up by developers on theses boards. Can’t remember the exact posts, but I do distinctly remember smiling with vindication upon reading them. They never (that I saw) come down on the specifics of this or that tactic, but do make it clear that good, evil, law, and chaos are tangible things, not relative things that can be worked around with so-called good intentions or justifications. Why wouldn’t honor work the same way?
My point was that view points that extreme are not supported by novels or adventures that have been published.
I’ve read a few fantasy novels with paladin characters over the years. I may be misremembering, but I don’t recall those characters turning their back on their deity and ideals so they get an upper hand in a battle. I know I’ve never seen it in a game as a player or GM. For me and my groups, we’ve always played paladins for the restrictions, not in spite of them. They do tend to die in a blaze of glory while the less scrupulous PCs run for their life or dabble in the ‘dark side’, but that’s a given – it’s all there in the class description.
I have never seen tactics used in a novel as turning their backs on their deity's ideals.
Even if 2 good people were waging the war they are not going to run their armies straight ahead and hope for the best.
How many times is this going to come up? You are arguing a point no one is making. I’m here advocating for a pretty strict reading of the honor code, but I’m not even going this far.
You care to show me a war or battle that is real or realistic but fictional that relies upon tactics other than a straight ahead attacks?
edit:clarification
Sorry mdt about poking fun at your list..... ;)
*shrug*
Didn't see any pokes at my list, but, hey, no biggie either way. :)
GoldenOpal my basic point is that the paladin was not held to that standard in any edition. I am not saying a DM can or should not do so, but that such a paladin won't survive in most games.
He won't be able to break into the bad guy's fortress or accept treasure from a chest the rogue has unlocked. Sneaking up on the bad guy would also not be an option since that is pretending not to be there, and therefore dishonest. That means he basically has to announce his presence. Now for the sake of fun a DM may not have the bad guys group up and mobilize, but realistically if the PC's are a threat, and they most likely are, he will send enough bad guys at the PC's to kill them or at least drain their resources. Then he will send the BBEG in after they are weakened, but while minions are still alive.
Realistically there is no reason not to do so.
The Paladin will have an advantage at one point or another. The paladin might have better equipment. He might have a reach or ranged weapon. He can smite. How is that any less honorable than using guile?
Does he take off his equipment to make things fair? Does he not use the bow and allow the bad guy to fight him in melee? Does he not smite? Is the paladin restricted to using his physical attributes, but not his mental ones to gain in edge? If his party has a cleric, and the other guys don't, does he refuse to accept any heals from the cleric if he is about to be defeated? The other guy did have him beat, but now the cleric is interfering and making things unfair.
Killing babies because you know, given one chain of circumstances, that they turn out bad? Still evil. As someone said, if you have the power to change one circumstance, why wouldn't you have the power to change any number of other circumstances and thus not need to murder a baby who has committed none of the evil they eventually commit (again, assuming that one chain of circumstances).
As far as alignment in war goes, there are very few offensive actions that I would ever characterize as good. There are simply too many external costs, both certain and potential, that must paid for even if not intended. Most of them would be neutral at best, which is fine for a paladin.
But I'd have a huge problem with any DM who made a paladin fall because of an overly rigid view of what constitutes being honest or not lying. Misdirection, feinting, and a whole host of other tactics put in operation to gain advantage are not generally dishonorable. To use the title of an article in the Dragon decades ago "Lawful Good isn't Stupid." Paladins running wars do not need to telegraph their intentions on the battlefield and cede all intelligence advantage to their enemies. That would, in fact, be acting dishonorably to the people under their command for whom they are responsible.
Paladins running wars do not need to telegraph their intentions on the battlefield and cede all intelligence advantage to their enemies. That would, in fact, be acting dishonorably to the people under their command for whom they are responsible.
How so?
<Playing devil's advocate for the moment.>
1) Throwing dead bodies over a wall to make an evil city under seige diseased. Not evil, but certainly not honoroble.
Is everyone in an evil city evil? Probably not. Being unconcerned with collateral damage is generally an evil trait. Also, any decent 'evil' city will have the Ghoul Patrol take care of this tactic right quick. ;-)
2) Parading the heads of enemy men/women/children on pikes in front of the opposing army to demoralize them.
Desecration of corpses is generally reviled by good societies. Maybe not Evil, but definitely shades'o'grey evil territory.
3) Kidnapping the enemy commander's children to force him to surrender (good, minimizes fighting and dieing, lawful in that they are the enemy). Not honorable though.
Extremely pragmatic and probably Neutral, though this heavily depends on the people involved. Doing this to the good and righteous children of a good and righteous ruler, and you're straying into evil for sure.
4) Slipping spies into the enemy camp to put laxatives into the enemies food the night before the battle. Not honorable, but certainly effective, and is a neutral act in and of itself.
Given you're targeting enemy combatants, with non-lethal (or, to be correct, 'less-lethal' means, which avoids innocent casualties as well as military ones, actually might shade this one towards the good side. Though not honorable.
5) Firing light catapults loaded with jars of skunk oil extract into the enemy lines. Effective, not honorable.
Depends on whether or not chemical warfare is accepted as a valid battlefield tactic. If so, it's just another weapon of war, like fire. Especially in a setting with Fireball and Cloudkill being valid tactics.
6) Shooting the enemy commander with 30 crossbows when he signals a challenge to a duel with your own commander, rather than accepting the duel.
If there was an effort to parley first, yeah, that's dishonorable. If it's just a battlefield challenge while the battle rages, it's his own stupid fault for making himself a target.
Paladins have always been, at their core, based on the romantic (and devoutly religious) knights of European lore. They fight evil, defend the innocent and work for the glory of their diety. The Kinightly codes of conduct vary, but the current incarnation of them are (mock me if you must, but it's true) the Boy Scout Law which lists the attributes and conduct of an honorable young man and, in effect, a mundane form of paladin.
Honor is a very subjective term. What counts as honorable to one alignment is not always the same as another. Even within the SAME alignment, honor can be defined differently. Societal norms, regional laws etc. affect this. Lawful Good means following the laws of real world western civilization and religion, i.e. christianity. What is defined as "good" is also subjective, but in the pages of this game, they are defined as what modern western civilization deems "good". Equality, no murder, no rape, no stealing, essentially "do unto others...".
There have already been presented many ways to avoid telling lies, Paladins will NEVER need to lie about anything. Not even "white" lies. Withholding the truth or simply ignoring the question will ALWAYS be an alternative.
Feinting does not have to be dishonorable combat. It is an essential part of any martial form. What many people on this thread are confusing is the difference between feinting and "fighting dirty". Not even SNEAK ATTACK is fighting dirty. The only time there is such a thing as fighting dirty is when there are established RULES governing the combat at hand. There is a reason for the old addage, "All is fair in love and war." The original knights of yore believed that bows were dishonorable weapons and only hand to hand weapons were considered righteous. Some believed that you did not fight an unarmed opponent and of course some granted mercy to those who simply asked it. Now, this is WHY specific diety dogmas are not created in this game, because it should be left to the PLAYERS to decide what their own rules of engagement and code of conduct their own character lives by. Ifa DM wants to create in their campaign, the Paladin ORDER OF THE ANALLY RENTENTIVE O.C.D ZEALOTS and incorporate all the fun rules of playing such a character in that order, then the "rules" for conduct are established and the player can, again, choose to follow them or play something else.
Finally, as far as strategic war tactics go, this has also been well covered. There are ways to fight that fall within the realms of some and not to others. Paladins must use their OWN code of conduct and act accordingly within the Core Rules of Lawful and Good.
The bottom line is that this is a fantasy roleplaying game. You can play it however you like as long as everyone is on the same page, so to speak.
-Maris
If anyone saw my post before I deleted it , I apologize.
How many times is this going to come up? You are arguing a point no one is making. I’m here advocating for a pretty strict reading of the honor code, but I’m not even going this far.
You argued that Paladins are not allowed to feint in combat, which would presumably also mean that they are not allowed to ambush enemy forces or create diversions. This isn't "strict", it's senseless; you claim everyone is arguing against a strawman, but your definition of "fighting dirty" is so broad that noone is capable of fighting fair.
I agree with you that Paladins wouldn't attack under the flag of truce or violate the terms of surrender, but there's absolutely no reason that they wouldn't launch surprise attacks or allow the enemy to acquire false battle plans.
But he's under no obligation to tell the truth.
Actually, yes he is. Paladin's do not intentionally lie. However he is NOT obligated to answer any questions posed to him that might compromise the security of himself or others.
Treachery is forbidden by the Paladin's Code. Tactics are not.
I disagree, partly. Treachery is defined as: "act of betrayal, an act or instance of betrayal or deceit"
A paladin can set an ambush(deceit) against evil. A paladin can wear a disguise (deceit) and pretend to be someone he is not. But if asked directly, "Are you a Paladin in disguise?" then he could not lie and say "no", but he could say any of the other available non-lies like, "do I look like a paladin in disguise to you?" or "surely you have more important people to harass than me." etc etc.
Betrayal, however is the gray area here. You can betray someone without lying. If a Paladin falls in love with the Queen and she welcomes his affections, he is not, technically, lying to the King, but can be considered betraying the King. But what if the King is mean to the Queen? What if the Queen was forced to marry the King and she does not love him? Does this make the Paladin "bad" or "wrong" as far as game mechanics and rules go? No. It only tests the boundaries and rules of roleplaying taboos of society and the codes of conduct of that particular character.
Paladins running wars do not need to telegraph their intentions on the battlefield and cede all intelligence advantage to their enemies. That would, in fact, be acting dishonorably to the people under their command for whom they are responsible.How so?
<Playing devil's advocate for the moment.>
You dishonor your men by being a fool of a general and putting their lives at needless risk.
Is something true just because Sun Tzu says it? Or has your Paladin even heard of Sun Tzu?
Is something true just because Sun Tzu says it? Or has your Paladin even heard of Sun Tzu?
It's been a while since I read it, so correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe the "Art of War" mentions that ANY of it's tactics are officially honorable.
You dishonor your men by being a fool of a general and putting their lives at needless risk.Paladins running wars do not need to telegraph their intentions on the battlefield and cede all intelligence advantage to their enemies. That would, in fact, be acting dishonorably to the people under their command for whom they are responsible.How so?
<Playing devil's advocate for the moment.>
That's it in a nutshell. The commander is responsible for the lives of his men. It would be dishonorable to throw them away needlessly without giving them every reasonable advantage that can be secured, even if that means concealing your true intentions and movements from your enemy.
Telegraphing your intentions through some misguided sense of honor and truthfulness would put those under your responsibility to poor use, maybe even be a base betrayal.
I think the problem here is the idea of "Honor" in the context of D&D.
Now may people associate an honor code with Bushido, the code used by the Samurai. While this is all well and good, for the Samurai class, I imagine that the Paladin would use the Code of Chivalry, or the Virtues of the Knight. These include the Cardinal Virtues:
Prudence - able to judge between actions with regard to appropriate actions at a given time.
Justice - proper moderation between self-interest and the rights and needs of others.
Temperance - practicing self-control, abstention, and moderation.
Courage - forbearance, endurance, and ability to confront fear and uncertainty, or intimidation.
And the Eight Blessings, or Beatitudes:
Humility - being modest, reverential, even politely submissive, and never being arrogant, contemptuous, rude or even self-abasing.
Compassion - a feeling of distress and pity for the suffering or misfortune of another, often including the desire to alleviate it.
Courtesy - politeness; good manners.
Devotion - strong or fervent affection; dedication.
Mercy - leniency or unwarranted compassion for a crime or wrongdoing.
Purity - free of sin, and pollutants.
Peace - operating harmoniously and without violent conflict; the absence of hostility.
Endurance - pressing on despite adversity.
Now, my purpose in stating all of this is to say that a feint maneuver is a deliberate lie to another. It uses Bluff. In effect a feint is using your cloak to hide the motion of your blade, or even saying "look over there" and then stabbing them. As such it should be disallowed by the Knightly requirements to remain pure. But it should be stated that flurried attacks, and taking advantage of failings in your opponents defenses, are not deceitful. As such, full BA.
As for being a general, understand that eastern and western warfare do vary on points. Can you be a general and not deceive your enemy? Maybe, but it would be hard. At the same time, a Paladin isn't require to march his entire army out in front of the enemy and give them a head count. Keep in mind that Prudence is a requirement of the Knightly Code. He is expected to act with honor, and not lie to the enemy. That does not mean full disclosure. Technically that is a lie of omission.
The Paladin's Code is vague, and I would love to see it expanded to include a list of things that they cannot do. I believe they should include:
Not imposing a -2 AC for flanking. The Paladin would wait for the enemy to face him before attacking. Other flankers would still get the bonus.
Not be allowed to Coup de Grace. That's not showing mercy.
And of course not be allowed to use the Dirty Fighting Combat Maneuver.
I think what should be taken away from this is that the Knight's Code and Samurai's Code are completely different.
Also, don't hamstring the Paladin to the point that no one will play it, or that no one else will want one in the group.
I would also like to see something detailing the different monastic orders of Golarion, and their orders codes of conduct. In short giving the monk more character than the just "must be lawful" they have now. Asceticism varies widely from sect to sect and some are particularly strict on what is and is not allowed. More so than even the Paladins Code.
But I am not trying to start another debate about the monk. Also has been done to death. I just hope that by saying it here perhaps the fine people at Paizo may take notice.
Happy gaming everyone!
But if asked directly, "Are you a Paladin in disguise?" then he could not lie and say "no", but he could say any of the other available non-lies like, "do I look like a paladin in disguise to you?" or "surely you have more important people to harass than me." etc etc.
Do you seriously see a difference between these two acts? A moral difference between them that makes one of them a violation of the Paladin's Code and the other perfectly acceptable? Paladins are supposed to uphold the spirit of the law, not just the letter of the law. Splitting hairs and strict legalism are the province of Lawful Evil, not Lawful Good.
If a Paladin is allowed to don a disguise at all, he must surely be allowed to lie to maintain it, especially to the people he is disguising himself from.
Betrayal, however is the gray area here. You can betray someone without lying. If a Paladin falls in love with the Queen and she welcomes his affections, he is not, technically, lying to the King, but can be considered betraying the King.
Wait a second, here. You think telling a necessary lie is against the Paladin's Code, but committing adultery-- especially with the wife of your liege-- is a gray area? I cannot fathom the moral reasoning that produces this statement.
I think the problem here is the idea of "Honor" in the context of D&D.
These include the Cardinal Virtues:
Agreed except that the Cardinal Virtues were more for clergy than crusaders.
Now, my purpose in stating all of this is to say that a feint maneuver is a deliberate lie to another. It uses Bluff. In effect a feint is using your cloak to hide the motion of your blade, or even saying "look over there" and then stabbing them. As such it should be disallowed by the Knightly requirements to remain pure.
You do not understand the definition of feinting as it applies to weapons of a knight. In this case feinting is moving or swinging in one direction to make it seem they are attacking from one angle/direction and quickly switching to another attack point instead. It could be as simple as a glance in one direction or a shift of the head, body or arms. This is NOT lying, cheating, stealing, murderous, underhanded or otherwise unlawful. It is a BASIC fighting technique. Ask any modern group that studies and practices historic martial fighting techniques INCLUDING KENDO (for those samurai fans)!!! It is a method of defeating an opponent more quickly and allows the knight to defeat more evil on the battlefield instead of becoming exhausted in the first 2 mins because he announces each and every swing of the blade (which is then parried or blocked) and therefore can only defeat his opponent with sheer endurance instead of martial skill.
As for being a general, understand that eastern and western warfare do vary on points. Can you be a general and not deceive your enemy?...
Of course! European armies rushed towards each other and fought head on at face value for CENTURIES! Only the "clever" tacticians like a William Wallace type are remembered because they did NOT follow the status quo.
Do you seriously see a difference between these two acts? A moral difference between them that makes one of them a violation of the Paladin's Code and the other perfectly acceptable? Paladins are supposed to uphold the spirit of the law, not just the letter of the law. Splitting hairs and strict legalism are the province of Lawful Evil, not Lawful Good.
Explain how wearing a disguise is a violation of "the" Paladin's Code?
The INTENT of wearing the disguise is what you need to look at. If a disguise is the only way a paladin can infiltrate and defeat the evil Orc boss, then what's the gripe? Again, dressing up is NOT AND NEVER WILL BE LYING. It is only lying when someone asks if you really are Spider Man and you say "yes".
If a Paladin is allowed to don a disguise at all, he must surely be allowed to lie to maintain it, especially to the people he is disguising himself from.
Why? That is what makes the paladin a challenge to play. Using a disguise and roleplaying your way past the guards without lying is AWESOME!!! If your disguise is not convincing enough because you can't lie, then any proper paladin would grunt, "I knew this wouldn't work," throw back his beggars cloak and proceed to kick ass...
Wait a second, here. You think telling a necessary lie is against the Paladin's Code, but committing adultery-- especially with the wife of your liege-- is a gray area? I cannot fathom the moral reasoning that produces this statement.
What necessary lie? I already stated that a Paladin CANNOT tell lies.
Adultery is a social rule. It applies differently to different peoples. ESPECIALLY in a fantasy setting. Is sexing up the Kings's wife cool? No, of course not. Is is evil? No. Is it Unlawful? Possibly, depending on the society. Is it arguably a good thing especially if the Queen is neglected or abused? SURE IT IS!!!And THAT is why it is a gray area.
In the Army, there is the word 'hooah'.
It's an undefined word that can be used in response to most anything. Meanings range from 'yes sir' to 'go to hell'.
Am I lying to my superior when he asks 'do you understand' and I answer 'hooah'?
Hooah, the army's aloha.
The term originated from 75th ranger regiment, which was a term stemming from the statements "who us?" when they were told the next crazy mission they were expected to complete.
Later, their colonel would be quoted as stating "I have a bunch of 'hoohas' on my hands" in sarcastic way.
Hooahs became a term generally used in special ops to talk about green horns who were overly zealous.
The snide sarcasm of most special operators caused the term 'hooah' to be used in the same sense as "semper fi" was to the marines. Basically a combination battle cry and 'affirmative'.
Never have i ever heard , seen, or understood the term to mean 'got to hell'.
Unfortunately, the use of the word has degenerated to get used to by rank and file 'regular' army, who have obviously taken the rangers shiny toy and played with it int he mud too much, if they think the word ever meant 'go to hell'.
I would also like to see something detailing the different monastic orders of Golarion, and their orders codes of conduct.
Happy gaming everyone!
Happy gaming to you too! =)
Why canonize something that does not need to be and subsequently takes away from the DM, the ability to "create his own" flavor?
As a counter-proposal, instead of saying "Monastary X follows Y code." why not make a generic list of attributes and moralities so that the player or DM can create their OWN codes of conduct? Seems more flexible and useful to me.
And, yes, the great folks at Paizo should get on this! =) Pretty please, with sugar!?
Concerning Sun Tzu not being "honorable", having read the Art of War myself, I'd like to point out that seen in a different light, Sun Tzu's writings do emphasize a few points that might be honorable.
I was not implying that "ART" was a manual of dishonor. I was saying that there are ALSO methods and techniques that definitely "take advantage", "fool" or otherwise make use of shadowy, or less-than-honorable practices.
Unfortunately, the use of the word has degenerated to get used to by rank and file 'regular' army, who have obviously taken the rangers shiny toy and played with it int he mud too much, if they think the word ever meant 'go to hell'.
Oh Rangers and their shiny toys... and their unfailing belief that they are entitled and better than everyone else... if only it were all true... =) (if they were so special, their berets would still be black)
I tease. I was in the 75th at Benning, so I am allowed. =P