|
The problem is that what some of us call fighting with tactics others call dishonorable. If we were to use a pincer attack that would be dishonorable to them because we tricked them into that position. I first heard of this in the Sword of Truth Series in which the bad guys were allowed to penetrate the center of the army IIRC and the found themselves surrounded.Please inform me that this horrible rubbish is a fantasy novel and not a Society module arc.
That's one of the things that the major weakness of the Paladin class. Your players don't have to do research on monk sets
I view that as a bonus -- paladin is about attitude Countering evil is your self-chosen mission; you are lawful not because you have your nose up the king's bum, but because you have elected to abide by a personal code of honor (this abidance is what makes you of lawful alignment) not to harm innocents and to refrain from laying the smack-down without due cause. The "evil" merchant in my previous example, for instance, might be the subject of an alignment-masking spell cast upon him by a truly evil competitor who knows there's a twitchy-handed paladin around.
The major "weakness" (in quotes because it's not) of paladins is that evil players are helpless to RP them because they cannot restrain their spastic desire to hack/slash/killfrenzy everything that moves because it's "cool".
(IMO D&D 3.5 PHB's alignment section was the best-written part of the whole thing. Simply marvelous.)
I agree that you can not, I repeat can not kill based solely on detect evil.
Imagine a situation in which an evil personage takes no evil actions, becoming instead the classic anti-hero or accidental hero, all the while resisting acting upon his/her natural inclinations to do evil....
So you are evil but innocent...
I would make the paladin fall for being stupid.....
If you're evil, but doing good, you're trying to shift your alignment. As long as you successfully continue to do so, your alignment shifts to neutral, then to good.
If you mean those with the [evil] subtype... then that's a GM thing. Technically, if they have the [evil] subtype, then they are composed of the raw 'element' of evil from the plane of evil (like [evil] outsiders) and they are sort of locked in place. Unless the GM decides otherwise.
However, I do agree that killing based on detect evil is wrong. A great example was Order of the Stick. The Paladin was all sorts of confused because they detected someone as literally dripping with evil, but nobody thought anything of it. They explained that the person had an evil item they were guarding to protect good people. They traded the amulet around, and the paladin got more and more confused because everyone started detecting evil, and had to be talked out of killing everyone just to be safe. :)
Improved Feint (Combat)
You are skilled at fooling your opponents in combat.Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise.
Benefit: You can make a Bluff check to feint in combat as a move action.
Normal: Feinting in combat is a standard action.
It says that you are fooling someone, to fool someone is to trick them, or lie to them.
Definition of LIE
intransitive verb
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive2: to create a false or misleading impression
I'm sure using a Feint is creating a misleading impression. Thus it is in itself a lie.
Bluff (Cha)
You know how to tell a lie.
I mean Bluff its self is an entire skill based on knowing how to lie and be deceitful. Bluff lets you;
1. Deliver Secret Message: Delivering a secret message generally takes twice as long as the message would otherwise would take to relay.
You can use Bluff to pass hidden messages to another character without others understanding your true meaning.
So this use of the skill is attempting to deliver a secret message by misleading others as to what your doing. So your creating a misleading impression, which is a lie.
2. Feint in Combat: Feinting in combat is a standard action.
As what i stated above.
3. Deceive Someone: Attempting to deceive someone takes at least 1 round, but can possibly take longer if the lie is elaborate (as determined by the GM on a case-by-case basis).
Its says it all in its action.
So the skill Bluff and all its uses is knowing how to lie, mislead, and be deceitful.
Also i liked to point out that the opposed roll for all of these is Sense Motive.
Sense Motive (Wis)
You are skilled at detecting falsehoods and true intentions.
The opposed roll is to detect a falsehood and discover the true intentions of what is going on. Leading me to think that a lie or some kind of deceit is going on in the first place.
This is a very well-constructed argument, following a clear set of logic. I would bet you are either a lawyer or have debate team experience. That said, I still disagree with your basic point that feinting or any other kind of battlefield deception are forbidden for paladins by RAW, and find the argument kind of mind-numbingly legalistic. The basic flaw in your argument is that you are extrapolating from the RAW to say a feint is a lie and a lie is forbidden by RAW. Nowhere does it say explicitly that a feint is forbidden for paladins. You would think that rather important fact would be included in the feat description if it were the case. So it's not RAW, it's an extrapolation from RAW.
Of course, even if it were RAW, I'd disagree. :)
I still get back to the point that honor is overemphasized by a lot of people. To me, honor has very little to do with goodness, or right and wrong. It is very culture-specific, and tends to have much more to do with how others perceive you than with what is right and wrong. Take a look at those societies in our world that emphasize "honor" and look at the horrible things many of those societies require of people to "maintain their honor". Those things would be abhorrent to a paladin. In fact, I could make a strong case that a paladin should be willing to sacrifice his honor in order to do the right thing.
For example, let's posit a culture in which women are not treated as equals (hard to imagine, I know) but are always under the control of their family's men. By sneaking out for a quick kiss with a suitor and getting caught, she brings dishonor on the family, and the father who has been dishonored must have her killed to restore his "honor". I would argue that if the father, or any other of her relatives, or even anyone in the village, is a paladin, they would be required to do the right thing and protect the woman from punishment, even though it is not the "honorable" thing to do in that culture, and would probably cost them their own personal honor by being associated with her. Does anyone disagree?
So, IMHO, deemphasize the whole "honor" thing, and focus on what is right and wrong. Good guideline - if the paladin character would be ashamed to tell his mother he did something, he probably shouldn't have done it (assuming his mother is a decent person and the paladin has any shame - but if he doesn't, he probably shouldn't be a paladin).
The basic flaw in your argument is that you are extrapolating from the RAW to say a feint is a lie and a lie is forbidden by RAW. Nowhere does it say explicitly that a feint is forbidden for paladins. You would think that rather important fact would be included in the feat description if it were the case. So it's not RAW, it's an extrapolation from RAW.
Of course, even if it were RAW, I'd disagree. :)
I still get back to the point that honor is overemphasized by a lot of people. To me, honor has very little to do with goodness, or right and wrong. It is very culture-specific, and tends to have much more to do with how others perceive you than with what is right and wrong. Take a look at those societies in our world that emphasize "honor" and look at the horrible things many of those societies require of people to "maintain their honor". Those things would be abhorrent to a paladin. In fact, I could make a strong case that a paladin should be willing to sacrifice his honor in order to do the right thing. […]deemphasize the whole "honor" thing, and focus on what is right and wrong.
The reason honor is being emphasized is because it is one of the two things that differentiates a paladin from any other lawful-good character - the other thing being the potential to lose powers from moral slippage. For me, downplaying the honor is at best all but ignoring the code of conduct. I don’t think anyone is saying honor=good. What’s being said is honor+good+lawful=paladin. You need to fulfill all three of those aspects.
That you find the view that a combat maneuver that involves the bluff skill counts as lying ‘too legalist’ is understandable, but amuses me because that’s exactly the type of thing I’m looking for in a paladin. To me, it’s a perfect example of something a highly lawful, honor-obsessed, inspiring defender of all that is good would believe. Especially one who do has a deity to please.
The problem is that what some of us call fighting with tactics others call dishonorable. If we were to use a pincer attack that would be dishonorable to them because we tricked them into that position. I first heard of this in the Sword of Truth Series in which the bad guys were allowed to penetrate the center of the army IIRC and the found themselves surrounded.Please inform me that this horrible rubbish is a fantasy novel and not a Society module arc.That's one of the things that the major weakness of the Paladin class. Your players don't have to do research on monk setsI view that as a bonus -- paladin is about attitude Countering evil is your self-chosen mission; you are lawful not because you have your nose up the king's bum, but because you have elected to abide by a personal code of honor (this abidance is what makes you of lawful alignment) not to harm innocents and to refrain from laying the smack-down without due cause. The "evil" merchant in my previous example, for instance, might be the subject of an alignment-masking spell cast upon him by a truly evil competitor who knows there's a twitchy-handed paladin around.
The major "weakness" (in quotes because it's not) of paladins is that evil players are helpless to RP them because they cannot restrain their spastic desire to hack/slash/killfrenzy everything that moves because it's "cool".
(IMO D&D 3.5 PHB's alignment section was the best-written part of the whole thing. Simply marvelous.)
The tactic was discovered by me for the first time in a fantasy novel, but it is a real military tactic.
If you were saying the rubbish of not using tactics is dishonorable that is not supported by any novel or official Pathfinder ideals. A poster earlier said that to not fight straight up was deceptive, and that deception was dishonorable, and therefore a good(as in dedicated) would not do such things.
Of course, even if it were RAW, I'd disagree. :)Just to clarify, I said it was a good argument, not that I agreed with it.
*passes KenderKin the butter*
Yeah, Brain in a Jar… I’m pretty sure TriOmegaZero and KenderKin are mocking you.
A poster earlier said that to not fight straight up was deceptive, and that deception was dishonorable, and therefore a good(as in dedicated) would not do such things.
But was that really what the poster said? Quote please. Thanks.
|
Yeah, Brain in a Jar… I’m pretty sure TriOmegaZero and KenderKin are mocking you.
Not really. He has a very logical argument. I just don't agree with his premise of 'Bluff = lie, and that's RAW'. You can infer such a thing, but unless the rules state 'Any use of bluff is a lie, and paladins cannot bluff' then you can't claim it is RAW.
And I'm just sharing silly comments with KenderKin for my own amusement.
Speaking of, thanks, but I'm really trying to cut down on sugary drinks.
Yeah, Brain in a Jar… I’m pretty sure TriOmegaZero and KenderKin are mocking you.Of course, even if it were RAW, I'd disagree. :)Just to clarify, I said it was a good argument, not that I agreed with it.
*passes KenderKin the butter*
I am glad you are back
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.
The above quotation exist for two reasons.
1. Are paladins given leeway to break the law and be dishonorable in certain situations--->The ends justify the means.To clarify, the heroes often have to break into the bad guys HQ based on little more than speculation at times. Clearly such a thing is not honorable or good.
2. What would you recommend a paladin do in an actual game at the table in these situations?
3. Is the paladin supposed to stand by while his team mate use dishonorable tactics. Is he allowed to turn blind eye to such things. Surely flanking someone is not fair, and jumping(ganging up on) someone is not honorable.
PS:I am using what I beleive to be your interpretation of dishonorable for this post.
The basic flaw in your argument is that you are extrapolating from the RAW to say a feint is a lie and a lie is forbidden by RAW. Nowhere does it say explicitly that a feint is forbidden for paladins. You would think that rather important fact would be included in the feat description if it were the case. So it's not RAW, it's an extrapolation from RAW.
Of course, even if it were RAW, I'd disagree. :)
I still get back to the point that honor is overemphasized by a lot of people. To me, honor has very little to do with goodness, or right and wrong. It is very culture-specific, and tends to have much more to do with how others perceive you than with what is right and wrong. Take a look at those societies in our world that emphasize "honor" and look at the horrible things many of those societies require of people to "maintain their honor". Those things would be abhorrent to a paladin. In fact, I could make a strong case that a paladin should be willing to sacrifice his honor in order to do the right thing. […]deemphasize the whole "honor" thing, and focus on what is right and wrong.
The reason honor is being emphasized is because it is one of the two things that differentiates a paladin from any other lawful-good character - the other thing being the potential to lose powers from moral slippage. For me, downplaying the honor is at best all but ignoring the code of conduct. I don’t think anyone is saying honor=good. What’s being said is honor+good+lawful=paladin. You need to fulfill all three of those aspects.
That you find the view that a combat maneuver that involves the bluff skill counts as lying ‘too legalist’ is understandable, but amuses me because that’s exactly the type of thing I’m looking for in a paladin. To me, it’s a perfect example of something a highly lawful, honor-obsessed, inspiring defender of all that is good would believe. Especially one who do has a deity to please.
Your vision of of a paladin is very different from mine. To me they are paragons of Good above all else, and the Lawful is considerably less important. Legalistic is a negative term to me, and is a common trap that a paladin should avoid. Overly legalistic paladins (like the pain in the ass female paladin in OOTS) are parodies of the class, IMHO.
Of course, even if it were RAW, I'd disagree. :)Just to clarify, I said it was a good argument, not that I agreed with it.
*passes KenderKin the butter*
I was pretty certain that's what you meant. :)
|
However, I do agree that killing based on detect evil is wrong. A great example was Order of the Stick. The Paladin was all sorts of confused because they detected someone as literally dripping with evil, but nobody thought anything of it. They explained that the person had an evil item they were guarding to protect good people. They traded the amulet around, and the paladin got more and more confused because everyone started detecting evil, and had to be talked out of killing everyone just to be safe. :)
I agree with this, but just wanted to comment on how funny it is to see someone use the Order of the Stick as a good example of how to run something.. :)
I agree with this, but just wanted to comment on how funny it is to see someone use the Order of the Stick as a good example of how to run something.. :)
However, I do agree that killing based on detect evil is wrong. A great example was Order of the Stick. The Paladin was all sorts of confused because they detected someone as literally dripping with evil, but nobody thought anything of it. They explained that the person had an evil item they were guarding to protect good people. They traded the amulet around, and the paladin got more and more confused because everyone started detecting evil, and had to be talked out of killing everyone just to be safe. :)
All OOTS does is make fun of D&D. Many times it shows you what not to do.
Did anyone really quote OOTS as a good example?
A poster earlier said that to not fight straight up was deceptive, and that deception was dishonorable, and therefore a good(as in dedicated) would not do such things.But was that really what the poster said? Quote please. Thanks.
You should have waited 2 more minutes. :)
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.
Is not allowing the enemy into your ranks so you can surround them trickery?
More evidence
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.
You did not answer my other question in that post by the way. I am about to leave now, but I will check back in when I return.
PS:The paladin is not overpowered. I missed that statement the first time around. There are several threads that can inform you on how to deal with paladins and/or how they got their butts kicked without a DM resorting to shenanigans. The point of this is to let you know that others on this board have dealt with them, and that if you need the info it is available.
and with threads like these popping up from time to time, leaves me to wonder why Paizo left it for the paladin must be lawful good.
hey can I have some popcorn too?
<gives Steelfiredragon popcorn and a free drink of his choice>
:)
I'd like to reiterate my earlier stance. A Paladin's code should be based on who his god is, and thus influenced by it. In general, I'd say the following would apply to the paladin's, based on their god's alignment.
NG God : This is the way most people would prefer to play the Paladin. He's a shining example of good, but he'll break the law if he feels it's not a just law. He will wear a disguise, flank an enemy, stab a guy in the back if he's evil, etc. This is the paladin you probably want commanding an army. He has no problems with tricking the enemy, feinting, flanking, whatever. All things being equal, he'll go the lawful route, but law loses out to good in his mind. If he has to work with evil for the greater good he will, but he won't like it, and he will have less problems with putting evil in a bad situation than any other paladin, after all, they are evil.
LN God : This is the paladin that prefers the order of Law above all. He's likely considered (by himself at least) a valid judge in the field. He will accept a lawful surrender, and then after the battle pronounce sentence on the helpless prisoner after a trial with him as judge. If the prisoner was a murderer, he get's his head cut off, and the Paladin doesn't feel bad at all for executing the prisoner. If he was a thief, a hand might get cut off, and then the stump healed with a lay on hands. This type of paladin upholds honor above all, never lies, and never permits those around him to act dishonorably. All things being even, he abhors evil, but if he has to work with evil for the greater good, he will establish rules about how that works, and then when evil breaks them (for he knows they will) he is ready to execute the evil, it having served it's purpose.
LG God : Classic Paladin, equal parts law and good. He's the type who doesn't stab a guy in the back, doesn't take flanking bonuses, doesn't lie for any reason, etc. He's equal parts good and law. Neither is more important than the other. It's as much a 'sin' for him to do an evil act as it is for him to do a chaotic one. His god is a hard task master, and expects him to be better than other paladins who serve gods who just don't understand the true essence of LG.
Now, each individual god might have a twist for their own paladins, but trying to use a 'one size fits all' rule for how a Paladin can/can't act is useless, since it is really a function of what their god believes their paladin's should do. One god might strike a paladin down for wearing a disguise, because that's deception. A different one might strike him down for not wearing a disguise and thus endangering innocents by his presence.
Until people get that through their heads, that a Paladin's code is affected by his god, then this thread and all the other threads just like it will keep going in circles over and over until the end of time with nobody ever being right or wrong.
I do not believe that either combat feints or tactical ruses would violate Paladin's code of conduct. As someone who's spent a lot of time engaging in martial arts of unarmed (judo) and armed (fencing) nature, I'll testify that fighting without employing intelligent means of gaining tactical advantage - by cunning, rather by brute strength - pretty much never works for more than a couple lucky shots.
In addition, (as I was taught - this is by no means the One True Way) very few combat feints are 100% ruses. The way feints usually happened on the strip and tatami when I was involved is: You start an attack. If opponent doesn't respond, you hit. If he does, you turn it into a feint and move into the next attack. Rinse, repeat. Throwing a shot without any intention of hitting is a waste of time and motion in combat.
Tactical ruses and large-scale feints or deceptions are likewise part of art of war - a properly executed ruse may save lives of many of your soliders, as well as possibly many of the enemies.
I will admit there are gray areas in both cases - where a feint-attack should IMHO be kosher, doing something like "OMG, Zombies!" with horrified look over your enemy's shoulder so he'd turn around and you could gack his back is definitely dishonorable. Likewise, in battle, sending a couple of your troops into the woods to make a large noise and suggest a flanking attack should be ok, but sending a forged letter to an enemy commander saying his wife is dying, then jumping his troops while he's absent is bad.
Rather than think of the feints and ruses in terms of good/evil, think of them in terms of honorable/dishonorable. Feint is a perfectly acceptable, common part of swordplay; no one would doubt Paladin's honor if he did it. Throwing a handful of dirt in opponent's face would definitely sully your honor, tho.
What would you recommend a paladin do in an actual game at the table in these situations?
So to be clear, the situation is: There is a suspected BBEG holed-up in a fortress – what does a paladin (using GoldenOpal’s strict reading of lawful-good-honorable) do?
First, she would demand that the evidence preponderantly supports that the fortress master is actually a BBEG or has committed some evil or unlawful act or whatever. So, the first step is further investigation.
Now let’s assume that the evidence shows that yes, Mr. Fortress more likely than not did some evil-s@**. The next step would be yes, you guessed it, contacting the BBEG and requesting he surrender himself either for questioning, immediate incarceration or more serious punishment to avoid further conflict.
Okay, so unsurprisingly the BBEG does not choose the easy way. What does your beloved hero do now? Does she poison everyone in fortress? Does she sneak into the bedchamber and slit a sleeping throat? Does she burn it all to the ground? Or some other most-effective/optimal tactic? No.
She rallies the troops and storms the castle.
Does she have to take the front door when there is a secret entrance available? No. She could even go in through a window if she’d like. However, stealth is out. (To clarify before you take this the wrong way, by stealth I mean the stealth skill. To clarify further, not using the stealth skill does not equal yelling ”I’m here! I’m here!” with your own personal spotlight trained on you, it just means not using the stealth skill. Same goes for disguise – Do you have to wear a ‘I’m a paladin’ T-shirt? No, but you can’t pose as the BBEG’s best friend either.
Yeah, would some complicated, underhanded maneuvering have be less risky? Maybe, but to call the first strategy stupid is not correct. It’s also incorrect to call it dishonorable because it puts lives at risk. Honorable is not a synonym for utilitarian or sly or practical or risk averse. It has nothing to do with nannying troops who showed up to fight and die for a noble cause. What it does have to do with, is dying before capitulating or mud-slinging, encouraging others to do the same if they are able and doing it in their place if they are not.
You should have waited 2 more minutes. :)
No, you should have been 2 minutes faster. :)
Is not allowing the enemy into your ranks so you can surround them trickery?
I’m not trying to be rude (maybe I’m having a bad reading-comprehension day), but that question makes no sense.
More evidence
GoldenOpal wrote:
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.You did not answer my other question in that post by the way. I am about to leave now, but I will check back in when I return.
PS:The paladin is not overpowered. I missed that statement the first time around. There are several threads that can inform you on how to deal with paladins and/or how they got their butts kicked without a DM resorting to shenanigans. The point of this is to let you know that others on this board have dealt with them, and that if you need the info it is available.
Still looking for the part that says something to the effect of, “to not fight straight up was deceptive, and that deception was dishonorable, and therefore a good (as in dedicated) would not do such things.”
The first part, “to not fight straight up was deceptive” I don’t even understand really, if by ‘straight-up’ you mean not using the feint combat maneuver, then yeah that’s what I said. But if that’s what you mean why not say that, as in ‘to feint was deceptive'? (Maybe because it’s easier to refute, mock or get so upset over that you start insulting people is my guess. Not saying you wraithstrike did all those things, but it starts at the same place.) The second part, “that deception was dishonorable”, yes! The idea that this is even up for debate is laughable really, but apparently definitions only hold as much water as it takes to drown someone in and every word can mean anything if it allows people to get away with shadiness. Why not just call evil good and ignoble honorable and save a lot of time here? The third part. “therefore a good (as in dedicated) would not do such things”, again yes! A paladin may not do deceptive or dishonorable things. However, ‘a paladin may not do deceptive or dishonorable things’ does not mean they can’t use any tactics - if that was what I meant, I would have said that. (And I also probably would not have said the exact opposite of that multiple times!)
As far as the OP thing. I’m not sure why you took the OP comment to mean I am unable to ‘deal’ with paladins. It simply meant as compared to the other classes, they are more powerful. The idea that a GM needs to make up additional rules to kick a paladin’s – hell, an army of paladins’ - butts confuses me. Trust me, that is not the issue. The issue is, like I said, if paladins can morally do anything a LG fighter can do, then it is going to overpower the fighter on average and by a lot.
Finally, what was the other question again?
|
|
<groan>
If your DM can't quite wrap his head around the concept that only honorable opponents are due a measure of chivalry from paladins, try this:
(Setting: your paladin facing an evil outsider on the battlefield)
Paladin: "Look here, fellow; and listen carefully -- you're bigger and stronger than I am, so I'm going to use some fancy footwork and blade movements to try and throw your guard off in an attempt to even the odds. Note that I have warned you in advance of this because I am a good sport!"
NOW make your feint-in-combat check.
Finally, what was the other question again?
If its ‘can a paladin use tactics'? The answer is yes. Please have the curtsey of accepting that not every tactic is deceptive or unfair.
<groan>
If your DM can't quite wrap his head around the concept that only honorable opponents are due a measure of chivalry from paladins, try this:
(Setting: your paladin facing an evil outsider on the battlefield)
Paladin: "Look here, fellow; and listen carefully -- you're bigger and stronger than I am, so I'm going to use some fancy footwork and blade movements to try and throw your guard off in an attempt to even the odds. Note that I have warned you in advance of this because I am a good sport!"
NOW make your feint-in-combat check.
Wow. So, for you a fight against a guy that’s bigger and stronger than the paladin counts as someone he should hold back against to make the fight fair? You’re harsher than me. :)
But’ seriously, would a feint work without deception?
|
Finally, what was the other question again?If its ‘can a paladin use tactics'? The answer is yes. Please have the curtsey of accepting that not every tactic is deceptive or unfair.
I'm sorry, but then please have the courtesy of accepting the real life fencers (at least 3 in this thread) and other martial artists that train with weapons (at least 2 in this thread) telling you that in swordplay, a feint is honorable, valid, fair, and accepted way of fighting (and therefore considered neither a good nor evil act).
If a paladin starts an attack, sees it will be useless, and changes the location his attack will hit, is that evil and deceptive? That's what a feint is.
So to be clear, the situation is: There is a suspected BBEG holed-up in a fortress – what does a paladin (using GoldenOpal’s strict reading of lawful-good-honorable) do?
That is correct.
First, she would demand that the evidence preponderantly supports that the fortress master is actually a BBEG or has committed some evil or unlawful act or whatever. So, the first step is further investigation.
Good answer
Now let’s assume that the evidence shows that yes, Mr. Fortress more likely than not did some evil-s~*!. The next step would be yes, you guessed it, contacting the BBEG and requesting he surrender himself either for questioning, immediate incarceration or more serious punishment to avoid further conflict.
Good answer again.
Okay, so unsurprisingly the BBEG does not choose the easy way. What does your beloved hero do now? Does she poison everyone in fortress? Does she sneak into the bedchamber and slit a sleeping throat? Does she burn it all to the ground? Or some other most-effective/optimal tactic? No.
She rallies the troops and storms the castle.Most DM's don't hand out armies unless by troops you meant the party
Does she have to take the front door when there is a secret entrance available? No. She could even go in through a window if she’d like. However, stealth is out. (To clarify before you take this the wrong way, by stealth I mean the stealth skill. To clarify further, not using the stealth skill does not equal yelling ”I’m here! I’m here!” with your own personal spotlight trained on you, it just means not using the stealth skill. Same goes for disguise – Do you have to wear a ‘I’m a paladin’ T-shirt? No, but you can’t pose as the BBEG’s best friend either.
So you are saying that under the circumstances breaking and entering is ok, but once you are inside you can not sneak around the castle or disguise yourself as one of his guards to get access to him?
Yeah, would some complicated, underhanded maneuvering have be less risky? Maybe, but to call the first strategy stupid is not correct.
Actually other posters said it was foolish(to not use the best chance of success that was not evil) and it was dishonorable because you put the live of the people under you at risk, assuming the paladin was in charge.
At least by sneaking in you may avoid combat and saves lives on both sides. By walking around in the open you are pretty much inviting combat and death. Some would call that dishonorable.I’m not trying to be rude (maybe I’m having a bad reading-comprehension day), but that question makes no sense.wraithstrike wrote:
Is not allowing the enemy into your ranks so you can surround them trickery?
That was in response to the pincer attack scenario I mentioned in another post. See the following quote by me.
And I quote:
A poster earlier said that to not fight straight up was deceptive, and that deception was dishonorable, and therefore a good(as in dedicated) would not do such things.
Still looking for the part that says something to the effect of, “to not fight straight up was deceptive, and that deception was dishonorable, and therefore a good (as in dedicated) would not do such things.”
You did not use those exact words, but the meaning was the same. Now if you are saying a good(as in dedicated) paladin can use deception and not fight straight up then that would conflict with earlier post by you. So is the pally allowed to use deception or not? If there is some middle ground in between what you are saying, and what I am understanding then I am waiting to be corrected. It should also be noted that I paraphrased you earlier, and did not use quotes so you can't say I misquoted you.
I never said you could not deal with a paladin. I was simply stating that they are not OP*, and if they were giving you issues advice was here on the boards.
*Since they are not OP the code is not a balancing act. Nobody is saying a paladin can do everything an LG fighter can do. At least I am not anyway.
That other question(s) that remains to be answered were the ones pertaining to a paladin not being able to have an advantage. They were in the last post I made that you responded too.
I will just go ahead and post it again
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.
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.....
I love it!
It almost sounds like a paladin would not set scarecrows out to make the enemy surrender to a larger force (mundane solution)TOZ did you butter the popcorn?
***whistles innocently******
BETTER YET! According to "Brain in a Jar"s logic, a paladin could never set a scarecrow in a corn field because it is lying to the crows and fooling them into thinking they are real people. He also could not fish, because he is lying to the fish by fooling them into thinking his feather fly is a real bug. He also could not create a realistic piece of art in fear of fooling/lying to the viewer that it is not real. He could not wear a tabard or any clothing to cover his armor because that is a disguise that might fool/lie someone into thinking he is not wearing as much armor. He could never ride his horse more than 100' away from ANY creature so that he does not appear to be a centaur (which would be a lie). He also... AND I CANNOT EXPRESS THIS MORE EMPHATICALLY... can NEVER duck a swordblow to his head, because by moving out of the way he made his opponent THINK he was going to stay in one spot, yet DECEIVED him by moving at the last second!!!! THAT LYING DIRTY PALADIN LIED TO ME AND MOVED FROM WHERE HE MADE ME BELIEVE HE WOULD BE!!!
That's right kids! Ducking & weaving, "jukeing", stutterstepping, etc. are all forms of feinting. So now paladins must ALWAYS be counted as flat-footed because you cannot deceive your opponent by letting him think he can hurt you. Cuz that is a lie. So suck on that you Paladin lovers!!!
Since he threw in definitions to extrapolate theory from... here's mine:
feint
n
1. a mock attack or movement designed to distract an adversary, as in a military manoeuvre or in boxing, fencing, etc.
2. any distracting maneuver (as a mock attack)
tactical manoeuvre, - a move made to gain a tactical end
juke, fake - (football) a deceptive move made by a football player
THIS ALSO MEANS PALADINS MAY NEVER USE INTIMIDATE SINCE IT IS A "DISTRACTING MANOEUVER" and therefore LYING!!!
There are so many more ways to point out the ridiculousness of this train of logic, but I am exhausted. Life is not black and white neither should this game be.
In addition, (as I was taught - this is by no means the One True Way) very few combat feints are 100% ruses. The way feints usually happened on the strip and tatami when I was involved is: You start an attack. If opponent doesn't respond, you hit. If he does, you turn it into a feint and move into the next attack. Rinse, repeat. Throwing a shot without any intention of hitting is a waste of time and motion in combat.
This is EXACTLY how a paladin can feint. The Core Rules DO NOT define feinting as being uniquely deceitful or lying.
Feinting is a GENERIC rule that is ROLEPLAYED according to the character using it!
A feinting rogue might say "look over there" and sneak attack, a monk might fire off a few mock jabs towards the face then kick them in the jimmy, a Paladin would simply move to strike their targets head, and when the enemy raises their shield to block, shifts his momentum and swings for the exposed waistline. THESE ARE ALL FEINTING maneouvers!!!
Just like the HEAL skill. A fighter character might "heal" with bandages and slings, a driud with herbs and natural salves, a cleric with a silent prayer and some holy water... IT'S ALL THE SAME HEAL CHECK!!! ...Get the picture?
Q: My paladin is playing poker. Does he fall?
*munching and spittleing popcorn* No, he always loses the game because he cannot raise on a poor hand.
Besides... gambling is teh Debbils work.
Dammit! I spilled my sugary drink!!
I'd like to take up the BBEG holed up in a fortress idea, and give my take. First, assuming that the paladin is leading a conventional army, and second, assuming he is leading just a small band of adventurers.
The paladin rides up with his army and blows the trumpets, announcing to all that he is there. He invites the BBEG, under flag of truce, to a parley. He informs the BBEG that he is wanted by the authorities for crimes against humanity and demands his surrender. If the BBEG wants to negotiate, the paladin does so in good faith, but his bottom line remains that the BBEG must surrender. Assuming he doesn't, the paladin offers to allow the BBEG to evacuate any non-combatants and promises them protection/safe passage as appropriate. If negotiations break down, the paladin sounds the trumpets again and has his herald pronounce that the siege will commence at a specific time, and that any fortress defenders (including the BBEG) who surrender either before or after that time will be treated honorably and given a chance to defend their actions in a court of law. If they choose to fight the laws of war apply. When the time comes to fight the battle, the paladin uses all tactics within reason at his disposal to bring it to a successful conclusion with minimal suffering and loss of life, first of innocent civilians and non-combatants, second of his own troops, and third of enemy troops. This could include such things as night attacks, feinting against one wall while attacking another, attempting to undermine a wall through tunneling, using magic/stealth to infiltrate the fortress and seize the BBEG or the gatehouse, etc. It could not include such things as attacks that directly target civilians, poisoning the water supply, throwing dead bodies of slain enemy soldiers back into the fort, etc.
If he is leading just a group of adventurers, it's a bit different in some ways, the same in others. No trumpets and parley, but the paladin should contrive to get the BBEG a message announcing he is wanted for crimes against humanity, giving the BBEG the option of surrender, and informing him that he (the paladin) will use all means at his disposal to bring him to justice if he does not surrender. Assuming the BBEG does not pee his pants and surrender, the paladin uses the talents of his group to the best of his abilities to infiltrate or take by storm the BBEG's fortress and bring the villain to justice. Certain lines, of course, can't be crossed, such as using poison, endangering civilians, etc.
Just a couple of other thoughts:
-- The idea that it is OK to try and get past guards unnoticed so long as you aren't using the Stealth skill is completely nonsensical to me. By RAW, if you're trying to get past the guards unnoticed, you are using the Stealth skill, and they get to oppose it with their Perception skill. If you say that you aren't going to use your Stealth skill points to augment your roll, then you're just using the skill incompetently. It's the intent to sneak past unnoticed that counts, not the announcment that you aren't going use the Stealth skill. And yes, paladins can sneak past guards without breaking their code, as long as they are doing so for a purpose that is good and lawful, such as bringing a wanted criminal to justice. They are rarely any good at it, though, so probably not a viable tactic.
-- You can make the argument that paladins were overpowered in 1st edition and their code was necessary for game balance. Of course then, with a 17 required in Charisma to even be a paladin and no point buy, they were pretty rare and any time you rolled one, he was pretty special. With lower requirements, point buy and the more balanced classes in PF/3.X, paladins aren't really overpowered, so no balancing is needed (arguments about the original Smite Evil aside). Now the code is more for flavor and roleplaying guidance. And it is a strong legacy of the original game. I wouldn't play a paladin without a code.
I'd like to take up the BBEG holed up in a fortress idea, and give my take. First, assuming that the paladin is leading a conventional army, and second, assuming he is leading just a small band of adventurers.
The paladin rides up with his army and blows the trumpets, announcing to all that he is there. He invites the BBEG, under flag of truce, to a parley. He informs the BBEG that he is wanted by the authorities for crimes against humanity and demands his surrender. If the BBEG wants to negotiate, the paladin does so in good faith, but his bottom line remains that the BBEG must surrender. Assuming he doesn't, the paladin offers to allow the BBEG to evacuate any non-combatants and promises them protection/safe passage as appropriate. If negotiations break down, the paladin sounds the trumpets again and has his herald pronounce that the siege will commence at a specific time, and that any fortress defenders (including the BBEG) who surrender either before or after that time will be treated honorably and given a chance to defend their actions in a court of law. If they choose to fight the laws of war apply. When the time comes to fight the battle, the paladin uses all tactics within reason at his disposal to bring it to a successful conclusion with minimal suffering and loss of life, first of innocent civilians and non-combatants, second of his own troops, and third of enemy troops. This could include such things as night attacks, feinting against one wall while attacking another, attempting to undermine a wall through tunneling, using magic/stealth to infiltrate the fortress and seize the BBEG or the gatehouse, etc. It could not include such things as attacks that directly target civilians, poisoning the water supply, throwing dead bodies of slain enemy soldiers back into the fort, etc.
If he is leading just a group of adventurers, it's a bit different in some ways, the same in others. No trumpets and parley, but the paladin should contrive to get the BBEG a message announcing he is wanted for...
I am really waiting on the poster reply to the "fair fight" idea or to be more exact-->"A paladin is the type of gal that would [b]insist on fighting with one hand tied behind her back if that’s what it takes to ‘even the odds’.....".
The exact details are in the last paragraph of my last post.
The exact line is "act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)"
the concept that a feint in combat is a lie does not really hold up because using misdirection as a tactic to not get killed, is not the same thing as telling a lie.
The meanings of the words are completely different.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
http://www.reference.com/browse/Feint
Now in a contest between 2 opponents who are both chivalrous a feint might be considered "cheating" and thus frowned on.
Also remember the DM is the person who is making the calls as to what is or is not a violation of a Paladin's code. This should be made clear up front when a player says "hey I want to play a Paladin". There has to be an understanding between the Player and the DM upfront what each expects otherwise it will be nothing but problems.
The idea here is that the player wants to have fun playing the character not be constantly chided because the told the farmer his son died heroically in battle defending his sister. When in actuality he was hiding under a wagon. Lawful Good is Law tempered with Goodness and thus sometimes a Lawful Good person will bend the law to do Good.
|
|
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.....
An opponent who "really needs to die" (i.e., radiates strong evil) is not, by definition, an honorable opponent.
My halfling rogue/pally will feint evil cultists all day long; and if he gets in a sneak-attack too, goody. If they summon a BBEM who loves to swallow tasty small creatures whole, I'll Stealth up to an alcove and Manyshot it from behind cover.
-- They are not honorable opponents; and I am not morally required to withhold my most effective techniques in a contest to vanquish evil.
I keep expecting some sort of pun or witty answer to the question in the title.
Wow, take it easy there Maris_Thistledown i only meant to state that a feint in game mechanics could be seen as lying since its based in the Bluff skill. I understand how a feint works in real life, but i speak of the game rules, since that is what is being discussed.
I mean great job taking a valid argument for something and taking it out of proportion.
I mean really, a Paladin is lying if he tries to avoid a sword swing?
I only offered my point of view on feint, i didn't say if you allow it in your game its dumb. I didn't say anyone else was wrong about their opinion, since well its their opinion.
Honestly, your post leads me to think your "special" or something.
Quote:
Still looking for the part that says something to the effect of, “to not fight straight up was deceptive, and that deception was dishonorable, and therefore a good (as in dedicated) would not do such things.”You did not use those exact words, but the meaning was the same. Now if you are saying a good(as in dedicated) paladin can use deception and not fight straight up then that would conflict with earlier post by you. So is the pally allowed to use deception or not? If there is some middle ground in between what you are saying, and what I am understanding then I am waiting to be corrected. It should also be noted that I paraphrased you earlier, and did not use quotes so you can't say I misquoted you.
I think I see the confusion here. To clarify, I said that paladins shouldn’t use feint. I also said they should fight honorably which includes not using deception. I said feint (the CM) and stealth (the skill) are deception as far as I’m concerned. To me bluffing, lying, and actively sneaking are all deceptive and not honorable. I also said 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.
What I mean by that is, 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. This is different than ‘A paladin should/should not blah blah blah [specific game mechanic] blah blah blah.’ like I said about feint and stealth. It’s also different than “to not fight straight up was deceptive [thus B, thus C]” because ‘should not use feint’ is specific and has a clear meaning whereas the paraphrased ‘fight straight-up’ could mean a million different things which seems to be the issue here. For some reason it’s not enough to disagree with what I say, it is necessary to generalize and extrapolate on what I say, paraphrase it into a sweeping, nebulous statement, disagree with that, and continue to insist that it’s what I really meant all along.
People are taking specific statements I made about specific game mechanics paladins shouldn’t use and another general statement about how important honor, good, and law are to a paladin and how she would be willing to go to great, even ridiculous lengths to hold fast to them – not only as ideals, but as faith in her deity – and taking it to mean all kinds of things that I never stated and sometimes explicitly stated otherwise. To be fair, it’s possible I’m misunderstanding you as well here. If the point you were trying to make is that I was saying deception is not honorable and the ‘fight straight up’ bit was just redundant, then you got the gist. It was just poor re-phrasing.
What I meant said another way: A paladin faced with an un-honorable foe that must be dealt with for good would be the type (as in would, not should, not must) to take the burden and shame on herself to deal with them; and if combat was the only option, she would ‘even the odds’ to appease her honor. {Think The Princess Bride when both sword fighters duel each other using their off-hand. In the movie they don’t do it out of honorable-goodness per say, but it’s a similar principle.}
When it comes down to actual actions, they are specific and sometimes involve game mechanics. When they do I don’t adhere to the ‘fluff it away’ (a.k.a. rationalize it to mean the opposite of what it means) approach. So you can’t turn a lie into 'as good as a truth' because you really, really want to. Well… you can, but paladins can’t. That’s how ex-paladins are born.
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.
An advantage in one area, such as weapon power vs. weapon power or BAB vs. BAB, does not equal unfair in my book. Neither does something along the lines of the opponent having fewer hit points than you or not having the ability to heal. It’s an overall-balance thing.
Yep, guile is not okay. Intelligent or wise is. Duplicity is not, even if it’s optimal or efficient.
As far as what exactly the paladin would do to keep her honor intact against an unworthy foe or in an unfair fight where she has an extreme advantage? That’s really up to her and dependent on the situation. She may do all or none of those things. To clarify ‘extreme’ advantage… think of the difference between a company that has a monopoly and one that has a competitive advantage.