Ok, it seem no one else as come across this as of yet so i feel tis my duty to ask.
Vow of truth from Ultimate Magic states
"The monk is not allowed to deliberately speak any lies, including bluffing, stating half-truths with the intent to deceive, exaggerating, telling white lies, and so on. This applies to all forms of communication"
So this by extention mean said monk can not bluff in combat for feinting purposes, or cast some illusion spells without Breaking said vow Correct? this has not come up yet but it might cause i have a few players that like to multiclass monk/rouge and monk/Arcane caster.
also it seems to me certain magic items, like the hat of disguise are best avioded by these monks corret?
Ok, it seem no one else as come across this as of yet so i feel tis my duty to ask.
Vow of truth from Ultimate Magic states
"The monk is not allowed to deliberately speak any lies, including bluffing, stating half-truths with the intent to deceive, exaggerating, telling white lies, and so on. This applies to all forms of communication"So this by extention mean said monk can not bluff in combat for feinting purposes, or cast some illusion spells without Breaking said vow Correct? this has not come up yet but it might cause i have a few players that like to multiclass monk/rouge and monk/Arcane caster.
also it seems to me certain magic items, like the hat of disguise are best avioded by these monks corret?
If your monk does a "OMG what is that" in combat then no he can not feint. But feinting is not always verbal, most of the time it is misdirection by body language. This, I would go for.
If your monk does a "OMG what is that" in combat then no he can not feint. But feinting is not always verbal, most of the time it is misdirection by body language. This, I would go for.Ok, it seem no one else as come across this as of yet so i feel tis my duty to ask.
Vow of truth from Ultimate Magic states
"The monk is not allowed to deliberately speak any lies, including bluffing, stating half-truths with the intent to deceive, exaggerating, telling white lies, and so on. This applies to all forms of communication"So this by extention mean said monk can not bluff in combat for feinting purposes, or cast some illusion spells without Breaking said vow Correct? this has not come up yet but it might cause i have a few players that like to multiclass monk/rouge and monk/Arcane caster.
also it seems to me certain magic items, like the hat of disguise are best avioded by these monks corret?
Hence my asking, cause it say it applies to all forms of communication, and body lanuage is most certainly that
People feint in combat all the time so unless he wants to give up the dodge or dex bonus he is feinting. The feint(rules version) is more like a dedicated move to throw you enemy off guard. Feinting in combat is not communication either.
I would say the hat of disguise violates the Vow though, as does any social deception.
Vow of truth from Ultimate Magic states
"The monk is not allowed to deliberately speak any lies, including bluffing, stating half-truths with the intent to deceive, exaggerating, telling white lies, and so on. This applies to all forms of communication"
Frankly I can only really see melee or missle combat being defined as a form of communication in the most out there, extreme sense of the word if ever. Yes I suppose one could interpret the message as 'I want you dead' or some such but really?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.
..
...
....
.....
If the monk is not allowed to say/sing/clap/cook/write lies, engage in misdirection and/or create falsehoods then aye, I'd say feinting would be behaviour contrary to the ideals taken on when swearing/upholding the Vow of Truth.
Feinting requires the character to fool their opponent and then take advantage of the misdirection.
Feinting is all about deceit, therefore not the kinda behavior I'd expect from someone who has sworn not to engage in (seemingly) any form of deceit.
::
I see no reason as to why said character would need to give up Dodge/dex bonuses to AC - you can honestly not want to get hurt!
STOP AVOIDING MY ARROWS!1
I HONESTLY DON'T WANT TO DIE!
There's no misdirection/trickery/deceit here!
Action
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).
Feint in Combat: Feinting in combat is a standard action.
Deliver Secret Message: Delivering a secret message generally takes twice as long as the message would otherwise would take to relay.
Check out these three functions of the Bluff skill. Note that "Deceive Someone" is its own separate function independent of feinting.
Secret messages aren't deceitful, they're just private. A Monk might deliver a secret message regarding one's family member or other personal matters without dishonesty being an issue. Similarly, a feint isn't a deception, it's a combat tactic.
And if you know much about martial arts, you know someone can perform a false or provocative blow that is still quite laden with intent to hit. I don't consider it dishonest.
It's right there in the first line: "The monk is not allowed to deliberately speak any lies, including bluffing,"(emphasis mine). Any action which uses the bluff skill is bluffing. The monk can't do it.
A feint in combat is an attempt to deceive your opponent into thinking you will strike them at point A, drawing their defenses away from point B, where you will really hit them. It's a lie, the VoT monk can't do it.
Speaking secret messages is also a lie. If you and I have a code worked out where "monkey" actually means "we are in danger," and while talking to someone I point out how unusually poop-flingy the monkeys are today, then I am deceiving that person. I am saying something other than what I mean. The VoT monk can't do that either.
Am I splitting hairs? Probably. But it seems safe to say that a monk who has completely dedicated themselves to the idea of truth to the point that it gives them magic powers, they would probably err on the side of caution.
I am not sure about the code bit. Surely he would be allowed to speak a language that the person overhearing it cannot understand?
In the case of a code, I think the question is whether the person overhearing it would think he is saying something else (in which case he is lying and deceiving, in violation of his vow) or simply speaking gibberish (which seemingly would be allowed -- I don't think this vow covers the verbal components of spells, for example).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not much of a vow, when you start looking for loopholes or permitted corner cases.
It's not much of a vow, when you start looking for loopholes or permitted corner cases.
Very true but if you start examining every situation looking for ways it would cause someone to break it its a pretty bad trap option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know this a a bit of threadcromancy, but has anyone found an official answer to this? Because not being able to misdirect in combat is ridiculous. As Sun Tsu said, all combat is misdirection.
The answer is "feinting is bad anyway, so it doesn't matter".
|
I know this a a bit of threadcromancy, but has anyone found an official answer to this? Because not being able to misdirect in combat is ridiculous. As Sun Tsu said, all combat is misdirection.The answer is "feinting is bad anyway, so it doesn't matter".
Well - I can't see it being effective for a monk.
It's fine for rogues if you invest in it to get SA consistently. And it's situationally useful otherwise. (Anyone with max ranks in Bluff up against Will o' Wisps should probably use it.)
|
I'd say any use of the skill counts as a form of dishonesty, regardless of its use.
Bluff (Cha)
You know how to tell a lie.Feinting in combat goes beyond simple evasion. It's very intentional communication (verbal or nonverbal) to deceive your foe.
I would also say that any use of an illusion spell, with an intent to trick or fool a person, also counts as a form of dishonesty.
Feinting isn't dishonest, it isn't even underhanded, it's a natural part of combat for anyone who isn't a mindless pummeler.
Even if a society in-game considered feinting dishonest, it wouldn't matter in regards to Vow of Truth anyway since it only pertains to communication.
And body language is communication.
What if you said, "I'm distracting you", while you feint them. Then you are being honest about it.
Then how far do we let it go? Do we allow lying by omission to break the vow? How about using disguise? Can I still use my Vow of Truth if the party rogue lies to get us in the ball and I don't correct the erroneous assumption that I am the 15th Earl of Cukooland? If your looking for a reason to cause failure much like a paladin it won't be hard if you want to do it.
I don't see why it would be more strict than the Paladin code. I haven't seen a Paladin falling thread about feinting yet. (And I've seen a lot of them.)
I have. Couple of years ago. It was mixed in with the old "hiding Jews from Nazis" paladin trap that comes up every so often, and "Paladins fall if they feint" came up. It was largely shot down since feinting is a part of any formal combat style, and isn't lying. As for the Vow of Truth, I'd argue that feinting is a very true expression of intent: I want you out of the fight.
|
|
Then how far do we let it go? Do we allow lying by omission to break the vow? How about using disguise? Can I still use my Vow of Truth if the party rogue lies to get us in the ball and I don't correct the erroneous assumption that I am the 15th Earl of Cukooland? If your looking for a reason to cause failure much like a paladin it won't be hard if you want to do it.
Did you read the Vow of Truth? That's all covered. The vow prohibits speaking any lie or half-truth with intent to deceive, and extends to all forms of communication. If you can't say the truth (because someone would get hurt), you remain silent.
I would say that the vow prevents any active deception, such as a feint, but would consider compelling character justification to reconsider.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And body language is communication.
*rolls eyes*
You're being needlessly pedantic, and wrong.
You can use body language to communicate, but not everything your body voluntarily or involuntarily does is communication.
Not putting a lot of strength into one fist so that when it gets blocked you can put more strength into the other fist is not lying.
I'd say any use of the skill counts as a form of dishonesty, regardless of its use.
Bluff (Cha)
You know how to tell a lie.Feinting in combat goes beyond simple evasion. It's very intentional communication (verbal or nonverbal) to deceive your foe.
I would also say that any use of an illusion spell, with an intent to trick or fool a person, also counts as a form of dishonesty.
Do you likewise disallow paladins from using the feint combat maneuver?
Should Build Trust be removed from the paladin spell list because it is magically coercing someone to trust you more than they otherwise would? How about undetectable alignment as it will deceive those looking to check what the alignment of the paladin really is?
Feinting in combat is not a "form of dishonesty". Its a natural part of fighting to get your opponent to leave themselves exposed to an attack. Anyone who has studied martial arts (or boxing, or other fighting forms) understands this. Its far more about putting the other person off-balance, or their guard in the wrong place, so that you can win the fight.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. PART of the Bluff Skill is telling lies. Then there's feinting and passing hidden messages.
And wait, you think it's okay for Paladins to Feint but not Monks who take this Vow? Dafuq?
Feinting is not dishonest. It's one of the cornerstone of martial arts and fighting.
Going off your asinine logic dodging would too be "dishonest". It's not. Leading your opponent is not dishonest. It's not lying.
This whole conversation is pedantism to the point of stupidity.
Merely dodging, on the other hand, does not necessarily mean you are tricking your foe. I imagine it as more of reading your opponent and ducking out of the way. It's not like you're pretending like you want to be hit or giving the impression that you intend not to try to evade the attack.
Incorrect. If you are at all adept at combat, dodging isn't just reading your opponent and moving out of the way. It also includes giving your opponent the impression that you are or could be vulnerable at a certain target area. It includes creating false openings (or real openings that you're aware of) and intend to take advantage of.
Beyond that, feinting includes things like striking less quickly or powerfully than you are capable of to trick your opponent into thinking they can time or stop your techniques. It also includes drawing your opponent's attention to a particular target area so you can more effectively strike at your intended target.
You literally cannot effectively fight if you are not allowed to feint.
Granted, this can be a bit subjective, so how can we tell the difference? Feinting requires the Bluff skill. Dodging doesn't. And the Bluff skill opens up with the fact that it's used for the telling of lies.
Bluffing is also used to pass a secret message and nobody is really arguing here that a VoT Monk should not be able to do that.
What you're arguing here is that VoT Monks can feint, but can't really feint. So they can do a good job setting up their opponent like a competent combatant, but they can't actually capitalize on it if they so choose.
This is one of those situations where people are reading too literally. Feinting in combat is not the same as deceiving someone in conversation.
Ok, it seem no one else as come across this as of yet so i feel tis my duty to ask.
Vow of truth from Ultimate Magic states
"The monk is not allowed to deliberately speak any lies, including bluffing, stating half-truths with the intent to deceive, exaggerating, telling white lies, and so on. This applies to all forms of communication"So this by extention mean said monk can not bluff in combat for feinting purposes, or cast some illusion spells without Breaking said vow Correct? this has not come up yet but it might cause i have a few players that like to multiclass monk/rouge and monk/Arcane caster.
Just like the old adage "don't do the crime if you can't do the time," "don't take the vow if you can't... pull the plow?" Eh, whatever.
Basically, if you don't want to live up to the behavior of the vow, don't take it. I can certainly see feinting being on the vow of truth's list of no-nos, same with passing secret messages disguised as other, untrue messages (encoded with a cypher, however, strikes me as just fine since there's no deception attempted - just obscurement). Both of those are fundamentally and willfully deceptive. They should give someone devoted to a vow of truth significant discomfort. From the point of view of role playing, I'd play that up.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some years ago, a similar topic arose on one of the PAthfinder Society boards. This is how I answered, in the character of my paladin:
Saavik: You ... lied?
Spock: I exaggerated.
--+--
Good day to you. Please, join me in the lodge's observation deck. From here, you can get a good overview of Master Farbellius' training field over there to the left. I enjoy watching him train the aspirants in combat fundamentals; it reminds me to review them myself every once in a while.
I understand that you had some cutting words for Sir Yopan last week, yes? Something about how he's a paladin and you'd caught him bluffing his opponent in honorable combat? I thought that your little gift to chip in for his holy atonement was very ... witty.
There is a great gulf, you know, between "not lying" and "blabbering about everything anyone else might want to know." As a warrior of Torag, I have accepted the burden that my behavior affects not only myself but also the Forge-father. When I lie, he must choose to either lie through my tongue, or else withdraw his favor, indicating to the world that I no longer speak for him.
There is a trade-off. In exchange for comporting myself with honor, on and off the field, I can speak with a certain authority, so that others know I am honest. That's why paladins often cast a simple light spell after giving testimony.
But that doesn't mean that the next time I see Yopan, I have to volunteer that I saw who coated his sword hilt with butter. If he asks me, I might tell him, or I might not. If I say something, it shouldn't be a lie. But I am certainly permitted to change the subject, saying something like "Valeros is in the kitchen."
And my oath does not mean that I cannot tell fairy tales to children. Everyone in attendance understands that they are stories, and if I tell of strange magic or princesses of kingdoms that never existed, I've deceived no one.
It seems an odd analogy, but the same holds true in combat. Circling around my foe, I know she is trying to find advantage over me, and she knows the same of me. It is impossible to engage a foe in combat, honorable or otherwise, while explaining where your upcoming blows are all intended to strike.
If I were to say, out loud, "my next strike will take your leg," she would be a fool to believe me, and I would be guilty of speaking a falsehood. So I imply certain maneuvers. Against one of those trainees down there, I would look down at his leg before I swing high. Against a more weathered opponent, I might change my grip slightly or raise my shield an inch. What they make of these small movements is up to them.
It's right there in the first line: "The monk is not allowed to deliberately speak any lies, including bluffing,"(emphasis mine). Any action which uses the bluff skill is bluffing. The monk can't do it.
This old post missed a significant point in the line. Bluffing was in regard to speaking lies. Not to any form of bluffing.
The vow states limitations to speaking by giving a list then generalizing it to all forms of communication. I would take that to include writing, but not such things as body language.
If a monk sees someone they are sexually interested in, but the time and place are not proper, should they go about in a fog of sexual desire, or should they feign no interest? This is body language, and thus could be considered communication, but is it something they are trying to communicate? Feigning indifference is the same as silence. Yet it is a lie. Does that break the vow? If so, then the spell Unnatural Lust could easily cause a VoT monk to fall. Should they fall from an enemy casting such a spell? I don't think so.
As to feinting in combat, if I thought my opponent would do what he looks like he would do, I would be shortly dead. So every move my opponent makes must be treated as potentially a feint until after the attack occurs.
/cevah
I sword fight. It is an additional hobby of mine. When I feint in combat I am trying to decide my opponent. Feinting is not viewed as dishonorable in my circles, but you are tricking your opponent. A feint does not work if you do not device your opponent. Really, I never faint new guys because they can't read my moves to block the fake shot anyway. Feinting is deceptive. It is the nonverbal equivalent of yelling "hey look over there!"
I spelled deceive wrong twice...
|
|
No. PART of the Bluff Skill is telling lies. Then there's feinting and passing hidden messages.
And wait, you think it's okay for Paladins to Feint but not Monks who take this Vow? Dafuq?
Feinting is not dishonest. It's one of the cornerstone of martial arts and fighting.
Going off your asinine logic dodging would too be "dishonest". It's not. Leading your opponent is not dishonest. It's not lying.
This whole conversation is pedantism to the point of stupidity.Actually, all uses of the bluff skill are forms of dishonesty. That's kind of the point. If you're not being dishonest, you should be using a different skill. Feinting is being deceptive in combat. Passing secret messages is tricking others into believing you're not doing so.
Real-life combat is certainly far more involved than the mechanics used for the pathfinder combat simulation. Feinting may be a normal part of real combat, but you have to specifically take an action to feint in Pathfinder. It clearly follows that FEINTING (as an action) in combat goes above and beyond the normal give and take expected during a fight and has entered a new realm of classification.
I'm sorry you find all this pedantic and stupid, but this game has rules, and it's a pretty big stretch to claim that the use of a skill that is described as "You know how to tell a lie", and involves all manner of deception, does somehow not apply if the skill happens to be used in combat.
No.
No.
The LYING part of the Bluff skill is "you know how to tell a lie." Feinting is not lying. Passing hidden messages is not lying.
How the f~@~ is using the movement of your eyes to indicate what door the other party member should open instead of verbally telling them lying?
|
|
I sword fight. It is an additional hobby of mine. When I feint in combat I am trying to decide my opponent. Feinting is not viewed as dishonorable in my circles, but you are tricking your opponent. A feint does not work if you do not device your opponent. Really, I never faint new guys because they can't read my moves to block the fake shot anyway. Feinting is deceptive. It is the nonverbal equivalent of yelling "hey look over there!"
No it's not, not even close.
"Hey look over there!" Is a distraction brought about by lying, it's completely different than feinting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All paladins and monks with Vow of Truth must call out all attacks as they are made - to prevent any accidental deceptions.
Think Hak Foo from Jackie Chan Adventures.
/s
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I sword fight. It is an additional hobby of mine. When I feint in combat I am trying to decide my opponent. Feinting is not viewed as dishonorable in my circles, but you are tricking your opponent. A feint does not work if you do not device your opponent. Really, I never faint new guys because they can't read my moves to block the fake shot anyway. Feinting is deceptive. It is the nonverbal equivalent of yelling "hey look over there!"No it's not, not even close.
"Hey look over there!" Is a distraction brought about by lying, it's completely different than feinting.
Even saying "Hey, look over there!" isn't a lie at all. You're not making a claim that there's something there worth looking at; you're just telling your opponent what you want them to do.
Likewise, feinting in combat isn't lying, because drawing back for a punch is not an implicit promise that you will follow through on that punch, rather than kick your opponent. Being hard to predict isn't lying, any more than changing subjects in a conversation when you don't want to tell the truth.
|
|
I sword fight. It is an additional hobby of mine. When I feint in combat I am trying to decide my opponent. Feinting is not viewed as dishonorable in my circles, but you are tricking your opponent. A feint does not work if you do not device your opponent. Really, I never faint new guys because they can't read my moves to block the fake shot anyway. Feinting is deceptive. It is the nonverbal equivalent of yelling "hey look over there!"No it's not, not even close.
"Hey look over there!" Is a distraction brought about by lying, it's completely different than feinting.
Even saying "Hey, look over there!" isn't a lie at all. You're not making a claim that there's something there worth looking at; you're just telling your opponent what you want them to do.
Likewise, feinting in combat isn't lying, because drawing back for a punch is not an implicit promise that you will follow through on that punch, rather than kick your opponent. Being hard to predict isn't lying, any more than changing subjects in a conversation when you don't want to tell the truth.
Ha! Good point :3
|
I did not realize that Vow of Truth Monks were so OP broken that we needed to nerf them so hard
I had a GM once rule my paladin could not use Use Magic Device, because it was "lying to the magic item".
Even though my paladin has levels in ninja and was following the Sarenrae code of conduct for paladins which replaces the core code and lying is not restricted. In fact, "fight fair if the fight is fair, otherwise strike quickly and without mercy if it is not". Could be read to condone ambush tactics.
Actually, the deity's specific code is in addition to the core code. So still no lying allowed. Not even for Paladins of Torag BTW ;-)
That said, your GM was indeed unnecessarily restrictive here. Some GMs do hate Paladins
So does Vow of Truth make you immune to Unconsciousness? 8-p
|
|
I sword fight. It is an additional hobby of mine. When I feint in combat I am trying to decide my opponent. Feinting is not viewed as dishonorable in my circles, but you are tricking your opponent. A feint does not work if you do not device your opponent. Really, I never faint new guys because they can't read my moves to block the fake shot anyway. Feinting is deceptive. It is the nonverbal equivalent of yelling "hey look over there!"No it's not, not even close.
"Hey look over there!" Is a distraction brought about by lying, it's completely different than feinting.
Monks with the vow of truth are prohibited from exaggerating, and using half-truths with intent to deceive. A feint is not a lie, but the vow goes beyond simply lying. A feint is by definition a deceptive move for advantage in combat. At the very least, feinting violates the spirit of the vow, even if it's not explicitly called out. A monk and GM should seriously consider how they want to play.
I did not realize that Vow of Truth Monks were so OP broken that we needed to nerf them so hard
I had a GM once rule my paladin could not use Use Magic Device, because it was "lying to the magic item".
Even though my paladin has levels in ninja and was following the Sarenrae code of conduct for paladins which replaces the core code and lying is not restricted. In fact, "fight fair if the fight is fair, otherwise strike quickly and without mercy if it is not". Could be read to condone ambush tactics.
Actually, the deity's specific code is in addition to the core code. So still no lying allowed. Not even for Paladins of Torag BTW ;-).
...
So, are the deity specific Paladin codes meant to be additions to the normal Paladin codes, or are they wholesale replacements? For example, could a Paladin of Shelyn use knockout poison to capture an evil person ...The deity-specific paladin codes are 100% meant to exist the "normal" paladin code. The normal code is for world-neutral generic paladins, and once a paladin worships a deity on Golarion, they're no longer world-neutral and must follow deity specific codes.
If a code doesn't cover a topic, then the paladin needs to extrapolate from the code. In this case, nothing in Shelyn's code says anything about using ANY sort of poison, so she's perfectly fine using knockout poison or any other to help her live up to the code.
...
|
Depends how you look at lying. Many people see the concept differently, though these are the typical two:
(1) Lying is about statements which are untrue in a literal sense, but doesn't include true statements which mislead or otherwise trick, then you could justify a feint in combat as a misleading truth. Exploiting a misunderstanding (like being mistaken for another person) would also qualify as truth under this definition, so long as you didn't directly confirm their mistake as truth.
(2) Lying is about the use of communication to mislead or trick. It's not what was said in a literal sense, but what was understood. A person misunderstood and against this type of lying, would make a point to correct the misconception when they realized it.
I would only consider the use of Feint as lying if using the second (2) definition.
Regarding alignments for characters in a game, one (1) is the lawful approach to lying, two (2) is the neutral version, and chaotic characters just don't adhere to any consistency with regard to defining and catagorizing their use of communication.
For Monks, provided they are lawful monks, they would probably adhere to the first (1) definition.