| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Should a Paladin fall for telling a single lie? Especially one that was made to save others from an irredeemable evil? I think the answer is no.
Let's look at this:
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willing commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poisons, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Okay, the code of conduct is pretty straight forward. That first paragraph is straight-forward and to the point: if your paladin ever willingly commits an evil act, she loses all class features except proficiency.
Upon reading it, though I have to question whether the second paragraph signifies a complete and total loss of all abilities. Not only is it seperated from the first part in structure, that ". . . an so forth" is extremely vague for a code of restrictions that would strip a character of all her powers.Associates: While she may adventure good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil character or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
Here under associates we have the first mention of atonement. This section is also interesting because of the following phrase: "should she feel it is doing more harm than good." That, in and of itself, implies that as a paladin associating with an evil ally to defeat a greater evil has an acceptable level of harm that she is able to accept. The text does say that the paladin should seek out an atonement periodically, but does not mention any loss of her powers.
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 weapons, armor, or shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancemetn potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description in Spell Lists), as appropriate.
Here is where the crux of the problem arises. In this section we are told that there are three things that can strip a paladin of her powers: (a) changing alignment to anything other than lawful good, (b) willing commiting an evil act, and (c) violates the code of conduct. That brings us back to the code of conduct.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poisons, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
So a paladin immediately falls from grace if she violates any part of this? That vague section of ". . . and so forth" means that there are other actions included in the code, but not listed.
But wait! Looking back at associates, we see there is no mention of losing powers from associating with an evil ally in pursuit of a greater evil. And that text says, specifically, that such an alliance is allowed so long as more good than harm results.
Now, it might not well be rules-as-written, but I have always looked on this as meaning that a gross violation of the additional code of conduct will result in a loss of her powers. I mean, what if a paladin is restrained when someone harms or threaten innocents? She cannot punish them, so does that mean she immediately loses her powers until she gets an atonement spell?
The code is, in my opinion, simply a guideline for how to play a lawful good character. She doesn't (normally) lie. She doesn't (normally) cheat. She doesn't (normally) allow innocent people to be harmed or threatened in her presence. She (normally) helps others in need of aid.
Not because she has a code that she must follow, but because she is GOOD and that is part and parcel of her alignment. People, it seems, fall into the 'trap' of playing a character mechanically instead of . . . what I call organically. You don't play a paladin to get those nifty powers, you play a paladin because you want to do good deeds. You want to be that shining beacon in the darkness.
Or rather, you should.
The Code of Conduct is not a strait-jacket or a restriction based on the class--it is not something that you follow to avoid being punished. As a Paladin, as the Lawful Good champion of your chosen deity, the Code simply states how you live your life.
One small mis-step should not strip a paladin of their powers. Only a gross violation of the ethics and morals of being a paladin. Choosing to commit an evil act, changing your alignment, deliberately breaking the code for no reason or for selfish reasons--those are crimes worthy of being stripped of your paladinhood.
Telling a lie while being tortured so that your companions can escape is not.
In my opinion.
Master Arminas
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Use circular reasoning.
"Where is your rogue sleeping?"
"In his bedroll."
"Where is his bedroll?"
"In his tent."
"Where is his tent?"
"Next to the Cleric's tent."
"Where is the Cleric's tent?"
"Next to the Wizard's tent."
"Where is the Wizard's tent?"
"Next to the Fighter's tent."
"Where is the Fighter's tent?"
"Next to the Bard's tent."
"Where is the Bard's tent?"
"Next to the Rogue's tent."
"Where is the Rogue's tent?"
"Next to the Cleric's tent."
|
Playing a Paladin should not be easy. Sometimes there are situations where he can only loose. Thats the drawback for being a Paladin.I don't think it's right to put a Paladin in a no win situation where no matter what he does he loses his powers.
Play Throne of Bloodstone (H4) and you will see that even professional adventure writers can end up presenting these kind of situations.
S.
|
Should a Paladin fall for telling a single lie? Especially one that was made to save others from an irredeemable evil? I think the answer is no.
Let's look at this:
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willing commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poisons, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Okay, the code of conduct is pretty straight forward. That first paragraph is straight-forward and to the point: if your paladin ever willingly commits an evil act, she loses all class features except proficiency.
Upon reading it, though I have to question whether the second paragraph signifies a complete and total loss of all abilities. Not only is it seperated from the first part in structure, that ". . . an so forth" is extremely vague for a code of restrictions that would strip a character of all her powers.Associates: While she may adventure good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil character or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.Here under associates we have the first mention of atonement. This section is also interesting because of the following phrase: "should she feel it is doing more harm than good." That, in and of itself, implies that as a paladin associating with an evil ally to defeat a greater evil has an...
Oh I don't disagree but it wasn't my game so I wasn't in control over it. I don't think I should of lost my powers but I did and I was essentially dead anyway. I still sacrificed myself so the party could get away.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you can't act with honor towards your enemies, your honor isn't worth much. The rules are quite clear that you cannot lie. There are no qualifications. Paladins aren't a "by any means necessary" class in the slightest. They have strict rules they must follow, one of which is "No lying." Arguing otherwise is trying to bend the rules.
Strict rules that include ". . . and so forth." Isn't that just slightly vague?
I am not trying to bend the rules, but being stripped of all your powers for one misstep--while being tortured--is a bit much.
Master Arminas
Strict rules that include ". . . and so forth." Isn't that just slightly vague?
I am not trying to bend the rules, but being stripped of all your powers for one misstep--while being tortured--is a bit much.
Master Arminas
I have to agree with this. Sure, he may have to seek an atonement afterwards to avoid losing his powers if he does it again, but really this comes under the heading of extremely extenuating circumstances.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dabbler and Arminas have most of it, but I'd like to bring up a few other points in support of a Paladin being able to lie a few times without any significant punishment provided the lie was for a good cause and there were no other effective options to pursue Good in the situation at hand.
First and foremost, it's very interesting to note that not even truly Holy creatures (Angels, Azata, Archons, etc.) are held to those impossibly strict standards. Even these creatures are allowed to (not encouraged, but allowed with a strong reason) do things outside a Paladin's code, and they are quasi-immortal holy souls made of Holy Good; demonstrably 'elevated' in the Good Hierarchy compared to a Paladin.
Expecting absolute perfection from a Paladin is as ridiculous as expecting it from those beings, and also as ridiculous as expecting it from other creatures on their same general level of 'enlightenment' or 'existence type'; Good-aligned Clerics of Good Deities*, most Good-aligned Assimar, and most Good-aligned Celestial Sorcerers. You don't see the Good deities stripping the powers from those classes for minor transgressions, or ones clearly made under "no other meaningful choice" duress. Why would the Paladin be different?
Yes, the Paladin is an exemplar. A symbol. A shining role model. This does not mean they're perfect. I have trouble believing most patron deities of Paladins would be so harsh on even the most elevated of their mortal followers. Some particularly strict Lawful Neutral deities might do it, but LG/NG ones? Not so long as the Paladin had a very good reason for the lie. "Currently the victim of deliberate torture by embodiments of Evil" seems like a decent extenuating circumstance, especially if the lie is told as something the Paladin reasonably believes will be an effective mind-game against said Evil to prevent them from hurting more innocents.
Sure, you have to draw a line somewhere or else they become Frank 'The Punisher' Castle instead of The Shining Holy Knight of Honor and Virtue... but I truly do think a Paladin deserves some wriggle room. Their 'superiors' get precisely that, after all.
That Paladin codes have become increasingly less adversarial toward the Paladin over the history of D&D mythos suggests this is intentional, that Paladin codes are a path to follow, not a mechanic for severely punishing them for very modest transgressions. Clearly the game designers want you to be able to play a Paladin without fear that a single mis-step will end in their powers being stripped or require purchasing an Atonement casting or so on. You can have degrees of nuance even within an Extreme/Exemplar of an Alignment.
*: Am I saying these are More Good than a Good Aligned Barbarian or Fighter or so on? Mechanically speaking, yes. Mind you, a Good person is still a commendable, admirable individual no matter their amount of focus (or lack thereof) on the divine. Still, Clerics/Paladins have a mechanical Aura of Good, most Good Outsiders are specifically marked as Good sub-type (meaning they have an intrinsic tie to the moral concept), etc. I think it's fair to compare the 'lesser Good' to those above them.
Strict rules that include ". . . and so forth." Isn't that just slightly vague?
I am not trying to bend the rules, but being stripped of all your powers for one misstep--while being tortured--is a bit much.
Master Arminas
MA dont you know you only have 4 choices here and just three
1. Lie and fall.
2. Tell the truth and Fall.
3. Be tortured and wait until you hopefully get rescued. During which time either sit around and watch everyone else have fun or play a spare NPC that you have no attacment to.
4.Die and make a new character.
Actually if you have enough money there is the choice of having a contingency planeshift set up to get your dead body out of there. Or making sure all party memebers carry enough of all other party memebers on their person to be able to bring them back with strong enough magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone watch Babylon 5 and know the Minbari code of honor that involves not being able to lie? The only circumstance where it's honorable to lie is 'save face' for another. This could be extraplated to it's honorable to lie to protect another. To me this is the situtation where it would good and honorable to lie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True enough, Talonhawke. RAW strongly suggests that those are your four choices. But a Paladin will not do #2 (in this case telling the truth will betray and condemn his companions AND actively aid Evil). Most paladins will not do #1, since that would (in some games) divest them of their powers.
So it boils down to 3 or 4. The burning question I have though is this: why did the DM do this? Why wasn't the paladin, the holy warrior whose mere presence cause fiends pain, just slain? Where are his friends? Do they know where the paladin is? Are they powerful enough to mount a rescue? If not why were they even pitted against this enemy in the first place?
It seems to me, based on the excerpts so far, that the DM in question wanted to have a TPK. If the fiend is that powerful, the party should not have been going against him in the first place. Either that or he is using it as a deus ex machina to make the paladin fall. Either way, it doesn't sound like the type of game I would want to play in.
Don't get me wrong. Players shouldn't expect to win all the time, and I have been in GREAT games where we suffered a TPK on several occassions. This whole, we are going to take the paladin and torture him until he either lies or helps evil, it is just sad.
And too many DMs are like that.
Master Arminas
Completly agree with you MA and i find it funny that the Paladin is held to such a high standard when compared to every other class and heck even most creatures.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anybody else notice that despite paladins not being very good since 3.0 came out there is tons of people who think its great fun to make them fall and become effectively NPC classed?
Following a code doesn't mean slavish obedience to it. LG is law tempered with mercy and forgiveness. If your own god can't forgive a minor lie to prevent a great evil, then why would anybody follow it?
If you slip up, you atone for it, but it doesn't mean you should immediately lose your powers. I take a very Catholic view of it. You build up these minor sins/transgressions, and you need to eventually confess it to your priest or it will weigh down your soul (lose powers till you atone). Alternatively if you commit a major transgression the clergy and your god could just excommunicate you (lose powers, potentially irrevocably).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Strict rules that include ". . . and so forth." Isn't that just slightly vague?
I am not trying to bend the rules, but being stripped of all your powers for one misstep--while being tortured--is a bit much.
Master Arminas
MA dont you know you only have 4 choices here and just three
1. Lie and fall.
I don't agree that lying will make a paladin fall. Sure, it's something he may have to atone for, but he won't necessarily fall.
2. Tell the truth and Fall.
Actually, telling the truth by the RAW of the code WOULDN'T make him fall. He has behaved honourably, after all. I would agree betraying his friends to the demon SHOULD make him fall, but this employs the same logic that says it's OK to lie to a demon in order to save your friends.
3. Be tortured and wait until you hopefully get rescued. During which time either sit around and watch everyone else have fun or play a spare NPC that you have no attacment to.
Or until the DM rules you break and do 1 or 2 above, and fall.
4.Die and make a new character.
You forget this one:
5. Point out to the DM that he is being a douche in his interpretation of the paladin code, and that no gaming > bad gaming.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The paladin's code says he can't lie, not that he can't use his intelligence...
A few ranks in Profession(lawyer) will mean he can get others to believe that the paladin has supported any side of a debate, and he'll be able to do that without ever actually telling a lie!
The public perception of both lawyers and politicians is that they are the biggest liars on the planet! Yet, these are two professions where they cannot lie, because if they get caught telling a lie then they, well, fall!
Note that they don't have to tell the truth! They just can't get caught telling a lie!
Since their god will automatically 'catch' them in a lie if they tell one, then paladins can let the listener make whatever assumptions and reach any conclusions that they want. They don't have to tell they truth! They just can't lie!
And the difference between the two is one of the main tools available to lawyers and politicians! That's why they act like they do, and that's why the public peceives them as dishonest!
But, can paladins afford to be perceived as dishonest? Can they even allow, or even deliberately construct, what they say to be misunderstood?
Paladins must not only obey the code or fall (and this does allow lawyer-type misleading), but they must act with honour. So it depends on who he's misleading, and why.
Just like weapons are not good or evil in themselves, 'allowing people to believe things' is not good or evil; just a tool. It depends on how that tool is used, and why!
Demon: "Where are your companions?"
Paladin: "I'm not going to tell you. Do your worst, fiend."
I'm not seeing the dilemma.
If this isn't the first thing that comes to mind in this sort of situation, you really shouldn't be playing a paladin in the first place.
Frankly speaking though, setting aside the whole question of holding yourself to an ethical standard, remaining silent is always the way to go in a situation like this. If you convince the demon that you've told them all they need to know, I don't see them having any incentive at all to let you live.
I also have to wonder when, realistically, this sort of situation is ever going to come up. Where ARE the paladins companions? Did the paladin decide to go undercover and gather information while everyone else hid out somewhere? Because that doesn't really strike me as the right attitude to be approaching the class with either.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking from a military standpoint, everyone breaks eventually to torture. Everyone. The only things that you can do to prevent yourself from breaking in the long term are A) Give up. B) Suicide. C) Play nice, look for the right opportunity, and escape.
That said, IMHO lying is the best course of action for this, because it can lure the demon into a false sense of superiority, thus allowing the paladin to escape to fight another day/kill the demon/buy enough time for his party to return/at least hamper the demons plans and cause it to waste resources looking in the wrong places. Its no different than a paladin that Feints in combat, or one that specifically targets a demons weakness. Is it fighting fair if you study up on a particular type of enemy, then exploit every weakness it has from a position of strength? Nope. But, to me, paladins aren't necessarily about fighting fair, they are about winning the war between good and evil. Sun Tzu teaches "All war is deception." Even the paladin deceives in combat in a way, regardless of how you look at it. They just make it look honorable. That's my take on paladins, at least.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not so sure about the "everyone breaks" part. Counterpoint:
In the early years of Christianity (basically until Constantine legalized it), Christianity was prohibited in the Roman Empire, mostly because Christians refused to worship the Roman gods and emperors. They were occasionally caught, tortured in fairly horrible ways, and killed.
Christian theology held that someone martyred (from greek "marturas", "witness") for refusing to abandon faith would go straight to heaven. Do not wait for Last Judgement. Do not worry about unabsolved minor sins. If you get eaten by lions, crucified, flayed, boiled in oil or whatnot, because you refuse to recant your beliefs, then whatever dirty stuff you've still got left is wiped clean and you're on the fast-track to saint-hood.
So I think a paladin killed by demonic torture while keeping faith (not betraying compatriots) is totally and immediately saved. So, the demon needs to be really careful; if he accidentally kills the paladin during torture, he's just Saved a soul. His demonic masters won't be pleased. If the paladin's god is merciful, he'll give the paladin a strategic heart attack before the demon gets his best keep-them-going torturer in there.
---
That said, the paladin rules specifically note Evil acts as cause for falling, not Chaotic acts. It's about lawfulGOOD.
Next is dishonorable behavior. There's this list of things that aren't normally honorable, including lying. But the question arises: is lying ALWAYS dishonorable, or only in general? Is it dishonorable to lie to a demon, or while under duress? I think it's at the very least an excusable transgression, if it's a transgression at all.
So atonement isn't out of the picture. Next question: does losing paladin powers mean the end? Of course not. If you lie to protect your friends, that doesn't turn you evil. You can lie, knowing it's the lesser transgression, but still feel like it wasn't very nice; enough remorse to make Atonement a no-problem.
---
That isn't to say that it couldn't go the way Shallowsoul wrote: a paladin can break under torture, and could be swayed to the dark side.
But it's not inevitable; there's a lot of places where this can go wrong.
---
Finally there's a reasonable observer argument: is it really dishonorable lying to say something that the observer would obviously know can't be truthful? If a paladin says "the sky is green", does he fall? I don't think so.
In this case, if a paladin breaks after seven years, the demon would be unreasonable to presume the paladin can still know where his party went.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From level 3, a paladin is immune to fear - I think that would include fear of torture.
I also have to wonder when, realistically, this sort of situation is ever going to come up. Where ARE the paladins companions?
Most likely situation: the party is losing a battle, and the paladin decides to hold off the enemy while his allies escape.
And what happens when the Bad Evil Demon, at the words "do your worst" answers "then i'm gonna kill an innocent in front of you on the first day you are not going to answer me, then two on the second day, then three on the third... It's not my worst, but i can get some fun from it."?
It's not being a jerky GM, it is playing a demon how it should be played (and that would still be being fair, because a real demon would go with 100 on the first day, 200 on the second and so on... if not even worst).
In this case what's more honorable? Sell your party member or let hundreds of innocents die? The only way to act honorable is to put aside your believes in "One True Truth" and risk losing your status... As a GM i would let a player go with it, provided he RP some remorse (remember the paladin is giving up something he is being forced to follow, he is giving up on his own word not to lie). It's not easy for anyone who values his word more than a paladin to take his words back (and in his mind he is not doing it in front of his enemy, but in front of his god).
If a player just say: "Oh, well, my god won't be mad if i lie in this situation, so where's the problem?"... I expect my players to RP a little, so i would punish him, but if a master is cool with that attitude, he should also be cool with the lying.
That said, forcing a story where a paladin risks to fall is extremely clichèd so, unless the player ask me to let him fall (and go anti-paladin for example) or puts himself in trouble, i would not attempt it.
Lets look at it also from the demon's perspective. He points a flaming poker at the chained paladin demanding answers. Now the paladin can either hold his tongue or lie (since he can't betray his friends). Lying is pretty pointless as the demon knows he wouldn't sell out his friends just like that. So if the paladin says they went north, then the demon can rule that out and be one step closer to finding them.
Nope, telling the truth, will not make him fall, he might feel guilty, but he won't fall. Betraying friends location while not evil, a neutral act, isn't dishonorable.
It's not being a jerky GM, it is playing a demon how it should be played (and that would still be being fair, because a real demon would go with 100 on the first day, 200 on the second and so on... if not even worst).
In this case what's more honorable? Sell your party member or let hundreds of innocents die?Well, demons are evil and manipulative. So the demon would probably threaten to kill the innocents, and if the paladin betrayed his friends would rub the wound with salt by killing all the innocents anyway. So the paladin would have accomplished nothing but a double fail.
Paladins shouldn't really be striking bargains with demons - demons kill innocents and negotiating with them won't change their basic nature.
Exactly. Again the Paladin takes no fault for the innocents dying, the demons takes the blame alignment wise.
The Paladin is helpless to do anything (otherwise he'd be killing the demon)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am pretty sure that torture is a fear effect. Paladins are immune to fear. Ergo: you can not break a paladin under torture. You can tempt them, but you can't break them. Barring certain powerful magics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Playing a Paladin should not be easy. Sometimes there are situations where he can only loose. Thats the drawback for being a Paladin.I don't think it's right to put a Paladin in a no win situation where no matter what he does he loses his powers.
I agree with your Shallowsoul. Well said. This is part of the problem with the Paladin's code. It can often conflict with itself with very little difficulty, resulting in no situation that wouldn't result in your falling (or sanity).
I see this as mostly a failing of the Paladin's code and mechanics.
It's not being a jerky GM, it is playing a demon how it should be played (and that would still be being fair, because a real demon would go with 100 on the first day, 200 on the second and so on... if not even worst).
In this case what's more honorable? Sell your party member or let hundreds of innocents die?Well, demons are evil and manipulative. So the demon would probably threaten to kill the innocents, and if the paladin betrayed his friends would rub the wound with salt by killing all the innocents anyway. So the paladin would have accomplished nothing but a double fail.
Paladins shouldn't really be striking bargains with demons - demons kill innocents and negotiating with them won't change their basic nature.
Exactly. Again the Paladin takes no fault for the innocents dying, the demons takes the blame alignment wise.
The Paladin is helpless to do anything (otherwise he'd be killing the demon)
True, but if instead of a demon, the problem was a devil known to keep his word, what would it change? It's the devil who takes the blame for killing, but the paladin should take blame for letting the aoutsider know where their position is... And for almost any good aligned character, knowing that you made possibile for your (worst) enemy to slain your comrades should be the worst experience ever, should we say for a paladin? But also seeing innocent die before his eyes and being powerless to help should be the worst experience ever... So, what to do? Hiding behind the shield of "you did the killing, not me"? that seems the least "paladin-ish" thing he could do...
I see a paladin more fit to break from the "seeing innocent die and being powerless" kind of torture rather than mere physical punishment...
So, in this situation what would you chose? You are not striking a bargain, you have to do something. What should you do? Sacrifice your party? Sacrifice innocents? Or sacrifice yourself in a way (killing yourself in front of him by biting off your tongue and bleed to death, for example) or the other (lying, for example)... More creative players might come up with other solutions, i don't know.
The point is: either the paladin sacrifice his life or his beliefs or something else he lives for (both literaly and figuratively), should his "high and mighty good god" punish him for this? This doesn't make sense both concept-wise and rule-wise.
Edit: And for those who might say he can only choose to die... What kind of "good god" you have in mind if you are ready to think that he is cool with letting one of his most faithful servant die, not at his time, in his bed and peacefully, but broken and tortured beyond every immagination? If it is a paladin choice, the good god should accept it with great sadness, in case the paladin lie, forsaking his code, i don't think the god should treat him differently.
What kind of "good god" you have in mind if you are ready to think that he is cool with letting one of his most faithful servant die, not at his time, in his bed and peacefully, but broken and tortured beyond every immagination?That's fine, its called martyrdom. Many martyred European saints are best known for their particularly horrific deaths suffered in defense of the faith.
The fact that it exists doesn't mean a "good" god should be cool with it. The big boss should accept it if the paladin choose to die for his faith (a paladin could choose to die because he doesn't want to risk being broken and fall); but if the paladin sincerely, and i mean SINCERELY, believes he can do more good by staying alive than by dying in a hole, i don't understand why his god should punish him...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They won't lie. It has nothing to do with the target, but he himself.
He simply won't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, has anyone ever played in/run a game where this sort of thing actually came up? Because this is just becoming an increasingly implausible scenario. At this point we seem to have escalated to...
- The party is fighting some demon/devil.
- The party is so hopelessly outmatched that they are forced to retreat.
- The party has some means of retreating that let's everyone escape aside from a single paladin. Makes sense if they're low level and actually retreating on foot with the paladin slowed down by heavy armor I suppose, but high level characters would presumably be teleporting away, in which case I really don't see how anyone is getting left behind.
- The demon/devil has enough restraint to use non-lethal combat tactics on a paladin.
- The party has some regular place they always retreat to to lick their wounds, that a captive could potentially reveal. As opposed to just running off into the wilderness at random in order to rest up and strategize, like every party I have ever seen that was forced into retreat.
- The party does not consider the idea of a captive revealing the location of their favored hangout at all.
- The powerful demon/devil that the party totally could not handle before losing their paladin, for some crazy reason, feels threatened by the rest of this party and wants them wiped out.
- And yet doesn't chase after them/have them followed/scry on them in some fashion.
- Despite hopelessly outmatching the whole party, somehow the demon/devil we are dealing with is one of the few which has absolutely no access whatsoever to any sort of detect thoughts/charm/mind control as a means of extracting information from an uncooperative source.
- Nor crafty enough to let the paladin "escape" to be tailed.
- They are so concerned about this wimpy party, which is down its best member for demon fighting, and so convinced that this paladin can reveal their location, that they gather up hundreds of innocent people from the nearest settlement.
- At no point in doing this, do they find the party, nor do any of these hundreds of people have any idea where they might be.
- Somehow, none of this describes a completely hopeless situation where the campaign is basically over no matter what and long-term consequences are worth considering.
- People are willing to put up with the GM staging this completely illogical and unfair power trip of a setup.
Even assuming all that though, the paladin refusing to talk is still the only reasonable thing to do, because all of these hostages, and the paladin, are obviously going to be killed anyway, and stalling for time by stubbornly refusing to talk for as long as humanly possible is the best way of buying the rest party, who clearly are somehow capable of it, the time they need to recover, come back, and save everyone.
If this somehow was not the case, whether the paladin would be in hot water with their god over lying would depend on the particular oath that particular paladin was sworn to, and the priorities it enforced. Personally, I couldn't see having a paladin have to atone for any actions taken under the sort of inconceivable conditions people are trying to find here. I have no doubt the GM bending over backwards to bring all this together would insist that this paladin follow an arbitrary code where failing to speak the truth is the worst imaginable sin in the world though, because... look at this whole elaborate setup they've concocted to try and force the issue.
|
|
Seriously, has anyone ever played in/run a game where this sort of thing actually came up? Because this is just becoming an increasingly implausible scenario. At this point we seem to have escalated to...
- The party is fighting some demon/devil.
- The party is so hopelessly outmatched that they are forced to retreat.
- The party has some means of retreating that let's everyone escape aside from a single paladin. Makes sense if they're low level and actually retreating on foot with the paladin slowed down by heavy armor I suppose, but high level characters would presumably be teleporting away, in which case I really don't see how anyone is getting left behind.
- The demon/devil has enough restraint to use non-lethal combat tactics on a paladin.
- The party has some regular place they always retreat to to lick their wounds, that a captive could potentially reveal. As opposed to just running off into the wilderness at random in order to rest up and strategize, like every party I have ever seen that was forced into retreat.
- The party does not consider the idea of a captive revealing the location of their favored hangout at all.
- The powerful demon/devil that the party totally could not handle before losing their paladin, for some crazy reason, feels threatened by the rest of this party and wants them wiped out.
- And yet doesn't chase after them/have them followed/scry on them in some fashion.
- Despite hopelessly outmatching the whole party, somehow the demon/devil we are dealing with is one of the few which has absolutely no access whatsoever to any sort of detect thoughts/charm/mind control as a means of extracting information from an uncooperative source.
- Nor crafty enough to let the paladin "escape" to be tailed.
- They are so concerned about this wimpy party, which is down its best member for demon fighting, and so convinced that this paladin can reveal their location, that they gather up hundreds of innocent people from the nearest settlement.
- At no point in doing...
I did actually.
We went the abyss to save one of my order, I was a paladin of Heironious, and I ended being captured while we were making a break for the portal.
I don't think a paladin should lie, even in cases like that. But that's just me, that being said I see no reason why the paladin couldn't lie to save her friends. Though they should be aware that there is the possiblity of divine consequences of said lie. Also remember that while they may be able to lie, they needed answer a question. No paladin of lawful good alignment would consider an evil outsider legitimate authority there fore would feel no obligation to answer the question.
Once again just my opinion and on that i agree with prosfilaes and anyone else who has said it, being turned to a blackguard over one little lie to protect your friends is completely unfair. The blackguard is the unforgivable corruption of the paladin. It is a complete abandonning and betrayal of the ideals of a paladin.
That's like calling a person a murderous monster for stepping on a cricket.
Taking the four options presented option 3 is clearly the way the Paladin should go. Depending on the scenario which led to the situation it could be bad GMing or it could be logical circumstance. The Paladin was captured and the demon has tried to torment the bastion of good into falling.
Assuming the GM is playing well then eventually the Paladin should die. The player should be rewarded though. The character's soul should be described as ascending and being granted divine favour for their selfless deeds. They can roll a new character and should be encouraged to associate the new character with the old Paladin's church (for continuity) at equal XP to the old character + defeating the demon XP. At some point in the nearish future (say 3 months game time) the Paladin could return for an epic encounter as a Deva (or more powerful divine being if the party level permits) that turns the balance strongly towards the party. Perhaps the encounter is against the original demon and his allies. That way the Paladin 'won the game' and the player can move on and will always remember the sacrifice, that battle and the character fondly.
Again, the paladin can lie without problem in the case presented. There is nothing that even suggests otherwise. A paladin is Lawful Good, not Lawful Stupid. A tactical paladin will lie to a demon if it will help eventually defeat said demon. It is not a violation of honor to lie to evil any more than it is to kill evil.
To DMs who would force a paladin to never lie: do you also force paladins to also use nonlethal damage or fall? It's about the same.
Strawman as Lying is in code, using nonlethal is not.
The Code cares not if you do lethal. Or kill every evil being you find. Laws might care, bvut not the code (you won't fall but you might go to jail).
Any good paladin should refuse to even answer. If a demon or lich or whatever was torturing you, do you really think he would stop just because you answered? No, hey will keep doing it, and since you alredy started to break, they will just make you do more and more stuff, incrementally worse, until you fall. Ok, maybe a devil or someone very lawful, would hold his promise, but they're evil, so they'll just go to the loophole that stopping torture means killing you.
Any paladin stupid enough to think saying anything to the torturer is a good idea deserves to fall, not for betrayal if he says the thruth or for dishonesty if he lies, but for being pants on head, ice cream on forehead, full retard.
Iomedae would be looking down, shaking her head, wondering why did she hire that imbecile. He's not Lawful Good, not Stupid Good, not even Lawful Stupid. He's pure undiluted True Stupid.
A paladin's behavior in any circumstances should always be based on his own code of ethics, never on anyone else's. So the OP's question of whether the paladin can lie shouldn't have anything to do with whether the creature he'd be lying to is an evil outsider, undead or whatever.
Are there circumstances that would permit a paladin to lie in pursuit of a greater good, without falling? Maybe. It'll have to be a GM call based on the specific sitation and the GM's interpretation of the code of ethics. But if the situation is such that the paladin would not be allowed to lie to, say, a neutrally-alligned human commoner in pursuit of a greater good, he has no expanded license to lie to a demon, devil or undead in the same situation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the Paladin to knowingly risk losing all of his Paladin powers by deliberatley foresaking his code and lying to save his comrades is the most incredibly selfless thing a Paladin can do...his God(s) will be pleased.
Any good paladin should refuse to even answer. If a demon or lich or whatever was torturing you, do you really think he would stop just because you answered? No, hey will keep doing it, and since you alredy started to break, they will just make you do more and more stuff, incrementally worse, until you fall. Ok, maybe a devil or someone very lawful, would hold his promise, but they're evil, so they'll just go to the loophole that stopping torture means killing you.
Any paladin stupid enough to think saying anything to the torturer is a good idea deserves to fall, not for betrayal if he says the thruth or for dishonesty if he lies, but for being pants on head, ice cream on forehead, full retard.
Iomedae would be looking down, shaking her head, wondering why did she hire that imbecile. He's not Lawful Good, not Stupid Good, not even Lawful Stupid. He's pure undiluted True Stupid.
That seems a bit harsh. When I went to SERE school, one of our instructors was a survivor from the Hanoi Hilton...you cannot possibly understand what "torture" actually means, how hard it is to resist, but how unimaginably ineffective it is as getting worthwhile / useful intelligence.
If torture were only physical, resitance would be possible.
Proper choice was to not say anything and go out a hero knowing your god will see to you in the world beyond.
Also, might I point out, torturing a captured PC just to force him into a Paladin trap & turn him into an NPC sort of a jerk dm move. I mean, at this point he's already effectively dead since he was in the position to get captured. As a DM why fluff it out unless the player wanted him to fall and get revenge? Though there also could have been a deus ex machina escape waiting for you if you'd stuck to your guns, but you made the choice you made.
"Because, demon, I know the value of your word--and you know the value of mine."
As an aside I rarely see a story do Paladin-type characters unquestionably right. But holy crap did Butcher nail it with Michael Carpenter.
For example, say a peasant is poaching deer from a noble's land to feed his family during a famine. The penalty for poaching is severe, but the noble is an important ally to the paladin's order. If the paladin looks the other way while the peasant poaches and the noble finds out, the paladin's order may not get support from the noble the next time orcs/hobgoblins/etc invade (for this example let's say the paladin order is in a neighboring barony and the noble could look the other way when the paladins need soldiers from the noble).
For this example the paladin could turn the poacher over for punishment, but ask for a large fine as an alternative over the usual hanging. The peasant wouldn't be able to afford paying the fine. But the paladin's order could pay the fine as an act of mercy.