Yeah, those are called Clerics, what you're describing.Whether GM'ing games with a Paladin or playing a Paladin myself, My take on them has always been the same - I've always been a lot more concerned with their honoring their God's rules and expectations and working towards their God's agendas than I have been with their being strictly lawful or with some generic code universally applied. In fact, I've allowed Paladins for ANY good deity, provided their alignment exactly matched their deity's and they followed that alignment conscientiously. Atonement has only ever been necessary when they failed to put the wishes or the needs of their faith first.
The way I see it, the deities are the source of a Paladin's power, so its the deity the Paladin needs to worry about pissing off. To accomplish the deity's ends, its all on the table if the God in question says so.
So Paladins don't get their divine powers from their deities?
Heh - who knew?
Paladins who don't worship a Deity do not. Same with Clerics who don't worship a Deity.
A Paladin cannot lie. All other uses of bluff are game.
Fixed it for you. Honourable lying is a contradiction of terms, it like saying just murder.
Or the Paladin cries out, "I will never tell you where they are, and they are MOST CERTAINLY NOT in the Farmhouse three miles down the road!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or sometimes he could say nothing at all, or point out what a lovely shade of green it is, or how radiant it makes her hair appear.
I don't think all types of lies are dishonourable, but the rules don't separate the two. I tend to think of Superman when I think of Paladins, except that paladins are more likely to kill someone due to the nature of the game.
The question is how good is the paladin supposed to be?
IMHO:The paladin should be held to a very strict standard, but without handicapping it. If the paladin does a bad thing for a good reason I think an atonement(not even the spell) should be enough.
"I am sorry deity X that I had to take the lesser path, but.........
Everything I do is for the cause, please find it within yourself to forgive my transgression."
Where do the rules specify all lies are dishonorable.
The line stating a paladin cannot lie is a subtext of dishonorable acts, which implies lying in a dishonorable manner is prohibited.
They don't. They just list lies as an example of a dishonorable thing, but since there is no mentioning of lies as an honorable thing. That combined with the fact that lies are not looked upon as a positive thing makes people believe that lying is always bad for paladins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because so many people in real life have no problems with dishonesty, doesn't mean the paladin's code should be relaxed. Yes, it may be hard for a PLAYER who spews lies and falsehoods without remorse in real life to adjust to playing someone whose word is their bond, but that is part and parcel of playing a paladin.
Paladins must also send letters to enemies one week in advance of any chance encounters which might result in either persons death. Failure to do so, regardless of how unpredictable the encounter, results in loss of Paladin abilities, no atonement.
Personally I have never allowed a lying paladin either. They are held to a very strict moral code. That section does not say a paladin can not tell dishonorable lies. It does say they can't lie. In any event this is one class where talking to the GM beforehand is very important.
2nd Ed Paladins Handbook was a great one.
Covers stuff like 'what happens when a Paladin lies' etc, they actually have levels of transgression and levels of reparation.
Its much better than the balancing act people are trying to enforce off of a couple of vague lines of text. A class shouldn't be readily undone by a paragraph and a half of generalist and vague guidelines.
I agree, and I am considering relaxing my view on the lies. I have already relaxed a few other things anyway.
@Quantum Steve
I'm not arguing that a paladin can disregard their code. I'm arguing that the code is not a straitjacket. It's a tool.
A well played paladin picks his fights.
He doesn't bully the weak and downtrodden.
He doesn't abide anyone else bullying the weak or downtrodden either.
On lies;
Lies are not evil. They are dishonest and potentially dishonorable. But TRUTH as a concept is a deeply philosophical ideal. If a lie of omission is still a lie can a paladin keep his mouth shut? If opening his mouth will get multiple innocents killed where does he stand?
For a paladin, Good outweighs Lawful, everytime. The good of the many outweighs the value of his personal honor. That's his burden.
The example of the family hiding in the cellar;
Soldier asks "have you seen the Smith family?"
Pally responds "Yeah, I think they were up the road thataway about an hour and a half ago", they were, that's how he brought them into the village.
This is a bluff check mechanically.
It's also a half truth, the kids are in the basement, he just put them there. He didn't tell the soldiers "don't know who your talkin bout Willis".
Would he tell an outright lie if it was the only way to save those kids from a slow death?
Yep, of course.
Because he can atone for his transgression, that's his burden.
Leading the lambs to slaughter to protect his personal honor, that's an evil act, something he cannot abide.
On Poisoning the castle's water supply;
If the paladin can knock out the entire defending force with a paralytic or sleep inducing agent so as to take the castle with a minimum loss of life, not only for the men under his command but also for the poor slobs trapped inside, that's just a smart call on his part.
Is it dishonorable?
Maybe.
Is it evil?
Not even close.
His own men get to go home to their families and farms.
The enemy defenders, they get the chance to redeem themselves, to make their lives something worthy of the gift of life.
A well played paladin knows that armies are frequently made up of conscripts, with little understanding of the goals of their leaders. It's seldom that an opposing force is entirely composed of irredeemably corrupt souls. Why would he not take the course of action that potentially spares hundreds if not thousands of lives?
It's not like laying siege to the fortress and letting it's occupants potentially starve to death is a more humane course of action.
Now the argument could be made that paladins make poor military commanders because of their code, but I'm betting they make worse subordinate officers.
If the opposing army is trapped, but knows that the paladin is a paladin, they may negotiate a surrender. They may not make that same deal if there is an barbarian or ranger general in the paladin's place. But if the enemy commander is a nutjob or a wannabe martyr there maybe no terms offered or accepted.
Then a little lite poisoning might be the best outcome for all involved. Except for the paladin, he will have to wrestle with his guilt at using such an underhanded tactic or have to deal with the head of his order who is old school (a 1st Ed. Paladin) who issues a public censure and strips rank for the offense. This is the paladin's burden but one he would gladly take on rather than burying hundreds of fathers and sons who died for his personal honor.
I'm not talking about grey areas in the code.
I'm talking about acceptable levels of right and wrong. To a paladin there is always a right way and if he has to sacrifice his personal honor, his pride, the esteem of his peers or even his life, he will do so to see that what is right gets done.
That's what being a paladin is all about.
Everyone is selfless sometimes, a paladin is selfless as often as is mortally possible.
sigh...
Hi, I'm the OP on this thread.84 posts and I am no closer to my answer.
There is no consensus here, you need to talk to your DM and explain your ahcracter concept, and find from him what constitutes honourable behaviour for a halfling in Cheliax. I suspect that it would included liberating slaves and looking after the downtrodden rather than never using bluff to get an advantage in combat or misdirect a Hellknight, but that's just my interpretation.
1. You mention honourable, which is good, a Paladin has to act with honour. But certain things, like lying, cheating, and using poison, are dishonourable. It doesn't matter if you do them with good intentions, good intentions do not define honour, it doesn't matter if you only employ these things against evil creatures, they're still dishonourable.
They are dishonourable when you have a choice and use them anyway. When circumstances allow no other option, and when dealing with a foe that has no compunction using such tactics, then they are justifiable. That doesn't make them good, but it does make them acceptable on a case-by-case basis if they are done to protect the innocent and not for selfish ends.
Paladins do have to skirt the line between honour and dishonour, good and evil, fairly regularly when dealing with dishonourable and evil creatures. But they should still hold themselves to the highest standards, and so should their Players and GMs.
Agreed. I do not claim that a paladin should use such tactics if he has any other viable choice.
2. You mention "Greater Good." I really dislike reading this word in Pally threads, because it implys doing something not so good for the greater good.
Sadly that happens a lot. Killing is wrong, is it not? Yet no one claims paladins should fall if they kill monsters or evil people to protect the innocent. So why should they fall if they lie to such beings instead to protect the innocent?
Paladin's don't break their code for the "greater good". They can't do evil for the "greater good." The "greater good" comes from doing the greatest good. That's why Paladins have codes.
We are not talking about breaking the code, we're talking about bending it. Lying, cheating etc. are listed as examples of honourable behaviour. The goal is, behave honourably, and as I have stated there are circumstances under which honour can be served without always telling the truth.
Honour is in fact a very variable concept depending on circumstances and culture. It basically means codified, reliable behaviour that others can depend upon.
The halfling paladin can honourably lie to hellknights to protect escaped slaves, because protecting the downtrodden is his honour.
The paladin of Eastil can shoot monsters from ambush because his honour lies in protecting his community.
The paladin of Shelyn can honourably defy authorities to marry the lovers who were forbidden by their families to wed, because it furthers the cause of true love.
The paladin is the guy who will always do the right thing. He will, when dealt with fairly, deal fairly in return, every time. He strives to lead by example. But he doesn't have to deal fairly with an unfair world when there is no other option but the loss of all they fight for.
Or sometimes he could say nothing at all, or point out what a lovely shade of green it is, or how radiant it makes her hair appear.
Would this be a bluff. As a husband NOT A PALADIN when questions like this arise even subtle changing of the subject is an attempt to avoid giving the sought answer. As such it is also a means from time to time not letting ones true feelings be known. Seems to me that if this where attempted it would call for a bluff. Which in this case I would say yes a Paladin can.
Well I think OP's question is difficult to firmly answer because as much as we want a simple cut black and white answer it involves a number of subjective things.
There are in my view situations when bluff should be allowed, feinting in combat, resisting interogation, and lets face it in a number situations that might arise when keeping innocent people alive, survival of the mission ect when bluffing or even outright lying to the enemy (usually a dispicable one) might otherwise mean failure.
PF like D&D before offers mechanics and guidelines to define the game in general but there are times when in specifics things get subjective. We face this all the times it is immpossible to cover ever skill, given the complex nature of real life ethics is it really hard to get why the appication of a game system and its short description of the ethics to unmuddy the waters.
Or sometimes he could say nothing at all, or point out what a lovely shade of green it is, or how radiant it makes her hair appear.
That is called lying by omission. When asked a question and pretending to not know the answer, or avoiding the topic, you are "avoiding telling the truth", otherwise known as a lie.
Personally I have never allowed a lying paladin either. They are held to a very strict moral code. That section does not say a paladin can not tell dishonorable lies. It does say they can't lie. In any event this is one class where talking to the GM beforehand is very important.
It also specifically doesn't say they fall if they tell a lie. So what happens if they do?
Paladins don't get their powers from their deity alone. They get their power due to their purity as well. This is why the paladin's code is so important. If paladins lose their purity, they lose their power no matter how devout they remain.
This goes back to the Lancelot/Galahad myth, where Lancelot was the most powerful knight who had miraculous healing powers until his love for Guinevere caused him to fall and lose his miraculous powers. He still remained a powerful knight though.
His illegitimate son Galahad remained pure throughout his life, and never lost his miraculous powers and eventually was called to heaven.
That purity came at a high cost though. They could not lie, could not have sex, could not amass wealth, etc.
So there was no "girlfriend" asking "does this dress make me look fat?" and if they were in a fight with a demon and maintained their purity, they would not be the one lying crippled on the floor needing to "lie honorably". The demon would be.
This is how paladins were derived in the game originally. Perhaps the PF paladin is some sort of watered down version of the original paladins who no longer have to worry about losing their powers if they lie.
But when I play a paladin, I'm an originalist. No lying. No sex. Strict adherence to the code. That's what makes a paladin a paladin instead of a knight in fancy armor.
As far as "bluffing" is concerned, I would say that bluffing is an edge case. You can bluff without lying. Feinting with a sword is a bluff. So I would say paladins can bluff as long as they don't lie.
sigh...
Hi, I'm the OP on this thread.84 posts and I am no closer to my answer.
This character is for use in PFS, so the judge at the table will not be the DM, and may even be a different person each time I play him.
That IS your answer. You've chosen a character type that requires you to submit to other people's conception of "honor". Honor is highly subjective. As with all organized play, you need to be ready to submit to the rulings handed down at the table that day.
That IS your answer. You've chosen a character type that requires you to submit to other people's conception of "honor". As with all organized play, you need to be ready to submit to the rulings handed down at the table that day.sigh...
Hi, I'm the OP on this thread.84 posts and I am no closer to my answer.
This character is for use in PFS, so the judge at the table will not be the DM, and may even be a different person each time I play him.
So, in this case the best approach is to have the character adopt the most stringent honor code possible and that will rarely, if ever, be ruled wrong.
Or sometimes he could say nothing at all, or point out what a lovely shade of green it is, or how radiant it makes her hair appear.That is called lying by omission. When asked a question and pretending to not know the answer, or avoiding the topic, you are "avoiding telling the truth", otherwise known as a lie.
That is not lying by omission if you just don't answer the question or speak on the subject at all. Lying by omission is when you tell part of the story, but "forget" certain details, as an example.
Personally I have never allowed a lying paladin either. They are held to a very strict moral code. That section does not say a paladin can not tell dishonorable lies. It does say they can't lie. In any event this is one class where talking to the GM beforehand is very important.It also specifically doesn't say they fall if they tell a lie. So what happens if they do?
I don't think a breaking the code means a paladin falls. I think evil actions cause them to fall, so lieing just gets you evil points*.
*not a game term.
Yeah you can, but you probably wont get as much good from it. You need bluff because sense motive can be used on you even if your are not saying anything to gleem a conclusion. Such as the "No Comment" could be in the wrong tone.
I prefer a paladin to be an uncompromising paragon of LG, and an unflinching divine servant (whether that be a god or unspecified force of good). No such thing as a lie for good.
However, that should be a two way street. The divine has lots of mortal tools, and paladins have specific purposes of inspiration and smiting and such. They shouldn't be the only tool available, all sorts of fighters and rogues and NPCs and such also serve. If the situation is going to lead to double-binds and sin vs sin confusions, then that's what all the non-paladins are for.
The divine power behind the paladin (as worked by the GM) should be trying to avoid putting their paladin into the lose-lose situations that will tarnish them, unless there's a Job deal going down or the like.
If the divine isn't watching out for the paladin, or in fact is deliberately putting them into sketchy situations, then that will result in 4 types of paladins. Naive fools that are on the way to fall, dead paladins, fallen paladins, or darker paladins that get to play loose with their code for a greater good.
This is why, the only good answer to any paladin thread is still to talk this stuff out with the GM before playing a paladin in their game.
A Paladin cannot lie dishonorably. All other uses of bluff are game.
all lies are dishonorable. if you want to do the wrong thing for the right reason you;re looking for chaotic good.
|
I have never believed that the Paladin needs to be "Lawful Stupid". In the contrived case mentioned above, somehow misleading or deceiving the horde of soldiers is the only way to save the innocents. I do not think that the paladin would be committing an evil act by trying to mislead them.
Many would say that the deception is a chaotic act, and I agree. The paladin would probably need to atone for the act. But in this case, telling the truth, knowing that it would result in the torture and/or death of innocents would be an evil act.
The paladin's code might even require him to sacrifice his abilities to save others.
Hence the rest of my post, explaining that to have paladins like that, it requires the GM to work with the paladin to not screw them over for their lack of comprimise with reality. Context.
This sort of ideal devoted paladin wouldn't fit in a grim realism game, except possibly as a foil to a Rahadoumi anti-deist, highlighting the contrast of the power of a divine servant vs the power of an individual.
A Paladin cannot lie dishonorably. All other uses of bluff are game.all lies are dishonorable. if you want to do the wrong thing for the right reason you;re looking for chaotic good.
The problem with this statement is exactly where the definition of 'lie' stands. Is it just a deliberate spoken falsehood? Does it include lies by omission? Does it include feints and combat tricks?
The way I see it, there are some situations in which deception is expected and not regarded as dishonourable. Combat is one of those, and situations involving subterfuge to do right is another.
"In time of war, when truth is so precious, it must be attended by a bodyguard of lies." - Winston Churchill
Hence the rest of my post, explaining that to have paladins like that, it requires the GM to work with the paladin to not screw them over for their lack of comprimise with reality. Context.
This sort of ideal devoted paladin wouldn't fit in a grim realism game, except possibly as a foil to a Rahadoumi anti-deist, highlighting the contrast of the power of a divine servant vs the power of an individual.
Hence the statement I made that ultimately each paladin is an individual in unique circumstances. Either the DM has to arrange such circumstances never to occur as you say, or the DM has to allow the paladin to be a little individual in his interpretation of the code of what is honourable or not. I personally think the latter is the better course of action, especially in campaigns that revolve around intrigue.
Indeed, "the only good answer to any paladin thread is still to talk this stuff out with the GM before playing a paladin in their game."
Or sometimes he could say nothing at all, or point out what a lovely shade of green it is, or how radiant it makes her hair appear.That is called lying by omission. When asked a question and pretending to not know the answer, or avoiding the topic, you are "avoiding telling the truth", otherwise known as a lie.That is not lying by omission if you just don't answer the question or speak on the subject at all. Lying by omission is when you tell part of the story, but "forget" certain details, as an example.
It is exactly an omission. If someone asks you something, you know the answer but say nothing, that is an omission. If you are doing so purposely to deceive them of a fact, that is a lie.
Lie of omission.
The problem with this statement is exactly where the definition of 'lie' stands. Is it just a deliberate spoken falsehood? Does it include lies by omission? Does it include feints and combat tricks?
For the paladin to say it, it a\has to be able to go through detect lies spell AND it has to serve a good end (or at least not an evil one) . Lie of omission is a phrase, not something the paladin has to worry about.
The way I see it, there are some situations in which deception is expected and not regarded as dishonourable. Combat is one of those, and situations involving subterfuge to do right is another.
Feinting in combat is just part of swinging a sword. For fighting i'd imagine there would have to be defined rules of law describing what can or cant be done. theres plenty of historic examples to choose from.
The problem with this statement is exactly where the definition of 'lie' stands. Is it just a deliberate spoken falsehood? Does it include lies by omission? Does it include feints and combat tricks?For the paladin to say it, it a\has to be able to go through detect lies spell AND it has to serve a good end (or at least not an evil one) . Lie of omission is a phrase, not something the paladin has to worry about.
Its not an evil act, so a minor infraction doesnt auto banhammer a paladin from their powers, but its] shouldn't become a habbit
Feinting in combat is just part of swinging a sword. For fighting i'd imagine there would have to be defined rules of law describing what can or cant be done. theres plenty of historic examples to choose from.
The way I see it, there are some situations in which deception is expected and not regarded as dishonourable. Combat is one of those, and situations involving subterfuge to do right is another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would this be a bluff. As a husband NOT A PALADIN when questions like this arise even subtle changing of the subject is an attempt to avoid giving the sought answer.
But he isn't changing the subject, he is still making a comment on her appearance which is VERY MUCH on topic, and its not a 'Bluff' if it is true.
If we accept that changing the subject or not answering a question is 'lying' then by extension we must then accept:
* A Paladin MUST answer every question 100% honestly.
* A Paladin MUST answer every question EVER asked of him, on the spot, with no delay.
Once you realise how ridiculous that is, you realise that the interpretation is clearly wrong.
there is a difference between not telling a lie, and can't withold the truth.
If the city guard asks "do you have any weapons", he can be silent or he can say "do I look like I have any on me?" (bluff), he can't say "no sir, of course not, I'm a poor farmer, and even if had the money for a sword, I took a vow of nonviolence, oh and here is a goldpiece for your trouble".
And of course he doesn't need to cry out "yes sir, and those two also have sword, my fellow traveler here also has a hidden dagger in his boot, and that one has 2 stolen jewels."
Shaking your head would need a bluff check, but the GM has to judge if it's considered lying. I would say yes, because it's a nonverbal expression that clearly states a verbal one.
The problem with this statement is exactly where the definition of 'lie' stands. Is it just a deliberate spoken falsehood? Does it include lies by omission? Does it include feints and combat tricks?For the paladin to say it, it a\has to be able to go through detect lies spell AND it has to serve a good end (or at least not an evil one) . Lie of omission is a phrase, not something the paladin has to worry about.
So you are saying 'lie' means in this context stating a clear and deliberate falsehood with the intent to deceive, not deception by omission or partial truths. As long as the reply is true from a certain point of view then the paladin is in the clear? I can go with that.
That's feat heavy though.....Beats losing your Paladin powers all the time to cruel DMs.
Does beating your DM cause you to lose your paladin powers as well?
Seriously, a Paladin, with a Vow of Silence, who has the Eldritch Heritage feat, for a talking, lying familiar.
Nit-pickiest, Paladin-hating DMs be damned.
That would not work if the GM thinks the paladin should not lie.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters 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.
All a player can really do is find a GM who has views they can at least compromise on.