I guess how much the familiar lies would be the clincher, but they might say fluff-wise that an honorable paladin would not have a lying familiar around.
No feats are going to help you with a difficult GM in this case.
edit:They would just see it as a loophole.
Playing it up as the faltering buddy would be very flavorful.
I like that idea.
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.
Funny.
That kind of thing would be the short road to atonement in my game.
But it probably wouldn't happen, because I would tell my players, first, that the gods would look poorly on such tricks.
Out of character, this looks an awful lot like a subversion of the rules intent. In character, it looks an awful lot like a breach of conduct. Can I applaud your canniness while simultaneously claiming that this would never, ever, fly in my game?
It would work with the right flavor. Perhaps a Penn and Teller type duo.
He is saying as I pointed out, that many GM's would see it as a rules loophole. The ability to come up with fluff to explain it might not get a free pass.
This brings back up one of my questions would most of you GMs allow a paladin to benifit from someone elses lies?
Can the rogue embellish the size on an approaching horde to get more troops to fight?
Can the paladin use disguise to sneak past guards?
Can the paladin let the party bind and gag him then claim to be at the enemies camp to "collect the bounty" when they really are just looking to get in?
If the paladin knew the rogue was lying to a potential ally(non enemy) I think he should speak up. Lying to the bad guy is ok.
I don't see an issue with disguise. I think a paladin is also a soldier, and being smart keeps soldiers alive.
The fake prisoner idea works also. I don't mind paladins using deception. They just can't lie to someone without an atonement, and even when they lie for a good reason they should atone for it. They could not have a lying familiar either, if the lies were constant.
Going back to BBT, if a GM is going to allow you to do something then he should just allow it instead of making you jump through hoops. Taking 2 feats just to be able to lie would seem like tax feats to me.
That is for my games.
I don't think the book intends for paladins to lie at all so if I was strictly by the book GM the familiar would have to be just as honest as the paladin.
The paladin would also correct the rogue's lies. I don't know about the last two.
I think the class is supposed to be hard to play, but it should also still have some flexibility.
|
Deceiving someone is lying, "You know how to tell a lie. Bluff is an opposed skill check against your opponent’s Sense Motive skill. If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true. Bluff checks are modified depending upon the believability of the lie."So, that use would require a paladin to Atone.
It is entirely possible to be deceptive while never uttering an untrue word.
Not only possible, but commonplace in certain activities. The bluff skill is not used to make a lie believable. It can be used to cover an incomplete truth, pass a meaningless statement as meaningful, or even appear ignorant when actually well informed.
Any diplomat worth the name will frequently engage in all the above activities. As paladins are often tasked with such duties, the skill to carry said duties out would be highly advised and within his code of office.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Blackbloodtroll, you have asserted, repeatedly, that there's a difference between "dishonorable lying" (which you don't like) and "honorable lying" (which you think is fine.
I'll disagree with you. Let's use a real-world example. You're called into legal court to testify. You swear to tell the truth. So, the court wants to know whether you saw your friend Steve on the evening of January 2nd, and what he was doing.
Now, you did see Steve on the evening of January 2nd, and he was hiding some undocumented workers in his basement. But he was taking care of the undocumented workers, providing food, shelter, health care, etc., and keeping them safe. And you have reason to believe that the police and judge are corrupt and in cahoots.
Ladle on all the situational details you want, but you think that lying in this case would be for a good cause. Do you get to lie in court? Nope, because you'd swore to tell the truth.
A paladin is walking around with that vow all the time, and the creatures fact-checking her are supernatural. When asked about refugees she's hiding, she can refuse to answer a question. She can do all manner of things. But she can't cheat, and she can't tell lies.
Or, to put it another way:
My Paladin PC: The people you let through the gate are dangerous and mean you harm.
NPC Guard: How do we know you're telling the truth?
My Paladin PC: (healing one of the guardsmen with lay on hands) Because I told you that, and I can still do this.
You may disagree with my interpretation, and that's fine. Run your game the way you want to run it. But please don't mistake "the game, how I want to run it, where paladins can lie as long as it's for a good cause" is either RAW or the way everybody runs the class.
Maybe some specific Diety-linked Paladin Codes could not care as much about lying as the standard Paladin Code... Those are detailed in the Campaign Setting product on Good Deities. I don't know for sure, but it seems reasonable that you would be REQUIRED to take the more strongly Deity-lined Paladin Archetype (can't remember the name) in order to use that Code and not the standard one.
But for standard Code Paladins, I think 'no lying' is pretty clear.
If they see the questioners as an illegitimate authority, they should try to confront them more directly, not lie to them, which is basically accomodating to illegitimate power instead of confronting it. Direct confrontation with Evil is the raison d'etre for all those honking huge bonuses you get from Smite, after all.
Now we are back to you can't lie but for somereason you can "pretend".
Whats the difference in using disguise or acting captured your still presenting a falsehood?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2nd Ed Paladins Handbook.
Answers everything in detail.
It says a lot that it takes a whole handbook, after all, it is a complex issue... and it says a lot that people are trying to penalise the class based on the paragraph and a half of text we currently have.
Frankly the Paladins I have seen haven't really been an issue, the issue has usually been around the maturity and or pettiness of the GM.
Yeah the GM can be really petty and think its funny they made a player lose his Paladinhood by pedantry or design, but how funny does the GM think losing a player as a result is?
Seriously.
I think everyone -- even the one person who stated that feinting was lying -- admitted that Paladins should be allowed to feint.
I think everyone agrees that Paladins can use bluff actions that are not specifically lying.
I think everyone agrees that Paladins do not have to randomly spout off every detail of everything they know to the enemy.
So here we are, 120+ posts later, you still think all that? :)
So as I was saying...
So as long as I'm only "pretending" its fine but if I lie its wrong?
Either way the paladin is not being honest so I can't lie to demons about the whereabouts of small kids why can i decieve someone as to who I am or who I'm with or why I'm there?
There really has to be room for pragmatism with the paladin, otherwise it comes off as lawful stupid by design.
There is, it's just the Hurr Durr GM's who insist on you being LS that get in the way of an otherwise great class.
I think we should clarify what is meant by "ok"
For the purpose of my post I am saying the paladin won't like it, and he can't make a habit of it, but if it has to be done, then so be. He should atone though.
As another example if he has to choose a lawful or good way to do something, I expect for him to do the good one, but still atone because it was not lawful.
At no point should he feel ok about lying to people.
That's feat heavy though.....Beats losing your Paladin powers all the time to cruel DMs.
A DM determined to strip your paladin of his powers will do so, regardless of what you do or do not do. He'll find a way, so just play your paladin as you want him, and if the DM is a Richard Cranium, ditch the game.
Blackbloodtroll, you have asserted, repeatedly, that there's a difference between "dishonorable lying" (which you don't like) and "honorable lying" (which you think is fine.
I'll disagree with you. Let's use a real-world example. You're called into legal court to testify. You swear to tell the truth. So, the court wants to know whether you saw your friend Steve on the evening of January 2nd, and what he was doing.
Now, you did see Steve on the evening of January 2nd, and he was hiding some undocumented workers in his basement. But he was taking care of the undocumented workers, providing food, shelter, health care, etc., and keeping them safe. And you have reason to believe that the police and judge are corrupt and in cahoots.
Ladle on all the situational details you want, but you think that lying in this case would be for a good cause. Do you get to lie in court? Nope, because you'd swore to tell the truth.
A paladin is walking around with that vow all the time, and the creatures fact-checking her are supernatural. When asked about refugees she's hiding, she can refuse to answer a question. She can do all manner of things. But she can't cheat, and she can't tell lies.
Or, to put it another way:
My Paladin PC: The people you let through the gate are dangerous and mean you harm.
NPC Guard: How do we know you're telling the truth?
My Paladin PC: (healing one of the guardsmen with lay on hands) Because I told you that, and I can still do this.You may disagree with my interpretation, and that's fine. Run your game the way you want to run it. But please don't mistake "the game, how I want to run it, where paladins can lie as long as it's for a good cause" is either RAW or the way everybody runs the class.
So, you think a paladin should tell the truth, even if he knows the listener will use that information to commit an evil act?
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.
My point is not that a Paladin can't lie I am on the side that believes some lies even for LG holy types might need to happen give the circumstances. The example I gave was in response to your changing the subject and compliment or (give not sought for information). Depending on the situation as a GM I might ask for a bluff check because it would involve hiding ones true feelings, or an unwillingness to give the unflinching truth. Which is why I am pointing out that there needs to be room for paladins in some circumstances to bluff.
And I never suggested a paladin had to answer any question. And I have been pretty clear that there are times when 100% honesty are not the way to go.
As presented these can never for any reason ever tell a lie Paladins, could not lead men in war because they are not permited to sneak attack our use any deception to out manuver foes, ect. It is one thing to claim that some paladins are lawful stupid it is another thing to give them no other option and then penalize them when they act the best they can in a situation for the greater good.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, you think a paladin should tell the truth, even if he knows the listener will use that information to commit an evil act?
Analogy: You are holding an enraged hedgehog in one hand, and a key in the other. You have been asked to babysit a delightful cherub, and you have promised not to give the child the enraged hedgehog. The child asks you for the key, and you have a strong belief that the child will use the key to unlock a cell and release a dangerous madman.
Giving the child the key is a bad idea. If you refuse, are you then compelled to give her the enraged hedgehog?
Seelah has promised to keep her word and not lie. A child asks her for the combination of a lock securing a dangerous madman. Giving the child the combination is a bad idea. If Seelah refuses, must she then give the child a false answer?
Short answer: No. But a paladin isn't compelled to answer every question put to her. If she is magically compelled to answer, but not compelled to tell the truth, then she might well lie, knowing that under the circumstances it would better to seek atonement for breaking her vows.
But make no mistake: she's breaking her vows.
EDIT: And this has nothing to do with her alignment. If a lawful evil Hellknight swears to tell the truth, then the first lie across his lips breaks that vow.
The problem with this thread is that adventures put characters in very diverse situations when any number of different reasons and senarios occur we can come up with many analogies. I think that trying to pigeon whole a class into impossible situations and then complain about lawful stupid or demand they lose their powers for using less than honorable means is a little unfair.
Like many discussions on the boards this seems to be polarizing rather than discussing slight nuances of dealing with the problem facing playing a "good" character.
I'm actually rather surprised that so many people in this thread think that "lying for good" is not an inherently dishonest or immoral act. It's classic "ends justify the means" Machiavellian philosophy and it definitely does not jive with being a Paladin.
That's me ... and as said above, every DM is different. I would, however, strongly disagree with anyone who states that it's ok to "lie for good".
I don't think you realize just how wrong that is, and how much even you disagree with it, so here's a simple scenario to illustrate.
You're a paladin who's protecting a family of innocents from a tyrannous lord. You've stopped and holed up in a house for a bit while you think about what to do next. Stopping here seems fairly safe because nobody in the village looks like they're going to give you up to the authorities, and you've got the family well hidden so that even if the house was given a once over they wouldn't be found. Then a bunch of heavily armed, shady looking characters that are part of a very large military division that's searching the town knock on your door and ask if you've seen the family (the one you're hiding). Fighting isn't going to work, you're quite outnumbered and outgunned, and they would probably guess that something's up if you attacked them. So what do you do: lie, or tell the truth?
Tell the truth. "Yes. When I was out in the field yesterday, I saw them beseeching a mighty warrior for aid to protect and hide them. After they walked into the town I lost sight of them."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tell the truth. "Yes. When I was out in the field yesterday, I saw them beseeching a mighty warrior for aid to protect and hide them. After they walked into the town I lost sight of them."I'm actually rather surprised that so many people in this thread think that "lying for good" is not an inherently dishonest or immoral act. It's classic "ends justify the means" Machiavellian philosophy and it definitely does not jive with being a Paladin.
That's me ... and as said above, every DM is different. I would, however, strongly disagree with anyone who states that it's ok to "lie for good".
I don't think you realize just how wrong that is, and how much even you disagree with it, so here's a simple scenario to illustrate.
You're a paladin who's protecting a family of innocents from a tyrannous lord. You've stopped and holed up in a house for a bit while you think about what to do next. Stopping here seems fairly safe because nobody in the village looks like they're going to give you up to the authorities, and you've got the family well hidden so that even if the house was given a once over they wouldn't be found. Then a bunch of heavily armed, shady looking characters that are part of a very large military division that's searching the town knock on your door and ask if you've seen the family (the one you're hiding). Fighting isn't going to work, you're quite outnumbered and outgunned, and they would probably guess that something's up if you attacked them. So what do you do: lie, or tell the truth?
And then the DM makes you role a bluff check because in that situation you are trying to hide something. Your not lying but you are trying to hide. Pehaps the no lying tanget to this thread had gotten away from the core question as whether or not you can bluff. But most GM's I have been with when I have attempted this kind of thing expect a bluff check because not because I am lying or not but to see how well I am diverting the guards from their goal of finding the family.
So, you think a paladin should tell the truth, even if he knows the listener will use that information to commit an evil act?Analogy: You are holding an enraged hedgehog in one hand, and a key in the other. You have been asked to babysit a delightful cherub, and you have promised not to give the child the enraged hedgehog. The child asks you for the key, and you have a strong belief that the child will use the key to unlock a cell and release a dangerous madman.
Giving the child the key is a bad idea. If you refuse, are you then compelled to give her the enraged hedgehog?
Seelah has promised to keep her word and not lie. A child asks her for the combination of a lock securing a dangerous madman. Giving the child the combination is a bad idea. If Seelah refuses, must she then give the child a false answer?
Short answer: No. But a paladin isn't compelled to answer every question put to her. If she is magically compelled to answer, but not compelled to tell the truth, then she might well lie, knowing that under the circumstances it would better to seek atonement for breaking her vows.
But make no mistake: she's breaking her vows.
EDIT: And this has nothing to do with her alignment. If a lawful evil Hellknight swears to tell the truth, then the first lie across his lips breaks that vow.
I don't disagree with you. A paladin should seek to be as honest as possible in all endeavors. So I'm not advocating that paladins should go around lying all the time. I think a paladin's code is important. I personally would place the greatest value on the protection of innocent life. Lying to protect an innocent is okay, but it should be a last resort.
Too many absolutes and a paladins code is unfollowable and worthless as a guide to a paladins actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But make no mistake: she's breaking her vows.
I won't disagree about it being vow-breaking, but I do want to emphasize that it's specifically not an offense that they will fall for, per the RAW.
You have the right to remain silent.
You need bluff to keep secrets, they can still read your body's physical apperance communication. Stressed much?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then a bunch of heavily armed, shady looking characters that are part of a very large military division that's searching the town knock on your door and ask if you've seen the family (the one you're hiding). Fighting isn't going to work, you're quite outnumbered and outgunned, and they would probably guess that something's up if you attacked them. So what do you do: lie, or tell the truth?
I think the problem here is that you're trying to make out the paladin to be the highest form of good possible: He's not. He both draws strength from and is constrained by his adherence to law and his code. These will on occasion prevent the paladin from taking the action that is the best way to a good end. Neutral good would be a purer and higher form of good. The constraints of chaotic good seldom apply to groups as small as adventurers.
the end the paladin wants here is for the family to be safe. He should not lie to achieve that end. He should both tell the truth and bluff. WHy does the difference between an outright falsehood and a misleading statement matter if its only a technicality? Because thats all the law is really.
"You wont find them here" ( because i'm going to kill you personally if you try to look)
" A search of the Maidens Mast Tavern might prove fruitful (hey it might)
No one you're looking for is in the basement (they're in the attic)
There 's no fugitives on my premises (i don't own the building)
All of these are technically true:they are still bluffs.
Its the sort of word play you usually see from lawful evil, but lawful good can do it too. Its certainly POSSIBLE for any of the above to work, but not nearly as well as n outright fabrication. IF that reduces the chance of success that's a compromise a paladin has to make because his concept of good IS compromised by his adherence to law.
A paladin can simply not answer, change the topic, whatever.
It's when they actually lie they run into trouble.
The idea of the vows and oaths is for them to live up to the noble ideals, not to straightjacket and punish them, its a goal to strive for, not a punitive measure.
Once again, 2nd Ed Paladins Handbook has a few great chapters covering the Oaths and Vows, and what happens when the Paladin deviates (by free will or compulsion).
Clearly the small and ambiguous paragraph and a half in the PFCRB really isn't sufficient to cover what is clearly an extremely important class issue. Could you imagine the outcry if a Wizard could be stripped of all their powers based on such a small amount of text?
Paladins suffer for being a class that is really not well understood, coupled with some great power, and opposed by a lot of people who don't apprecaite the 'good guys' in a story.
A paladin can simply not answer, change the topic, whatever.
Not easily done to a determined interrogator.
Brutal Oppressive Guard: "We're looking for escaped fugitives. Seen any?"
Paladin: "Lovely day isn't it?"
BOG: "Grab him and search the place. Throw him in the dungeon for impeding the guard if we find nothing, impale him as a traitor if they're here."
This guy wants a yes or no answer and isn't in the mood for small talk. Sometimes it really is a choice between 'lie or watch the innocent die.'
"Yes I did see some escaped fugitives just this morning, they were headed to the market square" The paladin offers, completely truthful. What he hasn't said was that he also saw them about an hour later when they came back.
So once again half-truths and lying by ommission are just as safe as palying "pretend" but outright lies are damning beyond belief?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Never ask a paladin how his day is going.
So once again half-truths and lying by ommission are just as safe as palying "pretend" but outright lies are damning beyond belief?
Thats law for you. Whats the moral difference between giving a politician a suitcase of cash or donating to his superpac? None. Whats the legal difference? 7-10 years.
So I was thinking of making a paladin who eventually took some levels as a rogue, specifically the investigator arch-type. I would be taking bluff as a skill.
The idea here is this paladin is a Paladin of Abadar- his primary interest is in fairness of commerce and he believes that fair-trade and things that support that system are inherently good. He would use his bluff skill the same way a police officer would (which in the US is legal) to lie in order to get people to admit the truth. His goal would be good, and his practice of bluffing would be legal and therefore lawful. He uses sneak attack because he is an excellent tactician and knows that when he hits it needs to count. He bluffs to support the law.
In your opinion is this character contradictory? He follows a code of conduct from which he will not deviate, he will unerringly be lawful and good.
Why would this be wrong?
being unnervingly (insert two different things) will always be contradictory
being unnervingly (insert two different things) will always be contradictory
I don't know what you mean I guess.
It is not unlawful to lie to someone under the appropriate circumstances. He would be serving good by doing so. Where is the contradiction?
Are those classes contradictory? I don't believe they are. As long as he sticks to his moral compass and does not veer from his code why would that matter?