Can a Paladin use Bluff


Rules Questions

201 to 250 of 329 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Talonhawke wrote:
So once again half-truths and lying by ommission are just as safe as palying "pretend" but outright lies are damning beyond belief?

What half truth?

He was asked a question and answered it directly.

The fault here lies with the questioner.


Sorry should have pointed out that it was a general statement about some of the above statements not nessasarily yours shifty.

The Exchange

over 200 posts and all this has convensed me is that I don't want to run a Paladin in PFS. To much YMMV.

OP here. I guess this thread is ... just another Paladin bashing thread. Kind of sorry now I started it.

I guess my PC can just take a single level of Paladin and "fall" then I can run him as a Fighter (which is what he started as anyway, to get the Tower Shield) with an interesting back story. Or maybe Cavalier - I just hate to run another of the mass of halfling cavaliers...


Ubercroz wrote:
It is not unlawful to lie to someone under the appropriate circumstances. He would be serving good by doing so. Where is the contradiction?

The nazi... erm.. Chelaxians at the door example above. The paladin is commiting the crime of aiding and abbeting a fugitive from the law. Its an illegal act (rightly) done for the greater good.

As for the lie specifically, its giving false testimony to an officer of the government. Most governments frown on that and make their displeasure known through long jail sentences.


nosig wrote:

over 200 posts and all this has convensed me is that I don't want to run a Paladin in PFS. To much YMMV.

OP here. I guess this thread is ... just another Paladin bashing thread. Kind of sorry now I started it.

I guess my PC can just take a single level of Paladin and "fall" then I can run him as a Fighter (which is what he started as anyway, to get the Tower Shield) with an interesting back story. Or maybe Cavalier - I just hate to run another of the mass of halfling cavaliers...

I think a paladin can use bluff. The code of conduct specifies honor, not lying is parenthetically annotated meaning it is an example or a possibility.

The example I gave was a paladin who used bluff in order to support law AND good. He bluffs in order to trap the villain, he does not violate the law, and is honorable in his execution of this bluff (the cops do it all the time). Under the right circumstances there is no reason a paladin cannot bluff. He is more limited, he just can't go around lying as it pleases him but in the pursuit of justice and good he is within his bounds and he is within his code of conduct.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ubercroz wrote:
It is not unlawful to lie to someone under the appropriate circumstances. He would be serving good by doing so. Where is the contradiction?

The nazi... erm.. Chelaxians at the door example above. The paladin is commiting the crime of aiding and abbeting a fugitive from the law. Its an illegal act (rightly) done for the greater good.

As for the lie specifically, its giving false testimony to an officer of the government. Most governments frown on that and make their displeasure known through long jail sentences.

Being lawful does not mean supporting ALL laws. That is a childish interpretation of that alignment.

lawful means supporting law as it fits your character, which does not give you leeway to be chaotic. If it is lawful to summon devils and eat babies that does not mean the paladin must nod his head and just say "well there you go, nothing to be done about that!"

So you must use REASON and determine what meets your paladins code of conduct. You could very reasonably have a paladin that is an insurgent in an evil land, fighting off the "lawful" government. He is fighting for a lawful and just society where people have the rights that he and his moral code or diety believe are correct.


Ubercroz wrote:
Being lawful does not mean supporting ALL laws. That is a childish interpretation of that alignment.

Lets not get insulting here.

Thats what the alignment means. The vast majority if not all people however do not perfectly adhere to their alignment.

The proposed paladin of abadar wanted to follow both perfectly: that can't happen without a lot of help from the dm.

Quote:
lawful means supporting law as it fits your character, which does not give you leeway to be chaotic.

Only following the laws you like is in fact the very definition of a chaotic character.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ubercroz wrote:
Being lawful does not mean supporting ALL laws. That is a childish interpretation of that alignment.

Lets not get insulting here.

Thats what the alignment means. The vast majority if not all people however do not perfectly adhere to their alignment.

The proposed paladin of abadar wanted to follow both perfectly: that can't happen without a lot of help from the dm.

Quote:
lawful means supporting law as it fits your character, which does not give you leeway to be chaotic.
Only following the laws you like is in fact the very definition of a chaotic character.

I would disagree with most of what you said.

Lawful does not mean that a player will blindly follow whatever laws they see in front of them. It is not a matter of only following the laws you like. It is a matter of following the laws you follow consistently. A chaotic character does not do that.

So as a Paladin he will always support laws that support free trade, anything outside of that is not a law he recognizes and thus opposes as it is in direct opposition to his diety and his beliefs. He will always oppose individuals who impose their will on others in regards to commerce because they do not lawfully have the right to make such restrictions.

He will not recognize a government as a lawful organization that violates the precepts that he holds true. He will consistently oppose it. So in a society with a communist regime that will not allow free trade he will become a rebel- he cannot recognize that government as good or lawful, so has no qualm opposing it.

It takes no assistance from the GM because those are the beliefs of his order. He has a code of conduct that he will not deviate from, it does not matter what country he is in or what town he is in, they cannot force him to violate his code, whatever that code may be.


Absolutely not contradictory. Complicated. Talk to your GM. Work out your own code. One that doesn't contain honor. Coppers can't afford honor. Unlike those preening noble asses that call themselves knights they have a job to do.


Atarlost wrote:
Absolutely not contradictory. Complicated. Talk to your GM. Work out your own code. One that doesn't contain honor. Coppers can't afford honor. Unlike those preening noble asses that call themselves knights they have a job to do.

I was thinking of columbo- always conveniently forgetting details, asking for clarification, acting like you don't understand when the badguy makes a contradictory statement. you can be honorable and still bluff. As long as you are consistent in your execution seems like it ought to be fine.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Yes, there is a honorable way to lie.
I know this will invoke the "no, because you're a doody head" response, but there it is.

Lying honorably, a tactic of great leaders and diplomats for thousands of years.


ubercroz wrote:
It is not a matter of only following the laws you like. It is a matter of following the laws you follow consistently. A chaotic character does not do that.

Yes, they do because they're not insane. A chaotic character does not save people from a fire on Monday and set them on wednesday.

Quote:
It takes no assistance from the GM because those are the beliefs of his order. He has a code of conduct that he will not deviate from, it does not matter what country he is in or what town he is in, they cannot force him to violate his code, whatever that code may be.

SO no code in human history has ever managed to be completely good, but a dm is going to manage to write one for this character?

No code can be that well written. It will contradict with good at some point.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
ubercroz wrote:
It is not a matter of only following the laws you like. It is a matter of following the laws you follow consistently. A chaotic character does not do that.

Yes, they do because they're not insane. A chaotic character does not save people from a fire on Monday and set them on wednesday.

Quote:
It takes no assistance from the GM because those are the beliefs of his order. He has a code of conduct that he will not deviate from, it does not matter what country he is in or what town he is in, they cannot force him to violate his code, whatever that code may be.

SO no code in human history has ever managed to be completely good, but a dm is going to manage to write one for this character?

No code can be that well written. It will contradict with good at some point.

You're taking what I'm saying out of context.

1: Chaos VS Law: The chaotic character does not consistently apply laws, while a lawful character does. While he may (or may not- a CE character may do just that!) save/set people on fire a chaotic character may choose to pay a road tax at times when it is convenient and not when he does not feel like it. A lawful character will either always pay that tax or not depending on his moral view of that law. If he feels it is unlawful he will NEVER pay it. The Chaotic character will only apply things that work for him as it makes sense during the circumstance and may actively oppose laws as a rule. It is not to say that a chaotic character is wildly shifting (though chaos would imply that) it is to say that he can. A chaotic character need not be insane to choose to apply laws only that suit his purpose at the time.

2: I do not expect the GM to write me a completely good code of conduct. I expect ME to write a code of conduct for my paladin that is both lawful and good. It is a code that, if violated, will have consequences on my character. While lying may be part of that it doesn't have to be. Being honorable can take many forms, and the traditional view of the paladin is often too narrow and is missing a lot of fun in the class.

3: While any code of conduct may have issues, that is no different than what has been offered already, so I don't really see a point of argument. This paladin of commerce may very well run into a situation where is code is challenged, but that is also part of the fun. Any code can be challenged- I am not trying to get around the rules I am simply creating an alternative set of values that still meet the criteria of the LG alignment that a paladin is bound by.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Shifty wrote:
"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.

Two problems with this:

1) What happens if they didn't? What if the very first the paladin saw them (and he knew all about them) was them turning up at his door? Quite simply, you have moved the goalposts of the situation by inventing a backstory that may not be the situation, and the paladin does not have this luxury.
2) The bad-guy still gets a Sense Motive to know that you are not telling the whole truth.
3) It is still a lie by omission.

Atarlost wrote:
Paladins fall automatically for committing evil acts. They smite evil. Good comes first. Law is a distant second.

^This.^

Paladins do not smite chaos, they smite evil. If the paladin feels bad about lying he can get an atonement later.


1) What happens if they didn't? What if the very first the paladin saw them (and he knew all about them) was them turning up at his door? Quite simply, you have moved the goalposts of the situation by inventing a backstory that may not be the situation, and the paladin does not have this luxury.

draw a line from the paladins door to his living room. Look on a map. See what landmarks are in that direction. Technically the fugitives were heading in that direction.

2) The bad-guy still gets a Sense Motive to know that you are not telling the whole truth.

Yes he does. Hence the need for the bluff skill.

3) It is still a lie by omission.

But its also the truth by omission. A paladin is sworn to tell the truth and not to lie, not to not lie by omission.

I would not banhammer a paladin fibbing once under these circumstances unless it became a habbit (if you are spying or overthrowing the evil emorer a paladin may not be the best choice for the campaign). I believe the phrase is a gross violation of the paladins code or an evil act. Its not an evil act, and its a pretty small and understandable violation....once.

The problem here is that that sort of legal chicanery is a function of intelligence.... not usually a paladins forte.


Ubercroz wrote:
While any code of conduct may have issues, that is no different than what has been offered already, so I don't really see a point of argument

What has already been discussed is that there are times where the paladin HAS to break the law in order to do good. No code is so perfect that you won't have to choose it or good at some point. Hence you cannot perfectly follow both. That shouldn;t stop you from trying, but if you can't bend even a little you're going to break.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Chaotic and Lawful has nothing to do with following laws. It has everything to do with different principles and values. Lawful is about the means and Chaos is about the ends. A Lawful character will break a law that violates his principles and a Chaotic character will follow a law that agrees with his principles.

The most clear cut example is legal abortion. A Lawful character will oppose it and a Chaotic character will support it.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ubercroz wrote:
While any code of conduct may have issues, that is no different than what has been offered already, so I don't really see a point of argument
What has already been discussed is that there are times where the paladin HAS to break the law in order to do good. No code is so perfect that you won't have to choose it or good at some point. Hence you cannot perfectly follow both. That shouldn;t stop you from trying, but if you can't bend even a little you're going to break.

So are you saying that no matter what happens a paladin will violate his code of conduct?

Does this mean that eventually all paladins will be ex-paladins? If so this is a really horrible class. I don't think that is true..

I would hope that GMs would have a little flexibility with their paladins in regards to their code of conduct. I also don't think that a paladin has to bend his code. The view that a LG character must dumbly follow whatever law is in front of them is what keeps people from playing that alignment. It's a gross oversimplification. Alignments are the most nuanced and subjective element of the game. This can cause some dispute in the game. But a paladin is not a brain dead automaton. If there is no room to role play then only a GM should be able to play a paladin. But there is room to roleplay.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

Chaotic and Lawful has nothing to do with following laws. It has everything to do with different principles and values. Lawful is about the means and Chaos is about the ends. A Lawful character will break a law that violates his principles and a Chaotic character will follow a law that agrees with his principles.

The most clear cut example is legal abortion. A Lawful character will oppose it and a Chaotic character will support it.

Would a Lawful Evil character oppose it? Would a Chaotic Neutral person support it?

I don't think that is quite as clear cut as you think. I think a LG character would very justified in supporting it because it's legal, just as justified as he would be in opposing it.

Alignment is hard, but I think you as a player, need to have reasonable justification. More often it is not the "what" they are doing it is the "why".


Shifty wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
So once again half-truths and lying by ommission are just as safe as palying "pretend" but outright lies are damning beyond belief?

What half truth?

He was asked a question and answered it directly.

The fault here lies with the questioner.

And you answered with a lie. Providing an inaccurate statement and deliberately misleading is telling a lie. It's the exact same thing. If paladins cannot ever lie, then they are forced to commit evil acts in some cases. It has been proven over and over again in this thread: some situations require you to lie in order to do good and/or prevent evil. The only question is whether a paladin should err on the side of Good or stay Lawful at all times even if his Lawful acts are directly evil.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ubercroz wrote:
Would a Lawful Evil character oppose it? Would a Chaotic Neutral person support it?

1. If it cut into his power or profits, yes. 2. If it did not infringe on his freedoms, or positively benefitted him (fewer bastards coming after him for money/revenge), yes.

But yes, I should have said 'can' instead of 'will', as not all characters of an alignment have the same principles. But my point, that the Law/Chaos axis is NOT about legal rules, remains.


Ubercroz wrote:
So are you saying that no matter what happens a paladin will violate his code of conduct?

No, because while commiting an evil act is against the paladins code he isn't always required to do the most good either. (as odd as that sounds)

Take your paladin of abadar. He would likely have to uphold the sanctity of contracts. If you have an orphan matron who was late with the mortgage payment and the bank legally forecloses what does your paladin do?Uphold the contact (the lawful thing) or stop the foreclosure (the good thing)

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ubercroz wrote:
So are you saying that no matter what happens a paladin will violate his code of conduct?

No, because while commiting an evil act is against the paladins code he isn't always required to do the most good either. (as odd as that sounds)

Take your paladin of abadar. He would likely have to uphold the sanctity of contracts. If you have an orphan matron who was late with the mortgage payment and the bank legally forecloses what does your paladin do?Uphold the contact (the lawful thing) or stop the foreclosure (the good thing)

ah, organize a Blues concert to pay the mortgage?

(But only if he wears sunglasses in the dark....).


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ubercroz wrote:
Would a Lawful Evil character oppose it? Would a Chaotic Neutral person support it?

1. If it cut into his power or profits, yes. 2. If it did not infringe on his freedoms, or positively benefitted him (fewer bastards coming after him for money/revenge), yes.

But yes, I should have said 'can' instead of 'will', as not all characters of an alignment have the same principles. But my point, that the Law/Chaos axis is NOT about legal rules, remains.

I also should have said I agree with you as well.

Shadow Lodge

I support Blues playing paladins.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ubercroz wrote:
I also should have said I agree with you as well.

Oh! Well thank you. :) In any event, it was a needed clarification.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Does sarcasm break a Paladin's Code?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ubercroz wrote:
So are you saying that no matter what happens a paladin will violate his code of conduct?

No, because while commiting an evil act is against the paladins code he isn't always required to do the most good either. (as odd as that sounds)

Take your paladin of abadar. He would likely have to uphold the sanctity of contracts. If you have an orphan matron who was late with the mortgage payment and the bank legally forecloses what does your paladin do?Uphold the contact (the lawful thing) or stop the foreclosure (the good thing)

Neither, or both. He would not infringe on the banks right to collect on a justly owed debt. He would also not want the orphans homeless so now his choice is clear he must find a new place for them to live or pay the debt himself.

The Exchange

TOZ wrote:
I support Blues playing paladins.

wow... can we even do this?

a paladin/bard... can't do it. drat...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Who says you need to be a bard to sing the blues?

Also, evangelist cleric.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
draw a line from the paladins door to his living room. Look on a map. See what landmarks are in that direction. Technically the fugitives were heading in that direction.

You know I would be more comfortable with a paladin telling an outright lie than watch them get into twisting the truth around to this degree. At least then their dishonesty is honest and they know not to do it when they are not in dire need. Otherwise, what is to prevent the paladin using such deceptions to trick foes into traps and other dangers? What is, indeed, to prevent them using them to their own gain, provided they are 'telling the truth' they haven't lied, even though it is very, very dishonourable and underhand.

Sorry, but I think lying and then asking forgiveness is by far and away the better way to go for a paladin.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
But its also the truth by omission. A paladin is sworn to tell the truth and not to lie, not to not lie by omission.

It's telling anything but the truth, it's telling 'the truth' and twisting it in such a way that it deceives absolutely. In some ways that is worse than lying. Your intent is still to deceive the other person.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I would not banhammer a paladin fibbing once under these circumstances unless it became a habbit (if you are spying or overthrowing the evil emorer a paladin may not be the best choice for the campaign). I believe the phrase is a gross violation of the paladins code or an evil act. Its not an evil act, and its a pretty small and understandable violation....once.

It would depend upon the paladin and on their individual code for me. Paladins have to act honourably, not act stupidly, and there is a real difference between the two. A paladin that has to use deception in the heat of the moment is bending the rules, not breaking them. As long as he is prepared to do the occasional atonement I don't have a problem with it provided the circumstances merit it.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
The problem here is that that sort of legal chicanery is a function of intelligence.... not usually a paladins forte.

It's actually a hallmark of Lawful Evil, not Lawful Good. Intelligent good beings know that deception is deception regardless of the letter of the statement. In either case the intent is to deceive, but in one the pretence of non-deception is made, which is a deception in and of itself.


Ubercroz wrote:
Neither, or both. He would not infringe on the banks right to collect on a justly owed debt. He would also not want the orphans homeless so now his choice is clear he must find a new place for them to live or pay the debt himself.

Which isn't always possible. It also gets problematic when the tarasque breaks down the gates and the paladin has to fight him with a club wearing nothing with a fig leaf because he sold all his weapons and armor trying to stick his fingers in the dike fixing every single case of the law and the greater good conflicting.


Dabbler wrote:
It's actually a hallmark of Lawful Evil, not Lawful Good.

LN also does it quite frequently. Its not unusual to see LG characters resort to it in dire need (Durkon, O chul from order of the stick, Barristan the bold from Game of thrones)

A paladin is required to be both lawful and good. This sort of deception is clearly lawful then if its how you define Lawful evil characters. It is being used for a good end, fulfilling both of the halves of a paladins alignment.

Quote:


Intelligent good beings know that deception is deception regardless of the letter of the statement. In either case the intent is to deceive, but in one the pretence of non-deception is made, which is a deception in and of itself.

Lie and atone might work for occasional lapses. There's certainly more than one way to be a paladin.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ubercroz wrote:
Neither, or both. He would not infringe on the banks right to collect on a justly owed debt. He would also not want the orphans homeless so now his choice is clear he must find a new place for them to live or pay the debt himself.

Which isn't always possible. It also gets problematic when the tarasque breaks down the gates and the paladin has to fight him with a club wearing nothing with a fig leaf because he sold all his weapons and armor trying to stick his fingers in the dike fixing every single case of the law and the greater good conflicting.

Yes, any answer can have holes poked in it. And yes, there could be situations where things go wrong. But I would imagine that in a real game scenario I would be able to role play this paladin in a manner that meets his code of conduct. Of course in a vacuum it is very easy to throw a straw man out an point out a potential flaw.

However, I think we have shown that under reasonable circumstances a paladin can use bluff, even regularly, and sometimes lie.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've always viewed the honour requirement for Paladins as "honourable behaviour is for honourable foes".

Certainly, a Paladin should always strive to conduct themselves with honour in their dealings with allies, strangers and enemies, but an enemy who has demonstrated that they are without honour is owed nothing by the Paladin.

If the Paladin hiding the escaped refugee family knows that handing them over will likely get them tortured, he is under no obligation to reveal anything at all to the searchers. If he believes they will be treated fairly and humanely, he will turn them over.

Essentially, every time a Paladin acts, he is asking himself "will my enemy behave in accordance with my principles of honour?" If the answer is "yes", "maybe" or "I don't know", then he must behave honourably himself. If the answer is "no", then the Paladin is opposing evil, and the gloves come off.


Chemlak wrote:
If the answer is "no", then the Paladin is opposing evil, and the gloves come off.

Ah, but even an evil opponent might be honorable...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So the Paladin will act with honour towards them. You know, offering them the chance to surrender before lopping their head off.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
It's actually a hallmark of Lawful Evil, not Lawful Good.

LN also does it quite frequently. Its not unusual to see LG characters resort to it in dire need (Durkon, O chul from order of the stick, Barristan the bold from Game of thrones)

A paladin is required to be both lawful and good. This sort of deception is clearly lawful then if its how you define Lawful evil characters. It is being used for a good end, fulfilling both of the halves of a paladins alignment.

You can say the same of just lying, though.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:


Intelligent good beings know that deception is deception regardless of the letter of the statement. In either case the intent is to deceive, but in one the pretence of non-deception is made, which is a deception in and of itself.
Lie and atone might work for occasional lapses. There's certainly more than one way to be a paladin.

I agree with you there, each paladin is different, and each code is slightly different. Ultimately, the paladin has to fit the game. In a campaign where subterfuge and oppression are the norm, a paladin that is prepared to bend the truth or outright lie is the only kind that will work; however, he should be prepared to adhere to other parts of his code pertaining to honour more strongly.

Not all paladins are knights in shining armour, after all. A paladin who has some leeway in their code in one place should be prepared to make up for it in others.

Midnight_Angel wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
If the answer is "no", then the Paladin is opposing evil, and the gloves come off.
Ah, but even an evil opponent might be honorable...

Rare. Most honourable evil foes are actually just proud, sometimes proud to the extent that they consider that pride more important than other factors such as wealth or conquest, but ultimately it's pride they cleave to, not honour.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

Chaotic and Lawful has nothing to do with following laws. It has everything to do with different principles and values. Lawful is about the means and Chaos is about the ends. A Lawful character will break a law that violates his principles and a Chaotic character will follow a law that agrees with his principles.

I think this is the most simplistic, yet accurate description I have read on describing law vs chaos.

Listed.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

My intro to philosophy class cleared a few things up for me, yes.


Dabbler wrote:
You can say the same of just lying, though.

Lying isn't lawful, especially if even lawful evil villains take pains not to do it. Deception isn't USUALLY good but in this case it is.


wraithstrike wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Chaotic and Lawful has nothing to do with following laws. It has everything to do with different principles and values. Lawful is about the means and Chaos is about the ends. A Lawful character will break a law that violates his principles and a Chaotic character will follow a law that agrees with his principles.

I think this is the most simplistic, yet accurate description I have read on describing law vs chaos.

Listed.

Agreed.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

Chaotic and Lawful has nothing to do with following laws. It has everything to do with different principles and values. Lawful is about the means and Chaos is about the ends. A Lawful character will break a law that violates his principles and a Chaotic character will follow a law that agrees with his principles.

The most clear cut example is legal abortion. A Lawful character will oppose it and a Chaotic character will support it.

that is true and I agree.

a:the means justify the ends

b:the ends justify the means

a paladin would likely strive to maintain to A more than B.

but alot of people also wind up confused on which law the paladin follows first and it would be the laws or tenants of whatever faith they belong to.

the code also says respect legitiamate authority, it does not say they have to follow it.

for instance, a paladin would respect the authority of Galt's rulers, it does not mean that they will go out and bring someone in for the greygardner's final blades when they all know that the guardners are nothing but murderers for mob justice.


I think legitimate is important as well. Its all based on the perspective of the paladin and their personal belief system.

I don't know why people feel like a paladin has to be so pigeon holed into 1 specific style of play and yet people have no problem with clerics of the same faith doing whatever.

Like you don't see people say "Can a Cleric of Iomedae use bluff?"

I guess I just feel that paladins should be more dynamic than other people feel they should be.

Dark Archive

Steelfiredragon wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Chaotic and Lawful has nothing to do with following laws. It has everything to do with different principles and values. Lawful is about the means and Chaos is about the ends. A Lawful character will break a law that violates his principles and a Chaotic character will follow a law that agrees with his principles.

The most clear cut example is legal abortion. A Lawful character will oppose it and a Chaotic character will support it.

that is true and I agree.

a:the means justify the ends

b:the ends justify the means

a paladin would likely strive to maintain to A more than B.

but alot of people also wind up confused on which law the paladin follows first and it would be the laws or tenants of whatever faith they belong to.

the code also says respect legitiamate authority, it does not say they have to follow it.

for instance, a paladin would respect the authority of Galt's rulers, it does not mean that they will go out and bring someone in for the greygardner's final blades when they all know that the guardners are nothing but murderers for mob justice.

Agreed. You could read "Respect Legitimate Authority" as "respect legitimate laws" with that "legitimate" being decided by the faith of the paladin.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
You can say the same of just lying, though.
Lying isn't lawful, especially if even lawful evil villains take pains not to do it. Deception isn't USUALLY good but in this case it is.

Lawful is all about logic and process, and lying is no more or less lawful than any other form of deception. Honour is generally lawful because it usually follows a specific codified set of reliable values, but chaotics can also have honour, they just don't codify it.

Lawful evil characters can and do lie and deceive when it suits their purpose, in fact they are renowned for it.

Chaotic good characters can and do follow dictates of honesty, if their consciences so direct them.

Ultimately, it is about being dependable. A paladin should be depended on, but more than anything he should be depended on to put good above all else, including his own honour.


Dabbler wrote:


Two problems with this:
1) What happens if they didn't? What if the very first the paladin saw them (and he knew all about them) was them turning up at his door? Quite simply, you have moved the goalposts of the situation by inventing a backstory that may not be the situation, and the paladin does not have this luxury.

Yet you are happy as long as it is only your very limited backstory?

There are probably a range of times the Paladin has seen said fugitives, at the latrines this very morning heading off on their business, last year at the fair before they were fugitives etc.

No 'inventing' needed, the Paladin can simply draw on the backstory that IS in place to name a time he saw them

Dabbler wrote:


2) The bad-guy still gets a Sense Motive to know that you are not telling the whole truth.

Does he? really?

At best he can make an opposed check to see if 'something is up', that is ALL he gets. He doesn't get to know if the Paladin isn't telling the whole truth because that's not what the Skill does. The Paladin hasn't lied.
The Paladin said something 100% true.

Dabbler wrote:


3) It is still a lie by omission.

No really it isn't.

Are you suggesting that because he is asked a question the Paladin is now forced to:
A) Answer it immediately
B) Answer it into absolute microdetail leaving nothing out whatsoever and not only answer the question put, but also answer every question IMPLIED by the question.

The question was: "Have you seen the fugitives".
Answer: Yes.

Is the Paladin then obliged to not only say where they are bit to also draw a map in case his directions are vague and also point out where any defensive traps are in case there was any confusion over his directions and could be seen as withholding something?

Yeah that all works.

Interestingly enough, 2nd Ed Paladins would have been able to simply lie or mislead the evil nasties and then go seek penance for their behaviour and atone for their misdeed. The thing that made you fall was willfully allowing harm to come to 'Good', or telling lies for personal gain etc.

I think it is indicative that the earlier editions spent over 30 pages on the Paladins Code and Ethos, as well as what constituted a violation and what the degree of violation meant, and now we are straight-jacketed by a paragraph and a half of very subjective and generalist text.

It would be nice if Paizo did up a similar class guide so these sort of conversations could come to a close.

I'd buy it.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Irontruth wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Shifty wrote:
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.

I'm sorry Irontruth, but you are wrong. A lie BY omission is when you give enough of the truth to give a certain impression, but withhold information pertinent to someone having a real understanding of the truth. Like saying "Why would you think I'm cheating on you? I've been with Brad this whole time!" when the reality is that you were on a double date with your other girlfriend AND Brad.

A lie OF omission is some made up thing that didn't exist until the last sentence of your post.


Indeed Ssalarn,

And how can the Paladin really be played properly when people can't even agree on what a lie actually is, and even invent new definitions on the fly?

Dark Archive

Yep, I could see "Noble Lies" and "Economical with the Truth" lies both being used by a Paladin.

Spoiler:

Economical with the truth (via wiki) = "by deliberately holding back relevant facts. More literally, it describes a careful use of facts so as not to reveal too much information."

And a Noble Lie (via wiki) = "In politics a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda."

201 to 250 of 329 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can a Paladin use Bluff All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.