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?
I feel as though the walls of reality are crashing down on me! WHERE ARE YOU NOW PALADIN OF MINE?!
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.
Are you trying to grammar nazi my post? If so, please go away, because that is both horrendous manners as well as horrendous debating. It's internet equivalent of walking up to a conversation, farting and walking away.
I've heard that argument, and I don't buy it. If you're writing computer code, yes, it doesn't stand up as a lie to just be silent, but it's the intent that is more important.
And I was able to "make this up" and convince the internet that Mark Twain wrote it. He gives it a different name, the "lie of silent assertion".
When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie
A Russian poet and dissident agrees with me as well... was said that before I was born, but of course, I just made this up.
|
"The silence is deceptive in that it gives a false impression to the person from whom the information was withheld. "
See, you have to actually be deceiving someone for it to be a lie. Not saying anything or changing the subject is not deceptive.
Reading Mark's argument, he's talking about a 'silent-assertion', which is different from lie by omission. You can see it right in the name, 'assertion'. If no assertion is made, there can be no lie.
T.L.C.: So in both cases, the intention is to deceive?
Big D: Correct. A lie is not in the words, or lack of words; it's in the intention of the deceiver.
It is if you are doing those things with the intent to withhold information.
Silence is not inherently untruthful. It is untruthful when it is used to deceive.
Someone steals something. You witnessed it.
If you are in a roomful of people and someone comes in and asks, "Does anyone know who stole X?" If you don't speak up, you are lying about the fact that you know.
If you instead change the subject "Its a nice day if it doesn't rain," you are trying to distract the listener from the subject in order to conceal that you know something of importance. Unless you're a Delta Knight trying to give the other person a signal.
"The silence is deceptive in that it gives a false impression to the person from whom the information was withheld. "
See, you have to actually be deceiving someone for it to be a lie. Not saying anything or changing the subject is not deceptive.
Reading Mark's argument, he's talking about a 'silent-assertion', which is different from lie by omission. You can see it right in the name, 'assertion'. If no assertion is made, there can be no lie.
T.L.C.: So in both cases, the intention is to deceive?
Big D: Correct. A lie is not in the words, or lack of words; it's in the intention of the deceiver.
I think we're closer on this than our words are suggesting.
To me, a lie by omission is intending to deceive someone by not talking about a specific subject. Whether that includes other words or not is irrelevant. It's purposeful, not accidental or coincidental.
If you are in a roomful of people and someone comes in and asks, "Does anyone know who stole X?" If you don't speak up, you are lying about the fact that you know.
So unless you completely confess with no delay and full detail anytime anyone ever asks a question then you are lying.
I can see BBEG's doing over Paladins:
BBEG: ZOMG! Its that damnable Paladin again! I'm doomed!
Pal: Any last words Ph34rm3 3viln3cr0m4nc32?
BBEG:"Umm yes, can you tell me the answer to the following questions...
Pal: "Oh s**t..."
From now on, all bad guys will stop Paladins by asking short questions requiring complicated answers as a free action, costing Paladins their standard or move action to reply to.
It doesn't have to include words, but it does have to include actions intended to deceive. A nod or shake of the head, shrug, etc.
Silence is not lying, it's refusing to answer.
Inaction is an action. It's a "special initiative action".
If you are in a roomful of people and someone comes in and asks, "Does anyone know who stole X?" If you don't speak up, you are lying about the fact that you know.So unless you completely confess with no delay and full detail anytime anyone ever asks a question then you are lying.
I can see BBEG's doing over Paladins:
BBEG: ZOMG! Its that damnable Paladin again! I'm doomed!
Pal: Any last words Ph34rm3 3viln3cr0m4nc32?
BBEG:"Umm yes, can you tell me the answer to the following questions...
Pal: "Oh s**t..."From now on, all bad guys will stop Paladins by asking short questions requiring complicated answers as a free action, costing Paladins their standard or move action to reply to.
You mistake my intent. I am trying to show how holding paladins up to this stringent ideal of not lying is fraught with peril, not to the paladin, but the concept of paladins. In your scenario, I think the paladin should (assuming the normal conditions for killing someone is met) run the guy through. Especially for that horrible name.
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.
Indeed. I am open and honest about the fact that I will lie under certain circumstances-- because it is important to me that people know they can count on me to lie when it's necessary. There's a huge, qualitative, difference between lying about the facts and lying about your intentions.
I've heard that argument, and I don't buy it. If you're writing computer code, yes, it doesn't stand up as a lie to just be silent, but it's the intent that is more important.
And I was able to "make this up" and convince the internet that Mark Twain wrote it. He gives it a different name, the "lie of silent assertion".
When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lieA Russian poet and dissident agrees with me as well... was said that before I was born, but of course, I just made this up.
So if you ask me a question I know the answer to, and I just walk off I am lying?
Well this is just about the most obvious case of the pot calling the kettle black I've seen in this thread.
Want to point to where I invented a new definition?
Oh wait...you can't.
U Mad?
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?
The definitions are not new, and you are at last starting to appreciate why we are saying that actually, lying should not necessarily be seen as a violation of the paladin's code in certain circumstances, be it an outright lie or a lie by omission, by silence or being economical with the truth.
The claim that a paladin cannot lie is ridiculous because there are so many ways of defining lying, and your method of 'not lying' just qualifies as more lying to somebody else. So if you feel this is the only way your paladin can respond to the situation, fine, go for it, but be aware that he is still, but some definitions, deceiving the enemy - but that's OK, because paladins should be allowed to deceive their enemies in some circumstances, whatever they may think.
Other paladin-players who just have their paladin lie outright on the spot are being no more dishonest than you, and are breaking their codes no more than your paladin is. It's just horses for courses, as it should be.
The answer to the OP is yes a paladin can use bluff.
a side note: A paladin can lie, but has to be really careful about what and to whom said paladin is lying to.
A paladin by profession is not going make a habit out of lying though. A paladin will lie to protect his/her charge or party if said paladin is captured and is interrigated.
anyone who wishes to argue the point of this is having a case of lawful stupid, as lying in this manor or bending the truth s not enough to violate their code or make them fall from grace.
This is just how I see it.
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.Indeed. I am open and honest about the fact that I will lie under certain circumstances-- because it is important to me that people know they can count on me to lie when it's necessary. There's a huge, qualitative, difference between lying about the facts and lying about your intentions.
Just so. The paladin has to be honourable because he has to be dependable. For example he has to accept a surrender because if he doesn't every paladin's enemy will fight to the death, and that means there is no chance to redeem them.
Just popped in, to see what condition this thread's condition is in.
It's conditional on who you ask.
Lawful is all about logic and process
I don't see the correlation between law and logic.
and lying is no more or less lawful than any other form of deception.
They are to a paladin because other forms of deception may or may not be against the rules. This form definitely is.
Lawful evil characters can and do lie and deceive when it suits their purpose, in fact they are renowned for it.
They deceive but they don't lie. Its kind of their thing.
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.
You cannot depend on a paladin to always do the good thing because by their very nature they have to worry about the law as well. What you're describing is the neutral good alignment, which the paladin is not. A paladin will sometimes place the law above or at least next to good (but never to the point of doing evil)
So if you ask me a question I know the answer to, and I just walk off I am lying?I've heard that argument, and I don't buy it. If you're writing computer code, yes, it doesn't stand up as a lie to just be silent, but it's the intent that is more important.
And I was able to "make this up" and convince the internet that Mark Twain wrote it. He gives it a different name, the "lie of silent assertion".
When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lieA Russian poet and dissident agrees with me as well... was said that before I was born, but of course, I just made this up.
Walking off is not inherently lying.
It has to be your intent to either maintain or create false conclusions.
Pleading the 5th amendment is not lying by omission. You are clearly stating that you have information, because our legal system protects you from self-incrimination, you are not required to speak. Without that protection, silence would be a lie, because you would have an ethical duty to tell the truth.
over 270 posts and all the responses have done is convense me not to run a Paladin in PFS.
I wouldn't hesitate running a Pally.
The minute I score an Aasimar Boon Im rolling it!
I don't see the correlation between law and logic.
Lawful is all about logic and process
Seriously? O_O
Lawful alignments are about codified behaviour, discipline, and organisation. Logic is just organised thinking; hence logical implies lawful, and lawful implies logical.
and lying is no more or less lawful than any other form of deception.They are to a paladin because other forms of deception may or may not be against the rules. This form definitely is.
That depends on whether a lie-by-omission is regarded as a lie or not. As demonstrated in several posts, it's not only difficult to find any kind of misdirection that doesn't in some way qualify as a lie but also very difficult to tell the absolute truth.
There is no official ruling on this outside the code that says a paladin should behave honourably, so I would say that a paladin should strive to be honest, but sometimes being honest has to be avoided in order to maintain honour and good.
Lawful evil characters can and do lie and deceive when it suits their purpose, in fact they are renowned for it.They deceive but they don't lie. Its kind of their thing.
That is your personal interpretations. Unfortunately, in everyone else's game, LE lies quite happily thank you. The epitomes of lawful evil, devils, lie a lot.
I refer you to p171 of the new Advanced Race Guide, where the entry for the archdevil Baalzebul (alignment LE) has as his concerns Arrogance, flies, lies. Clearly LE characters can and do lie, and some of them are indeed renowned for it.
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.You cannot depend on a paladin to always do the good thing because by their very nature they have to worry about the law as well. What you're describing is the neutral good alignment, which the paladin is not. A paladin will sometimes place the law above or at least next to good (but never to the point of doing evil)
The point has been made many times that paladins are lawful GOOD, not LAWFUL good and definitely not lawful stupid. They fall if they commit evil acts, they have to atone if they perform chaotic ones. Kinda says it all, really. When a paladin has to choose between law and good, he should generally choose good every time.
Of course there are some paladins out there (say paladins of Abadar) that place law on an equal footing with good, but these are the exception rather than the rule. People are free to play their paladins as they feel they should be played without being strait-jacketed by overly-strict interpretations of the paladin's code - especially when said interpretations effectively make it impossible to stay a paladin for longer than five minutes.
over 270 posts and all the responses have done is convense me not to run a Paladin in PFS.
I wouldn't hesitate running a Pally.
The minute I score an Aasimar Boon Im rolling it!
shifty -
I avoid conflict with my Judge as much as I can. It upsets me, and makes the game "no fun". As I often say, I'm not looking to argue, I just want to play.When I sit at a table in PFS, I am often playing for a "fresh" judge, someone I have never played with before. I want to give him a good impression of me, and have fun playing at his table. Fun for me and for him and for everyone else. In the corse of the game, when the Storm Troopers stop the Landspeeder and my PC says "these are not the droids you are looking for..." I do not want to get into a "discussion" about:
1) Does Bluff = Lieing.
2) Is using Bluff against the Paladin Code.
3) does my PC loose his Paladin abilities for trying to Bluff.and rehash at the table (while 3-5 other players wait) what has not be resolved in over 270 post (so far).
I just want to Role Play the part, and have fun (oh, and maybe Take 10 or roll some dice while using a silly voice).
So I guess I'll just set Paladins aside and run them in Home games, where I can predict how I need to play the PC class.
(and on a side note, IMHO Aasimar don't make better paladins - strong clerics, but just OK paladins. If you had said you would be running a Tiefling Paladin - that would impress me.)
Yeah, if you don't like talking to the judge about it I think that makes sense.
I would personally not have a problem with it, but I can understand how you could feel awkward if you seemed to be holding up the game.That being said, RAW: lying does not cause you to lose paladin abilities.
Just one point, to open a huge can of worms - read the paragraph on ex-Paladins.
So if you ask me a question I know the answer to, and I just walk off I am lying?I've heard that argument, and I don't buy it. If you're writing computer code, yes, it doesn't stand up as a lie to just be silent, but it's the intent that is more important.
And I was able to "make this up" and convince the internet that Mark Twain wrote it. He gives it a different name, the "lie of silent assertion".
When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lieA Russian poet and dissident agrees with me as well... was said that before I was born, but of course, I just made this up.Walking off is not inherently lying.
It has to be your intent to either maintain or create false conclusions.
Pleading the 5th amendment is not lying by omission. You are clearly stating that you have information, because our legal system protects you from self-incrimination, you are not required to speak. Without that protection, silence would be a lie, because you would have an ethical duty to tell the truth.
Then how is being silent lying. The paladin is not trying to fool anyone. He is just refusing to answer the question. The paladin is under no obligation to answer to the bad guy.
Actually even if the authority was legit the paladin would not be lying. He would be breaking the part of the code where he is not respecting legitimate authority, but that is not lying. It is refusing to cooperate.To lie is to try to deceive. To lie by omission is basically the same thing as to tell a "half-truth." I do agree that a "half-truth" is a whole lie.
Remember, I'm saying the intent is to deceive.
If I say to you "I assume it's safe to use these stairs?"
And you stay silent, with the intent that I maintain my assumption, you purposely deceiving me. You had a chance to speak up and correct me.
I am not saying its necessarily unethical. I might be taking the stairs to go murder a bunch of orphans. But you did use deceit to achieve your ends, instead of say... violence, by running me through with a sword to stop me, or bull rushing me into the stairs.
"For evil to triumph good men need only do nothing"
Please remember, I'm on the side that says it is okay for paladins to lie when necessary. Part of that reason is that it can be so easy to lie by omission. I think a paladin should avoid it as much as possible, but deception, not matter how you achieve it, is still deception.
I don't think me not wanting to say something is lying. Maybe I just don't want you to know, or maybe I want to stay neutral and not become involved.
Now if my intent is to deceive then I am not being honest, but lack of honest falls under general deception*, not lying, and there are several ways to deceive people.
*As a broad category first. From there it is broken down into the type of deception. Lie are active attempts to hide the truth, not passive so even if I know the staircase will crumble I am not lying.
I'm not interested in developing a complex legal language. If you want to make a distinction between lying and deception, you'll have to do it without me.
Chaos just uses a different logic, Dabbler.
Illogical logic?
I'm not interested in developing a complex legal language. If you want to make a distinction between lying and deception, you'll have to do it without me.
It is not complex at all. Deception is broad, lying is specific.
As an example, automobiles are broad, while cars are specific.
I'm not interested in developing a complex legal language. If you want to make a distinction between lying and deception, you'll have to do it without me.I do apollogize for all of us Irontruth, but this generally does derail into this.
but as I said, a paladin can use bluff and can lie.( after all who is going to tell the bbeg everything) the paladin just has to be very careful about doing it.
and if all else fails, there is always the truth in a certain point of view logic.
Overall I'm okay with the thread, we've debated several related topics. I feel the same way as you. Lying/deception should not be the primary option for paladins (except maybe in warfare, as all warfare is deception). I felt that the lie by omission was a perfect example of why the standard of "never lie" was too high.
The code of conduct and ex-paladin core rule book text states that paladins lose their powers if they break their code, which includes lying.
A bluff to feint in combat is not a lie, it is a offensive combat maneuver designed to give you an advantage.
If you are stone walling someone by using silence, I personally would not call that a lie because you are avoiding confrontation.
Unfortunately a paladins power comes from some very narrow guidelines which can create a lot of potential "lawful stupid" hurdles. It isn't always clear where a paladins power comes from but the core rule book does explicitly state how a paladin can lose their powers. An honorable lie is still a lie, so if the paladin willfully goes against his or her code then the powers are lost.
To make things run smoother the GM and player need to clearly recognize how much the code is going to dictate for the paladin in order to avoid issues. With PFS, i would say the games arbitrator is going to dictate this in any ways he/she sees fit.
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, 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.
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 weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description in Spell Lists), as appropriate.
Rather a different criteria, same logic, I suppose.Chaos just uses a different logic, Dabbler.Illogical logic?
I don't know that logic needs to apply at all. You could have a logical or illogical L or C character.
It more a matter of values, the lawful character beleives there is value in having a system of laws. They believe that these laws serve a purpose and ate interested in upholding that standard.
Neutral does not place a high value on law so long as it is not infringing on him its not a big deal if there is a lawful government or not, he is more interested in being left alone.
Chaotic feels that laws inherently infringe on freedom. They believe that lawful societies are either corruptible or are not conducive to their goals. Though they don't have to oppose all law as a rule they would feel that law is at best unnecessary.
The problem Sarrion is there are times when aspects of the code run into competition. Lie or innocents die, or other such dilema.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a paladin uses bluff does he lose his class features?No more so than if he uses his sword to stab something and kill it.
AKA: Context is what decides if a paladin loses class features.
I'm not interested in developing a complex legal language. If you want to make a distinction between lying and deception, you'll have to do it without me.It is not complex at all. Deception is broad, lying is specific.
As an example, automobiles are broad, while cars are specific.
I'm not sure that that's the example you want. Vehicles vs cars, maybe?
I completely agree and they are aggravating situations to be in, my point isn't that it's easy to deal with. The fact is lying breaks the default code of a paladin. Maybe there is a loophole in the paladin code having to willfully commit a lie. An example being that the paladin has to lie under duress because his action would cause immediate irreparable harm to an innocent which would violate his code if he tells the truth. Now this could lead to the paladin confronting the persecutors or handing himself over to protect the innocent.
|
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. Are you trying to grammar nazi my post? If so, please go away, because that is both horrendous manners as well as horrendous debating. It's internet equivalent of walking up to a conversation, farting and walking away.No Irontruth, I was not grammar nazi'ing your post. I was pointing out the fundamental misunderstanding you have of what a lie by omission is. There is no fundamental requirement to answer every question posed to a paladin by whomever asks. If a paladin chooses to simply not answer a question put to him, it is not a lie by omission, it is not dishonest, it is merely choosing not to answer. You used the phrase "lie of omission" which I pointed out was a non-existent thing because it was said in support of your supposition. You do not lie by not saying anything and thus abstaining from providing any information whatsoever, you lie by providing FALSE information. A paladin choosing not to answer a demon, devil, or other person with evil intentions when questioned about the whereabouts of a given person/place/thing, is not lying, and is in fact taking the best route available to uphold his honor if he is unable to smite said thing.
I'm not sure that that's the example you want. Vehicles vs cars, maybe?I'm not interested in developing a complex legal language. If you want to make a distinction between lying and deception, you'll have to do it without me.It is not complex at all. Deception is broad, lying is specific.
As an example, automobiles are broad, while cars are specific.
Even better. :)
Hmm... I'm trying to think of easy ways to explain this, and it's REALLY not easy, but I think I may, perhaps, have hit upon something. It stems from the fact that the Paladin class is probably the one class that actually requires roleplaying more than game mechanics, otherwise it's broken to all hell.
It all boils down to the character's choices (roleplaying consideration) against player choices (game mechanic consideration).
A Paladin should never lose their Paladinhood as a result of game mechanic considerations.
Loss of Paladinhood comes from evil acts, violating the code of conduct, or ceasing to be Lawful Good. None of those are game mechanical. They're all roleplaying considerations.
This is what makes the question that spawned this thread an impossible one to answer, because the RAW don't (I would argue that they can't) define the precise roleplaying behaviour expected of a Paladin. At the end of the day, the only way forward with this is for a Paladin's player to learn to ask one simple question of the GM when roleplaying: "If I do X, will I be in violation of the Paladin Code of Conduct?"
dabbler,
You're worried about lies of omission, but isn't anything less than "I'm a paladin. I hate you and everything you stand for. If i could i would put your and your lords head on a pike. When you leave, i will continue working so that if its not my hand on the blade it will be my face in the crowd" ...omiting crucial facts?
As to law vs chaos and logic, law uses one overarching set of logic that it tries to apply to everything. Chaos uses logic on a per situation basis.
Rather a different criteria, same logic, I suppose.Chaos just uses a different logic, Dabbler.Illogical logic?
I always viewed Chaotics as using intuition rather than logic.
Unfortunately a paladins power comes from some very narrow guidelines which can create a lot of potential "lawful stupid" hurdles. It isn't always clear where a paladins power comes from but the core rule book does explicitly state how a paladin can lose their powers. An honorable lie is still a lie, so if the paladin willfully goes against his or her code then the powers are lost.
The problem here is how strictly you interpret the code. I would say that evil acts, sure. Code-breaking, though, you'd have to break it good and hard to lose all powers. I think there have to be extenuating circumstances for some 'violations' or the paladin is effectively unplayable.
(and on a side note, IMHO Aasimar don't make better paladins - strong clerics, but just OK paladins. If you had said you would be running a Tiefling Paladin - that would impress me.)
Yeah I know they don't make the (mechanically) most solid Pallys, but I just love the flavour of them... I'm a huge believer that:
Style > Substance
Nice to have both of course!
Tiefling would be cool too, in that rising above his heritage way.
I eagerly awaut looking at the ARG & BOA to see what fine options they have made available for the Aasi, hopefully they have some interesting Paly archetypes.