What gets me about this debate is that good characters have to be good, but evil characters choose when to be evil. Good has to be good constantly, while evil only has to be evil when it suits it's purposes.
This is bunk. If you are mostly stable, but willing to do rough stuff when the need/opportunity arises, you are neutral. People set standards for what behavior is necessary to stay good, but none for what is necessary to stay evil. An antipaladin is meant to be the mirror to the paladin. Where a paladin is meant to portray the best of what is good, the antipaladin is meant to be the worst about what is evil. Capricious, cruel, sadistic, commanding through fear rather than loyalty. We're talking puppy kickers here.
Paladins arent special because their way is the most effective way to fight evil, but because theirs is the best example to set to other good people as a representative of good deities. Antipaladins, therefore, should be similar exemplifiers of the cruel malevolence of their masters. This does not necessitate stupidity any more than paladinhood does, but an antipaladin should be on the lookout for opportunities to do evil, to spread misery and fear, to selfishly increase his own power.
An antipaladin in my game would fall (rise?) if he were not evil enough. If you don;t walk the walk, you don't get the goodies.
Except that the Anti-Paladin has built into his code a caveat that allows them to do good if it furthers his more evil plans. Eseentially its like the saying "For the greater good" but in reverse. Doings like say... Put on a face of good ness and helping people out so that the city loves you and elect you as Furor but in the background, setting up a giant magic circle to sacrifice the entirety of a country without them even knownig (FMA reference for the win!!!).
What gets me about this debate is that good characters have to be good, but evil characters choose when to be evil. Good has to be good constantly, while evil only has to be evil when it suits it's purposes.
This is bunk. If you are mostly stable, but willing to do rough stuff when the need/opportunity arises, you are neutral. People set standards for what behavior is necessary to stay good, but none for what is necessary to stay evil. An antipaladin is meant to be the mirror to the paladin. Where a paladin is meant to portray the best of what is good, the antipaladin is meant to be the worst about what is evil. Capricious, cruel, sadistic, commanding through fear rather than loyalty. We're talking puppy kickers here.
An antipaladin in my game would fall (rise?) if he were not evil enough. If you don;t walk the walk, you don't get the goodies.
Right- Paladins fall for kicking a puppy. Anti-paladins fall for NOT kicking a puppy.
Being that Evil takes choices away just like being that Good does.
Except that the Anti-Paladin has built into his code a caveat that allows them to do good if it furthers his more evil plans. Eseentially its like the saying "For the greater good" but in reverse. Doings like say... Put on a face of good ness and helping people out so that the city loves you and elect you as Furor but in the background, setting up a giant magic circle to sacrifice the entirety of a country without them even knownig (FMA reference for the win!!!).What gets me about this debate is that good characters have to be good, but evil characters choose when to be evil. Good has to be good constantly, while evil only has to be evil when it suits it's purposes.
This is bunk. If you are mostly stable, but willing to do rough stuff when the need/opportunity arises, you are neutral. People set standards for what behavior is necessary to stay good, but none for what is necessary to stay evil. An antipaladin is meant to be the mirror to the paladin. Where a paladin is meant to portray the best of what is good, the antipaladin is meant to be the worst about what is evil. Capricious, cruel, sadistic, commanding through fear rather than loyalty. We're talking puppy kickers here.
Paladins arent special because their way is the most effective way to fight evil, but because theirs is the best example to set to other good people as a representative of good deities. Antipaladins, therefore, should be similar exemplifiers of the cruel malevolence of their masters. This does not necessitate stupidity any more than paladinhood does, but an antipaladin should be on the lookout for opportunities to do evil, to spread misery and fear, to selfishly increase his own power.
An antipaladin in my game would fall (rise?) if he were not evil enough. If you don;t walk the walk, you don't get the goodies.
Rhe Anti-Paladin code being more flexible does fit rather nicely with the fact that Anti-Paladins are not just evil, but Chaotic Evil. Chaotic alignments generally aren't into ironclad, inflexible codes.
But as a result the Anti-Paladin winds up being more party friendly than the Paladin.
Huh?
Party with Paladin= Don't be evil murderhoboes.
Which no mature adult wants to do anyway, except maybe as a change of pace.
Antipaladin: Wake up dead as he has sacrificed you in your sleep.
Which is more party friendly again?
Try more:
Paladin=Don't be murderhobos, Don't commit sneak attacks (as in ambushes), do not lie, always follow the law (even when said law is what is holding the party back due to corruption), when people surrender you have to take them prisoner (even if you know they are "surrendering" so that they can save their hides and abuse corruption to get out again, like a mob boss), ect. ect. ect.
Anti-Paldin= Do whatever you have to for the greater evil
Here lets look at this:
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.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
Code of Conduct
An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts. This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends. An antipaladin’s code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don’t interfere with his goals.Associates
While he may adventure with evil or neutral allies, an antipaladin avoids working with good characters or with anyone who consistently attempts to do good deeds. Under exceptional circumstances, an antipaladin can ally with good associates, but only to defeat them from within and bring ruin to their ranks. An antipaladin does not need an atonement spell during such an unusual alliance as long as his nefarious goals are met in the end—evil cares only about results. An antipaladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are chaotic evil.
Seems like the paladin got the crap end of the stick here... pretty much the Paladin can be forced to fall pretty easy (make him choice between to bad choices and he is forced to fall since he cannot choice the greater good) but the Anti-Paladin has a built in answer (it is for the greater evil in the long run).
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of problems would be solved if Paizo left in a single sentence from the 3.5 Paladin code.
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.
Which let you play the Qi-Gon Jinn types of Paladins, or have Prince Arthas style corruption (which was ideal for NPCs slipping down the slope). They removed this, so now violating your code /at all/ results in instant falling. Absolutes generally cause problems in almost any situation, and the paladin code is no exception. A Paladin cannot follow the spirit of the code anymore so much as the literal wording. This can create catch-22s in gameplay when two aspects of the Paladin code conflict.
For example, if a Paladin commits a lie of omission to protect the innocent, the Paladin falls. Likewise the Paladin couldn't cheat at a badguy's games, even if it means putting the lives of innocents at risk (which is a very real possibility if you have a twisted badguy similar to the Joker). Paladins likewise cannot use poison (despite Paizo insisting that poison isn't evil), which means a Paladin can't even lay out rat poison in a plague-infested city.
Spirit of the code vs stupidly literal. Unfortunately Paizo pushed it towards the stupidly literal by removing the option to bend rather than break.
A lot of problems would be solved if Paizo left in a single sentence from the 3.5 Paladin code.
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.Which let you play the Qi-Gon Jinn types of Paladins, or have Prince Arthas style corruption (which was ideal for NPCs slipping down the slope). They removed this, so now violating your code /at all/ results in instant falling. Absolutes generally cause problems in almost any situation, and the paladin code is no exception. A Paladin cannot follow the spirit of the code anymore so much as the literal wording. This can create catch-22s in gameplay when two aspects of the Paladin code conflict.
For example, if a Paladin commits a lie of omission to protect the innocent, the Paladin falls. Likewise the Paladin couldn't cheat at a badguy's games, even if it means putting the lives of innocents at risk (which is a very real possibility if you have a twisted badguy similar to the Joker). Paladins likewise cannot use poison (despite Paizo insisting that poison isn't evil), which means a Paladin can't even lay out rat poison in a plague-infested city.
Spirit of the code vs stupidly literal. Unfortunately Paizo pushed it towards the stupidly literal by removing the option to bend rather than break.
Pretty much this...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is really funny that antipaladins are better team players than paladins. They have abilities that combo with allies more readily, don't get bent out of shape because someone else isn't following their ideals, and would happily save puppies and kittens if it meant getting what he/she wanted. Hell, they could do it just because they wanted the self indulgence of doing so.
Almost every act of heroism can be de-goodified by simply removing the altruism aspect of it. An antipaladin could go around doing tons of acts of daring do, as long as it was for selfish motivations.
Party: "Why did you save this town?"
Anti: "Now they owe me,"
Party: "What about that baby that the kobolds were going to sacrifice?"
Anti: "I reminded them that their god is weak,"
Party: "Why did you use a potion of infernal healing on that maiden's injured horse? That was awfully nice of you,"
Anti: "Because she was hot, and I piss potions of infernal healing,"
Party: "Damn Alicia, don't you ever do anything nice for anyone?"
Anti: "Of course I do. I just bought myself this new sapphire studded skirt and this strawberry icecream topped waffle,"
Except that when RAW is law... then the Paladin's Code become an issue. House-ruling and such are fine, but by RAW the Paladin can barely exist without falling. Oh and god forbid the party have to go to a place like Cheliax... they would fall pretty much upon entering the city...
|
I'm playing a Paladin. He's not The Paragon, so... Am I doing anything wrong?
No. Paladins are not required to be paragons. They are required to do their best to live up to their own code. They are also not required to enforce this code on others; but certainly would not stand by and observe others committing evil acts.
The paladin in our Rise of the Ruinlords game has a rather unexpected habit of visiting the Pixies Kitten when she's cranky. That is certainly not what you would expect of a paragon of the paladin class; but it does not violate the code of Iomedae.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"...or who grossly violates the code of conduct..."
Grossly. Not "even just a little bit", but grossly.
Even so, it would be better if that was replaced with "frequently".
But grossly implies that there is indeed room to maneuver, just not in a way that utterly disregards the code.
I would however say that at some point, Alicia better come up with a whoopass deed of consummate evil to make up for the good she left behind. Because despite her intentions, she did leave those areas better off for her presence, and that's a big no for the Anti-Paladin.It is really funny that antipaladins are better team players than paladins. They have abilities that combo with allies more readily, don't get bent out of shape because someone else isn't following their ideals, and would happily save puppies and kittens if it meant getting what he/she wanted. Hell, they could do it just because they wanted the self indulgence of doing so.
Almost every act of heroism can be de-goodified by simply removing the altruism aspect of it. An antipaladin could go around doing tons of acts of daring do, as long as it was for selfish motivations.
Party: "Why did you save this town?"
Anti: "Now they owe me,"
Party: "What about that baby that the kobolds were going to sacrifice?"
Anti: "I reminded them that their god is weak,"
Party: "Why did you use a potion of infernal healing on that maiden's injured horse? That was awfully nice of you,"
Anti: "Because she was hot, and I piss potions of infernal healing,"
Party: "Damn Alicia, don't you ever do anything nice for anyone?"
Anti: "Of course I do. I just bought myself this new sapphire studded skirt and this strawberry icecream topped waffle,"
She has no risk of becoming even Neutral aligned. She regularly, as an adventurer, hurts, oppresses, and kills things purely for her own self interests and whims. She does evil on a constant basis. Every time she cuts down an enemy with her sword and laughs about it, she's comitting heinous and atrocious acts of evil.
They're just heinous and atrocious acts of evil that happen to be damn useful to an adventuring party most of the time.
It is really funny that antipaladins are better team players than paladins. They have abilities that combo with allies more readily, don't get bent out of shape because someone else isn't following their ideals, and would happily save puppies and kittens if it meant getting what he/she wanted. Hell, they could do it just because they wanted the self indulgence of doing so.
Almost every act of heroism can be de-goodified by simply removing the altruism aspect of it. An antipaladin could go around doing tons of acts of daring do, as long as it was for selfish motivations.
Party: "Why did you save this town?"
Anti: "Now they owe me,"
Party: "What about that baby that the kobolds were going to sacrifice?"
Anti: "I reminded them that their god is weak,"
Party: "Why did you use a potion of infernal healing on that maiden's injured horse? That was awfully nice of you,"
Anti: "Because she was hot, and I piss potions of infernal healing,"
Party: "Damn Alicia, don't you ever do anything nice for anyone?"
Anti: "Of course I do. I just bought myself this new sapphire studded skirt and this strawberry icecream topped waffle,"This.
Except the saving puppies and kittens. That goes beyond Good and Evil.
Yeah, even Nazis liked kittens. :P
"...or who grossly violates the code of conduct..."
Grossly. Not "even just a little bit", but grossly.
Even so, it would be better if that was replaced with "frequently".
But grossly implies that there is indeed room to maneuver, just not in a way that utterly disregards the code.
She quoted the OLD 3.5. The Pathfinder paladin code removed that line entirely.
A lot of problems would be solved if Paizo left in a single sentence from the 3.5 Paladin code.
appropriate.For example, if a Paladin commits a lie of omission
I am not sure how one adjudicates a "lie of omission" in game terms...
Can you give an example which would cause a Paladin to fall?
A Paladin finds some innocent refugees in a cave that the party was exploring. Later, he encounters some soldiers of a rival seeking said refugees and they ask him if he has seen any.
He can now...
Not say anything about the refugees while knowing they are there, which is a lie of omission. Or he can say "I haven't seen anyone like that," which is also a lie. Or he could do something really awesome and say, "I wish I'd seen refugees. The only thing I've had the misfortune of crossing today was a nest of ankhegs in a nearby cave; and let me tell you sir, running in this armor is not an easy task!"
In all three cases the Paladin falls, even though he's keeping up with the spirit of the code. He's not going to kill the soldiers because they're just following orders, but the Paladin knowing that the refugees are just fleeing civilians knows that handing them over to the soldiers would be wrong as it would be harming innocents, and the soldiers are no legitimate authority to the Paladin (no more legitimate than the soldiers who should be protecting the refugees anyway).
If this sounds implausible, note that this stuff happened all the time in WW-II, and would likely happen in any sort of campaign where there's a war involved, which ironically should probably be the sort of campaign that Paladins thrive in seeing as they are martial characters who are themed after Crusaders.
The book of Exalted Deeds in 3.0 suffered from the "being good makes you an evil douchebag" thing too. If I was the leader of an adventuring party of good-guys, I'd kick out most anyone who joined up with vows because it means they're going to frequently not do the right thing and put their allies in danger for their own selfish desires.
But as a result the Anti-Paladin winds up being more party friendly than the Paladin.
Huh?
Party with Paladin= Don't be evil murderhoboes.
Which no mature adult wants to do anyway, except maybe as a change of pace.
Antipaladin: Wake up dead as he has sacrificed you in your sleep.
Which is more party friendly again?
Try more:
Paladin=Don't be murderhobos, Don't commit sneak attacks (as in ambushes), do not lie, always follow the law (even when said law is what is holding the party back due to corruption), when people surrender you have to take them prisoner (even if you know they are "surrendering" so that they can save their hides and abuse corruption to get out again, like a mob boss), ect. ect. ect.
A
Don't commit sneak attacks (as in ambushes)= Not true.
do not lie= The paladin can't lie but the party can
always follow the law(even when said law is what is holding the party back due to corruption)= not true. "respect legitimate authority"
when people surrender you have to take them prisoner = not true.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
A lot of problems would be solved if Paizo left in a single sentence from the 3.5 Paladin code.
appropriate.For example, if a Paladin commits a lie of omission
I am not sure how one adjudicates a "lie of omission" in game terms...
Can you give an example which would cause a Paladin to fall?
A Paladin cannot lie. A Lie of Ommision is still technically a lie.
She quoted the OLD 3.5. The Pathfinder paladin code removed that line entirely."...or who grossly violates the code of conduct..."
Grossly. Not "even just a little bit", but grossly.
Even so, it would be better if that was replaced with "frequently".
But grossly implies that there is indeed room to maneuver, just not in a way that utterly disregards the code.
Yeah. It really needs to come back.
|
|
What gets me about this debate is that good characters have to be good, but evil characters choose when to be evil. Good has to be good constantly, while evil only has to be evil when it suits it's purposes.
This is bunk. If you are mostly stable, but willing to do rough stuff when the need/opportunity arises, you are neutral. People set standards for what behavior is necessary to stay good, but none for what is necessary to stay evil. An antipaladin is meant to be the mirror to the paladin. Where a paladin is meant to portray the best of what is good, the antipaladin is meant to be the worst about what is evil. Capricious, cruel, sadistic, commanding through fear rather than loyalty. We're talking puppy kickers here.
Paladins arent special because their way is the most effective way to fight evil, but because theirs is the best example to set to other good people as a representative of good deities. Antipaladins, therefore, should be similar exemplifiers of the cruel malevolence of their masters. This does not necessitate stupidity any more than paladinhood does, but an antipaladin should be on the lookout for opportunities to do evil, to spread misery and fear, to selfishly increase his own power.
An antipaladin in my game would fall (rise?) if he were not evil enough. If you don;t walk the walk, you don't get the goodies.
Well said. Though I will point out that anti-paladins do not necessarily think of themselves as evil. Properly played they can truly believe in the righteousness of their cause. They're just warped and twisted to the point of no longer understanding the damage they cause. An anti-paladin truly believes that the ends to justify any and all means.
As a near perfect example I leave this quote, "Luke, you do not yet realize your importance. You have only begun to discover your power. Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Paladin finds some innocent refugees in a cave that the party was exploring. Later, he encounters some soldiers of a rival seeking said refugees and they ask him if he has seen any.He can now...
Not say anything about the refugees while knowing they are there, which is a lie of omission. Or he can say "I haven't seen anyone like that," which is also a lie. Or he could do something really awesome and say, "I wish I'd seen refugees. The only thing I've had the misfortune of crossing today was a nest of ankhegs in a nearby cave; and let me tell you sir, running in this armor is not an easy task!"In all three cases the Paladin falls, even though he's keeping up with the spirit of the code.
In the first one, he does NOT fall. "act with honor (not lying..) does not mean "Being a blabbermouth."
He can change the subject, he can refuse to answer.
A Paladin cannot lie. A Lie of Ommision is still technically a lie.A lot of problems would be solved if Paizo left in a single sentence from the 3.5 Paladin code.
appropriate.For example, if a Paladin commits a lie of omission
I am not sure how one adjudicates a "lie of omission" in game terms...
Can you give an example which would cause a Paladin to fall?
Where does it say that in the RAW?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems a lot of Paladin hate comes from people not understanding Lawful alignments.
"Yes I have seen them, but I will not willingly reveal their location.
I am prepared to defend that knowledge, should it become necessary. Will it?"
Stern look followed by intimidate check.
A Paladin cannot lie. A Lie of Ommision is still technically a lie.
Keeping your mouth shut is fine, though. If you take a lie of omission to an extreme and can only give a full and accurate recounting of all things ever, then nothing would ever get done. Paladins are fine. People judging them are the problem.
A Paladin finds some innocent refugees in a cave that the party was exploring. Later, he encounters some soldiers of a rival seeking said refugees and they ask him if he has seen any.He can now...
Not say anything about the refugees while knowing they are there, which is a lie of omission. Or he can say "I haven't seen anyone like that," which is also a lie. Or he could do something really awesome and say, "I wish I'd seen refugees. The only thing I've had the misfortune of crossing today was a nest of ankhegs in a nearby cave; and let me tell you sir, running in this armor is not an easy task!"In all three cases the Paladin falls, even though he's keeping up with the spirit of the code.
In the first one, he does NOT fall. "act with honor (not lying..) does not mean "Being a blabbermouth."
He can change the subject, he can refuse to answer.
And in doing so he will raise suspicion or draw unnecessary flak onto his party, all for his own selfish ideals. That's my point. If he refuses to answer, then that makes it seem pretty obvious that he probably has seen them and is just being obstinate, so the soldiers have a good idea that the refugees are probably somewhere in walking distance of the Paladin.
In a more severe scenario, the refusal to answer could result in the entire party being seen as enemies of that country, and he might be starting a fight needlessly which while not specifically forbidden in the code does seem to go against the spirit of the code (further adding to my point that the code ruins the spirit of it).
This is the problem with the whole "just don't say anything" thing. It generally falls somewhere between "incredibly stupid" and "lie of omission".
Where does it say that in the RAW?
Paladin code of conduct. Says they can't lie. It's pretty easy to find really.
Where does it say that in the RAW?A Paladin cannot lie. A Lie of Ommision is still technically a lie.A lot of problems would be solved if Paizo left in a single sentence from the 3.5 Paladin code.
appropriate.For example, if a Paladin commits a lie of omission
I am not sure how one adjudicates a "lie of omission" in game terms...
Can you give an example which would cause a Paladin to fall?
Paladin Code
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.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
Except that when RAW is law... then the Paladin's Code become an issue. House-ruling and such are fine, but by RAW the Paladin can barely exist without falling. Oh and god forbid the party have to go to a place like Cheliax... they would fall pretty much upon entering the city...
Paladins are fine in Cheliax. Something else that might break your preconceived notions is that Cheliax is actually a major center of the Iomedean faith. You know... with bona fide clerics... AND PALADINS!
Here, I'll make this easy for you.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that when RAW is law... then the Paladin's Code become an issue. House-ruling and such are fine, but by RAW the Paladin can barely exist without falling. Oh and god forbid the party have to go to a place like Cheliax... they would fall pretty much upon entering the city...A campaign where RAW is law... is a campaign run by a GM that's at best mediocre, and at worst, truly an exemplar of Lawful Stupid.
And as I've said before, complicated classes like Paladins are best not played under either.
But under PFS RAW is law. That's the problem.
BBEG "I need that artifact of ultimate evil, you know where it is now tell me!"
Paladin
"Not a snowballs chance of that!"According to lie of omission paladin falls....anyone buying this?
The Paladin won't fall in this case because that's not quite a lie of omission, but don't expect to get a positive response. You might very well be putting your friends in danger. If the BBEG also happened to make it a threat like, "Tell me where the artifact of ultimate evil is, or my minions will kill the prisoners", well you're pretty much screwed then.
Why does the paladin not want to tell the soldiers where the refugee is? If it is because the soldiers are evil, he can just kill them.
If they are neutral but working for evil, he can still kill them. Although he should probably try to convince them they are doing evil and should stop before he does so.
If they are not evil and working for a legitimate authority then why wouldn't he tell them where the refugee is? If he has some evidence that the refugee should not be taken he should present that. Otherwise it is lawful for them to take the refugee and he would help them.
I just don't get where the problem is.
It is not a lie of omission to refuse to answer. That is just ridiculous.
The Paladin won't fall in this case because that's not quite a lie of omission, but don't expect to get a positive response. You might very well be putting your friends in danger. If the BBEG also happened to make it a threat like, "Tell me where the artifact of ultimate evil is, or my minions will kill the prisoners", well you're pretty much screwed then.BBEG "I need that artifact of ultimate evil, you know where it is now tell me!"
Paladin
"Not a snowballs chance of that!"According to lie of omission paladin falls....anyone buying this?
Because Paladins fall due to other people's behavior?
The paladin could, however, tell the soldiers that he isn't going to answer. He isn't lying. He really has no intention of telling them. He hasn't hidden the fact that he knows where the refugees are, and he hasn't given the soldiers false information. He has merely revealed that he knows where the refugees are, and has no intention of sharing that information. As no deception has taken place, and the soldiers have not been persuaded to act upon false or incomplete information, there not even been a lie by omission. As you also said: The paladin does not recognize the legitimacy of the soldiers' authority. He is under no compunction to answer them at all.
A paladin can't lie, but refusing to reveal information is not necessarily the same as lying.
You're missing the point that his only options are: A) be really stupid for your own selfish reasons, putting yourself before others; and B) lying.
Causing a problem with the soldiers probably isn't going to end well. Your party might be captured to be interrogated. Or you might be forced to fight the soldiers as a result. One poster suggested glaring at them and trying to intimidate them, which is probably not smart if you're out numbered or outclassed (shaken is a bad condition, but you're not going to casually make a group of soldiers back down by buffaloing them).
Which goes back to the lawful stupid trope. You're causing needless conflict because of your own selfish ideals.
Because Paladins fall due to other people's behavior?The Paladin won't fall in this case because that's not quite a lie of omission, but don't expect to get a positive response. You might very well be putting your friends in danger. If the BBEG also happened to make it a threat like, "Tell me where the artifact of ultimate evil is, or my minions will kill the prisoners", well you're pretty much screwed then.BBEG "I need that artifact of ultimate evil, you know where it is now tell me!"
Paladin
"Not a snowballs chance of that!"According to lie of omission paladin falls....anyone buying this?
Yes, yes they do. Because Paladins are required to aid those in need. The Paladin is given an out to protect those people from impending doom, and the Paladin doesn't do so. Since the PF code is so rigid, he doesn't even have the luxury of assuming the BBEG is bluffing or might kill them anyway, because he must help those in need. No exceptions.
The Paladin won't fall in this case because that's not quite a lie of omission, but don't expect to get a positive response. You might very well be putting your friends in danger. If the BBEG also happened to make it a threat like, "Tell me where the artifact of ultimate evil is, or my minions will kill the prisoners", well you're pretty much screwed then.
No, you're not. You just have to punish others who threaten innocents. So, they kill the prisoners and that pretty much gives you license to go Billy Badass on them. Plus, them merely taking prisoners can similarly be used to do the same.
The Paladin won't fall in this case because that's not quite a lie of omission, but don't expect to get a positive response. You might very well be putting your friends in danger. If the BBEG also happened to make it a threat like, "Tell me where the artifact of ultimate evil is, or my minions will kill the prisoners", well you're pretty much screwed then.BBEG "I need that artifact of ultimate evil, you know where it is now tell me!"
Paladin
"Not a snowballs chance of that!"According to lie of omission paladin falls....anyone buying this?
This is just so wrong I don't know where to start.
Why does the paladin not want to tell the soldiers where the refugee is? If it is because the soldiers are evil, he can just kill them.
1) The soldiers aren't necessarily evil. They might just be Neutral or even Good aligned soldiers who are tasked with recovering the refugees.
2) There may be more soldiers than the Paladin. While being a Paladin does mean you're really tanky and hard to kill, it neither makes you invincible, nor does it make your allies invincible either.3) Your obstinate actions have at best just provided good evidence that the refugees are somewhere nearby and increase the likelihood of them searching the area more thoroughly.
Good job. :P
If they are neutral but working for evil, he can still kill them. Although he should probably try to convince them they are doing evil and should stop before he does so.
I love how the only option you can come up with is either start murdering people or put others in danger. This pretty much demonstrates why the code fails as written and why Paladins have such a bad rep all over the place in the same post! Congratulations Twig. You've won this thread for everyone. :D
The Paladin won't fall in this case because that's not quite a lie of omission, but don't expect to get a positive response. You might very well be putting your friends in danger. If the BBEG also happened to make it a threat like, "Tell me where the artifact of ultimate evil is, or my minions will kill the prisoners", well you're pretty much screwed then.No, you're not. You just have to punish others who threaten innocents. So, they kill the prisoners and that pretty much gives you license to go Billy Badass on them. Plus, them merely taking prisoners can similarly be used to do the same.
help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends),
Those hostages are in need. Either you help them, or enjoy being an NPC class. Now hop to it, Buri.
It says punish. That could be detainment, embarrassment, and, yes, even death especially if nonlethal attempts at subduing them fail.
And in doing so he will raise suspicion or draw unnecessary flak onto his party, all for his own selfish ideals. That's my point.
A Paladin finds some innocent refugees in a cave that the party was exploring. Later, he encounters some soldiers of a rival seeking said refugees and they ask him if he has seen any.He can now...
Not say anything about the refugees while knowing they are there, which is a lie of omission. Or he can say "I haven't seen anyone like that," which is also a lie. Or he could do something really awesome and say, "I wish I'd seen refugees. The only thing I've had the misfortune of crossing today was a nest of ankhegs in a nearby cave; and let me tell you sir, running in this armor is not an easy task!"In all three cases the Paladin falls, even though he's keeping up with the spirit of the code.
In the first one, he does NOT fall. "act with honor (not lying..) does not mean "Being a blabbermouth."
He can change the subject, he can refuse to answer.
Why is protecting innocents "selfish"?
And he can let the party Bard lie, so why say anything?
It's not obvious at all if the Paladin sez nothing while the Bard make such a good bluff check that the soldiers are now handing over their gold to her.
Teamwork.
Where does it say that in the RAW?Paladin code of conduct. Says they can't lie. It's pretty easy to find really.
No where does it say there's such a thing as a "lie of omission" which is a highly debated philosophical concept.