|
The specific combat techniques your character learns (sneak attack, weapon specialisation, stunning fist, whatever) are the tools of your trade.
How you use those tools dictates your alignment, and vice versa.
If you choose to attack the innocent, how you attack them won't stop you from falling. If you fight the guilty, being trained to exploit their distraction won't make you evil.
Personally, I'd say that there is nothing against it. To me, a 'Sneak Attack' is just hitting the opponent in a vulnerable area when they leave themselves open. It might make your paladin a bit more opportunistic, but I don't think that he would be breaking his code by using sneak attack anymore than he would be breaking his code by attacking the creature normally. That is, sneak attack the devil for great justice, but don't sneak attack the commoner because he was uncooperative.
Still, you'll want to run it by your GM. He/she is going to have the final say on it.
|
|
'Sneak Attack' is just the name!
The game mechanic is about using the opportunity given to the attacker when the defender lets their guard down.
The 'sneak' part doesn't mean that the attack must be from ambush, or when they're sleeping, or during a peace conference!
Take 'feinting in combat' for example. Part of the nature of fencing is for your attack to evade their parry. To do this, the attacker uses misdirection to get the defender to parry in the wrong place! This doesn't make the attacker evil!
Despite the name, the game mechanic 'Sneak Attack' does not mean that it's use is, somehow, dishonest or underhand or despicable. It can be used in nefarious ways, but so can any weapon with any technique!
Malachi is totally right!
Exclamation points!
VERY LOUD NOISES!
1) Since the GM makes his decisions based on what we say:
Dear orog58's GM: Get a f&*%ing spine and trust your own instincts. You are running your game. We are not. People on message boards cannot POSSIBLY understand the nuances of how your gaming group works and may not provide the best advice. While it can make sense to look to others' advice when something is not clear, we should not be the end adjudicator.
2) In my personal opinion, the mere sneak attack ability has nothing to honor or morality attached to it one way or the other. It's a method of fighting, and a way of dealing damage that isn't related to brute force.
What you DO with a sneak attack--or ANY attack--shows what sense of honor you have. If you're fighting alongside an ally and use teamwork to exploit a legitimate enemy's being left open due to your teamwork (in other words, dealing sneak attack damage due to flanking), that can certainly be honorable.
If you're sneaking through the darkness, stop, and fire an arrow into an unsuspecting victim's back (dealing ranged sneak attack damage from sniping, because they are surprised and flat footed), that would probably be considered dishonorable.
But you could say the same thing about ANY number of fighting tactics--a trip or a bull rush could be honorable or dishonorable depending on the circumstances well. It's all about what you do and how you do it that matters.
"Honor" also has a variable meaning; what it is may depend on your perspective. I would sit down with your GM and determine what honor means to your character specifically.
(And heck, despite what it says in the books, I'd consider a paladin who uses a poison that causes an enemy to fall unconscious perhaps more morally upstanding than one who brutally bludgeons a foe to death, again depending on circumstances.)
Dear DeathQuaker: He is running his game. We are not. People on message boards cannot POSSIBLY understand the nuances of how his gaming group works and may not provide the best advice, although they will almost certainly provide scathing criticism at the drop of a hat. While it can make sense to look to others' advice when something is not clear, we should not be the end adjudicator of the decisions this GM makes or how he chooses to deal with at-table rule conflicts, differences of opinion, etc.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Having sneak attack as a ninja is very much like having to use Power Attack : you hit less (lower BAB) and do more damage (SA damage) though the latter happens only in specific circumstances.
I believe Paladins feel quite fine using Power Attack. Thus no problem with using sneak attack
The real crux of the matter is setting up the circumstances that allow you to do the extra damage.
Some are quite honorable (ie, flanking, going first against obvious enemies). Others are not (being invisible, going first against unknown creatures).
Well, the way I see it, a paladin is bound by a specific code of procedures much like a police officer. He cannot abuse his power or act outside the scope of his jurisdiction. If another authority rightfully claims jurisdiction, paladins must differ to them whenever reasonably possible.
So just play a SWAT team member. You are assigned the task of handling a situation, and you seek to use the most efficient methods you can without overstepping your code of ethics. Police snipers cannot shoot anytime they feel like it, but instead when their superiors are given reasonable belief that it would end an imminent threat to human life. This is because their actions could endanger civilians or the target could peacefully surrender. With this kind of perspective, you could justify ambush tactics and sneaking as well.
This approach would be much easier to pull off if you have a direct superior that is more concrete than 'a deity or the general universal will of righteousness.' This would leave you more accountable for your actions and would allow the GM to give repercussions lighter than 'falling' if you start to become a 'loose cannon.'
Dear DeathQuaker: He is running his game. We are not. People on message boards cannot POSSIBLY understand the nuances of how his gaming group works and may not provide the best advice, although they will almost certainly provide scathing criticism at the drop of a hat. While it can make sense to look to others' advice when something is not clear, we should not be the end adjudicator of the decisions this GM makes or how he chooses to deal with at-table rule conflicts, differences of opinion, etc.
You're right, Lamontius, he gets to decide what is right for him.
But that why he needs utmost confidence in his calls. He is relying on a method that undercuts that.
I know I used harsh words, but the attempt is "tough love" here. GMs NEED to trust in themselves and their players first. And players need to be shown they need to respect the GM's call before they respect a billion unclear text responses of strangers on the Internet.
He can choose of course to do as he pleases and nothing I say will change that. But if he wants MY message board advice, it's to not rely too much on message boards for stuff like this.
Now since I posted, orog58 pointed out that the group agreed that this was a method they wanted to try together. That's a little different. So I was harder on the GM than was called for, having misunderstood the situation. That's the problem of message board communication right there--information doesn't get completely shared up front or nuances get missed or statements frankly and flat out misread or misunderstood.
So I still think it's a very unwise decision--especially since yes, it WILL open them to unnecessary criticism and divisiveness when they are seeking the opposite.
And I have a right to that opinion as much as they do to theirs. :)
It is okay Deathquaker you are a-ok in my book and I was using tough love too so I am sorry for taking you to school in the mini-van of pain
|
|
Police snipers cannot shoot anytime they feel like it, but instead when their superiors are given reasonable belief that it would end an imminent threat to human life. This is because their actions could endanger civilians or the target could peacefully surrender. With this kind of perspective, you could justify ambush tactics and sneaking as well.
IMO, sniping (ie, taking a shot at an opponent who is not aware of you and thus cannot even try to protect himself - nor try to surrender) is dishonorable (and thus not for the Paladin).