What would you have done if the Paladin had honestly meant what he said ? Because that was the situation as Farhorn perceived it.
I would have done what I did. The exchange went something like this:
Farhorn: "I'll pay you seven hundred."
Paladin: "Make it eight hundred and fifty and you've got a deal."
*Bungled Diplomacy check*
Farhorn: "Yeah, no, you deserve seven hundred."
Paladin: "Well, I've got other stuff to do." *Starts to walk out*
Farhorn: "...tell you what, seven hundred is a bit low."
Note that Farhorn didn't know the guy was a paladin.
Also note that I'm mostly avoiding the rest of this thread. As far as I'm concerned, TOZ settled the matter for my game.
|
What would you have done if the Paladin had honestly meant what he said ? Because that was the situation as Farhorn perceived it.I would have done what I did. The exchange went something like this:
Farhorn: "I'll pay you seven hundred."
Paladin: "Make it eight hundred and fifty and you've got a deal."
*Bungled Diplomacy check*
Farhorn: "Yeah, no, you deserve seven hundred."
Paladin: "Well, I've got other stuff to do." *Starts to walk out*
Farhorn: "...tell you what, seven hundred is a bit low."Note that Farhorn didn't know the guy was a paladin.
Also note that I'm mostly avoiding the rest of this thread. As far as I'm concerned, TOZ settled the matter for my game.
That's not paladin like behaviour. Doesn't matter that he didn't know the paladin, the guy needed his help and was going to pay him. You already said he just said that so he could get more money.
That's more in line with being a mercenary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If paladins weren't allowed to use Bluff, why would their class model of prioritizing Charisma make it so easy?
;D
Player: "I try to use my 18 Charisma to trick the guard! Uh, we're health inspectors!"
GM: "Nope. You can't lie, remember?"
Player: "Uh...I Intimidate him!"
GM: "No bullying."
Player: "Disguise?"
GM: "That's deception, which is lying. No go."
Player: "Use Magic Device!"
GM: "You didn't buy any wands, remember? You had to give all your money to the church."
Player: "...I use Diplomacy."
GM: "Too late. The guards catch you and proceed with the live baby sacrifice."
Player: "Can I just play a cleric?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These are excellent points that deserve consideration. Let's make five threads about them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, this thread went south quick!
Also note that I'm mostly avoiding the rest of this thread. As far as I'm concerned, TOZ settled the matter for my game.Wise decision.
Believe in TOZ?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are playing PF by the book, I would say the paladin should fall. This is because PF removed the "grossly" violating the code. In PF, by the book, if you violate the code at all, you fall. So if the paladin lied when he said that if he wasn't paid more he would walk, then he should fall, in PF by the book. (Now I have to say, if hours were like days it would take ...)
Believe in TOZ?Also note that I'm mostly avoiding the rest of this thread. As far as I'm concerned, TOZ settled the matter for my game.Wise decision.
Don't believe in me! Don't believe in the you that I believe in. Believe in the you that YOU believe in!
|
|
If you are playing PF by the book, I would say the paladin should fall. This is because PF removed the "grossly" violating the code. In PF, by the book, if you violate the code at all, you fall. So if the paladin lied when he said that if he wasn't paid more he would walk, then he should fall, in PF by the book. (Now I have to say, if hours were like days it would take ...)
I don't think he should fall but I wouldn't let him away thinking he acting like a paladin because he wasn't and I'm sure the player knew that and pulled the gamist route.
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.
As I said, by the book, if he lied when he said, "...the dwarves could find someone else to get killed on their behalf." he should fall. There is no leeway in the PF rules for "white lies".
Now, me personally, I wouldn't have him fall, but that is because I use 3.5, and in that system he would have to "grossly" violate his code to fall, which this is not an example of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's starting to get funny actually and make me appreciate the people I game with more and more every day.
Those people you're constantly making complaint threads about?
Since the rules don't say the Bluff skill is forbidden to paladins, paladins can obviously use Bluff. A GM who says "paladins can't bluff" is introducing a house rule.
Exactly!
Calybos is on the money (and deserves a 850 gp retainer).
|
While a GM that says "paladins can't lie" is just quoting the RAW code ;-)Since the rules don't say the Bluff skill is forbidden to paladins, paladins can obviously use Bluff. A GM who says "paladins can't bluff" is introducing a house rule.
What I posted above is untrue.
A Paladin can indeed lie (and use the Bluff skill to do so). He just falls from having broken his code :-)
Good ideas.
If you are playing PF by the book, I would say the paladin should fall. This is because PF removed the "grossly" violating the code. In PF, by the book, if you violate the code at all, you fall. So if the paladin lied when he said that if he wasn't paid more he would walk, then he should fall, in PF by the book. (Now I have to say, if hours were like days it would take ...)I don't think he should fall but I wouldn't let him away thinking he acting like a paladin because he wasn't and I'm sure the player knew that and pulled the gamist route.
I take exception at you deriding my player. Like I said, the guy is new and did not try to justify his acts--he asked if it was pushing things, and I said he could probably get away with it once or twice. If you'd read my post more closely, you wouldn't be so quick to call him a gamist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK. Ending thoughts:
-Haggling is a social ritual in which baseline social expectations about Bluff are relaxed. Much like, say, sitting around a campfire telling ghost stories is also not a social setting in which strict adherence to fact is required (even of a paladin).
Haggling as a ritual carries with it the expectation of competition via Bluff and Sense Motive. As such, it enjoys looser restrictions on what constitutes a lie than other interactions.
-The paladin doesn't have any other warning flags up about his use of money.
Therefore, IMO - no foul, and no warning or bad dreams either. Neither wrong nor borderline. Pretty much entirely OK. If he does get in any trouble over it, it would be from other sources than the code (such as his deity) who might have independent expectations.
First off, I am sincerely sorry to be responsible for yet another paladin thread. Not sorry enough to just not make one, though, so let's begin.
I'm running Home Under The Range, and when Acting Subgeneral Farhorn explained the quest for the PCs, he offered the default amount of gold (the adventure makes it clear that he can be bargained up to 900 gp, tops).
The paladin, played by the player who so far is the most into roleplaying (the players are all new to the game), asked for 850. He made an initial Diplomacy check and bungled it, so Farhorn refused.
Then, the paladin turned away and started to leave, saying the dwarves could find someone else to get killed on their behalf. Since he was of course bluffing (I'll make it clear that he was going to help no matter what, he just wanted to see if he could get some extra cash), I had him roll, and he nailed it.
Farhorn caved and paid up, though he was quite firm on not going any higher. The group accepted the price and went shopping.
The player of the paladin has been fairly wary of breaking the Code, and I told him that haggling like this was probably okay. Previously, I had let him coup de grace an unconscious goblin bandit who'd tried to kill them. Obviously, I'm usually fairly lax on what constitutes an evil act.
But I was curious, so I looked at the Code of Conduct and noticed that "lying" is against the rules. Does this mean serious lies? Or can bluffing for a higher paycheck get you de-powered?
I'm pretty solid on paladins' rules about evil, but these more specific rules I'm unsure on. How would you handle it in your games? Would you tell the player to watch his step?
** spoiler omitted **...
Although it is a bluff, I am not sure it is a lie.
If the paladin values his services highly, and someone refuses to pay, then he says he is walking if they don't cough up, I don't see a lie. If the angry hirer said, because of your insolence sword boy, I will pay you 400 coppers max, the...
He absolutely is scouting. He is scouting the new guy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK. Ending thoughts:
-Haggling is a social ritual in which baseline social expectations about Bluff are relaxed. Much like, say, sitting around a campfire telling ghost stories is also not a social setting in which strict adherence to fact is required (even of a paladin).
Haggling as a ritual carries with it the expectation of competition via Bluff and Sense Motive. As such, it enjoys looser restrictions on what constitutes a lie than other interactions.
-The paladin doesn't have any other warning flags up about his use of money.
Therefore, IMO - no foul, and no warning or bad dreams either. Neither wrong nor borderline. Pretty much entirely OK. If he does get in any trouble over it, it would be from other sources than the code (such as his deity) who might have independent expectations.
.
Would you say, for example that a paladin falls if he plays poker well? He would be intentionally deceiving after all.
Paladin tries to play Liar's dice with some pirates.
Falls.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin volunteers to be a shop's Santa Claus.
Falls.
Paladin volunteers to be a shop's Santa Claus.
Falls.
But of course, he's helping the corporate tyrants. Besides, he's lying about being Santa, and by extension, he's telling them Santa really does exist... Leave it to the professionals please.
At this point I really doubt that Kobold Cleaver was sorry at all in creating this Paladin thread, since trolling of people who are not as relaxed as himself in interpreting the Paladin code seems to be the majority of what he has done so far here.
Paladin relaxes and jokes around with his pals.
Falls.
OK. Ending thoughts:
-Haggling is a social ritual in which baseline social expectations about Bluff are relaxed. Much like, say, sitting around a campfire telling ghost stories is also not a social setting in which strict adherence to fact is required (even of a paladin).
Haggling as a ritual carries with it the expectation of competition via Bluff and Sense Motive. As such, it enjoys looser restrictions on what constitutes a lie than other interactions.
-The paladin doesn't have any other warning flags up about his use of money.
Therefore, IMO - no foul, and no warning or bad dreams either. Neither wrong nor borderline. Pretty much entirely OK. If he does get in any trouble over it, it would be from other sources than the code (such as his deity) who might have independent expectations.
.
Would you say, for example that a paladin falls if he plays poker well? He would be intentionally deceiving after all.
Not only that, I think he should also fall if he plays poker poorly, for deliberately misrepresenting his poker skills.
Being humble as a reason for falling?
Hmmm...
Lies about his great and powerful abilities so as to avoid conflict, or just to be humble.
Falls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe this should be a Forum game.
I remember a good one some months ago.
Fat vain princess (not evil though, apparently she is also a bastion of goodness, riiight riiiight, just go with it for now) asks the paladin if she is fat.
If he says yes, he offends her, causes her emotional pain and falls for hurting innocence and good. This may also occur if he says nothing, "durrr", or laughs.
If he says no, he lies and falls.
If he throws himself out of the window (falls?) when the question is posed, he will likely survive and not break his code.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If he throws himself out of the window (falls?) when the question is posed, he will likely survive and not break his code.
If he throws himself out a window she blames it on herself and he falls anyway.
The answer is fall, always fall.(In any case, he did fall.... out a window)
Edit: That sounds like a fun actually. The question and 100s of ways it can go wrong I mean.
Paladin gets teleported beneath the Minecraft Bedrock Layer.
Fall, always fall.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember a good one some months ago.
Fat vain princess (not evil though, apparently she is also a bastion of goodness, riiight riiiight, just go with it for now) asks the paladin if she is fat.
If he says yes, he offends her, causes her emotional pain and falls for hurting innocence and good. This may also occur if he says nothing, "durrr", or laughs.
If he says no, he lies and falls.
If he throws himself out of the window (falls?) when the question is posed, he will likely survive and not break his code.
Alternatively he could give up the patriarchal mindset that marginalizes women who don't conform to normative (read heterosexual, white, cisgender, androcentric) standards of beauty. He can declare himself against the evils that judge women simply by their physical qualities, and love the princess for being a worthwhile human(oid) being.
Resist the dominant discourses. That's the best way to keep from falling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is he dodging the question? 'Cause if he is, that's lying by omission.
Alternatively he could give up the patriarchal mindset that marginalizes women who don't conform to normative (read heterosexual, white, cisgender, androcentric) standards of beauty. He can declare himself against the evils that judge women simply by their physical qualities, and love the princess for being a worthwhile human(oid) being.Resist the dominant discourses. That's the best way to keep from falling.
She didn't ask if she was pretty. She asked if she was fat.
Is he dodging the question? 'Cause if he is, that's lying by omission.
No. I'm being 100% honest with this response. So called "clever" paladin conundrums like this are little more than establishing and reinforcing damaging patriarchal norms. In my eyes, any good paladin is duty bound to work against such things.
Alternatively he could give up the patriarchal mindset that marginalizes women who don't conform to normative (read heterosexual, white, cisgender, androcentric) standards of beauty. He can declare himself against the evils that judge women simply by their physical qualities, and love the princess for being a worthwhile human(oid) being.Resist the dominant discourses. That's the best way to keep from falling.
She didn't ask if she was pretty. She asked if she was fat.
And besides ...
SHE asked. Not him.
Is he dodging the question? 'Cause if he is, that's lying by omission.No. I'm being 100% honest with this response. So called "clever" paladin conundrums like this are little more than establishing and reinforcing damaging patriarchal norms. In my eyes, any good paladin is duty bound to work against such things.
Man, I wish I worked with all women. Good way to get your ear chewed up, in several ways.
Is he dodging the question? 'Cause if he is, that's lying by omission.No. I'm being 100% honest with this response. So called "clever" paladin conundrums like this are little more than establishing and reinforcing damaging patriarchal norms. In my eyes, any good paladin is duty bound to work against such things.
Things can be 100% true and still make the paladin fall! They're called white lies. In case you haven't heard, those are a big problem for paladins.
Alternatively he could give up the patriarchal mindset that marginalizes women who don't conform to normative (read heterosexual, white, cisgender, androcentric) standards of beauty. He can declare himself against the evils that judge women simply by their physical qualities, and love the princess for being a worthwhile human(oid) being.Resist the dominant discourses. That's the best way to keep from falling.
She didn't ask if she was pretty. She asked if she was fat.
And besides ...
SHE asked. Not him.
Well, I figured her to be a human(oid) too, capable of resisting patriarchal discourses as well.
This can be taken from two directs. First , the paladin makes it his duty to educate the princess in such a way that doesn't infantalize her, but enables her to understand how damaging vanity is within patriarchal societies. Second, both the princess and paladin can work together to resist and subvert patriarchal systems of oppression, in this way a their work can be made more impactful through collaboration. These two directions taken together are essential and good if the paladin does not wish to fall.
Well, I figured her to be a human(oid) too, capable of resisting patriarchal discourses as well.
This can be taken from two directs. First , the paladin makes it his duty to educate the princess in such a way that doesn't infantalize her, but enables her to understand how damaging vanity is within patriarchal societies. Second, both the princess and paladin can work together to resist and subvert patriarchal systems of oppression, in this way a their work can be made more impactful through collaboration. These two directions taken together are essential and good if the paladin does not wish to fall.
Erm... I think it was meant to be a joke. Most of us understand that there's more to beauty than how you look and such. I know I've had players flirt with dragons(never had one ask if she was fat though). Obviously there are 101 ways to roll with it.
The joke being that there's a old saying that if a woman ask if she's fat you say no. And there's a joke about paladins always falling. There's also a pun about falling out a window involved.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On that note, paladin refuses to ruin a joke by explaining it.
Falls.
Well, I figured her to be a human(oid) too, capable of resisting patriarchal discourses as well.
This can be taken from two directs. First , the paladin makes it his duty to educate the princess in such a way that doesn't infantalize her, but enables her to understand how damaging vanity is within patriarchal societies. Second, both the princess and paladin can work together to resist and subvert patriarchal systems of oppression, in this way a their work can be made more impactful through collaboration. These two directions taken together are essential and good if the paladin does not wish to fall.
Erm... I think it was meant to be a joke. Most of us understand that there's more to beauty than how you look and such. I know I've had players flirt with dragons(never had one ask if she was fat though). Obviously there are 101 ways to roll with it.
The joke being that there's a old saying that if a woman ask if she's fat you say no. And there's a joke about paladins always falling. There's also a pun about falling out a window involved.
No... I understand the joke component of this. Not to completely sidetrack this thread, it's worth noting that even jokes communicate normative standards. Bergmann catalogs a number of ways that sexist beliefs are used in the generation of humor (this is discussed near the end of the article). Two such ways are from 1) Apparent sense or plausibility generated by sexist beliefs and 2) Hidden morals generated by sexist beliefs. Something simply being a joke doesn't discount sexist content (even if such content may have been unintended).
On the topic of this thread, my point wasn't to argue against the humor found in the joke (though my response was very "humorless feminist"). I just don't think these paradoxes are nearly as apparent as people think. If there is an incongruity present, that is often a sign that there is more going on. Typically systems of oppression makes themselves invisible through mechanisms that normalize their action. Sexism is one such system, where the "good" of men and women are placed at odds, and the systems itself hidden within these discourses. Obviously, my argument is that the "right" thing to do is for a paladin to locate and subvert these systems, resisting these kinds of discourses that make sexism, racism, heterosexism, and cissexism invisible.