|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The laws of [god] are above the laws of man." *smite*
In any system of laws, some laws and lawmakers take precedence over others. The city council can't overrule the national legislature. Likewise, no mortal legislature can overrule the commandments of the paladin's divine patron.
If the city council makes a rule that sacrificing people to demons is okay, a paladin would just say "feh, that rule is void to me because it contradicts holy doctine". THAT is the lawful thing to do.
Respect for the privacy of a person's home is a good thing, but not absolute. At a certain threshold of suspicion, protecting the community from the summoning of demons becomes more urgent.
The idea here is not to fetishize all laws (no matter how ridiculous or corrupt) as being equal in importance. There is a definite hierarchy of laws and lawmakers, and a Lawful character is aware of that.
Yay, what I said in post 7, 9 and 26 - Lawful is what your church/god declares is law. If you should manage to have a LN/LG/NG God that declares all followers of [insert gods enemy here] to be heretics that need to be culled on sight... wait, that's what Sarenrae does with Rovagug, her mortal enemy! And Torag with the same Rovagug. Iomedae at least demands never to associate or parley with evil gods, even if the the militant-extremist wing of her might demand smiting any evil... Wait, wasn't being evil not illegal? Apparently not for Iomedae.
"The laws of [god] are above the laws of man." *smite*
Yeah,.... not.
The Jews have even codified this into a principle called dina d’malchuta dina, "the law of the land is the law," and they recognize even that that secular law can trump religious commandments, precisely because to do otherwise would rupture social harmony.
|
|
"The laws of [god] are above the laws of man." *smite*Yeah,.... not.
The Jews have even codified this into a principle called dina d’malchuta dina, "the law of the land is the law," and they recognize even that that secular law can trump religious commandments, precisely because to do otherwise would rupture social harmony.
Interesting. I guess you should read the fine print in your religious doctrine before smiting.
I don't think that that jewish sentiment is universally shared though. I'm not an expert, but I would wager that it wasn't always agreed upon historically either. And going into the more biblical parts of "history", you can argue that whenever there is some divine smiting because the king has strayed from the true faith, secular is not coming before divine law.
In the christian side of history, there has been a fierce tug of war about whose law would be primary. Obviously the Church believed that divine law was supreme, and for a while, they certainly had a lot of success with that theory. Increasingly powerful and centralized secular states, and especially the Reformation, shattered that. It cost the Church it's monopoly on moral authority.
In a fantasy world where gods grant their followers the power to smite and resurrect, and where polytheism is the norm, I think religious law is in a stronger position. "The king says... ", "Yes, but my GOD, who grants me the power to kill you with words, says..."
It strikes me that things are more to do with being justified in response than anything else. While I'm not playing a Paladin I am playing a fairly strict LG character. If she's tasked with rooting out crime and she has reasonable suspicion she will try to investigate. If she sees something shady it's her job to intervene especially when it looks like a crime is being committed. This means alerting the town guard but if no one is around and the situation is dire then it's up to her. If this zealousness runs afoul of the law then she has to face the consequences of her actions. However intent, investigation and evidence of wrongdoing are required before she goes and kicks down the door or busts through a skylight. Due diligence to uphold the law and operate within it's confines should be the measure of Lawful and anyone who does so isn't really at risk of falling in my eyes (or at my table) anyway.
The game shouldn't be a test of 'oh how can I make the Paladin fall', it also shouldn't be 'how close to CN/CE can I push it before the DM b+#@!slaps me'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My go to question for paladin actions:
What would Captain America or Paragon Shepard do?
...Increasingly powerful and centralized secular states, and especially the Reformation, shattered that. It cost the Church it's monopoly on moral authority...Personally, I think the Church sold its moral authority when it granted its priests the ability to sell indulgences ("Get Out Of Hell Free" cards) to the faithful and pocket a cut of the action. But that's probably a controversial opinion - and definitely not an idea I want players who run paladins trying to introduce to my world...
Ninja: You burnt down an orphanage?!
Paladin: Yep! And I still have enough coupons in my holy coupon book for a massacre and two fraternizations!
Sopunds like a demand for a charismatic Inquisitor at the side of the Paladin. They might actually pull that...
Inquisitor: "Sarenrae demanded me to burn undead on the stake and kill Rovagug cultists. That orphanage was the feeding ground for a Rovagug cultist Vampire, who tried to turn them into his fiendish spawn (and I can find[create] proof for that!)! I just showed them mercy and only dipped my soul to hell deep enough so it did cost me 100 gold to get out of it again (including my job-discount of 99%). Oh, you helped me... Paladin, that is 1000 Gold for you for a little refresh on your coupon book (with your 90% discount for being LG) and 10000 Gold for you, Ninja, for being a heathen. All for your soul."
FuelDrop: What Would Captain Britain Do sounds lmore like it... Inquisitors are between What Would Batman Do and What Would Punisher Do.
Depends on how militant they are: Considder the christian god to be LG - however one of his Inquisitors wrote the Mallus Maledictorum, which is prtty much LN and gives rules for how to properly torture people and burn witches. The whole Spanish Inquisition is LN or even LE (and if you assume they still follor the christian god, this makes God a LN one).
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on how militant they are: Considder the christian god to be LG - however one of his Inquisitors wrote the Mallus Maledictorum, which is prtty much LN and gives rules for how to properly torture people and burn witches. The whole Spanish Inquisition is LN or even LE (and if you assume they still follor the christian god, this makes God a LN one).
I'm talking about the class, not some of the real world people who used the term. My point is that Inquisitors don't get to go any further than Clerics do before they lose their powers and cease being a legitimate Inquisitor of their deity.
And any book advocating torture is pretty clearly evil, as are the people who follow it. On the other hand, in the real world, nobody takes a priest's powers away when they don't follow their religion's teachings, so the fact that bad people have followed a religion says nothing about its teachings validity.
Depends on how militant they are: Considder the christian god to be LG - however one of his Inquisitors wrote the Mallus Maledictorum, which is prtty much LN and gives rules for how to properly torture people and burn witches. The whole Spanish Inquisition is LN or even LE (and if you assume they still follor the christian god, this makes God a LN one).I'm talking about the class, not some of the real world people who used the term. My point is that Inquisitors don't get to go any further than Clerics do before they lose their powers and cease being a legitimate Inquisitor of their deity.
And any book advocating torture is pretty clearly evil, as are the people who follow it. On the other hand, in the real world, nobody takes a priest's powers away when they don't follow their religion's teachings, so the fact that bad people have followed a religion says nothing about its teachings validity.
They might not stray more than clerics, but they are more radical than priests as they are described - they hide and uproot enemies and unfaithful with what they are allowed to do. Sure, Clerics are not nessecary less violent or more benefactoral, but ...
Grim and determined, the inquisitor roots out enemies of the faith, using trickery and guile when righteousness and purity is not enough
I hink that is rarely possible to be a LG Inquisitor (LN or NG fit that much better if the God is LG), but they seem to be intended to be more radical than clerics.
|
"The laws of [god] are above the laws of man." *smite*
In any system of laws, some laws and lawmakers take precedence over others. The city council can't overrule the national legislature. Likewise, no mortal legislature can overrule the commandments of the paladin's divine patron.
Wow, interesting. Do you stand by that philosophy?
Okay, a little about Secret Combinations for your DM.
There is a book called GURPS Illuminati, I highly suggest your DM go out and buy this book. Suggestions on how an evil cult can boss around a bunch of Lawful Paladins.
a). The secret society can be made up of nobles in the Land and are seeking to overthrow the king to build an Oligarchy. Unlike the Seven Against Thebes, these guys are not to be lauded for saving the people from an evil regime. They are goss-sucking evil and they want to place the populace under their heel.
b). They worship a god of Prosperity, trading power for lives through human sacrifice.
c). They would do this, in secret. (key word here)
What your DM could do:
1). The DM is supposed to act in a way of allowing the PCs to do an action if they want to do that action, but the Players must understand that Action is paid with Consequence. Does he have a copy of the 1e Dragonlance campaign, otherwise known as Dragonlance Adventures? In it are some guidelines on how to run a Lawful Good campaign. Even the 3.5 Dragonlance Campaign Setting has them.
Have him acquire a copy.
|
|
They might not stray more than clerics, but they are more radical than priests as they are described - they hide and uproot enemies and unfaithful with what they are allowed to do. Sure, Clerics are not nessecary less violent or more benefactoral, but ...
Grim and determined, the inquisitor roots out enemies of the faith, using trickery and guile when righteousness and purity is not enoughI hink that is rarely possible to be a LG Inquisitor (LN or NG fit that much better if the God is LG), but they seem to be intended to be more radical than clerics.
Those class descriptions? Completely meaningless in terms of personality. Try reading a few of them. Indeed, let me give you a couple of examples:
Whether secreted away in a smoky basement laboratory or gleefully experimenting in a well-respected school of magic, the alchemist is often regarded as being just as unstable, unpredictable, and dangerous as the concoctions he brews. While some creators of alchemical items content themselves with sedentary lives as merchants, providing tindertwigs and smokesticks, the true alchemist answers a deeper calling. Rather than cast magic like a spellcaster, the alchemist captures his own magic potential within liquids and extracts he creates, infusing his chemicals with virulent power to grant him impressive skill with poisons, explosives, and all manner of self-transformative magic.
Going by that, all Alchemists should be Chaotic thrillseekers. That's not necessarily the case.
For those who relish the thrill of the hunt, there are only predators and prey. Be they scouts, trackers, or bounty hunters, rangers share much in common: unique mastery of specialized weapons, skill at stalking even the most elusive game, and the expertise to defeat a wide range of quarries. Knowledgeable, patient, and skilled hunters, these rangers hound man, beast, and monster alike, gaining insight into the way of the predator, skill in varied environments, and ever more lethal martial prowess. While some track man-eating creatures to protect the frontier, others pursue more cunning game—even fugitives among their own people.
And going by that first sentence, all Rangers are social darwinist sociopaths.
Yeah, the class descriptions mean pretty much nothing about individual members of said class. Especially personality-wise. And even more especially not as a single line of text.
I do get the vibe that inquisitors are given licence to bend or even break some of the tenets of their faith in order to get the job done. A sort of "licence to kill", if you will. Much more so than other divine characters.
They're generally the covert wing of their faith...but that's not quite the same thing as what you're saying. Spying, infiltration, stealing things, lying well, investigations of various sorts in general, and other such things are all at least as important to them as killing people...something they don't seem any more likely to do than a war cleric, just under somewhat different circumstances.
An Inquisitor of Shelyn might be much more behind the scenes than a Cleric of hers, but they're not any less devoted to love and beauty, nor are they an more likely to kill people. The same goes for any Good God.
...Increasingly powerful and centralized secular states, and especially the Reformation, shattered that. It cost the Church it's monopoly on moral authority...Personally, I think the Church sold its moral authority when it granted its priests the ability to sell indulgences ("Get Out Of Hell Free" cards) to the faithful and pocket a cut of the action. But that's probably a controversial opinion
What you stated was false and historically inaccurate. The Church did NOT grant its priests the ability to sell indulgences. The Pope actually agreed with Luther on most of his 95 thesis and that the selling of indulgences was wrong. The selling of indulgences was an abuse by specific individuals (who, under the pretense and having authority, abused their power by selling indulgences).
For historical background, indulgences were originally tithes (donations) to the Church during the Crusades. Landowners who wanted to support the Crusades, but had to stay to maintain their fiefdoms, gave money to support the knights who fought to reclaim the Holy Land from the decimation of the Muslims. Indulgences changed definition through propaganda tactics of the pamphlets sold through the newly invented printing press. It was the advent of the printing press that changed the "landscape" of political geography and political propaganda.
LEt's look at a Church that has Clerics, Paladins and Inquisitors. Obviously, the Clerics are the heart, as they get the most powwer from the gods, and the Paladins are the sword and shield, protecting the church from the outside assaults on it. Where does the Inquisition come in? they protect it from the inside, uproot wrong believes and hidden assaults on it. While all of them are equally devoted to the good of the church and its believers, they are all showing different aspects - and thus have to work in different ways. Sometimes the differences blur, but the Heart/Shield/Immune System should be a good picture of the archetype.
So Im currently playing an investigative part of an AP.
The bad guys are a secret cult, we think we know their location (we have been refused entry during the day) and returned at night but the LG members of the party refuse to enter a locked building on the basis `we would be breaking the law'. (all brilliantly roleplayed by the way - these arnt Lawful Stupid players).
Im playing the cleric, so short of burning 4th Level Spells on divination to give the LG party members just cause. (The watch is most likely in the pocket of the cultists) Im struggling to deal with the investigative challenges.
How about just faking cause to enter? Silent Image of "Help!" written on the upstairs window in blood, no doubt by some poor prisoner or sacrifice-to-be trying to get a message to the outside. Or whatever.
Bam, cause to enter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM is a strict LG interpreter (eg Paladins can never lie(including to save a life), cannot feint in combat or ambush or do anything even mildly interpretable as dishonorable without breaking their oath).I think that entering a location illegally is justified under LG if you know the badguys are there doing bad things.
The level we are at is `when confronted by a potentially corrupt Watchman who detects as mild evil'is (Direct Quote from the Party Paladin) "Well being evil is not illegall....unfortunately"
Paraphrasing what someone else stated, "Lawful does not equate to legal." What is Lawful for being a Paladin, is not necessarily legal or illegal for that kingdom. If an adventure is happening in a corrupt land where evil is promoted or encouraged, what is legal would be against the Lawfulness of a paladin. (What is legal in some states is not legal in others (in Montana, you can drink alcoholic beverages while driving - most other states you can't)).
I would interpret "breaking in" to be OK with just cause. Police have to obtain a warrant from a judge to search a property after probable cause. That doesn't mean the suspect is actually guilty through. If, through your parties research, you find probable cause of evil first, you get a "warrant" from your god to break in. If there was no evil actually happening and the suspect was falsely accused or innocent, restitution should be made by the paladin or party. This could make for a very cool roleplaying experience.
|
|
"The laws of [god] are above the laws of man." *smite*
In any system of laws, some laws and lawmakers take precedence over others. The city council can't overrule the national legislature. Likewise, no mortal legislature can overrule the commandments of the paladin's divine patron.
Wow, interesting. Do you stand by that philosophy?
In-game you mean? Sure. If my god tells me what I should do, then it's too bad for any kings who want otherwise; they've been overruled.
In real life? I'm not religious. And I'm certainly not a paladin.
|
|
"The laws of [god] are above the laws of man." *smite*
In any system of laws, some laws and lawmakers take precedence over others. The city council can't overrule the national legislature. Likewise, no mortal legislature can overrule the commandments of the paladin's divine patron.
Wow, interesting. Do you stand by that philosophy?
In-game you mean? Sure. If my god tells me what I should do, then it's too bad for any kings who want otherwise; they've been overruled.
In real life? I'm not religious. And I'm certainly not a paladin.
Okay. Just remember, your Subconscious doesn't know the difference between your value judgements.
Reasonable Suspicion. That'll get you inside.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, interesting. Do you stand by that philosophy?"The laws of [god] are above the laws of man." *smite*
In any system of laws, some laws and lawmakers take precedence over others. The city council can't overrule the national legislature. Likewise, no mortal legislature can overrule the commandments of the paladin's divine patron.
For the record, I stand by that statement in real life.
If a deity (even one I didn't worship) came down and spoke to me in real life, and could prove they were a benevolent being and not malevolent one or a fraud (a difficult task...), I'd totally break the law to do what they said.
This seems unlikely to come up, mind you...
|
|
I just thought of another way you can deal with this GM. Internally.
There is a book called Zero Limits written by Doctor Joe Vitali and Doctor Ihaleakala Hew Len. Doctor Ihaleakala Hew Len achieved the feat by curing the Ward for the Criminally Insane in a hospital he worked at. And in the book, he tells you how he did it.
Give it a read.
|
|
Wow, interesting. Do you stand by that philosophy?"The laws of [god] are above the laws of man." *smite*
In any system of laws, some laws and lawmakers take precedence over others. The city council can't overrule the national legislature. Likewise, no mortal legislature can overrule the commandments of the paladin's divine patron.
For the record, I stand by that statement in real life.
If a deity (even one I didn't worship) came down and spoke to me in real life, and could prove they were a benevolent being and not malevolent one or a fraud (a difficult task...), I'd totally break the law to do what they said.
This seems unlikely to come up, mind you...
It doesn't have to be. You can do anything, have anything, be anything. So, it doesn't have to be.
|
|
Okay. Just remember, your Subconscious doesn't know the difference between your value judgements."The laws of [god] are above the laws of man." *smite*
In any system of laws, some laws and lawmakers take precedence over others. The city council can't overrule the national legislature. Likewise, no mortal legislature can overrule the commandments of the paladin's divine patron.
Wow, interesting. Do you stand by that philosophy?
In-game you mean? Sure. If my god tells me what I should do, then it's too bad for any kings who want otherwise; they've been overruled.
In real life? I'm not religious. And I'm certainly not a paladin.
What do you mean?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll join the minority in supporting the GM - and the other players. Let's look back a second:
the LG members of the party refuse to enter a locked building on the basis `we would be breaking the law'. (all brilliantly roleplayed by the way - these arnt Lawful Stupid players).
So I'll step on the soap box just a moment to tell my peers in this thread - stop judging the way others play. They seem to like it, and your 'go find another GM' advice just might ruin their fun. ::endsoapbox
OP, I agree with the suggestion they appeal to an outside authority, for two reasons:
1) If the GM permits it, he can, through the voice of the Paladin's church outrightly say so. "In this instance, your goddess demands you investigate!"
2) If the GM wants to deny it, he can use the voice of that same NPC to provide another avenue.
In short, pick a method that lets the GM speak in character, and he can guide you in game to the path he thinks will work and/or fit the story.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed with mcbobbo and the other person who said the GM should provide a legitimate route of entry but it's otherwise fine.
A friend of mine played in a campaign that had a similar issue - a group of LG/LN characters who were pretty sure that an evil criminal group was hiding in a particular place, but not sure enough for lawful entry.
I don't remember how it turned out exactly, but everyone had fun and once he realized how it was going the GM (who wasn't expecting them to stick so firmly to their alignments) gave them a route in.
More general comments:
Every - and I do mean every - Paladin I've ever encountered was trying to be a Chaotic rebel with awesome powers. The worst of these veered hard into Chaotic Neutral territory (one even skirting chaotic evil - but that's was more seriously a Good vs Evil issue, so I digress) and should anybody have the audacity to call them on it they were - say it with me now - "just playing their character."
My condolences.
I know I'm in the minority here since I interpret Lawful to pertain specifically to societal law because EVERYBODY has a personal code, even if that personal code is "Do What Feels Good". (I also drop the Lawful restraint from monks for this reason to remain consistent.)
Consistency is appreciated. However while I don't believe that lawfulness = societal law, I also don't think that all personal codes are lawful. Lawfulness is about a commitment to order. It's a preference for rigid systems, categorization, absolutes, precision. It's a sense that everything should have its place, that things should be planned out and predictable and reliable. It's a sense that people ought to know and respect their place and act in the way that they are expected to act so that the whole system will function smoothly. A character whose code upholds principles of order, reliability, and social responsibility is lawful, a character whose code does not do so (eg "do what feels good"), or whose code actively promotes the individual over society, is not lawful. Bonus chaotic points: refer to your code as "guidelines."
Being ethical, on the other hand, is much more difficult. And it should be. Why would Paladins have to be Lawful Good if the Lawful part of that statement meant nothing?
As far as I can tell, because the lawfulness appeals to the classic image of the honourable knight on which the paladin was based, just like the druid's restriction on metal armour and the 3E barbarian's illiteracy. It's certainly not because it's always more difficult to hold to a code of ethics. You can get into a lot of trouble defying social expectations - Jesus made enemies of the Pharisees when he said "If the law says I can't heal this person on the Sabbath, screw the law."
The idea here is not to fetishize all laws (no matter how ridiculous or corrupt) as being equal in importance. There is a definite hierarchy of laws and lawmakers, and a Lawful character is aware of that.
Agreed. But some characters might follow different hierarchies. Divinely powered classes will almost certainly put their deity on top. Knights and cavaliers will likely put a king/liege first. Any character, but particularly a wizard, bard, alchemist, or monk might have alliegance to a professional organization or tradition with its own set of ethics. Pretty much any character may be devoted directly to "order" and follow whatever guidelines seem to most ensure harmony which is often but not always the law of the land.
They might not stray more than clerics, but they are more radical than priests as they are described - they hide and uproot enemies and unfaithful with what they are allowed to do. Sure, Clerics are not nessecary less violent or more benefactoral, but ...
Grim and determined, the inquisitor roots out enemies of the faith, using trickery and guile when righteousness and purity is not enoughI think that is rarely possible to be a LG Inquisitor (LN or NG fit that much better if the God is LG), but they seem to be intended to be more radical than clerics.
I played a LG inquisitor. He was in training to be a paladin but had lost faith in himself after a catastrophic failure and thus was not comfortable with the spotlight. He was grim and determined, but also earnest, honourable, loyal, a very good judge of character, and big on knowing his enemy because he was not going to mis-identify another overwhelmingly powerful undead monstrosity as "just a zombie."
|
|
@Weirdo: sure, not everyone will place divine law at the top. Paladins usually should place their own god at the top though.
As for lawfulness in general: I think lawful characters will be predisposed to follow local laws, but they will not blindly do so. If there are good reasons not to obey the local law they won't.
Those good reasons might be that the law is vile and unjust; or that it's being blatantly misused by an enemy to stay out of reach; or if your own organization has laws that contradict it.
Conversely, a chaotic character might not believe that local laws are inherently worthy of being obeyed, just because they're laws. However, he might do so anyway because this particular law seems fair and proportional; or because he fears the consequences for breaking it because it's backed by a powerful authority; or because he doesn't want to upset allies who do respect that law.
What you stated was false and historically inaccurate... The selling of indulgences was an abuse by specific individuals (who, under the pretense of having authority, abused their power by selling indulgences)... Indulgences changed definition through propaganda tactics of the pamphlets sold through the newly invented printing press...(There was more)
I appreciate the information! Never know when I'm going to be RPing in 13th century Europe and will need to know the skinny. I'd probably have learned all about this stuff if I'd been raised Lutheran or some such.
Sure, you're welcome. I was never taught it either (and I did grow up Lutheran - though I'm not Lutheran anymore) and only found out about two years ago doing some historical studies for fun. (and it was 16th century! - not that it's important, but just in case if you ever DO run a 13th century Europe campaign. You know... it would be horrible to place an invention like the printing press 300 years too soon in a historical fantasy setting.) ;)
and back to our regular Paladin programing...
Early Christian philosophers (I think St Thomas Aquinas in particular) talked about natural law, divine law, and ... gosh its been a long time since I studied this... "kingly" law because I can't remember the real term. They discussed all being laws, but not all in harmony. A pathfinder paladin should most likely follow divine law, not the law of the local ruler, unless of course those are in perfect harmony. Ask your DM if a lawful evil duke became a diabolist and passed a new law requiring all landed knights to sacrifice a virgin to Orcus once a year, would the paladin fall for following that law, or disobeying that law?
I think Martin Luther said something similar to this in response to the peasant revolts.
Paladins, in certain circumstances, may lie, no matter the ill-considered rules against it, if their revelation of the facts will result in evil because the person to whom they are speaking will use the knowledge unmistakably for evil. In other words, a paladin may say to the Nazi officer, "No, there are no Jews in my attic," even if Anne Frank and her family are up there.
This.
A paladin can commit chaotic actions like lying (as long as they aren't a habit. However, the evil action of saying, "Yeah, I got some kids up here," is going to be regarded on even these forums as a fallin'.
Unless you immediately follow those words up with a smite, of course.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ascalaphus - Agreed on all points. Just wanted to expand your comment to cover more types of characters since it's not just the paladin in the party that's having difficulty with this scenario.
Please read the entire article for his reasoning, it is a LOT looser than "modern" thought.
Got a link? All I can find on Google is references to the issue of Dragon it was published in.
A paladin can commit chaotic actions like lying (as long as they aren't a habit. However, the evil action of saying, "Yeah, I got some kids up here," is going to be regarded on even these forums as a fallin'.
Unless you immediately follow those words up with a smite, of course.
While a paladin absolutely can commit chaotic actions, there is a specific ban on lying in the code: "Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)."
Thus discussions on paladins and lying inevitably seem to come down to the general question of whether a person believes that paladins follow categorical imperatives and thus are forbidden to violate one part of the code in order to avoid a more grievous violation of a second part, or not. I have certainly seen people argue that telling the truth about the kids and then smiting is the ONLY acceptable action for a paladin in that situation - even if the odds are hopeless and open defiance is 99% likely to get the kids killed.
"And so forth" also allows the GM to determine setting-specific dishonourable acts which could indeed include feinting, flanking, or ambushes as described in the OP, though as seen on this thread this is usually considered very extreme.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually...lying is simply listed as an example of dishonorable behavior, not a restriction in its own right. I'd argue (rather strongly) that a Paladin can thus lie if doing so is honorable. That's a rare situation, but one that could crop up.
Sure, sounds reasonable to me. It does require GM interpretation, however.
|
|
Sure, sounds reasonable to me. It does require GM interpretation, however. [/QUOTE
Indeed, but so do Paladins in general. If there's one thing all these Paladin threads have taught me, it's to be on the same page as your GM regarding Paladin behavior, or at least have a good line of communication regarding such, before you even think of playing a Paladin.
Actually...lying is simply listed as an example of dishonorable behavior, not a restriction in its own right. I'd argue (rather strongly) that a Paladin can thus lie if doing so is honorable. That's a rare situation, but one that could crop up.
Also, a Paladin might try to tell a borderline truth, when telling the full truth might be highly impolite - like instead of telling the ugly countess, that her new parfume smells like eau-de toilet he might say "Dear countess, I appreciate your try of the new Parfume, but the one of the day before acentuated your beauty better."
|
|
My Paladin has few compunctions about fibbing if it will save lives and sometimes feelings.
Of course she's unlikely straight up lie about things unless there's no choice aside from lie and save someone she's sworn to protect, or give them up.
However she prefers to opt for "NOYDB" of course telling someone to "Shove Off" is also not a lie, it's dismissal
Lying to preserve someone else's feelings or avoid public humiliation is also generally seen as a Good Thing. Little white lies are the grease of society.
==Aelryinth
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, but so do Paladins in general. If there's one thing all these Paladin threads have taught me, it's to be on the same page as your GM regarding Paladin behavior, or at least have a good line of communication regarding such, before you even think of playing a Paladin.
Yes, and the above few posts plus this one and this one (ooh, and this one by James Jacobs) really demonstrate that.
There should be a warning on the class: "May cause party conflict, irritability, forum arguments, and loss of powers. Ask your GM if Paladin is right for you."