| 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.
Agreed, but I would say that prioritizing a "don't lie" rule over a "don't let kids get killed" rule is twisting things a bit far beyond what paladins are supposed to be.
If you (not you, just, like, people) want to play paladins as being more about law than good, though, it totally works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"My Divine Bond is a judge with a briefcase full of search warrants..."This is my new favorite thing. Boston Legal for Paladins. Thank you Ascalaphus.
I play a Abadar Inquisitor who is a lawyer in PFS. He has bluffed entry using "Warehouse Inspector", "Boat Inspector" and the vastly less successful "Abandoned Dungeon Inspector" using fake warrants before.
Great times.
The particular way that he views the law is simple, and quite helpful once he explained it to our Paladin: If it isn't illegal, then it must be lawful. So he won't directly break the law, but if there is a way to skirt around it, he most certainly thinks that's justified.
|
| 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."
Hah! I remember that thread. Good times.
But yeah, Paladins really require GM and player to be on the same page.
For those who support the "lawful good only" concept of a Paladin, saying that a Paladin may not lie whatsoever makes sense. Presented in this way, a Paladin should behave in accordance with Deontological principles, which are focused on doing what is right, not what produces the best outcome. For a Paladin, the ends should never justify the means.
A good concept to consider for Paladin behaviour is Kant's categorical imperative. Kant himself specifically used it to demonstrate why one should never lie (from a deontological standpoint). Although Kant was around before the "hiding Jews in your basement from Nazis" question became possible, he did consider "if one was hiding a friend who was falsely accused of murder and the officials came to ask, could one lie?". His answer was still no, although one could draw a weapon to prevent the officials from seizing said friend.
Of course, all that goes out the window if you're not trying to adhere to the beacons of purity only lawful good type Paladin. A chaotic good outlook would be much more teleological (considering of an act is good based upon it's outcomes).
|
It would take less space to fix the class than to put a warning label on it.
All you have to do is reorient them to NG since it's the law/chaos axis and the lawful honor code that cause the real problems. Most people will agree on at least the outlines of Good. Not so much Law and Chaos. And honor's meaning depends on how cynical you are. To me it's synonymous with lawful evil.
You might be on to something here.
Though I think I'd prefer to keep them lawful, but spend a few more words explaining what that means.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course paladins can lie to some extent, if they could not then why would they have Undetectable Alignment as a spell?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would take less space to fix the class than to put a warning label on it.
I disagree. Nor do I think it needs 'fixing'. For Paladins to remain what they've always been thematically, they need to be pure and shining examples of Good...and that necessitates a discussion of what that is.
All you have to do is reorient them to NG since it's the law/chaos axis and the lawful honor code that cause the real problems. Most people will agree on at least the outlines of Good.
Hah. I've read a lot of Paladin threads. This? This is so utterly untrue as to be ridiculous. My most recent Paladin thread argument was over whether killing surrendered opponents was a Good act, for example. Whether you think I was right or not is immaterial to the fact that that's in no way a Law/Chaos argument...nor are most Paladin arguments I've seen (this thread being an exception).
Not so much Law and Chaos. And honor's meaning depends on how cynical you are. To me it's synonymous with lawful evil.
Uh...for the record I'm extremely cynical and think that's pretty much completely untrue. Certain specific codes of honor have been Evil (or as close as things get in the real world)...but not the concept itself.
|
For those who support the "lawful good only" concept of a Paladin, saying that a Paladin may not lie whatsoever makes sense. Presented in this way, a Paladin should behave in accordance with Deontological principles, which are focused on doing what is right, not what produces the best outcome. For a Paladin, the ends should never justify the means.
A good concept to consider for Paladin behaviour is Kant's categorical imperative. Kant himself specifically used it to demonstrate why one should never lie (from a deontological standpoint). Although Kant was around before the "hiding Jews in your basement from Nazis" question became possible, he did consider "if one was hiding a friend who was falsely accused of murder and the officials came to ask, could one lie?". His answer was still no, although one could draw a weapon to prevent the officials from seizing said friend.Of course, all that goes out the window if you're not trying to adhere to the beacons of purity only lawful good type Paladin. A chaotic good outlook would be much more teleological (considering of an act is good based upon it's outcomes).
This is why I prefer Virtue Ethics. Deontology and consequentialism fail to account for the most important component of any ethical action - the character of the person committing the action. Telling the truth to destroy another person is not good. Lying to save somebody's life is not evil.
You mentioned Kant's categorical imperative, by which I assume you meant "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it would become universal law" as the foundation of deontological ethics.
While that was a good start, Kant even somewhat clarified with a second part to the maxim that required "we treat others as ends, and never merely as means to an end". If you sacrifice someone (the Anne Frank hypothetical) to preserve your personal honor code, then you are using them as means and not ends, violating the categorical imperative.
I still think a Paladin should exhaust every other option before violating their code, but if there is no clear path to save another without doing so, they should absolutely without question violate the law/their personal code/the edicts of the church/whatever.
This is why I prefer Virtue Ethics. Deontology and consequentialism fail to account for the most important component of any ethical action - the character of the person committing the action.
A good concept to consider for Paladin behaviour is Kant's categorical imperative. Kant himself specifically used it to demonstrate why one should never lie (from a deontological standpoint). Although Kant was around before the "hiding Jews in your basement from Nazis" question became possible, he did consider "if one was hiding a friend who was falsely accused of murder and the officials came to ask, could one lie?". His answer was still no, although one could draw a weapon to prevent the officials from seizing said friend.
From what I remember, Kant's ethical theories are largely rejected today for more or less that reason -- they don't work (and by work, I mean, "give reasonable answers that align with people's naive understanding of what ethical behavior is.") Just as any weather prediction model that predicts glaciers in Florida is wrong, so is any ethical model that says "turn the Jews over to the Nazis."
I don't remotely see a paladin employing little white lies, however. I do see him or her adroitly avoiding the entire truth if a partial one that lets people draw whatever conclusion will satisfy them, code and decorum.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
Which is pretty much the definition of a little white lie, is it not?
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't remotely see a paladin employing little white lies, however. I do see him or her adroitly avoiding the entire truth if a partial one that lets people draw whatever conclusion will satisfy them, code and decorum.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
Which is pretty much the definition of a little white lie, is it not?
==Aelryinth
Not really.
"No, that dress doesn't make you look fat" is a lie if it's not true. "That dress looks wonderful on you" doesn't directly address the question at all.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a person looks fat it's probably not the fault of their wardrobe.I don't remotely see a paladin employing little white lies, however. I do see him or her adroitly avoiding the entire truth if a partial one that lets people draw whatever conclusion will satisfy them, code and decorum.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
Which is pretty much the definition of a little white lie, is it not?
==Aelryinth
Not really.
"No, that dress doesn't make you look fat" is a lie if it's not true. "That dress looks wonderful on you" doesn't directly address the question at all.
Leave that to a low Cha Inquistor or Cleric.
"Madame, it is not your dress that causes you to look fat, but the fact that you ARE fat."
|
A paladin doesn't lie. If he does, he's not a paladin. Does that mean that sometimes things become unnecessarily difficult around him? Absolutely. Does this mean that he's going to encounter situations that end up going worse than expected because of him? Yup.
Nobody ever said that being good was easy. Just that it was right.
No. It doesn't mean that to those who prefer lawful good paladins. That isn't a lawful good paladin, that's an idiot. Also rather completely made of straw.For those who support the "lawful good only" concept of a Paladin, saying that a Paladin may not lie whatsoever makes sense. Presented in this way, a Paladin should behave in accordance with Deontological principles, which are focused on doing what is right, not what produces the best outcome. For a Paladin, the ends should never justify the means.
A good concept to consider for Paladin behaviour is Kant's categorical imperative. Kant himself specifically used it to demonstrate why one should never lie (from a deontological standpoint). Although Kant was around before the "hiding Jews in your basement from Nazis" question became possible, he did consider "if one was hiding a friend who was falsely accused of murder and the officials came to ask, could one lie?". His answer was still no, although one could draw a weapon to prevent the officials from seizing said friend.Of course, all that goes out the window if you're not trying to adhere to the beacons of purity only lawful good type Paladin. A chaotic good outlook would be much more teleological (considering of an act is good based upon it's outcomes).
If striving always to do what is right is idiocy, then I can scarcely imagine your view of the Paladin. Also, Immanuel Kant is a straw man? That's a new one. I guess you're a Nietzsche fan?
A paladin doesn't lie. If he does, he's not a paladin. Does that mean that sometimes things become unnecessarily difficult around him? Absolutely. Does this mean that he's going to encounter situations that end up going worse than expected because of him? Yup.
Nobody ever said that being good was easy. Just that it was right.
I object to the idea that being a dick to people out of some misplaced sense of morality is "being good". Honesty just isn't always a virtue, regardless of what some dead hack wrote in a book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I prefer Virtue Ethics. Deontology and consequentialism fail to account for the most important component of any ethical action - the character of the person committing the action. Telling the truth to destroy another person is not good. Lying to save somebody's life is not evil.
You mentioned Kant's categorical imperative, by which I assume you meant "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it would become universal law" as the foundation of deontological ethics.
While that was a good start, Kant even somewhat clarified with a second part to the maxim that required "we treat others as ends, and never merely as means to an end". If you sacrifice someone (the Anne Frank hypothetical) to preserve your personal honor code, then you are using them as means and not ends, violating the categorical imperative....
I don't see that as sacrificing someone for your own gain. You can defend them, with your very life. You could refuse to answer. The moment you lie, you are justifying doing what should not be done. If it's okay to lie in order to save a life, when else is it okay to lie? When do the ends justify the means? To a (lawful good) Paladin, the answer should be never.
The Paladin code is not meant to be facile or relative, it is absolute, which suits a deontological approach better, in my opinion. In our world, without actual embodiments of good and evil, a more balanced approach makes sense. In a world where a single bad act can have an empirical effect (stripping a Paladin of all power), a more stringent approach might be called for.
It would take less space to fix the class than to put a warning label on it.I disagree. Nor do I think it needs 'fixing'. For Paladins to remain what they've always been thematically, they need to be pure and shining examples of Good...and that necessitates a discussion of what that is.
"A" discussion?
;)
Anyways, play paladins as you like. In my opinion, though, letting a kid get killed to cling to your idea of honor (I can't lie! I AM THE LUAW!) is an evil act. If you know the only possible way to save the kid is to lie, and you tell the truth and get pointlessly killed just so you can keep to your Code...I might enjoy playing such a paladin, but I wouldn't really see them as a real paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a similar example. Say you swear, on your honor, to look after somebody's favorite pair of mittens and not let any smelly orcs take them. Later, the mittens fall into a pit, so you jump down after them. You break both your legs in the fall.
All good. You've kept your word. Maybe you're being a bit anal about it, but that's another matter.
Later, the village gets raided. You can't reach anyone to help. You haven't done anything wrong yet, though—you would help if you were physically capable of doing so.
Now a nearby orc is set to eat forty babies, but he offers to leave them be in exchange for those awesome-looking mittens (he won't have time to eat babies if he's busy admiring his new handwear). You have no way to stop him other than to toss them up...but you made a solemn vow. If you break your word, you'll have deliberately lied.
See where this code breaks down? Clearly, when contradictions arise, you have to favor what is Good over what is Lawful. The paladin needs to toss up the mittens.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a Paladins code of honor is going to get innocent people killed then any paladin worthy of the title will man up and fall rather than let those innocent people die. They can atone later, but if a paladin puts personal honor over lives then he should probably fall anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Conversely, if the paladin has to commit a minor breach of the code in order to save innocent people the code should be able to accommodate and adjust for that instead of instantly making the paladin fall for lying. The code shouldn't be binary.
I find the idea that the forces of Good (with a capital G) make the paladin lose all powers because he 'lied in order to save lives' incredibly wrong.
To me it's the equivalent of arresting someone for walking past a red light in order to stop a robbery across the street.
Context should matter.
"No, that dress doesn't make you look fat" is a lie if it's not true.
In old days Paladin always have enough Charisma say, "Hand me pants. I'll try on. Then you see how pants change tush."
And pants passed but never quite made it onto Paladin.
The paladin needs to toss up the mittens.
In old days Paladin always have enough Charisma say, "Me vow not let orcs take mittens, so me broke orc arm then gave mittens."
And mitten old owner even glad start orphanage for forty babies!
Ethics merely failure of Charisma.
Ethics try make people happy. But really Charisma make people happy.
Laws try make people safe. But really people risk for chance take in Charisma.
Can you prove Troll wrong?
Most social norms tests not rules. Pass test by break phony rule.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on how deontological your world's ethics are. If Good cares about intent or results, then you're fine. If an Evil act is Evil regardless of intent or results, then paladins will occasionally have to take a fall in order to do what is on the whole "right."
Keep in mind that while lawful good deities certainly would have the intelligence not to arrest someone for jaywalking to stop a robbery, the cosmic forces of Good and Law don't necessarily. Alignment in PF can easily be interpreted as a basic principle of reality like the laws of physics and thus harsh and unforgiving from the human POV.
Which is an interesting and valid setting but it does make it harder on paladins and thus should be made clear to players, especially if the GM is planning on trying anything fancy with mittens.
It would take less space to fix the class than to put a warning label on it.I disagree. Nor do I think it needs 'fixing'. For Paladins to remain what they've always been thematically, they need to be pure and shining examples of Good...and that necessitates a discussion of what that is.
All you have to do is reorient them to NG since it's the law/chaos axis and the lawful honor code that cause the real problems. Most people will agree on at least the outlines of Good.Hah. I've read a lot of Paladin threads. This? This is so utterly untrue as to be ridiculous. My most recent Paladin thread argument was over whether killing surrendered opponents was a Good act, for example. Whether you think I was right or not is immaterial to the fact that that's in no way a Law/Chaos argument...nor are most Paladin arguments I've seen (this thread being an exception).
I'm certainly not opposed to making paladins "Any Good" but I absolutely agree that the question of what is good and evil causes at least as many paladin arguments as the lawful issue.
It's not just being good that's hard, it's deciding what is good. Or even figuring out how to decide what is good - that's why we have so many different types of ethical systems (deontology, virtue ethics, consequentialism, etc.)
|
|
I object to the idea that being a dick to people out of some misplaced sense of morality is "being good". Honesty just isn't always a virtue, regardless of what some dead hack wrote in a book.A paladin doesn't lie. If he does, he's not a paladin. Does that mean that sometimes things become unnecessarily difficult around him? Absolutely. Does this mean that he's going to encounter situations that end up going worse than expected because of him? Yup.
Nobody ever said that being good was easy. Just that it was right.
Well, it's not really good to be a dick to people, so a Paladin couldn't do that either. I'm not really sure how you got that from what I said. >_>
That being said, it's not really evil to be a dick to people. It's just not required. :P
|
|
I'm certainly not opposed to making paladins "Any Good" but I absolutely agree that the question of what is good and evil causes at least as many paladin arguments as the lawful issue.
Oh, me either. I allow CG Paladins in my games, for instance.
It's not just being good that's hard, it's deciding what is good. Or even figuring out how to decide what is good - that's why we have so many different types of ethical systems (deontology, virtue ethics, consequentialism, etc.)
Exactly. And leaving room for various different kinds of Good is at least equally important, given the widely divergent nature of, say, LG and CG.
|
|
Regarding the "white lies" vs. "lying by ommission" deal; I think some people might be missing the point.
The code says a paladin must not do dishonorable things, such as lying. This is because "normal" lies are considered dishonorable. Honorable people tell the truth, at least about important things.
A little white lie is probably not dishonorable, so that's fine. Lying by ommission is really sketchy. Not raising a subject can be okay perhaps, but if you start leaving out things so such a degree that you're misleading people, it starts to look more and more dishonorable. There's a fine line somewhere and it's hard to draw that line in just a few sentences. This is thin ice and wise paladins don't get on that ice in the first place.
As for the mittens example - you gave your word. Breaking your word is dishonorable. But you did do it for a far greater good, with noble intent. I think a sane LG deity would not take away your powers while you were saving lives. When the crisis is past though, you'd suddenly feel feeble until you made generous restitution to mittendude, to regain your honor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if you don't like Kantian ethics you have to go straight to Nietzsche? There are many other schools of deontological thought ..No. It doesn't mean that to those who prefer lawful good paladins. That isn't a lawful good paladin, that's an idiot. Also rather completely made of straw.If striving always to do what is right is idiocy, then I can scarcely imagine your view of the Paladin. Also, Immanuel Kant is a straw man? That's a new one. I guess you're a Nietzsche fan?
Indeed there is a range, I simply made that inquiry because describing Kant as made of straw was rather similar to how Nietzsche described him.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A paladin doesn't lie. If he does, he's not a paladin.[citation needed]Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)...Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Can a Paladin use a tranquilizer gun to take down their possessed friend without hurting them?
That's the real question, here.
See, I contend (as I mentioned earlier) that lying is an example of dishonorable behavior, not an independent section of the Paladin code, which means that a Paladin can lie if, and only if, it's honorable to do so, since the actual restriction is dishonorable behavior, not lying per se. The same would logically apply to poison, making the tranquilizer gun valid in the circumstances listed.
If you instead treat the one as unbreakable, then the other must be as well, meaning that the Paladin must kill their comrade if it's a choice between that and the dreaded evil of the tranquilizer gun.
I prefer a world where it's being honorable that matters not a limited list of specific acts, the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter.
|
No a paladin cant lie because it is dishonorable and must pay for having the class named paladin how dare the player think he is able to have fun and the party must be punished for his mistake of wanting to play a holy warrior of a god he will have to hit enemies with a pillow because killing as wrong, cant search houses without a permit and cant lie. I as a GM will enforce a unethical view of lawful stupid on him until he falls or gives up and changes class then I will brag to all of my friends on how I did it and made him suffer BWAHAHAH
on a side note really? this is how most people sound on threads like this isn't this a game and we are all out to have fun and not have some person try to enforce there view of lawful, good, or honorable on a table seems to be contradictory to me of the ideal of fun.
Correction: that description of paladins is made of straw. They are not lawful neutral, they are lawful good, and the good is of equal or even greater import to the lawful.Indeed there is a range, I simply made that inquiry because describing Kant as made of straw was rather similar to how Nietzsche described him.So if you don't like Kantian ethics you have to go straight to Nietzsche? There are many other schools of deontological thought ..No. It doesn't mean that to those who prefer lawful good paladins. That isn't a lawful good paladin, that's an idiot. Also rather completely made of straw.If striving always to do what is right is idiocy, then I can scarcely imagine your view of the Paladin. Also, Immanuel Kant is a straw man? That's a new one. I guess you're a Nietzsche fan?
The not lying is good, the being dogmatic about not lying is lawful.
|
|
Why wouldn't the paladin just knock him out via normal means? Or at the very least attempt to restrain his comrade?
It's a hypothetical. One of those "Well, if you had to choose between A and B..." things.
Besides, the point is, why would either of those be morally superior or more honorable than using a tranquilizer gun?
The way I think paladins should played is similar to an LG fighter. If the LG Fighter can occasionally lie to save people without a forced alignment shift then why not the paladin?
Characters are allowed to make mistakes once in a while or have errors in judgement. It makes them more compelling. Paladins are basically Captain America, Superman, Paragon Shepard, and Optimus Prime. They are champions of the straight and narrow path but that doesn't mean they're perfect and can mess up. All four of those characters would do what it takes to make sure the right thing is done.
For all LG characters and paladins especially, Law is not about the law of the land but how you hold yourself. A paladin doesn't bend the knee to a king, a judge, or even their god really. They are loyal to the concept of good above all other things. They are shining champions of what's right.
The paladin's code is really a guideline for the player. Any paladin (in-universe) should believe and practice the ideals of the code naturally. Of course they lie about Anne Frank in the attic but that doesn't diminish their honor or their commit to the truth.
Obviously chaotic people can be good as well; I don't mean to imply they are less Good than LG people. The difference is in how they hold themselves. The reason why a paladin is LG rather than NG or CG is the eternal argument over the "greater good." The greater good
The classic example of how an LG person works over an NG or CG person is how they deal with a tyrannical government.
A Chaotic Good person cares about freedom over all. This usually means they want their own freedom, the freedom of the people, and more limited government. When they see a broken system, they lead the rebellion and try to topple it. They're about the little man and the individual. In other words, they care about the littlest good.
A Neutral Good person focuses on the people themselves. They care for the victims; they heal, clothe, feed, and protect them. Their response is to try to limit the amount evil done by the bad guys and heal what they can't stop. In the case of a rebellion, they may help out but they'd rather see the people strong enough to rebel on their own. They try to make them strong enough to deal with their own problems. This is the greatest good in their minds; the good of the people down the line.
The Lawful Good resorts to rebellion as a last resort only. They work within the system to make it better while causing the least amount of bloodshed. If they can't fix it that way, then rebellion becomes an option. They see the greatest good as that of societies. Fix the society and it will solve all the other problems. They tend to see things in the greatest scope. If they are in the rebellion, then they will hold themselves up as a symbol to inspire the people. They will also try to make sure the cause stays just and avoids going all "reign of terror."
The paladin really is just a religious bent on the LG fighter or a more martial bent on the LG Cleric.
All of these people are good and their focus doesn't diminish that fact in any way. All of these approaches have their moral justifications. If you find that Lg doesn't work for you than Paladin just isn't the right class and that's okay do. Paladin is one the most difficult classes to roleplay in my opinion for this very reason.
TL;DR version: If an LG fighter can get away with it without an alignment shift, then a paladin should get away with it without falling.
And Paladins should be LG.
|
|
Why wouldn't the paladin just knock him out via normal means? Or at the very least attempt to restrain his comrade?It's a hypothetical. One of those "Well, if you had to choose between A and B..." things.
Besides, the point is, why would either of those be morally superior or more honorable than using a tranquilizer gun?
I realize it was a hypothetical. I just find hypotheticals to be silly things. :P
Really, what matters is whether or not tranquilizers are considered "poison". The game makes no differentiation between various substances which can harm the body, either by making one unconscious, draining attributes, or causing various status afflictions (i.e., sickened), so it's difficult to say. In the real world, something like an anaesthetic would be different from a venom or toxin, and whether or not something like that would be considered a poison in Pathfinder is kind of strange. It would likely end up being ruled as working like a poison, but that gets into weirdness where the rules don't reflect reality very well in regards to lumping things together.
|
|
So many points! All of them way off the original topic, but still...
First if you want Paladins to be LG Fighters, I'd suggest you roll up an LG Fighter. Or if you don't like the flavor of a code bound Paladin, perhaps you need to design an archetype that removes the code and replaces it with something else. The game has accommodations for the 'this class is not for me' problem already.
Next, if your paladin only falls during elaborate scenarios involving mittens then you're probably worrying too much. It isn't likely to occur during an actual game, unless your GM is a jerk.
Also, consider how much fun it might be to have to make a mitten style choice that occurred naturally (instead of one contrived by a jerk GM). You'd certainly have a war story to tell afterwards. And even if you retire the fallen Paladin instead of redeeming it, would this be any worse than the character deaths endured by thousands of players every day? So you need a new character, the books are over there...
Again, there's an opportunity to play within the straight jacket and be proud of what you did. If that's not for you, it probably isn't fair to blame the class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think "a paladin must not lie" and "a paladin must behave honorably" are two different, largely unrelated criteria. If you tell your players "you are not capable of lying" you will essentially train them to be master equivocators and/or pedants.
"Officer I would be incredibly surprised if you were able to locate any fugitives hiding in my attic" is not, strictly speaking, a lie if you intend to use physical force to prevent the officer from actually going into your attic assuming he doesn't buy your line.
I think putting the emphasis on "truth-telling" rather than "honorable behavior" skews things. Personally I've always believed in just asking any Paladin player to justify anything they do that's potentially dishonorable, and if they can't justify it then they shouldn't do it. Having to think about the justifications for your actions is a good way to avoid falling into a lot of the classic lawful stupid tropes. The Paladin, ideally, is a thinking-person's martial class.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the real world, something like an anaesthetic would be different from a venom or toxin, and whether or not something like that would be considered a poison in Pathfinder is kind of strange. It would likely end up being ruled as working like a poison, but that gets into weirdness where the rules don't reflect reality very well in regards to lumping things together.
Actually, in the real world the difference between a poison and a medicine is often dosage, and the number describing that fact is the therapeutic index - the ratio between the amount that kills you and the amount that cures you. The reason anaesthesia requires training (and is a medical specialty for doctors) is because giving too much can cause your breathing or heart to stop entirely, or have other side effects depending on what you're using.