|
Bluff is an opposed skill check against your opponent's Sense Motive skill. If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true. Bluff checks are modified depending upon the believability of the lie. The following modifiers are applied to the roll of the creature attempting to tell the lie. Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).
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.
So bluff straight up covers these three things, "lying", feinting, and passing secret messages.
Secret messages is obviously fine (as long as you're not outright lying to do so). In my opinion, feinting is fine as that's just good swordsmanship and any trained combatant does as much (as in it's a normal part of combat, it just also happens to have another action in Pathfinder). Lying obviously is a no-no.
So what does bluff cover? Bluff includes making someone believe what is untrue. But what if I'm speaking the truth and they simply misinterpret?
A good example of this would be an Aes Sedai from Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series. For those not familiar, Aes Sedai are magically bound to never speak a word that is untrue, and there's a common saying in its setting "An Aes Sedai never lies, but the truth she tells you isn't the one you think you hear." Sure it's situational, but I'd argue that it's not unhonorable to speak a truth in such a way that the listener draws the wrong conclusion. In this case is it still a Bluff check? I'd say this would still be a bluff check, but a "passing secret message" check instead of a "lying" check.
Any thoughts?
I thought long and hard on this one. Best i could come up with is that it would depend on what was being said or passed along on what roll i would make them use. Now this may not be what your looking for but its the ruling i would use at my table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I simply don't accept that the paladin's code is as simple as the Core Rulebook has the space to print out.
"Act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)"
If a paladin were to say "look out, someone is behind you" in combat, that would be kind of dishonorable and a lie. Not a paladin thing to do.
Oh the other hand, an unarmed paladin in a room with a small child hiding in a closet, and a nasty foe comes in and asks "have you seen a tasty little kid"? Totally different situation. The right thing to do is lie, even if it's a soft lie like "not recently" without defining "recently".
The paladin's code is about right and wrong.
To Bluff for your own comfort or material benefit isn't "right". To Bluff for the preservation and safety of others is absolutely very much right.
"Does this dress make my ass look fat?"
A paladin should be doing what everyone else does... answer in a way that doesn't hurt the feelings of the dress-wearer, even if that means lying.
You may disagree with the specific examples I've provided, but that's how I read the paladin's code, and that's all I expect from my players; be chivalrous.
Paladins are not Aes Sedai. They don't get by on technicalities.
Feinting, however, is just fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh the other hand, an unarmed paladin in a room with a small child hiding in a closet, and a nasty foe comes in and asks "have you seen a tasty little kid"? Totally different situation. The right thing to do is lie, even if it's a soft lie like "not recently" without defining "recently".
The right thing to do is to stop the bad guy, not lie. A paladin does not compromise the Code.
However, this is why players and GMs should work out a more specific code for their paladins. There's nothing wrong with playing a paladin in that fashion, only that it conflicts with the (vague) default Code.
I'm thinking what you are describing is 'the literal truth' or 'lies of omission', both of which, as far as I'm concerned, are perfectly acceptable.
"I wouldn't do that if I were you ... the king's guard is outside." Implied: outside this building. Actually: They're outside in the castle courtyard doing drills.
"We have business with your boss." Implied: A barter or other transaction. Actually: The business is kicking his butt.
No issues whatsoever.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins aren't about technicalities. They're about doing what's right at all times.
Being honorable includes being honest. That doesn't just mean technically avoid lies. It also means not being deceitful with truthful words.
Of course, they don't necessarily have to answer every question. In Anguish's example of a beasty looking for a little kid to eat, the paladin's answer should be "Be gone, evil fiend! Look elsewhere for your meal, unless you plan to attack me!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Realistically I'd say the Paladin would get a bonus to bluff because no one sees the lie coming.
You know, I'm not an expert in biblical matter but I have a certain familiarity with it. The whole "people who wanna play paladin" vs "Paladin must be idiotic a~~*$~+s" mentality remind me a lot about the Jesus stories versus the pharisees.
Jesus go heal someone on a sabbath, pharisees are like "OMG you cant do that its sabbath".
Jesus go through a field and is disciple pick some food on sabbath, pharisees are like "You're a monster"
Jesus eat with some sinner, "This is horrible he is with sinners!"And yet for most cultures (judeo christian and muslim at the very least) Jesus (whether you believe in him or not) is a kind of example of a lawful good person.
So humm, yeah, this debate happened at least a couple millennia ago, probably more. Would it really kill people to shut their useless piehole and let the paladin make a little lie if it mean protecting an orphanage or something? Intent is what matter, that's it.
Actually, if lawful has to do with respecting tradition, custom and law, Jesus would likely have been chaotic good in his time. He did in fact buck tradition, and law. He did things he wasnt supposed to. Mind you, years later, as those who followed him became a dominant political and societal force, those behaviors became the tradition, custom and law, but at the time he lived, they were not.
The whole thing is arguable, not unlike alignment in general.
To the OP, talk to your player, work out a complete Paladins code for the order or diety the paladin follows. Include things like whether a lie to protect or save lives is acceptable or not. Whether its more important to protect the innocent or smite evil. All sorts of questions like that should be things the paladin learned in his training and upbringing. So work it out with your player.
Look to the pathfinder companion product faiths of purity for ideas on what kinds of things to put in a code. It should be more detailed and specific then 'be honorable'. Remember paladins serve different deities, not just Iomede/Herioneous, do you think a chaotic good trickster god would punish a paladin for lieing about the location of a vunlerable little girl to a monster? Probably not. Work out a code for the specific faith.
Paladins are supposed to be difficult to play. Lies of Omission are still lies.
If someone comes demanding to know whether there is a kid hiding in a closest, you are not required to tell him anything. And if fact, by the code you must
punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
So, when he demands to know where the kid is, you can ask why. And when he says he wants to eat him you attempt to arrest/smite him to death. However, your honor as a paladin doesn't allow you to say, he's in the building two streets over.
Saying nothing is always an option. Being good is not easy.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Failed will save*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the term you are looking for is "Lawful Stupid."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Choosing selfishness ("Sorry kid, it's who I am") over a child's life is what makes Paladins the paragons of lawful good.
Saying nothing is always an option. Being good is not easy.Dying and getting the kid killed because you're too stuck up about your oath to lie and direct the monster somewhere else is not "good." It is in no way shape or form "good." It is in fact stupid, and arguably at best neutral, with bordering tendencies on evil.
You'd fall even if you did survive because you were willing to throw away the kid's life for your honor.
You don't have to lie though. You can always tell him nothing. You can always take the child and escape. You can always fight, tell the child to run and hide and fight to the death that the child might live.
Call it lawful stupid if you want, but if you can't get the child and escape or can't kill the creature what are the chances that this creature isn't going to go kill some other "tasty child"?
Your lie may save one child, and condemn another to death.
Paladins are not "good above all else". That's Neutral Good, wrong schtick.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because you let him go this one time doesn't mean you can't go back after him. Heck, literature is full of good guys backing down because they don't have a shot in the world of winning and proceeding to chase down the bad guys after getting more power.
And those guys weren't paladins.
The paladin is the guy that sees the charging barbarian horde and holds up at the city gate to face them with a stick to buy time for everyone else to escape out the secret exit. Even knowing that he will likely die, and that he may not be able to save everyone.
|
|
And again, lying isn't the only option to get rid of the beast and save the kid. There's the "Go away" approach of not answering. There's the negotiating approach of trying to offer the beast some other food or bribe to leave the townspeople alone.
Or even unarmed, there's a combat approach: a paladin is still a full BAB character with Smite Evil and, usually, decent strength. Grapple it while the kid runs away!
Lying may be the best approach for characters who are good liars, but when was the last time you saw a paladin with a decent bluff check? Even if the paladin was allowed to lie in this situation, he'd probably be lousy at it, and the beast wouldn't believe him anyway. All of these other methods of dealing with the situation are just as likely to save the kid's life.
I think there are legitimate times when a paladin would roll Bluff to deceive someone.
For example, the paladin is holding a child in his arms, trying to help it escape from the bad guy. He fakes like he's about to charge out the front door, so the bad guy moves to block that exit. Then he runs out the back door instead. He hasn't lied, but he should roll a bluff check. And he is carrying out his code ("help those in need") so he shouldn't be punished.
Granted, once he can be sure the child is safe, he should go back and confront the bad guy, as he is also supposed to punish those who threaten innocents.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins are supposed to be difficult to play. Lies of Omission are still lies.
If it's good enough for Captain America, it's good enough for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you lie and say the kid is two houses over and the beasty believes you, what happens when it gets there, grows enraged at the deceit, and slaughters the family living inside? It was your lie that placed those innocents directly in harms way.
Hence, Claxon's point about simply staying silent.
As with most scenarios involving Paladins and their Code, talk it over with your GM. Make sure everyone's on the same page. It makes for interesting role playing and character concepts, and it should make some situations more difficult for you and/or your party to work around. It shouldn't generally stonewall progress and you shouldn't constantly be presented with Hobson's Choices and Let's Make a Deal situations where the consequences for not choosing the correct door is falling.
As for the OP, there's no reason feinting isn't allowed. I don't see why a Paladin would be prevented from keeping a secret (so passing messages should be allowed).
But causing someone to believe something that is untrue, responding with false statements, lying by omission, etc. Those are all examples of lying in varying degrees. Those likely wouldn't be permissible.
As a DM I allow paladins to lie.
As I paladin player I sometimes stretch the truth or "allow misunderstandings".
As long as it's for the greater good I don't see a problem with it.
Edit: I think what's important is to notice what the results of your actions are. if a paladin lies and people are saved then yay. if he lies and people die then boo.
it really isn't that hard to play paladins people!
just stop getting in your own way and have fun. and if somebody tells you you're playing the character wrong then give them detailed instuctions on where to shove it.
unless you actually ARE playing the paladin wrong.
quick test: have you killed any children today?
no? you're good son.
yes? ah sheet, you gone fugged up, boy!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Choosing selfishness ("Sorry kid, it's who I am") over a child's life is what makes Paladins the paragons of lawful good.Not selfishness at all. If he expected to be rewarded in the afterlife for dying, trying to protect the child, he wouldn't be a paladin.
Being too proud to compromise yourself to help someone defenseless seems pretty selfish to me. In our example it is the equivalent of the Paladin telling the child that he sure is sorry that the monsters disemboweled him because the Paladin couldn't possibly point and yell "hey there he is over there!" so the kid could escape while they were distracted, but hey, at least he gets to keep his class features and that is what matters.
I'm thinking what you are describing is 'the literal truth' or 'lies of omission', both of which, as far as I'm concerned, are perfectly acceptable.
"I wouldn't do that if I were you ... the king's guard is outside." Implied: outside this building. Actually: They're outside in the castle courtyard doing drills.
"We have business with your boss." Implied: A barter or other transaction. Actually: The business is kicking his butt.
No issues whatsoever.
Major Payne "Killin' is my business ladies, and business is GOOD!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You'd fall even if you did survive because you were willing to throw away the kid's life for your honor.No, you're not doing it for your honor. If that was your motive you wouldn't be a paladin. You're doing it because that's who you are and you have no choice.
"Here I stand, I can do no other." Martin Luther
You do have a choice. You always have a choice. You have the choice to lie here. This is a direct competition between the lawful and good portion of a paladin's alignment, and choosing not to lie over choosing to ensure an innocents safety is choosing law over good.
Edit:
And to Claxon. The original example had the paladin unarmed. So the paladin could, I don't know, come back with his sword? Or more people? Something to shore up his chances of killing it?
Just because you let him go this one time doesn't mean you can't go back after him. Heck, literature is full of good guys backing down because they don't have a shot in the world of winning and proceeding to chase down the bad guys after getting more power.
This smells like a false dilemma, even more so after you moved the goalposts to where the paladin couldn't possibly defeat the monster. The paladin could, for example, bait the bad guy into giving chase and lead it away from the child. The paladin could fight to buy time for the child to escape--even an unarmed paladin can slow down an evil foe. The paladin could grab the child and carry him away.
If you're positing that the paladin couldn't even slow the thing down, then I fail to see how such a powerful foe would be fooled by a lie anyway. But if that was truly the case, and there was literally no possible action less evil than lying, then a paladin could indeed choose the greater good. A true paladin would accept the sacrifice of his grace to save the child and seek to atone afterward--perhaps there were other options the paladin did not see, and some introspection or communion could enlighten him.
But such situations are rare enough that a player in such a situation could understandably have issue with her GM. Moral quandaries can be fun, but "absolutely no way out" situations generally are not. It should be difficult to follow the Code, but never impossible.
Being too proud to compromise yourself to help someone defenseless seems pretty selfish to me. In our example it is the equivalent of the Paladin telling the child that he sure is sorry that the monsters disemboweled him because the Paladin couldn't possibly point and yell "hey there he is over there!" so the kid could escape while they were distracted, but hey, at least he gets to keep his class features and that is what matters.Choosing selfishness ("Sorry kid, it's who I am") over a child's life is what makes Paladins the paragons of lawful good.Not selfishness at all. If he expected to be rewarded in the afterlife for dying, trying to protect the child, he wouldn't be a paladin.
You're interjecting your own idea of good into the paladin's Code. Clearly you do not follow the same philosophy as the paladin; that does not mean the paladin must follow your philosophy.
In other words, just because you believe the paladin's Code to be flawed does not mean that a paladin need not follow it.
But such situations are rare enough that a player in such a situation could understandably have issue with her GM. Moral quandaries can be fun, but "absolutely no way out" situations generally are not. It should be difficult to follow the Code, but never impossible.
All of this. Difficult. It's a roleplaying challenge that makes your character interesting and at times challenging to play.
Not impossible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In other words, just because you believe the paladin's Code to be flawed does not mean that a paladin need not follow it.
Yes, a Paladin does RAW have to follow it. That doesn't stop it from being stupid, poorly done, or/and arbitrary in places.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part One
As humans, we continually lie, in small ways and in larger ones.
1. Strangers will lie 3x within the first 10 minutes of meeting eachother.
2. Extroverts lie more than introverts.
3. Men lie 8x more about themselves than they do other people.
4. Women lie more to protect other people.
5. You will lie to your spouse every 1 in 10 interactions.
6. Every day, you will be lied to up on average, up to 200 times.
...and so on. Reference: TED Talk on Lying and Deception
Point Two
Within any religious faith, practitioners are given not a single set of rules, but books and books of "how to interpret this seemingly simple set of rules."
Sources: Luther's Small Catechism, The Catholic Catechism, focusing on a specific example: "How to interpret the Lord's Prayer, The Five Buddhist Precepts, Benedictine Monastic Vows...
...and so forth.
Point Three
The paladin's oath is actually less strict than real world religious examples. In some cases, the real world example may be more frightening: some societies believed that breaking these vows resulted in the eternal damnation of the soul. That is pretty serious. In other ways, some are much more strict: The Buddhist admonition against both killing and eating meat, and the direction to not sleep on too high of a bed.
Conclusion
The "paladin's code" is a mere and brief guideline that must be interpreted according to the setting and the paladin's order. In addition, this code is actually less strict than many, real world world lay and dedicated orders. It is also shorter.
By demanding that the paladin's code is "exactly as written," we ignore thousands of years of tradition by our own religious orders, traditions, and societies.
Even the famously "simple" Lord's prayer is given books of explanatory text, depending on your denomination, and theological rifts have formed from them.
Demanding that all paladins interpret the oath "exactly the same" is akin to arguing that Catholics and Baptists should agree on a word-for-word interpretation of the Lord's Prayer.
Not happening.
|
|
In other words, just because you believe the paladin's Code to be flawed does not mean that a paladin need not follow it.Yes, a Paladin does RAW have to follow it. That doesn't stop it from being stupid, poorly done, or/and arbitrary in places.
RAW: lie: an intentionally false statement
None of my examples above of what a bluff could be are intentionally false.
|
|
Lying may be the best approach for characters who are good liars, but when was the last time you saw a paladin with a decent bluff check? Even if the paladin was allowed to lie in this situation, he'd probably be lousy at it, and the beast wouldn't believe him anyway. All of these other methods of dealing with the situation are just as likely to save the kid's life.There are, perhaps, other option. But because the character doesn't see them doesn't mean he broke his code and must fall. Your vision of these things is nefarious and if you got a similar vision in the real world I hope not to many people are like you. You don't make people fall because they are stupid, or lack imagination, or don't react well under stress. You make them fall if they are selfish, unforgiving, if they don't care for the well being of other. You make them fall if they'd rather follow the letter then the spirit, you make them fall if they find joy in destruction, if they purposefully go against the will of their god, you make them fall if they have no INTENT of doing good. You do not need a flipping atonement if you had every intent to do good and defend those that deserve it but had to do a little misinformation against something clearly evil.
There should be no discussion, I would encourage those that disagree with that to go read the ample literature the world as written about morality. I would encourage you to refrain from posting anymore on the subject, if this does not convince you I doubt that I can help you anymore.
Well, that was a serious over-reaction. Who said anything about a paladin falling?
In the hypothetical false dilemma we're talking about, the paladin has half a dozen other options (mentioned in quite a few previous posts, including the one your responded to) that are at least as good as lying. I've played with paladins at the table plenty of times, both as a GM, as another player, and even playing the paladin myself. None of those paladins has ever been even remotely tempted to lie about anything. There's always another way.
But in the hypothetical we're talking about, if the paladin did lie, and I was the GM, I might give them some hint that their deity disapproved, and have the PC pray for forgiveness or something. But a minor lie for the greater good isn't going to cause a fall, or even require an atonement spell. An atonement would require a much bigger transgression against their code. Falling and losing their powers would require a blatantly evil act, or at least 3 or 4 transgressions big enough to require atonements.
But again, in all the times I've played with paladins, not only have I never seen one lie, I've also never seen one punished (or even warned) by their deity for not living up to their code.
People keep saying that playing a paladin is difficult, and I disagree. It's pretty easy. I actually have a harder time playing chaotic characters, because I'm such a team player, and I know that truly chaotic behavior would screw up the rest of the group. I'd probably have a hard time playing an evil character for the same reason, but I've never tried that, so I wouldn't know.
But as long as I keep my character's personality in mind, and play them how they would logically behave, playing a paladin isn't even remotely more difficult than playing any other character with a well defined personality. Their paladin code is just a part of that personality, not any sort of limiting factor or difficult hurdle to overcome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've taken some liberties. - 50Shades
A paladin walks up to a Buddhist monk. The two of them begin talking.
"You know," says the paladin, "I have it so bad! There's this war going on, and it would just be so much simpler if I could poison the water supply!"
"I know!" says the monk. "Not only can I not poison, I'm not allowed to take anything impure into my body. I have longed for a taste of that heavenly vintage, 'Cherry Mana Cola.' In addition, I eat only once a day, and must be content with that!"
"Woah!" says the paladin, "I can at least have stew! And three or four times a day if I like!"
"No meat!" replies the Buddhist. "And we must practice discipline and compassion for everyone. There is no killing."
"No killing! No kidding! I've been known to give a good, swift kick to a few bullies. Not even a punch?"
"Not even a punch," says the Buddhist monk. "In fact, I should stand up from my cot and offer my home were it invaded, rather than kill another being."
"Well, what about respecting authority? I mean, I'm supposed to respect good government and all that s*%%," says the paladin.
"Oh, yes. I am forbidden from visiting a king's palace at night, for example, or teaching words that the order considers untrue to the meaning of the Dharma and the Buddha. To ensure I maintain my own inner discipline, I meditate for several hours a day, no matter the weather and get up at 3 in the morning. In addition, I must not give untrue advice or create regret within another person. Tickling is forbidden, as is eating a meal at the incorrect time."
"...tickling? You're kidding, right?"
"I do my best to speak honestly. I am also forbidden from showing favoritism and playing in water."
"...heck with that s%@#," says the paladin. "So, like. What do you get if you fail?"
"I am doomed to return again and again to a life of suffering. Forever," says the monk.
Just because you let him go this one time doesn't mean you can't go back after him. Heck, literature is full of good guys backing down because they don't have a shot in the world of winning and proceeding to chase down the bad guys after getting more power.And those guys weren't paladins.
The paladin is the guy that sees the charging barbarian horde and holds up at the city gate to face them with a stick to buy time for everyone else to escape out the secret exit. Even knowing that he will likely die, and that he may not be able to save everyone.
Disagreement
"Do the good ye can, when ye can. Else you do no good at all." Durkon Thundershield
If he can use a means that might even make break his oath in a way to ensure as many survivors as possible he is duty bound to use that means. That is the intent of the oath. A person that cares more for the greater good than anything of himself.
If your paladin would rather die than fall and ensure as many survivors as possible then he has already failed at being the core of what a paladin is. He is selfish, rather than selfless. He cares more about himself and his wants than those of the general public.
That is neither good, nor a paladin.
Begging the question. A major point of the Code is that there is a limit to what can be justified in the name of "Good".
Paladins don't really get to play the "lesser of two evils" game. Sure there's the Atonement bit people like to play around with. But you can just as easily make the argument you made in response to the situation where the Paladin can avert war by poisoning an army's water supply. "But think of all the innocent lives you'll save!"
Doesn't matter. You crossed the philosophical boundary laid down by whatever force it was that you've sworn allegiance to. It's not about being "selfish"; it's about adhering to the principles you've sworn to uphold.
And Durkon is a Cleric, so I'm not sure how persuasive that quote is. And now Durkon is Durkula. Sad day for everyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Disagreement
I admit I flashed on the Elcor when I read this.
|
Thought I would put my two cents in on this matter.
We have a Paladin in our Skull & Shackles group who is fully planning on taking the ship via mutiny, and then using it to harass the pirates of the inner sea and the cheliaxan slave ships. He plans on using his boat to free captured innocents and return stolen property if he can find a maker's mark or branding.
He has been lying for the entire campaign so far because we are still in book 1 and he could not possibly take the captain or the officers on his own, even with smite evil. He helped the less evil of the crew (like Rosie Cusswell and her violin) get their confiscated items back before retrieving his own holy symbol. This Paladin does not follow a specific god at all, in fact he does not believe in the gods, he believes in the strength and conviction of the personal spirit and preaches this as often as he can. His holy symbol is actually a locket containing an image of an orphan he could not save when he was ten, this orphan was his best friend and the orphanage went up in flames.
His code is to do good when he can, and alleviate the suffering of others before his own, so yes, in the right circumstance a Paladin can Lie or do unsavory acts. He even nearly died from lashings because during the raid on the "Man's Promise" when the captain had all the opposing sailors lined up and was going to feed them to the sharks, the Paladin broke rank and used an alchemical item (I think it was a firework?) to blind and stun the crew as he helped the Man's Promise sailors steal one of the dinghy's and escape.
Just because you let him go this one time doesn't mean you can't go back after him. Heck, literature is full of good guys backing down because they don't have a shot in the world of winning and proceeding to chase down the bad guys after getting more power.And those guys weren't paladins.
The paladin is the guy that sees the charging barbarian horde and holds up at the city gate to face them with a stick to buy time for everyone else to escape out the secret exit. Even knowing that he will likely die, and that he may not be able to save everyone.
Disagreement
"Do the good ye can, when ye can. Else you do no good at all." Durkon Thundershield
If he can use a means that might even make break his oath in a way to ensure as many survivors as possible he is duty bound to use that means. That is the intent of the oath. A person that cares more for the greater good than anything of himself.
If your paladin would rather die than fall and ensure as many survivors as possible then he has already failed at being the core of what a paladin is. He is selfish, rather than selfless. He cares more about himself and his wants than those of the general public.
That is neither good, nor a paladin.
Begging the question. A major point of the Code is that there is a limit to what can be justified in the name of "Good".
Paladins don't really get to play the "lesser of two evils" game. Sure there's the Atonement bit people like to play around with. But you can just as easily make the argument you made in response to the situation where the Paladin can avert war by poisoning an army's water supply. "But think of all the innocent lives you'll save!"
Doesn't matter. You crossed the philosophical boundary laid down by whatever force it was that you've sworn allegiance to. It's not about being "selfish"; it's about adhering to the principles you've sworn to uphold.
They actually can. Part of being a paladin is having free will. If you, as an agent of LG, are in a no-win situation, breaking your Code is an option, and you may be able to atone--that's what the atonement process is for. You must be repentant of your deeds to atone, and that may entail communing with the source of your power to determine whether there was another way or whether you were essentially coerced into breaking your Code.
If you poisoned the water supply...well, yeah, generally that's the kind of thing it's hard to do and then be truly repentant, but without a much more specific context than that it's pointless to discuss the scenario. In general, that would violate the Code, obviously.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thought I would put my two cents in on this matter.
We have a Paladin in our Skull & Shackles group who is fully planning on taking the ship via mutiny, and then using it to harass the pirates of the inner sea and the cheliaxan slave ships. He plans on using his boat to free captured innocents and return stolen property if he can find a maker's mark or branding.
He has been lying for the entire campaign so far because we are still in book 1 and he could not possibly take the captain or the officers on his own, even with smite evil. He helped the less evil of the crew (like Rosie Cusswell and her violin) get their confiscated items back before retrieving his own holy symbol. This Paladin does not follow a specific god at all, in fact he does not believe in the gods, he believes in the strength and conviction of the personal spirit and preaches this as often as he can. His holy symbol is actually a locket containing an image of an orphan he could not save when he was ten, this orphan was his best friend and the orphanage went up in flames.
His code is to do good when he can, and alleviate the suffering of others before his own, so yes, in the right circumstance a Paladin can Lie or do unsavory acts. He even nearly died from lashings because during the raid on the "Man's Promise" when the captain had all the opposing sailors lined up and was going to feed them to the sharks, the Paladin broke rank and used an alchemical item (I think it was a firework?) to blind and stun the crew as he helped the Man's Promise sailors steal one of the dinghy's and escape.
Since you worked out your own code, that's perfectly fine. I encourage any paladin player to work with her GM in similar fashion--it leads to far fewer accidental headaches.