Wait. Sir Dyne's proof is
HWalsh wrote: Sir Dyne then gestures and glows as a veil of positive energy envelopes him. And that cannot be duplicated? And the common folk know what that is? These are some well-read commoners. PCs may need a boost in skill points.
HyperMissingno wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: Baval wrote: Yes, but Paladins have a class ability called "Aura of Good" that causes them to not just ping good, but overwhelmingly good. So do clerics. "But cleircs also have auras of law!"
Not if they worship an NG deity! wow good job predicting that non-effectual argument i didnt make that literally anyone could easily already see the hole to in response to a question i already covered in my previous post.
You sure got me down pat already.
Baval wrote: Yes, I said that Clerics can pass as Paladins if they wanted to already. I also said that a good aligned outsider could too. That has no bearing on the question of whether a non-outsider Fighter could pass as a Paladin. I don't think that has been the subject of the discussion for awhile now.
knightnday wrote: So the answer is
Baval wrote: "in a world where Paladins and their mechanics are known" But .. and correct me if I'm wrong .. that isn't the common world? That is a house rule/GM interpretation of the world at large. IF you have a world where everyone is sat down and taught that if someone says they are a paladin then they cannot lie then yes, his words might have some weight. It still doesn't negate Bluff and other skills, but it might give you a small bonus.
I actually broke down the mechanics in my last post. Its pretty big.
As for "That is a house rule/GM interpretation of the world at large."
No and maybe yes.
The actual setting of Golarion does seem to insinuate that the CLASS Paladin is a "thing" that requires specific training to become. (As quoted from the text of Chosen One) Not only this, but every time the books reference Paladins and Paladin Codes their specifics always refer to the Paladin Class.
It isn't more concretely stated that they are any more strongly than that however.
The claim that they AREN'T known is as much (if not more) of a house rule/GM interpretation of the world at large.
As I have never found any evidence in any Pathfinder book to indicate that non-Class Paladins are counted among Paladin ranks as Paladins.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Baval wrote: Yes, I said that Clerics can pass as Paladins if they wanted to already. I also said that a good aligned outsider could too. That has no bearing on the question of whether a non-outsider Fighter could pass as a Paladin. I don't think that has been the subject of the discussion for awhile now. Well i only just got into this thread and didnt intend to go back and read 6 pages of responses. If its already in agreement that a Fighter cannot pass as a Paladin reliably then the new subject (What benefit is it to call have the name Paladin i guess?) should probably be a new thread
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
But Paladins can lie. It's against their code, but that doesn't make it impossible by any stretch of the imagination. The Paladin should really be relying on evidence, not reputation.
Revan wrote: But Paladins can lie. It's against their code, but that doesn't make it impossible by any stretch of the imagination. The Paladin should really be relying on evidence, not reputation. A Paladin can lie, a Paladin cannot lie and remain a Paladin
Quote: A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see atonement), as appropriate. Its easy to dispute one part of the argument, but to be effective you have to dispute the entire argument as a whole. The argument is "A Paladin can be trusted not to lie if he can prove hes still a Paladin, a Fighter can lie and still remain a Figther"
knightnday wrote: Wait. Sir Dyne's proof is
HWalsh wrote: Sir Dyne then gestures and glows as a veil of positive energy envelopes him. And that cannot be duplicated? And the common folk know what that is? These are some well-read commoners. PCs may need a boost in skill points.
Youre right, the commoners probably wouldnt. Luckily, they probably have a local church, which is probably headed by a low level cleric, who to go out on a limb probably has a few ranks in knowledge: religion, and therefore would probably be able to tell the people "Hey this guys a Paladin, thats some serious business"
And its unlikely the crowd would have any reason to believe Father Pastor would vouch for the inability to lie of some guy who came into town over Xanatos the town Richdude.
knightnday wrote: Wait. Sir Dyne's proof is
HWalsh wrote: Sir Dyne then gestures and glows as a veil of positive energy envelopes him. And that cannot be duplicated? And the common folk know what that is? These are some well-read commoners. PCs may need a boost in skill points.
It is a DC 16
Assuming that there is at least 1 person in a public square with Spellcraft of 1 rank it becomes possible. With a +0 Int and it not being a class skill he has a +1 it is a 30% chance. He needs to roll a 15 or better.
Most likely, in a situation like this, there would be at least 1 Priest somewhere, and assuming he's not a power-optimized PC who tanked intelligence, if he has 1 rank in Spellcraft he has a +4 that 25% chance becomes a 45% chance. He needs a 12 or better.
If there happens to be a single level 1 Wizard then there is a chance (assuming a minimum of +2 Intelligence) then he has a +6 which means he needs a 10 or better. 55% chance.
Now, if we assume that they are all level 1 commoners, with nobody having any ranks in spellcraft in the entire place, then it doesn't matter what anyone does. Xanatos wins, because even at a -15 to his roll he's going to beat them.
Though, if we look at how Pathfinder is designed, there is, pretty much in every town a Priest and a Wizard of at least 3rd level, which, if we go with a proper Wizard (+3 Int Bonus, 3 Ranks in Spellcraft, Class Skill) that right there is a +9 to identify the spell. Meaning a roll of 7 or less.
But yes, you can stack any scenario to favor the villain I guess.
Most Paladins would probably still have at least the same "far-fetched" penalty to even convince common folk that they are some kind of a holy warrior.
Revan wrote: But Paladins can lie. It's against their code, but that doesn't make it impossible by any stretch of the imagination. The Paladin should really be relying on evidence, not reputation. The Paladin has evidence... That he is still a Paladin. Its VERY easy, under normal circumstances, to prove you are a Paladin if you are.
RussianAlly wrote: Most Paladins would probably still have at least the same "far-fetched" penalty to even convince common folk that they are some kind of a holy warrior. I already laid out the percentages.
Its actually far more far-fetched that nobody in the town could vouch for it.
The only time they aren't distinguishable is if you house rule the setting.
Pretty damn easy to fake being a Paladin, too
Misdirection gives you that shiny Aura of Good in exchange for a second level spell slot
Arachnofiend wrote: Pretty damn easy to fake being a Paladin, too
Misdirection gives you that shiny Aura of Good in exchange for a second level spell slot
Sure, as long as there happens to be another Paladin, Good Aligned Cleric, or Angel hanging around within about 30-50 feet of you. And you had it cast/nobody saw you cast it. And the Cleric doesnt make the Will Save.
At hours per level, the first two are fairly easy to cover.
TriOmegaZero wrote: At hours per level, the first two are fairly easy to cover. And silent spell + invisibility makes the last part easier unless the place they are in has a super anti-magic place or something.
Hours per level is inconsequential because the object needs to be in range of you. So at some point youre going to need to cast it close to a Paladin or Cleric. Casting it in the moment requires not only Silent Spell but Still Spell as well (or i suppose doing it behind their back, which is possible). Going invisible and then reappearing during a test of your Paladinyness probably isnt going to go unnoticed.
So yes, of course its possible to fake, but there are ways to test even this. For example, before testing if a person is a Paladin in a formal situation its likely youd have them stip and put into some sort of ceremonial robes, and if time permitted probably have them wait in a chamber for 24 hours if it was important, or just cast dispel magic a few times before hand. Clerics who are used to this sort of thing would know some of the tricks people could do to pretend to be Paladins.
Baval wrote: Hours per level is inconsequential because the object needs to be in range of you. At the time of casting.
HWalsh wrote: knightnday wrote: Wait. Sir Dyne's proof is
HWalsh wrote: Sir Dyne then gestures and glows as a veil of positive energy envelopes him. And that cannot be duplicated? And the common folk know what that is? These are some well-read commoners. PCs may need a boost in skill points.
It is a DC 16
Assuming that there is at least 1 person in a public square with Spellcraft of 1 rank it becomes possible. With a +0 Int and it not being a class skill he has a +1 it is a 30% chance. He needs to roll a 15 or better.
Most likely, in a situation like this, there would be at least 1 Priest somewhere, and assuming he's not a power-optimized PC who tanked intelligence, if he has 1 rank in Spellcraft he has a +4 that 25% chance becomes a 45% chance. He needs a 12 or better.
If there happens to be a single level 1 Wizard then there is a chance (assuming a minimum of +2 Intelligence) then he has a +6 which means he needs a 10 or better. 55% chance.
Now, if we assume that they are all level 1 commoners, with nobody having any ranks in spellcraft in the entire place, then it doesn't matter what anyone does. Xanatos wins, because even at a -15 to his roll he's going to beat them.
Though, if we look at how Pathfinder is designed, there is, pretty much in every town a Priest and a Wizard of at least 3rd level, which, if we go with a proper Wizard (+3 Int Bonus, 3 Ranks in Spellcraft, Class Skill) that right there is a +9 to identify the spell. Meaning a roll of 7 or less.
But yes, you can stack any scenario to favor the villain I guess. Or to favor your ideas.
In any case, the original idea -- before we got sidetracked on the importance of paladins and lying -- was if someone could call themselves a paladin. That depends, as we've seen, on your interpretation of the world that your paladins exist in, how well known they are, and if even the most cursory check tells people all they need to know about paladins.
Are you a "real" paladin? That depends on your GM and your setting. Can you operate as a paladin? Of course, just as you don't have to be a Wizard class to call yourself a wizard.
You only need non-detection to cover an evil aura.
Paladins and good clerics after all, can't cast Detect Good.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: You only need non-detection to cover an evil aura.
Paladins and good clerics after all, can't cast Detect Good.
Hate to shoot my side in the foot here but they can cast detect good as it is not an evil spell. However they usually don't have it prepared.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I'm not opposed to a paladin getting a diplomacy edge from display of paladin powers (as long as the person they're talking to has the knowledge to recognize those powers). But I strongly prefer to rely on the reputation of an organization or the individual character - partly for a metagamey reason.
It rewards player engagement with the world.
As a PC advances in level they develop a wider reputation. If they make a strong effort to act in a particular heroic way or to gain entry to prestigious organizations then it enhances their reputation. That reputation and its effects on social interactions is the biggest intangible reward for progressing in the campaign, and the one most directly tied to a player's roleplaying choices.
Having someone get the benefit of an ironclad reputation basically out of the gate simply due to character class.. well, that cheapens the value of a stellar personal reputation built over 10 levels of unimpeachable heroism.
And that makes the game less fun for me.
I dunno. In this scenario, it'd be usually easier to convince the crowds of your divinity if you were a Cleric/Shaman or Oracle when you control the freaking weather!
I think people would be more likely to believe that guy backed by some serious divine power over some knight with a sword.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Weirdo wrote: Having someone get the benefit of an ironclad reputation basically out of the gate simply due to character class.. well, that cheapens the value of a stellar personal reputation built over 10 levels of unimpeachable heroism. If we wanted the "paladins are the truthiest Truthers who ever trothed the truth!" thing to manifest mechanically, we could add a class feature that gives them +1/2 levels as a circumstance bonus to Diplomacy checks, or something like that. Then it's a tangible benefit, with a scaling bonus to it's not binary; it mirrors the kind of skill perks that a bunch of other classes get, so it's not a brand-new mechanical subsystem; and it doesn't rely on fantastical DM pronouncements like saying "impossible" when he really means "less likely." That would be an honest and straightforward way of doing things (which I'd think a REAL paladin would appreciate).
Tee-Hee wrote: Da guy ain't got no sensayuma.
Kirth Gersen wrote: Weirdo wrote: Having someone get the benefit of an ironclad reputation basically out of the gate simply due to character class.. well, that cheapens the value of a stellar personal reputation built over 10 levels of unimpeachable heroism. If we wanted the "paladins are the truthiest Truthers who ever trothed the truth!" thing to manifest mechanically, we could add a class feature that gives them +1/2 levels as a circumstance bonus to Diplomacy checks, or something like that. Then it's a tangible benefit, with a scaling bonus to it's not binary; it mirrors the kind of skill perks that a bunch of other classes get, so it's not a brand-new mechanical subsystem; and it doesn't rely on fantastical DM pronouncements like saying "impossible" when he really means "less likely." That would be an honest and straightforward way of doing things (which I'd think a REAL paladin would appreciate). Except he doesnt mean "less likely" since its literally impossible. A Paladin who lies falls, bar none. So a Paladin who lies cannot then prove hes a Paladin, because he isnt. It is physically impossible in any circumstance for a Paladin to ever lie and then immediately prove he was a Paladin.
Whether you think its fair that a character who literally cannot lie and maintain his abilities gets more of the benefit of the doubt over someone who has never lied is irrelevant. Owls can fly, and no amount of me practicing to fly will make people assume that an owl cannot fly. Its just a fact, and so is the fact that Paladins cannot lie and remain Paladins. Ever. Ever.
Baval wrote: Except he doesnt mean "less likely" since its literally impossible. A Paladin who lies falls, bar none. So a Paladin who lies cannot then prove hes a Paladin, because he isnt. It is physically impossible in any circumstance for a Paladin to ever lie and then immediately prove he was a Paladin. A lot of your starting premises are getting in the way of your logic, but that's okay.
Kirth Gersen wrote: Baval wrote: Except he doesnt mean "less likely" since its literally impossible. A Paladin who lies falls, bar none. So a Paladin who lies cannot then prove hes a Paladin, because he isnt. It is physically impossible in any circumstance for a Paladin to ever lie and then immediately prove he was a Paladin. A lot of your starting premises are getting in the way of your logic, but that's okay. Is that so? OK well my starting premise is "A Paladin cannot lie and then immediately prove he is a Paladin"
Here is the Paladins rules for falling, with the relevant rule bolded:
Quote: A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see atonement), as appropriate. And here is a paladins code, similarly bolded
Quote: 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, a Paldins code says he must not lie, and the rules for falling say a Paladin who breaks his code falls.
With those inarguable facts printed here plainly, I would like you to use your "logic" to explain to me the circumstance that allows a Paladin to lie and not lost his class abilities.
Removed a few series of posts and the replies to them. Folks, we get that discussions about alignment are particularly hairy, but making blanket statements that others are playing the "wrong" way don't help. Additionally, personal insults, accusations of trolling, and "flouncing" don't contribute anything productive. Understand that text is an imperfect medium to relay tone/intent and be civil to each other.
Whether or not a paladin can or cannot lie -- or how much (is a white lie ok? A lie to a child? A slight change of words to protect someone's feelings? Should they be like a Vulcan and blurt out a harmful truth?) -- while interesting, is only a tiny part of what makes a paladin a paladin. One could argue that acting with honor might require someone to lie to protect their master's honor (if 1980's martial arts movies are to be believed.)
Regardless, it doesn't define what a paladin is or isn't. Paladins aren't unique in their regard for the truth; if that is all we're using to separate them from others then we don't have much.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
knightnday wrote: In any case, the original idea -- before we got sidetracked on the importance of paladins and lying -- was if someone could call themselves a paladin. That depends, as we've seen, on your interpretation of the world that your paladins exist in, how well known they are, and if even the most cursory check tells people all they need to know about paladins.
Are you a "real" paladin? That depends on your GM and your setting. Can you operate as a paladin? Of course, just as you don't have to be a Wizard class to call yourself a wizard.
As far as I'm concerned these are good closing words.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
knightnday wrote: Whether or not a paladin can or cannot lie -- or how much (is a white lie ok? A lie to a child? A slight change of words to protect someone's feelings? Should they be like a Vulcan and blurt out a harmful truth?) Vulcans take the logical position that sometimes silence is the best answer.
But I don't think I'd fall a Paladin who when asked by a woman who's been blinded, and disfigured from a terrible disease, when asked, tells her that she still looks beautiful.
Scavion wrote: I dunno. In this scenario, it'd be usually easier to convince the crowds of your divinity if you were a Cleric/Shaman or Oracle when you control the freaking weather!
I think people would be more likely to believe that guy backed by some serious divine power over some knight with a sword.
Don't be ridiculous. Control Weather can be cast just as easily by a wizard or sorcerer, and every commoner in-game knows it. Plus, there's no way a first level character would be impressed or awed by a 13th level character displaying incredible magic unless it could be proven that the caster is backed by a god. After all, 13th level characters are a dime a dozen in a village of commoners, while any character with divine backing is exceptionally rare.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
HyperMissingno wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: At hours per level, the first two are fairly easy to cover. And silent spell + invisibility makes the last part easier unless the place they are in has a super anti-magic place or something. Negative.
Silent Spell + Still Spell does NOT make it undetectable to Spellcraft AT ALL. That is a hold over from 3.5 that does not exist in Pathfinder.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: knightnday wrote: Whether or not a paladin can or cannot lie -- or how much (is a white lie ok? A lie to a child? A slight change of words to protect someone's feelings? Should they be like a Vulcan and blurt out a harmful truth?) Vulcans take the logical position that sometimes silence is the best answer.
But I don't think I'd fall a Paladin who when asked by a woman who's been blinded, and disfigured from a terrible disease, when asked, tells her that she still looks beautiful. That one is iffy.
Mostly because it is subjective and requires a lot more information.
A Paladin might respond, "I think that you are."
And not fall, because in his opinion she, and all living things, are beautiful.
However, if she were to clarify that, "Am I beautiful by the standard assumption of physical beauty that is largely accepted in society."
Then the Paladin might have a problem.
Either way, you can do that, but by the strictest sense, a lie, any lie, is grounds for a fall.
|
