Has anyone brought up OOTS #0545 yet?

[Schaffer1979]

Has anyone brought up OOTS #0545 yet?

The strip where Ochul tells about Girard's gate and Redcloak thinks he's lying?

I don't think he's lying. Admitting Charisma is his worst dump stat is not admitting he's lying or agreeing with Redcloak. Nice foreshadowing if it does turn out to be true, which I do believe.

It's all opinion, I know. Was just curious if others felt the same.

[slayerx]

We can be pretty certain he is lying because i don't think the paladins ever knew about serini's dairy in the first place... Had soon known that Serini was keeping a dairy and joting down info about the gates, he would have found her and demand it be burned... as Xykon has proven, the dairy was a huge security risk

[Mystic Muse]

You think that he has secret knowledge so deeply ingrained into his brain that no magical or psionic affect can unearth it to be more likely than the possibility that he just doesn't know anything?

[gosh]

I was under the impression that O-Chul was lying - but not to keep Redcloak from knowing the truth, as O-Chul himself knew next to nothing about the other gates. He just wanted to save the humans that RC was going to throw into the Snarl.

[Crosswinds]

According to the Crayons of Time mini-arc, The Sapphire Guard knows that Girard relied on illusions and the power of deception to hide the gate. But that's all they know.

So, O'Chul may have inferred as to the nature of the aforementioned illusions.

So, I think he wasn't lying, but has limited knowledge of the subject and thus cannot provide accurate information.

[Schaffer1979]

In regards to the statement: "You think that he has secret knowledge so deeply ingrained into his brain that no magical or psionic affect can unearth it to be more likely than the possibility that he just doesn't know anything?"

No. But I do think one of the smartest methods of handling torture and interrogation that I have read about included the method of giving the interrogater a piece of truth that was so outlandish it wouldn't seem true. In this manner, when torture prompts further speaking, the original statement would be discarded in favor of the "truths" that pain and breakage wrought out of the speaker.

It's a way to direct the foe's attention elsewhere from the vital inforamation. Also, I think outright deception via lying would be against a paladin's code of conduct. However, not answering the question is not a lie and thus does not break the code of conduct. Not answering directly though will not move the enemy away from the objective to remain hidden. Answering the question with a question and making the enemy doubt or reconsider or change the direction of thought would not constitute a lie or break a code of conduct.

Considering in the early comic strips, Soon sent paladins to investigate the location of Lirian's gate (sp?), that implies knowledge of where to go and what to avoid in regards to obstacles impairing a path to the gate. I would think since all the gates were a concern, that the same care and approach would be given to the other gates, without regard to who owned the gates.

As the protagonists do not have the halfling's diary, the direct manner that the paladins are taking in sending Ochul and Lien to Serini's/Kragor's gate indicates to me they do indeed possess the basic knowledge of what to expect and where to go.

So, yes, I think Ochul as well as any other paladin, has basic knowledge of these gates and what defenses to expect. Being oathbound not to go to a gate and interfere does not require ignorance of the allied defenses. And I don't think the knowledge was secret at all to Ochul. So in that regards, he is perfectly truthful in his question.

I just think he had knowledge, gave it up front, which Redcloak did not believe, and thus when Redcloak had his mind examined, Redcloak discarded information he already had and deemed not accurate--thus not secret and not there to be discovered as it was already found.

Also, if Ochul gave the truth, intending it to seem a lie, that is still a bluff. Perhaps he failed in his attempt to double bluff?

I mean here we have a paladin who was able to hide his actions and intents to ready himself for the right moment to take action during the whole "Don't Split the Party" arc. Surely, that speaks of a mind given to tactics, strategy, and patience. I think he had enough intelligence to decide what information to give and when. If charisma was his dump stat, as he stated, then let us not disbar the fact that he could very well have intelligently decided how and when to release information while under torture; his constitution and will saves as a paladin would have likely given him enough control to do so.

That's what I believe.

[salinan]

Why would Girard give Soon (whom at this point I think we can safely say he didn't trust) any but the most basic information about how he's protected his gate, particularly when they've sworn an oath of non-interference?

[Vemynal]

im more of the opinion- he was lying/going off info he barely knew *but* it turns out he was dead on 100% right the entire time by sheer accident

[factotum]

Redcloak rolled well on his Sense Motive, which means he *knows* O-Chul is lying. The lie O-Chul came up with is a pretty reasonable guess when you're dealing with an epic illusionist who places all his faith in the power of deception, but it's still nothing more than a guess, and Redcloak knew that.

[TriForce]

Well, it should be obvious o-chul was telling the truth, since, if he wasnt, he wouldnt be a paladin anymore now would he?

he was just giving deliberete vague info, since he didnt know any better

[hamishspence]

War & XPs bonus strip- suggests paladins can lie and not fall, since lying, while a violation of the code, is not necessarily a gross violation. Two paladins lie to Miko and don't fall.

Then they suggest doing what they told Miko they were going to do- but it doesn't really affect the original lie- which was that they had been dating for a while.

[TheBST]

Well, it should be obvious o-chul was telling the truth, since, if he wasnt, he wouldnt be a paladin anymore now would he?

he was just giving deliberete vague info, since he didnt know any better

Erm, he says the solutions to Girard's riddles are inside Serini's diary. Redcloak and Xykon have been studying that book for decades and know that they aren't.

That's a clear lie.

Plus:

In SoD (further clarified in the footnotes to DStP), The 12 Gods gave Paladins license to slaughter Goblin women and children. Why would they make someone fall for lying to goblins?

[factotum]

Well, it should be obvious o-chul was telling the truth, since, if he wasnt, he wouldnt be a paladin anymore now would he?


Lying is not against the Paladin oath, if (as here) the lie is intended to try and save the lives of the Azure City citizens Redcloak was threatening. Not even attempting to lie would probably make O-Chul MORE likely to Fall, because then he would be condemning those people to death without any apparent attempt to save them.

[hamishspence]

Problem is, the PHB description of the code doesn't specify exceptions- thus to find evidence for exceptions, you have to go outside the PHB.

Or make them up yourself- but then, you can't say "RAW- a paladin does not fall for lying to bad guys in order to protect good guys"

BoVD, for example, states that lying is not evil, in the right context, if the end is good.

So, you can have a "non-evil lie" which is merely a code breach. And if it's not a gross breach, the paladin will not fall at all.

[Optimystik]

As hamish pointed out, Paladins can indeed lie in OotS without Falling.

And O-Chul wasn't really "lying" anyway - more like "saying the first plausible thing that came to his mind to try and divert Redcloak." For all we know, he might've been right on the nose.

[Dr.Epic]

Has anyone brought up OOTS #0545 yet?

The strip where Ochul tells about Girard's gate and Redcloak thinks he's lying?

I don't think he's lying. Admitting Charisma is his worst dump stat is not admitting he's lying or agreeing with Redcloak. Nice foreshadowing if it does turn out to be true, which I do believe.

It's all opinion, I know. Was just curious if others felt the same.

O-Chul knows nothing about the other gates. Any information he tells about them is false and thus he is lying. Whether or not it's true doesn't matter.

[JonestheSpy]

O-Chul was trying to save several people from a literal fate worse than death. He came up with the most plausible story he could, to placate Redcloak. It might be partly true, but only by coincidence.

[warrl]

O-Chul knows nothing about the other gates. Any information he tells about them is false and thus he is lying. Whether or not it's true doesn't matter.

However, O-Chul had repeatedly claimed to have no information. The continued questioning was in effect a demand that he make something up - and tell it to someone who had already been informed that anything he said would be made up.

So can it even really be considered a lie?

[derfenrirwolv]

Well, it should be obvious o-chul was telling the truth, since, if he wasnt, he wouldnt be a paladin anymore now would he?

You can fall for one evil act, not one chaotic one. Lying is chaotic, not evil. If he makes a habbit of it, for less than noble purposes, then yes he might loose his alignment and thus his class. But one fib with the intention of saving the world is hardly an evil act.