Paladin Spell List

[GNUsNotUnix]

Quick question.

Paladins are meant to be honest, lawful beacons of good, right? I mean, with small exception, they're "the good guys" in the classic sense, honorable whenever possible.

So why is "Undetectable Alignment" on their spell list? I can't think of a reason for a paladin to pretend to be evil, and one wouldn't help an evil person pretend to be good. Disguising law or chaos might come in handy, but, again, that seems like a lie a paladin would avoid.

Insights, anyone?

[Citizen Joe]

You cast that on your allies so you don't accidently give them cancer with your detect evil beams.

[kamikasei]

Quick question.

Paladins are meant to be honest, lawful beacons of good, right? I mean, with small exception, they're "the good guys" in the classic sense, honorable whenever possible.

So why is "Undetectable Alignment" on their spell list? I can't think of a reason for a paladin to pretend to be evil, and one wouldn't help an evil person pretend to be good. Disguising law or chaos might come in handy, but, again, that seems like a lie a paladin would avoid.

Insights, anyone?

You can't think of a reason for a paladin to pretend to be evil? What's stopping a paladin from slipping in to the local wretched hive of scum and villainy to chase down a lead, or otherwise go somewhere a blatantly good person would be highly unwelcome or draw a lot of counterproductive attention?

[F.H. Zebedee]

Maybe to avoid trouble when escorting people or prisoners? If a Paladin is escorting evil prisoners to justice, mayhaps they'd enchant them to keep them from getting caught and lynched before the trial. (Granted, I'm unfamiliar with the spell.)

[GNUsNotUnix]

You can't think of a reason for a paladin to pretend to be evil? What's stopping a paladin from slipping in to the local wretched hive of scum and villainy to chase down a lead, or otherwise go somewhere a blatantly good person would be highly unwelcome or draw a lot of counterproductive attention?

I find that a pretty hard argument to make, given that the paladin code requires one to "act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)." Paladins draw attention to themselves to inspire others to good, even in--in fact, especially in--places of darkness. Besides which, "slipping in" doesn't sound like something a Paladin would be good at, even if he/she didn't find it ethically questionable.

[Harold]

hmm... as a paladin myself I could sneak into the enemy base if they had something/someone checking your alingment to see if you could get in and then smite them.

[Xefas]

Perhaps it's there as a sort of marker intended to inspire those who play D&D to alter the rules to the way they see the game being most enjoyable. Maybe Wizards of the Coast Bookslave #47 said to himself "If I put Undetectable Alignment here, few people will truly believe it is a spell paladins are meant to have, and will learn the greatest of D&D secrets...that of house ruling, and then, in some small way, I will have effected the world."

That, or it might be some sort of remnant of a time where Wizards planned on making paladins capable of being any alignment, like they should have been, and like how Crusaders are. I'm sure any Evil paladin worth his salt is, in fact, wearing gleaming white n' gold plate, flying flags of sky blue and silver, covered in tattoos of Celestials, and riding a mighty stallion on his way to go kick puppies or collect fresh fetuses or whatever it is he does. And, well...Undetectable Alignment is just the finishing touch that brings the picture together.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Because "honor" doesn't mean carrying around a huge blinking neon sign that proclaims "A Paladin is here, please sneak attack him!" to every seedy tavern and subterranean layer that the Pally has a chance of talking his way through, which is what his Aura of Good essentially is if there's a divine caster around.

Oh wait, I forgot. Paladins aren't allowed to use any tactics besides blithely charging into an obviously overwhelming force while brandishing their holy symbols and shouting their own names, nor are they allowed to interact with Evil characters in any way other than immediate violence. Ever.

[Arbitrarity]

I sense sarcasm...

Wait.. your paladin doesn't run around and say "Halt, evildoer! You stole that man's purse!" in the middle of a town of pirates and theives?

Odd. One of ours did.

[/metasarcasm]

[horseboy]

Yeah, totally to hide the aura. After all you're knee deep in the dungeon and you're taking a narcoleps break for the night, no sense advertising where everybody is hiding bringing harm to your team mates.

[F.H. Zebedee]

The first serious example given, infiltration, is not really Paladinish. That's more Greyguard territory. I'd say it'd be more defensive in nature. Just did some extensive damage to an evil cult, and now their 00bersoldiers that you don't have the resources to handle until tomorrow are about?

Use UE, and hide your fullplate. If they question you, say that you know that the paladin went by at some point today, but you didn't bother to ask him where he was headed to.

At least, that's how I see it. Not a single word's a lie there, and you preserve your life to further bring justice and slay evil.

It's not cowardice, it's intuitive personal resource management.

[kamikasei]

The first serious example given, infiltration, is not really Paladinish. That's more Greyguard territory.

I think that's much too harsh a restriction on what paladins are capable of. I'm not talking about maintaining a long-term alter ego for interacting with snitches and working your way up the ranks of the assassin's guild to bring it down from within, I'm talking about arriving in the harbour town to investigate the farmer's daughter's abduction and heading down to the docks to make a Gather Information check.

[GNUsNotUnix]

Meh. I still think Paladins ought to be, unless influenced by some compulsion, other party member, or both, aiming for the straight and narrow. Paladins are the one group that lives up to its stereotype, because they're meant to be heroes, as in, warriors that don't just defeat their opponents but triumph over them, proving once and for all that good is in fact stronger than evil. Anything short of high standards seems like it would betray the message they're trying to send.

I'm sure more liberal interpretations can account for the spell, but the valorous image presented in the PHB doesn't strike that kind of chord with me, so it's perplexing that this single detail would be facing the other way.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Well, that goes into the idea of the Sliding Scale of Idealism vs. Realism. Because "realistically," anyone who acts like Dudley Do-Right is going to last about five minutes in a dangerous situation. However, "idealistically", Heroes should be able to stick to ridiculously rigid codes of moral conduct and be shiny golden beacons of hope.

Personally, I tend toward the "Realistic" end of the spectrum in games I participate in. Not exactly gritty, usually, but common sense and tactical thinking are as important as chivalry and decency to my Paladin characters. At least in a fight. Basically, Ben Fraser rather than Dudley Do-Right.

[Tor the Fallen]

Meh. I still think Paladins ought to be, unless influenced by some compulsion, other party member, or both, aiming for the straight and narrow. Paladins are the one group that lives up to its stereotype, because they're meant to be heroes, as in, warriors that don't just defeat their opponents but triumph over them, proving once and for all that good is in fact stronger than evil. Anything short of high standards seems like it would betray the message they're trying to send.

I'm sure more liberal interpretations can account for the spell, but the valorous image presented in the PHB doesn't strike that kind of chord with me, so it's perplexing that this single detail would be facing the other way.

Except those paladins never make any sense, as they're easily wiped out by those who aren't such flaming idiots.

I mean, if that's really the case, where do high level paladins come from? The fact that a paladin is never faced with a situation that can't be overcome with liberal use of a greatsword?

[GNUsNotUnix]

Except those paladins never make any sense, as they're easily wiped out by those who aren't such flaming idiots.

I mean, if that's really the case, where do high level paladins come from? The fact that a paladin is never faced with a situation that can't be overcome with liberal use of a greatsword?

Being honorable doesn't necessitate being an idiot. They can still make prudent tactical decisions. They can use diplomacy where swords are bound to fail. They can have followers of any non-evil alignment. For all I care, Paladins could be figureheads of a wholly different kind of operation for good.

The inspiring philosophy of a paladin is that the hard way is often the right way. Yes, it would be easier to infiltrate an evil warlord's ranks and then assassinate him by poisoning his morning tea, but that's hardly the kind of story a paladin wants made into legend. Even still, he doesn't have to fight an entire army by himself. Maybe the warlord has a sense of pride, and the paladin can challenge him to a one-on-one fight. Maybe some well-chosen words will persuade neighboring city-states to ally themselves for war. Maybe the only way to get good help is to hire mercenaries. In any case, there exist strategies that are at once intelligent and honorable.

[Morty]

My PHB must be missing some pages, because there is apparently part of paladin's code of conduct that forces him to be suicidal robot, but I can't find that.
Paladin's duty is to fight evil. So if he can fight it more efficently by infiltration and sneakiness but without doing anything evil, he should do this.

[Nero24200]

Theres a difference between bluffing and lying. Specificlly saying "I'm not a paladin" would be lying, not making it clear would be "bluffing". How often do evil characters walk up to folk and say "are you good aligned?" They don't. Using "detect Good" is a means of doing that, and "undetectable alignment" prevents the paladins from showing up on the radar. Contrary to popular belief, only badly RP'ed paladins rush in and cleave evil at first sight, ones which are played properly might actually have a use for this spell.

Edit: to add, it can be used on others. Remeber that a group of hextor worshipers might be a cult in a normal town, but a small handful of pelor priests would be seen as a cult in an evil town. Should the evil characters find out their intentions, whats to stop them being killed? A paladin passing through the evil town could always use the spell to hide them a little longer. Remeber that although paladins are forced to obey a moral code, their allies aren't, they -are- allowed to hide their alignments and such if needed. And if the alternative is the possible death of their allies, why would it be considered dishonourble for a paladin to help?

[Ikkitosen]

1st Ed. paladins hadn't used to be able to be deceptive at all - heck they couldn't even wear armour less than chain (IIRC) without repercussions, and certainly couldn't pretend to not be a paladin.

Thankfully 3+ Ed. is less restrictive.

[Keld Denar]

So, it would be impossible to be a paladin in an environment where the local environs tend to be more evil than not? Looking to Greyhawk lore, the Bandit Kingdoms is a land formerly free, but occupied for the last aprox 1/2 century by the forces of the Demigod Demonprince Iuz. Things are pretty bleak there, where high level casters regularly practice scry 'n die, and zombies are at work paving a road of skulls across the land. But le Resistance is still present. Plenty of people and organizations there actively if not overtly plot and position to overthrow oppression and evil. They know, however, that to be an open shining beacon of light will surely get you snuffed out. The paladins and good clerics know that their holy symbols and beliefs carry death sentances, and don't go about bandying them without very good cause. They do however, practice their beliefs, and try to make the land a better place for those who can't help themselves. That still doesn't mean you want to test positive on the detect good'o'meter and be subsequently executed. That would be why a paladin would want to cast undetectable alignment. Dead paladins help no one.

[GNUsNotUnix]

So, it would be impossible to be a paladin in an environment where the local environs tend to be more evil than not?

I imagine it would be fairly difficult to live in a purely evil-aligned city as a paladin, since "a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code." However, if the city is only mostly evil-aligned (as in, we're not talking about a paladin in the drow underdark), a paladin can continue honorably without lying (or concealing his/her alignment). Paladins are required to respect legitimate authority, and a city presumably has some form of government, so, no, a paladin doesn't have to rush in, sword in hand, killing things. The same way an evil-aligned fighter living in a good-aligned world doesn't automatically get the snot beaten out of him, a paladin living in an evil-aligned world doesn't automatically get assaulted by his neighbors. Hell, his evil, puppy-killing neighbors could know perfectly well that he's good, but if he isn't a threat to them, they've got no reason to kill him. The paladin wouldn't need to give them a reason, either. I'm sure good and evil can be civil to each other, if not friendly.

But he doesn't need to lie, either. His principles are not so restricting as to be a straight-jacket--which most people seem to agree on--which is precisely why he doesn't need to bend them.

I have never suggested that a paladin's only option is rampant violence, yet people insist on contradicting an argument I never made.

[Sir Jason]

There's always the other aspect of the spell. Your walking through the dungeon, which happens to be an old timb of some evil cleric. Lets say it was designed to let his allies through. I don't see it being at all immoral for a paladin to disguise his aura as evil long enough to get past the defences which could, presumably, only be set off by good-aligned people. Just cuz he's good, doesn't mean he has to walk blindly into a trap if he knows that evil-auraed people will pass fine. Just an example.

[Duke Malagigi]

1st Ed. paladins hadn't used to be able to be deceptive at all - heck they couldn't even wear armour less than chain (IIRC) without repercussions, and certainly couldn't pretend to not be a paladin.

Thankfully 3+ Ed. is less restrictive.

I think that was only for caviliers and cavilier-paladins. As you can guess, it had nothing to do with actually being a paladin, just with being a cavilier.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I have never suggested that a paladin's only option is rampant violence, yet people insist on contradicting an argument I never made.
The problem, as I see it, is that there are cases where, if the Paladin's aura is visible to detection spells, to quote Malcolm Reynolds, violence is going to ensue.

Let me try my argument without using sarcasm. I know this will shock and amaze some parties.

The Undetectable Alignment spell, as I see it, is not a way of lying your way through a situation. It is a strategic tool that allows you to do many things you otherwise couldn't, such as gain audience with an evil warlord to attempt to reason with him when his clerics would have normally tossed you out as soon as you detected as Good; or get past the Blackguard border guards of an evil nation you don't have the wherewithal to challenge yet, but nonetheless must pass through.

If you use it to sneak into the evil warlord's keep to poison his tea, yeah, you're probably not a Paladin. But I do not feel that concealing your aura out of necessity is dishonorable or un-Paladin-like in and of itself.

[Ikkitosen]

I think that was only for caviliers and cavilier-paladins. As you can guess, it had nothing to do with actually being a paladin, just with being a cavilier.

Was there a 1st Ed. Paladin class that wasn't a Cavalier sub-class then?

The Paladin class had additional restrictions over and above those of the Cavalier, since Cavaliers could be evil.

EDIT: Ah yes, original PHB Paladins. They were subsumed into the Cavalier class once it was published in Unearthed Arcana. They then had to follow the rules of both classes. I'd have to re-read my old PHB to know which ones were specifically PHB-Paladin only though.

[Kurald Galain]

I sense sarcasm...

Well, a paladin can't. So there :smallwink:

[GNUsNotUnix]

There's always the other aspect of the spell. Your walking through the dungeon, which happens to be an old timb of some evil cleric. Lets say it was designed to let his allies through. I don't see it being at all immoral for a paladin to disguise his aura as evil long enough to get past the defences which could, presumably, only be set off by good-aligned people. Just cuz he's good, doesn't mean he has to walk blindly into a trap if he knows that evil-auraed people will pass fine. Just an example.

With that, at least, I can agree. Lying to inanimate objects is negotiable ground.


The Undetectable Alignment spell, as I see it, is not a way of lying your way through a situation. It is a strategic tool that allows you to do many things you otherwise couldn't, such as gain audience with an evil warlord to attempt to reason with him when his clerics would have normally tossed you out as soon as you detected as Good; or get past the Blackguard border guards of an evil nation you don't have the wherewithal to challenge yet, but nonetheless must pass through.

I understand that neither of these examples is a lie by inclusion, but lies by omission are still lies, at least from the paladin perspective.

I feel like either situation could offer a third option, such as disarming yourself willingly before attempting to gain an audience or taking a long way around an evil nation. I understand that there exist some situations where no third option exists, but the reason I started this thread wasn't to argue about if a paladin could ever be placed in a moral dilemma with lesser-of-two-evils choices. Yes, cops carry guns, and unfortunately they have to use them sometimes. But paladins are more than cops; their array of charisma-based abilities and moral code makes them out to be leaders, the people common folk turn to for hope and heroics. Since they make a living, a purpose as a source of inspiration, it strikes me as odd that they'd have, standard issue, a spell functioning to hide that purpose.

[Machete]

Oh wait, I forgot. Paladins aren't allowed to use any tactics besides blithely charging into an obviously overwhelming force while brandishing their holy symbols and shouting their own names, nor are they allowed to interact with Evil characters in any way other than immediate violence. Ever.


Combine the class description with them being Lawful and that IS pretty close to what you get.

[MrNexx]

1st Ed. paladins hadn't used to be able to be deceptive at all - heck they couldn't even wear armour less than chain (IIRC) without repercussions, and certainly couldn't pretend to not be a paladin.

Thankfully 3+ Ed. is less restrictive.

That's the Unearthed Arcana version of the Paladin, which was a subclass of the Cavalier. The Player's Handbook version of the paladin (which a good number of 1st edition players prefer), had less problems with it.

The ultimate question for any Paladin can be stated in two forms... "What Would Superman Do?" and "What Would Captain America Do?". I don't think Superman would have a problem donning a disguise to move about undetected, would you?

[Nerd-o-rama]

Combine the class description with them being Lawful and that IS pretty close to what you get.
That's a valid interpretation of the rules. It's just idiotic in practice in anything but the most mindless hack/slash.

[Thinker]

I don't think Superman would have a problem donning a disguise to move about undetected, would you?

I'd hardly call it a disguise. Everyone is just too nice that they don't want to point out that putting on glasses does not change anything else about how you look...that and fear of repercussion for angering the mighty Supes. :smalltongue:

[kamikasei]

I'd hardly call it a disguise. Everyone is just too nice that they don't want to point out that putting on glasses does not change anything else about how you look...that and fear of repercussion for angering the mighty Supes. :smalltongue:

No, you poor deluded human, you've underestimated the fiendish power of the alien and his Kryptonian hypno-vision!!!*

---
* PS: No, seriously. He used to have hypno-vision and constantly beam "nothing to see here" at anyone who looked at Clark Kent.

[Jayabalard]

That's a valid interpretation of the rules. It's just idiotic in practice in anything but the most mindless hack/slash.Nah, not idiotic, as long as you only apply that to combat situations (ie, a subset of the first part of that statement).

[KillianHawkeye]

There's always the other aspect of the spell. Your walking through the dungeon, which happens to be an old timb of some evil cleric. Lets say it was designed to let his allies through. I don't see it being at all immoral for a paladin to disguise his aura as evil long enough to get past the defences which could, presumably, only be set off by good-aligned people. Just cuz he's good, doesn't mean he has to walk blindly into a trap if he knows that evil-auraed people will pass fine. Just an example.

You can't use undetectable alignment to "disguise" yourself as some other alignment. It only blocks your alignment from being detected by divinations. i.e. a detect good spell won't be able to find you.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Nah, not idiotic, as long as you only apply that to combat situations (ie, a subset of the first part of that statement).
My main sarcastic point was that Paladins weren't allowed to do anything but initiate combat as soon as they detected Evil, or even saw someone doing something iffy, without taking time to consider their actions or try to gain a tactical advantage. That's the idiotic part I mean. Once in combat, a charge is usually the best option for a Paladin (or any other meleer) anyway. Although if a Paladin wants to stand back and soften up the enemy with ranged weapons, use trips or disarms, use the terrain to their advantage, flank, etc. I don't personally believe there's anything stopping them. Some might, I admit.

[Starbuck_II]

The inspiring philosophy of a paladin is that the hard way is often the right way. Yes, it would be easier to infiltrate an evil warlord's ranks and then assassinate him by poisoning his morning tea, but that's hardly the kind of story a paladin wants made into legend.

Well, he can do it. Poison rarely kills in D&D though. At worst, it weakens him.
Weakening people isn't evil just unhonorable for some reason. Unless the weakening is done by a spell like bane, prayer, cause fear, ray of enfeeblement, etc.

Paladins can act without honor, but should'nt do it repeatily or will need atonement. It says greatly break code or act with evil. So a little act requires no atonement.

DM might be upset since his view of Paladins will be unclean. But your character not his.


Even still, he doesn't have to fight an entire army by himself. Maybe the warlord has a sense of pride, and the paladin can challenge him to a one-on-one fight. Maybe some well-chosen words will persuade neighboring city-states to ally themselves for war. Maybe the only way to get good help is to hire mercenaries. In any case, there exist strategies that are at once intelligent and honorable.


True, but we can't always hope for these extras. Sometimes sneaking in isd needed.
While paladins aren't great at sneaking they can. Just buy the armor bonuses that add move silently and hide (they are gold price not +X bonus costs so don't increase total value above +10)

[Thanatos 51-50]

I say this often, but I think that the GreyGuard PrC is crap. All paladins should be GreyGuards!

I agree with cunning and sneaky pallys. To destroy your enemy, you must think like your enemy.
Undectecable Alignment is a valuble tool in their arsenal.

[GNUsNotUnix]

Well, he can do it. Poison rarely kills in D&D though. At worst, it weakens him.
Weakening people isn't evil just unhonorable for some reason. Unless the weakening is done by a spell like bane, prayer, cause fear, ray of enfeeblement, etc.

Actually, the paladin's quote specifically forbids use of poison.



True, but we can't always hope for these extras. Sometimes sneaking in isd needed.
While paladins aren't great at sneaking they can. Just buy the armor bonuses that add move silently and hide (they are gold price not +X bonus costs so don't increase total value above +10)


You can hope for them. Paladins always do; they just don't always get them. That's sort of the point; preparing a spell whose use would require shady moral circumstances is a denial of that hope and the paladin's idealism.

[Fax Celestis]

Being honorable doesn't necessitate being an idiot. They can still make prudent tactical decisions. They can use diplomacy where swords are bound to fail. They can have followers of any non-evil alignment. For all I care, Paladins could be figureheads of a wholly different kind of operation for good.

...And knowing when to hide is a "prudent tactical decision."

Remember, discretion is the better part of valor.

[Wolfwood2]

I understand that neither of these examples is a lie by inclusion, but lies by omission are still lies, at least from the paladin perspective.

I feel like either situation could offer a third option, such as disarming yourself willingly before attempting to gain an audience or taking a long way around an evil nation. I understand that there exist some situations where no third option exists, but the reason I started this thread wasn't to argue about if a paladin could ever be placed in a moral dilemma with lesser-of-two-evils choices. Yes, cops carry guns, and unfortunately they have to use them sometimes. But paladins are more than cops; their array of charisma-based abilities and moral code makes them out to be leaders, the people common folk turn to for hope and heroics. Since they make a living, a purpose as a source of inspiration, it strikes me as odd that they'd have, standard issue, a spell functioning to hide that purpose.

Doesn't this lead to the "there's only one way to play a paladin" problem?

All paladins should not have the exact same methodology, for gameplay reasons if nothing else. It adds nothing to the game to stick them all in a straight jacket of behavior where in any given situation you always know how a paladin will react from his class alone. Personality, temperment, and individual philosophy should play their part.

I could easily see a paladin who always walks around with Undetectable Alignment up, on the basis that he wants to be a man of mystery.

[Fax Celestis]

Yes, cops carry guns, and unfortunately they have to use them sometimes. But paladins are more than cops; their array of charisma-based abilities and moral code makes them out to be leaders, the people common folk turn to for hope and heroics.

Even heroes sometimes need to lie low. Even a beacon of light in a world of darkness need sometimes make itself hard to see; otherwise, the people become dependent and reliant upon it, and even begin to take it for granted that it will always be there.

And how effective is a paladin's leadership if the people just expect him to do the right thing all the time? Sometimes you can't, which is why the atonement spell exists. But if the people blindly follow a leader who slips once and falls, and then never gets back to his feet, soon they too are corrupted.

So, yes, there are times when a paladin needs to appear as something less than a paladin, if only for the sake of being a better leader.

[GNUsNotUnix]

Doesn't this lead to the "there's only one way to play a paladin" problem?

Since my point was the existence of the third option (and probably more beyond that), I don't see that argument. Could you explain?


Even heroes sometimes need to lie low. Even a beacon of light in a world of darkness need sometimes make itself hard to see; otherwise, the people become dependent and reliant upon it, and even begin to take it for granted that it will always be there.

I hardly think common folk with dependency issues warrant an addition to the spell list, but I'm guessing this isn't the dominant argument.


And how effective is a paladin's leadership if the people just expect him to do the right thing all the time? Sometimes you can't, which is why the atonement spell exists. But if the people blindly follow a leader who slips once and falls, and then never gets back to his feet, soon they too are corrupted.

Pretty good, I'd say. Why would leadership be any better if people assumed you were going to do the wrong thing? (Assuming you're working towards a good end, that is.) Even for paladins, "the right thing" is relative, at least to a certain extent. And, yes, sometimes there is no 'good' option, but, as I stated earlier, preparing to do evil doesn't fit with paladin idealism.

[Fax Celestis]

Pretty good, I'd say. Why would leadership be any better if people assumed you were going to do the wrong thing? (Assuming you're working towards a good end, that is.) Even for paladins, "the right thing" is relative, at least to a certain extent. And, yes, sometimes there is no 'good' option, but, as I stated earlier, preparing to do evil doesn't fit with paladin idealism.

Ah, but I'm not saying "prepare to do evil." I'm saying "prepare should something happen." Preparations against the worst are not anti-paladinate. As leaders, as you are making them out to be, they should always prepare for the worst and plan for the best. Having the ability to mask one's own powers and presence is occasionally useful, and not always for the reasons listed above. Maybe, as a leader, you want to walk through your people a few days every month to ensure their quality of life is decent without being noticed. A liberal application of said spell is a decent tool to help mask your presence and ensure you receive equal treatment.

[horseboy]

Ah, but I'm not saying "prepare to do evil." I'm saying "prepare should something happen." Preparations against the worst are not anti-paladinate. As leaders, as you are making them out to be, they should always prepare for the worst and plan for the best. Having the ability to mask one's own powers and presence is occasionally useful, and not always for the reasons listed above. Maybe, as a leader, you want to walk through your people a few days every month to ensure their quality of life is decent without being noticed. A liberal application of said spell is a decent tool to help mask your presence and ensure you receive equal treatment.

Well, you'd have to be at least level 11 to cast this spell. At level 11 you've got an OVERWHEALMING aura. That means you walk by and d6 days later they can find you. If you're trying to get the rest of the dead/uncon/horribly mauled party back to a temple for treatment, you really shouldn't leave a bread crumb trail that every evil Tom, evil ****, and evil Harry to where they're going to be and be able to overwhelm you and kill all your friends. That aura is a bugger.

[Chronos]

I won't go so far as to say that the spell would be against the paladin's code. And certainly there are many valid ways to play a paladin, and some paladins might be sneaky. But I agree that the spell really doesn't seem to fit the flavor of the class. Paladins shouldn't have Undetectable Alignment on their class lists, for the same reason that wizards don't have Cure Light Wounds. A wizard doesn't have any philosophical objection to healing; it's just not what he does. Likewise, stealth really shouldn't be part of the paladin's forte, even if he doesn't actually object to it.

[Renegade Paladin]

I find that a pretty hard argument to make, given that the paladin code requires one to "act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)." Paladins draw attention to themselves to inspire others to good, even in--in fact, especially in--places of darkness. Besides which, "slipping in" doesn't sound like something a Paladin would be good at, even if he/she didn't find it ethically questionable.
It's a very (http://www.thetangledweb.net/profiler/view.php?id=3127) easy (http://www.thetangledweb.net/profiler/view.php?id=15561) argument (http://thetangledweb.net/profiler/view.php?id=15795) to (http://thetangledweb.net/profiler/view.php?id=15796) make (http://thetangledweb.net/profiler/view.php?id=15797). Absolutely nothing about not lying, cheating, or using poison precludes disguising your identity. When asked your name, preface the answer with the phrase "Call me..." and you've taken care of the only real lying you're likely to have to do.

Heck, the paladin spell list also includes moral facade from Complete Champion, which lets him not just conceal his aura, but make him detect as any alignment he pleases, chaotic evil included. :smallamused:

That, or it might be some sort of remnant of a time where Wizards planned on making paladins capable of being any alignment, like they should have been, and like how Crusaders are.
Should have been? What? What part of "a noble champion of a righteous cause" indicates evil to you? Paladins should be lawful good, first, last, and always. If you don't like it, get your own class; Dragon published some good ones in issue #312 and used appropriate names instead of ripping off the lawful good champion's.

[Shisumo]

Undetectable alignment is not a lie. It's a spell counter. It has only one effect, and that is to block divination spells. It doesn't stop people from using Sense Motive to get a feel for the paladin's attitudes and it certainly doesn't change the pally's actions - so no, it's not a lie. It is a response to a specific set of magical effects, just like, say, death ward is.

[Starbuck_II]

Actually, the paladin's quote specifically forbids use of poison.

Yes, but the Code of Conduct is allowed to be broken without Atonement.
Read it.

Ex-Paladin says, "grossly violate the code of conduct".
It said Grossly not just violate. Thus, he must grossly not just violate.

So one poison use will not by the rules hurt your code. Multiple can if DM sees this as grossly.

[GNUsNotUnix]

Yes, but the Code of Conduct is allowed to be broken without Atonement.
Read it.

Ex-Paladin says, "grossly violate the code of conduct".
It said Grossly not just violate. Thus, he must grossly not just violate.

So one poison use will not by the rules hurt your code. Multiple can if DM sees this as grossly.

Sorry, that won't fly. That's like saying a doctor can betray patient confidentiality, as long as it's only once in a while.


Ah, but I'm not saying "prepare to do evil." I'm saying "prepare should something happen." Preparations against the worst are not anti-paladinate. As leaders, as you are making them out to be, they should always prepare for the worst and plan for the best. Having the ability to mask one's own powers and presence is occasionally useful, and not always for the reasons listed above. Maybe, as a leader, you want to walk through your people a few days every month to ensure their quality of life is decent without being noticed. A liberal application of said spell is a decent tool to help mask your presence and ensure you receive equal treatment.

You're right; preparing for the worst is both prudent and forgivable. Paladins carry swords (often) for such reasons. But your example doesn't relate to a worst case scenario, and there alternate ways of investigating your flock (like, say, asking). If you really suspect people are putting up a show for you, Discern Lies and Zone of Truth are just as easy.

As for the "should something happen" argument, I still maintain that preparing a spell whose use would require shady moral circumstances is a denial of hope and the paladin's idealism. It's a sentiment of, "Prepare for the worst and you'll get it," essentially.


It's a very easy argument to make. Absolutely nothing about not lying, cheating, or using poison precludes disguising your identity. When asked your name, preface the answer with the phrase "Call me..." and you've taken care of the only real lying you're likely to have to do.

Your plethora of characters and the ability to sneak aside, a moral conflict remains. Disguise is a form of lying; that's why it has synergy with bluff. A paladin's code isn't merely an arbitration to balance a class, nor is it a necessity of being lawful good. The code of conduct demonstrates and makes obvious the paladin's nature to those around him so that he may be an example. If paladins didn't essay to set an example, they wouldn't be called the epitomes of law and good.

[Renegade Paladin]

A paladin exists, first and foremost, to protect the innocent. His role is to do this by fighting that which threatens innocents. Threats do not always take the form of an enemy army approaching over the horizon.

Insidious evil is evil of the type that paladins held to your narrow view of what they must be could not effectively oppose. You can't ride out to challenge the thieves' guild; they'll just laugh from the security of their safehouses and then steal your sword while you sleep that night, and stick a dagger in your sleeping back for your trouble.

Riding around on a big white horse wearing shining armor is not the only way to be a beacon of hope. Robin Hood was certainly such a beacon (though he was also almost certainly not a paladin!) even though he spent his time skulking around in Sherwood Forest. He was certainly a more effective one than a knight who rode out to challenge the Sheriff would have been. All the characters I linked to above are part of an organization dedicated to rooting out hidden evil. A paladin openly challenging the Faceless of the Night Masks from the middle of Westgate's market street at midday would be a laughingstock. A paladin who carefully investigates the same thieves' guild in an effort to get to the bottom of it is actually a much more inspiring symbol in that situation; he can oppose the all-pervasive guild and actually survive the night. Every day those characters live, they are an example of how good can stand against even the most entrenched and hidden evil force. That is certainly a legitimate role for a paladin, and one that, I might add, requires more than just undetectable alignment.

[Starbuck_II]

Sorry, that won't fly. That's like saying a doctor can betray patient confidentiality, as long as it's only once in a while.


Only if Doctor patient confidentiality had loopholes: that he can't grossy betray you. Meaning he can betray you, but not grossly.

Sorry, the Code has the word for a reason. You can't argue with the words in the PHB aren't written that way. That would be like falling and denying gravity. They don't coexist.

You can interpret the word "grossly" as a misprint (that was never errated and kept being written in every PHB in 3.5), but it isn't as of yet.

[Fax Celestis]

You're right; preparing for the worst is both prudent and forgivable. Paladins carry swords (often) for such reasons. But your example doesn't relate to a worst case scenario, and there alternate ways of investigating your flock (like, say, asking). If you really suspect people are putting up a show for you, Discern Lies and Zone of Truth are just as easy.

Oh, and forcing people to submit to your whims (via Zone of Truth and similar) is a good act?

[horseboy]

Oh, and forcing people to submit to your whims (via Zone of Truth and similar) is a good act?

Actually, yeah. Zone of Truth doesn't force someone to submit to a paladin's whims. It forces them to serve the "whims" of Truth, half sister of Justice. :smallwink:

[tannish2]

well... noones made the "superman argument"? im not terribly familiar with it(because the only time my group has played paladins is ravenloft... and onece in a CN party where the cleric was a NE deity directly opposed to the paladins, idk wtf the player was thinking bringing a paladin in) but its something along the lines of "if superman would do it, its probably in the paladins code" and superman NEVER went undercover in any of the movies comics or cartoons.... EVER DAMMIT

edit: ok this forum needs some real sarcasm tags, they dont actually need to do anything to the text but... maybe just hide them unless someone is in the process of quoting them?

[MrNexx]

well... noones made the "superman argument"?

Post 29. Having just read "Three Hearts and Three Lions" (by Poul Anderson, whose main character was the inspiration for the Paladin class), I would also add the Holger Carlson de Danske argument to it, as he spends a portion of the book under an illusion, to hide his identity from people he's not sure of.

[GNUsNotUnix]

A paladin exists, first and foremost, to protect the innocent. His role is to do this by fighting that which threatens innocents. Threats do not always take the form of an enemy army approaching over the horizon.

Insidious evil is evil of the type that paladins held to your narrow view of what they must be could not effectively oppose. You can't ride out to challenge the thieves' guild; they'll just laugh from the security of their safehouses and then steal your sword while you sleep that night, and stick a dagger in your sleeping back for your trouble.

Again, you're contradicting an argument I never made. No part of abiding by the code requires you to be a dolt. Believe it or not, my "narrow view" still allows intelligent, non-swing-your-sword-at-it strategies. Sure, it may take some creativity sometimes, but I don't think anyone here is trying to argue against creativity.

Using a rigid code of conduct is analogous to a poet using a rigid structure; Shakespeare's writing wasn't any worse because he used iambic pentameter. If anything, it was better.


Sorry, the Code has the word for a reason. You can't argue with the words in the PHB aren't written that way. That would be like falling and denying gravity. They don't coexist.

The word "grossly" is there so paladins don't have to get atonement every time they accidentally bump into a stranger, not so they can bump into strangers whenever they find it convenient. Accidentally breaking your moral code isn't "grossly" violating it. Premeditated, purposeful breaking of it is.



Superman may have been a lawful good superhero, but he wasn't a D&D paladin, or even a D&D anything. If he'd crash landed in the Forgotten Realms instead of the Kent's farm, his circumstances, action, and relevant D&D statistics would have been different. Such is not the case.

[MrNexx]

Superman may have been a lawful good superhero, but he wasn't a D&D paladin, or even a D&D anything. If he'd crash landed in the Forgotten Realms instead of the Kent's farm, his circumstances, action, and relevant D&D statistics would have been different. Such is not the case.

The reason the Superman/Captain America argument exists is not because they are paladins, but because they exemplify what they should be so well. It's not like Superman loses his power if he commits an evil act... he could go out and collapse maternity hospitals then attack rescuers, if he wanted to... it's that he simply doesn't, and even inadvertent evil is repented.

[Renegade Paladin]

Again, you're contradicting an argument I never made. No part of abiding by the code requires you to be a dolt. Believe it or not, my "narrow view" still allows intelligent, non-swing-your-sword-at-it strategies. Sure, it may take some creativity sometimes, but I don't think anyone here is trying to argue against creativity.

Using a rigid code of conduct is analogous to a poet using a rigid structure; Shakespeare's writing wasn't any worse because he used iambic pentameter. If anything, it was better.
Don't give me that. It is an argument you made; you directly stated that a paladin's role is to serve as an example, which is just silly. Well actually, no it isn't, but that example doesn't have to be that of a knight in shining armor. The example a paladin sets is one of opposition to evil in all its forms while upholding the good. Nothing about that says that a paladin can never don a disguise. Absolutely nothing at all.

The word "grossly" is there so paladins don't have to get atonement every time they accidentally bump into a stranger, not so they can bump into strangers whenever they find it convenient. Accidentally breaking your moral code isn't "grossly" violating it. Premeditated, purposeful breaking of it is.
You have got to be kidding me. Here are the relevant definitions of "gross."
b (1) : glaringly noticeable usually because of inexcusable badness or objectionableness <a gross error> (2) : OUT-AND-OUT, UTTER <a gross injustice>
Hiding your identity is pretty much the exact opposite of that. There is nothing at all about it that's so unquestionably morally wrong that it should trigger a fall.

[tannish2]

ya, if your being hunted by the BBEG for stopping the mass murder of peasants who didnt have enough money to pay taxes(by killing the evil wizard who was sent to kill them), hiding out for a while might be a good idea, and some might just walk through town with detect good/detect law going and fireball any area that they sensed something, if anyone there is left alive, then they are probably a good aligned adventurer *disintegrate*

[GNUsNotUnix]

The reason the Superman/Captain America argument exists is not because they are paladins, but because they exemplify what they should be so well. It's not like Superman loses his power if he commits an evil act... he could go out and collapse maternity hospitals then attack rescuers, if he wanted to... it's that he simply doesn't, and even inadvertent evil is repented.

My point was only that, Superman not being a paladin in a D&D world, the justifications for his Clark Kent disguise don't necessarily apply.


Don't give me that. It is an argument you made; you directly stated that a paladin's role is to serve as an example, which is just silly. Well actually, no it isn't, but that example doesn't have to be that of a knight in shining armor. The example a paladin sets is one of opposition to evil in all its forms while upholding the good.

The argument that a paladin should be an example doesn't imply that he has to "ride out to challenge the thieves' guild;" that was the argument I never made.

Yes, a paladin should set an example, an intelligent one, even a non-violent one if it pleases him. I completely agree that he doesn't have to be a knight in shining armor. All of your argument to this point only agrees with what I've said.


Nothing about that says that a paladin can never don a disguise. Absolutely nothing at all.

This is the first relevant point of issue. Being an example, which you have agreed is important to paladins, requires you to be visible for what you are. A disguise directly contradicts that by hiding a paladin. Nothing hidden can be an example; people can only look to what they can see.


You have got to be kidding me. Here are the relevant definitions of "gross."
Hiding your identity is pretty much the exact opposite of that. There is nothing at all about it that's so unquestionably morally wrong that it should trigger a fall.

There is actually a very linear explanation to this. Disguise is a lie by omission, hiding your identity. Lies are prohibited by the paladin's code of conduct. Given that spell-based (and most other) disguises require, by definition, premeditation and purpose in their creation, they are purposeful, premeditated lies. Thus, disguises are purposeful, premeditated violation of the code of conduct, which is, in fact, a complete--yes, a gross--violation.

[Vonriel]

You keep saying "a lie by omission." If a lie by omission is against the code, then you can not play your paladin the way you say. After all, every time you greet someone and don't say your name, you're committing a lie of omission. Every time you don't go around spouting the ideals of your god is a lie of omission. Every time the paladin general withholds part of his battle plan from his men because they're not there to know the strategy, he's committing a lie of omission. Every time a paladin doesn't announce his arrival in a dungeon to all its inhabitants, he's committing a lie of omission.

By your view, a paladin can only be played one way, because you say a lie of omission is against the code. Well, a lie of omission can be deliberately withholding the whole truth, or it can be not correcting a misconception, including pre-existing ones. Take a good look at that last part, because that means that a paladin literally has to walk around all day correcting every single misconception he knows of, or he falls, because he has committed a lie of omission by not correcting them. Hell, even if he did do that, he'd still fall, because there is just not enough time for him to go around correcting every misconception! You cannot say a lie of omission is against the code, because there is literally no way to abide by the code if a lie of omission is against it.

To make sure my point is understood, a scenario:
Random peasant: "Excuse me good sir, I couldn't help but notice your gleaming white armor and impressive warhorse. Might you be a paladin?"
Paladin: "Yes, I'm a paladin. Do you need something?"
The paladin just committed a lie of omission. He didn't tell the peasant which god he served, thus leaving him with a half truth. He didn't tell the peasant whether or not he was on a quest to do some good, thus leaving the peasant with the misconception that the paladin has no pre-existing obligations.

[Renegade Paladin]

This is the first relevant point of issue. Being an example, which you have agreed is important to paladins, requires you to be visible for what you are. A disguise directly contradicts that by hiding a paladin. Nothing hidden can be an example; people can only look to what they can see.
http://www.libriumarcana.com/Uploads/Rogue/Pictures/JPEGs/incorrect4dr.jpg

That no one sees him doing it at the time doesn't mean that no one will know. Someone can serve as an example without being directly observed by all people all the time.

There is actually a very linear explanation to this. Disguise is a lie by omission, hiding your identity. Lies are prohibited by the paladin's code of conduct. Given that spell-based (and most other) disguises require, by definition, premeditation and purpose in their creation, they are purposeful, premeditated lies. Thus, disguises are purposeful, premeditated violation of the code of conduct, which is, in fact, a complete--yes, a gross--violation.
Allowing someone to assume what he will is not a lie. The game's designers manifestly disagree with your interpretation of the paladin code, seeing how I can think of at least half a dozen examples of paladins using misdirection in the rules off the top of my head, including an organization description that mentions that, in the past, the described guild of assassins was infiltrated by a disguised paladin and broken up.

[dyslexicfaser]

I think it's a question of intent.

I can't help but feel that there's a difference between intentionally disguising your alignment and not happening to mention which God you serve, when the peasant didn't even ask for one, though I also don't feel either should automatically result in a fall.

If someone thinks a good person is an agent of evil, and the paladin knows the truth but doesn't say anything, that is a lie of omission. Likewise, if the paladin knows a charlatan faith-healer is bilking people out of their money and says nothing, that is a lie of omission. What you describe is just nit-picking.

Also: the 'gross' loophole is just that: a loophole, not intended to be exploited in the manner you describe. A paladin should not be able to do evil acts whenever he feels like it, and justify it as saying to himself, "Well, I'm still ahead by the numbers. I've saved lots of people, so what if I.. oh, burned that man's house to the ground? That's not a gross violation. No foul."

As one of the posters said before, is a doctor allowed to ignore the Hippocratic Oath when they feel like it, as long as they don't do it often? No. And doctors are held to less strident codes than a paladin.

[Renegade Paladin]

Also: the 'gross' loophole is just that: a loophole, not intended to be exploited in the manner you describe. A paladin should not be able to do evil acts whenever he feels like it, and justify it as saying to himself, "Well, I'm still ahead by the numbers. I've saved lots of people, so what if I.. oh, burned that man's house to the ground? That's not a gross violation. No foul."
Doesn't cut it. An evil action still causes a paladin to fall. Period. There are no loopholes for that. There can be no evil actions, but "evil action" and "violation of the Code" are two entirely different things. It takes an evil action or a gross violation of the code, not a gross evil action. To fall for a single non-evil violation of the Code (and I maintain that a disguise isn't even that) it had better be a hefty violation, and probably with selfish motivations to boot.

Let's try the classic example: A paladin is in a city where petty thievery is punished by death/mutilation/other punishment unjustly disproportionate to the crime. A starving street urchin snatches a loaf of bread and runs down the street, fleeing some guards, past the paladin. The paladin knows full well what will happen if the boy is caught. Fortunately, the boy dodges down an alleyway before the guards turn the corner.

Now, the guards demand to know where the boy went. Does the paladin have to tell them, or can he do the right thing and refuse (or say he doesn't know, seeing how he has no idea where the kid went after going down the alley)?

[GNUsNotUnix]

I'll take this opportunity to introduce the definition of "lie."


lie
–noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

Please note the second line.

A lie by omission gives a false impression via the exclusion of information. That is, the lie intends to mislead by withholding facts.


To make sure my point is understood, a scenario:
Random peasant: "Excuse me good sir, I couldn't help but notice your gleaming white armor and impressive warhorse. Might you be a paladin?"
Paladin: "Yes, I'm a paladin. Do you need something?"
The paladin just committed a lie of omission. He didn't tell the peasant which god he served, thus leaving him with a half truth. He didn't tell the peasant whether or not he was on a quest to do some good, thus leaving the peasant with the misconception that the paladin has no pre-existing obligations.

This is not a lie by omission; as stated above, a lie must intend to mislead. Yes, there is an omission, but it is neither one by malicious intent nor one that is misleading in any way. Thus, this is one of many acceptable actions for a paladin.


Allowing someone to assume what he will is not a lie.

But allowing him to assume what you lead him to is. A disguise is hardly as passive as "allowing" assumptions; it's a calculated encouragement of fallacy.


That no one sees him doing it at the time doesn't mean that no one will know. Someone can serve as an example without being directly observed by all people all the time.

A paladin hiding himself while claiming to be an example, while not going against the letter of the code, is certainly going against the spirit of it.


Let's try the classic example: A paladin is in a city where petty thievery is punished by death/mutilation/other punishment unjustly disproportionate to the crime. A starving street urchin snatches a loaf of bread and runs down the street, fleeing some guards, past the paladin. The paladin knows full well what will happen if the boy is caught. Fortunately, the boy dodges down an alleyway before the guards turn the corner.

Now, the guards demand to know where the boy went. Does the paladin have to tell them, or can he do the right thing and refuse (or say he doesn't know, seeing how he has no idea where the kid went after going down the alley)?

He could pay for the bread and deal with the urchin as he feels fit. Third option. He could offer his services on the condition that he punish the thief personally. Fourth option. He may even decide that the authority is, in fact, legitimate, if harsh, and tell the guards where the boy went. A paladin has plenty of honest options at his disposal, many of which involve neither lies nor sword.

[Vonriel]

You cannot take the textbook definition of "lie" and apply it to "lie by omission" because they are two separate things. How do I know? Well, if a lie by omission were the same as a lie, then there would be no reason to add the qualifier "by omission," both would just be a lie.

The top five results that showed a definition for lying by omission all agree: It's a statement in which facts are omitted, plain and simple. Pushing the bias of yours that it has to be with malicious intent shows that you're attempting to create a separate definition of lying from the established definition. If you want to argue that a lie by omission is against the code, then accept the established definition of lying by omission, or accept that you chose poor word choice and should've added "with malicious intent" to the end of it.

[GNUsNotUnix]

You cannot take the textbook definition of "lie" and apply it to "lie by omission" because they are two separate things. How do I know? Well, if a lie by omission were the same as a lie, then there would be no reason to add the qualifier "by omission," both would just be a lie.

Even if this were true, the above definition of "lie" would still apply to disguise, so your point is moot.

In any case, lies by omission form a proper subset of lies, which is the only real reason for the qualifier. Lies by omission are lies (again, the above-cited definition includes both the broad definition of lies and the specific lie by omission).

Adding the qualifier "by omission" is analogous to saying "death by hanging;" it's still death, but the qualifier makes it more specific. Since lies in general are contrary to the code of conduct, it hardly matters if it's "by omission" or not.

[Vonriel]

Ok, so now that I've gotten as much of an admission that you misphrased it as I'm going to get... You're saying that using undetectable alignment is a lie. And yet you have agreed that there are circumstances where it would be ok to use it...? The two are mutually exclusive statements, it's either a lie or it can be used.

[elliott20]

"captain, I am detecting massive quantities of sarcastic radiation within this thread... I'm getting readings as high as 40 mega-vince-vaughns in some areas."

[GNUsNotUnix]

You're saying that using undetectable alignment is a lie. And yet you have agreed that there are circumstances where it would be ok to use it...? The two are mutually exclusive statements, it's either a lie or it can be used.

The only circumstance for Undetectable Alignment I've agreed with was its use against a trap. Traps are inanimate objects; it's debatable, to say the least, whether one can truly lie to inanimate objects. I suppose if you're one to say that inanimate objects can be lied to, it can't be used, but somehow I suspect you in particular aren't.

[Nero24200]

The only circumstance for Undetectable Alignment I've agreed with was its use against a trap. Traps are inanimate objects; it's debatable, to say the least, whether one can truly lie to inanimate objects. I suppose if you're one to say that inanimate objects can be lied to, it can't be used, but somehow I suspect you in particular aren't.

Or it could be used to throw evil off your trail. By the time a paladin is capable of casting the spell, his/her aura is strong enough to be picked up 1d6 days later.

So, hypotheciclly, by youy logic, a paladin whose allies have been wounded in battle, and is forced to flee taking them with him in hopes to save them, can't use this spell to stop the evil blackguard from tracking him and killing him and his wounded allies?

Also, your logic is incosistent with the D'n'D world, you -can- lie to objects. Read the Use Magic Device description, the point is that you bluff the wand/scroll etc into thinking that your character is a wizard/sorceror etc.

And last i checked, there was no entry in the paladin that said "Although bluff isn't a class skill, you can't put cross-class ranks in it or put ranks in it when you take another class". Paladins can still use it, so a "lie by omission" is still somthing they should be able to do (though admittitly, I agree that they shouldn't do it too often)

[Renegade Paladin]

The only circumstance for Undetectable Alignment I've agreed with was its use against a trap. Traps are inanimate objects; it's debatable, to say the least, whether one can truly lie to inanimate objects. I suppose if you're one to say that inanimate objects can be lied to, it can't be used, but somehow I suspect you in particular aren't.
Look, give it up. You are, quite simply, wrong. Disguises aren't lying, giving a pseudonym is borderline but not lying if done properly, and maintaining secrecy is an essential ability for any military character. How do I know this? The game designers have flat out said so. If you make me, I will dig through my books and list every single time this has been brought up in official material.

[tannish2]

i remember playing in expedition to castle ravenloft... paladin/rog (of freedom but still paladin and here the concept still applies) lying about being a paladin saved my characters ass more than a few times, and had the vampires trying to dominate me (with my immunity instead of the character that was openly immune, the wizard or the cleric) frustrating the vampires, wasting their actions, and saving other party members (and probably a few innocents) if the BBEG hitting the paladin with phantasmal killer instead of another party member or innocent bystander because the whole "paladin" thing is still unknown saves people, isnt it good? at higher levels my characters ALWAYS stay disguised, my wizards cast veil and appear in full plate, my thieves get a hat of disguise and look like meduim fighters, and my fighters look like wizards (somebody has to take the hit) if you cant do that then the only way to play a paladin is walk up to the great wyrm dracolich and yell "DIE EVILDOER" at level one.. and thats just not practical, and if noone (besides the BBEG and a few of his minions) gets hurt, then the ends justify the means, even for a LG paladin

[GNUsNotUnix]

So, hypotheciclly, by youy logic, a paladin whose allies have been wounded in battle, and is forced to flee taking them with him in hopes to save them, can't use this spell to stop the evil blackguard from tracking him and killing him and his wounded allies?

Actually, going with his allies sounds like a death sentence for them. It sounds like splitting from the group is his best hope for keeping the blackguard off of them. In any case, yes, a lie would still be a violation of the code of conduct.


Also, your logic is incosistent with the D'n'D world, you -can- lie to objects. Read the Use Magic Device description, the point is that you bluff the wand/scroll etc into thinking that your character is a wizard/sorceror etc.

I'm willing to live with that. All right, paladins can't lie to objects, either, thus preventing them from using Undetectable Alignment against traps. This still lies orthogonal to the argument at hand.


And last i checked, there was no entry in the paladin that said "Although bluff isn't a class skill, you can't put cross-class ranks in it or put ranks in it when you take another class". Paladins can still use it, so a "lie by omission" is still somthing they should be able to do (though admittitly, I agree that they shouldn't do it too often)

Yes, a paladin could bluff using however many ranks he likes, but a paladin also could kill every third person he meets using his impressive base attack bonus. The ability to do something doesn't morally justify doing it, especially not for paladins.


Disguises aren't lying, giving a pseudonym is borderline but not lying if done properly, and maintaining secrecy is an essential ability for any military character. How do I know this? The game designers have flat out said so. If you make me, I will dig through my books and list every single time this has been brought up in official material.

You say this, yet you neglect to address the argument I've just given. Dictionaries, the PHB, and constructive logic are valid sources, certainly just as valid as any official material. "Give it up" simply isn't good persuasion.

[Renegade Paladin]

First: I do not recognize the lie of omission as a valid concept. It involves telling no untruths; nobody is under any obligation to give everyone all the information he has all the time.

Second: Sometimes, concealing the truth is vital to a paladin's mission. For instance, he could be a military leader who needs to follow operational security and need-to-know procedures, he might be captured and interrogated (incidentally, your interpretation requires him to immediately spout off everything he knows), or to use an example I've played (as a DM with an NPC paladin) he could simply be a half-elf in Dambrath, where being a half-elf is punishable by instant death. In any of these situations, being forthright would be absolutely and unquestionably stupid. Not noble, not especially morally superior, just stupid.

Third: The designers of the game have, on numerous occasions, given direct statements that disguises and misdirection are acceptable behaviors for a paladin. Complete Champion adds the spell moral facade to the paladin spell list, a spell that alters the caster's aura to read as any alignment he chooses, and that's just the latest example. There are canon paladins that have used disguises without falling.

Fourth: A paladin falls for gross, i.e. extreme, violations of the code. Even assuming that all of the above counts as lying, a single lie for reasons serving the cause of good does not trigger a fall. That's RAW. If you don't like it you're free to house-rule it, but don't expect anyone in your games to actually manage to play a viable paladin, and in the meantime stay the heck out of my play style.

[Starbuck_II]

Fourth: A paladin falls for gross, i.e. extreme, violations of the code. Even assuming that all of the above counts as lying, a single lie for reasons serving the cause of good does not trigger a fall. That's RAW. If you don't like it you're free to house-rule it, but don't expect anyone in your games to actually manage to play a viable paladin, and in the meantime stay the heck out of my play style.

Though if starts lying all the time: I think these individual acts would together equal a gross violation in my opinion.

[GNUsNotUnix]

First: I do not recognize the lie of omission as a valid concept. It involves telling no untruths; nobody is under any obligation to give everyone all the information he has all the time.

That's not the implication of lying by omission. For one to lie, one has to deliberately mislead; simply staying silent doesn't do that, so it isn't lie.


Second: Sometimes, concealing the truth is vital to a paladin's mission. For instance, he could be a military leader who needs to follow operational security and need-to-know procedures, he might be captured and interrogated (incidentally, your interpretation requires him to immediately spout off everything he knows), or to use an example I've played (as a DM with an NPC paladin) he could simply be a half-elf in Dambrath, where being a half-elf is punishable by instant death. In any of these situations, being forthright would be absolutely and unquestionably stupid. Not noble, not especially morally superior, just stupid.

Again, remaining silent doesn't give a false impression, so, no, a paladin isn't required to spout off everything he knows. As for the half-elf in Dambrath, genocide isn't the action of a respectable authority, so he'd likely have to defend himself. Whether that means fleeing or fighting is up to him.


Third: The designers of the game have, on numerous occasions, given direct statements that disguises and misdirection are acceptable behaviors for a paladin. Complete Champion adds the spell moral facade to the paladin spell list, a spell that alters the caster's aura to read as any alignment he chooses, and that's just the latest example. There are canon paladins that have used disguises without falling.

I don't have Complete Champion, but, from what you've said, this is a contradiction in rules. You can side with Complete Champion if you like, but I'll stick with the SRD/PHB.


Fourth: A paladin falls for gross, i.e. extreme, violations of the code. Even assuming that all of the above counts as lying, a single lie for reasons serving the cause of good does not trigger a fall. That's RAW. If you don't like it you're free to house-rule it, but don't expect anyone in your games to actually manage to play a viable paladin, and in the meantime stay the heck out of my play style.

A single lie for the cause of good when no other option is available probably doesn't cause a fall. But other options abound, and disguise is a pre-emptive, premeditated violation. If a paladin can find a way out of a situation without lying--and, most of the time, he can--he should; it's the same kind of sense that keeps a paladin from murder wherever possible. Sure, plenty of situations could be made easier through murder, but that doesn't justify them. Lies, just like any other violation of the code, are only acceptable as a last resort for good. The RAW don't make exceptions for lies by choice, nor should they, as no violation of the code of conduct should be voluntary.

[elliott20]

well then, just think of the UA as form of "remaining silent" then.

[Renegade Paladin]

What part of this isn't getting through? There is no contradiction, as evidenced by the presence of undetectable alignment in the PHB in the first place. A disguise is nothing more than putting on a different set of clothing than the paladin would normally wear and then going about wearing it. It is not at all equivalent to going about telling people he's the king, telling the BBEG's minions that he has their children held hostage, or any other such silly thing that involves actually lying to people.

[horseboy]

You cannot take the textbook definition of "lie" and apply it to "lie by omission" because they are two separate things. How do I know? Well, if a lie by omission were the same as a lie, then there would be no reason to add the qualifier "by omission," both would just be a lie.

The top five results that showed a definition for lying by omission all agree: It's a statement in which facts are omitted, plain and simple. Pushing the bias of yours that it has to be with malicious intent shows that you're attempting to create a separate definition of lying from the established definition. If you want to argue that a lie by omission is against the code, then accept the established definition of lying by omission, or accept that you chose poor word choice and should've added "with malicious intent" to the end of it.

Situations like this really make me lament the destruction that post modernism wrought on the English language.

[Stephen_E]

If I put on a hat to cover my baldness am I lying? No.

If a Paladin cast a spell to cover his alignment is he lying? No.

Doesn't matter if the intent is to hide the baldness/alignment from others knowing about it, it still isn't a lie.



I don't have Complete Champion, but, from what you've said, this is a contradiction in rules. You can side with Complete Champion if you like, but I'll stick with the SRD/PHB.


The problem is that you aren't sticking with the SRD/PHB. You're sticking to a extreme interpretation of the SRD/PHB that reflects your personal views rather than what the SRD/PHB says or that is unsupported by WotC as a whole or any of the game designers that I'm aware of.

For example by code the use of poison is banned, but it can easisly be argued that the use of sleep poisons aren't gross violations of this because anaesthetics (sleep poisons) don't strictly fit the dictionary definition of poison.

Paladins can drink alcohol, and give it to others, despite alcohol been a dictionary definition poison.

Basically your "I'll stick with the SRD/PHB." is really "I stick with the SRD/PHB after I remove certain words I don't like (Gross) and use the broadest possible interpretations of other words (lying) but only when it suits me".

I'd also note that Paksenarrion, one of the classic modern literature examples of Paladinhood, uses deception in the form of lying by ommission.

Don't get me wrong. You're entitled to play paladins in your game as you wish. But it should be pretty obvious that per RAW and RAI you're not going to have much luck convincing anyone else that the rules support you. Where others draw the line on "gross violations" varies, but VERY few would accept it as "any violation that isn't completely accidental"

Stephen

[Khanderas]

I skimmed most of the debate about lie by omission and if that violates the Paladin code.
Technically, being in a town and meeting someone evil and do anything but take your shining white mail gauntlet and slap him with it and demand a duel to the death would be a lie by omission. Regardless of him being 10 level higher then you or not.
To hide when you are being chased by an evil cult, who already killed several of your companions when you are out of spells would be cowardice and/or a lie by omitting where you are (this spell is needed to not be detectable as good)
That is not Lawful Good. That is Stupid. Sometimes discression is a better part of valor.

[GNUsNotUnix]

well then, just think of the UA as form of "remaining silent" then.

Remaining silent would be a passive inaction. Actively hiding your natural, involuntary aura would be a deliberate, active attempt at disguise.


There is no contradiction, as evidenced by the presence of undetectable alignment in the PHB in the first place. A disguise is nothing more than putting on a different set of clothing than the paladin would normally wear and then going about wearing it. It is not at all equivalent to going about telling people he's the king, telling the BBEG's minions that he has their children held hostage, or any other such silly thing that involves actually lying to people.

The PHB has plenty of contradictions and errors outside of the paladin spell list, from spell descriptions to poorly balanced classes to broken spells. One more contradiction, is neither surprising nor implausible.

Putting on a different outfit doesn't hide a paladin's identity; assumedly, friends and enemies would still recognize him, and his change of clothes wouldn't reflect an intent to mislead. Putting on a the uniform of a guild's guard, however, reflects precisely that intent.


Doesn't matter if the intent is to hide the baldness/alignment from others knowing about it, it still isn't a lie.

Yet, a lie is specifically defined as giving an impression with the intent to mislead.

QUOTE=Stephen_E]Basically your "I'll stick with the SRD/PHB." is really "I stick with the SRD/PHB after I remove certain words I don't like (Gross) and use the broadest possible interpretations of other words (lying) but only when it suits me".[/QUOTE]

Verbatim definitions are hardly "interpretations." Not to mention, those definitions are consistent, so "when it suits me" is irrelevant.


Where others draw the line on "gross violations" varies, but VERY few would accept it as "any violation that isn't completely accidental"

That's a very curious way to word it. Said as, "an intentional violation," it doesn't sound quite so innocent.

It's also important to note the amount of purpose involved in casting a spell or donning a disguise. Significant time must be spent preparing a spell (for paladins); it remains memorized throughout the day until its use. A disguise takes similar preparation, and its use often requires constant focus when interacting with others to maintain the assumed identity. These cannot be called "incomplete" violations; their premeditated, sustained natures qualify them as "gross."


I skimmed most of the debate about lie by omission and if that violates the Paladin code.

Skim again. I already addressed these arguments.

[Stephen_E]

Basically your "I'll stick with the SRD/PHB." is really "I stick with the SRD/PHB after I remove certain words I don't like (Gross) and use the broadest possible interpretations of other words (lying) but only when it suits me".

Verbatim definitions are hardly "interpretations." Not to mention, those definitions are consistent, so "when it suits me" is irrelevant.

Since you're getting the PHB/SRD quoted back at you, with your response been "I read these words as meaning something different to what most of the other posters read" would qualify it as an "interpretation".


That's a very curious way to word it. Said as, "an intentional violation," it doesn't sound quite so innocent.

That depends on exactly what the intentional violation is. In no way does it scream "Gross". If I greet you with a "how are you" and you rely "fine" even if you have a slight headache according to you this would be both a gross lie and not innocent. Ridiculous!


It's also important to note the amount of purpose involved in casting a spell or donning a disguise. Significant time must be spent preparing a spell (for paladins); it remains memorized throughout the day until its use. A disguise takes similar preparation, and its use often requires constant focus when interacting with others to maintain the assumed identity. These cannot be called "incomplete" violations; their premeditated, sustained natures qualify them as "gross."


Wrong.
If I regularly intentionally exceed the speed limit by 5 kms/hr am I "Grossly" speeding. No! At least not by any legal or otherwise definition I've ever heard.
If I deliberately stay slightly overweight am I "Grossly" overweight. Again, no!

Specifically the spell hides a feature that isn't normally visible.
If the Paladin wears lead underwear to hide a genital birthmark from people who might be using x-rays vision spells, is he "lying" or perfprming a "gross" violation of his code.

Stephen

[Dr. Weasel]

If the Paladin wears lead underwear to hide a genital birthmark from people who might be using x-rays vision spells, is he "lying" or perfprming a "gross" violation of his code.

I think Gnus would agree with me when I say that it is a gross violation of his code to be wearing clothes to hide his genitals at all.

[Starbuck_II]

I think Gnus would agree with me when I say that it is a gross violation of his code to be wearing clothes to hide his genitals at all.

I'd hate to have a DM if he took that approach when I'm a Paladin.:smallbiggrin:
Nudity ftw!

[Ralfarius]

Undetectable Alignment is a protective spell to counteract intrusive divinations. The paladin can use it on himself, or someone/thing else. It's within the Paladin's code to be protecting this and that, so casting a spell to protect against magical intrusion isn't really a stretch.

It's not an active, willful lie. It's protection against those who would use magical methods to gain knowledge of alignment with intention to cause harm.

Granted, it could be used to less noble causes, but so could a paladin's sword. The developers of the game could have made a paladin-specific spell with more definite guidelines of usage, but it's easier to just put spells in the paladin's repertoire that already exist and allow common sense to guide its usage.

The spell itself is of no ignoble or evil intent, so if a Paladin uses it in the pursuit of justice or protection of the good, then everything is hunkey dorey.

[tannish2]

well, but some of the arguments presented here imply that paladins cannot breathe in a desecrated area. but they have to fight the undead... that means no verbal componets talking or breathing during a (possibly long) fight. paladins dead, rip that page out of your PHB because its ****ing useless. or get a constant attonement effect on you. applied at your initiative ever round. that would be the only way to play a paladin

and really, remember that its a role playing game, and that if paladins are limited to that they HAVE to hijack the party, thus having a paladin in the group ruins the game for everyone and those pages of the players handbook WILL be burned by the other players (along with the character sheet of anyone who trys to play a fighter without bonus feats) if you do, so to avoid getting your books ripped up, dont play a paladin! of course you could go with an almost fun interpretation of the rules and trust that WOTC did SOMETHING right because they didnt fix it in the errata.

[elliott20]

I wonder how far along we must push this logic before not wanting to discuss a paladin's bowel movement becomes a violation of the paladin code.:smallbiggrin: I kid I kid.

[tannish2]

I wonder how far along we must push this logic before not wanting to discuss a paladin's bowel movement becomes a violation of the paladin code.:smallbiggrin: I kid I kid.

no, actually this is a good point, it smells bad (no indoor plumbing) and it inconveniences others. it is an evil act, not to mention the possibility of it carrying some potentially lethal disease or the poor innocent bastard who has to clean it accidentally touching it to a wound, getting an infection, and dying.*loss of paladin abilities* destroying it would be killing. which is bad. an evil act (genocide, even if it is of bacteria) the paladin loses their abilities. cannot be attoned for as it was willing (except when certain diseases are involved) and MASS MURDER... so kids, dont play a paladin. it causes blackguards. that would be the only core way to get cha to saves, because with paladin... you didnt let the evil wizard kill you! that wasted his dicentigrate, as he is a law abiding tax paying citizen you must submit to the finger of death spell he casts next round! which wont be hard, seeing as how youve lost your paladin abilities. oooo im sorry will disbeleif succeded and you have the true beleiver feat, that would be a LIE... so you lose your paladin abilities. at least the cleric only has to pay 500 exp for attonement rather than 1000 GP for revivify... wait THATS MORE *cleric player grabs a knife, game room violence ensues*

you chase the evil necromancer into the tower, he leaves a few zombies to delay you while he gets to the top where he can finish the spell to destroy all of existence, you destroy them (destruction of property, turns out a few servants left their bodies to him in their will's lose all paladin abilities) break down the door and charge in, lose all paladin abilities because he is a law abiding citizen and you just commited breaking and entering. hit him to keep him from completing the spell, assault(lose paladin abilities), but he made his concentration check, kill him to prevent him from completing the spell... lose all paladin abilities *cough*murder*cough*. oh... it turns out he was a lich, but here sentient undead are also protected... semi-un-murderer without paladin abilities!

[Khanderas]

Undetectable Alignment is a protective spell to counteract intrusive divinations. The paladin can use it on himself, or someone/thing else. It's within the Paladin's code to be protecting this and that, so casting a spell to protect against magical intrusion isn't really a stretch.

It's not an active, willful lie. It's protection against those who would use magical methods to gain knowledge of alignment with intention to cause harm.

Granted, it could be used to less noble causes, but so could a paladin's sword. The developers of the game could have made a paladin-specific spell with more definite guidelines of usage, but it's easier to just put spells in the paladin's repertoire that already exist and allow common sense to guide its usage.

The spell itself is of no ignoble or evil intent, so if a Paladin uses it in the pursuit of justice or protection of the good, then everything is hunkey dorey.

This person makes sense. I agree with it all.

[GNUsNotUnix]

Since you're getting the PHB/SRD quoted back at you, with your response been "I read these words as meaning something different to what most of the other posters read" would qualify it as an "interpretation".

"Verbatim definitions" referred to definitions, not rules. In other words, dictionary citations, not SRD.


"Gross" is synonymous to "complete." Premeditated lies are hardly "incomplete."

Even if intention didn't qualify it as gross, a paladin disguising himself or concealing his identity violates his code. Thus, he shouldn't do either. Of course DMs (and maybe gods) will be lenient about having paladins fall, but, even without that threat, paladin still shouldn't do what he shouldn't do.


Specifically the spell hides a feature that isn't normally visible.
If the Paladin wears lead underwear to hide a genital birthmark from people who might be using x-rays vision spells, is he "lying" or perfprming a "gross" violation of his code.

Lying to a small audience is still lying. Besides, the D&D universe is hardly devoid of magic-users; a paladin's aura could be detected without him even being aware. Continuing on that line, how many times would one cast Undetectable Alignment without expecting someone to attempt to detect one's alignment? At a time when it wasn't "normally visible," there'd be no reason to cast the spell.


I think Gnus would agree with me when I say that it is a gross violation of his code to be wearing clothes to hide his genitals at all.

Disagree if you will, but please try to be respectful.


Undetectable Alignment is a protective spell to counteract intrusive divinations. The paladin can use it on himself, or someone/thing else. It's within the Paladin's code to be protecting this and that, so casting a spell to protect against magical intrusion isn't really a stretch.

There are instances where torture, poison, or assassination would be protective as well. Use as a protection doesn't morally justify an action.

[Starbuck_II]

"Verbatim definitions" referred to definitions, not rules. In other words, dictionary citations, not SRD.


"Gross" is synonymous to "complete." Premeditated lies are hardly "incomplete."

Even if intention didn't qualify it as gross, a paladin disguising himself or concealing his identity violates his code. Thus, he shouldn't do either. Of course DMs (and maybe gods) will be lenient about having paladins fall, but, even without that threat, paladin still shouldn't do what he shouldn't do.

If DM says not Gross: you can't fall for it. It is not possible for an act to be non-evil and still fall if not gross.
So while the Paladin shouldn't do it all the time: he can do it.

The Code allows violations, but it doesnt' allow Gross violations: plus you'll alwsys know if an act is gross if you buy a fathfullness brooch (from DMG, called a phyarchy or something).

[Stephen_E]

"Verbatim definitions" referred to definitions, not rules. In other words, dictionary citations, not SRD.


"Gross" is synonymous to "complete." Premeditated lies are hardly "incomplete."

Even if intention didn't qualify it as gross, a paladin disguising himself or concealing his identity violates his code. Thus, he shouldn't do either. Of course DMs (and maybe gods) will be lenient about having paladins fall, but, even without that threat, paladin still shouldn't do what he shouldn't do.

Dictionary definitions for "Gross"
- Collins modern english dictionary:
Adjectives
1) Unpleasantly Fat
2) (of manner) coarse, rough, rude.
3) obvious, flagrant
4) total
Counting Noun
1) twelve dozen

-Pocket Oxford Dictionary
Adj
Luxuriant, rank: overfed, bloated; flagrant; total (not net); thick, solid; (of food) coarse; (of senses) dull; (of manners, morals, person) coarse, unrefined, indecent; in (the) gross on the whole, in general, wholesale.
Noun
twelve dozen.

I also looked up Flagrant as IMO it seemed the most likely intended meaning.
Flagrant = glaring, scandalous, not hidden.

Non-detectable alignment is neither glaring, scandalous (using a spell on your spell list!) or "not hidden", unless your campaign worlds have everyone and their brother running around casting "detect alignment".

Of course if you dislike "flagrant" we can always go for "twelve dozen" (144) in which case it's simple. A paladin can violate their code in any way they like, but on the 144th time they'll fall.





Originally Posted by Stephen_E
Specifically the spell hides a feature that isn't normally visible.
If the Paladin wears lead underwear to hide a genital birthmark from people who might be using x-rays vision spells, is he "lying" or perfprming a "gross" violation of his code.
Lying to a small audience is still lying. Besides, the D&D universe is hardly devoid of magic-users; a paladin's aura could be detected without him even being aware. Continuing on that line, how many times would one cast Undetectable Alignment without expecting someone to attempt to detect one's alignment? At a time when it wasn't "normally visible," there'd be no reason to cast the spell.

So you consider pulling the curtains at your house to stop peeping toms lying? Afterall closing the curtains to stop a peeping tom fits all the conditions you use in your argument above!





Originally Posted by Dr. Weasel
I think Gnus would agree with me when I say that it is a gross violation of his code to be wearing clothes to hide his genitals at all.
Disagree if you will, but please try to be respectful.

He's been silly. Given how twisted your reasoning is getting you shouldn't really be surprised if people start to poke fun at it.

Stephen

[Fhaolan]

Of course if you dislike "flagrant" we can always go for "twelve dozen" (144) in which case it's simple. A paladin can violate their code in any way they like, but on the 144th time they'll fall.


Oh, I *like* this. I'm going to see if I can use this sometime...

[Starbuck_II]

Oh, I *like* this. I'm going to see if I can use this sometime...
It does make it definite.

So should the DM record the number and keep it secret or should he let the Paladin know each time he did something against code?
Should he warn him he has only 2 left (assuming Paladin did 142 offenses)?

[Fhaolan]

It does make it definite.

So should the DM record the number and keep it secret or should he let the Paladin know each time he did something against code?
Should he warn him he has only 2 left (assuming Paladin did 142 offenses)?

<class='GauntletVoice'>Barbarian needs food badly.</>

<class='GauntletVoice'>Paladin is about to fall.</>

[Ralfarius]

There are instances where torture, poison, or assassination would be protective as well. Use as a protection doesn't morally justify an action.
In theory, but this spell is actually protective in nature. It is not to 'lie about your alignment'. The purpose of the spell is to conceal against divination, the same way a shield conceals part of the paladin's body against the blows of the wicked.

What you're trying to counter my point with is what most in the business call a "Straw Man Argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)". You've taken my point - that is, the spell is in a paladin's repertoire for the purpose of protection, and casting a protective spell is probably at worst a neutral act - and applied it to acts which are traditionally evil. Torture is inflicting pain and suffering upon a helpless victim, and along with poison are intentional, offensive, damaging actions. Through this, you have made it appear that you are refuting my point easily because of misrepresentation of my position.

If you are having such a hard time understanding justification for a Paladin casting a protective spell, then how would you justify him drawing a sword and cutting down an unrepentant, evil villain? The act of attacking is more potentially evil, directly offensive, and intentional than a spell with the purpose to counteract divination.

The Paladin can also cast Protection From Chaos (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/spellsPtoR.html#protection-from-chaos). Not all chaotic creatures are evil, but the nature of the spell is that it does not inflict harm upon another. The same goes for Undetectable Alignment (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/spellsTtoZ.html#undetectable-alignment). It is a spell cast with the effect of protection from intrusive divination spells.

[Renegade Paladin]

"Verbatim definitions" referred to definitions, not rules. In other words, dictionary citations, not SRD.


"Gross" is synonymous to "complete." Premeditated lies are hardly "incomplete."
Ah. I think we've found the problem. You don't know how to properly use the English language. "Gross" is not at all synonymous to "complete." None of its definitions even come close.