O-Chul and Lying

[kpenguin]

Did O-Chul really lie back there? The paladin code strictly forbids lying...

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Actually, I came away with that he DIDN'T lie, except in the look he gave Redcloak at the end to make it look like he did... And that's some pretty advanced lying!

From what we know of the story, Girard's Gate IS in the desert, it IS a maze, it DOES have illusions. The riddles and the code to find the answers them is the only new thing I saw.

Not sure why O-Chul would do that, though... Unless he figured that Redcloak was going to kill the prisoners no matter what he said.

[Chronos]

We know from other sources that what he said is largely true: Girard's Gate is guarded by a maze of cunning illusions. The only real new information he added was the riddles. Nor did he actually say that he has low Charisma or no ranks in Bluff; he just implied it. It's possible that both his Charisma and Bluff are high, and that he just mislead Redcloak by telling him the truth, in a way that Redcloak wouldn't believe him. Very difficult, mind you: Redcloak has a very high Wisdom, and probably ranks in Sense Motive, as well.

[Moriarty]

where is a maze mentioned before?

i only remember the illusions being mentioned :|

[Sludge-o-matic]

Really I don´t imagine the twelve gods zapping O-Chul into fallsville. I mean, remember Miko. She did an evil act, yes, but she did it believing that for her was the right thing to do. Sure, Rich already told us that Miko is the worst way to play a Paladin. So I figure that O-Chul "lied" to protect the multiverse. Sure, this is not a LG act, but hardly deserves to be punished for that. Plus,as said before, I don´t think that the meatshield lied down there .

[The Wanderer]

I believed O-Chul was telling the truth until he mentioned the book. There was no way for him to know what would be written in Serini's diary, nor would Girard leave all the clues and answers to his Gate, which is partially responsible for defending existence itself, lying around somewhere he couldn't control or access it.

O-Chul was lying. He tried to lie in a smart way, incorporating as much truth as possible, but he really went for broke with the book, (which is understandable since Redcloak and Xykon might have continued to delay if they didn't believe they had all the answers in hand, and they might have tried researching the way through Girard's defenses from the safety of Azure City), but it strained the credibility of his statement too much.

If it's not a case where something is being run straight from D&D numbers, (and from past interactions we can guess that yes, O-Chul probably does have low charisma), then that same piece was probably what clued Redcloak in.

[Yogi]

Perhaps the lie wasn't about the gate, but about the fact that his Charmisa is his dump stat. So he actually made a sucessful bluff check, by making Redcloak think the truth was a lie.

[TheElfLord]

But if he wasn't lying, then O-Chul somehow gained information forbidden by his oath as a Paladan of the Saphire Guard to obtain.

I think the Joke in the strip is that desperate to tell Redcloak something to save the prisoners O-Chul quickly made up a story which happens to actually be how the gate is guarded. It is funny to us because we the readers know he got it right accidentally, but Redcloak (and O-Chul) think he is lying.

[monty]

Perhaps the lie wasn't about the gate, but about the fact that his Charmisa is his dump stat. So he actually made a sucessful bluff check, by making Redcloak think the truth was a lie.

He said that Charisma "seemed like a safe dump stat at the time." He never actually said it was his dump stat. So he could have a high Charisma and still be telling the truth.

[Starbuck_II]

Did O-Chul really lie back there? The paladin code strictly forbids lying...

Actually, Paladins can lie all they want. As long as this doesn't count as a Gross violation. You only fall if the violation is a gross (so 12?).

[monty]

Actually, Paladins can lie all they want. As long as this doesn't count as a Gross violation. You only fall if the violation is a gross (so 12?).

I thought a gross was 144. So if he's never lied before, he still has another 143 times. Assuming that he actually lied here.

[factotum]

But if he wasn't lying, then O-Chul somehow gained information forbidden by his oath as a Paladan of the Saphire Guard to obtain.


More importantly, if he was telling the truth, why would he then imply he was lying by saying Charisma was his dump stat? We're talking people's immortal souls on the line here...playing games with Redcloak would not be a smart move.

[Spiryt]

. Sure, this is not a LG act, but hardly deserves to be punished for that.

If lying in the face of very powerful, dangerous maniac, who have been torturing you for a long time, to protect some guys and in fact whole universe at the same time isn't LG, I don't know what is. :smallyuk:

Seriously, that's the problem with Paladin code in D&D. It's sometimes unbielievably... stupid.

Personally I think that Giant doesn't care. Certainly O'chul won't be punished in any way.

[RyanM]

I kinda figured O-Chul was telling the truth, but his abysmal Charisma score caused Redcloak to think he was lying.

[Moriarty]

If lying in the face of very powerful, dangerous maniac, who have been torturing you for a long time, to protect some guys and in fact whole universe at the same time isn't LG, I don't know what is. :smallyuk:


CG


I kinda figured O-Chul was telling the truth, but his abysmal Charisma score caused Redcloak to think he was lying.

if he was telling the truth, why does he admits to RC, that he is bad at lying because charisma is his dump stat?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I think the Joke in the strip is that desperate to tell Redcloak something to save the prisoners O-Chul quickly made up a story which happens to actually be how the gate is guarded. It is funny to us because we the readers know he got it right accidentally, but Redcloak (and O-Chul) think he is lying.
Very much possible.

If so, I think the bit about mazes and illusions could be an educated guess if he knows a bit about Girard's personality even if he knows nothing about that gate.

[Spiryt]

CG


Probably you are right, but those chaos/law idea is not easily aplicable to such things.

[the_tick_rules]

i figure he knew about the illusions and that part was true, but the book part was fake.

[Dark Matter]

He's lying. He's a Pal, he followed his oath, that oath said he was forbidden to know anything about the other gates.

And with the entire universe at stake, if he did know something, much less the key to victory team Evil's victory, he certainly wouldn't hand it over to RedCloak.

So to save a few lives he decided to try to come up with a believable lie, which has to be much better than the truth (which is that he doesn't know squat). The funny part is that he's dead on correct in all ways. The even funnier part is that since Red is a lot better at detecting lies than he was at making them, RC doesn't believe him.

And as for where he learned about the Book, RC probably told him. It's hard to ask questions without informing the prisoner of what you know.

[silvadel]

Of course he could have explored Girard's Gate back during those 12 levels where he was a fighter BEFORE joining the sapphires.

[Chronos]

Lying in general is typically Chaotic. However, lying under duress, to a sworn enemy who will use any information gained to the severe detriment of those to whom one has loyalty, is perfectly consistent with Law.

[Starbuck_II]

I thought a gross was 144. So if he's never lied before, he still has another 143 times. Assuming that he actually lied here.

Right, I always confuse it with a dozen.
But yeah, PHb says Gross Violation so he would still have up to 143 (less if he lied after becoming a Paladin).

[Moriarty]

Of course he could have explored Girard's Gate back during those 12 levels where he was a fighter BEFORE joining the sapphires.

the gates are propably the best hidden artifacts available in OOTS, the chances a NPC fighter finding one of those are quite low. Finding the one of those 5 gates, which is protected by illusions, is even more unlikely

[Porthos]

Considering that....

(SoD Spoilers)
... the Twelve Gods see nothing wrong with the Sapphire Guard slaughtering every man, woman, and child they see in an enemy village[/spoiler,

I don't think that they'll exactly have a problem with O-Chul lying in this situation. :smallwink:

[monty]

Considering that....

(SoD Spoilers)
... the Twelve Gods see nothing wrong with the Sapphire Guard slaughtering every man, woman, and child they see in an enemy village[/spoiler,

I don't think that they'll exactly have a problem with O-Chul lying in this situation. :smallwink:

Now watch as this thread is derailed into another "Is killing goblins evil?" thread.

[Porthos]

Now watch as this thread is derailed into another "Is killing goblins evil?" thread.

I thought that was fairly inevitable in any thread about Sapphire Guardmen. :smalltongue:

[Green Bean]

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

While lying is technically a violation of a paladin's code, by doing so he's following the part about helping those in need. I doubt he's going to get punished for it.

[Nychta]

But if he wasn't lying, then O-Chul somehow gained information forbidden by his oath as a Paladan of the Saphire Guard to obtain.

I think the Joke in the strip is that desperate to tell Redcloak something to save the prisoners O-Chul quickly made up a story which happens to actually be how the gate is guarded. It is funny to us because we the readers know he got it right accidentally, but Redcloak (and O-Chul) think he is lying.

I think this is the most fitting explanation so far. Or, Redcloak might even believe him, be hiding this to destroy O-Chul's hope, simply keen to kill some humans, and ready to check out this 'code' after he leaves O-Chul.

[Callista]

Did O-Chul really lie back there? The paladin code strictly forbids lying...If he did, yes, he might've just broken his code. The thing is, he won't fall if he does. A paladin falls if he commits an evil act or ceases to be LG. There's nothing about chaotic acts in there--and one lie, especially one intended to be an attempt to save people--is not going to even touch that "L", much less erase it. Technically, a paladin should not lie--unless he absolutely has to. This is one of those times. A slightly chaotic, strongly Good act is not out of the question for a Lawful Good character--especially if it's a possible Third Choice during a forced-choice scenario.

The "he told the truth and made Redcloak think it was a lie" idea seems rather flimsy to me. First of all, it's a big gamble: If he fails, he basically gives Redcloak the victory; if he succeeds, he's only thwarted one attempt and Redcloak can easily make another. Big gambles are not the kind of thing O-Chul is into. Second, if it succeeds, he might have set Redcloak off the scent, but the second Redcloak sees any evidence that O-chul's "lie" might have been true, he will probably check it out--and once again Redcloak has the advantage. I can see a strongly CG character trying to pull this off, but not with a low Bluff modifier, and not against somebody who can easily ascertain whether it's the truth to begin with.

Also, there's the fact that Redcloak has surely already tried magical interrogation, which should have yielded the truth right away--that is, that O-Chul doesn't know anything.

[FujinAkari]

If he did, yes, he might've just broken his code. The thing is, he won't fall if he does. A paladin falls if he commits an evil act or ceases to be LG. There's nothing about chaotic acts in there--

... Yes there is. A paladin falls if she willfully commits an evil act or grossly violates the Code of Conduct.

Violation of a set code is, by definition, a chaotic act :P

[monty]

... Yes there is. A paladin falls if she willfully commits an evil act or grossly violates the Code of Conduct.

Violation of a set code is, by definition, a chaotic act :P

But it's not nearly enough to make him non-lawful, and lying to an evil cleric overlord to save the universe from destruction is hardly a gross violation.

[Silkenfist]

I have to quote the code again:


A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.


Emphasis mine to illustrate the key idea. Cheating is not directly forbidden by the code. The code requires that the Paladin acts with honor and lying is included as an example of dishonorable behaviour. So logically, if you came into a situation where lying was the honorable thing to do, it would not violate the code.
O-Chul is in that situation. He is confronted with the evil overlord who has taken control of the city and who is just about to randomly kill innocents. If he makes Redcloak believe his lie, he might be able to save them. This is lying but it is not a dishonorable act (Unless your moral standards include a 10-foot-pole in the rectal orifice). O-Chul is perfectly in line with the code of conduct.

[FujinAkari]

But it's not nearly enough to make him non-lawful, and lying to an evil cleric overlord to save the universe from destruction is hardly a gross violation.

... yeah?

I never said otherwise, I was just rebuting the claim that the code said nothing about chaotic acts :P

[Callista]

It does. If you commit a very strongly chaotic act, or a lot of minor ones, it will take your alignment from LG to NG. If your chaotic acts aren't enough to do that, then they're not bad enough to make you fall.

Why are we even considering that this could turn O'chul beige? It's ridiculous to me, and I score LG (strong G, weak L) on all the alignment tests. I tend to be pretty strict when it comes to lying... heck, I won't even tell you you look good in an ugly shirt!

[Tyrmatt]

The Twelve Gods may have noticed that followers are a bit thin on the ground these days, what with the utter subjugation of I'd approximate over 95% of their followers, not to mention a massive paladin hole to fill after Xykon's Massacre. For their own greater good (and stability of both celestial and mortal realms), they'd let O-Chul slide with quite a lot right now, barring him murdering small children for candy.
I'm glad O-Chul's bizarre toughness was explained though. 12 years of fighter is sure to have given him a body made of solid teak.
*runs off to read the stats geekery thread for some numbers*

[brant167]

Lying is not a chaotic act in fact it is very lawful. Look at politics for example politicians are known for saying things to get themselves votes. These are lies to ESTABLISH A GOAL. That is completely different then saying a blue shirt is red. A lie like that has no reason to it, however O-Chul lying to save innocents has a reason too it...come on people like you never had a LE NPC lie to your face.
Even if it was against the PHB code we can not assume that every paladin organization has the same code. No doubt the Knights of Herinous and the Knights of Bahaumt have a extremely different code and laws to follow. So to assume that the Sapphire Knights have the exact same code laid out in the PHB is a bad assumption that has no merits to it.

[Callista]

No, it's chaotic. Law=honor=not lying. But lying isn't very strongly chaotic; as you noted, many Lawful people will on occasion lie.

[Zencao]

No, it's chaotic. Law=honor=not lying. But lying isn't very strongly chaotic; as you noted, many Lawful people will on occasion lie.

No, law does not equal honour* nor does honour equal not lying.

Since we're of no dispute as to whether or not the lie was "good" let's just look at the "lawful" part shall we?

Law, is basically acting to a system or code (which can and mostly IS unique to the person), an official example of a LE character is a corrupt politician, I.E if he doesn't lie then I'm a 3 foot anthromorphic slinky toy with dog**** for eyeballs.

Lawful can lie, honour can lie as long as it is for honourable reasons (I.E stopping hoards of innocents being undone from creation)

EDIT: And lying doesn't equal chaotic either, it's the way it is used that tends toward how it affects alignment, neutral characters I believe could lie their arses off and still be neutral.

*Screw you yanks and you're butchering!

[Callista]

“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.Trustworthiness implies not deceiving people, implies not lying.

Lawful people can and do lie--especially to their enemies--but they prefer not to. There are worse incarnations of being untrustworthy--for example, betraying your king.

[monty]

*Screw you yanks and you're butchering!

Unless the rules of grammar are different over there, that should be "your butchering." :tongue:

[NikkTheTrick]

Trustworthiness implies not deceiving people, implies not lying.
Trustworthiness means that whenever you earn someone's trust, you make sure trusting you was not a mistake.

O'Chul and Redcloak are enemies. There was no, is no and never will be any trust between them. There is simply no way O'Chul can be unrustworthy towards Redcloak.

As it was said before, Lawful Evil lie a lot. That does not make them any less lawful.

[Callista]

I think you're confusing chaos with evil. Why should it be Lawful Evil you're accusing of lying a lot? I think you're subconsciously using a single-axis system on which lying is evil, and thus you transfer the idea of "evil" on that system to "LE" on the new system, and end up with lies on the wrong end of the axis...

Leaders who routinely lie to their people tend to be NE or CE, not LE. LE leaders would be more likely to simply omit information, tell technical truths, or focus attention on distractions.

LG people can lie occasionally to the same degree that LE people do, though not for the same reasons. Both will usually do so for some reason that applies to the G/E part of their alignment, of course. LN people hardly lie at all, since it's considered in most cultures to be part of honor, trustworthiness, etc.

If you are strongly aligned on both axes, when you break one axis it will almost always be for the sake of the other. In this case, O'chul (LG) had three choices: Tell Redcloak what he wanted to know and have a chance at saving the hostages (CN), Refuse and have the hostages killed (LE), or lie and have a chance at saving them (CG). Notice that there was no LG option--meaning that O'Chul had to choose between options that he wouldn't have picked had he had the freedom to do so. He chooses the only Good-aligned option--lying--because that's the strongest part of his alignment.

By the way, I ought to explain why I think spilling the beans is a CN option.
1. It means breaking an oath: Chaotic.
2. It results in saving people. Good.
3. It results in endangering people's lives. Evil.
So in the end the Good/Evil cancels out to neutral, resulting in CN. Someone who went only by his gut feelings would choose this option because he believes in individual lives and would be willing to take a chance on hypothetical lives down the road. Of course it's also a very distasteful option for anyone who's Lawful because in choosing it you are literally gambling with the fate of the universe.

[NikkTheTrick]

I think you're confusing chaos with evil. Why should it be Lawful Evil you're accusing of lying a lot? I think you're subconsciously using a single-axis system on which lying is evil, and thus you transfer the idea of "evil" on that system to "LE" on the new system, and end up with lies on the wrong end of the axis...
No, I am not confusing the system. There are a lot of evil leaders. That makes them E. A lot of them are Lawful - they keep things organized, etc as opposed to Neutral or chaotic ones that do not care as much about organization. Someone who staged a bloody coup to get a position and then instituted heavy and brutal but effective system to keep himself in power is LE in my books. He views himself as legal authority and believes that law needs to be followed. He will execute someone for performing something chaotic under his rule even though that was not aimed against him. Maybe it was even done in service- he will still have the person killed for not following his laws.

If that guy lies regularly, I would not think him to be any less LE.

If you are strongly aligned on both axes, when you break one axis it will almost always be for the sake of the other. In this case, O'chul (LG) had three choices: Tell Redcloak what he wanted to know and have a chance at saving the hostages (CN), Refuse and have the hostages killed (LE), or lie and have a chance at saving them (CG). Notice that there was no LG option--meaning that O'Chul had to choose between options that he wouldn't have picked had he had the freedom to do so. He chooses the only Good-aligned option--lying--because that's the strongest part of his alignment.
An option by itself cannot be just labelled CN, LE or CG.
First of all, letting hostages die is hardly LE in this situation. Yes they die. This is war and people die in war. There is far, far more at stake than a few lives. And why would it be L aanyway?! Isn't it kinda chaotic for a Paladin to choose inaction when death of individual is at stake (breaking oath to save the weak, etc.)? To me that looks like something far more chaotic than lying to the enemy.
Second, what one would rate an option would strongly depend on what else is available. Here is an example: one is given 2 choices: A) one person dies. B) 100 people die. If a person does not choose within 5 seconds, all 101 die (so, let us call it option C).

Would choosing A be an evil act? Does that mean that a person can end up commiting an evil act despite his very best effort not to?

Third, remember that O'Chul is a member of the Saphire Guard. Saphire Guard is at war with Redcloak and Xykon. Since SG is a military organization and O'Chul is a soldier there, it is his duty to help SG war efort. That includes providing Redcloak with false information: lying. Lying is a lawful thing to do in this scenario.

By the way, I ought to explain why I think spilling the beans is a CN option.
1. It means breaking an oath: Chaotic.
2. It results in saving people. Good.
3. It results in endangering people's lives. Evil.
So in the end the Good/Evil cancels out to neutral, resulting in CN. Someone who went only by his gut feelings would choose this option because he believes in individual lives and would be willing to take a chance on hypothetical lives down the road. Of course it's also a very distasteful option for anyone who's Lawful because in choosing it you are literally gambling with the fate of the universe.
I'd say that is wrong way to look at things. First of all, we cannot just do "1 evil part + 1 good part = neutral act". How many people would he save? How many would he endanger? Endanger to what degree? If that would mean that the rest of the world (millions of people) are doomed to save 16, that would be a very, very evil act.

[factotum]

The Twelve Gods may have noticed that followers are a bit thin on the ground these days, what with the utter subjugation of I'd approximate over 95% of their followers

How do you figure that? The Twelve Gods have control over the whole of the South--we know for a fact that Cliffport is within their territory (because Thor got slapped down for using his power too much there), which means Greysky City almost certainly is as well, since it's closer to Azure City than Cliffport is. Even if we assume those are the only three cities in the entire southern lands, I wouldn't say the Twelve Gods have lost more than 20% of their followers (once you include towns and villages outside the cities).

[Zeitgeist]

I think the Joke in the strip is that desperate to tell Redcloak something to save the prisoners O-Chul quickly made up a story which happens to actually be how the gate is guarded. It is funny to us because we the readers know he got it right accidentally, but Redcloak (and O-Chul) think he is lying.

Why is there so much discussion? This ^ is the correct answer.

It's supposed to be funny. This wouldn't be the first time in the world this joke has been used. Usually it involves one person saying, "What, you don't think that X is the case, do you?" (which the audience knows is actually the case, but neither of them do), then they pause, and laugh at the crazy suggestion (which is true, unbeknown to either parties involved.)

This joke is very similar, except there's no mutual laughter, and the intent was different. But guessing an outrageous truth and being correct without either party knowing it = funny.

[Cute_Riolu]

... yeah?

I never said otherwise, I was just rebuting the claim that the code said nothing about chaotic acts :P


If you would, kindly point out where in the rules that it says that violation of a set code is a chaotic act? What about when the set code is most obviously evil? Then does the Paladin still have to follow it? It, in fact, states in The Most Holy Book, that such a thing is entirely acceptable.

[Glyphic]

The worst lier in my book is a person who can't lie at all.

[Caractacus]

Why is there so much discussion? This ^ is the correct answer.

It's supposed to be funny. This wouldn't be the first time in the world this joke has been used. Usually it involves one person saying, "What, you don't think that X is the case, do you?" (which the audience knows is actually the case, but neither of them do), then they pause, and laugh at the crazy suggestion (which is true, unbeknown to either parties involved.)

This joke is very similar, except there's no mutual laughter, and the intent was different. But guessing an outrageous truth and being correct without either party knowing it = funny.

Quite right. I recall a French writer (was it Camus?) who has a scene where the police want to find a wanted man. His friend thinks he's dead, so says "You should try the graveyard". The police take him literally, go there, find the man hiding there, and he is soon executed.

Moral: Take care with what you say and do. Maybe later O-Chul will find out what he has done and he'll go all Miko... :smallcool:


P.S. Zencao. That's not very polite.

"Screw you yanks and you're [sic] butchering!"*

...or grammatical, for that matter. :smalltongue:

*Actually, wouldn't it be more like surgery than butchery? The Latin didn't have the 'u'; it very likely came as a result of French influence on the language. So you could say that the Americans have performed a careful surgical operation. Unless the 'u' was added later (after the colonisation of the Americas) by us, in which case they have preserved our original.

[DeadmanXI]

But if he wasn't lying, then O-Chul somehow gained information forbidden by his oath as a Paladan of the Saphire Guard to obtain.

This appears a popular idea. It is also false. The Sapphire Guard are not allowed to interfere with the other gates. Since when is knowing about something interfering with it?

[Moriarty]

Lying is not a chaotic act in fact it is very lawful. Look at politics for example politicians are known for saying things to get themselves votes. These are lies to ESTABLISH A GOAL. That is completely different then saying a blue shirt is red.


best quote in this thread xD
you think politicians would be LAWFUL?

most of them would be CG/CN, with some NG which use chaotic methods to achieve lawful aims.



No, I am not confusing the system. There are a lot of evil leaders. That makes them E. A lot of them are Lawful - they keep things organized, etc as opposed to Neutral or chaotic ones that do not care as much about organization. Someone who staged a bloody coup to get a position and then instituted heavy and brutal but effective system to keep himself in power is LE in my books. He views himself as legal authority and believes that law needs to be followed. He will execute someone for performing something chaotic under his rule even though that was not aimed against him. Maybe it was even done in service- he will still have the person killed for not following his laws.

If that guy lies regularly, I would not think him to be any less LE.

your discription sounds to me like an evil Shojo. And Shojo WAS CG, because he lied to his paladins




An option by itself cannot be just labelled CN, LE or CG.
First of all, letting hostages die is hardly LE in this situation. Yes they die. This is war and people die in war. There is far, far more at stake than a few lives. And why would it be L aanyway?! Isn't it kinda chaotic for a Paladin to choose inaction when death of individual is at stake (breaking oath to save the weak, etc.)? To me that looks like something far more chaotic than lying to the enemy.
Second, what one would rate an option would strongly depend on what else is available. Here is an example: one is given 2 choices: A) one person dies. B) 100 people die. If a person does not choose within 5 seconds, all 101 die (so, let us call it option C).

Would choosing A be an evil act? Does that mean that a person can end up commiting an evil act despite his very best effort not to?


i agree, letting the hostages die isn't LE, because resisting the bad guy isn't evil. but it is the most lawful thing to do in this scenario.

i'm with Callista here, there is no LG thing to do for O-chul, he has to decide between

lawful - don't answer to RC, because lying is chaotic and O-chul doesn't know the answers RC wants
good - trying everything to save the lives of the humans on the tower






Third, remember that O'Chul is a member of the Saphire Guard. Saphire Guard is at war with Redcloak and Xykon. Since SG is a military organization and O'Chul is a soldier there, it is his duty to help SG war efort. That includes providing Redcloak with false information: lying. Lying is a lawful thing to do in this scenario.
lying is never a lawful act. they are an army of paladins, using trickery in war would make them CG.



The worst lier in my book is a person who can't lie at all.

such a person wouldn't be a liar ;)

[Callista]

Well, yeah, you're right; it isn't an evil act specifically. The result is Evil, the act is Lawful. The fact that it's a forced choice with both options bringing Evil would obviate the Evil aspect of the choice, getting O-Chul's powers off the hook and making him responsible for either a chaotic (talk) or lawful (don't talk) act.

If it were one of several non-evil choices, though, it would be LE. Let's say, for example, that (for some reason) Redcloak wants the Sapphire Guard's secret-but-delectable brownie recipe which O-Chul has promised never to pass on to non-Sapphire-Guardsmen, and he's using this method to get it. Then the options would switch to LE (withhold the information) and CG (give up the information). The choices themselves are still LE and CG; they didn't lose their Evil element, unlike the LN/CN options before. Why? Result! It's a similar forced choice, but now the result in one case suddenly isn't Evil anymore, making the choice not between two evils, but between a lawful evil act (keeping a promise and dooming people to die) and a chaotic good act (breaking a promise and giving the people a chance to live).

Why the brownie example? Illustration of a basic rule: If all choices involve a result that involves some alignment axis, then the act itself can't be aligned along that axis because it's forced and thus not a free choice.

However, in the event that the chooser thinks of a third option that has results not aligned along the axis in question, the choices include the third option and the alignment of the results returns--making the original choices evil once again in the presence of a non-evil third option. Refusing to look for a third option, of course, is also a choice....

[Sylian]

Staying silent wouldn't be evil. A bit careless, perhaps, or dangerous, but not evil. It's Redcloak who performs the evil act, not O'Chul.

[Just Joseph]

lying is never a lawful act.

That is a position I would disagree with. It depends a lot on your viewpoint, and various socio-religious traditions have had different positions to the lawfulness of lying.

For example, there are situations under Jewish law where a person is not only permitted but required to lie, for example if that lie is the only way to save a person's life. Even less urgent needs such as peace and personal humility may justify lying.

The notion that lies are always immoral is common among the more hard-line Christian theologians, but even they admit that some lies are worse than others, and that lying with the genuine intent to prevent harm to another is a minor and forgivable sin.

The ancient Greek philosophers had varying opinions. Some said you should never lie, some said you might be required to for the "greater good" (a phrase bathed in blood but I digress).

Since O-Chul is neither Jewish nor Christian nor ancient Greek, but a follower of the Southern Gods, we must look to the evidence of the strip and the OGL rules to guess how much of a transgression his lie was, or whether it was at all. And I'd say "minor at most, probably not at all."

For those who groove on academic references:
For an extended and well-written discussion of Jewish law on lying, with a nice introduction summarizing thoughts from other traditions see this article (http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/hf_LyingPermissible.html) at the jlaw.com website. I derived my summaries above largely from this article.

[Renegade Paladin]

*Screw you yanks and you're (sic) butchering!
The irony, it burns. :smalltongue:

Anyway, O-chul is completely in the clear here, or he should be. One lie to save the very immortal souls of a crowd of people is hardly a gross violation of the code.

[Spiky]

*Screw you yanks and you're butchering!


The irony, it burns. :smalltongue:


While the misspelling is funny, the real irony is that "screw you" is of American etymology.

[NikkTheTrick]

i'm with Callista here, there is no LG thing to do for O-chul, he has to decide between

lawful - don't answer to RC, because lying is chaotic and O-chul doesn't know the answers RC wants
good - trying everything to save the lives of the humans on the tower
I disagree. There should be no situation where a person is not able to act in a way of his/her alignment.

Lying was Lawful Good because:
- It was an attempt to save people.
- It was the only way to follow his Duty as a Paladin to defend the innocent. IMHO, not doing his best to save people (while not committing a treason or endangering more people) would be a chaotic act for a Paladin (in addition to evil).

lying is never a lawful act. they are an army of paladins, using trickery in war would make them CG.
Now that you've mentioned trickery, Miko used a trick to get ogrres into a tight circle to get blasted by fire and lightning. Being Lawful Stupid she is was (and her despising Haley for being Chaotic), I highly doubt Miko would use trickery if it was indeed Chaotic.

O'Chul is a soldier and it is his lawful Duty to fight the best he can for his lord. Lying to redcloak is part of this duty. He is lying for lawful cause.

Once again, show us where Paladin code specifically prohibits lying.

Staying silent wouldn't be evil. A bit careless, perhaps, or dangerous, but not evil. It's Redcloak who performs the evil act, not O'Chul.
Inaction is still a choice. A choice O'Chul knows would lead to deaths of inocent. It would not be evil if he could not do anything else to attempt saving them. But in given situation it would be both evil and chaotic. If those people would die no matter what (except him committing treason and endangering more people), then staying silent and letting them all die and have their souls destroyed would not be evil.

[jdrum00]

Morality aside, the expressivity of those facial lines is still remarkable. In the bottom left panel, before I even read the rest of the strip (much less the forum posts), I distinctly heard: "Dantooine...they're on Dantooine."

The question now being: was Charisma Leia's dump stat? *scurries off to safety*

[Moriarty]

That is a position I would disagree with. It depends a lot on your viewpoint, and various socio-religious traditions have had different positions to the lawfulness of lying.

For example, there are situations under Jewish law where a person is not only permitted but required to lie, for example if that lie is the only way to save a person's life. Even less urgent needs such as peace and personal humility may justify lying.

The notion that lies are always immoral is common among the more hard-line Christian theologians, but even they admit that some lies are worse than others, and that lying with the genuine intent to prevent harm to another is a minor and forgivable sin.

The ancient Greek philosophers had varying opinions. Some said you should never lie, some said you might be required to for the "greater good" (a phrase bathed in blood but I digress).


Since O-Chul is neither Jewish nor Christian nor ancient Greek, but a follower of the Southern Gods, we must look to the evidence of the strip and the OGL rules to guess how much of a transgression his lie was, or whether it was at all. And I'd say "minor at most, probably not at all."


lawful is not good and chaotic isn't evil!


of course lying and trying to safe those lifes was GOOD, but it wasn't lawful.


why do people always assume CG has to be inferior to LG?



I disagree. There should be no situation where a person is not able to act in a way of his/her alignment.

Lying was Lawful Good because:
- It was an attempt to save people.
correct, it is GOOD, but why should it be lawful?


- It was the only way to follow his Duty as a Paladin to defend the innocent. IMHO, not doing his best to save people (while not committing a treason or endangering more people) would be a chaotic act for a Paladin (in addition to evil).
yes, it was the only way. therefore O-chul was able to lie to RC, without endangering his paladin-status. he saw no possibility to react in a lawful good way


Now that you've mentioned trickery, Miko used a trick to get ogrres into a tight circle to get blasted by fire and lightning. Being Lawful Stupid she is was (and her despising Haley for being Chaotic), I highly doubt Miko would use trickery if it was indeed Chaotic.
there's a difference between trickery and tactics. Miko never lied to the Ogres, O-chul is lying to RC.


O'Chul is a soldier and it is his lawful Duty to fight the best he can for his lord. Lying to redcloak is part of this duty. He is lying for lawful cause.

second strip, fourth panel: (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html) lying for lawful cause is neutral



Once again, show us where Paladin code specifically prohibits lying.

i can't :/ i don't know any links to the rulebooks online

but i can argue, that paladins are required to be lawful good, and lying isn't lawful.


i already pointed out (about 3 posts ago) that O-chul is in this situation allowed to lie, because he is forced to do so.

[Sludge-o-matic]

"Only the Honor of a Paladin is unbreakable"

[akumadaimyo]

Morality aside, the expressivity of those facial lines is still remarkable. In the bottom left panel, before I even read the rest of the strip (much less the forum posts), I distinctly heard: "Dantooine...they're on Dantooine."

The question now being: was Charisma Leia's dump stat? *scurries off to safety*

No, she was just a 1st level character lying to a Grand Moff. Oh yeah just try and make that Bluff check. Please. He's like a high level NPC with a PrC class to boot and he commands lots of soldiers. He's totally got high charisma and sense motive. No way in hell could she Bluff him. Not happening.

And it DID say somewhere that lying was not a option for a Paladin. However, that may have been back in 2cd ed. Of course in 4th now the damn Pallies can be ANY alignment. ANY. So O-chul can go crazy as hell and be CE and still be a Pally. Lameness. :smallfurious:

[Voyager]

It seems to me that any diety that would yank O'Chul's paladinhood over that is not a diety that should have paladins.

On the question of whether he was lying or not, I agree with the one's who say that he almost certainly was. There is absolutely no reason for O'Chul to know anything about Girard's gate, and the information about the riddles and their solutions is, as far as I know, completely new and not aluded to elsewhere. This has all the hallmarks of the classic "wopper turns out to be true" joke, and ties in neatly with the RPG running gag, "If a cat tells you it's a dragon-god in disguise, it probably is."

As for the game-world explanation of how it would be possible for O'Chul to state such a thing so accurately: it's a prophetic inspiration sent by the souther gods to get Xykon and crew to stop screwing with the rifts for fifteen seconds. It's just O'Chul really isn't that great of a conduit.

[David Argall]

How do you figure that? The Twelve Gods have control over the whole of the South--we know for a fact that Cliffport is within their territory (because Thor got slapped down for using his power too much there), which means Greysky City almost certainly is as well, since it's closer to Azure City than Cliffport is.
This is incorrect. Cliffport and Greysky are both out of the South. We note that Cliffport is a thousand miles to the north of Azure City, and we have 4 cities that seem to be further South. So it would seem that we have Azure City at the north end of the South, with Greysky on the other side of the mountains and thus in the North, with Cliffport further north.
Note that the party definitely starts in the north and it's already a good stretch of distance when we start them about Cliffport. By saying Cliffport is part of the South, we are about doubling the distance, if not more.

The Thor-Gods of the South faceoff allows at least two alternate readings. a-Thor aiding Durkon was stepping over the line even by northern standards, and so they were simply warning him they were not going to allow that in their territory. b-Thor was talking about an incident from way long ago. This fits better with the "never let you forget it" comment. Thor-Durkon was not even yesterday by godly standards.



The Sapphire Guard are not allowed to interfere with the other gates. Since when is knowing about something interfering with it?
When you have to spy to do it.
"I thought you said you weren't going to interfere."
"I'm not doing anything. Just standing there."
"Well, go do nothing somewhere else."

Our description of the deal is highly restrictive. "That's it! No spying, no just checking in visits, no nothing." Our paladins can not make any efforts to find out what is happening. That is why Shojo needed the party, and why he was arrested by those paladins when he tried to check in on the other gates. The paladins can learn only what they make no efforts to find out.

[DeadmanXI]

When you have to spy to do it.
"I thought you said you weren't going to interfere."
"I'm not doing anything. Just standing there."
"Well, go do nothing somewhere else."

Our description of the deal is highly restrictive. "That's it! No spying, no just checking in visits, no nothing." Our paladins can not make any efforts to find out what is happening. That is why Shojo needed the party, and why he was arrested by those paladins when he tried to check in on the other gates. The paladins can learn only what they make no efforts to find out.

True enough, but the information he's providing is both very general and only a very slight expansion of what Shojo already mentioned as part of the "Secret Lore of the Sapphire Guard" and thus might well be known to him, having been, say, passed down from Soon.

[NikkTheTrick]

correct, it is GOOD, but why should it be lawful?
That part was just showing that it was a good thing. The lawful parts came next.

yes, it was the only way. therefore O-chul was able to lie to RC, without endangering his paladin-status. he saw no possibility to react in a lawful good way
He reactied in a way that is as lawful as it gets while still being good. That is why we cannot just label the option as CG.

there's a difference between trickery and tactics. Miko never lied to the Ogres, O-chul is lying to RC.
Depends on definition of "trick". Sure, Miko did not lie, but she did use Ogres believing her words for purpose of gathering them. Tricking does not necessarially mean lying...

second strip, fourth panel: (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html) lying for lawful cause is neutral
It says "using chaotic means to fulfil lawful obligations". In Roy's case, actions were quite chaotic: he was working behind Paladins' order's back, he got a dangerous criminal out of prison, etc.

You still did not prove that lying is always chaotic.

i can't :/ i don't know any links to the rulebooks online

but i can argue, that paladins are required to be lawful good, and lying isn't lawful.


i already pointed out (about 3 posts ago) that O-chul is in this situation allowed to lie, because he is forced to do so.
As I said before, lying can be quite lawful. In O'Chul's case, that was the most lawful non-evil thing he could do.

[Dark Matter]

Even *if* we assume that lying in this case was a CG act, it was very G and not very C. He could do this a LONG time without falling.

[Sludge-o-matic]

Just a thought...I´ve read a lot about lying as a CG act and as a LG act...but...why not as a NG act? (I mean, I think somebody pointed it out, but... I do not recall right now) It fits perfectly, to me.

Well, with strip 546, this trhead may be a waste of time right now.

[Fish]

lying is never a lawful act.
Doctor-patient confidentiality is a law. The doctor is allowed and sometimes required to disavow any knowledge of his patient to preserve confidentiality.

Lawyer-client confidentiality is similar. You'll find reams of rules about what lawyers can reveal, and under which conditions.

Yes, that's just lying by omission, but it's still lying. And very legal.

[Khanderas]

If lying in the face of very powerful, dangerous maniac, who have been torturing you for a long time, to protect some guys and in fact whole universe at the same time isn't LG, I don't know what is. :smallyuk:

Seriously, that's the problem with Paladin code in D&D. It's sometimes unbielievably... stupid.
Fully agree with the aligntment statement. "Oh you prevented the Evil forces from destroying the world, everything in it and endanger the gods to extinction. But you lied when you did that so we are gonna take your paladin privelidges away."


Personally I think that Giant doesn't care. Certainly O'chul won't be punished in any way.
Except by Redcloak. :smallwink:

[Moriarty]

That part was just showing that it was a good thing. The lawful parts came next.

where? heres your second part:


It was the only way to follow his Duty as a Paladin to defend the innocent. IMHO, not doing his best to save people (while not committing a treason or endangering more people) would be a chaotic act for a Paladin (in addition to evil).

i already said it's ok to lie here for O-chul, but that doesn't make the action lawful


He reactied in a way that is as lawful as it gets while still being good. That is why we cannot just label the option as CG.
as lawful as it gets? what action could be less lawful in his situation?




You still did not prove that lying is always chaotic.

well you didn't prove it could be lawful in this situation ;)

is it actually possible to prove it would be always chaotic? nope. all i can do is to take every example of lying you can bring on and prove it to be chaotic :)


Just a thought...I´ve read a lot about lying as a CG act and as a LG act...but...why not as a NG act? (I mean, I think somebody pointed it out, but... I do not recall right now) It fits perfectly, to me.

could be... go on, prove it ;)




Doctor-patient confidentiality is a law. The doctor is allowed and sometimes required to disavow any knowledge of his patient to preserve confidentiality.

Lawyer-client confidentiality is similar. You'll find reams of rules about what lawyers can reveal, and under which conditions.

Yes, that's just lying by omission, but it's still lying. And very legal.


lying and withholding information isn't the same. and a doctor or lawyer
lying about his patients/clients is illegal

[Eric]

O-Chul was lying. He tried to lie in a smart way, incorporating as much truth as possible, but he really went for broke with the book,

No, O'Chul was just channelling Spielberg and/or Indiana Jones.

No more to it than that.

[Niknokitueu]

One thing worth mentioning with regards to this 'lying' schtick, is:
Are we certain that the book does not contain any coded information on how to solve the puzzles?

There are many degrees to lying. Yes, lying for any reson is very bad form for a paladin, but he was doing it for the very best purposes. Still doesn't make it an okay thing to do, but the best action out of a set of bad possibilities.

If he was trying to avoid lying, he should have let the citizens die. He himself cannot stop them dying without information that he does not have, so cannot uphold the ideal of 'always telling the truth' and simultaneously uphold the ideal of 'protecting the weak'.

So he lied. Big deal. O'Chul does not lie: If he utters what may be construed as a falsehood, the universe will restructure reality to match his truth. (Just gotta love Chuck Norris... :smallbiggrin: )

Seriously, though, it was a small lie, balanced against the chance that he could save innocents. Hard for a paladin to do, hard for a paladin to justify, but obviously not impossible given the circumstances. (Note: the twelve gods did not strike him down for uttering the falsehood, so obviously not a big enough no-no. This time.)

Have Fun!
Niknokitueu

[Underground]

Did O-Chul really lie back there? The paladin code strictly forbids lying... Thats wrong.

Even if the Paladin code forbids lying, so technically you're perfectly correct.

But the rule "you should never lie" does NOT imply "you can break any other rule in this code, just never lie".

Sometimes people have to choose between two evils, and have to choose the smaller one.

[Underground]

[...] Sure, Rich already told us that Miko is the worst way to play a Paladin. [...] No, he said Miko is ONE of the worst ways to play a Paladin.

[Underground]

But if he wasn't lying, then O-Chul somehow gained information forbidden by his oath as a Paladan of the Saphire Guard to obtain.

I think the Joke in the strip is that desperate to tell Redcloak something to save the prisoners O-Chul quickly made up a story which happens to actually be how the gate is guarded. It is funny to us because we the readers know he got it right accidentally, but Redcloak (and O-Chul) think he is lying. If you tell someone the truth, but do not know about it, its still a lie, though.

For example, if you tell someone that his house burns, just because you want to get his seat in a restaurant, and the guy runs home in panic and his house does indeed burn, it doesnt change the fact that you lied: you didnt knew what was up with his house.

[Underground]

Lying is not a chaotic act in fact it is very lawful. Look at politics for example politicians are known for saying things to get themselves votes. These are lies to ESTABLISH A GOAL.

... so if one has a goal, one is, according to you, lawful, or what ?

A very confusing posting.

[Niknokitueu]

If you tell someone the truth, but do not know about it, its still a lie, though.

For example, if you tell someone that his house burns, just because you want to get his seat in a restaurant, and the guy runs home in panic and his house does indeed burn, it doesnt change the fact that you lied: you didnt knew what was up with his house.
No, that is not a lie. Go look up 'lie' in a dictionary.
It would not be a false statement. Your house would indeed be burning.
It is not decieving you: your house is indeed on fire.
It is not a falsehood: your house is on fire.

It was the truth, as your house is on fire. I may not actually know if your house is on fire, but if I assert it is, and your house is on fire, then I am uttering the truth (albeit an unknowing truth).

The joke, as stated, is that such information may exist in the book. Hence O'Chul did not lie.

And anyway, if you ask two people a simple yes/no question, and one answers yes whilst the other answers no, you can be certain that one is lying and the other is not. Irrespective of what they may-or-may not actually know. You just do not know which one is lying.

Have Fun!
Niknokitueu

[Roderick_BR]

If lying in the face of very powerful, dangerous maniac, who have been torturing you for a long time, to protect some guys and in fact whole universe at the same time isn't LG, I don't know what is. :smallyuk:

Seriously, that's the problem with Paladin code in D&D. It's sometimes unbielievably... stupid.

Personally I think that Giant doesn't care. Certainly O'chul won't be punished in any way.
Actually, I think Rich is playing the way he things paladins should be played, and thus far, I doesn't disagree with him. O-Chul gave the only LG option he had. It was clearly a lose/lose situation... and yet he managed to get a 3rd option.

[Skinner]

If lying is never a lawful act, then how come devils are always lawful? They have been lying for almost as long as there have been gods. Don't they even have a guy known as "Lord of Lies"? If saying a bunch of lies is enough to make a Paladin become NG...Then the devils by now should be as chaotic as...hell...heh

Edit: OK, lying is against the Paladin code, so he may get in trouble for that. But he'll still be LG. He was trying to spare some people with the only weapon he had available, words. He took a shot. He tried something. He didn't give up. His gods might frown on that, but I doubt they would strip his paladinhood for it. Probably just make him do a few hours of community service.

[chibibar]

I say Duress!!!

The problem with people playing Paladin is that they are too much rule lawyering. If O'Chul told the truth (assuming he knows) he is aiding evil and thus would fall. OR he could like and don't help evil and he "may fall" lesser of two evil :)

[Eric]

I have to quote the code again:
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)...


Is that an example of what acting with honour with, or the definitive list?

I would say what paladins HAVE to do is act with HONOUR. Lying is an example of a dishonourable act, but that doesn't say ALL lies are dishonourable. E.g. if you're TOLD to lie by your liege lord, you lie. To fail to lie would be dishonourable.

[Porthos]

I think the perfect comprimise is that under times of great need, and only then, a Paladin can lie.....

..... They just won't be very good at it. :smallwink:
===================================
I forget who posted this the last time we were studying the Paladin COde as if it were a 50,000 page legal document, but I'll try to get the gist:

The Paladin Code exists so your Paladin doens't go around stabbing random people in the back, looting the till at the shop when no one is looking, or running around causing mayhem and destruction just for the heck of it. The Code does not exist so it can be controted and twisted to screw over a player who is trying to do the Right, Just, and Noble thing. The Paladin Code exists so people act Good, Just, and Honorable when they play that class.

In the immortal words of Tony Kornheiser, That's it. That's the list. :smallcool:

So when people try to parse situations and say, "Aha!" *points finger* "The Paladin just told a minor fib so the the Soul Eating Demon wouldn't escape!1! He should Fall," or "Aha!" *points finger* "The Paladin is working with a hardened criminal as they try to recapture the town and free her Liege Lord from enslavement. She should Fall11!," are spectacularly missing the point of the Code and the Class.

There are reasons the rules exist. A good DM and/or player should try to figure out why they exist and use that reasoning to adjudicate Hard Cases, instead of blindly following them to the Illogical Extreme.

At least IMO. :smallsmile:

[Animefunkmaster]

I am holding out that O-Chul is a very good liar and has a high charisma. I feel that he was trying to make Redcloak think he was lying.


A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe.

He could be giving away real info or not, it doesn't matter. I think he wants Redcloak to think he was lying. It is sort of like intentionally trying to fail. I think he said Charisma is a dump stat to better corroborate his story. I also feel he must have HOT saves.

[The Wanderer]

I feel that he was trying to make Redcloak think he was lying.

*Sigh*

Okay, let me see if I've got your reasoning straight here. O-Chul is so moved by the potential death and soul destruction of the innocent prisoners that he divulges information about Girard's Gate, (after four months of repeated torture, truth spells, and mind readings failed to find that he knew anything about it) which would in turn indicate that he has violated the Sapphire's Guard's oath not to interfere with the other Gates and put the rest of the world in danger by giving that information to Team Evil.

But he tells it in a way that Recloak will believe that he is lying... which would presumably have caused Redcloak to toss those people anyway. So what was the point of even speaking?!! (Besides rules lawyering an attempt to avoid a fall).

And even if he wasn't lying then, that means he would have lied repeatedly afterwards in saying that he knew nothing about the Gate and couldn't tell Redcloak things he didn't know. So he lied. Get over it.

And people are accusing Redcloak of bad logic in the forum... :smallannoyed:

[hamishspence]

Hard part is when two things come into conflict: Respect legitimate authority and Do not Commit an Evil act. Or various others.

That said, agree totally with the idea that DMs should not try to force the paladin to fall. Force them to make hard decisions, yes, but there should always be an option, even if its a difficult one.

At least one 3rd party supplement (quintessennial paladin 2) went through the whole code, bit by bit, with each tenet rated for level of importance, and constructed a system showing levels of breach, and aggravating or mitigating factors, with one mitigating factor being breaking minor tenet to keep major one. And only the more severe breaches cause a true Fall, with lesser ones merely causing temporary loss of one or more abilities.

Sadly, would be too complex for most gamers to adopt wholesale. Still, these make good ideas for DMs who do not like punishing paladins severely: Have a scale of effects with Fall being the worst. Have mitigating and aggravating factors. Be generous to players who want code to be more detailed, etc.

[Digitized]

I honestly do not think O'Chul was lying.

Need to remember he has been with Xykon and Redcloak for a few months atleast, so I'm sure there's some things he has overheard or seen between the two.

[Krenn]

I don't see lying as having any inherent alignment.

On the law-chaos axis of alignment, i see that as being mainly a matter of ORGANIZATION.

Lawful characters try to further their world views by creating organizations for that purpose. IF such an organization already exists, they will probably join it. Organizations are USEFULL THINGS. it is very important that organizations be deffered to and reinforced at every opportunity. organizations GET THINGS DONE. Sabotaging an organization is EXTREMELY RUDE.

Laws are a form of organization. Laws are basically a way to organize morality, property rights, justice, etc, etc.

A lawfull character will follow laws, INSOFAR as those laws were written to organize people towards things the lawfull character agrees with it. If the character agrees that people should have property rights, he will do his level best to observe any and all local laws that reinforce property rights. He probably thinks that if HE wrote the laws, he could do a better job, but the important thing is that SOME kind of organization for that purpose exists.

if the lawfull character sees laws that serve a purpose he disagrees with, he will try to REPLACE the laws. however, if POSSIBLE, he will try to avoid simply destroying the current laws and then leaving a power vacuum. Lawfull characters HATE power vacuums. When he breaks a law, he will generaly argue that is the WRONG law, or a law which violates a higher law, or a law that is being abused towards some mistaken purpose. He will never argue that there SHOULDN'T be laws, or that people should be able to just ignore law at will.

If a character encounters a law which serves a purpose he is neutral about, he will generally obey the law just to be polite, and will only disobey it if given no other choice, in order to further the mission of his own organization. (or if the law is preventing him from following a higher law)

A lawfull character solves moral dillemas by working out which laws have precedence, what his organization would expect him to do, how he can act without inadverntly sabotaging his own organization, etc.

Chaotic characters are just the opposite: they LIKE power vacuums. they don't want ANY significant organization, because they think that organizations are more about furthering themselves that about achieving any actual goals. If a chaotic character is faced with a moral dillemna, they will try to solve the dilemna on the merits placed before them. If that means violating precedent, disregarding lawfull authority, sabotaging organations... so much the better.

Lying is not inherently about order or chaos. If you lie in order to strengthen or serve an organization, then you're being lawfull. If you lie in order to sabotage or decieve an organization, particularly an organization with the same ultimate goals as yours, then you're being chaotic.

the only reason a lawfull character wouldn't be able to lie would be if the stated policy of his organization forbade lying of all sorts, said policy being written in order to ultimatly increase trust in the organization or otherwise serve it's purposes.

good and evil are a little harder to define, but once again, unless your serving the deity of truth, lying in order to further a good cause is probably acceptable, as long as the lie is not harmfull to innocents.

Lying in order to further an evil cause is always acceptable, for those of evil alignments.

[Remirach]

I thought the joke about how O-Chul was "the worst liar in the world" was because he hadn't just failed a bluff but made a critical failure -- which would make sense, given that Charisma was his dump stat and Wisdom is RC's most likely highest score. It wasn't some elaborate trick to tell the truth but make RC think it was a lie -- he just really, really sucked at lying against someone who'd be tough to trick in the first place.

[Laurentio]

I honestly do not think O'Chul was lying.

Need to remember he has been with Xykon and Redcloak for a few months atleast, so I'm sure there's some things he has overheard or seen between the two.
I don't get it. You suppose O-Chul got from Xykon and Reclock the very same information that they are searching from him?

Anyway, O-Chul lie is a fact. He said an info, and later admitted that it was a lie. Now, or he was right the first time and lied later, of lied the first time and was honest admitting later.
Any way, still a lie. So he lied. And didn't fell. Does this say something on Paladins? No! It's say something on OotS' Paladins, as worked by the Giant.

But did SOMEONE ever read this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0282.html)?

Laurentio

[Roderick_BR]

Did O-Chul really lie back there? The paladin code strictly forbids lying...
Hmm... Question: If paladins are completely and deliberatelly forbidding from liying, even fibbing... why do they have a spell called Undetectable Alignment in their spell list?

*NPC wizard casts detect good, looking for spys and finds nothing.
NPC wizard: Hmm... are you a warrior that fights for justice?
Paladin (no longer) in disguise: ... yes

I see fibs as small misdirections. A paladin CAN tell the villain that the army will arrive soon... he just didn't say they'll take some days to arrive. A paladin CAN pretend he said a lie, as long as he didn't say it directly (I thought that charisma was a good dump). A paladin CAN give confusing information (there are ilusions, and riddles), he may have just made up something he thinks MAY be there. O-Chul doesn't know if there are actual riddles, but he didn't read anywhere they are not there.
Now, any kind of deliberate lie, specially for his own benefits, like saying he's on an official church quest to get a discount in the shopping, or tell the BBeG that he killed his son to distract him when he never even saw the kid (Wolverine did it once in a comic), would be forbidden.
Heck, lies should be the kind of thing that would warrant a small punishment, like loss of powers or spells, not a "you lose all your paladin abilities, and will need a high level cleric to cast Attonement on you".

[hamishspence]

Quintessenial Paladin II by Mongoose Publishing did have such a system, with aggravating factors, mitigating factors, etc, and more detailed version of code. But it didn't always match Exalted.

on lying it was: "only when no other valid option permits itself, only when telling the truth would be an evil act, and ideally, should consult with a moral guide before doing so" (not possible here) It also said concealing identity was only valid when protecting self or others from evil. Lie to get into bad guys castle for example, yes. Lie for less good reason, no.

[Darakonis]

*NPC wizard casts detect good, looking for spys and finds nothing.
NPC wizard: Hmm... are you a warrior that fights for justice?
Paladin (no longer) in disguise: ... yes
Just because he can't lie, doesn't mean he has to say the truth. He can either remain silent, or give some quasi-cryptic answer, as you further suggested.

NPC wizard: "Hmm... are you a warrior that fights for justice?"
In fact, he can instead offer a different truth: "I am a simple man, with simple goals."

The paladin isn't lying - he is not denying that he is a warrior that fights for justice. Upholding justice an honor is a pretty simple goal - hard to carry out, but it's a very clear and simple goal. He's just not really answering the question - but there is nothing in that paladin code that says he must answer any question posed to him.

This borders on dishonesty, but I think this is the type of borderline dishonesty that is acceptable for a paladin.

[Alaska Fan]

Robert Heinlein wrote that there were three kinds of lying:

1. Simply saying things that aren't true.
2. Mixing in true things with untrue things for credibility.
3. Telling the truth, but doing it so unconvincingly that the listener thinks you are lying.

Heinlein says the third kind is the hardest, but the most convincing. If O-Chul is telling a type 3 fib, then his comment on dump stats served to reinforce RC's perception.

Alaska Fan

[Callista]

It's not a smart strategy in this case, though. If RC were to find any indication that matched up with O-Chul's "lie", he'd immediately begin to wonder whether it might not have been true after all--and that's the worst possible outcome. If you're LG and you have to do something borderline-dishonorable or dangerously close to letting Evil have its way, you choose the dishonorable act.

Doesn't it say something for the Paladins' reputation that Redcloak didn't know for sure that O-Chul didn't know anything, despite months of torture and mind-reading, until he maintained his position when innocents were threatened?