paladin lie

[paladinlady]

can paladins lie ever:smallconfused:

[Morty]

And the can of worms have been opened. Anyway, my opinion is: they can if it leads to greater good and doesn't cause anyone's suffering.

[Spiryt]

Why shouldn't they, If it doesn't harm anyone?

Depends on the scale of the lie.

And yes, this is probably going to be a massacre.

[FMArthur]

Naw, their whole concept is based on being rigidly and inconveniently strict about codes of conduct, even if there is no other way out of a situation. Remember, Paladins don't have fear.

[SadisticFishing]

Paladins don't have fear.

Being immune to Fear effects is NOT the same thing as not feeling Fear.

Depends on your DM. Discussion over... please? >_<

Personally, I'd say it depends on the player, and it's up to you how rigid your code is. But don't listen to me, *I* like 4e.

[fractic]

It depends on how far the stick is shoved up their ass. After a certain distance it hits a pressure point and it becomes physically impossible for the paladin to lie.

[ericgrau]

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.


There, done. The specifics - what counts as a lie, whether just one is enough, etc. - are completely up to your DM.

[Saph]

And yes, this is probably going to be a massacre.

Possibly, but if we're just answering the OP's direct question, it's fairly simple.

If we're talking 4e paladins, the answer is yes. Or as much as any other character can, anyway.

If we're talking 3.5 paladins, the answer is no, at least not frequently, as it's against the Paladin's Code. Here's the link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm).

That's about it. Whether you like the 3.5 paladin's code or the 4e makeover is a completely different can of worms, but also a sidetrack.

- Saph

[Spiryt]

Being immune to Fear effects is NOT the same thing as not feeling Fear.

Depends on your DM. Discussion over... please? >_<

Personally, I'd say it depends on the player, and it's up to you how rigid your code is. But don't listen to me, *I* like 4e.

Indeed. It's not some sick don't feeling fear at all. It's just not being defeated by it.

You can call it Gods gift, or just that Paladin are bravest of the brave sir Robins.

Anyway, personally I would homebrew it to some massive bonus. Total fear immunity is indeed dumb, it's should still be possible to scare the hell out of Pal.

[Tingel]

Not every moral law a paladin has vowed to abide by is of equal importance - moral laws never are. Nobody can honestly believe that "You shall not litter" and "You shall not commit murder" are of equal dignity, and yet both are laws worth of observing.

While the paladin must do his best not to break any part of his code, he is not only allowed to break certain rules, no, he must break certain rules if that is the only way to act in accordance to a law ranked higher than the one in question. That is basic Lawful Good reasoning.

Example:
Among the laws in the paladin's code are both "You shall not lie" and "You shall protect innocent life", with the latter having a higher dignity than the former. If the paladin finds himself in a situation in which telling the truth would (to the best of his judgment) lead to the certain death of innocents, then he is morally obliged to lie (under the assumption of a tertium non datur situation).

Frivolous lying or lying for personal gain is of course out of the question for a paladin.

[holywhippet]

Example:
Among the laws in the paladin's code are both "You shall not lie" and "You shall protect innocent life", with the latter having a higher dignity than the former. If the paladin finds himself in a situation in which telling the truth would (to the best of his judgment) lead to the certain death of innocents, then he is morally obliged to lie (under the assumption of a tertium non datur situation).


Under those circumstances a paladin would be better served just not to say anything. Vowing never to lie doesn't mean you'll always give an answer.

[Ecalsneerg]

I'd say:

If you want to play a paladin, discuss the oath in-depth before play. Write down explicitly what you can and cannot do and both you and the DM sould bear this agreed-upon code in mind. Therefore, some paladins can lie for a good cause, some will just stay silent.

Believe me, this method prevents a lot of arguments.

[Tingel]

Apparently you either missed or you didn't fully understand what I meant with "tertium non datur". In this hypothetical situation of mine there is no option besides lying and telling the truth.

Such a scenario is not purely hypothetical, by the way. Imagine yourself hiding a Jewish family in your cellar in Nazi Germany, and the Gestapo is at the door asking whether or not there are Jews in your house. Simply not answering the question will obviously lead to a search of your house by the Gestapo, so the result is the same as telling the truth. Lying is the only way to save the lives of the innocents in your cellar, so as a good paladin that's what you have to do.

Lying is still a sin, even it that situation, but abandoning the innocent by telling the truth would be a much greater sin. The right course of action is thus obvious.

[Greg]

I would say to agree a code with your DM before you start playing.

[Andras]

By RAW, as stated already, lying is prohibited.

I usually discuss the code with players if they want to play one in one of my games, because Paladins played by RAW don't generally jive with the playstyles of most people I know.

[bosssmiley]

can paladins lie ever :smallconfused:

Nope. They can't. It's right there in their code.

A paladin can't say "Sorry, ain't seen 'em. They ain't here" when the Knights of the Order of Hextor's Flail come for members of this month's chosen hate group that the paladin has hidden in the cellar crawl space. He/she can dodge the question by saying something like: "Your campaign of persecution is wrong and I want no part of it", but a paladin doesn't have the luxury of hiding behind white lies.

"There are two paths in life: one is easy, and that is its' only reward." :smallamused:

[John Campbell]

The other relevant bit, that several people here are overlooking, is this:

Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies).
(emphasis mine)

As pointed out already, "Thou shalt not lie," is there in the paladin code of conduct, so lying is a violation of the code of conduct. But paladins don't fall for mere simple violations of the code of conduct. They fall only for gross violations.

Now, exactly where the line lies between a simple violation of the code of conduct and a gross violation of the code of conduct is, to large degree, a matter of opinion. However, I would submit that, at one extreme, lying to prevent some great evil that the paladin has no other means of preventing is not, by any reasonable standard, a gross violation of the code.

So, yeah, paladins can lie. They can even lie and keep their paladinhood. They should avoid it if they can, but in some circumstances it's not only an allowed thing to do, but might even be the required thing to do.

I'd also submit that, if you find yourself in those circumstances, and with a DM who doesn't follow reasonable standards, the right thing to do is lie and take the fall. You can atone after you've saved the Jews. Being Good is more important than being Lawful, and doing the right thing is more important than following the rules.

[Saph]

Such a scenario is not purely hypothetical, by the way. Imagine yourself hiding a Jewish family in your cellar in Nazi Germany, and the Gestapo is at the door asking whether or not there are Jews in your house. Simply not answering the question will obviously lead to a search of your house by the Gestapo, so the result is the same as telling the truth. Lying is the only way to save the lives of the innocents in your cellar, so as a good paladin that's what you have to do.

Actually, what a paladin would probably do in that situation would be:

Gestapo: "Are there any Jews in your house?"
Paladin: "SMITE EVIL!" *kills the first one, then wades into the others*

Any encounter between a Paladin and the Gestapo is almost certainly going to end in a fight anyway, so you might as well take the opportunity of a good straight line and speed up to the inevitable conclusion. Besides, if the DM's putting a Paladin and a squad of Gestapo within talking distance of each other, then he's not expecting a peaceful resolution unless he's a complete idiot.

This is why binary moral dilemmas don't work in D&D. The players will always come up with a third option.

- Saph

[Vexxation]

While a paladin ought not lie too much or risk losing Paladinhood, they can just dodge questions they don't like. Answer a question with a question, or something that sounds like an answer but isn't. I'll take the "Knights of Hextor" example.

Knight: "We heard there are disgusting [target group]s in your home! Is that true?!"
Paladin: "Your time would be better spent elsewhere."

It's true, it would be better spent not trying to murder innocents. In addition, the clerics, knowing Paladins "cannot lie" would likely be persuaded that he was being truthful, because, really, he is.

[John Campbell]

Actually, what a paladin would probably do in that situation would be:

Gestapo: "Are there any Jews in your house?"
Paladin: "SMITE EVIL!" *kills the first one, then wades into the others*

And then the Gestapo, with their numerical advantage and ability to call for practically unlimited backup, kill the paladin - not without casualties of their own, certainly, but eventually and inevitably - and, taking the attack as the admission of guilt that it is, thoroughly search the house, find the Jews, and kill them too.

Congratulations, your paladin's arrogant, selfish desire to do the "honorable" thing rather than the right thing has just killed a family of innocents that you could have saved.

[Prophaniti]

I agree with John Campbell, mostly. By 3.5 RAW a lie, ANY lie, is a violation of the paladin's code. That doesn't mean they'll immediately fall or become blackguards. Lies would mostly only merit slight chastisement or a stern talking-to by their superiors. The lies would have to be pointless, flagrant, compulsive, or some combination thereof to warrant more serious action. Or, to cite the ever-popular Nazi example, the paladin has two obvious courses of action that would work, and actually both are slight violations of his code.

A) He leaps on them and kills as many as he can before they take him down. In this instance, he is actually causing just as much trouble for the hiding jews as if he reveals their presence, as the house is certain to be searched afterwards. He dies fighting evil, definitely a good thing, but he dooms innocents in the process, definitely a bad thing.
B) He lies. In this case, he does violate his code, but only in a minor way and for the purpose of saving innocents. If the Gestapo believe him (how many ranks in bluff do you think he has?) then all is well and he reports the violation to his superiors, humbly accepting any punishment they feel necessary and moves on with his life. If not, then he's really only left with option A, the only obvious route that still serves good.

Option A is definitely the Lawful Stupid route which, while technically a good path, does not keep the spirit of the paladin's code, only the letter. Remember, a paladin is a champion of good who agrees to follow a certain code. If he must violate the code to do good then he does so, and accepts the consequences of that violation. When the code becomes more important than the good, he's no more a paladin in my book than a Lawful Evil Knight is. All that matters to him is the code, too. That's how I DM it.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Paladin's spouse: Does these pants make me look fat?
Paladin: Ehhh, the scales of justice are unbalanced.
Paladin's spouse: Are you calling me a pig?
Paladin: Ehhh, I love the smell of bacon in the morning.
...


Hence, why paladin's rarely marry and those that do rarely stays paladins.

[Saph]

And then the Gestapo, with their numerical advantage and ability to call for practically unlimited backup, kill the paladin - not without casualties of their own, certainly, but eventually and inevitably - and, taking the attack as the admission of guilt that it is, thoroughly search the house, find the Jews, and kill them too.

Congratulations, your paladin's arrogant, selfish desire to do the "honorable" thing rather than the right thing has just killed a family of innocents that you could have saved.

'My' paladin?

As for 'arrogant', I think perhaps you ought to re-examine your assumption that the Gestapo are going to unquestioningly believe everything your paladin says, along with your assumption that the PCs can't possibly defeat the encounter - if they're unbeatable, why is the DM using this encounter, given that he knows one failed skill check would lead to a fight?

What you and Tingel are doing is setting up the artificial binary choice that's so popular in ethics arguments - trying to reduce a situation to only two options, of which one is unthinkable and one is what you want them to pick. In actual practice, in any well-run D&D game, there are multiple ways to deal with an encounter. In the above example, the PCs could a) take the hiding people out the back door to a new location, b) make the house look abandoned, c) spot the Gestapo before they show up at the door and take preventative action then, or d) - and this is a novel one here - send someone other than the paladin to do a job that involves deception and lying.

And, seriously, a paladin? A D&D paladin? Owning a house in Nazi Germany, and being questioned by the Gestapo? How can you even keep a straight face with this? It's like asking whether tyrannosaurs are better at flying F-15s or Sopwith Camels.

- Saph

[Vexxation]

It's like asking whether tyrannosaurs are better at flying F-15s or Sopwith Camels.

- Saph

I had to.
I really had to.
(http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g15/mmmoreos/T-rexonaplane.jpg)

[monty]

Yes, a paladin can lie. Being under the code does not put a permanent Zone of Truth on them. Yes, if they lie, they can fall, but if it is for a greater Good or Lawful cause, they probably won't.

[Tingel]

What you and Tingel are doing is setting up the artificial binary choice that's so popular in ethics arguments - trying to reduce a situation to only two options, of which one is unthinkable and one is what you want them to pick. In actual practice, in any well-run D&D game, there are multiple ways to deal with an encounter. In the above example, the PCs could a) take the hiding people out the back door to a new location, b) make the house look abandoned, c) spot the Gestapo before they show up at the door and take preventative action then, or d) - and this is a novel one here - send someone other than the paladin to do a job that involves deception and lying.

And, seriously, a paladin? A D&D paladin? Owning a house in Nazi Germany, and being questioned by the Gestapo? How can you even keep a straight face with this?

The position I hold (my concept of a scaled dignity of laws in the paladin code) can be found in my first post, Saph. The Gestapo scenario was just an attempt to illustrate. It is just a thought experiment, and by design a tertium non datur dilemma.


By the way: Your option b ("make the house look abandoned") would still be an act of deception, so it wouldn't make any difference.

[Prophaniti]

Saph makes a good point. While Nazis are always a popular example in an ethics debate, and that particular scenario can be fun to think through, it is most definitely guilty of the either-or fallacy, or False Dilema, of debate.

[Tingel]

Saph makes a good point. While Nazis are always a popular example in an ethics debate, and that particular scenario can be fun to think through, it is most definitely guilty of the either-or fallacy, or 'False Dilema' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma), of debate.

The "false dilemma" you speak of only applies to reality, not to thought experiments. My Gestapo story was only an attempt to illustrate my point - it never was supposed to describe a complete and realistic situation. It is therefore an artificial, but not a false dilemma.
Thus finding alternative solutions to the Gestapo problem (solutions beyond the two I offered) might be clever, but it is not useful. After all, there might always be a situation when a paladin cnanot think of anything else but lying to save innocent lives - and what interests us is whether or not it is the right choice to lie then.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Ever heard of the Aes Sedai from Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series? They're magically bound to never lie. But that doesn't mean anything, usually, because an Aes Sedai will twist truth with a gusto unknown to any other human being. It's like the Oracle. You have to be very specific and get a straight answer to be sure of what you're getting.

[Vexxation]

After all, there might always be a situation when a paladin cnanot think of anything else but lying to save innocent lives - and what interests us is whether or not it is the right choice to lie then.

The answer is yes.
The paladin should always look at other lives as more sacred than his own, and by extension more sacred than his status as paladin. He should look at it as his duty, nay, as an honor, to sacrifice his own power for the benefits of others.

He should be willing to do what is needed to save lives over what would be in his own best interest. If anything, a god should look upon selfless sacrifice of his paladinhood as one of the greatest goods he could achieve, and, were I said god, restore his status as paladin.

Basically, he breaks his oath to save lives. In the harshest of situations, BAM! Falls. Divine influence sees what he did, get's all weepy and loving, and restores him. BAM! Back to normal.

[wodan46]

They can lie just fine in 4e. All they have to do is follow their god's commandments and/or their alignment, with unspecified bad things happening if they fail to do either.

[RagnaroksChosen]

I think it Depends on the paladin... I think that it adds to the game to have the different types of paladins, ones that skirt the edge of falling by being over zealous, or slightly corrupt..

Adds more depth, I think that a paladin should know when we breaks his code... if he does out of nessesity he still broke it. I had one character in a game refuse to use any of his paladin abilities because he felt like he violated his code because he lied to save some one. and he went on his own atonement quest. I disagreed with his decision but went with it because i thought it was some good RP.. that same story i had one of his Superiors fall because he Slaughtered a town that was harboring cultists...(99% of the town was harboring them) the player was more of a philisophical paladin then a zelous one... vary saintly if i may say so... One of the best paladins i've ever seen played.

[Prophaniti]

After all, there might always be a situation when a paladin cnanot think of anything else but lying to save innocent lives - and what interests us is whether or not it is the right choice to lie then.Fair enough. I've already made my stand on that, in the last paragraph of one of my posts. When the letter of the code becomes more important than the ideals that inspired it, they are no more a paladin than a LE Knight, since Knights also follow an arbitrary code to the letter. Indeed, if a paladin continually makes decisions based on the letter of his code and not the spirit, I, as a DM, would gradually shift their alignment toward Lawful Neutral, and they would eventually fall.

The paladin should of course be hesitant to violate his oaths, look for alternatives, and accept whatever penalties are required for the violation, but no paladin worthy of his title would watch the cause of evil advance and innocents suffer just to keep the letter of his oath. That's my opinion. If asked for a RAW interpretation, I would cite the same part that someone did earlier, which states that a paladin only falls for severe violations of his code. It would take some pretty convoluted circumstances for a lie to constitute a severe violation.

[Starbuck_II]

Fair enough. I've already made my stand on that, in the last paragraph of one of my posts. When the letter of the code becomes more important than the ideals that inspired it, they are no more a paladin than a LE Knight, since Knights also follow an arbitrary code to the letter. Indeed, if a paladin continually makes decisions based on the letter of his code and not the spirit, I, as a DM, would gradually shift their alignment toward Lawful Neutral, and they would eventually fall.

Isn't that unfairly mean?
What if the player follows the code because if he doesn't he wil fall. Why punish him for following his code? Isn't that a Paladin trap?



The paladin should of course be hesitant to violate his oaths, look for alternatives, and accept whatever penalties are required for the violation, but no paladin worthy of his title would watch the cause of evil advance and innocents suffer just to keep the letter of his oath. That's my opinion. If asked for a RAW interpretation, I would cite the same part that someone did earlier, which states that a paladin only falls for severe violations of his code. It would take some pretty convoluted circumstances for a lie to constitute a severe violation.
Oh, good, you don't mean your that strict.

[monty]

Isn't that unfairly mean?
What if the player follows the code because if he doesn't he wil fall. Why punish him for following his code? Isn't that a Paladin trap?

If you follow the code to avoid falling, then you aren't roleplaying a paladin properly and should fall.

[Prophaniti]

Pretty much what monty said, and yeah, I don't drop paladins for minor violations, though in order for the violation to remain minor, they would have to report it to their superiors and accept whatever disciplinary action is deemed appropriate.

[Doomsy]

If you guys are going to be that specific about the paladins code, then this is it.

"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."

This leaves room for all sorts of atrocities that are perfectly acceptable. Not to mention the Book of Exalted Deeds or whatever does allow paladins to use poisons under a different name. Since that is actually part of the rules, it must be assumed that paladins CAN use poison as long as they don't call it poison. That makes all of the above pretty moot to begin, since it means the whole thing is either terribly generalized or horribly, horribly specific. As in,"I can kill the king because the shadowy person behind the throne told me he was the REAL king and if I don't use detect evil or investigate ANY further it is perfectly fine according to my code" style of specific.

The code is essentially NOT a rule. Why? It is completely generalized. Not lying simply means not telling a direct lie to someone. You can shade, chop, boil, skin, and steam the truth all you want as long as you do not falsify it. No where does it say you have to correct someone in mistaken views, and actually it countermands DIRECTLY with the 'provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends' addendum. If a paladin misleads (note, does not lie) an evil enemy they are under the codes direction to NOT help them by showing the falseness of that belief. In other words, as written, it would be more wrong to help the enemy by giving them correctly worded information then to mislead them by letting them believe carefully shaded words.

I'm not even going to mention various other contradictions inherent in that oath. You could rules lawyer it for days. Fact is it was just a generalized fantasy schmiel that some people like to take as Word of God when it is more likely the original writers just wanted to add more flavor to the class and give it some more structure.

Screw RAW in this case. Go with the 4E system, or write down an actual code that is not so vague if your DM wants to play Smack The Ethics with you.

[Vexxation]

Pretty much what monty said, and yeah, I don't drop paladins for minor violations, though in order for the violation to remain minor, they would have to report it to their superiors and accept whatever disciplinary action is deemed appropriate.

That's rather funny to think about from a superior's point of view.
Imagine, the Paladin has been off on some task or adventure. He's been gone a year.

"Sir Twoshoes, welcome home. What have you to report on the operations of Evil McBandersnatch?"
"My liege, I bear a grim report..."
[Goody slams a large, leather-bound book upon his commander's desk. He opens it and begins to read aloud.]
"I now report my transgressions and their circumstances that I might be meted the punishment fitting. On October the Twelfth, I was forced to tell an untruth to protect the life of a little girl being hunted by minions of McBandersnatch. On October the Thirteenth I again told an untruth to the same minions, this time swearing I did not tell an untruth on the previous day."
[The commander interrupts him]
"Goody, just how long is this report of yours?"
"About two hundred pages. Maybe upwards of two-hundred fifty. You should sit down and keep count. We're in for a long night."
"...*sigh*"
"On November the Fourth I believe I may have broken a littering law. It was a hindsight, as I am not sure whether or not dumping my drink constituted littering, nor whether littering was legislated against in the town we were staying in. Still, I thought it best to include it, just to be safe."
[The Commander now begins silently sobbing, wishing he had a deadly task for Sir Twoshoes]

[Prophaniti]

That example makes me like my approach even more, Vexxation, thanks for the laugh.

[Lemur]

It's more important to uphold the spirit of the code than the word. A paladin wouldn't lie unless it was impossible to give a half-truth or create some other deception, and they wouldn't try to be deceptive in the first place unless the consequences of not doing so were dire enough. If you're going to force a paladin to choose between lying and endangering innocent lives (and for some reason the paladin is unable to start kicking ass instead), a good paladin would choose deception.

Paladins are people, not robots (unless they're warforged :smalltongue:). Even Gawain, an archetypal paladin, falters in his chivalry because he values his life. Paladins need to be judged on whether they act suitably paladiny, not on unique technicalities.


And then the Gestapo, with their numerical advantage and ability to call for practically unlimited backup, kill the paladin - not without casualties of their own, certainly, but eventually and inevitably - and, taking the attack as the admission of guilt that it is, thoroughly search the house, find the Jews, and kill them too.

Congratulations, your paladin's arrogant, selfish desire to do the "honorable" thing rather than the right thing has just killed a family of innocents that you could have saved.

Wait, what? Unlimited backup? I don't think so, haven't you ever seen any Indiana Jones movies? Nazis are incompetent when dealing with heroes (especially paladin types) since they're used to individuals being cowed by them. The problem with this response is that it's basically a DM smite. If the Nazis can call in unlimited numbers because the paladin did the "wrong" thing, that's called railroading, and the fault is with the game master, not the paladin.

I mean, as long as we're discussing pigs flying, we have to take their areodynamics into account.



And, seriously, a paladin? A D&D paladin? Owning a house in Nazi Germany, and being questioned by the Gestapo? How can you even keep a straight face with this? It's like asking whether tyrannosaurs are better at flying F-15s or Sopwith Camels.

They're better with the F-15, on account of it being more similar to the F-14, the tyrannosaur's fighter aircraft of choice.

[kpenguin]

In order to even start this debate, we must first define what "lying" means. One could assume, for instance, that a paladin may not rest with his back to the ground, since that is one definition of the word "lie".

I assume we're using the verb form of lie and the definition that deals with falsities:

From Merriam-Webster


Main Entry:
3lie
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
lied; ly·ing Listen to the pronunciation of lying \ˈlī-iŋ\
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English lēogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lŭgati
Date:
before 12th century

intransitive verb 1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive 2 : to create a false or misleading impression transitive verb : to bring about by telling lies <lied his way out of trouble>

Alright, so, do we take definition 1 or definition 2?

[Kiara LeSabre]

Honor -- true, uncompromising honor -- is usually poorly understood, I find. It seems to most people like fanaticism, and it could even be called a kind of fanaticism ... and I say that without shame as a person who nevertheless strives to live according to a particular code of honor in my own life.

It's necessary to be clear on what kind of honor you're discussing, of course. Bushido isn't exactly like Chivalry, for example. However, there are common threads, and real honor doesn't allow a lot of wiggle room to squirm out of your stated obligations. That's the way of lawyers seeking loopholes. If you're even looking for those loopholes, you've already proven you aren't serious about it.

Where a code of honor demands that you do not lie (and, for example, Chivalry did exactly that), this means you do not lie even if it's in your best personal interests to lie. It means your word is Solid Gold, and if you're smart, you don't give your word often precisely because when you do, it's as ironclad to you as the most binding contract.

Now if you find yourself in a situation where your code is challenged by a situation that forces you to violate it in some way no matter what you do? If, for example, you are not to lie, but you are also to defend the weak, and in this particular instance, you find that the only way to defend the weak is to tell a lie? Tough one. You might go ahead and tell that lie (lesser of two evils), but you should also feel rather unclean and unhappy about it after.

If you don't, you aren't a person of true honor, even if you think you are. You might be a very good and wonderful person, but you are not a person of honor.

So, getting back to paladins, it of course depends entirely on what you mean when you say "paladin." In 4e, "paladin" can mean many things, so the answer can be many things. In 3.x, not so much.

[Prophaniti]

Well, for a paladin code, I would probably take both definitions. Any deception or duplicity would be a violation, though again it would take a great (or a great deal of) deception for me to even consider serious consequences, especially if a good end is served by it.

*snip because it's right above mine*
That's why I use the approach of a paladin being able to violate his code when necessary for good, so long as he explores other options first and is willing to accept responsibility and possible punishment for said violation.

[Vexxation]

Now if you find yourself in a situation where your code is challenged by a situation that forces you to violate it in some way no matter what you do? If, for example, you are not to lie, but you are also to defend the weak, and in this particular instance, you find that the only way to defend the weak is to tell a lie? Tough one. You might go ahead and tell that lie (lesser of two evils), but you should also feel rather unclean and unhappy about it after.

It all boils down to one question:
"Which do you value more?"
Do you care more about your honor?
Do you care more about defending the weak?

If the first, well... You just aren't a paladin. Not the way I see them. No, that's arrogance and selfishness, to believe that your honor is on par or above those peoples' lives.

If the second, you're fine. You might feel bad about lying. Sure, lying is bad. But you should be more happy that you saved lives than sad that you told a lie.

[Kiara LeSabre]

It all boils down to one question:
"Which do you value more?"
Do you care more about your honor?
Do you care more about defending the weak?

You're asking the wrong questions. Asking a person of true honor questions like the above makes no sense to him or her, because the answer will be, "I care more about my honor than my life."

But, in the same breath, for someone like a paladin, "... and defending the weak is part of my code of honor!"


If the second, you're fine. You might feel bad about lying. Sure, lying is bad. But you should be more happy that you saved lives than sad that you told a lie.

The feeling is more that you had no choice, but that doesn't mean you have to be happy about it. You did what you had to do, but you still feel tainted by it.

If you run off to throw a cheery little party right after, feeling completely clear of conscience ... no, then you aren't a paladin. Well, not a pre-4e one.

[Kiara LeSabre]

That's why I use the approach of a paladin being able to violate his code when necessary for good, so long as he explores other options first and is willing to accept responsibility and possible punishment for said violation.

Well, again, it's a matter of violating one part of the code in order to not violate another -- that is, there was no way not to violate one of them, so you choose the lesser of two evils. I don't believe a just god would actually punish the paladin for this, as it's not that the paladin was being weasely -- she really had no viable alternative.

The proper purpose of punishment is to instruct and change behavior, and that's pointless when the behavior was really the best the person could possibly have done given the situation.

That's not to say the paladin would, properly, not take responsibility for her actions. She absolutely should, and would.

[Jayabalard]

Imagine yourself hiding a Jewish family in your cellar in Nazi Germany, and the Gestapo is at the door asking whether or not there are Jews in your house. Simply not answering the question will obviously lead to a search of your house by the Gestapo, so the result is the same as telling the truth. Lying is the only way to save the lives of the innocents in your cellar, so as a good paladin that's what you have to do.Interesting... you don't often see someone Godwin themselves on the first page of a paladin thread.


Lying is still a sinSin is kind of a bad word to be throwing around; it has religious connotations that make it impossible to debate on this forum.

[pingcode20]

The way I see it, there are basically multiple 'grades' of infraction, not all of which will result in falling.

First, there's the minor violations of the code - Things which are against the code, but done with good reason, like lying to protect innocents, or catch-22 situations where the Paladin was judged to have acted in good faith. This is the sort of stuff which doesn't warrant falling, so when he gets back to the order he has to perform some menial 'contemplation' task. Several minor violations may well be compounded into just a single punishment.

eg. Paladin lies to prevent secret police from finding innocents.

He does not fall, but afterwards he says 10 Hail Pelors and when he gets back to the order he spends a weekend doing community service.

Having to choose the lesser of two obvious evils rather than looking for a third option would be considered a minor offense (eg. killing a baby to stop a powerful demon from crossing to the Prime), but most likely would be to a greater scale than a lesser infraction. So in this example, said paladin might be called upon to travel abroad to where a temple is being built in dangerous lands, and help construct it and defend it against those who would destroy it.

The watchword here would be spiritual reinforcement as penance, rather than material loss.

Then, there's normal violations of the code - breaking the code unnecessarily, and moments of weakness that result in harm. Everybody can have a bad day, so the paladin doesn't fall for just one or two infractions, but he has to suffer some major form of penance and if he makes it into a habit it may result in a falling offense. The punishment for these still remains in the domain of the order, and the god in question doesn't act directly.

eg. Paladin drinks too much, and gets drawn into a barfight. He has a track record of being level headed, and this is the first time it's happened.

He does not fall, but probably feels guilty about it. Initially, the Paladin would likely compensate the injured parties and make amends. If somebody died as a result of his foolish actions, he would likely be called upon to arrange for a raise dead and further compensate the individual in question. Bungling badly (eg. inadvertently starting a war) would probably be punished on this level, and tasking the paladin in question with cleaning up the mess.

Punishment when he returns to the Order would probably be forfeiting a percentage of his assets, and stripping him of his titles until he completes some form of undertaking in line with the infraction. Since it was only starting a barfight, he would probably be tasked with tracking down some notorious criminal and bringing him to justice at the hands of the city, or something of similar difficulty.

For the most part, a major offense is punished materially.

A falling offense is a gross violation of the code, such as the example earlier in the thread of participating in a massacre of noncombatants, or possibly a grave misstep with catastrophic consequences. For instance, in the infamous Baby/Demon example, if the paladin chose to allow said demon to be released rather than kill a baby, he would fall. Not that there aren't other options - extenuating circumstances might have the paladin's god excuse it as only a major offense, such as it being a demon the paladin could be reasonably sure they could defeat but went out of hand, but say, allowing Demogorgon to walk the Prime rather than sacrifice the life of a baby, the paladin would be given the deific smack on the back of his head for his poor judgement.

These wouldn't be punished materially - the paladin has already lost the grace of his god, and if/when the paladin in question returns to the Order, he would be immediately defrocked, and would be made to do some serious soul-searching, and tasked with some sort of arduous, menial task to perform in the name of his god and meditation with a spiritual advisor. After all, the paladin returning even after being stripped of his powers shows intent to redeem themselves, and every effort is made to help him along that journey.

The reason they're not punitively punished materially is because it's like dealing with a drug addict - if they're found with said substances, they're arrested and punished accordingly. But if they've been found to have overdosed, they skip the punishment step and bring them straight into rehab once the crisis is over. In the case of the Paladin, though, they're greatly weakened while fallen, and other paladins would step in to do damage control if necessary.

Remember that a paladin falling is basically their god deciding that they cannot be trusted with the power invested in them anymore. Falling is a Big Thing, not something to happen and get atoned for quickly.

But I digress. So the fallen paladin would spend anywhere between months and years in soul-searching and restoring their faith in their cause, and when their spiritual advisor judges them ready, the order returns them their sword, and their advisor Atonements them, to go forth on a great quest to restore them to full grace. In the eyes of their deity, they have realised what they have done wrong and are once again worthy of their power, so they have been provisionally granted it again for their quest.

When the paladin returns, victorious, it's also a Big Thing, and there would be a celebration of a paladin who has fallen by the wayside and brought themselves back to grace, and restored fully in title and stature, and likely rewarded similarly on the level of their undertaking - even if restoring their honour was a reward in and of itself, they have achieved something great, and any other paladin who did the same would have been rewarded similarly.

This, of course, would more likely be a social reward (eg. Titles) rather than a material one (eg. Relics). It also assumes a Paladin of some standing - a novitiate who falls would probably be written off as 'not meant to be', or possibly made to redo their training if they insist.

[RebelRogue]

Having to choose the lesser of two obvious evils rather than looking for a third option would be considered a minor offense (eg. killing a baby to stop a powerful demon from crossing to the Prime)
While I absolutely think a paladin should follow the spirit of his code, not necessarily the specific wording (to the degree some people here appearantly like to do it), I think the rules are very specific when it comes to deliberately Evil acts like the killing of a baby: these invariably cause a non-reversable fall! If you deem it the lesser Evil to kill the baby to save the city/land/whatever, so be it, but you're still deliberately committing a clearly Evil act, meaning you'll fall with no chance of regaining paladinhood!

[monty]

While I absolutely think a paladin should follow the spirit of his code, not necessarily the specific wording (to the degree some people here appearantly like to do it), I think the rules are very specific when it comes to deliberately Evil acts like the killing of a baby: these invariably cause a non-reversable fall! If you deem it the lesser Evil to kill the baby to save the city/land/whatever, so be it, but you're still deliberately committing a clearly Evil act, meaning you'll fall with no chance of regaining paladinhood!

There's Lawful Stupid for you. Killing a baby is evil. Not killing a baby, and as a direct result of that action releasing a powerful demon, is EVIL. In cases like these, "the ends justify the means" is a valid argument. No sane god would tolerate a paladin willingly allowing a demon to enter the world.

Also, Atonement. You can always regain your paladinhood; it's just not always easy.

[OneFamiliarFace]

And then the Gestapo, with their numerical advantage and ability to call for practically unlimited backup, kill the paladin - not without casualties of their own, certainly, but eventually and inevitably - and, taking the attack as the admission of guilt that it is, thoroughly search the house, find the Jews, and kill them too.

Congratulations, your paladin's arrogant, selfish desire to do the "honorable" thing rather than the right thing has just killed a family of innocents that you could have saved.

You forget that moments later, the fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric will jump through the windows, soundly finishing off the Gestapo. The paladin's DM should have roughly been able to guess that such would be the actions of the paladin, and so would have put a fair number of Gestapo there for dealing with. And now the paladin's "righteous" actions have also saved the group a lot of time with pesky negotiations.

I imagine the PCs would be contacted just in time by a helpful friend in order to vacate their house before the rest of the Gestapo got there.

Wait...why are we talking about this again?

Edit @baby killing: ps. Since when has not killing a baby ever released a demon into the world? Normally, you HAVE to kill a baby for things like that. If a bad guy sets it up the other way around, then congratulations, the paladin may have to do the right thing and give up his paladin abilities for a while, and the DM is a horrible person. Alternatively, the paladin could save the baby, and then fight the demon, soundly defeating him with his holy powers. (See Ghostbusters 2 for reference.) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097428/plotsummary)

[chiasaur11]

You forget that moments later, the fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric will jump through the windows, soundly finishing off the Gestapo. The paladin's DM should have roughly been able to guess that such would be the actions of the paladin, and so would have put a fair number of Gestapo there for dealing with. And now the paladin's "righteous" actions have also saved the group a lot of time with pesky negotiations.

I imagine the PCs would be contacted just in time by a helpful friend in order to vacate their house before the rest of the Gestapo got there.

Wait...why are we talking about this again?

Edit @baby killing: ps. Since when has not killing a baby ever released a demon into the world? Normally, you HAVE to kill a baby for things like that. If a bad guy sets it up the other way around, then congratulations, the paladin may have to do the right thing and give up his paladin abilities for a while, and the DM is a horrible person. Alternatively, the paladin could save the baby, and then fight the demon, soundly defeating him with his holy powers. (See Ghostbusters 2 for reference.) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097428/plotsummary)

Because everyone likes watching Nazis getting their asses kicked?

[OneFamiliarFace]

Because everyone likes watching Nazis getting their asses kicked?

True. Because any game is more fun when you can kill some Nazis.

[RebelRogue]

Also, Atonement. You can always regain your paladinhood; it's just not always easy.
Nope! Not RAW, anyway. Deliberately and willingly committing an Evil act makes you lose paladinhood permanently.

Edit: Hmm, actually I can't find that in the PHB. Was it changed or have I just been misinformed at some point?

[monty]

Nope! Not RAW, anyway. Deliberately and willingly committing an Evil act makes you lose paladinhood permanently.

Except for


A paladin who...willfully commits an evil act...regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.

The relevant text in Atonement:


A paladin who has lost her class features due to committing an evil act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell.

[Thexare Blademoon]

While a paladin ought not lie too much or risk losing Paladinhood, they can just dodge questions they don't like. Answer a question with a question, or something that sounds like an answer but isn't. I'll take the "Knights of Hextor" example.

Knight: "We heard there are disgusting [target group]s in your home! Is that true?!"

Paladin: "There aren't any disgusting [target group]s, no."
(Knight walks away.)
Paladin: "I don't find them particularly disgusting, myself."

I'd make a terrible Paladin. I have too much fun twisting words. :smallbiggrin:


Also, Paladins vs. Gestapo? Seriously? I don't think we're asking the right questions about that. Namely, would the paladin be smiting evil with a rifle, or are we talking sword-and-plate-armor vs. WWII-era guns?

And which would be more awesome, gunpowder-propelled holy smackdown or a medieval knight killing multiple (mostly) modern soldiers?

[Kiara LeSabre]

Edit @baby killing: ps. Since when has not killing a baby ever released a demon into the world? Normally, you HAVE to kill a baby for things like that. If a bad guy sets it up the other way around, then congratulations, the paladin may have to do the right thing and give up his paladin abilities for a while, and the DM is a horrible person. Alternatively, the paladin could save the baby, and then fight the demon, soundly defeating him with his holy powers. (See Ghostbusters 2 for reference.) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097428/plotsummary)

It looks like someone gets paladins, not to mention heroism in general.

[Kiara LeSabre]

Also, Paladins vs. Gestapo? Seriously?

Do you think that's as bad as it can get?

Any time the subject of paladins, or even honor in general, comes up, there's inevitably at least one person (and often several people) who will craft the most outlandish trap scenarios from which no one could possibly emerge looking good, no matter their beliefs or guiding principles, and which could never possibly happen save in theoretical discussions about scenarios specifically designed to trap people in no-win situations.

[Thexare Blademoon]

I'm fully aware, I've seen it plenty of times here. Read after what you quoted, it was a joke. :smallwink:

[OneFamiliarFace]

It looks like someone gets paladins, not to mention heroism in general.

Everything I know, I learned from Raymond Stantz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Stantz).

And yeah, I think the baby->demon situation would be (and should be) a moral quandry for any class, not just the paladin. Anyone who could kill that baby without a second thought would be a cold-hearted mutha- Don't say that! Come to think of it, even Shaft would probably feel at least a little bad afterwards.

In the comics, The Joker poses these sorts of problems like it is his job, and it kind of is. And the thrust of every one is that it is a difficult choice for the Dark Knight (read "Shadowy Paladin") to make. Fortunately for Batman, his gadgets don't operate based on his adherance to his principles, but he adheres to them nonetheless. Batman, for the record, is like a paladin who will lie but won't kill people. Try THAT one out as a DnD paladin. I'd rather take the no-lying myself.

[kpenguin]

One mooore thing:


A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies)

So, to use the infamous Paladin vs. Gestapo example, let's say the paladin lies and says the Jews aren't in the building.

Is it a:

a) An act that makes the paladin cease to be lawful good? No
b) A willfully committed evil act? Lying isn't considered evil, usually, so no.
c) A gross violation of the code of conduct? Its a violation, but a gross one?

Well, what does gross mean anyway?

From Merriam-Webster:


Main Entry:
1gross Listen to the pronunciation of 1gross
Pronunciation:
\ˈgrōs\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English grosse, from Anglo-French & Late Latin; Anglo-French gros large, thick, whole, from Late Latin grossus coarse
Date:
14th century

1 aarchaic : immediately obvious b (1): glaringly noticeable usually because of inexcusable badness or objectionableness <a gross error> (2): out-and-out, utter <a gross injustice> c: visible without the aid of a microscope
2 a: big, bulky; especially : excessively fat b: growing or spreading with excessive luxuriance
3 a: of, relating to, or dealing with general aspects or broad distinctions b: consisting of an overall total exclusive of deductions <gross income> — compare net
4: made up of material or perceptible elements
5archaic : not fastidious in taste : undiscriminating
6 a: coarse in nature or behavior : unrefined b: gravely deficient in civility or decency : crudely vulgar <merely gross, a scatological rather than a pornographic impropriety — Aldous Huxley> c: inspiring disgust or distaste <that sandwich looks gross>7: deficient in knowledge : ignorant, untutored

So, let's see if the act fits the defintions:
1) Is it glaringly obvious? This thread suggests that it isn't immediately obvious.
2) Is it excessive bulky? Um... lies aren't something physical, so no
3) Is it relating to or dealing with general aspects or broad distinctions? No, its very specific: the Jews are not in this specific building
4) Is it made up of material or perceptible elements? Definitely not.
5) Is it undiscriminating? Um... I'm not sure if that word applies here, so no.
6) Is it coarse in nature or behavior? I suppose that depends on how the paladin delivers it, so no.
7) Is it ignorant or untutored? The paladin knows Jews are in the building, knows who the Gestapo are, and knows that it would be bad to tell the Gestapo the Jews are in the building, so no.

So it appears that a paladin may lie and not fall, at least in that specific situation.

[Kiara LeSabre]

I'm fully aware, I've seen it plenty of times here. Read after what you quoted, it was a joke. :smallwink:

Yes, but I get supremely annoyed with people who do that (present silly scenarios, not make jokes), and I'm busy being annoyed here, okay?? :smalltongue:

[JeminiZero]

Sure Paladins can lie. They do it sometimes, but no one picks up on it. E.g. when a Paladin charges into battle against the BBEG, he may shout something like "I will kill you", when the Paladin knows full well, that he may not land the killing blow (and that its far more likely that it will be the Tippyesque Wizard in the back who wipes the floor with the BEEG).

On the other hand, having your battle cry as "I may kill you provided that you don't escape, I am not prematurely removed from the fight, and the rest of my party (and in particular the Wizard) doesn't kill you first!" is not nearly as catchy or awe inspiring.

[/Crazy Talk]

[pingcode20]

While I absolutely think a paladin should follow the spirit of his code, not necessarily the specific wording (to the degree some people here appearantly like to do it), I think the rules are very specific when it comes to deliberately Evil acts like the killing of a baby: these invariably cause a non-reversable fall! If you deem it the lesser Evil to kill the baby to save the city/land/whatever, so be it, but you're still deliberately committing a clearly Evil act, meaning you'll fall with no chance of regaining paladinhood!

See, I'd argue differently - there's room for 'reasonable doubt'.

It's a poor decision by Paladin terms (he'd get whapped over the back of the head for not looking for a third option), whether it's a falling offense is debatable.

If the death of the baby would prevent all the Lords of the Nine Hells and their armies from flooding through into the material plane, it's a terrible thing to have to do but the paladin would survive with his powers intact. Heck, when I said 'Powerful' I meant 'Could be stopped with dramatic loss of life'

No Paladin-accepting Deity would so punitively punish a paladin if said paladin did such a deed in order to prevent a far greater tragedy - especially if said paladin was sufficiently well informed to know that if Baby =\= dead, catastrophe, but if Baby = dead, no catastrophe for sure, and made such a spot decision to prevent the catastrophe.

...

Alright, screw the dead baby example.

Here's one which illustrates my point just as well. The situation is as such:

If Paladin does Something Really Mean, Something Really Bad won't happen.

If Paladin does not do Something Really Mean, Something Really Bad will happen.

However, there is also A Decidedly Better Option, however, the paladin does not have sufficient information to realise it's existence, due to Unspecified Extenuating Circumstances.

So my argument is this:

If the Something Really Bad isn't all that bad (eg. A demon who the paladin could have a reasonable expectation of killing before it causes too much damage), but it goes downhill afterwards and it causes a lot of damage, it would be considered to be a failing of the Paladin, but would not make the paladin fall.

If the Something Really Bad is along the lines of Has A Reasonable Chance Of Killing Him, The Order, and Quite Possibly The Entire Prime Material As We Know It, and the paladin does Something Really Mean on the grounds that it would cause something that would later be recorded as The Great X Catastrophe, the Paladin would not fall, because while the best choice would have been A Decidedly Better Option, he didn't see it in time and was forced to do Something Really Mean on the spot before it was too late.

Thus, the Paladin would be punished quite strongly, but would not Fall - although he might have A Decidedly Better Option pointed out later by someone with better information, or later investigation.

---

Of course, with my examples, it was with a paladin of stature - in other words, a paladin with a rank other than 'Sir Mook the 3rd of the 27th Holy Heironean Paladin Squad' - those who can rightly be called their respective good deity's 'special forces'.

And again, in my eyes a paladin 'falling' is very much an executive decision from the deity (or at least the deity's celestial bureaucracy) that the paladin has become a liability.

[OneFamiliarFace]

The key here is that the Paladin should never face such a situation, unless it is a primary part of the story. In which case, she should fall, and have her atonement be part of the story as well.

Abitrary codes of behavior forced on a character in a role-playing game by the game itself are rarely, if ever, a good idea, but such was the case with the Paladin. I'm not talking "must be good/evil." I'm talking a code of ethics which resides outside of the normal alignment or moral spectrum the game uses. Be that as it may, the game did indeed impose such restrictions upon the Paladin.

Everyone who plays the game is aware of them, including the DM, whose job it is to set up the encounters involved. And, in interesting campaigns, those encounters should (though sparingly) challenge the ethics and morals of not only the paladin, but the other players as well. The point of the Do Something Bad to To Actually Do Something Good problem is precisely to get at the idea of Moral Dilemma. Do the ends justify the means? In the case of the Paladin, the answer is no.

When people ask, "Would you do something bad for good results or act good with invariably bad results?" The Paladin answers, "No." She would do neither. She would do good which would result in good. And yes, this does, in an uncountable number of stories, lead to the paladin's invariable fall. And that is okay.

So the Paladin would not lie. When presented with a dilemma, she has an answer from which other classes might shy, and that answer is holy righteousness and unshakable faith in one's beliefs. If that doesn't settle with you, then play a fighter! :smalltongue:

[only1doug]

David Gemel is a big fan of giving his characters the moral dilema: do a small evil to prevent a bigger evil.
Invariably his heroic characters do not commit the small evil but instead work to defeat the bigger evil in by other methods. (some of his less heroic characters have made the other choice).

In Heroic fantasy it should always be a evil (and self defeating) act to commit the smaller evil to prevent a bigger evil.


Doug

[only1doug]

Originally Posted by SRD
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.

There, done. The specifics - what counts as a lie, whether just one is enough, etc. - are completely up to your DM.


Apparently you either missed or you didn't fully understand what I meant with "tertium non datur". In this hypothetical situation of mine there is no option besides lying and telling the truth.

Such a scenario is not purely hypothetical, by the way. Imagine yourself hiding a Jewish family in your cellar in Nazi Germany, and the Gestapo is at the door asking whether or not there are Jews in your house. Simply not answering the question will obviously lead to a search of your house by the Gestapo, so the result is the same as telling the truth. Lying is the only way to save the lives of the innocents in your cellar, so as a good paladin that's what you have to do.

Lying is still a sin, even it that situation, but abandoning the innocent by telling the truth would be a much greater sin. The right course of action is thus obvious.

In such a situation the Nazi's should be too busy trying to find the Paladin who is killing their patrols to be looking for mere innocents to kill.
punish those who harm or threaten innocents


As other Posters have stated, you can mislead without lying but that is still against the spirit of the paladin code.

I can forsee the confrontation should the party allow the Paladin to answer the door:

"hi, do you have any Jews? OMG its the Paladin, call for backup while i flee!!!"

Doug

[hamishspence]

Interestingly, the CE fallen paladin in Elaine Cunninghams's FR book Thornhold never lies, but misleads when he wants to. You could have a CE villain who lies never, just as you could have a LG hero who lies in emergencies.

BoVD states that Lying is not automatically Evil, but is Very Risky.
BoED gave the sample of Lie to save the world makes you Fall (should have paid closer attention to BoVD)

If you follow the BoVD version, and define a lie to an evil enemy as non-evil, and a minor but not gross violation, its passable.

Quintesennial Paladin 3rd party book allowed a series of graduations between a minor violation and a really major one, as well as mitigating factors and aggravating factor. Paladin takes very small penalty for a short period. It also covered Code in detail.

Druss in Gemmell books states he'd lie to an enemy, but never to a friend, not even little white lies.

[Epinephrine]

I don't think paladins get to use the "ends justify the means". They can't torure someone to get information. That's what Gray Guards are for ;)

[Stormageddon]

Well bluff is a cross-class skill for them.. so no they can't lie worth a damn.


But why should a paladin ever have to lie? In the code it says that they aren't allowed to assocaite with evil charters with out trying to cut a their heads off. So paladins living in around late 1930's German would probably be the first up against the wall when things got bad.

Plus paladins don't really strike me as the "greater good" kind of people. That sounds more like chaotic good charters.

[monty]

In the code it says that they aren't allowed to assocaite with evil charters with out trying to cut a their heads off.

Please show me the part of the code that says that.

[only1doug]

Please show me the part of the code that says that.

Mwahahahahaha....


i'm sure Taim meant this


Quote: PH Pg 44
while she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never willing travel with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.

though his phraseology was eviler

[Stormageddon]

Mwahahahahaha....


i'm sure Taim meant this

though his phraseology was eviler

Only1doug is right. The 3.5 paladin just doesn't seem like it has a lot of wiggle room around the code. Why have a code at all, if you can just claim your actions are to fight evil? "Sure I poisoned my blade, but ya know how many evil monster I killed with it!?" Just would not seem to fly. Paladins have to be lawful good that alone implies you are probably going to fight evil.

Now that being said a paladin can not lie, but there are ways around that. A paladin could refuse to answer a question, or tell half truths to deceive an oppenent. I would suggest getting creative rather than lie strait up.

[monty]

Now that being said a paladin can not lie, but there are ways around that. A paladin could refuse to answer a question, or tell half truths to deceive an oppenent. I would suggest getting creative rather than lie strait up.

The dictionary definition was posted earlier, so I won't repeat it, but half-truths and other deceptions are considered lying under the "false or misleading impression" definition.

[Prophaniti]

Only1doug is right. The 3.5 paladin just doesn't seem like it has a lot of wiggle room around the code. Why have a code at all, if you can just claim your actions are to fight evil? "Sure I poisoned my blade, but ya know how many evil monster I killed with it!?" Just would not seem to fly. Paladins have to be lawful good that alone implies you are probably going to fight evil.
The point of posing a moral dilema to a paladin would be to force them to consider: Which is more important, the code or the good? That's the decision that will define a paladin, and that's the decision that the DM and group must make for how they run paladins. As I've said, to me it has to be the good. If the code is more important, they're not paladins. There are plenty of Lawful X classes that follow codes. Paladins should be good, first and foremost, and follow their code as closely as possible within those bounds. Also, as I have pointed out, a paladin who was forced to violate even the smallest measure of his code would seek atonement for the transgression as soon as possible. A paladin, in my book, is a champion of good who happens to take certain vows. The vows are what sets him apart from other champions of good, but if he loses sight of the cause, he's no different than any other Lawful X class with a code.

[Fawsto]

Let's strecht this a little, shall we?

Ok, let's take the idea that a Paladin is the ultimate guardian of all Good (not all Law), and his sacred mission is to fight evil. Now, does "fighting evil" always means "Smiting Evil"? I guess it does not.

There are several ways of fighting evil that do not include hack'n slash. When a Paladin donates part of his loot money to the church so it can be used to buy food for refugees, he is fighting evil. When a Paladin leaves a dire fight behind him so he can warn the King about the upcoming Orc invasion, he is fighting evil. When a Paladin sees a possibility to redeem an evil person and does that, he is ultimately fighting evil.

Also notice that all this "fighting evil" could lead to the commitment of "evil actions" (please, note the ""): If the Paladin sells all his resources with the objective of getting food for the refugees, will he still be able to pack the equipment and resources he needs to fight the Dragon who burnt their farms? If the Paladin leaves the fight where he and some fellow soldiers are holding the last keep between the Orcish invasion and the Kingdom's border, would'nt he be leaving companions behind to face sure death? If a Paladin does not kill such evil person because he believes in redemption, wouldn't he be possibbly allowing the evil guy to continue doing evil things?

Now, about the multitude of possibilities on the Gestapo Situation:

Let's say the Paladin is the only party member who is up to the task to open the door and face the Nazi because his teamates are wounded or somewhere else rescuing more Jews (and the Paldin was left in the house to protect the refugees). He opens the door and sees some Nazi outfited guys staring at him. He proceeds to Detect Evil and, for his surprise, 2 of the 5 "Nazi guys" are not evil. Now, yes, he could pull out his sword and give them the taste of blood; "Hey, they are only 5 Nazi without any backup, and I am a mighty Evil Smiter, they would never see it coming, why not?" But he knows that not all of them are evil. What to do? They are asking him if he is protecting or keeping jews on his house. Dear god... What must be done, must be done... The Paladin says "No sir. I have not seem any jews around here for a long time. Good evening."

See? Yes, the Paladin could fight the Nazi, he would probably win the fight in this situation. He would save the inocents! But he chooses something more instead: He chooses to save inocents and not spill blood withou any reason. Double good points to Sir Paladin.

[Kiara LeSabre]

Only1doug is right. The 3.5 paladin just doesn't seem like it has a lot of wiggle room around the code. Why have a code at all, if you can just claim your actions are to fight evil? "Sure I poisoned my blade, but ya know how many evil monster I killed with it!?" Just would not seem to fly. Paladins have to be lawful good that alone implies you are probably going to fight evil.

That's exactly it. The whole point of a code of honor is that you can't justify ignoring it because it was inconvenient for you at the time. If you could manage to construct some sort of scenario wherein the actual only choice, no matter what, was between deception and allowing innocents to come to harm, a paladin might then choose deception and still end up feeling wretched about it -- definitely not smugly self-satisfied over the outcome.

I don't, however, know what that scenario could possibly be.

Nazis demanding information isn't good enough, for exactly the reason Only1doug stated. And that's how it tends to go: the justification that you had to do it to save someone is usually just a rationalization to explain away why you acted as you did after putting yourself in that situation to begin with rather than doing more from the outset, as the paladin would have done.

[only1doug]

Let's strecht this a little, shall we?

<snip>
Now, about the multitude of possibilities on the Gestapo Situation:

Let's say the Paladin is the only party member who is up to the task to open the door and face the Nazi because his teamates are wounded or somewhere else rescuing more Jews (and the Paldin was left in the house to protect the refugees). He opens the door and sees some Nazi outfited guys staring at him. He proceeds to Detect Evil and, for his surprise, 2 of the 5 "Nazi guys" are not evil. Now, yes, he could pull out his sword and give them the taste of blood; "Hey, they are only 5 Nazi without any backup, and I am a mighty Evil Smiter, they would never see it coming, why not?" But he knows that not all of them are evil. What to do? They are asking him if he is protecting or keeping jews on his house. Dear god... What must be done, must be done... The Paladin says "No sir. I have not seem any jews around here for a long time. Good evening."

See? Yes, the Paladin could fight the Nazi, he would probably win the fight in this situation. He would save the inocents! But he chooses something more instead: He chooses to save inocents and not spill blood withou any reason. Double good points to Sir Paladin.

Answers:
why not: because a Paladin should use honorable tactics and not strike without warning?

What to do: Challenge the Nazi's, "give up your evil ways and redeem yourselves"

when they refuse then he can kill them in good conscience or die trying.

[Stormageddon]

Let's strecht this a little, shall we?

Ok, let's take the idea that a Paladin is the ultimate guardian of all Good (not all Law), and his sacred mission is to fight evil. Now, does "fighting evil" always means "Smiting Evil"? I guess it does not.

There are several ways of fighting evil that do not include hack'n slash. When a Paladin donates part of his loot money to the church so it can be used to buy food for refugees, he is fighting evil. When a Paladin leaves a dire fight behind him so he can warn the King about the upcoming Orc invasion, he is fighting evil. When a Paladin sees a possibility to redeem an evil person and does that, he is ultimately fighting evil.

Also notice that all this "fighting evil" could lead to the commitment of "evil actions" (please, note the ""): If the Paladin sells all his resources with the objective of getting food for the refugees, will he still be able to pack the equipment and resources he needs to fight the Dragon who burnt their farms? If the Paladin leaves the fight where he and some fellow soldiers are holding the last keep between the Orcish invasion and the Kingdom's border, would'nt he be leaving companions behind to face sure death? If a Paladin does not kill such evil person because he believes in redemption, wouldn't he be possibbly allowing the evil guy to continue doing evil things?

Now, about the multitude of possibilities on the Gestapo Situation:

Let's say the Paladin is the only party member who is up to the task to open the door and face the Nazi because his teamates are wounded or somewhere else rescuing more Jews (and the Paldin was left in the house to protect the refugees). He opens the door and sees some Nazi outfited guys staring at him. He proceeds to Detect Evil and, for his surprise, 2 of the 5 "Nazi guys" are not evil. Now, yes, he could pull out his sword and give them the taste of blood; "Hey, they are only 5 Nazi without any backup, and I am a mighty Evil Smiter, they would never see it coming, why not?" But he knows that not all of them are evil. What to do? They are asking him if he is protecting or keeping jews on his house. Dear god... What must be done, must be done... The Paladin says "No sir. I have not seem any jews around here for a long time. Good evening."

See? Yes, the Paladin could fight the Nazi, he would probably win the fight in this situation. He would save the inocents! But he chooses something more instead: He chooses to save inocents and not spill blood withou any reason. Double good points to Sir Paladin.


Well this relies on some of the the Nazi not being evil. At the very least they had no respect for life which makes them by definition D&D evil.

And no good points for Mr. paladin. 1. He may have saved the Jews in the house, but he didn't stop the Nazis from killing other Jews in other houses.
2. Acted dishonorably 3.... and this is a big one.... told a Nazi to have a "Good evening." That's just wrong.

[Prophaniti]

Well this relies on some of the the Nazi not being evil. At the very least they had no respect for life which makes them by definition D&D evil.

And no good points for Mr. paladin. 1. He may have saved the Jews in the house, but he didn't stop the Nazis from killing other Jews in other houses.
2. Acted dishonorably 3.... and this is a big one.... told a Nazi to have a "Good evening." That's just wrong.
You have some strange interpretations here. How is being courteous, even to an evil being, nay, even to a demon, a bad thing? I don't see anywhere in the code that says 'the paladin cannot speak courteously to evil creatures', perhaps I missed it? Even more strangely, you call it 'the big one', as though it is the single worst thing the paladin did in the situation. Perhaps you're being sarcastic, but if so it's too subtle for text-based communication.

Secondly, a character is not docked good points for good deeds he was unable to commit. There's no feasible way in the posited scenario that the paladin could save all the jews, even in the immediate vacinity, let alone on a larger scale.

Thirdly, a paladin does not fall for any single violation of the code. It states that he falls for gross violations, or directly evil acts. The presence of that clause says to me that the designers indeed envisaged situations where the paladin would need to violate his code to serve his cause. Still a violation, and there should be reprecussions and consequences, but he won't fall.

Finally, everyone who wore a Nazi uniform was NOT inherently evil. Period. The vast majority were, more than likely, simply putting what they saw as their civic duty above whatever personal qualms they may have had. Of course there were very bad people involved, and very bad things perpetrated by the group, but that does not immediately and unconditionally condemn everyone who ever wore the uniform.

[Vexxation]

Finally, everyone who wore a Nazi uniform was NOT inherently evil. Period. The vast majority were, more than likely, simply putting what they saw as their civic duty above whatever personal qualms they may have had. Of course there were very bad people involved, and very bad things perpetrated by the group, but that does not immediately and unconditionally condemn everyone who ever wore the uniform.

That's true in our world.

However, on the D&D Good-Evil axis, all the Nazis would register as Evil.
The mere fact that they are consciously choosing to hunt the Jews is enough. It doesn't matter if their only other choice is death. In D&D morals, you choose death over furthering evil.

But anyway, yeah, you're right. Paladins don't fall off one violation. Unless said violation is an obviously evil conscious decision.

[Stormageddon]

You have some strange interpretations here. How is being courteous, even to an evil being, nay, even to a demon, a bad thing? I don't see anywhere in the code that says 'the paladin cannot speak courteously to evil creatures', perhaps I missed it? Even more strangely, you call it 'the big one', as though it is the single worst thing the paladin did in the situation. Perhaps you're being sarcastic, but if so it's too subtle for text-based communication.

Secondly, a character is not docked good points for good deeds he was unable to commit. There's no feasible way in the posited scenario that the paladin could save all the jews, even in the immediate vacinity, let alone on a larger scale.

Thirdly, a paladin does not fall for any single violation of the code. It states that he falls for gross violations, or directly evil acts. The presence of that clause says to me that the designers indeed envisaged situations where the paladin would need to violate his code to serve his cause. Still a violation, and there should be reprecussions and consequences, but he won't fall.

Finally, everyone who wore a Nazi uniform was NOT inherently evil. Period. The vast majority were, more than likely, simply putting what they saw as their civic duty above whatever personal qualms they may have had. Of course there were very bad people involved, and very bad things perpetrated by the group, but that does not immediately and unconditionally condemn everyone who ever wore the uniform.

Well the last was a joke.

You're second point. In the facts presented by the person the paladin could have easily defeated the group of Nazis. By letting the Nazis go about there business without even trying to stop them allowed the evil to continue. Saying Good evening and shutting the door on the problem simply does not make the problem go away. Something about “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” I'm pretty sure there's something about letting evil deeds continue in the code. Even if it's in between the lines.

The third: I never said and agree with you on. A paladin should not fall for making mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes you should not be punished for them. But a paladin to me would not be racking up the frequent good guy flier miles in the story as told.

And lastly: I said D&D evil. It gets confusing putting people that are really really real into the D&D good v. evil standards. But in D&D evil is defined as someone who has a lack of respect for life. Real life is lass black and white than D&D. Nazis dragged people from their homes and put them in camps and did things that are too awful to talk about. Just for being Jewish. Now you could argue that they where just following orders or doing their civic duty or even that they didn't know about the horrors that happened at those camps. But they still would of had to know that they were taking people out of their homes and away from everything they knew just for being Jewish. That in of itself shows a lack of respect for life itself.

Now a very small portion of the German population that put on the uniform and went to war were actually Nazis I think like it was somewhere around 10% belonged to the Nazi party. But you should believe that most of the Nazis were as evil as they come.

[chiasaur11]

That's true in our world.

However, on the D&D Good-Evil axis, all the Nazis would register as Evil.
The mere fact that they are consciously choosing to hunt the Jews is enough. It doesn't matter if their only other choice is death. In D&D morals, you choose death over furthering evil.

But anyway, yeah, you're right. Paladins don't fall off one violation. Unless said violation is an obviously evil conscious decision.

Well, Schindler would probably be non evil.
But he wouldn't be doing house to house sweeps.

[Vexxation]

Well, Schindler would probably be non evil.
But he wouldn't be doing house to house sweeps.

Schindler wasn't a Nazi (was he?).
He just got contracts to "make use" of the ample labor that the Nazis provided.

Sure, he started kinda Evil ("Hm... I can make money using ethnic slavery! Huzzah!") but wound up very Good ("Nooo! I've been naughty! Must pay for the Jews to be freed or at least not killed!).

[Stormageddon]

Schindler wasn't a Nazi (was he?).
He just got contracts to "make use" of the ample labor that the Nazis provided.

Sure, he started kinda Evil ("Hm... I can make money using ethnic slavery! Huzzah!") but wound up very Good ("Nooo! I've been naughty! Must pay for the Jews to be freed or at least not killed!).

Yup, he was a Nazi. We're talking about a major alignment change.

[chiasaur11]

Yup, he was a Nazi. We're talking about a major alignment change.

While still, technically, being a Nazi.
History is funny like that.

[OneFamiliarFace]

However, on the D&D Good-Evil axis, all the Nazis would register as Evil.
The mere fact that they are consciously choosing to hunt the Jews is enough. It doesn't matter if their only other choice is death. In D&D morals, you choose death over furthering evil.

Ah-ha, now here we arrive at what I see as the core of the Paladin. I'm going to take this away from real world examples here by simply stating that there is a Tyrannical Force.

In the event that a Tyrannical Force is eliminating people wholesale, there are certain people you may find among their ranks. And, indeed, a LG character could be found there. Why? A LG character may fear for their own life, but more importantly might fear for the lives of their friends and families. Some LG characters could not justify this and would fight against the system (perhaps becoming CG in the process). But who would you never, ever find among the ranks of the Tyrannical Force? A willing Paladin.

To the Paladin, there is no choice. He must fight against this Tyrannical Force and their overwhelmingly evil tactics. If the perpetrators themselves were morally ambiguous, then the Paladin would offer them solace, repentence, and protection if they switched sides. But if they did not, they would prove their true alleigance in his eyes.

In the course of a Paladin's adventure, he may have to break his code (or even his alignment) numerous times, but it should never be done without the utmost consideration beforehand and humble repentance afterward. And, again, as the Paladin does not exist in the real world, he is a distinctly Heroic Fantasy character. If he ever runs into a moral dilemma such as the ones posted here, it should be for story reasons, and not because the DM hates paladins.

That being said, herein can be found a wonderful summary of 3.5 alignments, paladin codes, and what all of that entails (as laid down by the hilarious Frank & K): Tome of Fiends (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=28828). From which, this is the most relevant excerpt:

Lies: A Paladin can't lie. Whether telling a lie is a good or evil act depends on what you're saying and who you are saying it to. But a Paladin won't do it. That means that if the Nazis come to the door and demand to know if the Paladin is hiding any Jews (she is), she can't glibly say "No." That does not mean that she has to say "Yes, they're right under the stairs!" – it means that she has to tell the Nazis point blank "I'm not going to participate in your genocidal campaign, it's wrong." This will start a fight, and may get everyone killed, so the Paladin is well within her code to eliminate the middle man and just stab the Gestapo right there before answering. That's harsh, but the Paladin's code isn't about doing what's easy, or even what's best. It's about doing what you said you were going to.

[Kompera]

can paladins lie ever:smallconfused:
It's forbidden in their Code of Conduct.
So, no, a Paladin can not lie. Not without willfully violating their code of conduct, with whatever penalty the GM chooses to assign being levied against the Paladin.

This also precludes any mealy mouthing about "greater good" or "stronger aspect of the Code of Conduct." Being a Paladin can be a hard thing, if you're not up to the challenge some other class is a much better option for you. Faced with a situation where it looks like you either have to lie or fail to "help those in need" (another requirement of the Code)? That's a rough situation. Good thing you've got a high Wisdom score, because you'll need it to find a way to satisfy all parts of your Code in a difficult situation such as this.

On the flip side, the GM should not be throwing one ambiguous moral situation after another at the player of a Paladin, unless he intends that the Paladin fall. That would be a clearly unfair and biased choice for a GM to take since a fallen Paladin suffers some fairly harsh penalties and will probably not be as strong a character as the other players are playing. When faced with such a moral dilema the beast thing to do is to turn to the GM for help. As a person who is not immersed in the culture of the game setting it's too easy for there to be pitfalls for any given decision. Explain this to the GM and ask that he provide you with a lot of guidance based on what your character would know as a Paladin of many years.

[Aquillion]

It's forbidden in their Code of Conduct.
So, no, a Paladin can not lie. Not without willfully violating their code of conduct, with whatever penalty the GM chooses to assign being levied against the Paladin.
Uh, now you're talking about houserules. Per RAW, the DM does not 'choose' to levy whatever they pull out of their hat at the Paladin, whenever they violate the code (and IMHO, a DM who houserules new penalties for a Paladin -- except as an emergency measure as an alternative to falling, when the Paladin would clearly fall under the rules otherwise -- is making a terrible mistake. Paladins are not a terribly overpowering class, and their code is harsh enough as it is without randomly inventing new ways to penalize them like you're doing here.)

Now, as for the actual rules as written and not your houserules: Paladins are allowed to violate the Code of Conduct from time to time with no penalty. In fact, they can even violate it regularly in small ways, as long as they can keep their alignment while doing so. From the text:

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.Emphasis mine. Whether one lie is considered a 'gross' violation of the code of conduct is of course open to some interpretation by your DM, but the wording does make it clear that 'non-gross' violations exist, and I would submit that anyone who would call a relatively minor lie a gross violation is a raving lunatic.

So the answer is 'sometimes'. A Paladin can freely lie about what they ate for lunch, about whether or not they'll actually keep their end of a bargain if the villain releases his hostages, about the location of the rebel base... They might feel that it's slightly unfortunate, but those are not 'gross' violations. They can tell white lies about unimportant topics even without a good reason, as long as their alignment remains lawful overall. (Although, of course, they're not likely to do so, being lawful and having the code and all. But a minor lie will never, ever make a Paladin suffer any penalty on its own, per RAW.)

However, a Paladin who (say) falsely accused someone of murder might be in trouble, because a lie of that magnitude might qualify as a 'gross' violation. Whether or not having a good reason would make a difference or not is uncertain, since it's hard to say whether that would influence whether it's a 'gross' violation -- I would say yes, a good reason would make it acceptable, since to me 'gross' also means 'flagrant' -- that is to say, without reason. I do not think a violation of the code with a valid reason behind it could ever be a 'gross' violation'.

Of course, it's important to note that willingly evil acts are different -- a Paladin cannot make justifications for those; regardless of circumstances, they make you fall instantly. In the above example, without a good reason it would qualify as an evil action anyway, which would make them fall immediately regardless -- that's the one absolutely certain 'go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200' bit in there.

An additional note: Per RAW, a fallen Paladin can have their abilities fully restored simply by using the Atonement spell, with possibly a small xp fee. The spell's caster has the option of assigning a quest, but this is entirely up to them (and obviously, a PC caster generally won't.) Additional castings may be necessary to restore alignment, but overall at higher levels the Paladin's code is not a big deal unless the DM starts making houserules to keep the players from 'getting around it' (which, as I noted, I think they shouldn't -- mechanically or balance wise it serves no point, and thematically if your players don't want to play a rigid paladin, why are you forcing them to? That doesn't make for a good game.)

[Kiara LeSabre]

However, a Paladin who (say) falsely accused someone of murder might be in trouble, because a lie of that magnitude might qualify as a 'gross' violation.

Might be?


Whether or not having a good reason would make a difference or not is uncertain, since it's hard to say whether that would influence whether it's a 'gross' violation -- I would say yes, a good reason would make it acceptable

Because the ends justify the means, right? Whatever it takes to get the job done, no matter what we have to do, even we have to lie, cheat, steal and bear false witness ... just as long as the greater good is ultimately served somehow? Your "paladin" is chaotic good.


I do not think a violation of the code with a valid reason behind it could ever be a 'gross' violation'.

I just don't know how you could ever seriously defend that. Reading what people say about these things, I wonder at how few people must really grasp what it means to possess a dead-serious code of honor.

[only1doug]

My view on the paladin Lie issue should already be clear :P

on the issue of evil for the purposes of Good:

"the road to hell is paved with good intentions" - Dr. Samuel Johnson


A small evil for good purpose, its just a minor compromise:

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill



Should a Paladin Lie - No:- a Paladin should never misrepresent themselves.
Can a Paladin Lie - Yes:- It is possible for a Paladin to Lie, Cheat, Steal or Murder. (but they might not still be a Paladin afterwards)

If i were GM and a Paladin PC chose to Lie he would need to be repentant afterwards, if he frequently lies he might find himself to be a fighter without the bonus feats.

[only1doug]

<snip>
I do not think a violation of the code with a valid reason behind it could ever be a 'gross' violation'.

<snip>



Mwahhahahahahahaahahahahahaha

and on the 144th minor violation the Paladin Falls.....

Now thats Gross

[Avilan the Grey]

Ah a can of worms. How delightful!

Admitedly, the games I have played tend to have DMs in them that happily tells the "Lawful Stupid" version of the Paladins to go and die somewhere.

Paladins are subject to a strict code, but I think some people here seriously confuse the Paladin Code with a personal Code of Honor.


A true Paladin is Humble.
A true Paladin fights for what is Right and True.
A true Paladin would let his personal Honor go down the drains to do what is Right and True.
And this does NOT mean the Paladin has fallen. It means that the Personal Honor of the Paladin is irrelevant to his Deity, if he has forsaken his Ego and Reputation to preserve the Paladin Code.

Would the Paladin lie to protect the innocent? Depends on the situation. Roleplay it!!!
Would a paladin lie to a city guard about the whereabouts of an innocent man in a city where the Paladin trusts the innocent man will get a fair trial?
No, he would not.
Would a paladin lie to the (Insert evil Empire) guards to protect an innocent man from being dragged off and tortured or killed?
Probably.
Now see the scenarios in between... and again, Roleplay it!

Would a Paladin kill a toddler to stop a demon from enter the world?
No. He would make a desperate stand against the demon after it enters.
Would a paladin kill the human sacrifice before the evil Cleric does, to disrupt the ritual to stop a demon from entering the world?
No. He would kill the cleric. Or break the altar, or...
Roleplay it!

Would a Paladin refuse to work with a person of evil alignment that he met "in a tavern"?
Yes.
Would a Paladin refuse to work with a person of evil alignment if he is ordered to by his King, head of order, or other person of (Good or Neutral) authority to go stop the Big Bad or End of Universe together with this person?
No. He would protest, and have it noted in the protocol... But he would carry out the order.
Roleplay it!

etc...

of course, again, this is how we played, and again I have to stress my initial comment: Some people here forgets the difference between the Paladin Code, and a Personal Code of Honor. If you can't sacrifice your Personal Honor to Uphold the Paladin Code (or for that matter just to be a decent person!) you are not a Paladin. You are a Proud Warrior Guy.

[Aquillion]

Might be?
Because the ends justify the means, right? Whatever it takes to get the job done, no matter what we have to do, even we have to lie, cheat, steal and bear false witness ... just as long as the greater good is ultimately served somehow? Your "paladin" is chaotic good.

I just don't know how you could ever seriously defend that. Reading what people say about these things, I wonder at how few people must really grasp what it means to possess a dead-serious code of honor.
Again: Are we talking about what the rules say, or what you personally feel would be a good paladin in your own fantasy world unrelated to the D&D version?

The D&D rules are quite clear. Aside from knowingly evil acts (which always make you fall), it takes an extreme act -- one that is not merely outside the Paladin's oaths, but grossly outside them -- for a Paladin to have their powers withdrawn.

This does not mean that paladins lack a "dead-serious code of honor". It does mean that that code of honor is, outside the most extreme cases, a matter for roleplaying, not a matter for mechanics. As I said, most Paladins will not lie under normal circumstances -- but a Paladin who does will not, according to the rules, get struck down by a thunderbolt from the heavens and lose all his powers unless that lie is a gross violation of his code of conduct. How a Paladin relates to the 'lesser' bounds of the code is a matter between them and their conscience, not anyone else.

A huge amount of a Paladin's code of conduct comes down to their own self-evaluation and their personal conscience, not some magical threat of taking their powers away; that is reserved only for the most extreme and dramatic violations.

Even if this bothers you, that is what the rules say. A Paladin being interrogated by the enemy can freely give them as much false information as they want without mechanical consequences, though they might seek personal repentance later; a Paladin who his asked by his girlfriend if that dress makes her look fat is perfectly entitled to say 'no' even if he thinks that it does.

I think you're the one who doesn't grasp what a a code of honor really is. You can have a dead dead-serious code of honor, and still tell frightened people that everything will be all right even when you're not sure it will be; you can be a Paladin and still tell the chef that the meal was great even if it tasted terrible.

They might choose to tell the truth even in that situation due to their code; there's room for a wide variation of Paladins in the rules. But there's also, explicitly, room for Paladins who bend the rules a bit, as long as they don't do anything evil, remain lawful good overall, and don't break the rules in a drastic fashion. They are flesh-and-blood Paladins, not positronic robots.*

*Warforged Paladins notwithstanding

[hamishspence]

As I said, if you use some 3rd party material, small violations of the code in order to avoid greater violation, are partially mitigated, and levels exist between no fall and Fall: of small, escalating penalties up to a full Fall.

If you don't, we end up with: is a lie to evil creatures you know you cannot beat a gross violation or not?

Code has evolved some. In 2nd ed, evil acts had you fall permanently, or temporarily if you were magically forced into it, Chaotic acts of any kind had you fall until atoned for.

3rd ed: Permanent fall for evil acts, temporary until atoned for, if accidental, or magically forced. How you have an accidental evil act is up to you to resolve: negligence might count.

3.5 ed: All falls can be atoned for, but intentional evil acts mean person casting the atonement spell on You, has to send XP.

[paladinlady]

Ah a can of worms. How delightful!

Admitedly, the games I have played tend to have DMs in them that happily tells the "Lawful Stupid" version of the Paladins to go and die somewhere.

Paladins are subject to a strict code, but I think some people here seriously confuse the Paladin Code with a personal Code of Honor.


A true Paladin is Humble.
A true Paladin fights for what is Right and True.
A true Paladin would let his personal Honor go down the drains to do what is Right and True.
And this does NOT mean the Paladin has fallen. It means that the Personal Honor of the Paladin is irrelevant to his Deity, if he has forsaken his Ego and Reputation to preserve the Paladin Code.

Would the Paladin lie to protect the innocent? Depends on the situation. Roleplay it!!!
Would a paladin lie to a city guard about the whereabouts of an innocent man in a city where the Paladin trusts the innocent man will get a fair trial?
No, he would not.
Would a paladin lie to the (Insert evil Empire) guards to protect an innocent man from being dragged off and tortured or killed?
Probably.
Now see the scenarios in between... and again, Roleplay it!

Would a Paladin kill a toddler to stop a demon from enter the world?
No. He would make a desperate stand against the demon after it enters.
Would a paladin kill the human sacrifice before the evil Cleric does, to disrupt the ritual to stop a demon from entering the world?
No. He would kill the cleric. Or break the altar, or...
Roleplay it!

Would a Paladin refuse to work with a person of evil alignment that he met "in a tavern"?
Yes.
Would a Paladin refuse to work with a person of evil alignment if he is ordered to by his King, head of order, or other person of (Good or Neutral) authority to go stop the Big Bad or End of Universe together with this person?
No. He would protest, and have it noted in the protocol... But he would carry out the order.
Roleplay it!

etc...

of course, again, this is how we played, and again I have to stress my initial comment: Some people here forgets the difference between the Paladin Code, and a Personal Code of Honor. If you can't sacrifice your Personal Honor to Uphold the Paladin Code (or for that matter just to be a decent person!) you are not a Paladin. You are a Proud Warrior Guy.


Yeah thanks I will try some of those out.

[Vaynor]

The Red Towel: Thread necromancy.