An insane player.

[Insert Name Here]

Okay, so I'm starting a D&D game at home with people I know. It seems to be going alright, I have the campaign ready and everything.

However, one of my players wants to be a paladin for 5 levels....

And then switch to beguiler. It's technically allowed. And he knows that everyone can trust a paladin. Which is why he's doing this. Well, that, and to twist my mind into an undoable knot. But broken minds are fun.

But still... A paladin/beguiler.

And he'll probably be the face of the party, too. It will be interesting to watch him avoid outright lying in violation of the code. But I know him. And he will twist these facts into knots. Heck, he'll turn them quantum and make them non-existent while still existing!

Isn't this going to be so...fun?

[Solo]

The Gods will lay down some smack on him.... I predict.

[Inyssius Tor]

I know we're going to get into another argument about the Greyguard, but I think that's just awesome.

[Miraqariftsky]

A fine line shall he tread.
A holy warrior with serpent's tongue?
Hard put, his balance to keep
As forth he sallies
On a precipice,
A knife's edge
With abyss' doom
And damnation on either side.

[Miles Invictus]

That build actually sounds kinda neat. You'd have a paladin fighting evil through subtle, non-violent means.

[mikeejimbo]

I would suggest to him that he go Beguiler straight, but tell people he's a Paladin. He'll probably have a good bluff, after all.

[Quietus]

Some deities, like Olidammara, might not have quite AS much of a problem with their Paladins twisting the truth a little..

[Kizara]

I would suggest to him that he go Beguiler straight, but tell people he's a Paladin. He'll probably have a good bluff, after all.

This is a good idea.

Also, there's more to playing a Paladin then keeping the exact letter of your code. There's also it's spirit, your duty, your honor, and your deadication to your cause.

Deciet, lying, treachery and such are all evil, not good. Even by a more liberal defination, they are chaotic.

Personally, if you have a strong grasp of what a Paladin is, and you feel your player is going to standing his code on end and constantly breaking the spirit of it. Have him be warned/reminded once, about the spirit of Paladinhood and how the point of his holy journey isn't to be a mischievious halfing, it's to be a paragon of virture, justice, order and the light. If he doesn't get it, he gets 5 levels of featless fighter to enjoy.

And yea, players like this piss me off too. I feel for you.

[Dark Knight Renee]

Alternatively... nothing in the Beguiler's crunch says they have to lie, cheat, steal or do anything else that doesn't go well with paladins. A paladin with beguiler crunch doesn't have to be a "Paladin/Beguiler" in the fluff.

... Though I get the impression the player is going for a rather sneaky, underhanded paladin.

[Kizara]

Alternatively... nothing in the Beguiler's crunch says they have to lie, cheat, steal or do anything else that doesn't go well with paladins. A paladin with beguiler crunch doesn't have to be a "Paladin/Beguiler" in the fluff.

... Though I get the impression the player is going for a rather sneaky, underhanded paladin.

Sneaky? Possibly in some rare circumstances. But you fight with honor, this doesn't mean you fight within the strict letter of your code.

Underhanded? Lose class abilities. Now.
And btw I play a whole lot of Paladins, and I never lose my code unless I wanted to RP it that way. It's about understanding a divine purpose.


Another thought is that with the variant Paladin's, there's some precendent to have a CN Paladin. I mean, I personally find this downright offensive, but it beats playing a normal LG Paladin completely out to left field.

[Artemician]

@ Kizara: Some people play this way. Some people play another way. As long as everyone's having fun, i see no reason why playing in any particular way is "wrong".

Back to the OP: Well, playing a Beguiler who can't lie is going to be tricky. Your player had better be good with word play. For a good example, read "The Truth", by Terry Pratchett, where the main character twists his way into a Police-only area without telling a single lie.

[Kizara]

@ Kizara: Some people play this way. Some people play another way. As long as everyone's having fun, i see no reason why playing in any particular way is "wrong".

Back to the OP: Well, playing a Beguiler who can't lie is going to be tricky. Your player had better be good with word play. For a good example, read "The Truth", by Terry Pratchett, where the main character twists his way into a Police-only area without telling a single lie.

I voiced my opinion on the nature of Paladin's and their code. I'd like you to show me where I said "the way you play is wrong" or anything remotely like that. In fact, I have voiced earlier that I understood and sympathsied with the OP. Quite the opposite sentiment.
If you want to play the virtous, devout and honorable holy warrior as a underhanded, rogue-like mercenary that uses stealth, disception and generally disgraceful tactics, its your game.
I'd only suggest that you read some material involving the Paladin and think of what spirit they are trying to invoke there. Such as the descriptive text in the PHB, or supplimentry material such as the Complete Divine or (which I think is fluff-better) the 3.0 Defenders of the Faith.

[Insert Name Here]

At Artemician: I've read it. And a good deal of other Terry Pratchett books.

Knowing him, he's read it and he's already good at things like that.

[Artemician]

I voiced my opinion on the nature of Paladin's and their code. I'd like you to show me where I said "the way you play is wrong" or anything remotely like that. In fact, I have voiced earlier that I understood and sympathsied with the OP. Quite the opposite sentiment.
If you want to play the virtous, devout and honorable holy warrior as a underhanded, rogue-like mercenary that uses stealth, disception and generally disgraceful tactics, its your game.
I'd only suggest that you read some material involving the Paladin and think of what spirit they are trying to invoke there. Such as the descriptive text in the PHB, or supplimentry material such as the Complete Divine or (which I think is fluff-better) the 3.0 Defenders of the Faith.

That is correct, you have never said explicitly that playing Paladins in this way is wrong. However, you have said that intepreting the Paladin Code of Conduct in the way that the OP said is wrong, which leads in to the logical conclusion that you do not wish to see Paladins being played with that intepretation of the Code of Conduct.

At Artemician: I've read it. And a good deal of other Terry Pratchett books.

Knowing him, he's read it and he's already good at things like that.

Ah. That's good. I think you're going to have a lot of fun in your game. Best of luck, and the same to the player.

[Captain van der Decken]

I don't have the PHB to hand, but the SRD says

act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)

Although, apparently, Paladins can use stealth, trickery and underhand combat. See the Shadowbane Inquisitor PrC from CAdv.

[PaladinBoy]

I believe that there is nothing inherently dishonorable about dominating/charming opponents to end a fight, or using diplomacy, or using any one of the various non-violent means to fight evil.

Lying, on the other hand, might not be evil, but is dishonorable. I would say that a paladin that lies regularly is not going to be a paladin for very long. It falls to the DM to decide if partial truths and the like are as dishonorable as lying and can make a paladin fall.

I do agree with Kizara that this doesn't seem to quite mesh with the spirit and idea of a paladin, but it's not as bad as something like the Grey Guard. And I think it would be funny to watch the player coming up with inventive ways to avoid lying with false impressions and half-truths. Personally, though, I think that in my game he would fall for that eventually....... maybe. I'm not sure.

[Thanatos 51-50]

Silly people.
Everyone reads the Paladin's Code of Conduct and they all seem to forget one esstential basic priciple of the Paladin.
The Paladin is a warrior!

He is a military mind and the Church's strong arm, the Body of his Diety's Will, whereas the Cleric is the Spirit, and thet Diety Himself is responsible for the Mind.
A Paladin is NOT restricted to calling the enemy all around them and waking their foes before they attack. A good Paladin would relise the tactical advatage to fight evil and capitalise on the situation.
Any military operation involves deception, and as the Paladin is the Chruch's military, let him be deceptive!
Bluff your way into the enemy's favor, and then turn at the last moment, slaughtering the Bandit King as he sleeps, and return to your Chruch with the Leader's Head, and your blade drenched in the blood of the Evil that you slew on the way out.

Also, this is why I don't like the GreyGuard as a prestige class, becuase the GreyGuard is basically a "real Paladin", whereas the "white" Pladins are prissy sissy boys.

I played a Paladin rather GreyGuard-ly without the PrC, even taking the inititave to pan a strike which involved pre-emptivly soaking the enmy in some highly flammible substances and then launching fireballs and flaming arrows into the oil.
I didn't loose any class features.
(Amitidly my role was in the planning and melee mop-up of the survivors, but I seriously doubt the DM would take offense if my Paladin were on the cliffs with his own bow, as well. I only played Melee mop-up becuase I was a better mounted sowrdsman then I was an archer)

[Damionte]

You also don't have to be a lawful stupd palladin. Palladins now coem in chaotic and neutral forms as well.

[Kizara]

"Bluff your way into the enemy's favor, and then turn at the last moment, slaughtering the Bandit King as he sleeps"

And enjoy your new blackgaurd levels. You just fell. You were treading a fine line on the path even bluffing your way in, by decieving (read: lying; read: broke your code) but then you BETRAY the trust you falsely earned?

Betrayal is evil. Period. In fact, it is generally Lawful Evil but can also at times be Chaotic Evil.

Using intelligent tactics, such as an ambush, is debatable and depends on the exact nature of your church's code and customs, but I would say is generally frowned upon. I wouldn't say you need to be Miko and call out all your opponents either, just simply attack.
Attack at dawn when your enemies are least prepared, attack from multiple angles. Fight a withdrawl into a more advantageous position, whether by terrain or allied ambush. Use flanking, use higher terrain, use mounted combat skills. There's more to combat then a courtly duel for sure, but treachery isn't in it for a Paladin.

Let me reiterate this for everyone who thinks being a Paladin has anything to do with deception on some level. Deception is lying, lying is expressly forbidden by the code as RAW. This is not my opinion or interpretation, it's how the class is written. Unless you precieve deception as somehow not lying, in which case... I don't think you 'get' Paladin and are indeed decieving yourself.

EDIT: On another note, regarding the OP's issue, I would reccomend the Paladin of Freedom. It's CG and I could see a PoF/Beguiler working quite effectively and keeping in both the RAW and spirit of the class.
Here's a nice SRD link for you:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/cl...hterAndTyranny

[Artemician]

"Bluff your way into the enemy's favor, and then turn at the last moment, slaughtering the Bandit King as he sleeps"

And enjoy your new blackgaurd levels. You just fell. You were treading a fine line on the path even bluffing your way in, by decieving (read: lying; read: broke your code) but then you BETRAY the trust you falsely earned?

Betrayal is evil. Period. In fact, it is generally Lawful Evil but can also at times be Chaotic Evil.

Using intelligent tactics, such as an ambush, is debatable and depends on the exact nature of your church's code and customs, but I would say is generally frowned upon. I wouldn't say you need to be Miko and call out all your opponents either, just simply attack.
Attack at dawn when your enemies are least prepared, attack from multiple angles. Fight a withdrawl into a more advantageous position, whether by terrain or allied ambush. Use flanking, use higher terrain, use mounted combat skills. There's more to combat then a courtly duel for sure, but treachery isn't in it for a Paladin.

Let me reiterate this for everyone who thinks being a Paladin has anything to do with deception on some level. Deception is lying, lying is expressly forbidden by the code as RAW. This is not my opinion or interpretation, it's how the class is written. Unless you precieve deception as somehow not lying, in which case... I don't think you 'get' Paladin and are indeed decieving yourself.

There is no any one way to "get" the Paladin class. I can "get" the Paladin class in a completely different way from you, but I don't make the claim that they way you "get" it is wrong.

[Kizara]

There is no any one way to "get" the Paladin class. I can "get" the Paladin class in a completely different way from you, but I don't make the claim that they way you "get" it is wrong.

Do you think deception is not lying? If so, explain to me, in detail how. Without using circular logic.
Don't attack the phrase without looking at the context please.

EDIT: And, to be precise, I specifically said that "I don't think you get it". Meaning, in my opinion, you do not understand this. I did not say that my opinion was the only correct one, you assumed that. Stop demonizing me through assumptions please, this is now the second time.

[Artemician]

Do you think deception is not lying? If so, explain to me, in detail how. Without using circular logic.
Don't attack the phrase without looking at the context please.

I think you're working under the assumption that I do not think that I think the Code of Conduct permits deception. Which it doesn't. However, a Paladin who uses deception is perfectly legitimate.

Paladins, for me, are not "Holy Warriors", or "Consecrated Knights", or any character archetype in particular. For me, Paladins are Class with XYZ ability and JKL restrictions. If I can make a fun character with XYZ ability, but restrictions prevents me from doing so, I talk to my DM to ask for permission to modify restrictions JKL.

Case in Point: I'm currently playing a Psychic Warrior/BloodStorm Blade with Call Weaponry. However, I Roleplay him as a Scottish Highlander who rips trees out of the ground and hurls them at opponents. Most people would say that Psychic Warrior and Scottish Highlander don't exactly roll off the tongue. But as long as the mechanics match, who cares about the fluff? Fluff is immutable, it can be manipulated any way you like it. And since it's more fun that way, I think that's the way it should be.

If you have a different playstyle, it's not wrong. But this is just the way I see things.

[Tellah]

Do you think deception is not lying? If so, explain to me, in detail how. Without using circular logic.
Don't attack the phrase without looking at the context please.

Easily. An illusionist entertaining a crowd of children places an image of an apple on a table, while keeping a real apple in his pocket. "Grab the apple!" he says, and the children dive for the illusory apple.
"Ah ha! I'm afraid I win our little game again, for I have the apple!" shouts the illusionist, producing the real apple from his pocket. He then tosses the apple to the hungriest-looking urchin he sees.

The children were deceived, but were not lied to. A form of deception like that would be quite possible with the Beguiler's skill set, and the routine would be completely in keeping with a Paladin's behavior.

You do not have a monopoly on interpretations of the Paladin code.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Kizara, if deception is lying, a Paladin wouldn't be allowed to feint in combat (and essentially all combat involves feinting, not just use of the Feint maneuver)! Nor would she be able to tactically deploy troops in a misleading way, lie by omission, benefit from Disguise Self, et cetera et cetera.

[Thanatos 51-50]

"Bluff your way into the enemy's favor, and then turn at the last moment, slaughtering the Bandit King as he sleeps"

And enjoy your new blackgaurd levels. You just fell. You were treading a fine line on the path even bluffing your way in, by decieving (read: lying; read: broke your code) but then you BETRAY the trust you falsely earned?

Betrayal is evil. Period. In fact, it is generally Lawful Evil but can also at times be Chaotic Evil.

Using intelligent tactics, such as an ambush, is debatable and depends on the exact nature of your church's code and customs, but I would say is generally frowned upon. I wouldn't say you need to be Miko and call out all your opponents either, just simply attack.
Attack at dawn when your enemies are least prepared, attack from multiple angles. Fight a withdrawl into a more advantageous position, whether by terrain or allied ambush. Use flanking, use higher terrain, use mounted combat skills. There's more to combat then a courtly duel for sure, but treachery isn't in it for a Paladin.

Let me reiterate this for everyone who thinks being a Paladin has anything to do with deception on some level. Deception is lying, lying is expressly forbidden by the code as RAW. This is not my opinion or interpretation, it's how the class is written. Unless you precieve deception as somehow not lying, in which case... I don't think you 'get' Paladin and are indeed decieving yourself.

I did also mention that the Paladin is a military man and a tactican. Tactics are expressly realted to Deception and the military, they're inseperable.
There wa no betrayal involved in killing the Bandit King, no more than Bluffing your way past the guard and sneaking into his bedchamber to accomplish the same goal. Is that Evil?

The deadliest thing in a battle is a single, well-aimed shot, and likewise, the deadliest thing to an organization is a single, well-aimed attack. All the Paladin did was get the viper to not bite him before he got close enough to chop off its head and eat it (the Viper, not the head) for dinner.

And the battle was against a group of Evil creatures who were directly opposed to our goal, but not yet aware that our caravan was near their location, its like employing a Sniper or Guerilla Tactics.

[storybookknight]

Heh, we've been discussing all these sorts of things in the game I'm playing, A Paladin's Heart (down there in the sig.)

There's like six or seven of us, all paladins of one stripe or another... I'm playing one with a few levels of Rogue!

[Kizara]

Kizara, if deception is lying, a Paladin wouldn't be allowed to feint in combat!

Mine don't; they also don't Sneak Attack (Blackgaurd class ability). And I think "Feinting is dishonorable" is a perfectly valid argument.

As for the apple guy: nope. Good try tough. I would certinally say your example could've been a CG character though.

1) Illusionist makes statement: "Grab the apple on the table!" and thus gives testimony that he indeed believes there is a real apple on the table. This is untrue and a lie.

2) The children, being children, trust the man and go try to grab the apple. They are decieved and their trust is betrayed.

Personally, if I was that kid, I'd be fairly angry at the man for lying to me like that about the apple and not want to talk to him again. I certinally wouldn't trust him again.

[Thanatos 51-50]

<INGSOC'd>
Personally, if I was that kid, I'd be fairly angry at the man for lying to me like that about the apple and not want to talk to him again. I certinally wouldn't trust him again.

I'd just be upset that Billy got the Apple instead of me, and ask the man if he had another apple for me.

Or maybe an apple for ALL of us! Yeah!
"Mr. Magick Man, do you have any more apples for the rest of us?"

[Talya]

Y'all haven't seen an insane player until Corolinth is in your campaign playing Doctor François von Hösen, Gnomish swashbuckling performer and pirate. And ship's doctor.

(The bastard refuses to make a bardic knowledge roll. Instead, he makes up bull**** and rolls bluff.)

[Rachel Lorelei]

Mine don't; they also don't Sneak Attack (Blackgaurd class ability). And I think "Feinting is dishonorable" is a perfectly valid argument.

Uh, I don't know if you've ever fenced, but I don't think you understand how armed combat works. If your Paladins don't feint, they couldn't ever win a fight with a trained humanoid opponent: feinting, shifting your blade so it's not where they expect, et cetera is an integral part of combat. I spar hand-to-hand, and someone who just strikes exactly where it seems like they will goes down fast--eye-fakes, jabs to cover up shifts, feigning openings are vital parts of combat. Feinting is more than just the PHB use of the feat--D&D mechanics don't cover the minutiae of combat.
"Feinting is dishonorable" isn't a valid argument. It is absolutely senseless.

Also, Sneak Attack is simply precise strikes, much like critical hits. There's nothing dishonorable or evil about that, either.