Should paladins be able to lie?
>>47500046
A Paladin should act with law, justice and goodness in his heart.
If that involves lying to protect the innocent when he has no other recourse, so be it.
>>47500046
Of course. Their legs would get tired if they couldn't.
>>47500046
Lying is against the codes of honor and chivalry, and as such a Paladin should never speak anything but the truth. Sometimes it'll be a pain but it's their duty.
"Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon." - Rorschach from Frank Miller's "Watchmen"
>>47500046
Yes. Paladins are symbols of Law and Good, but they aren't Perfect, and they shouldn't be expected to be Perfect.
>>47500076
You can sit but you shall never lie!!!
>>47500078
Rorschach is a liar by virtue of wearing a fucking mask all the time.
>Demon: where are the children so I might eat them, paladin.
>Sir Bumblefuck: they're in the barn, demon (children are actually in the farmhouse)
Guess what that paladin just lied. But I guess by your logic he should fall.
>>47500078
Rorschach isn't a paladin.
That said, as a paladin, lying should be an absolute last resort. I can't think of a situation where remaining silent, or telling the truth, or even telling a version of the truth would not be a better option than lying, but I suppose there might be one.
>>47500091
That's a slippery slope, Anon. A Paladin should ALWAYS strive to uphold Law and Good, and lying deliberately even for good reasons is not either of those things.
At MOST a Paladin should withhold information in defiance. A Paladin should never willingly lie and if put into a situation where lying is 100% necessary should seek atonement immediately.
>>47500116
Eh, Paladin's not under any obligation to respond.
>>47500116
>Rorschach is a liar by virtue of wearing a fucking mask all the time.
What? How do you figure that?
>>47500116
Why wouldn't he remain silent, or smite the demon? Does he really think the children could escape in the time it takes the demon to search the barn? Why doesn't he try to stall?
>>47500121
>lying deliberately even for good reasons is not good
You what?
>>47500122
>Paladin doesn't respond
>Demon eats the Paladin who is not strong enough to fight him head on
>Demon finds children and eats them too
This is why retards like you ruin the name of Paladins. You always insist on playing them as if they had a 6 INT score, total meatheads plainly incapable of handling anything that demands the slightest tact or grace.
>>47500136
He wears a mask so he can beat up and even kill criminals outside the law. He might be damaged enough to think the mask is is real face, but at the end of the day he doesn't have to worry about the cops picking him up off the street when he's not wearing it.
He's putting on a persona so he won't get caught. That's lying, anon. It's no different than using a fake ID or giving someone a false phone number. We can argue about whether or not he's justified until the cows come home, but it is what it is.
>>47500154
Acts of deception are inherently evil. Remember that in a setting with Paladins and spells and magic, Good and Evil actions are literally and objectively defined.
A deliberate lie even for good reasons is at best a neutral act - permissible for other Lawful Good characters, but for a Paladin that's bound to a code of ethics, it's something you'd want to seek atonement for.
>>47500166
Being Lawful isn't the same as being a cop or a lawyer.
>>47500168
I can't imagine any GM making a paladin fall or lose his powers if he A)tells a lie to preserve Law and Good and B) the results of that lie vindicate his decision.
>>47500168
>Acts of deception are inherently evil
>A deliberate lie even for good reasons is at best a neutral act
Make up your mind, man.
Is lying always evil, or not?Or better, is it merely Chaotic or Neutral.
>>47500046
Depends on what gods or codes they follow. I'd say most of the time yes, but there may be some hardass orders where it's not allowed
>>47500168
>Acts of deception are inherently evil.
No they aren't.
>>47500186
Maybe not just once - a lie is a minor offense - but if the Paladin was not aware of his act of evil and if he did not make amends for it, and then continued to deliberately lie, that would be grounds for a Paladin to fall.
>>47500191
Lying is evil. Lying for a good reason brings it up to morally grey AT BEST - the kind of thing a Paladin doesn't want to do too much of, lest they stain their soul and become unworthy of their powers.
>>47500210
>Lying is evil.
No, it's not! Lying to prevent evil is itself inherently good!
>>47500181
>literally said nothing about being Lawful
That said, Rorschach isn't Lawful on any point in the 3x3. He's a deranged maniac who murders people because he thinks the system is broken. He only targets bad people, but that doesn't make him a paladin.
You can't assign any label to Rorschach other than Rorschach. The fact so many people think he's Lawful Good is one of the more damning indictments of the Alignment system I've seen.
I play/write a paladin who serves the setting's god of truth, and I fluff it that that god permits his paladins to use deception in order to defeat enemies, the same way they would feint attacks in a fight.
He's more concerned with universal truths than 100%. It is a lie to tell the guard that the slaves aren't there, but the paladin is defending the greater truth that no person should be someone else's property.
>>47500208
>>47500216
If it wasn't evil or chaotic, it wouldn't be explicitly against the Paladin's code. It is, and therefore it must be one of the two.
Since Lawful Evil characters regularly lie, cheat and steal their way into positions which better suit them, it can't be Chaotic. Therefore it is Evil.
>>47500210
You're letting your perception of objective Law colour your perfection of Good.
Lying is by nature not Lawful, but that does not make it objectively Chaotic or Evil.
Either way you're an idiot, and there's no point conversing with you.
>>47500245
"I can't argue properly so I'm giving up, but I win anyway."
You, sir, are not fit to be a Paladin.
>>47500241
>it wouldn't be explicitly against the Paladin's code
Maybe your shitty paladin's code. Not mine.
>>47500255
>http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin
>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.
If it's not against your paladin's code, you're either not playing a D&D/PF paladin, or you're using house rules.
Page 7 of the Book of Vile Darkness states that lying can cause a paladin to fall.
So...
>>47500255
This. I've never seen any official material say Paladins swear to never tell lies. And if there was, I'd ignore it and make the paladins in my setting swear a different kind of oath. I imagine paladin oaths have a lot more gravitas than "I promise to never ever fib" could provide.
>>47500289
Have a look here bubby >>47500271
>>47500289
See >>47500271
A paladin's not lying is LITERALLY as important to their rules as helping those in need and punishing those who threaten the innocent.
How are you not getting that a paladin that lies deliberately and without penance is breaking a core structure of their code, as grave as ignoring the starving or not punishing the guilty.
>>47500271
>d20pfsrd.com
>She
Like I said, maybe your shitty paladin code.
Also, pathfinder is neither a "default" nor does it have a single paladin code.
>>47500313
So homebrew.
Just making sure.
>>47500285
Yes. "can". In the same way a paladin can fall for fucking killing someone.
>>47500313
>http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm
>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.
>>47500303
Saw that after I posted and thread updated.
My point still stands though. Mostly because by "lying" they mean the big lies. Lying with malevolence for purposes which don't line up with Law and Good. I wouldn't make a paladin fall just for some minor deception.
Part of the reason Paladins have such a shit reputation is because both devs and players turned them into a class dictated entirely by extremes.
>>47500046
Yes. Paladins are simply religious fanatics like ISIS. If they follow a religion that is okay with lying for the sake of that religion then there isn't a problem with them doing so.
>>47500322
I'm not following. This is like obviously causal, right?
>>47500226
He's certainly not Lawful Good, but being an insane vigilante is more or less a requirement for being Lawful Neutral.
Personally, I think the whole "Thou shalt never lie", is bullshit. Lies can lead to good. If your King wants to murder his Wife because she was unfaithful to him, and you, the Paladin, knows that the King is a fucking wife beater, and knows where she ran away, are you going to tell the king where she is?
Lying can be good.
Not everything is black and white.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
>>47500320
THERE ARE MULTIPLE ORDERS OF PALADINS IN PATHFINDER WITH DIFFERENT CODES OF CONDUCT
Additionally, your link says the important part is not to act dishonorably. A lie to prevent evil is not dishonorable, merely strategy.
>>47500330
Now you're just interpreting the rules in a way that allow you to perform actions that you shouldn't otherwise be able to get away with - you're literally as bad of a paladin player as the dude that tries to execute helpless prisoners because they could potentially harm others again.
>m-muh devs are out to get me
So, you play with house rules. Why are you still here? You're literally rewriting a game and then trying to get other people to play using your new rules.
>>47500313
>Most widely played RPG in entire world is not default for discussion
>Maximum over-denial
>>47500337
I'm saying the wording doesn't say that lying WILL cause a paladin to fall, but that the act of lying can trigger it, with the question of whether or not it does in any given situation being answered by the context.
>>47500250
Rendering judgement when you have no lawful right to render it?
How low the order has fallen.
>>47500347
>vigilante
>Lawful
Vigilantism is inherently contrary to a stable society and is out of sync with most understandings of Law I've encountered.
>>47500337
He means lying, like killing, isn't what makes the paladin fall. It's the who, why, and what happens afterward.
Like, if I had a paladin pull a Dark Knight and take the fall for someone else in order to preserve some kind of greater good, then I wouldn't make the guy fall and lose his powers. I'd just make everyone hate him because they think he did something wrong.
>>47500330
>My point still stands though. Mostly because by "lying" they mean the big lies. Lying with malevolence for purposes which don't line up with Law and Good. I wouldn't make a paladin fall just for some minor deception.
Excuse me, but WHAT? I understand sort of what you mean, but what is there to decide a BIG lie from a SMALL lie?
Is it the impact of the lie? The severity? So, all of a sudden an oath towards honor when it strictly says "no lying" can be bent as necessary and is as shaky as someone saying "I'll pay you back someday?"
What the fuck? These are paladins. The seal team six of fucking religious warriors. And we're going to assume a paladin would bend his oath and not expect some sort of divine punishment?
Jesus. Just play a religious fighter if that's how it's going to be!
>>47500369
5e is bigger than 3.5
>>47500363
In this instance, the king is no longer legitimate authority when it comes to telling him his wife's whereabouts. You refuse to tell the king where she is. You do not tell the king that she is somewhere else.
>>47500250
He's right though, you're acting like a dumbass by trying to characterize lying as being on an alignment axis.
Would you consider Han Solo a classically Chaotic Good character, especially at the end of A New Hope? Do you really think he never told a lie after he decided to help Luke and crew tackle the Death Star?
Or Robin Hood, or any other Chaotic Good character you can think of, if you're hung up on the different setting. Whatever.
Point is, you're dumb, and trying to make a paladin fall for misdirection in the name of doing good is like making him fall for using a feint in combat because it's not honorabru enough.
>>47500046
Yes.
A paladin is a holy warrior. They fight to spread the influence of their god. Unless their god is lawful good and hates lying, then I see no reason for the paladin to be forced to be lawful good and never lie.
Hell, there could be a paladin dedicated to the god of deception who probably has a quota of lies he needs to tell each day or some bullshit.
>>47500389
Not in sales or playerbase. Do you mean in parent company size? Yeah, Hasbro is big.
There's a reason their 5e motto is worlds "greatest" or "oldest." And not "best-selling"
>>47500393
Who are YOU to decide who is the legitimate authority?
It's a KINGDOM, he's a KING. In most settings, a KING is basically tyrant overlord and can do whatever he wants, because his world is law.
Are YOU usurping the LAW?
Shouldnt that make you fall?
Anyway, I agree, that a Paladin shouldnt say, because the King is biased, but if we go by pure law and order, then if the King, by law of the land is THE LAW, then yeah, you have to, legally, tell him.
>>47500401
A quota of lies daily?
What, does he tell the grass how blue it looks today?
>>47500386
>but what is there to decide a BIG lie from a SMALL lie?
Whether or not the lie is made for a good reason or a bad one. IE, giving incorrect information to an evil person to thwart their plans, when direct confrontation is for whatever reason impossible, is not bad, neither is say, a white lie in conversation for the sake of politeness. But self minded deception would be grounds for retribution or, depending on the severity, abandonment. It is betrayal of trust which is dishonorable, not merely uttering words which are not literally true.
>>47500386
>Princess: Sir Orderius does this dress make my butt look big?
>Sir Orderius: No (yes)
>Paladin falls.
See what I'm getting at here? Difference between a big lie and a little lie?
>>47500367
>you're literally as bad of a paladin player as the dude that tries to execute helpless prisoners because they could potentially harm others again.
Executing prisoners who did something worthy of execution is completely within the purview of paladins. They can act as the proper authority because they ARE the proper authority by virtue of their class and alignment.
If a paladin executes some guy for stealing a loaf of bread because he "might steal again" then paladin falls. That's abusing his authority and perverting his role. The the paladin executes a bandit chief who surrenders, paladin doesn't fall. The guy's a murderer who profits by spreading pain and misery.
>>47500386
YOU CANNOT JUDGE ME.
I AM JUSTICE ITSELF.
Yes but for unselfish purposes, or to say, only for the fulfillment of his primary duties of paladinhood (protecting the innocent, punishing evil). And even then, frequent lying should be discouraged by the DM, as the sort of archetype that a paladin evokes is defined by honesty and forthrightness rather than by deception.
A smarter paladin would just refuse to answer an inquiry that would harm the innocent, or respond in the best way a paladin knows how. With the sword, and with a heart full of weapons-grade faith.
>Demon:Where are the children, so that I might eat them
>Paladin:.........
or alternatively
>Demon: Where are the chil-
>Paladin: DIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>47500399
Han Solo and Robin Hood did not have codes forbidding lying.
>>47500417
Wife beating is a crime and an evil act. If you know that the king is likely to continue beating his wife, then he ceases to be legitimate authority if he questions you regarding her whereabouts.
He may very well still have authority within his land. You may very well have to aid him with other tasks, so long as they do not lead to Chaos or Evil.
But you are under no obligation to help him find and continue to beat his wife.
It is still not morally justifiable to lie about her whereabouts. Withholding information is not against your code.
But nice try, trying to change the subject to some other stupid shit.
Welcome everyone!
And to our left we have Kant's Axeman! Stay a while!
>>47500424
Probably. I'm sure after about the third week they get sick of searching for chances to tell actual lies and just sing about things being colors that they aren't every morning.
I'm sure deception god thinks the ritual is stupid too but all those old fart high priests are too hung up on tradition to get rid of it.
>>47500431
What is the punishment for thievery is death?
In real life, in ancient countries, the punishment for thievery was losing a hand.Even bread because they were hungry. Even for kids.
Does the Paladin execute the law as is written and falls for cruelty?Or does the Paladin abstain for executing the law and let evil go unpunished, and fall?
Fall or Fall?
>>47500448
And what if the Paladin knows that the Daemon is too strong for him to defeat alone, but has reinforcements nearby that can help if he can stall for time?
>>47500449
>It is still not morally justifiable to lie about her whereabouts. Withholding information is not against your code.
Withholding information is lying though, just like half-truths and untruths.
>>47500431
>Sir Orderius: No (yes)
He should tell the truth at all times. What's with tellin' her dat ass was phat?
>>47500367
>you're literally as bad of a paladin player as the dude that tries to execute helpless prisoners because they could potentially harm others again.
Don't even try this you limp-dicked liberal.
>>47500479
Literally false. You're not even trying.
>>47500271
>Linking 3.5/PFs morality system
D&D 3.5's Alignment system is fucked up beyond comprehension, because the original meaning and intentions behind the system have been lost.
People believe D&D usually have a cheery high fantasy setting, but the core of it is an incredible dangerous world filled with horrible monsters.
'Playing nice with enemies' or 'acting stupid' is a sure way to get yourself killed.
>>47500491
>morality system
I'm literally.
LITERALLY.
Linking the class feature that says they can't lie.
I did not link the D&D morality system. I linked a C L A S S. F E A T U R E.
>>47500466
That involves particulars for the setting and depends more on the GM's morality than the Paladins.
Personally? If the law says to cut off the hand of anyone who steals and the Paladin doesn't do that to the poor orphan boy who stole an orange? I wouldn't make the guy fall. Not unless he followed a god who actively demanded he do it.
Part of being Lawful Good is refusing to stand for unjust Laws.
>>47500490
That's a lie too. Also you were rude and could possibly have hurt my feelings, which is an evil act.
Your acts are abhorrent in the eyes of your god and you fall immediately.
>>47500466
A paladin does nto need to stick to a law that goes against his code of morals and ethics. He need only respect legitimate authority, and an authority that would murder those who resort to theft in order to survive is no legitimate authority.
Paladins are not black and white. They are not required to always follow the law 100% of the time. All that is required is they act with just and good intentions, and accept consequences and strive to uphold the morals of those who would be arbiters of justice.
Once again we learn /tg/ is shit at roleplay and would rather strictly adhere to rules instead of what is good and just.
>>47500469
This is why Defensive Combat has its own rules.
>>47500491
What the fuck is your problem? It's LITERALLY a part of the class that was quoted! Not some shaky-ass morality system you cunt.
"I refuse to tell you where your wife is."
There is no shred of falsehood in this statement.
>>47500449
>Han Solo and Robin Hood did not have codes forbidding lying.
You are intentionally trying to not think of the REASON for that code, because you are dumb.
They didn't just invent rules because they sounded cool, they exist to serve a means. And as >>47500429 correctly assessed, the means behind it is not betraying trust.
If you're sitting here trying to tell me you would make a Paladin fall for telling his wife her butt isn't big, because he took the No Fibbing oath, you're a retard.
>>47500505
It emphasizes not to act dishonorably. The mention of lying is included in a list which literally includes the term "and so forth". It is clearly intended to refer to actually bad deception, not literally ever saying or writing something that isn't true.
>>47500515
And when the Demon kills him anyway because the Paladin wasn't able to fight defensively that long and refused to even try and buy himself and the children even a few more seconds by bantering?
>>47500505
>>47500518
The class feature is literally retarded and intentionally misunderstands the concepts of Paladinhood.
The whole premise of 3.5 being a clusterfuck regarding alignment and things like class features (like the one mentioned above) is the problem.
>>47500514
Oh? So lying is ethical behavior?
>>47500520
So, you disobey your king?
That's illegal too, bro.In most countries or ancient times, disobeying your king? That's treason.
Are you going to also fight your way out?
Treasonous murderer?
Wow.
>>47500523
>If you're sitting here trying to tell me you would make a Paladin fall
I just got here, read through every post, and can clearly state that you are the only one talking about small lies making Paladins fall. The other guy or guys is just saying that it is not a Good act, and Paladins should not do it.
In short, you're putting words into his/their mouth(s) to shore up your pithy argument.
>>47500520
"Guards, execute this man."
Again, you play Paladins like a 6 INT retard, without a shred of grace. You give them a bad name.
>>47500546
Depending on the circumstances it can be the MOST ethical choice.
>>47500520
>not apologizing beforehand
>disrespecting a royal authority figure
>disobeying a royal authority figure
>stopping to talk to the king even though literally 9000 babies are dying right now as a direct result of your actions
You fall.
>>47500537
Then he's dead. Paladins die. The important thing is that he stood and fought.
>>47500548
There's a reason that the old saying goes "For God, king, and country".
Do note which noun comes first in line.
>>47500523
If a Paladin told his wife her butt wasn't big over and over with no regard for the fact that he was deliberately deceiving her, nor any penance, many times, then yes. He would fall. He is breaking his code.
>>47500536
>Class feature says not to act dishonorably.
>Class feature calls lying a dishonorable act.
>Waaah I should be able to lie and disregard the code even though it's explicitly dishonorable.
>>47500548
Still not even trying. Someone needs a basic understanding of "legitimate authority".
>>47500556
>Pussying out of doing the right thing because the king might execute you.
Okay.
>>47500561
Durr durr durr.
>>47500469
If an act of deception/omission is instrumental in helping him get that time, then it should by all means be acceptable. Courage should be tempered by wisdom, the knowledge of ones own limits being the border in-between a short career of do-gooding and a long one.
Failing that, a nice long game of 'smack-the-demon-with-your-sword-and-bolt' would suffice, with the paladin accepting that his life is an acceptable price for the time it'd take for the reinforcements to arrive.
>>47500564
No, the important thing is to help the innocent and thwart the evil.
Those I suppose these differences in opinion are why multiple orders of paladins exist.
>>47500514
>A paladin does nto need to stick to a law that goes against his code of morals and ethics
>morals and ethics
>act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)
Huh.
>>47500546
You have the choice to lie to save a life, tell the truth and have the person be killed, or say nothing and you are both killed.
What is the most ethical choice?
Note I did not say that lying is ALWAYS the most ethical choice. I merely said that the paladin should always choose to adhere to that which is just, righteous and good. If a law is not righteous, what purpose is there to follow it, when it so clearly leads to the harm and ill treatment of others? As such, in a time of need, lying can be the most ethical choice.
Paladins are not Lawful Stupid, they are Lawful Good. As such, choose the action that is Good, and you shall in turn be Lawful.
>>47500570
>>47500564
>>47500571
>RRRGGHH PALADIN SMASH!!!
So do you guys just kill yourselves like retards every time you get into a situation that you can't immediately fight your way out of?
This is why your GM rolls his eyes when he sees you play a Paladin.
I pity your players in the event you are the GM.
>>47500570
I guess at that point, it depends on what God you follow.
Helm would tell you "Find that bitch, and let the King do as he must."
Torm would tell you "DEFEND the fair maiden with your last breath! FIGHT!"
Sune would be like "Let Love Thrive! Kill the King!."
>>47500571
>Durr durr durr.
>insulting someone else
>belittling those with disabilities
>killing another 9000 babies
Jesus Christ anon they're going to have to start sending inevitables after you at this rate
>>47500582
If you want to continualy bring up rules, go ahead. You're probably somebody that plays a wizard and breaks every rule conceivable.
Rules are guidelines to stick to to have fun, enjoyable gameplay. When a rule clearly is far too strict (no lying for paladins, several other rules as well) I, as a DM, will often ignore or change said rules, in order to allow my campaign to be as smooth as possible.
>>47500609
I'm gonna stop responding to you now, because your replies are boring and don't have to do with the topic. I hope you had fun, Anon!
>>47500582
IT IS CLEARLY REFERRING TO SELF CENTERED DECEPTION, AND DECEPTION WHEN DIRECT ACTION IS AN OPTION
You are extrapolating a single rushed and incomplete class description from one edition of one game (the official settings of which actually include multiple paladin codes, at least some of which don't even mention lying) to an incorrect conclusion about all paladins in all games. Lies intended for good were not the intention of that writing, and that is incredibly clear to anyone who isn't fucking braindead.
>>47500612
Same, I've NEVER told my Paladin players they cant lie.
They just cant make out right EVIL actions. You know, murdering innocents, stealing from the poor, ect.
>>47500571
>>Pussying out of doing the right thing because the king might execute you.
While I agree with you Paladins should do the right thing, what you're saying is venturing into Lawful Stupid territory.
A Paladin can't serve justice if he's dead. A smart Paladin knows this. If he's got to tell a white lie so he can buy time and fight another day, then I won't call him out for dereliction of duty or dishonarbru conduct.
Now, if he told that king his wife was in a different place, and when the king got there he found an ambush waiting for him, that's a different story. That's a fall-worthy lie. Or at the very least his god puts him on time-out if the king was a real bastard.
>>47500625
>implying "lol babies die, you fall" isn't exactly the point of this topic
What if I lie to myself about my weight as a Paladin?Do I fall?
If I look at a mirror, and see myself obviously with a few pounds overweight, and I say "I look FINE!", does a thunderbolt hit me and I become a featless Fighter?
>>47500588
The most ethical choice would be to tell the truth, and hope that either: the person can protect themselves or that I can die to protect them.
I have damned them by following my code. If they are innocent, I must protect them from the evils that are preying on them and exploited me to have them slain.
It is my sworn duty to be a paragon of goodness and justice. It is my duty to live by this code and die by this code. It is my goal to be martyred and to eventually become a saint. It is my goal to be revered for what others would never do.
It's not lawful stupid. It's actually fucking adhering to a code and sticking to it rather than being a flimsy chaotic piece of shit and deciding it only works when you want it to.
>>47500564
Then by that logic the Paladin should fall the first time he ever does anything other than walk straight towards the BBEG like a horde of lemmings. After all, they're supposed to smite evil, so they should logically just try and smite the biggest evil first right?
No reason to try and plan or rest or improve your odds of success through strategy. You have to act like a retard or else you fall. It doesn't matter if waiting 3 seconds before charging in would save millions of lives by letting you win the fight instead of dying 'courageously'. You have to charge because the slightest pause means you fall.
>>47500159
..what? How the fuck Paladin lying will change outcome of that scenario?
>>47500385
The whole point of vigilantism is that it's a reaction to an unstable society. If there was no Kingpin or Ras al'Ghul, there would be no Daredevil or Batman. This is one of the most basic tenets of capeshit.
>>47500656
Good is always more important than Law when the two are in conflict, and that extends to paladins, perhaps even more than anyone else.
>>47500660
>fall, fall, fall, Paladin fall
No, he shouldn't. I never once said he should fall, so stop shoving words into my mouth like you shove dicks into yours.
>>47500660
Technically, the basis of all strategy and tactics is deceit and misinformation(lies), so a Paladin SHOULD NEVER have tactics or strategy.
A Good Paladin charges and smites.
>>47500449
>Wife beating is a crime and an evil act
It's not a crime if the king says it isn't. It's still evil, though.
This whole thread makes me want to play a cheeky rogue who ribs her party paladin every time he tells a while lie or forgets to give proper change.
>>47500627
>I disagree with the class option therefore it was rushed and incomplete.
>NO MOM I'M NOT USING HOUSE RULES.
>>47500637
Stalwart defiance in the face of injustice is exactly what a paladin is about. If you have to become a martyr, so be it. But you don't compromise your ideals of honor so that you can live another day.
If the king will kill you for not defying your honor and protecting the innocent, so be it. You stand strong as a bulwark and do not give up your ideals. To do otherwise would make you less than a Paladin.
>>47500686
What if the king says it isnt 'evil', if the religion ALSO says it's not evil? The Quran and many other religions state it's GOOD to beat your wife, in fact, your duty to do so, if they step out of line.
>>47500664
>"The kids are in the barn."
>'Okay.'
>Paladin grabs the kids who were hiding behind the house and gets a lead on the Demon while he searches the barnyard
Wow it's almost as if when faced when an impossible battle you save more lives (or have a better chance of saving any lives) if you use minor deceptions or something. I'm glad we've got you caught up to the rest of the class now, fampai.
>>47500677
You're right. You said that rather than lying, he should just jump on the demon's sword and lose the entire battle for the innocents he was trying to protect.
>>47500682
If that's true, then Paladin level progression shouldn't go beyond first, because they'll be dead or fallen in a week.
>>47500707
One, you never said which kind of demon it was. Two, I said he should fight the demon to allow the hypothetical children time to escape, not that he should "jump on its sword".
Your entire argument here hinges on your assumption of the Paladin getting Worfed.
What if by doing small , minor evil, you get to be in place to do great good and destroy big evil?
Would you fall if you explain your plan to your God? Like say, infiltrating a Kingpin's domain, or a Cultist group, do a few evil deeds, all under cover, so you can get to the big goombah and make the whole house of cards fall?
Would your God let you keep your Paladin status?
>>47500076
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zXDo4dL7SU
>>47500695
Sometimes a small bad right now will keep a worse bad from happening.
Take the "kids are in the barn" scenario presented in this thread. The paladin could just fight the demon right now, and then he might get killed. Now there's a houseful of scared kids, a demon looking for them, and one less paladin to lead and help them. By refusing to lie, the paladin risks putting the children in an even worse position.
If the paladin lies and doesn't take the first opportunity he has to climb onto a cross, then he can buy a bit of time and use it to get those kids out of there.
>ITT: /tg/ proves that even they are not beyond unironically believing the Lawful Stupid meme is how Paladins should act
>>47500729
>Your entire argument here hinges on your assumption of the Paladin getting Worfed.
No shit. The question isn't "should a paladin always lie to demons that they could just kill", but "can a paladin lie in a situation where it would produce the best possible outcome for general good". Obviously if the paladin thinks he stands a pretty good chance at just destroying the problem, that's the solution, and lying to try to get out of it would be bad.
>>47500078
>paladins are beholden to the chivalric code
>every now and then he must menace the peasantry so they know their place
>namely below that of the paladin's lord
>raping and pillaging is a-okay so long as you don't target nobility and preferably take other paladins and nobility hostage for ransom instead of just mercilessly cutting them down like you would commoner scum
>>47500720
“All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
LYING.
Paladins fall the moment they begin making strategies.
>>47500746
>implying this is new
Honestly, as much as I love paladins, this is part of why I rarely play them anymore.
>>47500729
>One, you never said which kind of demon it was
I said it was one he couldn't defeat alone. The exact breed doesn't matter.
>Two, I said he should fight the demon to allow the hypothetical children time to escape, not that he should "jump on its sword".
Right, that he should fight defensively to buy time for reinforcements and for them to escape. Except that the Paladin can only fight defensively for so long, and in this situation, he should be trying to buy as much time as possible.
If the Paladin can't defeat the demon alone, and his reinforcements can't defeat it by themselves, but the two groups could defeat the demon together, then the Paladin would be foolish to not try and buy as much time as possible for his reinforcements to arrive so they can kill the demon, rather than needlessly sacrificing himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_uUEaeqFog
Hey you cunts. Here's some learning for you.
>>47500744
So play a religious fighter, if the Paladin's code is too much for you.
Anyway, I've never said that a Paladin could never lie, just that they should seek penance for it and not use it except as a last resort.
>>47500747
Okay, lets take this back to square one and examine the situation. I'll even throw you a bone and operate on your assumption that this pathetic Paladin is facing off against, like, a fucking Pit Fiend or something. There are two young children hiding in the barn and the Paladin just so happens to know that there is an ARMY OF RIGHTEOUSNESS fifteen minutes away that can maybe probably kill the demon.
Should the paladin:
>Fight the demon while telling the children to run to safety
>Snatch the children and flee to safety on his Magical Steed
>Pray to his deity to protect the innocent children
>Lie like a coward to try to save his own wretched skin
Thoughts and opinions, peanut gallery?
>>47500770
Kant was a stupid faggot
>>47500751
Yes. For example:
>We should rest for the night before we reach the goblin caves. It's still another day's march, and those wolves took a lot out of us
>NO, PALADIN ANGRY. PALADIN SMITE ALL GOBLINS
And then the Paladin sprints for a few miles before he arrives at the goblin caves. Then he has the choice to either attack, in which case he falls because it's night and attacking at night is strategic, or he falls because he's waiting for morning to strike and allowing the goblins to live. Either way, he also probably dies, because the goblins team up to kill him.
Thus, you'll never need more than one level of Paladin.
>>47500788
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting.
>>47500770
Alright, then I want Utilitarian Paladins.
Then they can be stuck in an eternal conflict with Deontological Paladins in a Holy War called the GOOD WARS.
>>47500700
Those sources are also wrong. Enforcing your will in others through violence or coercion is the definition of evil. And as soon as you try to make an argument against me, I'll just invoke absolute morality. Fantasy settings are awesome.
>>47500783
The idea would be to lie in order to buy time to move the civilians.
>>47500811
>lying to a master of lying
Yeah. No possible way THAT could backfire...
>>47500797
Hey , fuck you buddy, I laughed.
That makes it okay.You're probably one of those shitty Deontological Paladins.
>>47500779
>But you don't compromise your ideals of honor
>"Ideals of honor" you extrapolated from a literal interpretation of an offhand remark of "Paladin's shouldn't lie"
Sounds like you're saying a paladin should never lie. And if you're the same guy who thinks Paladins should die instead of lie, then you explicitly are saying they shouldn't lie.
>So play a religious fighter, if the Paladin's code is too much for you.
Oh eat a dick. A Paladin Code isn't "too much for me" if I think a few liberal interpretations of some parts of the Code are justified if it means fulfilling my main job as a paladin. Which is "Protect the Innocent".
>>47500815
Eh, you never know. The Pit Fiend might browse /tg/ and believe Paladins can't lie or else they fall.
>>47500815
Well what's the demon going to do, kill him? He ALREADY intends to fight it. Just, not right this instant.
>>47500823
Nah. Pit Fiends have high Int. They wouldn't browse 4chan.
>>47500823
A lot of demons are pretty stupid. I would imagine they'd figure Paladin's are psychologically incapable of lying regardless of what /tg/ says.
>>47500804
>implying the deontological paladins wouldn't get their shit kicked in
>where is your leader?
>he's right here *points to map* also we've got forces stationed here, here, here and here, and we're currently travelling towards here so we can attack your forces stationed here. Any other questions?
>>47500826
>>47500783
Another option- to challenge the Demon to dance off. A demon, because of their prideful nature will not be able to resist the challenge to their ego.And Paladins have the required Diplomacy skill to make his ego feel it.
This will buy you enough time for the ARMY OF RIGHTEOUSNESS to arrive.
Thankfully, as a Follower of Sune, my Paladin had ranks in dancing.
Then, you can say your dancing skills saved the day.
>>47500826
>intends
Remember that old saw about the Road to Hell?
>>47500818
> ...if it means fulfilling my main job as a paladin.
Then you're not a paladin. If you think it's okay to consistently break your oath, and never pay penance then don't expect to gain the benefits of the class?
Come off it. If you want to "protect the innocent" the prerequisite for that isn't "paladin" and you damn well know it.
>>47500818
Nope. Paladins should be able to lie if they genuinely repent and are aware that it was against their code. Any good DM won't cause them to fall unless they willfully and without penance break their code while alternatives are available.
It should always. ALWAYS. Be the absolute last resort. And it should never be done lightly.
It is literally against their code. If you don't accept that, you're using house rules.
>I should be able to make my own rules as a paladin.
Religious fighter. Seriously, it'll make things easier for you. Stop being a baby. You may as well just switch to freeform RP if you want to be able to do anything you want without consequence.
>>47500856
If such an option would be viable, or is at the least believed to be viable, it is preferable over lying, this I will not argue.
>>47500848
It's hilarious how your shitpost assumes that a paladin just INSTANTLY falls the moment they lie.
>>47500857
See the thing about paladins is they have a compass that will let them know when they're headed the wrong direction. Also, we're talking about directly interfering with great evil that's literally about to be committed. Not like, cheating a merchant out of a nice sword just because you intend to use it to kill a fiend, or something.
>>47500858
Slow down there, Mr. Lawful Stupid. I never said anything about not taking penance or owning up your actions. Though I will say any GM who uses the system rules to punish a Paladin player for doing a Good thing simply because it was technically out of sync with his code is a shitty, vindictive GM. Probably the same kind of guy who'd throw an orc baby what do scenario. Or you. I'd hate to be a paladin in one of your games because you sound unpleasant and dictatorial.
Also:
>If you want to "protect the innocent" the prerequisite for that isn't "paladin"
No, but if you want to be a paladin then THE prerequisite is "protect the innocent".
>>47500881
"Cheating"?
Business is Lawful Neutral.
Cheating is what a loser in business calls the winner in a business deal.
If a Paladin gets a good deal because he has INCREDIBLY high diplomacy and also took knowledge:business and investment, and gets a good deal, he doesnt fall.
>>47500877
Well of course they do, because lying is evil and evil means you fall and incidentally did you know that babies are dying RIGHT NOW and it's all your fault?
>>47500876
>Babymode DnD
Yeah. I should have guessed that the guy who can't handle the paladin's Oath would be a 5e guy.
>>47500892
>Play a class with a code
>"IF YOU PUNISH THE PLAYER FOR NOT FOLLOWING THEIR CODE, YOU ARE A BAD GM."
>>47500877
Half the posters in this thread seem to assume that as well.
>>47500216
You are looking at the motives of the act rather than the act itself.
In a world of objective and simplistic morality, basically what paladins live by since they can detect evil and there are actually beings who are just flat out evil on purpose, actions are either good, neutral, or evil. The outcome of those actions is not what is important.
Mind you, the list of which acts are which moral category is set by the paladin's code and god.
If the paladin is sworn against lying, then that is the end of it. The act is what is wrong, not the outcomes.
In other words, Paladins don't use utilitarian ethics.
>>47500892
> Chooses to play a class that requires a strict code of conduct.
> Complain about said code of conduct because it is strict.
> Bemoan religious fighter which is perfect for someone who does not want to follow a strict code of conduct.
>>47500910
This. Murdering a human baby because you know for certain sure that he'll grow up to be a slaver is still Evil.
>>47500895
I meant like, trading them a fake magic item or one that doesn't work the way they suggest, or using counterfeit money or something. Obviously there's nothing evil about just being a smooth talker. Though using magic to compel a better deal would be evil.
>>47500920
I think I got it. He doesn't want to be a Paladin because he wants to be a Paladin, he just wants a free horse and magic powers.
>>47500116
>they're in my custody.
You guys are totally arguing over the most stupid, irrelevant shit imaginable. Here, have a real moral dilemma.
>Your paladin character just saved a bunch of children from enslavement in a mine
>The children are just coming out, while your paladin talks to the very fat father of one of the children at the entrance to the mine
>All of a sudden, a mine cart comes flying down the tracks toward you
>The children are on the opposite side of you from the cart, frozen in fear
>You know you can't reach them in time, or stop the cart in time, but you're 87% certain that if you push the fat guy in front of the cart, he will derail it and save the 5 children
Wat do?
>>47500877
But that's literally the wording of the code you linked to earlier.
"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features"
Why is it that the code is absolutely air tight regarding lying, but suddenly pliant regarding the consequences of a breach in code?
>>47500935
Pray for strength and punch the fucking cart.
>>47500910
I still think any Paladin code with an explicit "no lying ever" clause is kind of bonkers.
Like, I feel there'd be more important things to cover in that oath, like "no murdering" or "no complacency".
>>47500903
Difference between being punitive and administering consequence, anon. I'm not making a Paladin fall for telling a lie which saves the day. End of story. That's dickish DMing. The Fall is a last resort. It's a major thing, to lose your powers. I wouldn't even do that for a normal, one-time immoral lie. He might get called out by other paladins. He might get chewed out by his superiors. He might even get excommunicated if he fucks up badly enough.
But the Fall--as in the god tells him he's not a paladin anymore--will only happen if he lies out his ass all the time, or if he tells a truly terrible lie for a selfish, dishonorable reason. Because Falls are supposed to have weight; not thrown out like bad report cards every time your players do something you don't like.
>>47500935
How on earth do you have time to push the fat guy in front of the cart but not just get there yourself? Heck, throwing your sword onto the tracks in front of it is probably more likely to derail it.
It's also just a mine cart. It might not even kill the fat guy unless it's going fast enough where he probably won't slow it down at all.
Alternatively, cast a spell of courage on the children so they're no longer frozen in fear and can just move.
>>47500935
Fucking martyr yourself, obviously.
>>47500944
Won't work, this thing is an unstoppable force. The fat guy is just really, really, immensely fat. Also surprisingly dense.
>>47500935
I'd rather discuss the laws of physics that allow me to push the fat guy in front of the cart, but don't allow me to put myself in front of the cart
>>47500952
That's exactly what I've been saying this whole time anon. But you are kind if dumb if you think the DM shouldn't step in and punish a player who is unrepentant about his lies, even if it's not immediately a "you fall" consequence.
>>47500910
The motive is what's important. Even in black in white morality. Consider the act of killing a person: this is not in and of itself an evil crime. To punish a severe crime, or to prevent an immediate act of great evil, to kill a person is good. To kill a person out of revenge, for pleasure, or personal gain is murder, and evil. WHY you do something matters as much as what you actually DID.
>In other words, Paladins don't use utilitarian ethics.
It depends on the god, really. Sure, some gods are hardasses, others are utilitarian themselves.
>>47500965
If the fat guy is able to stop an unstoppable force, how the fuck can a paladin hurl him into the cart?
>>47500952
What's your limit, then? How many lies does a Paladin have to tell before he falls? Do you jugde each lie on a weighted scale. giving more "fall points" for bigger lies than for smaller ones?
>>47500957
>>47500960
You're not fat enough. The kinetic energy would vaporize you. Your sword is inaccessible because you use a fantasy back scabbard.
>>47500965
So if the fat guy is an immovable object and the cart is an unstoppable force, then science demands that I push the fat guy in front of the cart and see what happens.
I can just resurrect him later if he dies.
>>47500965
Look, if it's an unstoppable force, and I KNOW it is, it's obvious that my God has decided to kill those children.
Either that or the Kid's Father is the Blob, and the fucking Juggernaut is on the mine cart.
And if this is what's happening, then fuck it, both the mine cart and the guy will be fine.
>>47500984
Realize I'm in some shitty thought experiment that the creator keeps changing the rules of because he made a really stupid scenario and is trying to cover his ass.
>>47500972
>The motive is what's important
So, Hitler did nothing wrong? He just wanted to unfuck the bullshit that got pulled on Germany after WWI. His motives were good.
>>47500970
>>47500980
You just kick his ankle out and he topples. You've got better leverage on him than you have on the front of an oncoming mine cart.
>>47500997
No dude. Obviously, the Juggernaut is on the mine cart, and the Blob is the kid's father, and your job is to slam one againts the other.
GOD WILLS IT!
>>47500997
>"if duties are in conflict with each other , the duty with the higher moral importance should be pursued even at the cost of the other duty"
i think kant said something along the lines of this
>>47500982
It all depends on the lie, who he lies to, how often he acts like this, and what the end result is.
A white lie for the sake of politeness or appearances? Not really worth punishing.
A big lie done because the truth would lead to an objectively worse outcome, such as innocent people getting killed or tortured? The paladin probably wouldn't fall. Probably wouldn't get into trouble, though I'd encourage the player to ask for guidance because that's obvious going to cause a crisis of faith.
A bunch of shitty, petty lies? The more he does it more likely he'll get kicked out and fall. It's completely unpaladin like to grift merchants out of their supplies and money all the time.
One big, malevolent lie? Like leading the king into a lethal ambush so the paladin can assume control and gain personal power? That's a fall right there.
>>47500998
That's it, ladies and gents, thread's over.
Godwin's Law activated.
>>47500998
To resist the treaty of versailles was not inherently evil. To cement his political hold through assassination, invade foreign countries for land, and execute innocent civilians for unproven acts which are not even crimes, is evil.
>>47500985
He's just fat enough to redirect the unstoppable force. There's no world-ending paradox.
>>47500997
I've only been clarifying the situation, I haven't changed a single rule.
There's no "should", it varies by individual oath and religious sect.
Paladins aren't some weird, homogeneous mass of robot people. They live and breathe.
>>47501004
Well then I just pop hand of protection on him and kick him in front of the cart. The kick and the cart will both deal physical damage, which hand of protection negates.
Alternatively, I pop hand of protection on the kid in the front so he can facetank the cart and walk away unharmed. Crisis solved.
>>47501057
No you don't understand this one half sentence in the 3.5 rulebook which isn't even true in the official settings means all paladins in all settings shouldn't ever lie for any reason, even a good one
>>47501057
well apparently, because the Pathfinder rulebook says no paladins ever should lie, then they're all supposed to act that way.
>>47501045
I think 'clarifying' that the mine cart isn't actually a mine cart but some sort of light-speed cruise missile and that the fat man is secretly an anti- light-speed missile defense construct constitutes a change.
>>47500984
>The kinetic energy would vaporize you
I'm sorry. What? How fucking fast is this cart moving? How do we have time to respond to this? How is the dad so fat that a cart moving so fast it would vaporize a grown ass man can just stop it like that? How can we possibly budge him? Hell, how will this stop the explosion when the cart suddenly stops, because it is apparently has so much force behindi t that the kinetic energy would vaporize a grown ass man?
>>47501043
>To cement his political hold through assassination, invade foreign countries for land, and execute innocent civilians
You're talking about ACTS, not motives. And his motives were good.
>>47501105
PLEASE STOP.
GODWIN'S LAW, DUDE.
>>47501113
Godwin was a fuckboi.
>>47501105
>And his motives were good.
This shit again.
Half-baked grievances fueled by your personal dislikes are not "good" motives for murdering millions of people and starting the bloodiest war in history by any stretch of the imagination, anon.
>>47501113
It wasn't funny the first time.
>>47501097
You shouldnt even try. If the mine cart is moving so fucking fast that it's going so fast it's a relativistic kinetic-kill weapon that can vaporize a human body, then everyone's dead.
It's over.
All you can do is see the WHITE death coming towards you as the fire consumes you in a blinding, singular flash of pain.
>>47501105
Even the basis of his motives were inherently flawed, to promote the success of him and his people, at the expense of anyone and everyone else.
Additionally, being "good" doesn't necessarily mean being RIGHT. The most common case of something like this would be a madman. Paladins and clerics are unique in having a direct line to the divine to know what is and is not good, others, such as Hitler, do not have such a resource.
>>47501132
>I think having a morality argument about Hitler is worthwhile on a traditional games imageboard.
Fuck off.
>>47501130
>Half-baked grievances fueled by your personal dislikes
You should really read up on how completely fucked over Germany got at the end of WW1. History is compelling.
Bonus points if you can figure out WHY they got fucked so very, very deeply, and how said discovery would make them feel.
>>47501147
I didn't say it was worthwhile. It's a retread of basic paladins arguments. But whining about Godwins law in all caps isn't going to do anything but making people cringe, before continuing on.
I was assuming that you knew this, and thus you were making a shitty joke. Hence, "It wasn't funny the first time."
Paladins can lie all they want, because 'paladin' is a name for a collection of mechanics, not an 'in-world' concept.
Nobody actually says "I'm a paladin" or "I'm a bard" or "I'm a fighter". They may describe themselves as a holy warrior, or a soldier of their god, or an upholder of a cause.
'Class' is not a concept that exists in a DnD world.
>>47501160
Whatever faggot. Suck my fucking cock nerd. Your discussion is shit and I hope you choke.
OD&D Greyhawk: Yes
BECMI: Yes
1e: Yes
2e: Yes
3e: No
4e: Yes
5e: Yes
>>47501161
I remember when I used to make this argument. I used to be a really, really big asshole when I was a kid.
>>47501161
I'm one of the guys saying Paladins can lie and even I think you're swinging fucking wide with this one.
>>47501196
You've literally never heard of reskinning?
If I want to play a holy warrior, I can play a paladin.
Or I can play a cleric. Or I can play a bard devoted to a god. Or I can play a fighter who really fucking loves religion. Or a barbarian who loves his totem spirit or whatever.
And LIKEWISE, if I want to play a wildman dressed in furs who rages around in battles and hits someone really hard... it's fine if the class I pick is 'Paladin', and I call my Smites an 'angry strike'.
This is 100% noncontroversial.
>>47501161
Some are. Some aren't. If you get your divine powers from lore and study, you're an archivist. If you get your arcane powers from lore and study, you're a wizard. If you get them from a god, you are a cleric or favored soul. If you get them from the celestial realms, you might be a paladin. If you get them from your bloodline, you're probably a sorcerer. Etc.
There are exceptions! For example, some people *really* like the idea of paladins that get powers from a god, and clerics in most editions can get powers without having a god.
But in general, supernatural classes are usually divided by in-world concepts.
>>47501212
See, as a GM, i wouldnt allow that.
I run the world, there's rules.
You gotta follow the rules.
>>47501212
While I'd normally agree with this, many editions explicitly distinguish several classes based on an established personality.
Until 5e, there really weren't any "barbarian paladins" in any official source material.
>>47501142
>Paladins and clerics are unique in having a direct line to the divine to know what is and is not good
Devil's Advocate time: A paladin or cleric (with Detect Evil) knows what people and objects are evil. He does not know how to produce a good result unless he "phones a friend."
His god may or may not show him the way; however if he does leave his servant wallowing in confusion and darkness, he shouldn't make him fall or whatever as long as he makes a basic effort.
Okay here's one.
>the BBEG has set up a traditional "pick who dies trap" consisting of 2 children and a fall into an uncrossably wide infinitely deep pit that tortures victims in the most cruel and unusual way, to that specific individual, possible
>the children are floating due to some possibly magically device the BBEG has on his side of the pit
>the children are labeled A & B respectively and you have a console with buttons labeled A & B
Child A:stole stale bread from a baker's shop before the baker attempted to throw the bread away to fend off starving to death
Child B:also starving stole bread from that same baker just before the stale bread would have been thrown away but after the baker decided to throw it away
Whats the most morally sound option?
>>47501251
Push both buttons
>>47501249
> he shouldn't make him fall or whatever as long as he makes a basic effort.
I've defended the lying, but this has some limits. If the paladin makes a "basic effort" but the result is incredibly disastrous and causes more problems than inaction, then I'd say he's earned a fall. Though more of a "fired for incompetence" perspective than a "you're a terrible person" one.
>>47501251
Neither. Pull a Batman and save both, or execute the BBEG for child murder when he kills them both.
>>47501251
Man, after the "Lightspeed Missile Cart" thing fell apart, you really pulled out the stops on this contrived moral dilemma, huh?
>>47501228
This is literally in the 5e rules, where the start of every single class describes a few ways to skin the class.
See also: the section in the DMG where it uses wuxia/Asia as an example.
It was present in 4e, too - and given a page to itself in the DMG2.
And it's literally at the core of most superhero games like HERO and Mutants and Masterminds and most generic systems.
This isn't weird, it IS the rules.
>>47501275
>Pull a Batman and save both
Well if this were Zach Snyder Batman he'd push both buttons so the kids aren't in his way, jump across the pit, and break the BBEG's neck.
>>47501251
Cast Hand of Freedom on child B so he can run away from the trap to safety, then save child A with the button.
Hooray for magic!
>>47501295
BABYMODE
A
B
Y
M
O
D
E
>>47501295
>This is literally in the 5e rules, where the start of every single class describes a few ways to skin the class.
No it isn't.
>>47501295
Paladins in 5E aren't just "righteous holy crusader bound by various chivalrous rules", though. They're warriors who, for whatever reason, swore a binding spiritual oath that grants them might.
5E has run far away from alignment locks.
>>47500241
if an act of deception is inherently evil, then why aren't all the illusionists evil in D&D?
>>47501316
Pictured: Bard skinned as Indiana Jones, as a warlord, and as a stereotypical party buffer.
>>47501318
Yes? I know, 5e paladins can be anything as long as they feel like they've somehow sworn some kind of oath - to the gods, to a cause, even to themselves.
>>47500241
By that logic, since Chaotic Good characters do in fact lie if it benefits the cause, it cannot be Evil either.
So, there you go.
>>47501094
The rule is that the fat man is the only tool you have available to you to stop the mine cart. I haven't changed that at all.
>>47501276
Not me.
>>47501352
Eh, Bard isn't the best example. They're stereotypically jacks of all trades anyway.
>>47501308
That'd just drop them into a death pit though.
>>47501276
Entirely different person. I'm just bored. >>47501275
How?
>>47501259
Gonna be fair here i don't personally have an answer and that might be the "correct"est one.
>>47501349
Illusionists are wizards, and wizards being prone to evil is a pretty goddamn common DnD trope.
>>47501358
Except that the fat man isn't actually a fat man and the mine cart isn't actually a minecart.
You might as well have asked if people were willing to shove a mirror golem in front of a death laser.
>>47500399
Feinting is against the codes of honor and chivalry, and as such a Paladin should never attack with anything but honesty. Sometimes it'll be a pain but it's their duty.
>>47501364
Pictured: Druid skinned as a naturey cleric, as a stereotypical shapeshifter and... that last guy is acting like a paladin.
>>47501365
>That'd just drop them into a death pit though.
Oh, I thought you meant there was some kind of cover over the pit, and the pit under the kid you didn't save would open up and drop them in.
If they're just floating over open pits then fuck if I know what to do.
>>47501269
>If the paladin makes a "basic effort" but the result is incredibly disastrous and causes more problems than inaction, then I'd say he's earned a fall.
So the paladin is being punished for his god's own petty sadism, and the player is being punished because the DM decided to houserule the whole "you can only fall for voluntarily evil actions?"
Remember:
The paladin can't fall for evil inaction.
The paladin can't fall for evil when tricked, mind controlled, put into a catch 22, etc. etc.
The paladin is not a supergenius.
He is a good combatant, and little else.
He is probably, at best, only of average intelligence.
If a paladin is falling into a contrived, retarded position, he should be 100% allowed to throw up his hands and pray, and inform his God that he needs help and doesn't know wtf to do.
I'm not normally one for divine intervention, but the god should either provide guidance or omit divine punishment for shit that is in no way the paladin's fault.
>>47501372
>Illusionists are wizards, and wizards being prone to evil is a pretty goddamn common DnD trope.
There aren't any editions where wizards are predisposed towards evil. In 3e, they are predisposed AWAY from evil, NPC wise: check the DMG.
>>47501377
Only if it was a sentient golem mirror with a family and children (at least one of which is present) and would be destroyed in the process. But yeah, other than that i could have just used a different but similar scenario. What's your point?
>>47501381
Feinting is a stupid idea anyway. If it doesn't require you to dodge or parry, it's not a credible threat and you should just punch him in the face while he's waving his weapon around uselessly.
Lie like Captain Carrot does: say a truth, let others do the interpretation for you.
>>47500076
Should paladins be able to have a giggle?
>>47500046
Able ? Yes
Allowed ? No
>>47500078
>you are a lordly paladin, Sir Goodguy Marysue.
>Evil faction had taken control of a town you happen to be in
>Said faction hates, let's say half orcs
>You find a small group of half orcs, including children, and can smuggle them out
>random guard asks what's in your wagon but won't search it
So tell me, are you really gonna risk the lives of these innocent people just because "Hurr lying is evil!"? No. You're not. Lying for self gain and malicious intent is different. Also pic semi-related because of MUH HONORU
Even the most honour-bound and strict of societies and groups accepted lying if the cause was sufficient - at most, they demanded minor penance after the fact.
Anyone who argues against lying under justified circumstances is objectively wrong.
>>47502907
>are you really gonna risk the lives of these innocent people just because "Hurr lying is evil!"?
Yes. If you wanna be a rogue then be a rogue.
>>47504505
Could you lie by omission? "It has some food that I'm going to sell in the next town." This might be true, whatever food you have left over you'll indeed attempt to sell. You don't mention the orphans though. Do paladins always need to tell the whole truth? What about when the whole truth, while harmless, might be redundant and the person they are talking to probably knows it?
>They're STILL arguing with retards that play Paladins as Lawful Stupid because anything less is dishonorabru
>>47504644
"Missing the point" has long been a class skill for /tg/ posters.
If "kill an evildoer to stop evil" is acceptable, why is "lie to an evildoer to prevent evil" not? Killing somebody is more heinous than just lying to them, right?
>>47500046
>lvl 20 paladin of the Categorical Imperative
"Not really? Nobody is really sure how this order works. Just keep second guessing yourself and try not to butterfly effect society into oblivion with poor judgement."
>lvl 20 Paladin of Utilitarian Ethics
"fuck yeah man, it's all relative n sheeit. Wanna smoke a blunt before we massacre these evil farm babies?"
>>47504772
>Killing somebody is more heinous
Killing is not an evil act in and of itself.
Killing can be righteous, lying is never so.
