*Archtypical Paladin Quandry* The 'Are you a Paladin?' Question.

[Ridley's Cohort]

The question in question is a bit meta-gaming isn't it? Why would the guard(s) ask about a character class? Isn't that a bit like assuming the individual joining your group who tells you they can handle themselves in a fight but only wears leather armor is a thief(rogue).

That is an interesting can of worms.

 

[Sejs]

Should Dudley be stripped of his powers for violation of the Code?

Absolutely not.

To expand on that a tad:

Did the paladin willfully commit an evil act? No.

Did the paladin grossly violate their code? No. Minorly violated the word of their code (the act honorably clause), but not the spirit.

 

[Nyeshet]

No, but he would probably receive a warning. 'Yes' leads to certain dishonorable and pointless death as it was both easily avoidable and, in dying, he was unable to accomplish his (presumably highly important) mission. Note that this is a question of Law vs Chaos, not Good vs Evil. As Paladins are focused more on Good than Law (note that nowhere does it say that they do not willingly associate with Chaotic persons, but it does state that regarding Evil persons), the matter is not important nor pivital enough to warrant a loss of powers. A warning should be given, but even this will not result or require a dimminishment of powers.

Now, if lying becomes common then a temporary loss of powers is likely necessary - say loss for one day as a major warning of an impending, more permanent, loss.

Also, as has been said here and elsewhere, a single act (almost*) never alters an alignment.

* (If the Paladin should suddenly decide to build an alter to a dark deity and drags a helpless innocent over to the alter, slicing open their chest to rip out their heart so that it may be burned in a brazier . . . Well, sometimes a single act can change an alignment, I think.)

 

[Zimri]

no paladin stripping ... but if dudley was exalted he isn't anymore

 

[Vegepygmy]

At the gate, armed guards ask everyone entering the city if they are a paladin. Any answer in the affirmative will result in arrest and a very short trial followed by execution. When Dudley is asked if he is a paladin, he says no.

In my campaigns, characters have no awareness of concepts like "class," "level," and "hit points," so the character wouldn't know he was a "paladin." Therefore, it wouldn't be a lie for him to deny his paladinhood.

I suppose the most honest answer he could give would be, "Hell if I know," but "No," would be honest enough for me.

 

[Trickstergod]

In a 3e game, though, I'd rule this as a clear minor violation of the code of conduct. (The PH explicitly notes that paladins are required to "act with honor," which partly means "not lying.") I have no idea what the repercussions of a minor violation would be, though, and I do think the PH is silent on this.

It's quite clear. If you grossly violate the code of conduct or commit an evil act, you lose your paladinhood.

If you only do some minor misdeed or perform a chaotic act, nothing happens. Well, except a minor alignment shift - that, if allowed to progress, will result in becoming neutral good, which will result in losing paladin status.

Otherwise, though, minor misdeeds don't do anything on their own.

 

[arscott]

Accompanied by his best contemptuous sneer, the paladin says to the guard "That's the most ludicrous question I've ever heard. As though I would attempt to just walk in the front door if I were a paladin! Really, do you truly waste your time questioning everyone this way?"



(And it is, BTW, a silly setup. But that's a different issue.)

See, If I was GMing a game with a paladin, this is exactly the sort of crap I wouldn't put up with. The ubertechnical "I didn't actually tell a lie" thing is unbefitting of a paladin. If the character didn't actually care about the morality of lying, and was avoiding speaking a lie for another reason it would be okay. But the reason a paladin wouldn't lie is because he beleives that deceit is wrong. The fact that he's twisting the truth instead of breaking it doesn't make is actions any less deceitful.

(Also, as an aside, that sort of thing is very obvious in real life. I'd impose a -5 penalty to bluff checks made by people who are attempting to decieve without actually telling a lie)

 

[Set]

No way. Good does not *have* to equal stupid. A gross violation of Paladin standards is a heck of a lot more than lying to some evil dude, especially when the class has Undetectable Alignment, a spell that *deceives people* as it's very raison d'etre in their spell list!

If the Paladin's gods were so AR about lying, they wouldn't bequeath upon them a spell that helps them lie about their alignment, would they?

Honor, chivalry, justice, all that happy stuff, *only applied* to those the knightly sorts deemed worthy. A Paladin of Heironyus, for instance, is not going to be punished by his god of chivalry and honor for not being a perfect gentleman to that Sea Hag trying to rip his head off...

As for the meta-game-y part, I'd have the guard ask something more in-game-friendly, like, "You aren't one of those holy knights of Heironyus, are you? We don't truck with those kind around here, stirring up trouble in our lord's city..."

And the knight could choose to say, "Nope, couldn't live with the whole 'vow of chastity' thing, if ya know what I mean, nudge, nudge, say no more, although now that I think of it, it might have saved me that itchy rash I picked up in Sunderland..." or attempt to be more obfuscatory about it, "Yeah, they do take themselves pretty seriously don't they? Seems like a hard path to have to walk, and for what?"

 

[Baron Opal]

Last time I checked, paladins are lawful good, not lawful stupid. While they are supposed to be paragons of Law and Good, a certain pragmatism is allowed. This situation is trivial.

 

[erucsbo]

I think it depends a lot upon the paladin's deity, as they are answerable to them above all other authorities. I would also reward a paladin who answered "yes", rather than punish them with death. Read the Deed of Paksenarrion for an example of a paladin who chose to follow her deity's example instead of doing what would be humanly logical - and thereby allowing the deity to act against evil directly. A paladin should not be denying their deity. (but I agree that asking questions about 'class' rather than 'profession', 'vocation', or deity that they follow is not the way to go).
My response would be "define what you mean by paladin?" If they asked what god I followed, as a paladin I would be honour-bound (to my deity) to answer (unless my deity encouraged subterfuge and deception). I have a paladin of Tyr. She would put her faith in her deity to win over injustice being performed by the evil overlord. She isn't stupid, but isn't unfaithful either, and as a DM I believe that it is important to reward clerics and paladins for showing themselves to be faithful servants of their deity and not deviating from their deity's philosophies just to avoid some pain.