Rogue/Paladin - so, when can I Bluff?

[Simia Saturnalia]

First off, sorry about starting a paladin thread.

Just like it says; following a grell-related TPK the duchess is sending a more professional band of adventurers to investigate the goings-on at Hommlet and the disappearance of her previous band of troubleshooters, and I've rolled up a rather solid charge-heavy paladin with a sordid past - and two levels of Rogue, including 5 ranks of Bluff. Tack on my Charisma cloak and I've got a +10 to Bluff checks...which appears to do me no good, as Feint (without the Improved Feint feat) is the worst tactical option since "I'll drop my weapons and shove my hands in my breeches!". Well, maybe second worst, but the inherent uselessness of Demoralize isn't the issue here. Bluff is.

So I ask you, good and experienced folks of ENWorld; when is it acceptable for a paladin to Bluff, given that Feint is a wash? If it makes any difference, he's the sworn protector of our party's venerable cleric, and may have a higher calling in this than his own dignity.

Also, sorry if this is a Rules question.

 

[Arkhandus]

Just can't lie or cheat. And have to 'respect legitimate authority'.

For reference, the 'feint in combat' and 'create a diversion to hide' options for Bluffing are useable by paladins, as long as you don't incorporate a lie with the Bluff. Such tactics are not dishonorable (unless you're doing something like kicking sand in someone's face or lying), so they don't violate the paladin's code.

I'm fairly sure all of the Bluff examples in the Player's Handbook (where it mentions DC modifiers based on the extremeness of the bluff) would make you an ex-paladin (due to being lies), except for the example of someone just bluffing that he could take on all the orcs at once without help.

And you have to be sure that whatever you're bluffing about doesn't cause any evil, or lead others to commit evil (no bluffing to convince someone that an innocent person is the culprit, for instance, even if you're not directly saying it but only kind of inferring it strongly; saying it directly would be lying and thus lead to ex-paladinship, but since even just leading others to come to the conclusion themselves would cause evil (the innocent person being harmed, maimed, imprisoned, or executed for whatever happened), that too would lead to ex-paladinship).

 

[FireLance]

Short answer: check with your DM.

Long-winded, waffly, complex answer that is absolutely no use whatsoever: A paladin's code of conduct requires him to act with honor, and "not lying" is specifically called out. If you take "not lying" to mean no explicit untruths, then a paladin may use Bluff to mislead others and cause them to draw incorrect conclusions by asking rhetorical questions, making technically correct but imprecise or vague statements, etc. If you take "not lying" to mean being completely above-board and making no attempt to deceive or misdirect, ever, then Bluff will pretty much be a useless skill for a paladin.

Some people (like me) will favor the former approach, while others will insist on the latter. My advice is to not play a paladin/rogue with ranks in Bluff in their campaigns.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

I figured it'd come down the DM in question, who's fairly permissive - the TPK'd party had a Barbarian/Fighter going for Frenzied Berserker - but I thought I'd ask about the board to see if anybody had examples of legit uses of, er, 'verbal cunning' for someone with a Paladin's Code (so I could argue in favor of those options). At the moment, it's just being synergy fodder for my Intimidate and Diplomacy, so I thought I'd try to get a little more use out of it.

 

[Li Shenron]

So I ask you, good and experienced folks of ENWorld; when is it acceptable for a paladin to Bluff, given that Feint is a wash?

If you cannot lie, bluff by telling the truth

Like, tell a partial truth that would mislead your target. "We're servant of the king" without mentioning which king is not lying. "I've got a pet creature that could kill you in one blow" when you have a cat, sure can kill anything with one blow if it's at -9 already.

More seriously, your character concept is cool and it'd be a pity to let it go just because the RAW forces you some RP limitation. But a paladin *based* on deceit, whether you're technically lying or not, is effectively pretty hard to pull off. At least make sure that if you lie, you lie for a very good cause (never for your own personal benefit for example, but only when it's really needed to save an innocent); bluff only against evil foes, don't tell lies to normal people like the guard who's doing his duty to block the entrance to the castle; and of course try to limit your bluffs only to key situations, just like your PC didn't actually like telling lies even if he used to be a master at that.

 

[Herobizkit]

If it’s important, you can distinguish between a bluff that fails because the target doesn’t believe it and one that fails because it just asks too much of the target. For instance, if the target gets a +10 bonus on its Sense Motive check because the bluff demands something risky, and the Sense Motive check succeeds by 10 or less, then the target didn’t so much see through the bluff as prove reluctant to go along with it.

Bluff doesn't always mean "lie" -- it can also be a gentler form of Intimidate and/or a faster Diplomacy check to get a target to act in a specific fashion. The amount of risk to the target involved determines the DC of the check.

Paladin: "Let us pass."
Bandit: "No can do, stranger."
Paladin: [Bluff check] "If you allow us to pass unhindered, I shall speak for you when you are captured and your sentence is carried out."
Bandit: [Fails] "You'll have to catch me first..." [Bandit flees]

I could be wrong, but that's how I'd handle it.

 

[interwyrm]

Bluff doesn't always mean "lie" -- it can also be a gentler form of Intimidate and/or a faster Diplomacy check to get a target to act in a specific fashion. The amount of risk to the target involved determines the DC of the check.

Paladin: "Let us pass."
Bandit: "No can do, stranger."
Paladin: [Bluff check] "If you allow us to pass unhindered, I shall speak for you when you are captured and your sentence is carried out."
Bandit: [Fails] "You'll have to catch me first..." [Bandit flees]

I could be wrong, but that's how I'd handle it.

Wouldn't that be diplomacy if speaking the truth, and bluff if lying?

 

[delericho]

You'll need to speak to your DM.

I'll note that the Code specifies no lying, and that a lie of omission is still a lie. I'll note also that the conditions for becoming an Ex-Paladin are that you have to grossly violate the code, so there is some wiggle room there. Other than that, there's not much I can really offer.

Oh, except for: take Improved Feint at the earliest opportunity, and feel no qualms about using it.

 

[green slime]

IMC, no bluffing for paladins. Sorry.

It is the kind of thing which is often campaign specific though, so YMMV...

 

[Mark Chance]

Again, talk to your DM.

In my game, a paladin's code is heavily influenced by my study of Catholic moral philosophy. I'd allow a paladin to practice mental reservation.