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

[grimslade]

Paladin straitjackets

1) This scenario screams of "Please screw over one player for choosing a class I don't like/understand"
2) As countless people have stated, no violation of code: no loss of powers
3) No warning either. The Paladin is a foe of evil, not someone to be taken out by mooks. Lie to get in and deal real damage to real evil.
4) It all comes down to dialogue with the DM to how paladins are viewed in the world and what the Paladin Code is. I hate the double standard that is applied to paladins but not to Lawful Good clerics or other classes.
IMC, The paladin is a champion over evil and chaos. He will follow his code to the best path to smiting evil and chaos. He may lie to evil. He may kill evil after others have let it go.

 

[haakon1]

Stripped of powers? Absolutely and unequivocally, "No." Especially since a paladin needs to "grossly violate the code of conduct" to lose his powers. Paladins are allowed to indulge in subterfuge. That's why Undetectable Alignment is a paladin spell.

That's what I was going to say, so it must be right.

 

[haakon1]

Having an evil overlord doesn't necessarily mean that all people in the city are evil. A paladin identifying themselves as such when asked at the gate may provide a focal point for a civillian rebellion, or a 5th column movement within the guards. If they say "no", and are found out to have been lying then it will just tighten the grip of fear and tyranny that an evil overlord wields over the populace - something that a paladin would NOT want to have happen.

Very cool.

But are we talking Vault of the Drow, or Rel Astra (LE city-state amid the chaos of the fallen Great Kingdom in Greyhawk)/the City-State of the Invincable Overlord (pretty similar to Rel Astra but in a different setting)?

I think we're talking something more like the Vault of the Drow -- totalitarian (e.g., Stalinist, Nazi, or Taliban) evil that won't allow any other opinions -- rather than Rel Astra -- authoritarian (e.g., 1970s Latin America or current day "Communist" China) evil that doesn't much care what you think as long as you don't openly resist.

In a totalitarian situation as described, I think the "lawful good isn't lawful stupid" principle comes to the fore. But even totalitarian regimes have resistance movements . . . and while the paladin is unlikely to luck out and find the White Rose or Red Orchestra in charge of the city-gate interrogation, the DM might well let the paladin meet them in the overlord's dungeons, and escape, conveniently under the home of the man whose walls are otherwise impenetrable. Bwahahaha!

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I voted no. Committing suicide over a trivial issue is irresponsible and stupid. If you need to get into the city to defeat evil, and you have no choice but to enter the city, and can't simply sneak in, putting your head on the executioner's block is not going to accomplish anything.

 

[Zog]

The answer, as the rules are written, for the average campaign, is clearly a Loud No.

However, in an Exalted Campaign, the Paladin had better say YES.
In fact, if I was playing the Paladin in the Exalted Campaign I would say

"Yes. I am here to kill the Evil Overlord. Choose, let me pass and be free from His Evil Tyranny, or stop me, and remain a prisonor of your fear forever. (Diplomacy)"
As a player, I would trust that with a decent roll, the DM would have the guard gulp nervously, look around quickly, and wave me on with a whispered prayer.

The Player of a Paladin, normal or Exalted, needs to have a long talk with the DM before the game starts. Define the code. Define what would cause a loss of powers, temporary or permanent. Cover the basic scenarios, like orc babies, prisoners, vile evil surrenduring, walking down the street with Detect Evil, etc. This would take care of 90% of the Paladin 'problems'. And if player and DM have different ideas about 'Lawful Good', Don't Play a Paladin!

As a DM, what I did with a Paladin player was define the code at the start. And, as they leveled up, the requirements became more and more strict. There are a lot of Lvl1 Paladins in the world. They aren't being watched and checked up on every minute. On the other hand, there is a shortage of level 15 Paladins, and they tend to have the attention of higher powers fairly constantly.

 

[Umbran]

In my game, no, because the common tongue of the world doesn't have a way to ask the question in that manner - the notion of "classes" is thoroughly out of game, and they are not recognized as singular professions by people in the world. "Wizard", "sorcerer", "witch" and "warlock" are used interchangeably in-game. A "holy warrior" could mean a person with paladin, cleric, or fighter levels, depending upon their outlook.

 

[Mouseferatu]

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)

*shrug*

Different strokes. I saw it less as "lying through sophistry" and more of "evading the question." Which, I happen to think, is perfectly acceptable--particularly when the situation being responded to is as false and downright goofy as this one is.

 

[Vanye]

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 don't understand this. Are wizards ignorant of the fact that they are wizards?
Do rogues not know that they practice the more stealthy arts, and thus may be considered thieves, or "rogues"?
Do fighters not know they are warriors?

I see no problem with the class name being used by a member of the class. There may be a different name they are called, but over time, it's part of human nature to categorize things (clerics, fighters, dragons...), so why not use the available handle, for "A heavily armored warrior for god, who has certain specific powers"?

 

[theredrobedwizard]

"I'm a warrior." "I'm a diplomat." "I'm a soldier." "I'm a knight."

All of which are valid, non-lie statements to get to the point. Any paladin dumb enough to answer that question with an outright "yes" is, well, dumb. You have to look at the ramifications of your actions.

I've never played a single paladin that called himself a paladin. Most times, the title of Paladin was reserved for people who were dead heroes. No, he was a knight, a soldier, a diplomat, a warrior, a priest, a scholar, an evangelist. Never a paladin.

-TRRW

 

[Ryngard]

No. The Paladin shouldn't be stripped.

1) This is a stupid setup. I mean come on! Total DM setup.
2) Are Paladin's an organization? How would they know? I mean if they asked "Are any of you Lawful Good Holy Warriors bent on destroying our leige-lord?" then yeah... but in my personal opinion I see the classes as a collection of abilities (i.e. Fighters can be called Knights... hell Rogues can if they join a Knightly order). It isn't something that should be there.
3) Does he call himself a Paladin or is he just a warrior? He could honestly reply with, "I don't call myself a Paladin." It isn't a lie. Saying stuff like that is the best way around it.

I see Paladins as heroes who do their best to uphold JUST laws and above all else the greater good. Saving innocents from suffering. Smiting tyrants who won't be reasoned with. All that good stuff.

Also, MOST Evil guards should be open to bribes.

But for saying "No" to that stupid question shouldn't deserve losing powers.

Now if the world has a SPECIFIC Knightly Order of Divine Warriors who are CALLED Paladins and said person is a MEMBER then it would be a lie. I still wouldn't strip powers as the lie is to an evil and un-just person.

If the nicest and most just King of Faerie land asked it and he lied for a stupid or mean or devious reason then I would give a warning. But answering whether you are or aren't a Paladin is just silly.