Question about multi-classed Rogues/Paladins

[Green Knight]

Alright, here's the deal. I'll be playing in a game, soon, and the party is starting at 2nd level. For myself, I decided to take 1 level in Rogue and 1 level in Paladin. For Rogue skills, I took Bluff (Note: Not to lie, which is against the Paladins' Code), Diplomacy, Gather Information, Knowledge (religion), Listen, Perform, Sense Motive, Spot, Wilderness Lore, Knowledge (nobility), and Knowledge (war). (The knowledge skills are class skills due to my taking the Education feat).

Here's the problem. My DM thinks that the Paladin using a Sneak Attack is dishonorable. I say no, that it's not against the Code. All a Sneak Attack is is the character aiming for a vital spot. (Quick Note: I only intend to take 1 level of Rogue. After that, I'll be advancing Paladin). IMO, it's no different than scoring a critical, as with both you're striking at a vital area. Just the Rogue is more adept at striking at those vital areas, and the target doesn't have time to react and thus is hurt more badly than otherwise were he allowed an opportunity to roll with the blow.

He also frequently mentioned backstabbing would be dishonorable, which is not what a Sneak Attack is. Sneak Attack is not Backstab. You don't even need to be behind someone to use a Sneak Attack.

HOWEVER, let's say my character were to sneak up behind someone and stab them in the back (Though I doubt he could ever take someone by surprise like that, as he has NO ranks in Move Silently whatsoever, and his Dex is 10. Nevermind the fact that more often than not I'll be wearing Full Plate). I'm talking a bad guy, here which, according to the PHB, I'm supposed to show no mercy. Why would it be wrong for my character to take an enemy by surprise and kill him before he got a chance to react? I'm supposed to smite evil, after all. Must I go about it in a Lawful Stupid manner? Put myself and the innocent who depend on me in needless risk when stealth and killing the enemy quickly could achieve the same ends?

Also, I took the Bluff skill mostly to feint, as described in the PHB. My DM also has a problem with this, too, and doesn't think that a Paladin should use tricks to defeat his enemies.

So what's your opinion on this subject? Is there anything wrong with a Paladin using Sneak Attack? Feinting in order to get a sneak attack? Thanks for the help.

 

[Frosty]

I agree with your interpretation of the paladin's code. I don't even think you have to refrain from lying as a paladin. (Not lying is lawful stupid, isn't it?) What you need to do is convince your DM that you will follow a code of honor. Describe this code for him and maybe he will see things your way.

An EN-Board Member, Shilsen (?), wrote a document on a Paladin's Code. I'll load it up.

Ah yes. You should pick three or four of the virtues described as it would be nigh impossible to follow all of them.

 

[Tonguez]

I think the big thing is that word 'sneak'

It may not be a backstab but it is striking vitals by devious means (ie dirty fighting) - the question to resolve then is would a Paladin use 'trickery' in order to win a fight.

If your DM wants the whole medieval 'Arthurian' romance-myth (which the name Green Knight suggests) than I'd say Paladins being goodely and chivalrous should NOT use sneak attack

If your Paladin is in a less 'romantic' setting then you need to clearly explain to your DM just what the Paladins code is and come to some kind of agreement

 

[Green Knight]

I don't even think you have to refrain from lying as a paladin. (Not lying is lawful stupid, isn't it?)

I disagree with you, there, as lying is expressly forbidden by the Code. Doesn't mean "Answer every question put to you and don't leave out even the tiniest details". But you can't tell a bald-faced lie.

Thanks for the link, though.

I think the big thing is that word 'sneak'

It may not be a backstab but it is striking vitals by devious means (ie dirty fighting) - the question to resolve then is would a Paladin use 'trickery' in order to win a fight.

Thing is, even in Arthurian fantasy, the knights DID use trickery to win battles. For instance, Arthur frequently had troops hidden nearby who'd ride in at an opportune moment and win the day for them.

If your DM wants the whole medieval 'Arthurian' romance-myth (which the name Green Knight suggests) than I'd say Paladins being goodely and chivalrous should NOT use sneak attack

Wouldn't a Sneak Attack be a good way to represent the Green Knights' skill at beheading people? Besides, I'm not playing the Green Knight.

If your Paladin is in a less 'romantic' setting then you need to clearly explain to your DM just what the Paladins code is and come to some kind of agreement

I agree with you, though, in that the problem he apparently has is that it involves the word "Sneak". For my character, I took the Rogue class to represent a noble upbringing (Just look at the skills I took for evidence of that, as well as my taking the Education feat. You won't find any Disable Devices, Appraise, Pick Pockets, or anything similar). In my view, the Sneak Attack represents his training with a foil. He's very precise with a sword. Thus, when he strikes someone, he often lunges for the vital areas. I don't see what the problem with that, is, other than it's called Sneak Attack.

BTW: The setting is Dragonlance.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, the thing is, to sneak attack, you need to have an opponent without his Dex to AC....

Which basically means you're catching him unprepared....

Which basically means you're hitting him when he's not looking....

Which is definately not honorable. Hitting someone when they're not prepared for you, when they can't effectively defend themselves, is not (IMHO) honorable. It's being sneaky and covert. If you're going before them in battle, if you're flanking them, whatever...you put them at an unfair disadvantage. Two-On-One combat is hardly honorable, either.

Basically, "honorable," IMHO, means that you do what you can to make sure that your opponent is on equal footing, and then proceed to whoop it good. You're not supposed to show the strength of your goodness by getting in cheap shots...you're supposed to withhold those cheap shots and hit them when they can see you. You don't want to catch them when they can't defend themselves, because you want to show them that no matter how often you don't take advantage of them, the power of goodness can still beat them, fairly, without having to be deceptive or weaselly about it.

That's my interpretation, anyway. I'd be open to something different, if you could think of it, but No Dex Bonus basically means Can't React Well, which basically means you're smackin' 'em when they're at a disadvantage.

I'd recommend instead a level of Aristocrat for your first level, or Expert if you really want the skill points without having to bugger with the extra baggage of a sneak attack.

 

[Green Knight]

Just read some interesting posts by Sean K Reynolds on his message boards.

The first:

Sneak attack is no more evil or underhanded than using a keen weapon or taking the improved critical feat.

As for the infiltrating bit, as long as the paladin doesn't break the code in doing so (i.e., "Oh, I'll kill an innocent person so I can join the assassin's guild and take them down from the inside") you're fine.

The second:

I don't necessarily agree. I can envision plenty of times where the paladin is trying to steak into an enemy stronghold and has to deal with evil sentries and has to kill them quickly and move on. I'd have no problem with the pal/rog using a sneak attack from surprise.

If you're not going to let the paladin sneak attack from surprise, you shouldn't allow him to attack in the surprise round either, since his opponent is flat footed and therefore denied his Dex bonus and therefore not ready to fight the paladin.

As for allowing a foe to pick up a dropped weapon, I don't agree with that either. A paladin fighting the D&D equivalent of Dr. Doom wouldn't stop and let Doom pick up his death ray pistol. Forcing a paladin to do that suggests that he shouldn't be allowed to attack spellcasters that have run out of spells or are stuck in an area of silence. I don't see anything in the paladin's code that says they have to make sure enemies are at their full advantage when attacking them, it just says they have to act with honor. It's not dishonorable to attack a balor that has dropped his flaming sword. Such a rule would also make it almost pointless for a paladin to ever take the Improved Disarm feat.

 

[Black Omega]

Well,the main thing code wise is just you and the DM working out something you both agree on so there is no misunderstanding.

As for sneak attack. Good question. The characters who get sneak attack are Rogues, Assassins, Ninja, generally not nice people. It's the art of catching your opponent unable to defend himself. Either because he's surprised, unaware, or so busy with one person he can't defend himself against you as well (ie, flanked). So I guess decide foryourself ifthese tactics are ok by your character and go from there. There are -many- interpretations of how Paladins should work. None are the One True Way.

 

[hong]

If the name "sneak attack" is what's troubling your DM, just rename it. You can call it "precise strike", for example (which is what the duelist ability is called), and it won't have any connotations of underhandedness.

 

[kengar]

HOWEVER, let's say my character were to sneak up behind someone and stab them in the back (Though I doubt he could ever take someone by surprise like that, as he has NO ranks in Move Silently whatsoever, and his Dex is 10. Nevermind the fact that more often than not I'll be wearing Full Plate). I'm talking a bad guy, here which, according to the PHB, I'm supposed to show no mercy. Why would it be wrong for my character to take an enemy by surprise and kill him before he got a chance to react? I'm supposed to smite evil, after all. Must I go about it in a Lawful Stupid manner? Put myself and the innocent who depend on me in needless risk when stealth and killing the enemy quickly could achieve the same ends?

"Show no mercy" is thin ice for a Paladin, IMHO. Remember, you are Lawful Good. How do you know that this is a "bad guy"? Is he actively doing something wrong? Did he register on a Detect Evil? Is he part of an evil gang? I can think of several situations where the Paladin would know that an unaware opponent is "bad" but he would need to be darned sure.

As far as Sneak Attack goes, not every situation where it could be used is dishonorable. Flanking comes to mind. Also if the opponent is flatfooted from losing initiative.

When my group plays, we rarely play paladins (mine was the only one so far) so I'm no expert. One difference for us is a House Rule that Detect Evil, etc. doesn't show a normal person's alignment, only if there is something magical about the creature/person (evil clerics, etc.). So a NE sentry isn't detectable that way. NTM that evil alignment doesn't mean a death warrant as far as paladins are concerned. Otherwise, they'd be cutting down people in the streets.

 

[VoodooGroves]

Just got done playing one...Paladin 2, rogue 3 (and fighter 2) at game end.

Here was my take.

This was a rogue, turned around (a bit too much) by the "saving graces" of the goddess of luck in that world. She abandoned her theiving ways and became, instead, a champion of her god (or at least her interpretation).

Sneak attacks - nothing prevents me from sneaking behind the back of someone and use sneak attack to subdue him. Also, nothing prevents me from being lucky, tumbling behind an ogre and sweeping the back of his legs with my sword while a party member is in front. There's nothing underhanded about that at all, nor would there be if I feinted (which I did occainsonally).

Now, lets get to the meat of the matter - bluff and lying.

As a champion of luck there are some things my paladin knew. One of these is that gambling is basically luck, and when it isn't luck, is often cheating. I had ALOT of bluff and sense motive, to be used to ensure that, for instance, no one was cheating while we played cards. And I was a damn good bluffer, which served to illustrate my point (only when needed) that gambling often leads to loss and taking their money whilst I sheperded the flock was just part of the job.

As for lying, didn't generally do it. Bluffing during a "game" is different. When you receive a card and groan and say "damn I needed another low card like a hole in the head" that was acceptable. Answering "No, I didn't just come through that door" was not, unless I was being sarcastic.

It was really an amusing character, but I didn't do alot of sneaking up behind people so whether or that is against any code never came up. I did "act within the system" in terms of bluffing and the like - when in rome (or gambling), you bluff (etc.)