Question about multi-classed Rogues/Paladins

[Henry]

Paladins are not Judge Dredds. Nor are they cinematic pirate captains that let their enemy pick up their dropped cutlasses before defeating them, all without suffering or inflicting a scratch.

Any combatant who acts that way deserves to get cut down - unless of course that's the campaign flavor you're looking for.

Paladins are about doing the right thing and following their code - not behaving in a cartoonish manner.

However, if the DM finds this interpreation untenable, I would suggest either picking another class than rogue, or replace the Paladin with a lawful good fighter. There is no reason that the fighter can't live out the code, and still be attached to the church as an agent. What would the DM say then?

 

[apsuman]

I htink that being Lawful and Good must overide the honor code or the honor code has no meaning...

I am saying this because I think that there are times when lying is the moral thing to do.

A man runs up to you and says "hide me there's an axe murderer trying to kill me"

You hide him.

A minute later a man with a big bloody axe comes by asking you the whereabouts of man matching the description of the one you just hid.

You say "He went that way." and point.

When locked in mortal combat, you do everything you can to kill your opponent. Now, trying to position them into a preset trap does not strike me as the most honorable thing to do but fighting and jockeying for position so that they fall off that cliff behind them, now that's another thing entirely.

So, I see no problem with the paladin taking the sneak attack damage.

As long as the Paladin knows the guy he is about the backstab is evil, I have no problem with him stabbing the guy in the back.

Now, if you really wanted to make your character be a noble, have the DM let you start with one level of aristocrat, and be a Ari1/Pal1.

g!

 

[Artoomis]

What a paladin may or may not do is very much a topic for player and DM frank discussions.

I suggest you lay out a specific code you intend to follwo, and include specifically how you intend to handle feints and sneak attacks.

It is certainly reasonable to allow them, just as it is reasonble to disallow them. Sneak Attacks and Feints are combat manuevers intended to trick your opponenets into leaving themsleves open for deadly blows. This could be considered less than pure, or simply good combat tactics.

Sorry - there is no definitive answer for this one.

 

[Rashak Mani]

Strange combo this one... but doesnt seem too wrong like your DM is making it out to be.

What your DM is probably is trying to do is avoiding having more discussions later when you the player may by a slip of mind focus on the Rogue part and not the paladin part. In his place I would try to dissuade you too. You must take in the fact that maybe he has a vision of the Paladin much more "pure" than you are willing to have. Your playing a "backtabbing" Paladin would be to way out for your DM to accept.

The sneak attack in combat either due to better initiative or flanking is just fine... your attacking someone invisible or sneaking would be out of question. Your sneak attacking a stunned and alone foe that might be restrained instead of attacking would be questionable thou... very thin line you would have to walk.