Should a Paladin be allowed to have ranks in Bluff?

[Herremann the Wise]

Hello everyone,

We are looking to start up a new campaign in the world of Eberron and more particularly the City of Sharn. This will be our first experience of this world. I was contemplating playing a different sort of Paladin. He would be more the mystical type, carrying a staff rather than a sword with a focus on skills and interaction more so than combat. His connection to the pantheon (which I understand to be called the Sovereign Host) is quite personal rather than overt. Eventually, he sees himself becoming a behind the scenes influencer of people rather than an upfront evangelist.

I was wondering about the bluff skill and wondered about its uses in the Eberron world. The SRD is quite specific in regards to a Paladin's code of conduct: "A paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)."

As such, is the use of Bluffing a no-go, even in Eberron or is there some concevable way for a Paladin to utilise such skills that would be considered honourable? If you have any further ideas about the world or character concept above, feel free to add your thoughts too.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Well, my first thought is that you should take a look at the Hexblade from The Complete Warrior.

That being said, I am personally very anti-paladin-modification. The class is not supposed to be an easy one to play in the same sense that a barbarian or bard is. Eberron does make alignment a tricky thing, it's really more like a blood type than a philosophy. But you are still supposed to stick with it.

Under normal circumstances, as a DM I would have very little problem allowing a player to trade one class skill for another, or to take a feat that made a given skill a perma-class skill. However, a paladin taking bluff kind of crosses a line for me. Intimidate would be very different. I have no problem letting a paladin take that. But bluff? It goes against the grain.

All of the above in mind, you may want to consider that I run what about half the members of this forum would feel is a "goody two-shoes" game. No evil PCs, strong limits on Chatoic Neutral, and all characters must have a reason to group up. Just an FYI.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

He's allowed to Bluff in combat.

Otherwise, any attempt to use the bluff skill is misleading and results in him losing paladin status. I can't wait to see the "do we need paladins?" thread.

 

[IronWolf]

He's allowed to Bluff in combat.
.

Yeah, I agree. I could only see a paladin being able to use Bluff in combat. To use it in interactions with NPC's would seem unbecoming of a paladin and his moral code.

 

[RangerWickett]

I, however, am fine with bluffing paladins. I don't consider lying a chaotic or evil act. Lying to pin the blame on someone who didn't do the crime is evil, and lying to avoid getting caught when you break the law is chaotic, sure. But lying so you can get into an enemy's camp and fight the main villain is fine and heroic. So is telling the peasant that you're someone you're not because you've been falsely accused and you don't want to cause the man trouble.

In this case, you lie so you can put someone at ease, or avoid unnecessary violence. That's a good thing, in my opinion. Sure, you could fight your way into camp and probably die, in which case you were stupid and should never have been chosen by God to be a holy warrior. Or you could spend an hour trying to convince the peasant that, yes, the prince actually is an evil doppelganger, and that you know it looks bad that you tried to kill him, but if he considers all the facts rationally he'll see that it's best to trust you. But then you're wasting time that would be better used saving the day from the evil doppelganger.

A thought experiment came up among some gamers I don't typically game with. I thought it was a stupid question, but they thought it was vitally important:

"You are a paladin, days away from any kind of help. You're at the stronghold of a villainous lich who is performing a ritual that will kill thousands of people. You've managed to fight your way through his bodyguards and defenses, and now you're just outside his chamber where he's performing the ritual. He's in a trance, and so has been unaware of your presence. You could sneak up and destroy him safely, or you could announce your presence honorably, and take your chances being killed by him. If you die, no one else will be able to stop his ritual, and many more will die. As a paladin, would you have to atone if you snuck up on him and killed him with surprise?"

Or, as I rephrased it:

"If a paladin finds a vampire sleeping in his coffin during the daylight, does he have to wait until nightfall to stake him?"

 

[UltimaGabe]

As RangerWickett said, there are some uses for the Bluff skill (and simply lying, in real-world terms) that aren't evil at all. Watch this scene from [enter generic sappy movie somehow involving a paladin and a dying boy here]:

Billy: [On his deathbed] Sir Lancelot... what did the doctor say? Will I ever be able to go out and play ball with the boys down at the park?

Lancelot: Uh... why, yes, Billy. He said you'll be just fine in a day or two, and then you can run and jump and buy ice cream for the girl down the street! You'll be fine, Billy. I swear on my honor.

DM: Roll a Bluff check.

Lancelot: Uh... okay. [Rolls, adding his modifier of +7, since it's a cross-class skill for him] ...8.

DM: Billy got a 23 on his Sense Motive. He starts to cry.

Lancelot: [Falls on the ground, beating it with his fists] Damn you! Damn you all to hell! You damn dirty apes!

-Fin-

See what I mean?

 

[Olive]

"If a paladin finds a vampire sleeping in his coffin during the daylight, does he have to wait until nightfall to stake him?"

Surely there's a difference between lying to a corrupt undead lord and a mortal? I wouldn't have thought that a terrifying demon required the same level of respect as a wild elf warlord, even if both had the same alignment. I think that redemtion, or at least the potential for redemption, were crucial elements.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Lancelot: [Falls on the ground, beating it with his fists] Damn you! Damn you all to hell! You damn dirty apes!

-Fin-

See what I mean?

OK, you score points for the Planet of the Apes reference. But I don't agree. Why would the paladin bluff? Why not give a speech about being strong for Pelor or whatever? Or even a simple "Generic Diety X will see you through these times". Which would technicall be true if GDX had an afterlife.

All of the above does kind of raise the question of what would a technical-truth-but-not-lie be? A Bluff or a Diplomacy check?

 

[Three_Haligonians]

Bluff On!

I can't see why a Paladin could not have any ranks in Bluff.

I mean, besides its use in combat, Bluff is also used in opposed checks vs the other person's Sense Motive. Just because your a Paladin doesn't mean you have to be an open book. I know if I were a champion of just causes, I wouldn't want the BBEG to have any advantage over me because I couldn't keep my game face. Besides, in terms of lying I think its all a matter of circumstance. You don't keep the Paladin from using a sword because he -could- kill an innocent so you shouldn't keep the Paladin from lying just because he -could- lie to one as well.



J from Three Haligonians

 

[UltimaGabe]

Why would the paladin bluff? Why not give a speech about being strong for Pelor or whatever? Or even a simple "Generic Diety X will see you through these times". Which would technicall be true if GDX had an afterlife.

Well, first off, it was a joke. And a clever one, if I may toot my own horn.

Second, you must remember that despite any training a Paladin has undergone, or done whatever, that Paladin is still a human being- with emotions, and feelings, and so on. If his young squire was terminally ill and there was nothing he could do to cure it, would any human (regardless of their beliefs) tell the kid they're about to die? I don't care what sort of afterlife is awaiting him- and, just so you know, I'm a devout Christian- knowledge of such an afterlife doesn't make death any less scary. Not only that, but what little kid is going to accept death openly, even if there's hope of an afterlife? Unless you're playing a Lawful Stupid Paladin who responds to everything with "Praise and honor to Pelor!" or "I smite thee in the name of Heironeous!", you're not going to tell a little kid they're about to die.

Or, let's try this scene from [insert sitcom name involving a lazy balding Paladin and his wife with obnoxiously large hair here]:

Peg: [Walks on wearing a pair of pants that obviously make her butt look big, and sees Galahad sitting on the couch drinking an ale] Galahad, do these pants make my butt look big?

Galahad: [Sitting on the couch, trying to watch Ye Olde Televisione] No, Peg.

[Audience erupts into laughter]

End of example #2.