Should a Paladin be allowed to have ranks in Bluff?

[BiggusGeekus]

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

OK ... your MWC reference leaves me flatfooted ... and feeling somewhat dirty ... so I'll leave it here. I'm just not sure that even shoe salesmen of St. Cuthbert would go that route.

 

[Terwox]

I say go for it.
But I like rogue/paladins who tend to backstab people after sneaking up on them.
Play a loose code paladin if that's what you're going for -- if you want a behind the scenes manipulator, you're not looking for someone who really wants society to be ordered... you're more looking to restructure society... and not through your typical honorable political means.
If that's what you ARE looking for -- being behind the scenes, and a negotiator, yet still an honorable paladin -- specialize in diplomacy.
I'd say look at the paladin of freedom in Unearthed Arcana -- I've had fun with it. Or simply consider multiclassing with a class that has bluff, and more skills that would help your paladin be the character you want -- unless the character you want must be a paladin and only that.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Any time someone suggests that paladins are incapable of any form of deception, I simply point out that they have undetectable alignment on their spell list.

No, it's not an outright lie, but it's absolutely a form of deception. And a perfectly tactically sound one, at that.

Plus, Complete Adventurer has several feats for rogue/paladin combos that still use sneak attack, so clearly that isn't always a no-no, either.

 

[Andor]

Of course a paladin could use the bluff skill. Remember he's lawfull good, not lawfull stupid. The gods understand that mortal affaris contain shades of grey.

Besides, there are three ways to lie and only one of them violates the generic paladin code.

#1: First and clumsiest is to tell a flat untruth. This is not allowed to paladins under the generic code. "No I didn't hear the High Priests speech. The crowd was too loud where I was."

#2: Tell the truth but not all of it. "No I didn't hear the High Priests speech, it wasn't audible from where I was."

#3: Tell the truth and maybe all of it, but tell it in such a way that they don't believe you. *Rolls eyes* "No I didn't hear the High Priests speech, I was far too busy seducing his daughter at the time." *bluff roll*

Note that if a DM tries to outlaw #2&3 then there can never be any paladins anywhere since both of them can crop up unwittingly. See any sitcom for examples of accidental misunderstandings.

 

[FireLance]

Anyone who has read Terry Pratchett's Men at Arms will know that paladins can bluff. Carrot Ironfoundersson, then a corporal with the City Watch (he was subsequently promoted to Captain) and one of the most paladin-like characters I know, needed to get into a guild to do some investigation, but was told by his superior to leave if he wasn't allowed in. When asked by the doorman (I am paraphrasing both the query and the response) what he would do if he didn't let him enter, his response was that he had been given specific instructions what to do if that happened, and he really did not want to follow them, but would do so very reluctantly if he had to. The doorman let him in because he sensed he was telling nothing but the truth.

A paladin doesn't have to lie to bluff. To a paladin "bluffing" is just a way of getting people to do what he needs them to do by telling the truth. It might even be something that is in their best interests, but which they are reluctant to do.

 

[Darkness]

Paladins can certainly omit facts, keep silent or steer a discussion away from a topic they don't want the opposition to know.
Exaggerating is okay too if it's not too outlandish.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Anyone who has read Terry Pratchett's Men at Arms will know that paladins can bluff. Carrot Ironfoundersson, then a corporal with the City Watch (he was subsequently promoted to Captain) and one of the most paladin-like characters I know, needed to get into a guild to do some investigation, but was told by his superior to leave if he wasn't allowed in. When asked by the doorman (I am paraphrasing both the query and the response) what he would do if he didn't let him enter, his response was that he had been given specific instructions what to do if that happened, and he really did not want to follow them, but would do so very reluctantly if he had to. The doorman let him in because he sensed he was telling nothing but the truth.

"If it helps you, I will probably feel ashamed for doing this."

 

[hero4hire]

I am alright with Paladins using Bluff. As long as the Bluff did not violate thier LG alignment. There are lies of Omission, deceptions, word-play that even a goody-two-shoes can engage in.

If said Behind-the-scenes-staff-wielding-Eberron-paladin started lying or manipulating for personal gain, or some sort of sorted ends, I would have him lose his Paladin-hood. I would keep a close eye on his Bluff-ing. But I'd allow it...as a cross-class skill of course.

 

[FireLance]

"If it helps you, I will probably feel ashamed for doing this."

Ah yes, I'd forgotten about that bit.

In a later book, it was revealed that the good Captain rigged the quiz machine at a bar frequented by unsavoury characters to ask questions such as "Who did such-and-such a job?" and "Where was so-and-so on the night of (date)?" Lawful Good does not mean Lawful Stupid indeed.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

In a later book, it was revealed that the good Captain rigged the quiz machine at a bar frequented by unsavoury characters to ask questions such as "Who did such-and-such a job?" and "Where was so-and-so on the night of (date)?" Lawful Good does not mean Lawful Stupid indeed.

In which book was that? I thought I had them all, but apparently there's one I am missing...