What is considered ok for paladins in your game?

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

That is cool.

I don't mind agreeing to disagree on this one.

I've already put my foot in my mouth once today anyway.

My reasoning would only be irrational if I allowed a gnoll paladin and expected him to excel.

I have my vision of what a paladin can and can not do. That vision does not account for a gnoll paladin. This results in a quite difficult problem for the would-be gnoll paladin. But I am not going to change my vision just to account for this.

I like paladins, and I really think you would enjoy playing one in my game. UNLESS he is a gnoll. heh

Fair enough.

BLACKDIRGE, I don't think there is a "by the book" answer. If you DM is cool with it, then rule zero is as close as you will get. Have fun with it.

 

[BLACKDIRGE]

BLACKDIRGE, I don't think there is a "by the book" answer. If you DM is cool with it, then rule zero is as close as you will get. Have fun with it. [/B]

You're probably right on that, and I am having a blast with my gnoll paladin. The roleplaying opportunites are huge. I am hoping that once his rep grows he will become a "drizzt" and not be attacked on sight everywhere he goes.

Thanks for the replies.

Dirge

 

[Gargoyle]

I have a question for all the Paladin authorities out there. I play a Gnoll Paladin of Torm in a new campaign recently begun by a friend of mine. The whole Gnoll Paladin thing is a long story I wont go into here. My question is, my paladin sometimes tries to hide his appearance in areas where gnolls are likely to be attacked on sight. he usually wears a large cowled cloak and tries to pass himself off as a large human. Would this be a violation of the paladin code?

Dirge

Well, I'm a paladin authority in training, I guess, so I'll answer.

(BTW, thanks to everyone who has replied so far, even if I haven't agreed with everything, I've learned quite a bit!!)

Here's some points to consider:
- Paladins have undetectable alignment on their spell list. This makes it seem to me that they are allowed to deceive the enemy by disguising themselves somewhat; they just can't tell lies.
- It seems that most people, according to this poll and thread, have no problem with paladins using the Disguise skill.
- There is nothing in the Code that directly forbids a paladin using Disguise, but it may fall under the vague category of "dishonorable" behavior.

I'd have to say that if your DM considers Disguise to be so "dishonorable" that it is a "gross violation" of the Code, then it's a problem, so again, you have to talk to your DM.

Personally, as a DM, I don't have a problem with most paladins using a disguise, for whatever reason, as long as they're not backing it up with lies. (which I detest, as everyone should know by now!) I might have a paladin order IMC that forbids the use of Disguise or even Hide or sneak attacks, but that would be the exception.

 

[Gargoyle]

(Axiomatic when I said not attacking Men at Arms or Lackeys I meant not SNEAK ATTACKING !! If they face you in open combat waste them... your mission and saving lives is more important... unless you can avoid shedding their blood in a reasonable way.)


I agree with the Paladin should act heroically statement and so forth... how heroic is it to Backstab someone ?

I must admit that I didn't do a great job on the poll where sneak attacks are concerned. I'm not sure how to interpret the data. But it does seem there is a great deal of disagreement on whether a sneak attack is dishonorable behavior or not.

Some consider it to be like a thief's backstab, others look at it as a skillful combat tactic.

The official description is that "If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively form her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage."
The target doesn't have to be unaware (like the 2E thief's backstab) or helpless. They just have to be flanked or unable to use their Dex bonus to AC, because of being flat-footed, for instance.

It seems to me that using a bow at 100 yds against a charging orc armed with a great axe could be "catching an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively" just as a sneak attack is in melee, and in fact, even moreso. But most people consider using a bow in combat to be completely honorable, at least against aware opponents (I do) and as the noble Alhandra pointed out, she begins play with one.

My personal opinion is that using sneak attacks to attack an unaware opponent could be dishonorable, since that is very much like a backstab. I'm not sure that I'd rule it as dishonorable for all paladins in my game, probably just the more strict orders. Using sneak attacks to attack a flat-footed or flanked opponent is merely skillful, and I'm not sure how you can say that striking someone (who knows you're there!) in a vital spot during mortal combat is dishonorable. Should paladins always aim for the limbs or use subdual damage? I don't think so!

 

[Green Knight]

Ok, first off, Paladins can't lie. It's explicitly stated in the Code. So fuggedaboudit.

HOWEVER, Paladins can mislead and omit, so long as what they say is the truth. Let's take the Tyr example, and assume he's a Paladin.

If he had said "They're not going to bind you" then it'd be a lie and he'd lose his Paladinhood.

But had he said something like "If they bind you then I lose my hand. And do you really think I'm willing to lose my hand?" then it wouldn't be a lie and he remains a Paladin.

And I'm glad somebody brought up that example of a Paladin in Baron Evil's fortress. Take Forgotten Realms. Am I, as a Human Paladin player, supposed to just waltz around Zhentil Keep making it obvious that I'm a Paladin? No. If I go into Zhentil Keep then I'm gonna disguise myself. Same goes for the Gnoll Paladin. Nowhere does it say in the Paladin's Code that he has to walk around making a spectacle of himself.

And finally, Sneak Attack. Sneak Attack is NOT a backstab, people! It's not. You can sneak attack someone to their face, so how's it a backstab? Backstab no longer exists in 3E, and Sneak Attack does NOT require stabbing someone in the back. It just requires either ganging up on someone 2-on-1 or attacking them when they're flat footed or otherwise don't get a Dex bonus. So yes, Sneak Attack is allowed. All it is is a combat maneuver. You're not actually stabbing someone in the back.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Ok, first off, Paladins can't lie. It's explicitly stated in the Code. So fuggedaboudit.

I am still going to stick with letter of the law on this one.

Lying is against the code, always.

BUT!!!!

Paladins only lose their paladin status for GROSS violations.

If the correct answer was "fuggedaboudit", then the word gross would not be present. The fact that it does specify gross violations makes it abundantly clear that less than gross violation exist, that do not disqualify the paladin.

 

[Gargoyle]

I am still going to stick with letter of the law on this one.

Lying is against the code, always.

BUT!!!!

Paladins only lose their paladin status for GROSS violations.

If the correct answer was "fuggedaboudit", then the word gross would not be present. The fact that it does specify gross violations makes it abundantly clear that less than gross violation exist, that do not disqualify the paladin.

Maybe I'm reading one or both of your posts wrong, but Green Knight merely said that lying is a violation, not what the repercussions were, so I think you're both saying the same thing.

 

[Gargoyle]

"Gross Violations" is so vague.

What is considered a "gross violation", with regards to a lie? Is it a bald-faced lie, a white-lie, a bunch of white-lies, lying only to save lives, lying to save your own life, lying a certain number of times in a certain period of time? Does it include half-truths, deceitful omissions, exaggerations, misleading statements?

Definition of gross: (from dictionary.com)
Exclusive of deductions; total: gross profits.
Unmitigated in any way; utter: gross incompetence.

"Gross violations" is very subjective. What seems like a gross violation to one DM, may seem like an infraction to another.

I guess my take on it is that an out-and-out lie is a gross violation, white-lie or not, and regardless of purpose or good intentions. The half-truths, deceitful omissions, exaggerations, misleading statements, can also be "gross violations", if used too often. The latter seem to violate the spirit of the Code. In any case, they can always use atonement to recover their abilities, so I don't think it's too harsh.

All IMO, of course.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Although I'm not jumping in on either side of this argument, it is quite interesting to note that many of the people who actually DID hide jews in their attic refused to lie about it (as did many of the people who smuggled Bibles into Russia and still do smuggle Bibles into China). Typically, they would give an answer that could be interpreted to mean that there weren't jews in the attic but didn't actually say that or would divert conversation away from a direct question. (For an example of this, read the story of Corrie Ten Boom in _Hiding Place_).

Personally, I'm not certain that avoiding literal lies by telling misleading truths is really any different from lying but a good number of truly heroic and courageous people have and do believe so.

And of course the Nazi example comes to mind - if they ask you whether you're hiding Jews in the attic you can tell them secure in the knowledge of your lawful-goodness...

This seems more like extreme Lawful Neutral to me.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Maybe I'm reading one or both of your posts wrong, but Green Knight merely said that lying is a violation, not what the repercussions were, so I think you're both saying the same thing.

He said "can't lie", I read that as CAN NOT, meaning or else you are no longer a paladin. The "fuggedaboudit" enhanced this interpretation. If I got the wrong idea, then I retract my comments.

"gross violations" is vague. No doubt about that.
But I feel certain that is by design. Which to me is a good thing. It allows more flexibility.

For reference, I would think that even the littlest white lie would be a gross violation if it served the paladins interest.

Whereas, a bald faced lie would not if it were truly told as the only means of "being heroic". But I don't even mean told as a way to accomplish the goal. If he can die and still accompish the goal, then no lies allowed. But if he stands no chance, other than lying, then it is ok.

I don't have any problem with alternate interpretations. But variety of interpretation shoudl be allowed, all around.