Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gargoyle" data-source="post: 103970" data-attributes="member: 529">You're correct.  The rest of the post didn't bother me.  Lying is clearly against the Code, and stealing will usually be against the code.  Ok, I'll admit that the idea that there is an order to things in the Code is weak.  That's just how I perceive it, since the part of Lawful Good and evil acts is first, and the "dishonorable/chaotic" acts are after the word "additionally".This is where we disagree.  I would argue that the Lawful Good god's answer to whether you should put the truth ahead of saving lives is that you must do both.  Gods are like that.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  The end does not justify the means for a paladin.  But the DM has a lot of leeway here.  If you as the DM feel that the lie was not a "gross violation" of the Code, there is no loss of powers.  Even if you do feel that it was so, and take away his powers, he can use atonement to get his class abilities back, since it clearly wasn't an evil act.  So in a sense, we're both right - you could rule one way, and I could rule another and we'd both be within the rules.Personally, I would take his powers away until he atones.  After all, if lying to a demon under such circumstances seems ok, it's just another step to lying to someone else under less stressful situations...etc.  That's a valid way to view it.  Here's another point of view:The paladin refuses to lie, and the demon slaughters all the innocents.  The paladin didn't kill those people, the demon did.  That's the true evil.  If following the Code was an evil act, then the paladin's god or the forces of good that called him must answer to it, not the paladin.  Also, paladins must willingly commit an evil act to lose their powers forever.  Put in a catch 22 situation like this, I don't feel they're willingly committing evil even if you consider "letting" the innocents die an evil act, which is debatable.  Finally, (As long as we're talking extreme examples...) what if the lie the paladin told saved all those lives, but inadvertantly caused the demon to kill many more people in the long run?   Does that make the lie any more chaotic (or even evil)?  Since no one (even the DM) truly knows all the consequences of a lie, how can you say the end justifies the means for such an action?  Telling a lie is clearly chaotic (not even neutral), and to me, is always a gross violation. Agreed.  And YMMV on what a "gross violation" is, depending on the DM.  There's a lot of leeway in that last part, and even the first part seems open to wide interpretation.  But really, I think we could all think up dozens of extreme examples that cause moral conundrums for paladins.  I'm not sure how useful that is.  I'll take a stab at coming to some conclusions from the above:Straying into chaotic behavior instead of evil seems to be a valid tactic for a paladin, especially one who leans toward good behavior.  But I think sticking to the letter of the code would work for a paladin leaning towards lawful behavior as well.  As much as their hands seem to be tied, it appears to me that paladins do have some leeway in their behavior.</blockquote>

Verification