Should paladins be able to lie?

>Rorschach is a liar by virtue of wearing a fucking mask all the time.
What? How do you figure that?

Why wouldn't he remain silent, or smite the demon? Does he really think the children could escape in the time it takes the demon to search the barn? Why doesn't he try to stall?

>lying deliberately even for good reasons is not good
You what?

>Paladin doesn't respond
>Demon eats the Paladin who is not strong enough to fight him head on
>Demon finds children and eats them too

This is why retards like you ruin the name of Paladins. You always insist on playing them as if they had a 6 INT score, total meatheads plainly incapable of handling anything that demands the slightest tact or grace.

He wears a mask so he can beat up and even kill criminals outside the law. He might be damaged enough to think the mask is is real face, but at the end of the day he doesn't have to worry about the cops picking him up off the street when he's not wearing it.

He's putting on a persona so he won't get caught. That's lying, user. It's no different than using a fake ID or giving someone a false phone number. We can argue about whether or not he's justified until the cows come home, but it is what it is.

Acts of deception are inherently evil. Remember that in a setting with Paladins and spells and magic, Good and Evil actions are literally and objectively defined.
A deliberate lie even for good reasons is at best a neutral act - permissible for other Lawful Good characters, but for a Paladin that's bound to a code of ethics, it's something you'd want to seek atonement for.

Being Lawful isn't the same as being a cop or a lawyer.

I can't imagine any GM making a paladin fall or lose his powers if he A)tells a lie to preserve Law and Good and B) the results of that lie vindicate his decision.

>Acts of deception are inherently evil
>A deliberate lie even for good reasons is at best a neutral act
Make up your mind, man.
Is lying always evil, or not?
Or better, is it merely Chaotic or Neutral.

Depends on what gods or codes they follow. I'd say most of the time yes, but there may be some hardass orders where it's not allowed

>Acts of deception are inherently evil.

No they aren't.

Maybe not just once - a lie is a minor offense - but if the Paladin was not aware of his act of evil and if he did not make amends for it, and then continued to deliberately lie, that would be grounds for a Paladin to fall.

Lying is evil. Lying for a good reason brings it up to morally grey AT BEST - the kind of thing a Paladin doesn't want to do too much of, lest they stain their soul and become unworthy of their powers.

>Lying is evil.

No, it's not! Lying to prevent evil is itself inherently good!

>literally said nothing about being Lawful

That said, Rorschach isn't Lawful on any point in the 3x3. He's a deranged maniac who murders people because he thinks the system is broken. He only targets bad people, but that doesn't make him a paladin.

You can't assign any label to Rorschach other than Rorschach. The fact so many people think he's Lawful Good is one of the more damning indictments of the Alignment system I've seen.

I play/write a paladin who serves the setting's god of truth, and I fluff it that that god permits his paladins to use deception in order to defeat enemies, the same way they would feint attacks in a fight.
He's more concerned with universal truths than 100%. It is a lie to tell the guard that the slaves aren't there, but the paladin is defending the greater truth that no person should be someone else's property.

If it wasn't evil or chaotic, it wouldn't be explicitly against the Paladin's code. It is, and therefore it must be one of the two.

Since Lawful Evil characters regularly lie, cheat and steal their way into positions which better suit them, it can't be Chaotic. Therefore it is Evil.

You're letting your perception of objective Law colour your perfection of Good.
Lying is by nature not Lawful, but that does not make it objectively Chaotic or Evil.

Either way you're an idiot, and there's no point conversing with you.

"I can't argue properly so I'm giving up, but I win anyway."
You, sir, are not fit to be a Paladin.

>it wouldn't be explicitly against the Paladin's code

Maybe your shitty paladin's code. Not mine.

>d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin
>Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

If it's not against your paladin's code, you're either not playing a D&D/PF paladin, or you're using house rules.

Page 7 of the Book of Vile Darkness states that lying can cause a paladin to fall.

So...

This. I've never seen any official material say Paladins swear to never tell lies. And if there was, I'd ignore it and make the paladins in my setting swear a different kind of oath. I imagine paladin oaths have a lot more gravitas than "I promise to never ever fib" could provide.

Have a look here bubby

See A paladin's not lying is LITERALLY as important to their rules as helping those in need and punishing those who threaten the innocent.

How are you not getting that a paladin that lies deliberately and without penance is breaking a core structure of their code, as grave as ignoring the starving or not punishing the guilty.

>d20pfsrd.com
>She

Like I said, maybe your shitty paladin code.

Also, pathfinder is neither a "default" nor does it have a single paladin code.

So homebrew.

Just making sure.

Yes. "can". In the same way a paladin can fall for fucking killing someone.

>d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm
>Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Saw that after I posted and thread updated.

My point still stands though. Mostly because by "lying" they mean the big lies. Lying with malevolence for purposes which don't line up with Law and Good. I wouldn't make a paladin fall just for some minor deception.

Part of the reason Paladins have such a shit reputation is because both devs and players turned them into a class dictated entirely by extremes.

Yes. Paladins are simply religious fanatics like ISIS. If they follow a religion that is okay with lying for the sake of that religion then there isn't a problem with them doing so.

I'm not following. This is like obviously causal, right?

He's certainly not Lawful Good, but being an insane vigilante is more or less a requirement for being Lawful Neutral.

Personally, I think the whole "Thou shalt never lie", is bullshit. Lies can lead to good. If your King wants to murder his Wife because she was unfaithful to him, and you, the Paladin, knows that the King is a fucking wife beater, and knows where she ran away, are you going to tell the king where she is?

Lying can be good.

Not everything is black and white.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

THERE ARE MULTIPLE ORDERS OF PALADINS IN PATHFINDER WITH DIFFERENT CODES OF CONDUCT

Additionally, your link says the important part is not to act dishonorably. A lie to prevent evil is not dishonorable, merely strategy.

Now you're just interpreting the rules in a way that allow you to perform actions that you shouldn't otherwise be able to get away with - you're literally as bad of a paladin player as the dude that tries to execute helpless prisoners because they could potentially harm others again.

>m-muh devs are out to get me
So, you play with house rules. Why are you still here? You're literally rewriting a game and then trying to get other people to play using your new rules.

>Most widely played RPG in entire world is not default for discussion
>Maximum over-denial

I'm saying the wording doesn't say that lying WILL cause a paladin to fall, but that the act of lying can trigger it, with the question of whether or not it does in any given situation being answered by the context.

Rendering judgement when you have no lawful right to render it?

How low the order has fallen.

>vigilante
>Lawful

Vigilantism is inherently contrary to a stable society and is out of sync with most understandings of Law I've encountered.

He means lying, like killing, isn't what makes the paladin fall. It's the who, why, and what happens afterward.

Like, if I had a paladin pull a Dark Knight and take the fall for someone else in order to preserve some kind of greater good, then I wouldn't make the guy fall and lose his powers. I'd just make everyone hate him because they think he did something wrong.

>My point still stands though. Mostly because by "lying" they mean the big lies. Lying with malevolence for purposes which don't line up with Law and Good. I wouldn't make a paladin fall just for some minor deception.

Excuse me, but WHAT? I understand sort of what you mean, but what is there to decide a BIG lie from a SMALL lie?

Is it the impact of the lie? The severity? So, all of a sudden an oath towards honor when it strictly says "no lying" can be bent as necessary and is as shaky as someone saying "I'll pay you back someday?"

What the fuck? These are paladins. The seal team six of fucking religious warriors. And we're going to assume a paladin would bend his oath and not expect some sort of divine punishment?

Jesus. Just play a religious fighter if that's how it's going to be!

5e is bigger than 3.5

In this instance, the king is no longer legitimate authority when it comes to telling him his wife's whereabouts. You refuse to tell the king where she is. You do not tell the king that she is somewhere else.

He's right though, you're acting like a dumbass by trying to characterize lying as being on an alignment axis.

Would you consider Han Solo a classically Chaotic Good character, especially at the end of A New Hope? Do you really think he never told a lie after he decided to help Luke and crew tackle the Death Star?

Or Robin Hood, or any other Chaotic Good character you can think of, if you're hung up on the different setting. Whatever.

Point is, you're dumb, and trying to make a paladin fall for misdirection in the name of doing good is like making him fall for using a feint in combat because it's not honorabru enough.

Yes.
A paladin is a holy warrior. They fight to spread the influence of their god. Unless their god is lawful good and hates lying, then I see no reason for the paladin to be forced to be lawful good and never lie.
Hell, there could be a paladin dedicated to the god of deception who probably has a quota of lies he needs to tell each day or some bullshit.

Not in sales or playerbase. Do you mean in parent company size? Yeah, Hasbro is big.

There's a reason their 5e motto is worlds "greatest" or "oldest." And not "best-selling"

Who are YOU to decide who is the legitimate authority?

It's a KINGDOM, he's a KING. In most settings, a KING is basically tyrant overlord and can do whatever he wants, because his world is law.

Are YOU usurping the LAW?
Shouldnt that make you fall?

Anyway, I agree, that a Paladin shouldnt say, because the King is biased, but if we go by pure law and order, then if the King, by law of the land is THE LAW, then yeah, you have to, legally, tell him.

A quota of lies daily?
What, does he tell the grass how blue it looks today?

>but what is there to decide a BIG lie from a SMALL lie?

Whether or not the lie is made for a good reason or a bad one. IE, giving incorrect information to an evil person to thwart their plans, when direct confrontation is for whatever reason impossible, is not bad, neither is say, a white lie in conversation for the sake of politeness. But self minded deception would be grounds for retribution or, depending on the severity, abandonment. It is betrayal of trust which is dishonorable, not merely uttering words which are not literally true.

>Princess: Sir Orderius does this dress make my butt look big?
>Sir Orderius: No (yes)
>Paladin falls.
See what I'm getting at here? Difference between a big lie and a little lie?

>you're literally as bad of a paladin player as the dude that tries to execute helpless prisoners because they could potentially harm others again.

Executing prisoners who did something worthy of execution is completely within the purview of paladins. They can act as the proper authority because they ARE the proper authority by virtue of their class and alignment.

If a paladin executes some guy for stealing a loaf of bread because he "might steal again" then paladin falls. That's abusing his authority and perverting his role. The the paladin executes a bandit chief who surrenders, paladin doesn't fall. The guy's a murderer who profits by spreading pain and misery.

YOU CANNOT JUDGE ME.

I AM JUSTICE ITSELF.

Yes but for unselfish purposes, or to say, only for the fulfillment of his primary duties of paladinhood (protecting the innocent, punishing evil). And even then, frequent lying should be discouraged by the DM, as the sort of archetype that a paladin evokes is defined by honesty and forthrightness rather than by deception.

A smarter paladin would just refuse to answer an inquiry that would harm the innocent, or respond in the best way a paladin knows how. With the sword, and with a heart full of weapons-grade faith.

>Demon:Where are the children, so that I might eat them
>Paladin:.........

or alternatively

>Demon: Where are the chil-
>Paladin: DIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Han Solo and Robin Hood did not have codes forbidding lying.

Wife beating is a crime and an evil act. If you know that the king is likely to continue beating his wife, then he ceases to be legitimate authority if he questions you regarding her whereabouts.
He may very well still have authority within his land. You may very well have to aid him with other tasks, so long as they do not lead to Chaos or Evil.
But you are under no obligation to help him find and continue to beat his wife.

It is still not morally justifiable to lie about her whereabouts. Withholding information is not against your code.
But nice try, trying to change the subject to some other stupid shit.

Welcome everyone!

And to our left we have Kant's Axeman! Stay a while!

Probably. I'm sure after about the third week they get sick of searching for chances to tell actual lies and just sing about things being colors that they aren't every morning.
I'm sure deception god thinks the ritual is stupid too but all those old fart high priests are too hung up on tradition to get rid of it.

What is the punishment for thievery is death?
In real life, in ancient countries, the punishment for thievery was losing a hand.Even bread because they were hungry. Even for kids.

Does the Paladin execute the law as is written and falls for cruelty?Or does the Paladin abstain for executing the law and let evil go unpunished, and fall?

Fall or Fall?

And what if the Paladin knows that the Daemon is too strong for him to defeat alone, but has reinforcements nearby that can help if he can stall for time?

>It is still not morally justifiable to lie about her whereabouts. Withholding information is not against your code.
Withholding information is lying though, just like half-truths and untruths.

>Sir Orderius: No (yes)

He should tell the truth at all times. What's with tellin' her dat ass was phat?

>you're literally as bad of a paladin player as the dude that tries to execute helpless prisoners because they could potentially harm others again.

Don't even try this you limp-dicked liberal.

Literally false. You're not even trying.

>Linking 3.5/PFs morality system

D&D 3.5's Alignment system is fucked up beyond comprehension, because the original meaning and intentions behind the system have been lost.

People believe D&D usually have a cheery high fantasy setting, but the core of it is an incredible dangerous world filled with horrible monsters.
'Playing nice with enemies' or 'acting stupid' is a sure way to get yourself killed.

>morality system
I'm literally.
LITERALLY.
Linking the class feature that says they can't lie.
I did not link the D&D morality system. I linked a C L A S S. F E A T U R E.

That involves particulars for the setting and depends more on the GM's morality than the Paladins.

Personally? If the law says to cut off the hand of anyone who steals and the Paladin doesn't do that to the poor orphan boy who stole an orange? I wouldn't make the guy fall. Not unless he followed a god who actively demanded he do it.

Part of being Lawful Good is refusing to stand for unjust Laws.

That's a lie too. Also you were rude and could possibly have hurt my feelings, which is an evil act.
Your acts are abhorrent in the eyes of your god and you fall immediately.

A paladin does nto need to stick to a law that goes against his code of morals and ethics. He need only respect legitimate authority, and an authority that would murder those who resort to theft in order to survive is no legitimate authority.

Paladins are not black and white. They are not required to always follow the law 100% of the time. All that is required is they act with just and good intentions, and accept consequences and strive to uphold the morals of those who would be arbiters of justice.

Once again we learn Veeky Forums is shit at roleplay and would rather strictly adhere to rules instead of what is good and just.

This is why Defensive Combat has its own rules.

What the fuck is your problem? It's LITERALLY a part of the class that was quoted! Not some shaky-ass morality system you cunt.

"I refuse to tell you where your wife is."
There is no shred of falsehood in this statement.

>Han Solo and Robin Hood did not have codes forbidding lying.

You are intentionally trying to not think of the REASON for that code, because you are dumb.

They didn't just invent rules because they sounded cool, they exist to serve a means. And as correctly assessed, the means behind it is not betraying trust.

If you're sitting here trying to tell me you would make a Paladin fall for telling his wife her butt isn't big, because he took the No Fibbing oath, you're a retard.

It emphasizes not to act dishonorably. The mention of lying is included in a list which literally includes the term "and so forth". It is clearly intended to refer to actually bad deception, not literally ever saying or writing something that isn't true.

And when the Demon kills him anyway because the Paladin wasn't able to fight defensively that long and refused to even try and buy himself and the children even a few more seconds by bantering?

The class feature is literally retarded and intentionally misunderstands the concepts of Paladinhood.
The whole premise of 3.5 being a clusterfuck regarding alignment and things like class features (like the one mentioned above) is the problem.

Oh? So lying is ethical behavior?

So, you disobey your king?
That's illegal too, bro.In most countries or ancient times, disobeying your king? That's treason.

Are you going to also fight your way out?
Treasonous murderer?
Wow.

>If you're sitting here trying to tell me you would make a Paladin fall
I just got here, read through every post, and can clearly state that you are the only one talking about small lies making Paladins fall. The other guy or guys is just saying that it is not a Good act, and Paladins should not do it.

In short, you're putting words into his/their mouth(s) to shore up your pithy argument.

"Guards, execute this man."

Again, you play Paladins like a 6 INT retard, without a shred of grace. You give them a bad name.

Depending on the circumstances it can be the MOST ethical choice.

>not apologizing beforehand
>disrespecting a royal authority figure
>disobeying a royal authority figure
>stopping to talk to the king even though literally 9000 babies are dying right now as a direct result of your actions
You fall.

Then he's dead. Paladins die. The important thing is that he stood and fought.

There's a reason that the old saying goes "For God, king, and country".

Do note which noun comes first in line.

If a Paladin told his wife her butt wasn't big over and over with no regard for the fact that he was deliberately deceiving her, nor any penance, many times, then yes. He would fall. He is breaking his code.

>Class feature says not to act dishonorably.
>Class feature calls lying a dishonorable act.
>Waaah I should be able to lie and disregard the code even though it's explicitly dishonorable.

Still not even trying. Someone needs a basic understanding of "legitimate authority".

>Pussying out of doing the right thing because the king might execute you.
Okay.

Durr durr durr.

If an act of deception/omission is instrumental in helping him get that time, then it should by all means be acceptable. Courage should be tempered by wisdom, the knowledge of ones own limits being the border in-between a short career of do-gooding and a long one.

Failing that, a nice long game of 'smack-the-demon-with-your-sword-and-bolt' would suffice, with the paladin accepting that his life is an acceptable price for the time it'd take for the reinforcements to arrive.

No, the important thing is to help the innocent and thwart the evil.

Those I suppose these differences in opinion are why multiple orders of paladins exist.

>A paladin does nto need to stick to a law that goes against his code of morals and ethics
>morals and ethics

>act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)

Huh.

You have the choice to lie to save a life, tell the truth and have the person be killed, or say nothing and you are both killed.

What is the most ethical choice?

Note I did not say that lying is ALWAYS the most ethical choice. I merely said that the paladin should always choose to adhere to that which is just, righteous and good. If a law is not righteous, what purpose is there to follow it, when it so clearly leads to the harm and ill treatment of others? As such, in a time of need, lying can be the most ethical choice.

Paladins are not Lawful Stupid, they are Lawful Good. As such, choose the action that is Good, and you shall in turn be Lawful.

>RRRGGHH PALADIN SMASH!!!

So do you guys just kill yourselves like retards every time you get into a situation that you can't immediately fight your way out of?

This is why your GM rolls his eyes when he sees you play a Paladin.

I pity your players in the event you are the GM.

I guess at that point, it depends on what God you follow.

Helm would tell you "Find that bitch, and let the King do as he must."

Torm would tell you "DEFEND the fair maiden with your last breath! FIGHT!"

Sune would be like "Let Love Thrive! Kill the King!."

>Durr durr durr.
>insulting someone else
>belittling those with disabilities
>killing another 9000 babies
Jesus Christ user they're going to have to start sending inevitables after you at this rate

If you want to continualy bring up rules, go ahead. You're probably somebody that plays a wizard and breaks every rule conceivable.

Rules are guidelines to stick to to have fun, enjoyable gameplay. When a rule clearly is far too strict (no lying for paladins, several other rules as well) I, as a DM, will often ignore or change said rules, in order to allow my campaign to be as smooth as possible.

I'm gonna stop responding to you now, because your replies are boring and don't have to do with the topic. I hope you had fun, user!