Can paladins lie?

Sure they can, but whether they should ot not is the question. Given that the class is generally meant to evoke the chivalric ideal, I'd say they should be the honest, forthright sort. Not habitual liars by any means. But if the only choices available were lying, and failing to protect the innocent or provide justice, then lying is preferable. But any alternative to dishonesty should be sought out; there's always the option to simply refuse to answer an inquiry on moral grounds. Perhaps the bandit leader doesn't deserve to be told where the remaining villagers are, nor does the warlock need to discover where the local Necronomicon-expy is hidden.

Depending on the oath. While they can do it, it's a big question where they should do it.

Yes, but why would they want to?

You're thinking of trapping the party paladin with a scenario of "say that the moon is made out of cheese or I will kill this peasant family!" aren't you?

> ctrl+f
> "Depends on the setting"
> One job and all that.

In my settings, they wouldn't lie, but they could keep their mouths shut. Free Speech and Freedom of Information are not paladinly virtues. In fact, my personal interpretation of Lawful Good (which differs from the standard one a bit in how far I take it) is that it is pretty opposed to individual liberty in general. A paladin will never tell you to follow your dreams!

"Certain point of view" and Aes Sedai-style technically correct answers are out, though

>all these people saying maybe or depends on the situation

Usually correct but WRONG in this one. Honesty is one of the few omnipresent paladin oaths going back to 2e. Paladins CANNOT knowingly lie, to do so is a violation of their base code that ALL paladins share. Exceptions include eveeryone-gets-a-paladin 4 and 5e where alignment is no longer restricted . But for the classic paladin OP is clearly shitposting about, the one we always think of for these dumb threads, no. Paladins cannot lie. this is a core foundation of their class and explicitly lined out in the rules.

Paladin should't lie but it don't mean that they should spill all the beans.

For example when I was playing Paladin (with splash of monk), we suppose to infiltrate the city that was taking control by enemy faction.

We let one of our npc dwarf fighter to disguise as dead veteran soldier so that we could go to one of the good alignmented church inside the city.

When a enemy soldier start to question my character about the "corpse". I simple told him that we are taking this person to the church. I did't lie but I'm leaving out important details.

In this case, I think it's less
>Depends on the setting/situation
and more of
>Depends on the gods and the specifics of their oaths.

This isn't a problem if the paladin values are ranked like Asimov's laws.

>1. Obey the will of your god
>2. Protect human life unless doing so would conflict with rule 1
>3. Do not lie unless doing so would conflict with rules 1 or 2
>etc.

Can robots be paladins?

Seems like 'Do good' would rank higher than 'Obey your god'. Since paladins require gods and can't lose powers thanks to the god.

>Honesty is one of the few omnipresent paladin oaths going back to 2e.
Says who?
Paladin can lie in 5E if they don't have the correct oath.
They can also lie in my setting.

>He didn't read sentence 4 onward.

>It's a omnipresent rule
>but there are exceptions
What?

Define "lie" please.

By omission? Probably, depending on their own. Explicitly, probably not, depending on their oath. Implicitly, again probably depending on their oath.

Paladins should keep a Rogue and or Bard around for this kind of thing.

What if there are sinful birds?

A paladin can lie, cheat, steal, and murder just like anybody else.
Them not doing those things is what makes them paladins.

Entirely depends on the Oath.

>Paladins should keep a Rogue and or Bard around for this kind of thing.
Isn't that cheating?
That's like saying a Paladin does not torture, thus have a fighter doing it for him.

A pacifist can have a bodyguard and that's not cheating.

Paladins are pillars of moral absolutes in a world made of shades of grey. Rogues and Bards should be looked at like tools in a Paladin's toolbox.

I have a character whose a buddhist monk and a pacifist vegetarian.

Instead he fights by summoning the avatars of the great Wisdom Kings, horrific and violent avatars of the destruction of evil who exist to murder-rape concepts like deceit, pride, and worldliness.

The difference between a regular pacifist and a Paladin is a Paladin also suppose to inspire people around him with you good deeds.
Lettind someone else do acts of evil (if Paladins can't lie, let's just consider lying as evil for our scenario) just because you want to keep your hands clean seems more like an act of self satisfaction, than the true believe of doing good.

"Good" is not a solid concept either.

I think it is far more masturbatory to be the "Perfect Paladin" and not let a little evil slide, such as a Bard lying for you or a Rogue stealing something, to prevent a far larger evil - say a genocide.

They are religious fanatics, ofc they can lie, even if they arent supposed to they will twist truth and reality to fit their desires and justify it with w/e god/goddess they serve. As all religious fanatics.

It really depends, a paladin should respect truth, but that doesn't mean he's a fool who would blurt out "No your highness it's not the dress that makes you look fat, you are infact obese!" to the corpulent queen. The same goes for basic military tactics like ambush, attacking from behind (as in flanking, not suckerpunching a guy in a brawl) or using a disguise to sneak past enemies if needed, a dead paladin helps no one.

Also consider that even the most lawful of lawful good gods would have some understanding i'm sure. not

"Hmm Well no little Billy McMyparentsaredead. I haven't heard anything about Sister Sara planing a party for the orphanage. I was just swinging by to say hello not drop off anything"
DM:"Oops sorry that was lying, you loose all your powers"
"AW C'MON! Fine i tell the kid about the party"
DM: "Which you promised Sister Sara you wouldn't tell the kids about, you broke your oath, you loose all your powers."
Player: *beats DM to death with a players handbook*

*tips wizard hat*

then why does the paladin just not lie himself if its for the greater good?

letting someone else lie on your behalf is no different morally than lying yourself

just like you are equally responsible for torture if you willingly and knowingly let the rogue torture someone

>just like you are equally responsible for torture if you willingly and knowingly let the rogue torture someone
That isn't how culpability works. You can't control someone else's actions without committing a greater transgression against the "Good" or a Paladin's Oath.

To really do so, they'd have to restrain by force or wound the Rogue prevent the torture. Which would be even worse, because at that moment before the torture begins the Rogue is an innocent.

Fuck, there's Powder Keg of Justice when I need it. It shows perfect what I'm talking about.

>Lying as an act is intrinsically against the code of a lawful good paladin.

That would depend on the code and the order the paladin belongs to, more than anything else.

That's what the anti-aircraft lasers on your roof are for- shooting down all birds, regardless of theological status, preventing your Paladin from setting off on a quest south for the winter.

Most certainly not with a man as one lies with a woman.

>implying a Paladin in such a position would lie, knowing that if he does the villain will kill the family regardless

The only option here is to valiantly charge forth and die unblemished in battle whilst the peasant family retreats the field.

Why the heck. How a Paladin can function against evil without lying? Stating to the evil duke "I'm planning to bring down your government at the first chance" would be retarded. Lying to a corrupt guard to get a gnome merchant inside the city walls. Trying your luck with a demon in a wit's battle (with an enourmous amount of "it depends" involved).

Lies are merely a tool: lying to objectively evil men or creatures (and a Paladin KNOWS who is "evil") is another tool to fool or fight them. Killing a creature is wrong: a Paladin gets a free pass if it's a evil one for a very good reason.

Thus, Paladins can and should lie when required. Let's not go Lawful Stupid.

A Paladin is the embodiment of Lawful and Good. Lying for the sake of good is a chaotic act. The effective Paladin knows how to not put himself into such positions as you described them, and to find the elusive third option whenever he must pick between choices conflicting with his strict code. And when to stretch his own rigid morals and perform penance.

Of course. Anyone can lie, but the important questions are when and why?

To the broader points of should a paladin remain as one after lying are more contextual.

I'm running a paladin/monk of Tanagaar in a game, and he's the party face, and works pretty well mechanically. Much more defensive minded but hits consistently for low dmg (avg of 13, lvl 11)

His main lessons from his upbringing in the monastery are these:

The first lesson: Honor is neither to be announced from mountains, nor as a tool to garner gain, It is to be done discretely and consistently, without concern for who does or doesn't see

The second lesson: Those who stay always in the light forget their own shadow.

The third lesson: Words dance in the wind; they are not a sign of one's goodness or intent. Actions require time, planning, and sacrifice; these show a person's mindset.

Thoughts fellas? Would you allow this in your games?

depends on the setting
depends on the god the paladin's aligned to
depends on the oath the paladin took
depends on so many things that you're a faggot for starting this thread without clarifying anything

Thus, a Paladin should avoid to put itself in situations where he must kill (that's the pinnacle of chaos, we can agree)? Or should he be incredibly inactive and passive, desperately trying to avoid divine judgement?

Let us elaborate on the gnome merchant, then, a rather easy example: a corrupt guard wants to seize the goods of a merchant, a friend of the group. The city is controlled by a neutral evil baron, and the group has to act discreetely to avoid suspicion: lying to the guard to help the gnome would be considered chaotic? Or merely ignore the problem as solving it would put the mission and his "lawful" standing at risk?

Huh. I'm kinda lucky my DM is rather flexible in Paladin codes, then!

>Can paladins lie?
As a Kantian Paladin, I say no

>should attempt to repent whenever they happen to be required to lie.
So they can lie if they must.

>Thus, a Paladin should avoid to put itself in situations where he must kill (that's the pinnacle of chaos, we can agree)?
No, we cannot. A Paladin's code demands he smite, then he smites.

depends on the lie. for example "this soup is delicious" and "i will stop worshiping patron deity x" are both lies, but one retains party cohesion instead of telling the barbarian that they're a shit fucking cook, and the other is a lie that gives the appearance of forsaking our damn god

Truth is sacred

Hey, they're the murderhobos who showed up in MY house. I'm just defending my property bro.

I would say that paladins can lie if it would serve the greater good. If the Nazis ask the paladin if he's hiding Jews in his attic and he is, it's okay for him to say no (inb4 /pol/).

Property is theft
We are going to distribute that property for the good of all

Fuck off, Karl

If you are lawful good
you are for socialism
That is the deal
Good = Need of others over need of yourself
Lawful = Systematic society and order
Perfect for socialism

As a paladin your word is your bond. Lying is a dishonorable action.

But really that's only if you're lawful. In 5e your have the oath of the ancient and the oath of vengeance which aren't necessarily lawful and don't really care so it's definitely possible that they lie for the greater good.

Nice try

Depends on the setting/edition/cosmology/etc...

There are many different interpretations of what constitutes a paladin.

In vanilla assumed 3x3 objective morality punnet-square 3.PF D&D setting, no they cannot, but that's a very narrow answer for a very narrow setting.

Well, in a non-moral sense, there is literally nothing wrong with a lie.

>Lying
>Ever

>Deontological ethics

>needing to lie to trick people

So, can't is a powergamer?

...

...

>Can't
Brain autocorrected, meant Kant