Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ROOKIEDM03 07-19-05, 12:56 PM	I'm the DM of a campaign with a Paladin in it. Now, this Paladin is a Paladin of Bahamut and his quest is to destroy evil dragons. And eventually THE evil dragon. That's not really important, but you needed some background. My question is this: Can a Paladin sneak up on a dragon? Not physically, but morally? Would his ethics allow him to use magic (I have a sorcer in the party) or any other means to hide his presence from the dragon until he was ready to attack? I'm leaning toward "no". I see Paladin's as being chivalrous and romantic and all that tripe. It seems they would prefer a fair defeat over an unfair victory. Honor and all that, right? If I'm wrong, let me know. If I'm right, though, what should his punishment be? Alignment change or just no more Paladin levels until he gets his sins atoned? thanks all.
Winternova 07-19-05, 01:06 PM	By my logic, yes. Your paladin can sneak up on his foes. HOWEVER it should be noted that he cannot coup de gras said unsuspecting foe, nor can he simply strike from his hidden state. He should still be bound to call out the opponent, but this could serve as that platform to issue such a challenge.
pres_man 07-19-05, 01:08 PM	Before you consider anything like atonements, punishments, etc, you need to sit down with the player and discuss what it means to be a paladin. What is honorable behaviour and what is not, in your game world. The character would know what kind of behaviour was honorable, even if the player would not. You also need to give nudges as the game goes on to make sure that the player understands what the character should understand. As for being right, you are the DM, of course you are right as to what is honorable in that world. If the player feels you are limiting his character too much, let him make a new character of a different class (ranger maybe?) without penalty.
Callista 07-19-05, 01:08 PM	Have him write down his code of honor before he plays the character. Look over it together, and make sure that the "ambushing dragons" situation is covered. In my campaigns... can a paladin use ambushes? Short answer: Depends. Long answer: Your basic paladin (I think this would go for paladins of Bahamut as well) is Good before he is Lawful, as evidenced by the fact that he has to atone for any evil act, but can commit chaotic acts as long as he doesn't actually shift away from Lawful. Being Lawful, the Paladin would prefer not to use stealth. If he can fight someone in a straight-up battle, even a dangerous one, he would prefer that to an ambush. However, the Paladin cannot hold his honor above other people's lives. (The typical Paladin places G before L, in other words; just like a LG Samurai would generally be the other way around--L before G). Dragons are generally dangerous enemies. If the dragon poses a threat to innocent lives, and the Paladin is pretty sure that he can't defeat it without an ambush, his conscience may force him to lay aside honor in order to protect the people that dragon is threatening. Simply put: First priority: Protect the innocent, do Good. Second priority: Do it honorably. While the Paladin can, and should, risk his own life for honor, he doesn't have the right to risk others' lives; that's just pride, and quite a neat shortcut to LE. Ambushes can be honorable in the limited circumstance that both sides know and accept that they will be employed: For example, in a pitched battle, both generals know that, given the chance, the other general will attempt to have troops circling around and hitting him where he doesn't expect it. In a declared war, ambushes can be used honorably. A Paladin can use an ambush, but it should be his last resort, and he shouldn't enjoy doing it. It goes against his idea of honor--but if an ambush is the only way to protect the weak or to remove evil, the paladin may have to resort to it. Depending on exactly how badly the Paladin believes he has neglected his code of honor, he may actually resort to self-assigned (not DM-assigned, and not the kind where he actually loses Paladin powers) atonement of some sort. Don't put honor above the welfare of the innocent. If I'm right, though, what should his punishment be? Alignment change or just no more Paladin levels until he gets his sins atoned?Don't punish him unless he uses ambush tactics so much that he turns to NG from LG. If that happens, yes, give him an Atonement quest (these are great plot hooks, by the way; I suggest having the cleric give the player an item or something else that will help him, in order to offset the loss of class powers). But until then, just remind him that his character knows that what he just did doesn't agree with his code of honor. Another note: Alignment change is not a punishment. It simply reflects the changing outlook of a character, and should, ideally, be the player's choice as much as the DM's, as the player knows his character better.
KoboldSlayer 07-19-05, 01:22 PM	This depends on three things: 1. What deity the paladin follows and how that deity would view using sneaky tactics. (Bahamut would probably not approve in a general sense.) 2. What campaign setting you are using. (Some campaign settings are far more strict on paladin code than others. If you are running a home-brew setting, then you know how strict it should be.) 3. The situation. Let me make one thing clear about my position before going on: A good end NEVER justifies an evil means for a paladin, in my opinion. However, being sneaky and attacking from surprise is not inherently "evil". It is just sneaky. It is not even "lying" (which, in my opinion, paladins should never do) because he never implied to the dragon that he wouldn't sneak up on him. It's just solid combat tactics against a superior foe. So, I would say it depended on the situation. If the paladin is going after a dragon, and all that is at stake is his life and limb, then he ought to, at most, sneak up on the dragon and then alert it to his presence so as not to attack it from surprise in a sneaky trick. If it is HIS life and HIS limbs and HIS success on the quest that is at stake, then let him stick HIS neck out there in a bold move. If the paladin is going after a dragon with a group and the group wants to use the element of surprise, the paladin should either go along with the surprise (as long as they don't intend to do something evil like kill it in its sleep or poison it. There's nothing wrong with a pre-emptive blow, just not a coup de grace.) OR he should wait until the others have attacked and then join in after the dragon is alert. It would be very unchivalrous to make the remainder of the party take a foolish course of waking the thing before attacking just because it offends his sense of armor. In that case, he is risking THEIR lives and THEIR limbs...and it's not his right to do so. If the paladin is going after a dragon and there is an innocent's life at stake...say, a non-combative that's being held prisoner, then the use of a sneaky approach to either rescue the captive and then engage in the battle (preferable) or to gain the advantage in the battle so that he can dispatch the dragon before it harms the captive (second choice) would be acceptable. Sneakiness would be appropriate if it would spare the captive, who did not come looking for a fight with a dragon, from harm. The paladin is then employing sneakiness to save someone ELSE'S life and limb. It all really boils down to if you think sneakiness in and of itself is evil. Because if it is, then the paladin can't employ a sneak attack (that is, an attack dealt from surprise...NOT talking about the rogue class ability) no matter what the situation because doing evil in the cause of good is still doing evil. That's a call you'll have to make as a DM. But be sure you let your player know up front if "sneaky" = "evil" because he and you may hold different views on this, and if you don't agree he may break his paladin code without knowing he was going to do so. He needs the opportunity up front to know what's expected. If he knows the consequences and does something evil, I would first take away his paladin abilities. If it's a major infraction, take them all away until he formally gets an atonement. If it's a minor thing, take away one or more and send him a vision to "change his ways"...then give it back once he has suitably made ammends in the deity's (you, as the DM's) eyes. That way, he doesn't have to run off and get atonement all the time for minor infractions, since that should be a step of true remorse and in a desperate situation.
weasel fierce 07-19-05, 01:26 PM	The rules do not mandate paladins to be idiots. If the enemy is evenly matched, I'd say a paladin should consider it, if you use a christian-feudal paladin. If the characters are so outclassed as a dragon is sure to make them, I see no issue.
KoboldSlayer 07-19-05, 01:45 PM	The rules do not mandate paladins to be idiots. If the enemy is evenly matched, I'd say a paladin should consider it, if you use a christian-feudal paladin. If the characters are so outclassed as a dragon is sure to make them, I see no issue. Absolutely! What he said! Also, if you do deem that attacking from surprise is against a paladin's code in your game setting, no matter the circumstances, you need to account for the fact that paladin's are not suicidal. That is, if you want to force the paladin to confront a dragon head-on, or at the very least let it know he's there before attacking, then be sure you have steered the plot in such a way that he is confident...either through magical items, abilities, or some obscure piece of lore about THIS dragon...that he can defeat the dragon without the element of surprise. Don't expect that he'll be foolish enough to go head-on against it without some other kind of ace in the hole to compensate for the lack of surprise tactics.
High Octane 07-19-05, 02:42 PM	While the Paladin can, and should, risk his own life for honor, he doesn't have the right to risk others' lives; that's just pride, and quite a neat shortcut to LE. I must save this for posterity! Naw seriously, ambushes are allowed as long as the enemy is either so powerful it is the only option, or in such cases as the enemy is aware of the possbility and should prepare for it. In war for example. Having your army set an ambush for a passing enemy armies is just using intelligent tactics. Now if said army doesnt KNOW they are at war or are there for purely diplomatic reasons, then it IS dishonorable. As for the ambush of a dragon, its not dishonorable if the dragon knew he had such things coming, such as his constant attacks on a countryside. Assassination is dishonorable, but attempting to take on the dragon when YOU have the advantage (such as in a cave where he cant fly away) is just intelligent tactics. And if the dragon starts spouting "Thats not FAIR!" the paladin can simply say "FAIR? Who has the breath weapon, an extra 30 tons of muscle and armor and several centuries of battle tactics behind him and is fighting a mortal HUMAN/ELF/DWARF/GNOME?? I think a little SURPRISE is not going to tip the scales in my favor!" (I left out halflings cause for some reason everyone plays a halfling as an evil little bastard)
Gedrin 07-19-05, 02:45 PM	IMC, Paladins are instructed that you cannot attack an opponent who has not had the opportunity to surrender. A paladin would not sneak up behind an enemy soldier and kill him while he was on guard. Though a paladin might sneak up on an enemy guard and konk him on the head unconcious. A paladin would lead a flanking maneuver that surprised a group of enemy soldiers, providing the battle had already begun. The borderline IMC is; Would a paladin lead a surprise charge on an enemy as the initial attack in the battle? IMC, there is considerable debate about this among orders of paladins. Since no paladin order will go to war without a formal declaration, some argue that the enemy have been given an initial opportunity to surrender. True surprise attacks are legitimate, providing you take care to accept surrenders durring the attack. Other orders proceed under a doctrine that surrender must be offered on each occasion and to the people present on that occasion. These orders choose not to use complete surprise as a tactic for an initial attack. Still, most of the above concerns open warfare. Durring duels, naturally, there are strict codes of conduct. Adventuring paladins tend to have difficulty with missions that would require infiltration. They're much more likely to take a direct aproach. However, IMC, most paladins have the legal aparatus, clergy and perhaps even a paladin order. It's much easier for them to take prisoners, because they have a place to put them in most circumstances. It's not uncommon for a paladin going out to put an end to bandit raiders to be given legal authority to acomplish his job.
pres_man 07-19-05, 03:06 PM	(I left out halflings cause for some reason everyone plays a halfling as an evil little bastard) Why is it now that I want to play a halfling paladin named Cartus, "Respect my authority!"
createvmind 07-19-05, 03:45 PM	Lets clear something up very crucial to this topic, Paladins are lawful not chaotic, they don't just rush out and attack opponents. As was stated before a Paladin is trained to try and sway one from the path of evil and if not possible then engage them in combat. If you are speaking about a battle between two sides then a Paladin can use terrain to his advantage but not really in the manner you put it. If you speak of one on one, then the answer is clearly NO, the Paladin would ride or approach the opponent and make demands then engage in combat if necessary. War in Tethyr Thronhold These novels describe very well how Paladins appraoch conflict and while not suicidal a Paladin will rarely run from a single opponent. An indeed a Paladins belief in his code and strength and valor will have him do exactly what was said earlier, approach a dragon head on. Thats what makes them Paladins, standing toe to toe with evil and smiting it, and this is done after trying to avoid conflict always. Hope that clarifies somethings better.
Lord Ian Stark 07-19-05, 03:45 PM	Oh boy, here we go. ROOKIEDM03 there are many ways to play a Paladin within the RAW. As pres_man stated, you need to sit down with your Paladin and agree on a code of conduct and how the player will play his Paladin. I say this because if you all of a sudden tell the Paladin his action just caused him to fall and he thought he was doing the "correct" thing, then you are going to get into an argument. Everyone I have seen varies on the idea of a Paladin and his way to act. If you were to tell me I would become a fallen Paladin if I did not walk up to a Collosal Evil dragon and challenge him to a duel then I would thank you kindly for the game and exit via the closest door. As weasel fierce has stated, Paladins are not idiots. Another thing you may want to look at is that a Paladin fights evil without mercy by the RAW. As far as using magic. Unless I am mistaken a paladin uses Divine Magic, no? So what would stop him from using Arcane magic in the RAW? I would say common sense should prevail here but it has obviously not. When in doubt read the RAW and speak to the player to meet at equal ground. This is a game and it is not meant to be played solo, so keep the players in the loop on important issues such as a characters expected playstyle.
Palin the Wizard 07-19-05, 03:50 PM	Paladins are, as has already been said, not idiots. They are, however, honorable. Paladins want to be honorable as much as possible, yes, but not when they would be idiots for it.
Leewei 07-19-05, 04:06 PM	My favorite dwarven paladin considered a good ambush against an orcish patrol something to be savored like good beer or mutton. A paladin is constrained by a nebulous code of honor. The code might restrict a paladin from attacking from ambush or otherwise misbehaving, but I believe that an effective code restricts the paladin's sense of fairness to honorable or worthy foes. It may well be that Bahumat would require the evil dragons to be treated as such, but at the same time there should be enough power in his servants to back up this attitude. If the PCs are a typical party, the paladin might do well to have a different patron who would allow his servitors the luxury of seeing evil dragons as marauding, tyrannical beasts who need to be put down by nearly any means possible, including feeding the thing a poisoned sheep. (A mythical Polish hero did just that!) A code of conduct typically stipulates how you behave to the common folk, towards those in your order, towards your friends and allies, and towards honorable foes. Most codes of honor have a fairly big blind spot regarding dishonorable foes. Exterminating them by whatever means you have at hand is fine, as long as you don't stake out any maidens before going to lurk behind a tree.
Lord Ian Stark 07-19-05, 04:11 PM	It may well be that Bahumat would require the evil dragons to be treated as such, but at the same time there should be enough power in his servants to back up this attitude. I would think a Paladin of Bahamut would know better than any other Paladin that going up against an evil dragon as a frail human would be suicide unless as you said he had, oh lets say, a good dragon behind him. ;)
Phrennzy 07-19-05, 04:17 PM	This is hands down the best Paladin thread ever. It should be locked right now and stickied. Before I say something stupid and screw it all up.
createvmind 07-19-05, 04:57 PM	Since we are in Faerun board I assume this Paladin is as well and therefore is of an Order or been squired to someone who gave him his code. The DM must determine that, not the player because the Paladin was not given choices when he became a paladin in his strict development to attaining the class. Determining what god he worships can determine some of his behavior as we discussed in the whole slavery/paladin post elsewhere. If he worships the major Pantheon and any of the triad then he is indeed expected to approach battle straight on. If you look at complete divine and book of exalted deeds it will state that Paladins and their prc-type classes that the char is often indeed expected to lay downs his life, just not RECKLESSLY. As for the buffing of a Paladin with non evil or necro magic I see no problem with that at all since the Paladin has the ability to do so himself. And a Paladin shouldn't be warned beforehand of what could make him fall, thats what drives his actions, the fear of failing at appointed task and falling from grace through some mishap or bad choice. Read beginning of exalted and it presents many scenarios that could affect your Paladin and what harsh choices he may have to make to maintain his sainthood. I repeat it again, Paladins are the hardest classes to play because they have the strictest of codes, a Paladin can't agree to let a villian go even if that villian may kill his comrade. He can't negoitate with evil on any level even if it cost lives, including his. The key word describing good is altruism "and a character COMMITTED to cause of good champions that cause in any circumstance, often at great personal risk and cost" Book of exalted deeds And if he has to encounter a colossal great mega wyrm then it doesn't matter what we post, new chars will be in short order. :P
KoboldSlayer 07-19-05, 05:11 PM	Since we are in Faerun board I assume this Paladin is as well and therefore is of an Order or been squired to someone who gave him his code. We're not on the Faerun board. We're in "what's a DM to do"...unless this is double-posted somewhere. The DM must determine that, not the player because the Paladin was not given choices when he became a paladin in his strict development to attaining the class. The player should be told, though, what his code says. After that, it's up to him to determine if some morally-dubious action goes against it or not. But he should know up front what the standard is. Example (very simplistic example): One rule of the code might be that he will not tell a lie. The duchess who rules the county where he's adventuring asks him flat-out at a party: "Sir Paladin, does this dress make me look fat?" The duchess has had more than her share of sweets throughout the years, but does that mean the paladin has to say, "Fat as a cow, m'lady." Or could he weasel by with, "The dress is gorgeous, m'lady." (Which is true if the dress is gorgeous, but maybe just she needs to be five sizes smaller to really get the full effect.) Or could he maybe say, "I think you are looking your best tonight." (Not saying what that is compared to.) Or maybe "white lies" like, "Why of course not, m'lady," are alright. It harmed no one. It spread no treacherous deceit. But it is still...a lie! Up to the player to decide how far he could bend that aspect of his code before the deity will be considering it broken. But it's really important, when making that decision, that he knew in the first place that he should not lie.
Gedrin 07-19-05, 05:14 PM	It occurs to me that the above could be why paladins are valued and trusted advisors...but not so often invited to the big fancy aristocratic political parties.
Chobemaster 07-19-05, 05:44 PM	IRL, the "chivalric code" to challenge a foe before battle in part reflects that all foes are humans (no inherent alignment, no magic powers or magic items) and RW knights can't detect evil. That being said, it would be completely sensible that "chivalric protections" do not extend to "monsters" however defined.
Androcus Divinicus 07-19-05, 06:04 PM	I would say absolutely yes. There are a couple of items on this, but there's a section of the old "Defenders of the Faith" book (which I call old here not because it actually is aged ... but because it's obsolete now) that addresses the Paladin's code, one paragraph of which I think applies directly to this discussion: Refusing to lie, cheat, or use poison doesn't limit you and your allies to frontal assaults in broad daylight, either. You are a trained warrior. You can use clever tactics: Set up an attack from an unexpected direction, lure opponents onto unfavorable ground, create flanking opportunities. Be prepared to look at the tactical situation, and be sure to ask your companions for their suggestions -- they might surprise you. emphasis mine A paladin is a trained warrior. He's not a theologian. There have been a number of good replies on this topic already that I want to just touch on briefly. A paladin is Good first, Lawful second. As Callista said, "... evidenced by the fact that he has to atone for any evil act, but can commit chaotic acts as long as he doesn't actually shift away from Lawful." Frankly, a Paladin who believes that his code forces him to "fight fair" every time and every way, will quickly learn that combat has no referees, and it isn't a game to be won. He will learn this quickly, or he will die quickly. As Leewei said, "but I believe that an effective code restricts the paladin's sense of fairness to honorable or worthy foes." Also, personally, I believe that a code, to be effective (meaning to be something that is attainable, and also something that doesn't drive its adherents to madness), will govern a Paladin's behavior in every day life. Now, will some of this also be applied to the way a Paladin fights? Of course it will. Does it force him to fight without regard to common sense? No. Edit: Damn, I've got a lot more to say about this (can you tell that I love Paladin's?), but I haven't the time right now ... I'll come back to this later. *Bookmarks thread* Regards, Justin.
Alvaric 07-19-05, 06:12 PM	That being said, it would be completely sensible that "chivalric protections" do not extend to "monsters" however defined. A very good point. There's a bit in the DMG about city adventures that discusses how the concept of "murder" only applies when the victim is a humanoid. Most cultures, the default "D&D culture" included, just don't recongnize most mosters as worthy of legal or ethical protection, no matter what their alignment or intelligence. Sure, you might irk some wizards or clerics who are probably in the know about such things, but you could kill a freaking gold dragon in the middle of Campaign City, and the worst you'd get from the local constabulary is "You'd better clean that rotting hunk of lizard up!"
The_EvilDungeon_Master 07-19-05, 06:21 PM	In my opinion, a paladin should not have to atone for anything that does not change his/her alignment. This said, would you change a good fighter's alignment to an evil one if they sneaked up on a much more powerful foe? No! It is to be expected that they use what they can! Also: the paladin has a better chance in ridding the world of this evil dragon if he/she sneaks up on it, correct? As others have said, it is more important to be good than honorable. IMC, Paladins are instructed that you cannot attack an opponent who has not had the opportunity to surrender. Is it not reasonable to assume that a chromatic dragon of considerable power would not surrender to a "lowly mortal" such as a paladin? If you give that dragon a chance to surrender, he'll take it and instead claw you in the face.
mrurbanitesmiley 07-19-05, 06:36 PM	Use a sneak attack, but when the opponent is flat footed attack with the -4 penalty and do subdual damage. That way, you aren't doing any real harm, and when they come to their senses, you can say 'Surrender, falsh daemon!' I don't see thwacking a potential opponent with a sap from hiding to be very honorable, as long as the subdued opponent is treated honorably, as ending combat before it begins without seriously injuring either side prevents suffering and death (If the paladin didn't take care of the enemy, the enemy would attack, and the paladin would have to defend himself, and non-lethality might not be an option)
Dragonspirit 07-19-05, 06:36 PM	Think of Star Wars. The Jedi are quite close, in D&D terms, to being an order of Paladins in spirit. High moral virtue, and they not only use but champion the idea of stealth as a means.
WizardlyFriend 07-19-05, 06:58 PM	yes, there is essentially a paladin prestige class in CW that gives them a sneak attack like ability. what is "morally" wrong with stabbing someone evil in the back.
pres_man 07-19-05, 06:59 PM	I noticed a trend in some of the comments, that is the thinking that it is stupid to walk up and challenge a powerful dragon. While this is true, one would hope that a paladin who was facing a dragon would be at fairly the same level as the dragon's CR, otherwise the DM is screwing things up. Therefore if the paladin was very powerful there would be no reason for him to think the dragon is more powerful. Also a paladin is not afraid of standing toe to toe with a dragon, in fact a paladin is fearless. Now is it honorable to use sneak tactics, well there is one school of thought that says, "In war, nothing is more honorable then victory." So any means that leads to victory is honorable, including ambush, poison, assination, etc. I noticed same people have stated that a paladin is good before being lawful. Therefore it is ok to ambush an evil dragon. Let's look at the description of good: “Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. Well dragons are certainly sentient, no doubt about that. So is it showing a concern for their dignity to throw out a paladin's honorable behaviour to sneak attack them? Or would it be more good to uphold the paladin's honorable behaviour and respect the dignity of the dragon and challenge him face to face? Honor is a tricky thing. Is killing the guy who is sleeping with your wife/girlfriend honorable? Perhaps in some cultures/times, but it is not good. In some codes only your "equals" were worthy of honorable treatment, for example to samauris would have to treat each other honorable, but they didn't have to show any respect to a peasant. I would think that a paladin would try to treat all sentient beings the same, from a good standpoint. Again, DMs and paladin players should discuss these issues on a regular basis. The DM should have the final word, but the player should be able to discuss it and give reasons for a specific position.
MT-296 "Dagger" 07-19-05, 07:04 PM	http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Devoted_Inquisitor A feat with Smite Evil AND Sneak Attack as prequisities going by this little bugger I would say yes.
AntiDjinn 07-19-05, 09:06 PM	Being a paladin does not mean being stupid or suicidal, but it does mean being honorable. Most paladin orders have a very military bent and will certainly appreciate a tactical advantage and will use terrain and such to give themselves an edge; it is neither chaotic nor evil to use proven military strategy. What a paladin can't do is act out of fear, because they are supposed to be fearless. A paladin would not make use of tactics that show he is more concerned about personal survival than the success of the mission. One thing the BoED makes clear about paladins and the big LG thing: If one is in a situation where one must choose between Good and Law, go with Good. So if the paladin happens upon said dragon just as it is about to chow down on a bunch of children it has captured, then such things as discipline, honorable tactics, and personal safety will generally be dropped in favor of just getting in there and getting the job done by any means possible.
pres_man 07-20-05, 12:01 AM	This reminds me of a session where the party was going to attack a group of gnolls with hyena and dire-hyena (just used dire-wolf stats) pets who had been attacking local farmers. One of the members of the group was suppose to be a samauri (actually a ranger class but suppose to be have a samauri code of conduct). Well since the animals had scent the fighters had the druid cast pass without a trace and the sorcerer cast greater invisibility on them. The fighters then went in and dropped two of the gnolls before they were even aware they were there. That group of characters kind of imploded due to personal issues, but a player later asked me, "Is it really honorable for a samauri to attack someone while invisible and scentless?" Personally, I don't think it is what I would consider truly honorable, yet the PC being actually a ranger, there wasn't much I could say from a DM standpoint.
Sargon 07-20-05, 02:28 AM	I feel compellled to Mention Sturm Brightblade , who staggerd twoards his enemies a bloody mess raising his sword high and chanting.. He died though. got Skwerd.. So my point is .. unless you wanna end up like Sturm.. Don't be stupid
J.Augustus Rose II 07-20-05, 02:44 AM	My DM has this opinion about paladins: You can do more (Lawful) Good alive than you can dead.
runestar 07-20-05, 02:56 AM	My DM has this opinion about paladins: You can do more (Lawful) Good alive than you can dead. Only if you did not stay alive by commiting some henious or dishonourable act :rolleyes: I think it is best to state what exactly you plan to achieve by sneaking. If it is to sneak some posion into the dragon's dinner, or to plant explosives to collapse the entire cave around him, then its a strict nono. If it was simply to manoeuvre into a tactical position better suited to combat the dragon or to bypass the hordes of minions the dragon has guarding his lair, then it is acceptible. Since being LG doesn't necessarily mean you abandon all notion of common sense. Then again, I always viewed paladins as excellent, albeit expendable diversions, like when you need a good distraction to allow the rogue time to move in SA position, nothing draws attention better than a paladin strutting into the enemy's midst and boldly proclaiming his desire to challenge them to an honourable battle. :D Then again, it would all depend on the outlook on morality in your campaign, since every action has 2 sides to it. Multiple foes ganging up on a stronger one could be hailed as a superior combat tactic, or it could be condemned as cowardice, since they came up with said tactic as an excuse to gang up on others, knowing fully well they were far weaker. Likewise, it too can be argued there is actually no right or wrong, and that the term "righteous" was simply coined by hypocrites who wished to glorify and rationalise their own actions while condemning those of their enemies. But I digress...... Hoped I have not sullied this thread too much.......
J.Augustus Rose II 07-20-05, 03:05 AM	Only if you did not stay alive by commiting some henious or dishonourable act :rolleyes: Well that would fall under the "having enough sense to stick by the basic rules of the paladin" wouldn't it. Y'know, those things that shouldn't have to be said? :rolleyes:
magicchupacabra 07-20-05, 03:14 AM	I feel compellled to Mention Sturm Brightblade , who staggerd twoards his enemies a bloody mess raising his sword high and chanting.. He died though. got Skwerd.. So my point is .. unless you wanna end up like Sturm.. Don't be stupid Sturm actually wasnt a paladin, just a knight. He had an incredible sense of loyalty and duty to the Solomic knights and his companions. He died by doing everything he could to help hold a key location from falling. Yes he died for attempting to hold ground against a superior foe. He also inspired the Golden General who helped turn events to end the war of the lance and ultimatly strike down a dragon lord in the war of souls. So his one selfless act to hold a location longer to help slow advancing armies may seem stupid on a survival point of view, it did however impact the greater good and spare many lives well after his death. Not only an honorable way for him to die from what his order saw, but also one that promoted a greater good. Something some would consider a very paladin-like act. But he was still just a knight.
runestar 07-20-05, 07:49 AM	Y'know, those things that shouldn't have to be said? Where these boards are concerned, one can never be too sure, or too concise. :cool:
KoboldSlayer 07-20-05, 10:02 AM	http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Devoted_Inquisitor A feat with Smite Evil AND Sneak Attack as prequisities going by this little bugger I would say yes. There is a large difference between what the original post was discussing, that is sneaking up on something; and the class feature called "sneak attack". Several rules, such as the one you noted here, uphold the paladin's ability to use Sneak Attack if he has access to it. It is just good tactics. But that does not necessarily mean that "sneaking up on" someone and attacking them from surprise is acceptable, also. I personally think it's okay for a paladin to attack from surprise, depending on circumstances. But sneak attack and sneaking up are two entirely different questions.
Chobemaster 07-20-05, 10:42 AM	I personally think it's okay for a paladin to attack from surprise, depending on circumstances. But sneak attack and sneaking up are two entirely different questions. While they are different, I would disagree they are ENTIRELY different. The essence of a sneak attack is taking an "unfair" advantage. If sneak attack is allowed in the RAW, then it logically follows that Paladins are not forbidden from taking "unfair" advantage, providing very strong if not compelling evidence that OTHER forms of "unfair" advantage, most particularly those that are "less unfair" would ALSO be permitted. If you disproved sneak attack as permissible, then used that to argue that all forms of stealth and subterfuge are thereby forbidden, that I think THAT direction is more questionable. IOW, IMO, a true "sneak attack" would be contained within a larger "being sneaky" action set. If the interior of a set is permissible, the exterior must also be, by definition.
pres_man 07-20-05, 01:18 PM	IOW, IMO, a true "sneak attack" would be contained within a larger "being sneaky" action set. If the interior of a set is permissible, the exterior must also be, by definition. "You can have a square." "Great, I'll take the rectangle over there that is 3x5." "No, I said that you can have a square, a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square." In other words, some sneaky actions might be "honorable", that doesn't therefore imply that all sneaky actions are "honorable". So a paladin might be able to sneak attack, but not doing other sneaky actions. So sneaky actions as a set is not necessarily permissible. I guess I should say that we are not looking at just one set, but the intersection of two sets: honorable actions and sneaky actions. Paladins are allowed to do actions that fall in that intersection, which at least in some cases sneak attack might fall.