Cel'Daren wrote:
If I lie in order to save someone's life, such as telling an Evil Law-enforcer that said person is not present when he is, how is that evil?
The book of exhalted deeds is very clear on that. An evil deed done for greater good is still an evil deed, and it shifts balance in the avor of evil. Vows are not commodities to be traded.
Whether
or not good ends can justify evil means, they certainly
cannot make evil means any less evil.
Some good characters might view a situation where an evil
act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyr-
dom: “I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my
purity.” For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they
would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause.
After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a char-
acter can hang on to her exalted feats.
Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of
thinking treats the purity of the good character’s soul as a com-
modity (like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacri-
fice like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good
character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger
than the individual character. What the character sees as a per-
sonal sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of
power between good and evil, in evil’s favor. The consequences
of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond
the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character
doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a conces-
sion to evil, and thus unconscionable.
Cel'Daren wrote:
would it not be both Lawful (by obeying the Clergyman) and Good (by preventing the endangerment of innocents) to lie to Person X about Person Z?
No, it wouldn't be, because you have very simple option to say nothing and remain silent.
Cel'Daren wrote:
Only if you go about it in a foolish or ignorant manner. You need not find other evil people who are enemies of your enemy to seek as an ally. Look amongst Good or Neutral beings instead. Also, there are plenty of examples where a Paladin has had to temporarily align themselves with an evil being in order to take down a greater threat. They do tend to seek out an atonement after the fact, of course, but plenty of them didn't fall during this strategy.
On cooperation with evil creatures:
A party of good adventurers travels
into the depths of the earth to stop the drow raids. At the same
time, a party of evil drow loyal to the deposed house seeks to
overthrow the new rulers and restore their house to its position
of power. The two groups have different but mutually compati-
ble goals, and it is possible—within certain limits—for them to
cooperate with each other. However, the good characters must
not tolerate any evil acts committed by an evil ally during the
time of their alliance, and can’t simply turn a blind eye to such
acts. They must ensure that helping the drow will put a stop to
the surface raids, which might entail a level of trust the drow
simply do not deserve. And of course they must not
turn on their erstwhile allies when victory is in
sight, betraying the trust the drow placed
in them. Such a situation is dangerous
both physically and morally, but
cooperating with evil creatures is
not necessarily evil in itself.
Cel'Daren wrote:
5, 6, and 10 are from the Red Knight's and Tempus' wiki page describing their Dogma and their view of those who change sides often. 8 is your stock Paladin tenant drawn from Medieval Chivalry. In fact...
Ah, here's the thing. In faiths and pantheons - original source of dogma, there's nothing like that in dogma of red knight and tempus. So I would assume it is a new addition from newer d&d editions.
Dogma of Red Knight:
Dogma: War is won by those with the best planning, strategy, and tactics, regardless of the apparent odds. Any fool can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with fortune's aid. Only a master strategists can ensure victory and that is will last.
War is a series of battles. Losing a battle does not necessarily indicate the war is lost. Seek out your opponent's weaknesses and recognize your own; avoid an opponent's strengths and play to your own. Only by focusing one's own strengths on one's opponent's vulnerabilities can triumph be ensured.
In times of war prepare for peace; in times of peace prepare for war. Seek out your enemy's enemies as allies, and be prepared to compromise. Life is an endless series of skirmishes with occasional outbreaks of war. Be ready—and have a contingency plan
Dogma of Tempus:
Dogma:
Tempus does not win battles - Tempus helps the deserving warrior win battles. War is fair in that it oppresses all sides equally and that in any given battle, a mortal may be slain or become a great leader among his or her companions. War should not be feared, but seen as a natural force, a human force, the storm that civilisation brings by its very existence.
A faithful of Tempus are charged to arm all for whom battle is needful, even foes. They should retreat from hopeless fights, but never avoid battle, and slay one foe decisively and bring battle to halt rather than hacking down many overtime and dragging on hostilities. They are to defend what they believe in, lest it be swept away, and remember the dead who fell fighting before them. Above all, they should disparage no foe and respect all, for valour blazes in all, regardless of age, gender, or-race.
Tempus looks favourably upon those who acquit themselves honourably and tirelessly in battle, smiting mightily when facing a foe, but avoiding such craven tricks is destroying homes, family, or livestock when a foe is away or attacking from the rear (except when such an attack is launched by a small band against foes of vastly superior numbers). Tempus believes that warrior's should responsibly consider the consequences of the violence they do beforehand and try not to hot headedly rush off to wage war recklessly. On the other hand, Tempus teaches that people with smooth tongues or fleet feet who avoid all strife and have defend their beliefs wreak more harm than the most energetic tyrant raider or horde leader.
You see anything about "smiting corruption", defending worshippers of eldath or helping the weak? I don't.
However, if you want also to keep in mind dogma of tempus, here you go:
but avoiding such craven tricks is destroying homes, family, or livestock when a foe is away or attacking from the rear (except when such an attack is launched by a small band against foes of vastly superior numbers)
Cel'Daren wrote:
Tenant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 of the above Code of Conduct are all drawn from either the Red Knight or Tempus' wiki pages, coming from their Dogma and Tempus' unwillingness to harm the followers of Eldath (as the Red Knight is an Exarch of Tempus, it seems appropriate for her followers to do likewise). Tenant 8 is literally there because Paladin.
Ignore wiki and use source books.
Cel'Daren wrote:
For the rest of your questions I have one in response. Is a Lawful Good Rogue not allowed to Feint or use their Sneak Attacks?
Lawful good Rogue is not a lawful good paladin. The rogue does not fall the way paladin do, and is not bound by codes as much as paladin. Being lawful good is not enough to be a paladin.
Cel'Daren wrote:
Why is a Feint considered so dishonorable?
Because it is a dirty trick. Rogue needs it because he/she is squishy. However, you're already a full-plated warrior with a shield with divine power channeling through you. Why would you even THINK of using dirty tricks?
Cel'Daren wrote:
Also, remember folks. If there's a country with legal prostitution; a Paladin has no direct tenants against hiring a dozen men/women a night and partying him/herself into a stupor for a week straight.
Hell no. Debauchering paladin? If you want to do something like that, play cleric of sharess.
Deity always sees you. The moment you do something stupid or break any of your codes, your deity cuts off power supply for your spells, abilities and divine might, so you get turned into very unoptimized fighter.
