Paladin of Red Knight Code of Conduct discussion.

[jester]

At risk of sticking my neck out: it's "tenet" and not "tenant".

Anyways,

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?

It's not solely about good/evil. A Paladin is also about honour, and not dishonour. To lie is dishonourable and a paladin should find it repugnant.

That is very likely to lead you to dark side.

...
They do tend to seek out an atonement after the fact, of course, but plenty of them didn't fall during this strategy.

If it requires atonement it's probably pretty dicey ground for a Paladin to be treading, don't you think?

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?

An LG rogue is not a holy crusader, bound to uphold the highest standards of chivalry and honour.

Sounds like you might enjoy playing an LG cleric or Favoured Soul better.

[Endelyon]

My two cents:

I don't have much to add to this discussion except that Feint/Sneak attack are just the mechanical abstractions of abilities to take advantage of a hole in an opponent's active defense (whether dodging or parrying) to more precisely target vulnerable spots, and you can narrate it any way you like (unless a DM tells you otherwise). Again, this is not a matter of objective good or evil, but a matter of the fact that a sneak attack could be role played as something as simple as realizing that when your opponent swings their weapon they leave their left flank unguarded every time, so it makes an effective point to strike.

A feint, in the same sense, could be described as simply as leaving a perceived gap in your own defenses to cause that same opponent to think that you've left yourself open, swing at you, and expose their left flank so you can land that "sneak attack." Neither of these actions would inherently cause a Paladin to fall from grace.

Don't let people make you feel like this means you need to type out some justifying role play every single time you feint, either. Many people tend to hold other players to higher RP standards than they actually keep for themselves for one reason or another.

Other than the sneak attack/feint issue, all the other points of the dissenters seem solid. Lying, cheating, stealing, poison, etc. can hardly be role played in an "honorable" fashion.

[Archaos]

I have posted it on a previous thread (or was it a previous page? too many of them these days) that the Slayer of Domiel is from the Book of Exalted Deeds.

http://dndtools.eu/classes/slayer-of-domiel/ Please look at the class carefully.

Description: Sometimes the skillset of an assassin is required for more noble pursuits.
Specifically: "Some slayers have monk, fighter or even paladin levels." - pg. 73
Requirement: Lawful Good
Bluff as class skills, Sneak Attack as class ability

Since people use the BoED when Paladin stuff are concerned, there's an assassin-type PrC in there that tells you that Sneak Attacks, Bluff, Lawful Good and Paladin multiclassing with said class is OKAY.

And no, Feinting is not dishonorable either:
"You can also use Bluff to mislead an opponent in melee combat (so that it can’t dodge your next attack effectively)." - description on Bluff.

And here's the description of Sneak Attack:
"Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage."

It's not backstabbing but it can be.

Nevermind that there are deities (even except Torm) that support Rogue/Paladin multiclassing.
As well as PrCs like Shadowbane Inquisitor.

TL;DR: The authors of the BoED say that Sneak Attack, Bluff, Lawful Good and Paladins CAN work.

[Thorsson]

I think we've already established that Feint and Sneak Attack are possible for certain Paladins (although really only those with Deities that allow Rogue/Any multi-classing, which doesn't include Red Knight). It's poison, lieing, cheating that are the issue.

[Archaos]

I think we've already established that Feint and Sneak Attack are possible for certain Paladins (although really only those with Deities that allow Rogue/Any multi-classing, which doesn't include Red Knight). It's poison, lieing, cheating that are the issue.

I'm going to disagree on that one. The rules state that you have to be following the Order of that god to be able to multiclass freely between Rogue and Paladin.

Which means, you could be a Rogue/Paladin and then Rogue again, but in PnP you wouldn't be able to advance as a Paladin again. You don't lose your Paladin status, it just halts your Paladin advancement.
That's the only purpose of the Paladin or Monk Orders, mechanically.

About the last three you mentioned, yes I agree that those are no-nos for Paladin, no matter what deity you follow.

Though really, instead of lying, you could use your Wisdom (RP speaking) and instead choose to not speak the whole truth or be vague about it, or just be silent. Like a prophecy for example.

So, instead of lying about knowing someone/thing for example, you could simply say "I might, or I might not, perhaps. Let's assume I do."

A Rogue/Paladin is bound to have good INT, WIS and CHA so those verbal maneuvers can confuse the other person but still keeping the Paladin lawful as he never lied, outsmarted them perhaps so that was a Bluff check.

Like in chess, you can outsmart someone by bluffing but not cheating the game or lying, fitting to Red Knight.

[Endelyon]

I think we've already established that Feint and Sneak Attack are possible for certain Paladins (although really only those with Deities that allow Rogue/Any multi-classing, which doesn't include Red Knight). It's poison, lieing, cheating that are the issue.

A couple things:

You are basing their ability to multiclass freely off of Paladins raised by the Order of the Red Falcon, and the information is correct, but in the current timeline no Paladins of the RK have been raised by the Order of the Red Falcon, which doesn't exist at this point in the timeline lore-wise, so there shouldn't be RK paladins at all.

But for the sake of debate let's even say that it does exist (maybe its establishment was pushed forward, similar to how the Baneite church's influence over the Zhentarim came early -- but again, this is hypothetical, as on BGTSCC roleplay involving this has not actually happened).

Then yes, you could force the player to multiclass properly. If you force every other Paladin character on the server to follow the same multiclass restrictions as well. This isn't a debate about P&P, but rather the implementation of a character on our persistent world. Multiclass combinations for monks and paladins that aren't restricted mechanically are not against the rules here.

That being said I agree that everything you stated is correct, I just don't agree that you can keep a player from choosing this multiclass combination if it's what they want to play. From an "IC" perspective there's no more reasonable explanation for a 30 Paladin of the RK existing any more than a Paladin/Rogue of the RK. For that matter, there's no reasonable explanation why any of the Paladin/FS builds exist (Torm would be the only order that allowed this multiclass if I recall correctly), but Paladin/FS is one of the combinations I'd say I see used most often on BGTSCC.

[Thorsson]

I think you misread me; I don't disagree with what you're saying at all (or Archaos's last post either for that matter).

[Endelyon]

I think you misread me; I don't disagree with what you're saying at all (or Archaos's last post either for that matter).

Perhaps I did. Well it seems silly for me to have gone on at such length then. Sorry! I should have taken more points in my Reading Comprehension skill.

[jester]

Though really, instead of lying, you could use your Wisdom (RP speaking) and instead choose to not speak the whole truth or be vague about it, or just be silent. Like a prophecy for example.

So, instead of lying about knowing someone/thing for example, you could simply say "I might, or I might not, perhaps. Let's assume I do."

Oooh, very nice!

[Hawke]

Sneaking around to get a better position for an attack is not dishonorable, if not doing so will lead to certain death. Lawful good is not lawful stupid.

[Thorsson]

Sneaking around to get a better position for an attack is not dishonorable, if not doing so will lead to certain death. Lawful good is not lawful stupid.

Yes, I think we'd all already agreed on that. Why does everyone keep repeating this?

[Hawke]

Sneaking around to get a better position for an attack is not dishonorable, if not doing so will lead to certain death. Lawful good is not lawful stupid.

Yes, I think we'd all already agreed on that. Why does everyone keep repeating this?

Because it keeps coming up?

[7threalm]

Honesty

A paladin always tells the truth as he knows it. He may decline to speak or choose to withhold information, but he will never intentionally mislead anyone, even his enemies. He may ask permission not to answer a direct question, but if pressed, he'll tell the truth (however, he may frame his answers in such a way as to withhold vital information). Though a paladin doesn't make promises lightly, once he gives his word, he always keeps it.

Examples:

• Sir Geffen has been captured by an evil army. The commander demands to know the whereabouts of the paladin's companions. Sir Geffen says nothing.

"My spies inform me that your colleagues plan to arrive at King Relhane's castle by dawn tomorrow,'' says the commander. "Is this true?''

The commander's information is accurate, but Geffen remains silent.

"If you say nothing, I will conclude that I'm correct.''

"You may conclude whatever you wish,'' says Geffen.

• Prevost, a young companion of Sir Geffen, asks about his performance on the battlefield yesterday. Sir Geffen believes that Prevost fought ineptly. "With your permission,'' says Geffen, "I prefer not to answer.''

"Please,'' insists Prevost. "I want to know.''

Geffen looks him in the eyes. "Very well. You allowed an opponent to escape. You dropped your sword at a crucial moment. Your performance was poor.''

Prevost glowers at Geffen, then angrily stomps away.


Compiled from The Complete Paladin's Handbook.]

[Thorsson]

Sneaking around to get a better position for an attack is not dishonorable, if not doing so will lead to certain death. Lawful good is not lawful stupid.

Yes, I think we'd all already agreed on that. Why does everyone keep repeating this?

Because it keeps coming up?

Duh? It keeps coming up because people keep unnecessarily bringing it up. It's unnecessary because it was agreed pages ago that sneaking is not per se forbidden to Paladins. The converted don't need preaching to.

[NegInfinity]

Honesty

A paladin always tells the truth as he knows it. He may decline to speak or choose to withhold information, but he will never intentionally mislead anyone, even his enemies. He may ask permission not to answer a direct question, but if pressed, he'll tell the truth (however, he may frame his answers in such a way as to withhold vital information). Though a paladin doesn't make promises lightly, once he gives his word, he always keeps it.

It seems I missed opportunity to smack paladin with power loss at least once. What a pity.