PDA

View Full Version : Is Sneaking Un-Paladin...ish?



Elven Paladin
2007-04-05, 07:54 PM
Hi, I'm a long time reader, first time poster. I've been reading through a lot of the threads that deal with the paladin's code of conduct, and it got me to thinking. As my name most likely suggests, I am quite fond of paladins, and I've been playing one in a game my little brother is running. (His first game actually.)

Anyway, to my question. Many times my paladin has resorted to the Move Silently and Hide skills at the beginning of a battle, in order to really see what he's up against. He doesn't have ranks in these skills, which has sucked at times, but I was just curious if sneaking up on your enemies broke the code. I guess I could see it as being unhonorable, but I don't know if finding out what your enemies are doing without them knowing is just being smart. So I guess what I'm saying is that I'd like some second opinions in order to make sure my Paladin stays Paladin...ish.

Jasdoif
2007-04-05, 07:57 PM
An argument could be made about it being dishonorable to sneak around attacking your enemies, but just to see what you're up against? Definitely nothing dishonorable about that.

Starbuck_II
2007-04-05, 07:57 PM
Hi, I'm a long time reader, first time poster. I've been reading through a lot of the threads that deal with the paladin's code of conduct, and it got me to thinking. As my name most likely suggests, I am quite fond of paladins, and I've been playing one in a game my little brother is running. (His first game actually.)

Anyway, to my question. Many times my paladin has resorted to the Move Silently and Hide skills at the beginning of a battle, in order to really see what he's up against. He doesn't have ranks in these skills, which has sucked at times, but I was just curious if sneaking up on your enemies broke the code. I guess I could see it as being unhonorable, but I don't know if finding out what your enemies are doing without them knowing is just being smart. So I guess what I'm saying is that I'd like some second opinions in order to make sure my Paladin stays Paladin...ish.

Nope, sneaking doesn't conflict with code.

In fact, it is smart. While hide/silently moving, he should detect evil so he knows if he smite them.

Falconsflight
2007-04-05, 08:00 PM
As long as you don't use sneaking to ambush an opponent, it is not dishonorable. If you are sneaking to see what your up against . (For example: You sneak up the hill and look down into a camp of orcs.) You are perfectly fine. but if you sneak down that hill and start attacking people from the shadows, baaaad paladin. Bad!

The_Snark
2007-04-05, 08:01 PM
Just sneaking isn't dishonorable. Sneaking past an evil baron's guards is probably better than killing them, actually, from a Good standpoint, since unnecessary killing is generally not good. Sneaking around to find out what's ahead isn't dishonorable either, though it's not something paladins are usually very suited to. Attacking from hiding... I can see some arguments for that being considered dishonorable, but some paladins would do it against an extremely dangerous, evil foe.

Kultrum
2007-04-05, 08:05 PM
The way you describe it i would say no conflict but if you sneak around to kill enemies unnoticed there is a problem

Elven Paladin
2007-04-05, 08:08 PM
Thanks for all the input. He hasn't snuck around to kill anyone, because I always knew that...ya know, that's not paladin behavior. But he's your typical paladin either. Wears studded leather and wields a scimitar in honor of a fallen ranger "friend."

But something I forgot. His patron deity is Heironeous, and I guess the only reason I asked about the sneaking was because I wasn't sure if it went against the teachings of the God of Valor. So I'll reword my question: Is sneaking around at odds with the dogma of Heironeous.

Fax Celestis
2007-04-05, 08:15 PM
It's entirely dependent on your patron god.

Heironeous understands the need for good reconnaissance, I would think, being a god of battle and all.

TheOOB
2007-04-05, 08:32 PM
Even an ambush can be fine for a paladin if pulled off correctly. Having a group of people jump out around an enemy and surronding them is an effective combat tactic. As long as you give them a chance to surrender you should be fine, and if they attack you even though the odds are agienst them, well thats hardly your falt now is it.

Innis Cabal
2007-04-05, 08:36 PM
are you stabbing people while sneaking?

Kultrum
2007-04-05, 08:37 PM
Heironeous is a god of war. One of the most important parts of any good battle plan is info and thus sneaking for info is cool with Big H

AmoDman
2007-04-05, 08:39 PM
Lawful Good doesn't mean Lawful Stupid, as the popular kids' phrase goes...

Innis Cabal
2007-04-05, 08:40 PM
your also not a samuri, so dishonor isnt a real problem

Aximili
2007-04-05, 08:46 PM
Attacking an opponent before he has a chance to surrender is anti-paladinish. But I think they'd make an exception for specially evil and predictable opponents (such as a demon or something, since you know he's not gonna "surrender to the autorities").

TheOOB
2007-04-05, 08:48 PM
For paladins, I've always said its no holds barred for undead and creatures with the evil subtype. Those creatures are so vile (to a paladin at least) that they deserve no quarter and no mercy.

Aximili
2007-04-05, 08:59 PM
Yeah, They're what a paladin would classify "Unredeemable". If there is even something to redeem in the first place.

PhantomBread
2007-04-05, 09:23 PM
One could make an arguement that if your Paladin follows a code of the greater good, he could easily justify even attacking from the shadows if it served the purposes of good. I've even considered playing a Paladin with the Knight Training feat and taking some Rogue levels before.

Still, their is much fun to be had playing a Grey Guard too. Likely my favorite Paladin-prestige class. That, and perhaps the Heretic feat from Faerun.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-04-05, 09:28 PM
I have a plan to once and for all solve paladin code issues in my campaigns. The moment someone wants to take a level of paladin, I will hand them an explicit honor code that works on an Asimov-ish system along the lines of
1. Protect the lives of the innocent.
2. Protect the lives of the non-innocent so long as it doesn't conflict with rule 1.
3. Protect your own honor so long as it doesn't conflict with rules 1 and 2.
4. Protect your own life so long as it doesn't conflict with rules 1 through 3.

Etc.

Aquillion
2007-04-05, 09:31 PM
One could make an arguement that if your Paladin follows a code of the greater good, he could easily justify even attacking from the shadows if it served the purposes of good. I've even considered playing a Paladin with the Knight Training feat and taking some Rogue levels before.

Still, their is much fun to be had playing a Grey Guard too. Likely my favorite Paladin-prestige class. That, and perhaps the Heretic feat from Faerun.I don't know about that. A Paladin is supposed to fight honorably, whatever that means, and while it's fair to argue that honor doesn't apply against wholly evil creatures such as demons and undead or flatly inhuman ones like non-sentient constructs, I don't think Paladins can usually go around backstabbing humanoids or using poisoned weapons.

...actually, hrm. I don't think a Paladin could directly attack a humanoid-type opponent without warning or anything like that (surrounding is ok, like noted above, and maybe even nonlethal attacks in some cases if they're punching the drunk upside the ear to prevent a more serious fight or somesuch)--but what about flanking bonuses? I'm not sure I see what's wrong with a Paladin using backstab against a flanked opponent. A real stickler might say it was dishonorable for the Paladin to attack two-on-one at all in some cases, but assuming the fight was overall a fair one or the opponent attacked knowing they'd be at a numerical disadvantage, I don't see why a Paladin couldn't take advantage of their opponent's distraction using rogue training. They probably wouldn't call it a "sneak attack", but I don't see how it would be dishonorable in any case, and certainly no worse than (say) taking advantage of an attack of opportunity--you're just hitting your opponent's moment of weakness in any case.

SMDVogrin
2007-04-05, 09:31 PM
Attacking an opponent before he has a chance to surrender is anti-paladinish. But I think they'd make an exception for specially evil and predictable opponents (such as a demon or something, since you know he's not gonna "surrender to the autorities").

"He had a chance to surrender before kidnapping those half-dozen children. Am I going to ride up, order him to surrender, and thus give him a chance to use his victims as hostages? No. I'm going to take him as he passes under this ledge here, and put him down before he can kill any of those kids."

Paladin-ish or not? My group says fine, but it appears most here would disagree. The code requires they "act with honor". Ambushes of very dangerous villians, in a wartime situation, or similar situations don't impinge on honor in my opinion.

For a real-life situation, consider the deaths of Bonnie and Clyde. Gunned down by automatic weapons from ambush - but hardly dishonorably.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-04-05, 09:34 PM
Using my prior-mentioned system, I'd see no problem with a paladin ambushing a man holding hostages, since the lives of the innocent outweighs the paladin's own honor and the life of the hostage taker.

jonnyjmboy
2007-04-05, 09:38 PM
So what character would you use if you wanted to be like a Paladin in all ways except sneaking?

What I mean is, if I have a character who is anti-evil and LG but makes use of an assassin-type fighting style, can he be a Paladin? Isn't it acceptable to expect that with detect evil at will a Paladin can be responsible for a preemptive strike against the forces of evil?

Shisumo
2007-04-05, 10:02 PM
The paladin in my game thinks of it as "conflict avoidance." Any enemy she sneaks past is one she doesn't have to kill.

Renegade Paladin
2007-04-05, 10:08 PM
Many times my paladin has resorted to the Move Silently and Hide skills at the beginning of a battle, in order to really see what he's up against. He doesn't have ranks in these skills, which has sucked at times, but I was just curious if sneaking up on your enemies broke the code.
Pffffft. No. (http://thetangledweb.net/profiler/view.php?id=3127)

JellyPooga
2007-04-05, 10:10 PM
Not-Sneaking for any character is just Dim

"Even the most 'honourable' [spits] fighter/samurai/paladin shouldn't be averse to avoiding the odd fight or two by not being noticed, let alone you."

Andrakis Kaile - Tiefling Assassin - to her burly Barbarian companion

Elven Paladin
2007-04-07, 10:11 AM
One could make an arguement that if your Paladin follows a code of the greater good, he could easily justify even attacking from the shadows if it served the purposes of good. I've even considered playing a Paladin with the Knight Training feat and taking some Rogue levels before.

Still, their is much fun to be had playing a Grey Guard too. Likely my favorite Paladin-prestige class. That, and perhaps the Heretic feat from Faerun.

Just out of curiosity, what does this Heretic feat do?

tsuyoshikentsu
2007-04-07, 11:13 AM
Heretic of the Faith. (Power of Faerun.)

Aquillion
2007-04-07, 12:28 PM
"He had a chance to surrender before kidnapping those half-dozen children. Am I going to ride up, order him to surrender, and thus give him a chance to use his victims as hostages? No. I'm going to take him as he passes under this ledge here, and put him down before he can kill any of those kids."I would say sure, he can strike without warning--but he still has to give the enemy a chance to surrender if it arises in combat. (Shouting 'It's over! Surrender!' after he's lept down and already badly damaged the guy might cover him, say.) And naturally, if a Paladin has the kidnapper at -1, he has to stabilize them and bring them to the proper authorities, not finish them off.

Machete
2007-04-07, 05:53 PM
While it won't get your powers revoked. Anything other than stomping up to the door of your enemies and issuing them an authorized noterized duels between party members and one monster each without the use of outside aid of any type that has any potential to harm innocents is completely unpaladinlike and unlawful.

Lord Tataraus
2007-04-07, 08:41 PM
I'm sure there is a feat in Complete Adventurer that let's you add sneak attack damage to a smite and paladin levels stack with rouge levels for determining sneak attack or something like that, I don't have the book. So a Rouge/Paladin would make a great sneaker and destroyer of evil (especially if you take the penetrating strike alternate class feature).

Suvarov454
2007-04-07, 08:46 PM
The WoC authors don't seem to think so. Complete Adventurer, page 107: Devoted Inquisitor -- "When you successfully use your sneak attack ability and your smite evil ability against the same foe in a single attack,..."

Turcano
2007-04-07, 09:43 PM
I would say sure, he can strike without warning--but he still has to give the enemy a chance to surrender if it arises in combat. (Shouting 'It's over! Surrender!' after he's lept down and already badly damaged the guy might cover him, say.)

However, one should avoid adding, "I've got the high ground!" Even if that's the case.

On a more serious note, I have a related question. Can a paladin serve as a diversion for other members of the party so that they can gank an opponent from behind?

EvilElitest
2007-04-07, 10:18 PM
However, one should avoid adding, "I've got the high ground!" Even if that's the case.

On a more serious note, I have a related question. Can a paladin serve as a diversion for other members of the party so that they can gank an opponent from behind?

I would imagine so, if the paladin gives them a chance to surrender
from,
EE

Foeofthelance
2007-04-07, 11:05 PM
I would say that sneaking around for recon purposes is not only ok, but might even calssify as the proper thing to do. The party might have made a plan that would fail, had not someone gotten certain information so that it might not be changed. This does sort of depend on the make up of the party though. Protecting your good-neutral aligned friends is encouraged much more then protecting those three evil types seeking world domination.

As for ambushes, feel free to participate! In fact, volunteer out right to be the bait. That way when the enemy shows up you can demand their surrender, and, should they choose to fight, you can even signal the attack with your demand. Works out to the best of both worlds, though I do suggest investing in a quality set of shield and armor, as well as alarge number of healing potions if you plan on making a habit of it.

SMDVogrin
2007-04-07, 11:58 PM
I would say sure, he can strike without warning--but he still has to give the enemy a chance to surrender if it arises in combat. (Shouting 'It's over! Surrender!' after he's lept down and already badly damaged the guy might cover him, say.) And naturally, if a Paladin has the kidnapper at -1, he has to stabilize them and bring them to the proper authorities, not finish them off.

OK, WHERE, exactly, in the Paladin's code does it require a Paladin to:
1. Offer every enemy a chance to surrender?
2. Require the Paladin to capture rather than kill an enemy he is fighting?

According to RAW, the Code requires a Paladin to respect Legitimate Authority, act with Honor, help those in need (as long as they don't use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

So, is "acting with Honor" so restrictive in your campaign, or are you just adding parts to the Code from the PHB?

Aquillion
2007-04-08, 12:38 AM
I'm not saying that a Paladin would fall just for failing to give his opponents a chance to surrender, no. But it's certainly the honorable thing to do. Likewise, while they don't have to actively work to capture everyone they face, if the Paladin has an opponent at -1 and the fight is over, it would be dishonorable to coup-de-grace them or just walk away--killing a genuinely helpless opponent in combat is dishonorable under any martial code of honor I'm aware of, while leaving a critically wounded opponent to die in painful agony is even worse.

Kalirren
2007-04-08, 01:13 AM
So I realize I'm waiving any claims to political correctness, but I don't feel I'm being particularly biased when I say that the paladin code is loosely based upon Christian morality concepts.

So when the question of paladins in ambushes comes up, I refer you all to Aquinas, in Summa Theologica...



Whether it is lawful to lay ambushes in war?

OBJ 1: It would seem that it is unlawful to lay ambushes in war. For it
is written (Dt. 16:20): "Thou shalt follow justly after that which is
just." But ambushes, since they are a kind of deception, seem to pertain to injustice. Therefore it is unlawful to lay ambushes even in a just war.

OBJ 2: Further, ambushes and deception seem to be opposed to
faithfulness even as lies are. But since we are bound to keep faith with
all men, it is wrong to lie to anyone, as Augustine states (Contra Mend.
xv). Therefore, as one is bound to keep faith with one's enemy, as
Augustine states (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix), it seems that it is unlawful to
lay ambushes for one's enemies.

OBJ 3: Further, it is written (Mt. 7:12): "Whatsoever you would that men
should do to you, do you also to them": and we ought to observe this in
all our dealings with our neighbor. Now our enemy is our neighbor.
Therefore, since no man wishes ambushes or deceptions to be prepared for
himself, it seems that no one ought to carry on war by laying ambushes.

On the contrary, Augustine says (QQ. in Hept. qu. x super Jos):
"Provided the war be just, it is no concern of justice whether it be
carried on openly or by ambushes": and he proves this by the authority of
the Lord, Who commanded Joshua to lay ambushes for the city of Hai
(Joshua 8:2).

I answer that, The object of laying ambushes is in order to deceive the
enemy. Now a man may be deceived by another's word or deed in two ways.
First, through being told something false, or through the breaking of a
promise, and this is always unlawful. No one ought to deceive the enemy
in this way, for there are certain "rights of war and covenants, which
ought to be observed even among enemies," as Ambrose states (De Officiis
i).

Secondly, a man may be deceived by what we say or do, because we do not
declare our purpose or meaning to him. Now we are not always bound to do
this, since even in the Sacred Doctrine many things have to be concealed,
especially from unbelievers, lest they deride it, according to Mt. 7:6:
"Give not that which is holy, to dogs." Wherefore much more ought the
plan of campaign to be hidden from the enemy. For this reason among other
things that a soldier has to learn is the art of concealing his purpose
lest it come to the enemy's knowledge, as stated in the Book on Strategy
[*Stratagematum i, 1] by Frontinus. Such like concealment is what is
meant by an ambush which may be lawfully employed in a just war.

Nor can these ambushes be properly called deceptions, nor are they
contrary to justice or to a well-ordered will. For a man would have an
inordinate will if he were unwilling that others should hide anything
from him.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.

alchemy.freak
2007-04-08, 04:57 PM
I figure it like this. there is no dishonor in using the element of surprise. while i won't condone slitting the throat of a sleeping target. sneak attacking, and stealth tactics do not interfere with the paladin code.

it also depends on the deities idea of honor (as it does specify a paladin must act with honor). most war gods will see the advantage of taking the enemy by surprise, blindsiding them. there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of the enemies vulnerability.

also prestiege classes, like the Shadowbane Inquisitor from complete adventurer offer sneak attack damage bonuses(and have sneak attack and smite evil as entrance requirements) and feats like sacred strike boost sneak attack damage for good players.

there is nothing wrong with surprising the enemy.

the_tick_rules
2007-04-08, 05:30 PM
Indeed, Miko does not reprsent the whole of paladinness, thank the 12 gods for that one huh.