Paladin Actions - Appropriate?

[Sam]

So we're playing my campaign last night, and things were moving along fairly well. In and of itself that's surprising because it's a pretty large group (8 players) and we've been playing together so long that it normally winds up turning into a dysfunctional family rather than a cohesive party. But we've been playing a new campaign for a few weeks and people are aglow with the headiness of being able to level a character every session or two.

Anyway, we're wrapping up a combat. Prior to the combat starting, some of the party made an agreement with an invisible NPC to essentially work together. They had similar goals. The party was looking for a specific item in a house (guarded by fighters and animals) and the invisible NPC was looking for something else in the house. The party is all human (again a surprising fact); one of the members is a paladin (and the only LG member of the party). The pally was involved when the party made the arrangement with the NPC. So, turns out the NPC was an imp that was invisible. During the combat the imp assisted the party, and after the combat the party found what they wanted, as did the imp. But as things are wrapping up, the paladin attacks the imp, smites him, and kills him with one critical smiting hit.

This started some discussion at the table about the paladin's actions. The members of the party that made the agreement with the invisible imp were offended that the paladin broke their deal and thought it went against his lawful nature. He took the position that evil outsiders should be killed/banished/etc. whenever possible.

I sat back and enjoyed the interplay at the table and will award roleplaying xp for it, but I'm not sure if he should have any repercussions as a paladin for his actions.

Any thoughts?

 

[Rhun]

Did he know the creature was an imp when he made the deal, or did he find out later? I think this is the important question in determining if he acted appropriately. Upon finding that he had been deceived by an evil outsider, the paladin is fully within code by smiting said imp.

 

[Sam]

Nobody knew it was an imp when they made the deal. He says he wasn't involved in the making of the deal. He was about 20 feet away by the door of the house they were bursting into.

I'm not so worked up about the attack, more that he totally blindsided the imp and the party with his action.

 

[Rhun]

It all comes down to how you think a paladin should act. Yes, they should keep their word and honor contracts they make...if those contracts are made with full disclosure and with trustworthy people. I believe the paladin was fully within his rights to break the agreement and kill the imp upon finding out what the creature truly was.

 

[saucercrab]

I pretty much agree with Rhun. IMO, good-vs-evil generally takes precedence over law-vs-chaos for PCs.

Plus, like you said Sam, he didn't make the deal.

 

[Random Axe]

I agree with the above. The LG paladin would be correctly offended by the discovery of the evil outsider, and justified in destroying said evil and preventing it from furthering its own evil ends. Good on him I say.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I think he should have made a side deal with the Imp, killed his party members, and gone Blackguard


Ok... I agree, if he didn't make the deal and he found out there was an Imp there and his allies helped the Imp, not only was he right in killing the Imp, if anything, he should be upset with the allies that made the agreement. I don't know why they were upset with him.

Also, had he been in on the agreement, or know about it, the first thing the Paladin should have done was used Detect Evil on the invisible person (again, this is assuming he knew there was an invisible "something" there). Then he could have smited away. If he neglected to do this, and made a deal with the unknown asailant, later finding out it was an Imp, I would say that any agreement they previously had is null and void the moment he finds ou what the creature is.

All in all, the Paladin was right in any instance.

Now if they was just an evil person (rather than an Imp), I am usually more into the less lethal ways of dealing with those types of creatures. Use nonlethal damage, Diplomacy, make an arrest, etc. Since this was an Imp and I play them as inherently evil (can't usually be redeemed) then I make exceptions for that.

All IMHO anyways...

 

[Bayushi Seikuro]

I don't know.

Book of Exalted Deeds covers what it means to be Good in pretty good depth. Is making war on Evil good? Yes. But not nessecarily as good as giving to the poor and helping your community.

Here's what I think. To me, a lot of the answer is in the details. To me, the 'I didn't make the deal, I was just nearby' is a bunch of bull, it sounds like, to get out of consequences.

Did he know the party had a contract to help this 'invisible person'? Did he act to help the party accomplish the mutual goals? It's chaotic to break the contract and 'rationalize' it as War on Evil; he's essentially giving into his anger at being duped.

Being a paladin means you have to juggle the Law/Chaos AND Good/Evil axis at the same time. I don't punish a paladin who errs on the side of Good and righteousness; I DO punish a paladin who acts chaotically - breaking a deal, even a deal his party members made and he supported, is chaotic. And killing the evil afterwards, after he failed to take appropriate measures to guarantee the trustworthiness of the 'invisible person'...

Remember also: his party made this deal. There should definitely be consequences to that, if he's out to kill evil. His party actively aided evil because it benefitted them; they wanted in this house, and it wanted something in the house.

And, generally, where paladins are concerned, siding with Law over Good is how Inquisitions start.

 

[Arkhandus]

Remember that Paladins are primarily agents of Good, and secondarily agents of Law. They'll do what's best for Good whenever possible, and try to stick to their Lawful honor as much as possible while fulfilling that goal.

But anyway, the thing is that the imp deceived them and the paladin had no idea their 'ally' was a fiend. Once he learned the truth of that, he could not honorably work with the creature because his oaths do not permit it.

The creature voided its agreement with the party by deceiving them as to its nature and being dishonorable in the dealing process. The paladin's honor demands he avenge that slight to his honor, and undo his mistake of accidentally sort-of helping a fiend. In the end he prevented any evil being done as a result of his mistake, so it should not have any effect on his Paladin status.

Since he was unknowing when he made the deal, he is not at fault for agreeing to work loosely together. He did not knowingly and willingly aid a fiend, and he did smite it after learning the truth, so no ill came of it. Even Heironeous teaches prudence and optimal tactics in battle; the Archpaladin himself would not have allowed the battle to be lost just because an 'ally' turned out to be a fiend in disguise. He just would've destroyed the deceitful fiend after the other foes were dispatched.



That said, it should be pointed out that the paladin should have used his divinely-gifted ability to Detect Evil at will, and tried to discern if the group's invisible would-be ally was unworthy of his cooperation. Now, if that ability failed, he would still be fine, but the Powers of Good did not give him that ability for nothing; he's expected to use it to aid his judgment in matters.

Heck, he shouldn't have even made a deal with an invisible 'ally' to begin with, unless there was no time to argue that the invisible fellow must reveal himself before any proper, honest agreement could be made. So I'm guessing he probably exercised poor judgment.

That, itself, may warrant his powers being revoked for one day, to make it known that he failed in his duties somehow; the return of his powers the next day would at least make it obvious that his mistake was not of the seriousness that would cost him his divine sponsorship permanently. It may help him realize his error in judgment.

 

[Bayushi Seikuro]

I concur with Arhkhandus. More or less what I was trying to say, but a few steps further. And better,