Paladin Actions - Appropriate?

[Wolfwood2]

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.

It's not such much that the Imp deceived the party. It's very possible that they never bothered asking what sort of creature it was. The thing is that fiends are beings of pure evil with whom no peace can be possible or allowed.

If the invisible creature had just been an evil ogre magi for example, I would expect that the paladin would keep his deal. (Or at the very least, issue an open challenge.) But a fiend? Smite, smite away as quickly as possible.

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.

I don't think that the mere fact that the invisible creature was evil should automatically mean the paladin couldn't make any kind of deal. An Imp "only" has a moderate aura of evil, due to its low hitdice, so the paladin might plausibly have believed it to be merely an evil mortal of high level.

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.

I don't like the message that revoking his powers for a day would send to the player. Resonable flexibility should be encouraged.

 

[Arkhandus]

You do know I was advocating that the paladin should be fine, don't you?

And yes, I know that part of the matter is that since it was a fiend, he was right to smite it, deal or no deal. It's just that the circumstances kind of demand a bit of consideration for whether or not he did so honorably, in keeping with his paladin code. Which I think he did, for the reasons I described earlier (the imp's deception was reason enough for him to have an honorable excuse for slaying it rather than fulfilling the deal; he did not make the agreement knowing his 'ally' to be a fiend so he could not be expected to honor the deal, as it was deliberately made under false pretenses).


I already said as much that I didn't think his dealing with an invisible 'ally' would have any impact on his paladin status; he didn't know he was dealing with an evil creature to begin with, and the only reason to suspect it was that the individual was staying invisible. But we don't know if he tried detecting its alignment or not (or if it had Undetectable Alignment or Misdirection active to prevent its true alignment from being discerned). So we can't really be sure if he was as prudent as he should have been, but it is fairly obvious that the paladin did no wrong by accepting the deal initially since he had no knowledge that the 'ally' was an evil creature, let alone a fiend.


Now if he did learn it was evil beforehand, he would definitely have to refuse working with it. That is demanded by his paladin code (even if it were only an evil mortal, it would still be against his code to willingly associate with it). But unknowingly working with an evil creature for a time is not an infringement of his code, so until he learns the truth, he's not at fault (just probably not doing his duty in being diligent about making sure that his allies are decent enough to work with). And in this case, when he did see the creature's true form, he followed through by smiting it as was proper for a paladin, and thus should not be punished for unwittingly helping it (after all, he killed it before it could make any evil use of whatever it had gone to that place to acquire).

I only suggested the possible 1-day revoking of his powers as a sign to the paladin that he made a minor mistake, and failed to live up to the expectations that come with the divine gifts provided to him. A sign that he should exercise better judgment, caution, and prudence in the future (assuming, again, that he did not do his best beforehand to try and find out if the invisible ally was evil or not, or to find out if possible whether or not its intentions were evil). As mentioned, Heironeous or the like didn't give him the power to sense evil or fight evil just so he could sit on his duff and accept every mysterious, charming, or suspiciously-helpful stranger at face value (and besides, an invisible fellow at face value would seem to be deceitful and potentially evil).

 

[Greywarden]

after the combat the party found what they wanted, as did the imp.

Goals Achieved, Contract Fulfilled, Cooperation Ended, Deceing Evil Fiend Terminated....

 

[preacher]

I agree with most of what's been said above, but can't help wondering if reneging on a deal made by his companions, without discussing it with them first, is fully within the Lawful side of his alignment. Yes, he was duty bound to act when he discovered the imp's nature, but was he duty bound to do so unilaterally? It's understandable that his companions feel aggrieved. It's not so much that he broke the deal, it's that he broke it on their behalf as well as his own, without involving them. It wasn't just his honour at stake, but theirs as well. Isn't trampling over that a little chaotic?

Admittedly it's hard to have a secret conversation with the rest of the party when there's an invisible NPC around! What he said in the debate that followed would have a large part in how I ruled on this one, I think. Did he acknowledge their complaints at all or just rely on the "it was evil so I killed it" argument?

 

[pallandrome]

My one question in situations like this is: Did he detect evil before smiting?

In my mind, Paladins should ALWAYS do so. If it isn't evil, you shouldn't be shooting to kill. For a paladin, the decision to end a life should always be a considered one, not a reactionary one.

That being said, if he determined that the fiend actually WAS evil (thus making sure it's not just some shapeshifted orphan boy, ect ect), then he was fully within his rights and responsibilities to destroy said fiend. He might need to pray for a little more wisdom next time, for allowing himself to become allied to another being without checking the credentials first, but other than that, he's fine.

 

[cmrscorpio]

I would say that the paladin acted within his code, barely. Sure, he didn't know that the deal was made with an evil outsider, but he should have taken the time to detect evil when the party was making the deal with an invisible entity. The biggest offense here should be the paladin's negligence in his duty to find out beforehand that they were dealing with an embodiment of evil.

If I were DM, next time that the paladin sleeps, he should get a dream that lets him know that he needs to be more vigilant.

 

[Hawken]

In regard to the OP; I think you should give everyone involved an XP award for their roleplaying and simply just move on.

No consequences for the group (for making bargains with infernal beings) or for the paladin. Everyone expressed their reasons for their actions. Time to move on.

If the others were upset about the paladin breaking their deal with the imp, that alone should be reason enough for the paladin to leave their company. Imps are known deal-makers (deal-breakers) and fiends/baatezu on top of that. They barter with souls and such and do so for all eternity. If anything, the other PCs should be grateful for the paladin 'removing' the imp from their deal--though they could find out consequences later on of having made a bargain with a devil....

As for the paladin's actions, Lawful Good is not the same as Lawful Stupid! Whether he was part of the deal or not, nothing was mentioned about saving or protecting their invisible partner, so upon finding out it was an imp (evil outsider), the paladin would have been remiss on so many levels to have let the imp continue with its plans. For one, he would have been leaving his companions at the mercy of devilish forces (the imp itself, or the imp's master), not to mention continued association or compliance with an evil being's plans would almost definitely result in the (possibly permanent) revocation of paladin status.

I think the heart of this debate is the fact that it seems (by the OP's wording) that the paladin just up and killed the imp with no warning or reason given--which may appear to be murder (definitely not a lawful or good act). However, the paladin--by the nature of her status/class as a paladin--is appointed the authority to dispatch evil. It is not just her job, but her calling. If you don't want dead imps around, keep the paladins away! Paladins do not have to give warning or advance notice of their intention to smite. People seem to assume this in just about every paladin case where they get the first (and sometimes only) shot in. The fact that they are a paladin is warning enough for evil beings. The imp knew the risks in 'dealing' with a paladin or in dealing with others with a paladin around. Imps are not honorable opponents so the paladin was not violating any code of honor (outside the code of conduct required by his class) by not saluting and offering a "prepare to be smitten!".

If you want to go strictly by the PHB, then:
--"respect legitimate authority": The paladin would be disrespecting the authority of his deity/church/gov't by honoring a bargain with an evil outsider. And to a paladin, no authority could be more legitimate or higher than the one that provides their powers; as such, the paladin would not have the authority to enter into any bargain with an evil outsider.
--"act with honor": There is no honor in continuing a bargain/association with a known evil outsider. Imps are legendary in their untrustworthiness and as such, the paladin had every right to conclude that the imp would have broken (not if) any agreement with their group at any moment that would have put it to greatest advantage or his friends at a time of harm or peril.
--"help those in need": His friends just made a bargain with a devil. There is rarely a time of greater need than that to a paladin. Not having acted would have risked the corruption of the souls of his friends if not directly placing their lives in danger. It is still a possibility that the imp could have placed a telepathic Suggestion on one of the PCs to do something nefarious later on--such as dispatch one or more other PCs next time they are on watch at camp.
--"punish those who do harm or threaten innocents": The imp (and any evil outsider) fits this category with absolute certainty.

As for whether/why the paladin used or didn't use Detect Evil, well, there are all sorts of variables. The imp could have been behind a barrier thick enough for the paladin not to get a 'reading'. The imp could have moved out of range. There are all sorts of possibilities. As to why the paladin may not have used it, time could have been an issue. Not knowing where the invisible ally was means having to search and that would have wasted time they may otherwise not have had. Maybe the paladin was operating on the (naive) belief that a potential ally offering aid would not be evil. That is offering friendship and trust openly and in an honorable manner which should never be punished. Also, once the imp was revealed and the paladin recognized it for such, he shouldn't have to Detect Evil just to confirm. He was trained (or learned) to recognize such creatures, that alone would be enough confirmation.

If it turned out to be a non-evil being, then the smite wouldn't have worked and the paladin could have turned around and used LoH or given them a healing potion or something. In that case, its more of a 'friendly fire' situation which means the paladin is not at fault. Should he feel remorse? Yes. Should he make amends? Maybe, it would be the honorable thing to do. But in a battle (war) there is rarely time for second-guessing or confirming things (detect evil) that have already been confirmed (recognized imp as an imp); and doing so places oneself and/or one's companions in danger.

Nothing sets a paladin on the road to Blackguard (or feat-less Fighter) faster than slapping him down for being good (and trusting, honorable, etc). He'll learn on his own to be more circumspect in his actions. But since they were looking through a house guarded only by 'fighters and animals' and an imp was involved--I'm wagering it was a low-level game and so the paladin would be inexperienced (or not paranoid) enough to not think of automatically detecting evil on every being he encounters.

Penalizing a player of a paladin for playing his character in good faith is wrong. That will lead the player into 'performance paralysis' where he will be hesitant to take even a seemingly simple action for fear that he may lose his powers for the day (or maybe forever). DMs can tell when paladin players are behaving incorrectly or abusing their powers. In those cases, punish or warn, yes. But if the player is behaving in good faith, leave it alone. Or even have him 'debriefed' at the end of the quest and during that have his senior (boss, etc.) bring up whatever point the DM wanted to bring up ("Try using Detect Evil in this situation next time. And by the way, great job on that Smite! Wish I could have seen that! Here's a few extra potions of healing for you guys!", etc.).

 

[the Jester]

I'm seeing a lot of "good trumps law" in this discussion... I don't agree with that; it depends entirely on the campaign.

Even then, however, if the paladin himself didn't make a deal... well... he might be okay, but if anything, HE should be the one angry at the party, not the other way around.

 

[Arkhandus]

I agree with most of what's been said above, but can't help wondering if reneging on a deal made by his companions, without discussing it with them first, is fully within the Lawful side of his alignment. Yes, he was duty bound to act when he discovered the imp's nature, but was he duty bound to do so unilaterally?

Yeah, he had to destroy the fiend afterward. He cannot willingly associate with evil beings; and the fact that the imp had deceived him and hidden its fiendish nature meant that he was not honor-bound to fulfill the deal or let the imp go, but instead his honor demanded he make amends for the slight to his honor caused by the imp's deception; and as a fiend, surely anything it needed the McGuffin for would be evil, so he had to stop it from causing evil through the use of the paladin as a pawn to help it get the McGuffin for its evil plan.

As for the party, the paladin's honor demanded retribution more than it demanded staying true to his comrades' agreement with the fiend. They didn't know its nature beforehand, so indeed, he would have seen it as being the honor of his entire party that had been slighted by the fiend's deception, given that fiends only ever do things for the sake of evil. The party may've been upset afterward, but he was just avenging their honor and especially his own, and making sure that the fiend didn't use their unwitting help to get an item that would help it cause further evil.

Paladins are not lawful neutral or lawful evil; they do not see fulfillment of oaths/agreements as a permanently binding, unyielding duty that must absolutely be fulfilled, no matter the consequences, no matter what happens or changes afterward, and no matter the circumstances the oath/agreement was made under. As lawful good individuals, they are to believe in the spirit of the law moreso than the letter of the law, and that any agreement was made in good faith, and becomes null and void if one party or another dishonors the agreement and those who agreed to it.

The drastic deception of the imp was too dishonorable to consider that the agreement was made in good faith; the party (the paladin especially) surely did not agree to the cooperative effort believing that they were aiding a fiend in its evil plots. The paladin would never have agreed to it then. There are other individuals who might try to make a deal while invisible; pixies, illusionists, cowardly wizards, disfigured individuals, the rare good drow who just doesn't want any trouble, and tricksters (like some dragons and fey) who just want to surprise people later or would like to keep them guessing even after the deal is completed. So the party did not have to believe at first that the 'ally' was a fiend; most likely by that point in their careers they had encountered other spellcasters or creatures who could turn themselves invisible, and probably had not yet met a fiend who could do so.

 

[bodhi]

Nobody knew it was an imp when they made the deal.

When and how was the NPC's imp status revealed?

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 agree with Bayushi Seikuro that sounds like an attempt to avoid consequences. It's a pretty fine line between "I didn't make the deal" and "I didn't raise any objections when my friends made the deal".

You said the paladin attacked the imp after the fight. Was the sequence of events:
A) Fight ends. Imp is revealed. Paladin finds out the ally is an imp, which he attacks and kills.
or
B) Imp is revealed sometime prior to the fight, but the paladin decides to keep his mouth shut until the party fulfills their objectives, whereupon he attacks and kills the imp.

Situation A, IMHO, is fine, if perhaps a bit abrupt. "I've been deceived by a fiend! Have at thee!", and then maybe a dream telling him he should be more careful who he works with.

Situation B strikes me as someone turning a blind eye when it's in their favor, and being the good guy when that's in their favor. Which is someone you trust to do what's right for themselves. Which, for a paladin, is problematic.