Paladin Actions - Appropriate?

[Hawken]

And I consider both of those weaseling, loopholing, and lawyerin' unworthy of a paladin.

How you interpret is up to you. But there was no 'weaseling' or any of that other nonsense on the part of the paladin. They agreed to work together to achieve mutual goals. They did. Agreement met and ended. There was no agreement for safe passage or anything else and the DM, knowing that it was an imp making the deal could easily have had the imp (in the bargaining process with the group) state, "Ok, we work together. I help you, you help me. We get our items and part as friends. Good?" But no, there was nothing mentioned about that. And that's not loopholing. The agreement was done. Its terms were met and thus it ended. Upon meeting the terms of the agreement, the imp could have hauled butt out of there at least until the paladin was gone, but for whatever reason decided to stick around.

And you're full of it if you think that silence does equal compliance. Just as an easy, immediate example; if that were the case, everyone arrested or cited would be instantly found guilty of whatever they were being charged with and there wouldn't be a need for a judge or jury (or legal counsel for that matter). Think about that next time a cop pulls you over, serves you with a warrant or just flat-out arrests you.

Reserving judgment, by remaining silent on a matter, is not being sneaky or deceptive or misleading in any way. If the paladin was the only one not vocal about his agreement, then it should have been obvious to the rest of the group there was some doubt or hesitation on his part, at which point, they should have checked with him on it instead of just assuming he agreed with them because he didn't say anything. But they didn't. They just assumed. But that's still irrelevant anyway because the agreement was fulfilled in good faith by both sides.

Whether the paladin meant to or not, he did not break the terms of the agreement. The terms of the agreement/implied truce was met and fulfilled. Period. If there is any doubt of that, go back to the OP and re-read it. The paladin did not kill the imp until the agreement/implied truce had ended. He isn't anywhere in the wrong at all on this.

 

[IanB]

Here's an interesting side-question based on that. What if there actually were not innocents in danger.

I present to you the following scenario. It may be unlikely, but it is possible given the above scenario:

Til'dik the imp lived to serve in the eternal Blood War between the demons and the devils. Thus, it was with great disgust that he was forced to journey to the mortal realms, but he knew the need was great. A being of pure evil and law, Til'dik could not abide by the fact that a cultist of Baphomet was about to collect the seventh piece of an artifact that would bathe that realm in chaos and death, as demons walked the world and rent it asunder. Hey, he had nothing against killing mortals, but that sort of chaotic destruction was ghastly compared to the careful nurturing of lawful evil souls to serve as his masters' energy, and besides, that would give the demons a huge advantage. The only possibility to stop it was to grab the final piece of the artifact himself and return it to Avernus. Lord Bel had determined that only in the fiery rivers of Avernus could it be destroyed, thus ending the threat. Although he'd dearly like to torture or corrupt some pathetic mortals for his trouble in leaving Hell, he knows that he doesn't have the luxury--he must return to Baator as soon as possible on recovering the item or risk the demon cultists recovering it. He hopes he will never have to go to this disgusting mortal plane ever again. In his dreams, he will serve in the Blood Wars until he dies and is absorbed by the perfect order of Baator or succeeds enough to be promoted to a mort suitable combat form and continue to even greater victory.

~~~

Fast forward--Til'dik is killed by the Paladin. The party either leaves the thing the imp wanted behind (in which case the cultists recover it) or take it with them (after the cultists figure it out, they steal it from the party). The land is bathed in death and slaughter. And Baphomet himself comes forth, sending an Aspect and rejoicing in the mayhem. The only one from the kingdom who is spared is the Paladin, for letting his hatred overwhelm him and single-handedly allowing this to happen!

To me that sounds like a scenario deliberately crafted by a DM to say "screw you for playing a paladin" to the paladin player.

 

[SlagMortar]

But in the OP's situation, there were no circumstances which elevated 'help those in need' to any immediate priority status, and so acting with honour was still something that needed to be observed.

What if there were a town full of defenseless commoners just over the hill and the imp was headed that way?

The only one from the kingdom who is spared is the Paladin, for letting his hatred overwhelm him and single-handedly allowing this to happen!

I fully agree that such is possible. It is also at least equally likely that the item was the final piece of an artifact required by Bob the Super Pit Fiend to complete his plan to end the Blood War and bring the Prime Material plane completely under his merciless thumb. If it comes down to whether I would rather an imp or a paladin possess an item that is the key to universal destruction, I'd rather it be the paladin.

Well, unless he dumped intelligence, which I guess is rather likely... hmm.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Ohhhh! Way to think outside the box.

So let's change the question a bit. He only has 2 silvers on him, and nobody around him has enough money to buy any of his equipment so the most he'll have at the moment is 2 silvers. [I admit, this extra addition is a bit contrived] Now is he required to eat the chicken?

What is his Diplomacy skill?

 

[Rystil Arden]

What if there were a town full of defenseless commoners just over the hill and the imp was headed that way?


I fully agree that such is possible. It is also at least equally likely that the item was the final piece of an artifact required by Bob the Super Pit Fiend to complete his plan to end the Blood War and bring the Prime Material plane completely under his merciless thumb. If it comes down to whether I would rather an imp or a paladin possess an item that is the key to universal destruction, I'd rather it be the paladin.

Well, unless he dumped intelligence, which I guess is rather likely... hmm.

It is indeed equally likely the other way around. But given the importance of the Blood War, there is a non-negligible chance that the Imp is out there doing something to stop Demons. The Paladin would be within her rights to, once the Imp appeared in its true form, turn around and demand an explanation for the item's purpose, with the caveat that she cannot allow it to be used to harm innocents and will therefore be required to duel the Imp to the death once the current threat has passed. But "Preemptive Sneak Attack Smite BANZAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!" is a different story. Of course, the imp could have totally used its Alternate Form to pretend to be a raven familiar of a friendly Wizard or something.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

What I think we have emerging is something I predicted a few posts ago: The question is not how evil is the imp. The question is really concerning the morality of killing anything without proper cause and justification.

To refer back to Hawken's earlier example, when a cop pulls someone over, they have a reason. Now, they might have been mistaken. For example, I heard of a man being chased by a cop for travelling 20 miles over the speed limit. It wasn't until they got to a stop light that the police officer was able to find out that the man was rushing his wife to a hospital because she had gone into labor 10 weeks too early. The baby was viable, but they had to act within that golden hour window. So, the cop decided to side on mercy and actually escorted the man to the hospital (actually to an ambulance that they met en route). There's an example where suspicion doesn't pan out. But I haven't ever heard a story where a cop pulled someone over without having suspicion at least. It may turn out unjustified, but the cops have at least suspicion, if not proof.

The paladin who kills an imp just for being an imp and without observing the imp doing evil has no proof. Sure, the paladin has every right to be suspicious. But suspicion does not equal proof. The imp might be legitimate. The paladin might be able to see more good in allowing the imp to live (see RA's semi-contrived scenario above as an example). But to blatantly kill the imp just for being an imp does not make him good!

The path of good in narrow, and it is easy to fall from paladinhood. In the OP's case, I still wouldn't say the paladin fell, but the paladin sure wasn't acting "good" and especially not "honorable."

 

[Hypersmurf]

But I haven't ever heard a story where a cop pulled someone over without having suspicion at least.

I'll just get in a Preemptive Moderatorial Sneak Attack (Banzai!), and remind people of EN World's policy regarding discussion of politics.

Just in case anyone's tempted

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[IanB]

What I think we have emerging is something I predicted a few posts ago: The question is not how evil is the imp. The question is really concerning the morality of killing anything without proper cause and justification.

To refer back to Hawken's earlier example, when a cop pulls someone over, they have a reason. Now, they might have been mistaken. For example, I heard of a man being chased by a cop for travelling 20 miles over the speed limit. It wasn't until they got to a stop light that the police officer was able to find out that the man was rushing his wife to a hospital because she had gone into labor 10 weeks too early. The baby was viable, but they had to act within that golden hour window. So, the cop decided to side on mercy and actually escorted the man to the hospital (actually to an ambulance that they met en route). There's an example where suspicion doesn't pan out. But I haven't ever heard a story where a cop pulled someone over without having suspicion at least. It may turn out unjustified, but the cops have at least suspicion, if not proof.

The paladin who kills an imp just for being an imp and without observing the imp doing evil has no proof. Sure, the paladin has every right to be suspicious. But suspicion does not equal proof. The imp might be legitimate. The paladin might be able to see more good in allowing the imp to live (see RA's semi-contrived scenario above as an example). But to blatantly kill the imp just for being an imp does not make him good!

The path of good in narrow, and it is easy to fall from paladinhood. In the OP's case, I still wouldn't say the paladin fell, but the paladin sure wasn't acting "good" and especially not "honorable."

But... why would a paladin need proof when talking about a devil? Devils and demons exist in large part to give PCs something unambiguous to fight - you *know* a demon is evil, there's no questionable motivations or moral grey territory, just get smiting. Back the camera out a little farther and look at this from a game design perspective. If the design goal in this encounter is to provide the party with an ambiguous moral decision, don't use an imp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But... why would a paladin need proof when talking about a devil? Devils and demons exist in large part to give PCs something unambiguous to fight - you *know* a demon is evil, there's no questionable motivations or moral grey territory, just get smiting.

I don't think the paladin's assumption that 'the imp is evil' is unreasonable.

The assumption I have a problem with is 'an agreement with an evil creature can be ignored'.

-Hyp.

 

[IanB]

I don't think the paladin's assumption that 'the imp is evil' is unreasonable.

The assumption I have a problem with is 'an agreement with an evil creature can be ignored'.

-Hyp.

An agreement with an evil creature should never have been made in the first place, which is what the paladin should be atoning for (they get detect evil for a reason); thinking better of it when he realized what he'd gotten into would be a mitigating factor in the paladin's favor, it seems to me.

But in any case, after thinking about this overnight, I think the DM (or module writer, if they're different) may possibly deserve some blame for setting up a situation where the paladin is stuck with making an agreement with an imp. If you want to make your paladin player make hard choices, that's cool, but I don't think an obviously evil outsider is a good way to do it. Savage Tide spoiler:

Spoiler

It is the same reason I think a lot of Savage Tide campaigns will break down when they get to the ending, where you have to go around and make deals with a bunch of other demon lords to help fight Demogorgon. Too many of them will just have players refuse to deal with Orcus or Malcanthet, and I can hardly blame those players for not playing along with the plot railroad in that case.