Paladin Actions - Appropriate?

[RigaMortus2]

I direct you to this section of the OP's description, emphasis mine:


It seems to me that the imp became visible when he helped out in the battle, since attacking someone while you're invisible ends the invisibility.

Since when does "assisted" mean "attack"? Have you never played a character that didn't fight during combat, but assisted the party in other ways? Usually the DM gives XP for the whole party in those situations, even if you didn'tdeal x points of damage.

The OP said the Imp assisted the party, he never said he attacked or became visible.

 

[Hypersmurf]

To be serious, if he had made the contract I would say he would be in serious trouble if he didn't follow his word. If he sorta was in on it then I think it's a grey area.

There's a little aside scene in the Song of Ice and Fire series, where outlaws have captured a nobleman.

The outlaw leader says "Tell me what I want to know, and I'll tell them to let you go."

The nobleman tells them, and the outlaws start to string him up.

"You said you'd let me go!" he protests to the leader.

"No, I said I'd tell them to let you go. Boys, let him go."
"Sod off," replies one of the outlaws. The leader shrugs, and they carry on hanging him.

Fun moment, and within the letter of his agreement, but not the spirit.

"We won't hurt you (but by 'we', we mean everyone except the paladin, wink wink!)" might be a grey area, but it's the sort of grey area a paladin should avoid!

-Hyp.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm not sure you can get away with "He's evil, so he was obviously going to betray me, so I just betrayed him first!" and still call it honorable conduct.

In fact, such an action is specifically called out as "unacceptable" in the Book of Exalted Deeds (which, while questionable mechanically, is a perfectly solid resource in terms of alignment details).

 

[frankthedm]

Every moment that imp exists furthers its goals of damning more souls to the nine hells.

Good job paladin!

Now he needs to chastise the party on dealings with invisible benefactors. Especially if they kept him uninformed of the situation.

 

[Hawken]

Agreement or not, catch-the-imp-off-guard or not, it boils down to one simple truth: The paladin killed an imp. Period. Circumstances of doing so are not important. He killed a fiend, a monster, one of Hell's creations. It wasn't a misguided rogue, a cruel wizard or even a drow with a touch of goodness waiting for the right moment to come out. It was a creature of irredeemable, calculating, eternal evil. You can't apply morals to such beings, or even laws. Its home is where souls of evil beings go when they die. For all the crimes each devil has commited, a swift execution is about the most merciful they could receive. There can be no mercy or protection or leniency for such creatures that deal in eternal torment. Regardless of how its slain, the paladin did a good thing.

For those of you whining about striking unaware or mercy or any other such nonsense, stick to the cleric classes and leave the paladins to do what they do best; smiting evil back into the afterlife!

Again, Lawful Good is not Lawful Stupid or even Lawful Cannot-Tell-A-Lie. Even if the paladin made a bargain, it was done so ignorant of the fiend's nature and the paladin's promise to his deity/church/gov't is a higher oath than any agreement unwittingly made to a fiend--which didn't include protection or allowing it to escape. His code of conduct is specific, "punish those that harm". That's what he did. "Keeping his word" is a LG thing, but not keeping one's word is not necessarily not a LG thing either. If a paladin does something that is not lawful, that doesn't make him chaotic or even neutral, it just means he did something not-lawful, nothing more or less.

And for those of you that say "strip his powers for X days as a warning" need to realize that his powers are not just a personal asset but a party asset as well. Detect Evil, turn undead, cure disease, smite, those are all as important to the party on the whole as to the paladin himself. What happens when the party needs an emergency LoH but doesn't get it because the paladin is being punished for killing an imp?! Or someone is exposed to Green Slime and the paladin can't snap off a Cure Disease?! Give it a rest!

The paladin's powers are no more or less extraordinary than any other class's. The DM should not be an arbitrary light switch flipping them on or off based on his own opinions. If the player plays the character in good faith, leave him alone. If he's abusing things, warn first, then punish. The player is there to play a paladin not to perform to the DM's expectations or interpretations of what a paladin is or is not.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Agreement or not, catch-the-imp-off-guard or not, it boils down to one simple truth: The paladin killed an imp. Period.

Regardless of how its slain, the paladin did a good thing.

Ah, "the ends justify the means" - backbone of every good Paladin Code!

His code of conduct is specific, "punish those that harm". That's what he did. "Keeping his word" is a LG thing, but not keeping one's word is not necessarily not a LG thing either.

Acting with honor is another precept of the code - including not lying or cheating. Not keeping one's word is a violation of the code. Not keeping one's word to not-cut-someone's-head-off is, I submit, a gross violation of the code.

-Hyp.

 

[Arkhandus]

Since when does "assisted" mean "attack"? Have you never played a character that didn't fight during combat, but assisted the party in other ways? Usually the DM gives XP for the whole party in those situations, even if you didn'tdeal x points of damage.

The OP said the Imp assisted the party, he never said he attacked or became visible.

It was obvious though that the imp was not visble until the battle or afterward, not beforehand. Before the battle it was looking for its target item/McGuffin elsewhere in the building or whatever, from the description. Therefore the paladin did not just decide to let the imp live until the whole business was done; he at least didn't learn its nature until after the battle was underway or done with.

Also, what else is an invisible Imp going to do to 'assist' in battle, if not attack enemies or use its spell-like abilities on them (both of which results in turning visible). All it can do is Sting foes, turn into an Alternate Form that will allow it to bite or claw or gore them, or cast Suggestion on an opponent, all of which will turn it visible. (Imps can only turn themselves invisible, not other people, so it couldn't have helped out with friendly Invisibility effects)

It can't give allies a flanking bonus if the opponents aren't even aware it's hoving behind them invisibly to threaten with a natural weapon. Most, maybe all but probably just most, uses of the Aid Another action would probably make it visible, and it's doubtful that all the Imp did to help in the battle was distract enemies with banter to give an adventurer some AC bonus through Aid Another. Especially since they're described as enjoying a surprise attack when the opportunity presents itself to Sting someone or whatnot.

 

[Arkhandus]

Ah, "the ends justify the means" - backbone of every good Paladin Code!

Acting with honor is another precept of the code - including not lying or cheating. Not keeping one's word is a violation of the code. Not keeping one's word to not-cut-someone's-head-off is, I submit, a gross violation of the code.

-Hyp.

Except, as I already mentioned, the Imp invalidated the agreement through its deception. The agreement was made under false pretenses and the paladin strictly cannot continue association with known evil creatures once he learns of their evil. Seeing a fiend is usually enough to verify that it is evil, and once the other battle was over he would have had the chance to Detect Evil, though it wouldn't normally be necessary against a fiend since they're pretty much universally pure evil, through and through, down to their very core and the nature of their being.

The deception with the agreement was a slight to the paladin's honor, and he was honor-bound to avenge that slight by a fiend and fulfill his oaths to destroy evil, moreso than he was honor-bound to fulfill the oath that was made under false pretenses.

Paladins are put under the demands of pursuing Good moreso than Law; any evil act can make them lose their powers, but only a certain few nonlawful acts can cause the same loss of powers. And most of their abilities are oriented towards opposing evil, not chaos, so they are undeniably more anti-evil than they are anti-chaos. Good comes before law when a paladin must make a decision.


And, if the paladin could not have retained his paladin powers either way, what the heck was the point? If he continues association with the fiend or allows it to go about its business with the item he had inadvertently helped it to acquire, he loses his powers for aiding evil and causing evil to be perpetuated (the imp cannot possibly have good intentions for the item).

If he smites the fiend for deceiving him and trying to use him as a tool of evil, he loses his powers, according to you who call foul on him for having done so. It's an impossible situation for the paladin if you do not accept that he was fine in smiting the fiend after realizing its deception. Smiting evil is the main thing that paladins do.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Except, as I already mentioned, the Imp invalidated the agreement through its deception.

What deception? It didn't tell them a lot of things - it didn't tell them what it had for breakfast, it didn't tell them its cousin's dog's name, it didn't tell them it was a fiend from the Nine Hells. How does that have a bearing on "Let's work together to achieve our separate objectives"?

Did the paladin disclose he was a paladin when the agreement was made? If he didn't, is that a deception that would have given the Imp a valid excuse for killing the paladin first?

Good comes before law when a paladin must make a decision.

I'm not talking about Good vs Law; I'm talking about acting with honour, per the Code.

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Is refraining from smiting a creature with whom one has a truce an evil act? I'd say not.

Does refraining from smiting a creature with whom one has a truce violate 'respect legitimate authority' or 'help those in need'? I'd say not.

Is the Imp one who is harming or threatening innocents, necessitating punishment? He may do at some time in the future, but there is no clear and present danger.

Does smiting a creature with whom one has a truce violate 'act with honor'? Oh, hell, yes.

You've got, on the one hand, a clear code violation. On the other hand, there's a case that might be made that a fiend, regardless of what he's actually doing or intending, threatens innocents by his very existence.

I'd say a hypothetical maybe vs a clear yes makes it a decision that's weighted strongly towards one side, and that one side is 'Act with honor'.

And, if the paladin could not have retained his paladin powers either way, what the heck was the point? If he continues association with the fiend or allows it to go about its business with the item he had inadvertently helped it to acquire, he loses his powers for aiding evil and causing evil to be perpetuated (the imp cannot possibly have good intentions for the item).

I wouldn't consider honouring the agreement to be a violation of the code. Nor do I feel that a Paladin is required to automatically smite at the first ping on the Evildar.

-Hyp.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Spiteful Smiting?

Does smiting a creature with whom one has a truce violate 'act with honor'? Oh, hell, yes.

Excellent point; I do believe you have changed my mind.

-Samir