If you want to throw out pithy quotes, try this one: "For evil to flourish, all that good men have to do is nothing." For the paladin to have not done what he did would have been an evil act, worthy of him losing his powers temporarily. For him to actively support the pact and even defend it would have been an evil act worthy of being stripped of his status as a paladin permanently.
What he did, that's not ends justify the means at all. There is nothing in the paladin code that says paladin's have to give a 'warning shot' to any of their foes before sending them off. Fiends (evil outsiders) don't get warning shots because that gives them time to hurt someone else or escape and hurt someone else later. They are unremittingly evil. Undead aren't offered a chance to surrender because by the very nature of their existence they are Evil--same with devils and other fiends.
The imp knew being around the paladin would be dangerous, but it stayed. It had plenty of time to flee, just leave, or do what it had to while the paladin and group were fighting. Instead it revealed itself and counted on being able to talk its way out of extinction. With its Suggestion power, just letting the imp talk was dangerous enough on its own, muchless waiting for it to do something or stalk and spy on the group unaware and plan their unsuspecting deaths.
The group making a deal with the imp is where "the ends justify the means" comes into play--especially that the rest of the group were still willing to go along with the deal once they learned it was an imp. By slaying the imp, the paladin was avoiding "the ends justify the means" as well as preventing his friends from falling down that slippery slope too. His actions were lawful and good.
In the same way a cashier is not authorized to approve corporate mergers, a paladin is not authorized by his deity/church/gov't to enter into binding agreements with fiends. His obligations to the source of his abilities precludes him from being able to do that. They cannot knowingly associate with evil or continue such associations. The imp knew that and still sought to make a deal that it knew the paladin could not accept. That is false pretenses. Contracts and agreements are done in 'good faith' while those done under false pretenses, by most courts are invalidated. Or you could look at it like the agreement was breached by the imp for being an imp since both it and the paladin knew that the paladin is forbidden to enter into any binding agreements with such beings.
Smiting evil is the main thing that paladins do.
Hear, hear! And that's "Smite Evil", not "Smite Evil After Giving Fair Warning". And to those of you that say the paladin violated his honor by popping the imp off immediately; I want you to tell me what code of honor any paladin subscribes to that offers fiends a warning shot before smiting them! An enemy soldier on the battlefield, sure. Someone approaching the paladin as an equal but enemy, yeah. But an immortal, evil being who trafficks in souls and torment? Not a chance. Their 'warning' is just knowing they are within Detect Evil range of a paladin.
The omission of its true nature. It knew there would be no way in Hell (pun intended) that the group would have agreed to the plan had they known their "ally" was an imp. That's called full disclosure, and it wasn't present for that agreement. The imp knew the only way they would agree is if they didn't know what they were bargaining with.
Did the paladin disclose he was a paladin when the agreement was made?
He doesn't need to. Imps know paladins are forbidden to enter into agreements with Evil creatures. Therefore by not disclosing its true nature, it voided the agreement with the paladin.
Is refraining from smiting a creature with whom one has a truce an evil act? I'd say not.
Yes, it is. Especially when that truce was established under false pretenses and the mere presence of the imp compelled the paladin to take it out based on his code of conduct.
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.
Yes, it does. Because doing so brings mountains of disrespect for the authority the paladin serves (deity, gov't, etc.) and it violates the 'help those in need' by further the cause of a known evil being pursuing an evil goal which would result in greater suffering for others.
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.
It doesn't say 'harming' or 'threatening', it states, "those who harm or threaten" meaning those who have harmed/threatened, those who are harming/threatening, and those who will harm/threaten. It is not that the imp may do it in the future, its that it is guaranteed that it
has done it and
will do it again. Paladins can't let something like that go unpunished.
Does smiting a creature with whom one has a truce violate 'act with honor'? Oh, hell, yes.
Oh, hell no! The truce was invalid from the beginning--as explained above--so the paladin was free to Smite away. Besides Smite Evil does not have a clause in it to the effect of, "unless you have a pre-existing agreement with an evil being".
There was no code violation. Hyp, you're picking an choosing words out of the code to try to support your argument. When the code itself and everything in the PHB supports the paladin Smiting Evil. And its not a case
might be made about fiends, that case was made eons ago! They do threaten others just by their existence. By their existence they harm others (tormenting/bartering souls for eternity does qualify for both of those things).
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.
If you wouldn't, then you're not thinking from the perspective of a paladin. Paladins have a greater agreement not to enter into those bargains in the first place, and by their own code, they are forbidden from continuing such agreements (or in your words, honouring). They dedicate their life and soul to their authority figure, that trumps any other agreements they can make on their own. In fact, they are no longer their own person, but instead agents of their authority figure; and I don't think there's any god of Good and/or Law that would allow their paladin servants to enter into agreements with fiends.
Also, paladins may not be required to Smite at the first ping of their Evil-dar (I like that term), but they sure as heck can't be penalized for it either. That's what its there for--to let them know who is a viable candidate for Smiting! When and how is of course up to the discretion of the paladin.
