Paladin Actions - Appropriate?

[Mouseferatu]

The issue of 'rights' is irrelevant and misleading. The paladin in question could smite or not smite. If the paladin had quick draw, took a swipe (smite + power attack, two-handed swing, etc, etc.) at the Erinyes...well, 'accidents' do happen--"Sorry, General, when these fiends are about, my keen holy thundering fiend-bane sword seems to have a life of its own! Perhaps if we had known the (opposing) general was in league with fiends, I would have been better prepared. (to the Erinyes) Oh--are you still alive? Dreadfully sorry about that...would you like me to Lay on Hands (sheathes sword, readies 2nd smite with spiked, blessed gauntlet)? (to all) Perhaps we should reconvene in a few days when the opposing advisor has had a chance to recover? That would be the honorable thing to do!"

None of this is appropriate to a paladin.

"Lawful good" requires that the character respect legitimate authority. The paladin here is not doing so.

The paladin's code prohibits deceit; therefore the "lay on hands/smite" switcheroo is inappropriate.

Again, no deceit; trying to claim that the "smite" was an accident is not only inappropriate, but ludicrous.

Paladins (and others who are lawful good) are required to consider the greater good. Attacking the fiend when it could easily ignite new hostilities between forces is the epitome of stupidity, and not conducive to the greater good.

It wouldn't mean the truce is voided. The paladin didn't make the truce, the opposing generals did. Whether the paladin smiting the fiend breaks the truce or not is up to the generals.

This is nonsense. Anyone participating in a meeting under truce is expected to honor that truce. Anyone serving in a military capacity is expected to follow orders. The actions of a subordinate are the responsibility of a leader.

The paladin is aware of all of this. The whole "Well, I didn't actually agree, I just stood by while people agreed for me" is, at best, non-good, and in many respects non-evil.

Smiting won't necessarily break the truce--and in that case, the opposing general would likely consider strongly keeping the truce just to get his yet-to-be-smitten butt out of there alive rather than face his opposite and paladin advisor.

So it's okay to fight deceptively as long as you come out ahead? Yeah, that's real paladin-like.

If he wasn't leader, considering his class and code of honor, he still wouldn't be beholden to any agreement with fiends and his companions would already know that.

If the entire party makes an agreement, and it's obvious that everyone--on both sides--thinks that the agreement includes the paladin, it's his duty to make any objection clear at the time. Waiting until later and then springing the "Well, I didn't really agree" defense is, again, dishonorable and unworthy of anyone claiming the title of paladin.

 

[Hawken]

Actually, I never said the paladin had to smite anything immediately. The player could have waited before dropping the imp--but doing so would have placed him and the group in jeopardy with each passing moment. It is true that the imp may not have tried anything because of its tactical inferiority, but it could easily have caused havoc with a well-placed, well-worded Suggestion then followed the group, spied on them and assassinated them at the right moment. Or not. But the paladin had every right to drop the imp, agreement or not (aware of the agreement or not) as the very presence of the imp was a threat to the safety and welfare of himself and his companions--truce or not.

If the imp did not know about the paly, would that change your opinion Hawken?

No. But for the imp to approach them without gathering all available information on them would have been a mistake that would have gotten the imp killed long before meeting that party. Imps may not be geniuses, but going up against a well equipped, well-organized group alone--even under the pretext of a temporary truce--would be folly. Maybe like the group, time constraints prevented the use of the appropriate Detect spells on both sides, but when the imp's true nature was revealed, it should have expected a hostile reaction of some sort especially since it could have telepathically eavesdropped while verbally bargaining with the group.

Whether the paladin knew about the truce or not is irrelevant. He never agreed to it. Authority issues aside, if he doesn't agree to it, he's not bound to it, especially once the imp is revealed as an imp. There was no law broken there but he did uphold the law (punish those that....). There was no betrayal and the paladin had a standing agreement (by virtue of his class) to kill all fiends. Going along with the deal is not lawful, its stupid. The deal was made under false pretenses and therefore not a valid agreement, muchless an honorable one.

The party can do what they want (they obviously did), but the paladin is not bound by their deals if fiends are involved. They would know that already based on his class and code of honor. He could not be a party to any contract with fiends. They may have just gone ahead with the deal and thought to talk the paladin down from any smiting, but he went straight to work on the imp--as he should have. No different than if they negotiated with a vampire, demon or any other creature of pure, absolute evil.

Also, the paladin would not be wrong for waiting until the fighting was over to take out the imp. His first responsibility is to the safety of himself and his group. With the imp (foolishly) fighting on their side, he wasn't an immediate threat--the "fighters and animals" were. Once that was dealt with, then of course, he would turn on the imp.

Lets look at it from a reverse angle: does the paly have to reveal himself as a paly during negotiations to allow an employer to pay him? Why does it make a difference?

If that employer is a fiend or other obvious being of absolute evil, yes. "Sorry, Asmodeus, I'm a paladin and cannot accept your offer of employment without breaking my code of conduct. Thanks anyway". The difference is the paladin recognized the imp for what it was and dispatched it. Slaying fiends is in their job description (figuratively, if not literally so), not bargaining with them (actually, that is specifically prohibited). So, it makes all the difference. And the imp may not have attacked, but it definitely would have betrayed the group in some manner if given the chance--alerting enemies of the PCs, Suggestion, etc.

As for the agreement, it was over. They agreed to work together. They both got their different trinkets, then the paladin killed the imp. It wasn't stated by the OP that there was a "part peacefully and go our separate ways" clause in the agreement (dumb of the imp to overlook that part during negotiations). So, with the goals of their mutual truce met, said truce was concluded and without any agreement of safe passage by either party, the paladin was still well within his rights, his responsibility and all facets of his alignment to smite that imp back to Avernus.

 

[Hawken]

I just noticed that my last post was being done at the same time as Dross' second and Mouse's posts.

Legitimate authority be Damned. Would it make a difference if it was a general of the paly order?

Nothing was mentioned like: General, "Ok, paladin, if there's a fiend in there, don't attack it." Paladin, "Yes, sir." So, if the bad general says, here's my advisor, Ms. Erinyes. And then the paladin's sword 'slips' out of its sheath--"Sorry, general, you know how these sentient weapons are when they get worked up!"--and into the chest of the Erinyes. There's nothing deceptive about that. It's rather straightforward. If the enemy general wants to take offense at that and call off the truce, then he could, but would be at the mercy of the other general and a paladin. And considering that the Erinyes could use any manner of charms, telepathy and whatever else to gain advantage over the good general, the bad general shouldn't have brought an Erinyes to the meeting, or at least disguised her better.

That's just an option. The paladin wouldn't have to attack the Erinyes, but tactically it would be a viable option. If you consider it cheating or whatever, then too, look at that bigger picture. If they can cut short a war to spare thousands of lives by taking out the general and advisor, then that is the greater good being served. The evil general, bringing in an Erinyes, would have no intention of complying with a truce, instead using the meeting (and stalling tactics) to draw information from the good general and the paladin to give them an advantage. The good general anyway, would not accept a telepathic, charm at will, fiend for an opposing advisor regardless.

Do you agree that if the agreement was for payment for a job, the paly could not take any $$ because he did not accept the job himself?

I'm going to pass on this. It has nothing to do with the matter at hand. The discussion was about a paladin dropping a fiend after a truce had ended.

"Lawful good" requires that the character respect legitimate authority. The paladin here is not doing so.

Matter of opinion. Maybe the general warned him, "use your powers and if there is a threat to negotiations, take it out." Maybe not. That is a hypothetical situation and I proposed only one hypothetical response.

The paladin's code prohibits deceit; therefore the "lay on hands/smite" switcheroo is inappropriate.

Not true either. In my comment, the paladin said nothing about healing. Nothing deceitful about that, the paladin's intentions at that point would be painfully clear.

Again, no deceit; trying to claim that the "smite" was an accident is not only inappropriate, but ludicrous.

Again, no deceit involved. The paladin never said "accident", only that his "sword seemed to have a life of its own...." Nothing deceitful there, just a diplomatic way of stating that he struck down a fiend.

Paladins (and others who are lawful good) are required to consider the greater good. Attacking the fiend when it could easily ignite new hostilities between forces is the epitome of stupidity, and not conducive to the greater good.

Not attacking the fiend when it could telepathically spy on the general, charm both the general and the paladin, toss in some suggestions regarding troop positions and numbers, and that would not be conducive to the greater good of the paladin and his general. The evil general would know that the other general would not accept a telepath with innate charming abilities into the meeting as an 'advisor'. He would also likely know the good general was bringing a paladin along and that the two would fight and thus he could claim foul play when that is what he intended all along.

This is nonsense. Anyone participating in a meeting under truce is expected to honor that truce. Anyone serving in a military capacity is expected to follow orders. The actions of a subordinate are the responsibility of a leader.

Except when charming telepaths are involved. That right there would be considered 'cheating' and a violation of the truce. The paladin would also be responsible for his general's safety, and in the case of a telepath charmer, the safety of his army as well since that information could be telepathically 'overheard' or charmed out of the general. So, in that situation, the paladin would be watching out for his general and the army by striking down the Erinyes.

So it's okay to fight deceptively as long as you come out ahead? Yeah, that's real paladin-like.

Never said that. But if the enemy is going to pull a stunt like bringing the Erinyes, then the good general has every right to have his paladin Smite the hell out of her! No Erinyes (or fiend of any sort) and no Smiting. Don't act so surprised either. The first thing the paladin is going to think is "Erinyes! She's either going to charm the general, plant a suggestion or take his information right out of his head! No way!"

If the entire party makes an agreement, and it's obvious that everyone--on both sides--thinks that the agreement includes the paladin, it's his duty to make any objection clear at the time. Waiting until later and then springing the "Well, I didn't really agree" defense is, again, dishonorable and unworthy of anyone claiming the title of paladin.

True. And that may have been what the player said. But according to actual in-game events, the paladin dispatched the imp after the conditions of the truce were fulfilled and there was no mention of safe passage from either side, so he wasn't in the wrong.

 

[Hypersmurf]

None of this is appropriate to a paladin.

Something about D&D that I really, really believe is that its paramount, when someone expresses an interest in playing a paladin, for the DM and the player to have some serious discussions about how they view the class. Because different people can have such different ideas about paladins.

Sometimes, the player can adapt to the DM's view. Sometimes, the DM might be able to accommodate the player. Perhaps there can be compromise, or revelation.

And sometimes, it's just not a good idea for a particular player to try to run a paladin under a particular DM, because they'll never mesh.

I had a DM tell me once "No, you can't multiclass paladin and rogue, because rogues are thieves!" I elected not to try a paladin under that DM.

I think it would be futile for me to play a paladin in Hawken's game, and I'd discourage him from running one in mine, 'cos I just don't think we could make it work.

-Hyp.

 

[eamon]

Clearly, there are many different interpretations of what it means to be a paladin - and there's nothing weird or wrong about that. I'd ask the player whether his actions fit in his code of conduct (and since he'll say yes)... then ask him to rationalize his actions. I think it's perfectly possible to play a "viscous", gritty paladin that makes agreements only to respect no more than their letter, but on the other hand to help the downtrodden, and it's also possible to imagine a paladin that makes agreements in good faith and then respects their spirit even if doing so has evil consequences. And as long as there's some code of conduct, some deity to whom that code of conduct seems reasonable, it's no more than decent role-playing flexibility.

You can enmesh the player into your campaign by for example letting him flesh out the deity in question, complete with a typical church or shrine and a typical symbol (if that's the kind of thing the player would enjoy). Apparently the DM hasn't considered what his campaign's paladin's should be like - and since he hasn't considered it, it certainly wasn't told to the player, and given the vagueness and "deity-specificness" of a code of conduct in the first place, I wouldn't penalize the player, unless the code of conduct as they imagine it is violated.

The issue of weaseling out of an agreement by considering it not "his" agreement is quite serious though. What was the level of the paladin's involvement - was he unaware that an agreement had been made at all? Was he aware that his party members had agreed something with someone invisible but didn't know the details? Was he out of ear-shot while the agreement was made but afterwards well-informed? Was he within earshot, but distracted and in that sense unaware? Was he aware but passive?

I'd say, let the player make his own noose now by defining his code of conduct now, and use it to hang him later should he behave inconsistently, rather than potentially irritating the player by interpreting the code of conduct very onerously. It can't harm to have him clarify his code of conduct anyhow...

 

[eamon]

Something about D&D that I really, really believe is that its paramount, when someone expresses an interest in playing a paladin, for the DM and the player to have some serious discussions about how they view the class. Because different people can have such different ideas about paladins.

Sometimes, the player can adapt to the DM's view. Sometimes, the DM might be able to accommodate the player. Perhaps there can be compromise, or revelation.

And sometimes, it's just not a good idea for a particular player to try to run a paladin under a particular DM, because they'll never mesh.

Exactly ;-)

 

[Arkhandus]

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?

The imp purposely remained invisible while making the deal with them. The party was quite clearly a group of humans, some heavily armed. The paladin may or may not have also been wearing the symbols of his patron deity, if any. If the imp had been visible and in its normal form when making the deal, it would not have been deceptive in the dealing process.

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.

Acting with honor does not necessarily require him to fulfill deals that were made under false pretenses; acting with honor would not have required him to fulfill the deal if it had, in fact, turned out to be the McGuffin of Ultimate Doom that the stranger was seeking, because he was tricked into agreeing to the deal; had he known the invisible fellow was an imp, he would never had agreed to it.

Instead he was lead to believe that the invisible foe was merely some stranger who needed to recover an item in yonder building, and wanted to work together with the adventurers for a while until finding it, so as to make things easier on them all. He was never given any reason to believe it would be against his code to go along with the agreement, other than the fact that the stranger was apparently shy or kind of suspicious since they remained invisible as long as possible.

Someone who is dishonest in making a deal, and knows that honesty would most likely result in the other party not agreeing to it (as an imp would expect most mortals to reject cooperation with a fiend like him, at least at first), is not making the deal honorably while the other party is making the deal in good faith, not expecting such a significantly important deception. The imp didn't make the deal in good faith, it made the deal expecting, as a devil would, that everyone in the party would just have to go along with it after they agreed to it, and that they would have to follow through on the agreement just because it's the 'honorable' thing to do, and devils live to bend deals and twist honor around their pinky fingers.

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.

Note the exception "(except when they would use that help for evil)." Which you left out for some reason. A paladin will not help anyone when it is only going to perpetuate more evil or be abused, which helping the imp would cause. Fiends are evil incarnate. Their only goals are to commit evil acts and further their own personal power, so they can do more evil to their 'lessers'.

There can be no doubt in a paladin's mind that, whatever a fiend wants something for, their ultimate purpose for it is to use it for evil, or to use it to get something else that they can use to evil ends, or to use it to get out of a contract of theirs so they can get on with doing evil things for their own pleasure.

And the paladin is very clearly unable to help evil, commit any evil acts, or continue associating with evil creatures after learning that they are evil. The revelation of the imp's true form certainly prevents the paladin from working with him any longer. And he can almost certainly expect that whatever the imp wants the item for, it is intending to use that item for evil somehow, and paladins are not required to give aid when it would be used for evil, so he is not required to work with the imp at that point. And I think that is listed before 'act with honor' in the description so it may take precedence.

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

Sure, but the agreement may've been voided by the false pretenses it was made under, and the knowledge by the fiend that a paladin (or good cleric, to a less certain extent) would never agree to work with a fiend. We don't know if the imp was sure he was a paladin or cleric beforehand, but the imp did feel a need to stay invisible while making the deal, as lawful evil always believes in the letter of the law and the exact wording of an agreement, never the spirit of the law or the spirit of the deal, only its exact wording and how they can twist it.

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'.

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.

No, the paladin would definitely be violating his code if he fulfilled the agreement after learning the imp's true form. He is absolutely, spelled-out in the rules, not allowed to continue association with evil creatures. He is also not required to give help when it would be used for evil. I believe these trump the supposed honor of the deal that was made under false pretenses. Honor does not demand that he fall on his own sword. And fulfilling the agreement while letting the fiend go would have cost him his paladin powers without any shadow of a doubt.

But considering the verbal agreement to be null and void by the fiend's deceptions and its true nature, then smiting the imp, is less certainly a violation. The paladin is avenging the slight to his honor, from the imp trying to make him violate his oaths to never do evil and never willingly aid evil. I mention the imp's true nature only because the fact that it is a fiend makes it fairly obvious to the paladin that, whatever it made them agree to, it will be used to help the imp do evil.

If it were an evil human it would be less clear, but we don't know if he would've attacked them as suddenly if it were a human; he may've challenged him more formally in that case or demanded that the evil human leave the place immediately, without its item, lest he be forced to smite the evil-doer for trying to turn the paladin's oaths against him.


Anyway, I do agree about not smiting stuff just because it's evil, but in this case we are talking about a fiend, and one who deceived the paladin to begin with, and was trying to get him to help with a task that probably had some evil purpose to it. As a fiend it is already a corrupt, damned soul that has gone to the Lower Planes for its sins, and been twisted into an even-more-evil creature, that exists only to perpetuate further evil.

 

[Arkhandus]

When you reach the site of the parlay, you discover that the opposing general has chosen, as his associate, an Erinyes.

Do you, as a Paladin, have a right to break the truce your general agreed to and smite the devil? After all, you weren't informed beforehand that he'd be bringing a fiend to the meeting. If you do so, does this mean the entire truce is void, and you are no longer obliged to honour the opposing general's safe conduct either?

No. You haven't made any agreement with the other general, but you do owe it to your own general to keep your word and honor the truce for now. You are to wait until the truce has ended or been violated by the enemy before you can smite the fiend.

You are not to associate with the Erinyes. You must back out of the parlay, and will probably request that your general follow you for his own safety, as your oaths do not permit you to deal with the opposing general's fiendish ally. You would probably ask that the other general send his associate back to his camp as you head back to yours, to maintain a fair parlay and facillitate a reasonable deal.

If the other general refuses, you will have to either move back enough to be left out of the parlay, or go back to the camp, or bring your general back to the camp with you for the sake of his own safety (rather than leaving him there by himself, completely vulnerable to the Erinyes and opposing general; it would be dishonorable to leave the general there alone). Alternatively, you may request that the parlay be held off a short time longer, until another ally of yours could replace you at the general's side as his associate in the meeting.

Do you, as a Paladin, have a duty to break the truce your general agreed to and smite the devil?

Do you, as a Paladin, have a responsibility to withdraw from the negotiations, so as not to 'willingly associate with an evil creature'?

-Hyp.

Nope. Unlike the example of the OP's, this is not a case of the paladin himself making an agreement with an individual that he does not know and who is intent on deceiving him. This is a case of the paladin making an agreement with his own military superior. Which he can honorably ignore by having a different soldier replace him at the parlay, since his first loyalty is to his oaths as a paladin, which deny him the leeway to attempt parlay with this fiend that the opposing general has brought along. His general would have to understand, having brought a paladin along, that the paladin would have to act as though he has a 10-foot-pole up his rear.

 

[Arkhandus]

How was the imp supposed to know he was a paladin?

-Hyp.

Besides any obvious markings of devotion to Heironeous or St. Cuthbert or other such possible clues, I direct you to this, emphasis mine......

Spell-Like Abilities
At will—detect good, detect magic, invisibility (self only); 1/day—suggestion (DC 15). Caster level 6th. The save DC is Charisma-based.

Once per week an imp can use commune to ask six questions. The ability otherwise works as the spell (caster level 12th).

Also, a 6th-level paladin's aura under Detect Good would be a 'strong' aura of Good.

 

[Arkhandus]

Something about D&D that I really, really believe is that its paramount, when someone expresses an interest in playing a paladin, for the DM and the player to have some serious discussions about how they view the class. Because different people can have such different ideas about paladins.

Sometimes, the player can adapt to the DM's view. Sometimes, the DM might be able to accommodate the player. Perhaps there can be compromise, or revelation.

And sometimes, it's just not a good idea for a particular player to try to run a paladin under a particular DM, because they'll never mesh.

Agreed.