Paladin Actions - Appropriate?

[SlagMortar]

One more note that I think is important:
In my opinion, a fiend's only tangible, real world equivalent, would be something like a tornado, which as far as I know has no ecological (or any other kind) of benefits.
Killing a fiend would be equivalent to preventing tornados. Preventing tornados would always be a good thing. There's no reason to ever have a tornado and they kill people and damage things. Sometimes atmospheric conditions prevent tornados, though that does not make atmospheric conditions "good". However, someone who has the opportunity to prevent a tornado (kill a fiend) and does not has certainly forgone the opportunity to perform a good act, and may in fact have performed an evil act. The tornado (fiend) might not hurt anyone, but the tornado (fiend) is not going to do anything good so why not prevent it?

If you instead think of fiends as closer to real world people than to forces of nature, then I agree that killing them is not inherently good. However, as I said, I do not see fiends in D&D in that way.

 

[Mouseferatu]

If he instead chooses to have breakfast, this saves all those neighbours from annihilation and enslavement. Does that make having breakfast an act of good?

Best. Alignment argument. Ever.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The tornado (fiend) might not hurt anyone, but the tornado (fiend) is not going to do anything good so why not prevent it?

The imp in the given scenario assisted the party in a combat, which helped them to achieve their own objective. Doesn't this contradict "The fiend is not going to do anything good"?

The imp may have his own agenda, but his interests in this case lay in cooperation with the party. The imp carried out his side of the bargain - he helped the party find the object they sought. The party helped the imp in return... and then killed him.

If I were an impartial observer who also had to find something in there, and I was given a choice - would I like assistance from another imp, or from the PCs? - I think I'd pick the imp. He might be evil, but at least he doesn't have a track record of killing his allies afterwards.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Best. Alignment argument. Ever.

Last time it was lunch - the question was whether a paladin may elect to take an action that is not the most-good option available.

In this case, we had a hungry paladin sit down in a tavern for lunch. The (short) menu had two choices - beef, 2 silver; or chicken, 2 silver (4 copper from every chicken sold goes to the Widows and Orphans Fund!).

Does the paladin have the right to choose beef? Or is he required to order the chicken, since it supports the helpless?

I find food is crucial to a proper alignment debate

-Hyp.

 

[SlagMortar]

If I were an impartial observer who also had to find something in there, and I was given a choice - would I like assistance from another imp, or from the PCs? - I think I'd pick the imp. He might be evil, but at least he doesn't have a track record of killing his allies afterwards.

In an attempt to continue my example, I find this example analogous to:
A tornado is coming by and the druid could cast control winds to prevent it from harming the party. Instead, the party elects to let the tornado take its course hoping it will conveniently destroy the house and leave behind the item they are looking for. This scenario plays out and then the party has the option of stopping the tornado or allowing it to go free.

Just because they made the wrong decision the first time, does not mean it is right to make it the second time.

Edit: And I'm happy to drop the demons vs devils argument.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In an attempt to continue my example, I find this example analogous to:
A tornado is coming by and the druid could cast control winds to prevent it from harming the party. Instead, the party elects to let the tornado take its course hoping it will conveniently destroy the house and leave behind the item they are looking for. This scenario plays out and then the party has the option of stopping the tornado or allowing it to go free.

Just because they made the wrong decision the first time, does not mean it is right to make it the second time.

This is the tornado they made an agreement with that they then get the druid to destroy once they've got all they needed from it, right? The tornado's outlived its usefulness, so the spirit of the agreement is just a nuisance to be ignored?

-Hyp.

 

[SlagMortar]

This is the tornado they made an agreement with that they then get the druid to destroy once they've got all they needed from it, right?

You can't make an agreement with a tornado.

 

[IanB]

This is the tornado they made an agreement with that they then get the druid to destroy once they've got all they needed from it, right? The tornado's outlived its usefulness, so the spirit of the agreement is just a nuisance to be ignored?

-Hyp.

If the paladin had agreed to the deal (there is some question) and if he had known he was dealing with an imp (or, uh, a tornado disguised as a snow flurry) when he made the deal (no question about that) then I might agree with you - but at least one of these things is definitely not true and the other one may be as well.

 

[Arkhandus]

The imp in the given scenario assisted the party in a combat, which helped them to achieve their own objective. Doesn't this contradict "The fiend is not going to do anything good"?

The imp may have his own agenda, but his interests in this case lay in cooperation with the party.

No, the imp's interests lay in fulfilling his own agenda. The party of adventurers is just a handy tool he found to help him in that goal, and all he has to do is convince them that he's really there to help them 'so they can mutually accomplish their goals in the house'.

When the battle erupted, he chose to lend a bit of assistance to give credence to himself, and (try to) ensure that the adventurers would hold up their end of the bargain long enough for him to find the item he desired. His own life may have been somewhat on the line as well, but we don't know, and anyway a fiend will just re-form on its plane of origin if it dies elsewhere, so he wouldn't be too terribly concerned about that.

The fact that he may have incidentally helped the adventurers in the battle, is just a small nuisance that he has to bear for the sake of his greater scheme, and not so much helping the adventurers as it was helping himself to achieve his goals; which the adventurers were a handy tool to use toward that end, doing most of the risky fighting and legwork for him, so he doesn't lose valuable time with re-forming his body in Ba'ator.

Once he had item he sought, the imp would have considered the agreement fulfilled, and himself now free to sabotage the mortals' efforts if he could find a suitable opportunity to do so, unless his fiendish master required him to return post-haste with the McGuffin. If he could draw the adventurers a little closer to evil somehow, or into another deal with him, all the better.

The imp carried out his side of the bargain - he helped the party find the object they sought. The party helped the imp in return... and then killed him.

If I were an impartial observer who also had to find something in there, and I was given a choice - would I like assistance from another imp, or from the PCs? - I think I'd pick the imp. He might be evil, but at least he doesn't have a track record of killing his allies afterwards.

-Hyp.

Of course, the party was slaying a vile imp, who is evil incarnate and very tricky, deceptive evil at that, who lives only to make deals and twist them to acquire mortal souls for the Nine Hells. If the impartial observer were completely ignorant of fiends, which an imp very much looks like, then sure he might expect the imp to be less treacherous, but he'd be so very, very wrong. The one adventurer just turned on the deceptive imp before it could turn on them, most likely.

And the impartial observer would of course have to be ignorant of the fact that the imp has probably caused the deaths or damnation of numerous other mortals before and will continue to do so for the rest of its fiendish life.

Any average fellow, who knows that demons and devils are bad and often look something like that imp did, according to stories and what the Peloran preacher describes in his sermons, will be more wary of imps than of those humans who killed that one imp. He may not understand why that one adventurer killed the imp when he seemed to have been a part of the agreement between it and the other humans, but he'd guess that the imp must've tried to use some evil power on the human, or that the human just didn't think he could trust an imp once he saw the invisible creature's true form.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Invisible Stalker Diplomacy

You can't make an agreement with a tornado.

Are you sure about this? After all, we're talking about D&D.

-Samir