Paladin Actions - Appropriate?

[Arkhandus]

That being said, if he determined that the fiend actually WAS evil (thus making sure it's not just some shapeshifted orphan boy, ect ect), then he was fully within his rights and responsibilities to destroy said fiend. He might need to pray for a little more wisdom next time, for allowing himself to become allied to another being without checking the credentials first, but other than that, he's fine.

Fiends are inherantly evil. There is such a diminutive chance of one being a risen fiend, that there is no point trying to make sure that a fiend is really evil before attacking it; and anyway, a risen fiend would not have deceived them, and would have tried to convince them it was trying to repent. Of course, it would have likely flown away if the paladin tried to attack it then.

But no, it was evil, like 99.9999% of fiends, and avoided being honest with them in the first place. Therefore it deserved no mercy or hesitation on the paladin's part.


If it had been a shapchanged creature or something, it would have been more forthright rather than allowing them to see it as a fiend right after it had been invisible for so long. It would know that others would be likely to attack it on sight if it appeared as it did. And if it were an orphan boy or something, I hardly think it would be so deceptive to people who might help him regain his true form and stop looking like a monster. It also wouldn't have been able to help them in the battle, which the OP said it did.

Considering it didn't act like an innocent at any point, there was no reason to believe the suddenly-revealed fiend to actually be a decent, non-fiendish fellow in some unusual circumstances, let alone one of the practically-completely-unheard-of risen fiends.

And considering it managed to deceive them long enough and get them to agree to cooperate while it was invisible, it probably wasn't an idiot, so he couldn't just assume that it was a reasonably-decent fellow polymorphed into a fiend who was just too damn stupid to consider that revealing his fiendish appearance later would be much more dire for him, than trying to explain himself beforehand without staying invisible (after all, he could explain while invisible at first, then remove his invisibility to show that he does indeed look like an imp now, and please don't kill him....).

(I'm just trying to explain my position more thoroughly)

 

[Arkhandus]

If the others were upset about the paladin breaking their deal with the imp, that alone should be reason enough for the paladin to leave their company. Imps are known deal-makers (deal-breakers) and fiends/baatezu on top of that. They barter with souls and such and do so for all eternity. If anything, the other PCs should be grateful for the paladin 'removing' the imp from their deal--though they could find out consequences later on of having made a bargain with a devil...

Mostly agree with your stance. As for the deal, though, I don't think it matters at all in D&D unless they know it's a fiend to begin with, and sign a contract or otherwise seal the deal in an official, legally-binding manner. Baatezu can't lay any claim to their souls otherwise.

 

[Arkhandus]

You said the paladin attacked the imp after the fight. Was the sequence of events:
A) Fight ends. Imp is revealed. Paladin finds out the ally is an imp, which he attacks and kills.
or
B) Imp is revealed sometime prior to the fight, but the paladin decides to keep his mouth shut until the party fulfills their objectives, whereupon he attacks and kills the imp.

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

The party was looking for a specific item in a house (guarded by fighters and animals) and the invisible NPC was looking for something else in the house. The party is all human (again a surprising fact); one of the members is a paladin (and the only LG member of the party). The pally was involved when the party made the arrangement with the NPC. So, turns out the NPC was an imp that was invisible. During the combat the imp assisted the party

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. Being tactically wise enough, the paladin did not attack the imp in the midst of battle with other foes, since the imp was apparently not attacking him or his comrades yet. Instead he attacked it after the battle. This is fine and in accordance with Heironeous' dogma, at least.

It does seem that he waited briefly after the fight, probably considering whether or not it would be dishonorable to slay the fiend then and there after having been at least somewhat involved in the agreement to work with it (while it was still invisible). He did attack it before it could leave with the item it had come for, so no evil was done by his mistake in working together with the formerly-invisible creature.

Now it does seem that he made some poor decisions and was teetering on the brink of being either neglectful of some duties or dishonorable in some actions, but not definitely so, and thus should not be punished with anything more than a warning. A one-day loss of his powers would certainly give such a warning. I don't know if the paladin actually follows a deity or not though, so I'm not sure if he should be receiving a dream or something instead.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I can find myself agreeing and disagreeing with these comments, totally depending upon the campaign.

If you want to go strictly by the PHB, then:
--"respect legitimate authority": The paladin would be disrespecting the authority of his deity/church/gov't by honoring a bargain with an evil outsider. And to a paladin, no authority could be more legitimate or higher than the one that provides their powers; as such, the paladin would not have the authority to enter into any bargain with an evil outsider.

Totally depends on the deity being served. If the deity respected life above killing, a case could be made that the fiend should have been captured and given the chance to repent and become sanctified. If the deity sees all evil outsiders as hopeless and worthy only of target practice, then I agree with Hawken's comment. But just because the creature is an outsider does not automatically mean in all cases that it is going against the authority of one's church/deity to allow it to remain alive. Especially something like an imp, which could have been easily captured and given a fair chance to repent.

--"act with honor": There is no honor in continuing a bargain/association with a known evil outsider. Imps are legendary in their untrustworthiness and as such, the paladin had every right to conclude that the imp would have broken (not if) any agreement with their group at any moment that would have put it to greatest advantage or his friends at a time of harm or peril.

Again, depending upon the campaign. Some enemies are only capable fo being defeated by making temporary truces with its own enemies. I don't know why, but I am reminded of the old D&D cartoon where the party has to be at a truce with Venger to defeat Demodragon. Certain deities might even see honor in working with the powers of evil because it gives you a chance to demonstrate how good actually works, rather than just blindly killing because they're evil. Again, however, there are of course deities that would draw black and white lines and say that all evil outsiders should die and give their agents carte blanche. Totally depends on the deity being served as far as I am concerned. But I think there can be great honor in bargaining with evil so long as the people are not tempted into evil themselves. What better way to demonstrate how much better good is than evil than by accepting a potential vulnerability? Granted, not all the time, but I can see merit in it.

--"help those in need": His friends just made a bargain with a devil. There is rarely a time of greater need than that to a paladin. Not having acted would have risked the corruption of the souls of his friends if not directly placing their lives in danger. It is still a possibility that the imp could have placed a telepathic Suggestion on one of the PCs to do something nefarious later on--such as dispatch one or more other PCs next time they are on watch at camp.

I think this is a bit harsh, too. Personally, I think the imp was far more vulnerable than all of his friends. The imp could have easily been captured and brought to legitimate authorities and given a chance at sanctification rather than outright killed. After all, if the paladin was able to bring the imp down in one smite, I doubt the imp was a terrible threat to the party as a whole.

--"punish those who do harm or threaten innocents": The imp (and any evil outsider) fits this category with absolute certainty.

Perhaps, but the imp is just as much guilty of helping in the punishment of another evil-doer because it helped the party. I see just as much reason for leniency as smiting on this angle.



In the end, I still think the paladin was fine, and should be warned in a dream to be more careful. Depending on the deity and their thirst of violence, I could see the deity telling the paladin to consider less violent options with lesser evil outsiders - especially those that could be captured or incapacitated easily. I wouldn't penalize anyone here.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Smite or Spite?

Nobody knew it was an imp when they made the deal. He says he wasn't involved in the making of the deal.

So, the paladin schooled a servant of evil who had deliberately deceived the party. What's the problem?

I'm not so worked up about the attack, more that he totally blindsided the imp and the party with his action.

Start the Imp Preservation Assocation (IPA) and find less emo players.

-Samir

P.S. If you want to check out a thornier paladin scenario, click HERE.

-S.A.

 

[Hawken]

Totally depends on the deity being served.

Not really. In your case, a pacifist god would likely not have any paladin followers. Priests maybe but not holy soldiers out to rid the world of evil. Paladins are soldiers that get holy powers instead of feats. They are made for fighting evil, not sparing or converting it. If they get the chance to, yay!, bonus xp, but they are there to dispatch evil. It wasn't just an outsider but an evil one and a devil at that. Devil. Made from the stuff of Hell. Can't get much more evil than that. And any LG deity, even the peaceful ones, will think nothing of putting evil outsiders (or evil anything else) to the sword. And you're injecting your own 'what if' into this. Its not about 'what if's, its about hows and whys.

depending upon the campaign.

Well, that's the kind of campaign it was. The paladin took out an evil outsider, per his code of conduct and class description. Nothing at all wrong with that. If you're upset because the paladin didn't give warning, too bad. Warning would have given the imp time to escape, where he could have followed the party and killed them all in their sleep as they camped. Or it could have used Suggestion on someone to do the same thing. Or any other number of possibilities. Imps are lawful evil outsiders made of the stuff of Hell. There's no redeeming that and paladins aren't in the business of redemption. They are given the authority to carry out justice, the paladin did that in the way he saw best.

As for your working with evil comment, that doesn't slide for paladins (or anyone else with common sense). Paladins are not allowed to knowingly associate with evil. And anyone else stupid enough to make deals with devils (not necessarily pacts, but any kind of agreement) deserves exactly what they get from it.

I think the imp was far more vulnerable than all of his friends.

You would think that. That's what devils would want you to think. Especially one 'apparently' helpless or disadvantaged. But being able to communicate telepathically means he could 'hear' them thinking about attacking as easily as if they said it. Being able to turn invisible, shapechange and what else at will is hardly vulnerable including having a poisonous stinger and the ability to plant suggestions. Played deviously (which is how imps are), the imp could have killed at least 1 if not more of the party or gotten them into far worse trouble. Your inclination to mercy would have gotten the party killed or in a bigger mess than "Oh no! Our paladin killed an imp!" HP-wise, yeah, the imp wasn't a threat, but that's not what makes them dangerous anyway. So, your point there isn't even a valid one.

imp is just as much guilty of helping in the punishment of another evil-doer because it helped the party.

What? What does that mean? Leniency because it helped the party? That's lame. I'd have stripped the paladin of his powers permanently if he had let that imp get away! Your pacifist inclinations would make you a great player of some clerics but not any paladins. Imps are evil outsiders, they just don't do evil, they are evil.

I could see the deity telling the paladin to consider less violent options with lesser evil outsiders - especially those that could be captured or incapacitated easily.

Where are you getting this stuff? How could they easily capture a creature that can shapechange, turn invisible, fly and do all sorts of other things? And fewer HP doesn't make something less dangerous or less evil. Evil is evil, regardless of its hit points. By your own argument, a 20th level paladin should be just ignoring or knocking out any of Hell's inhabitants short of exceptional Pit Fiends and the nobles and rulers there.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Interesting question.

To me, "Ah, but I wasn't a party to the agreement, therefore I'm not bound by its terms!" is Lawful... but the sort of Lawful that devils are known for. So the Paladinbot-Sneak-Attack! should have felt familiar to the imp - he's probably weaseled out of any number of contracts over the centuries using similar loopholes - but he probably wasn't expecting it from a paladin.

See, the way I would have expected this to play out from a typical paladin's point of view would be a teeth-clenched statement that "I am bound by the terms of our agreement, but had I known your nature, I would not have agreed to a truce. So leave now, but be warned that the next time we meet" etc etc.

I don't feel that using a loophole to circumvent a truce falls under the umbrella of 'acting with honour'.

-Hyp.

 

[Patlin]

I think it's within the limits of acceptable paladin behavior, but that's because I don't like to straightjacket the class. A better response might have been something like this:

"You have the item you came for. Our agreement is concluded. Defend yourself, fiend!"

 

[Hypersmurf]

I think it's within the limits of acceptable paladin behavior, but that's because I don't like to straightjacket the class. A better response might have been something like this:

"You have the item you came for. Our agreement is concluded. Defend yourself, fiend!"

That just feels like villain behaviour to me.

When one person agrees that yes, the agreed objectives have been achieved, and the other laughs and presses the button that releases the cage from the ceiling and summons the horde of minions because he's no longer bound by their agreement to abstain from their long-standing feud, I'd have no hesitation in saying "That's the bad guy!" even if I'd skipped the first six chapters.

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.

-Hyp.

 

[KingCrab]

I don't know. Sometimes I think that pretty much just playing a paladin means you're asking for it to be taken away.

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.