Paladin Actions - Appropriate?

[Arkhandus]

It wasn't pre-emptive treachery. It was smiting a fiend, that very much needed to die. Especially for deceiving the paladin and trying to make him break his Code and fall from grace. The loose agreement that the paladin was partially involved in was invalidated when it proved to be a violation and slight against his honor as a paladin. At the very most he could have waited until the rest of the party finished helping the fiend, but he could not have continued going with them during that time. Then he would have had to slay the imp afterwards for its dishonor against him.

 

[billd91]

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.

Which just goes to show you, the impartial observer, not having full information, can be wrong in his observations. First impressions are not always the correct ones upon which to make your judgements.

 

[billd91]

I'm not going to guarantee the imp had no scheme up its sleeve. But a paladin shouldn't be engaging in preemptive treachery on a maybe.

-Hyp.

I'm going to say it isn't treachery either. Whatever the agreement was before they got their mutual goals, new information has come to light. That new information changes the situation completely. The imp, evil personified, has no rights or value the paladin is bound to respect. In fact, it is one of the very targets the paladin is charged to eradicate when possible. The higher calling and the nature of the imp make any other consideration secondary at best.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Which just goes to show you, the impartial observer, not having full information, can be wrong in his observations. First impressions are not always the correct ones upon which to make your judgements.

I dunno. What happens if the paladin decides I need smiting as well? It sounds like he has carte blanche!

The imp, evil personified, has no rights or value the paladin is bound to respect.

So what's to stop the paladin promising anything he likes, knowing that the oaths have no force? Is the paladin free to lie to the imp without it being considered dishonorable conduct?

Hawken gave an example before of the paladin saying "Oh, you're hurt - here, let me lay on hands... HOLY AVENGER SNEAK ATTACK!" Is this all fine and honorable because of who the opponent is?

It wasn't pre-emptive treachery. It was smiting a fiend, that very much needed to die. Especially for deceiving the paladin and trying to make him break his Code and fall from grace.

It didn't deceive the paladin, or try to make him break his code, or try to make him fall from grace. It offered cooperation to find a couple of items, and gave that cooperation.

If anything (though there's no evidence the imp knew he was a paladin), staying invisible protected the paladin from breaking his code, since it prevented the paladin from knowingly associating with an evil creature.

Failing to disclose "By the way, I'm an imp" isn't the same as claiming to be otherwise.

-Hyp.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

If Good cannot smite evil fiends for being fiends, then your campaigns must truly be gloomy, doom-filled places, NonlethalForce.

I don't know what power you think you have to insult my campaigns, and I take offense at your pressuposition. I have been nothing but respectful of your ability to interpret the rules in your campaigns. At the very least, I expect the same in return, please.

Fiends certainly have no compunctions against slaying their enemies, and will easily overwhelm Good forces if every dang Good creature must avoid harming evil creatures, even fiends, except when absolutely, immediately, direly necessary at that very moment.

A few things. First of all, it's an imp. Dangerous, sure. But nothing to get this worked up over. If the paladin was powerful enough to smite/kill it in a single blow, I think the party was high enough level to not be in absolute mortal danger. In truth, I doubt they were in danger at all.

Also, killing something simply because "it might kill you without compunction" is not justified. It is killing. You may see that differently, and are welcome to do so. But just because an imp might kill my character does not give a paladin or any other good creature the right to kill it. As I said before, killing a fiend unprovoked at best makes a person a blood-spiller and at worst it makes a person travel the path to being a fiend themselves. What is the cliche? The road to [That really warm place] is paved with good intentions. Killing through assumption is just that: a good intention.

It's like Miko in OotS. Good intention, but making far too many assumptions on her deities' behalf.

D&D doesn't work that way. Fiends exist to be smited by paladins and celestials/angels. They are not composed of Raw Evil just so you can debate the morality of slaying creatures composed of Raw Primordial Cosmic Evil.

You're welcome to believe so in your campaigns. But my campaigns, which are supported by both the MotP and the BoED, are deeper than just fiend-killing. {No implication intended regarding the depth of your campaigns, FWIW} Fiends in my campaign do more than simply play the role of the BBEG. Please feel free to play it your way, but don't assume that your way is the absolute right way. MotP and BoED leaves plenty of room for my interpretation, like it or not.

 

[Beckett]

There is due to be a battle. You're a paladin, advisor and confidant of the general of your army. The general has reason to want the battle delayed a couple of days - perhaps reinforcements are en route, or preparations need to be made, or whatever. To this end, he has arranged a parlay with the opposition.

The two generals will meet under a flag of truce to discuss matters. Each general may bring one associate. Your general chooses you.

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?

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.

Must be a Monday- I'm taking part in a paladin-alignment thread.

With the OP Imp problem, I think it's important to know when the party discovered their invisible friend was an imp. Before either item was found? I think the paladin should drop out of the agreement then, refusing the imp's help and refusing to help the imp (and if the only way to get the item his party needs is with the imp's help, I'd be tempted to call the DM a jerk). I don't think the paladin has to attack the imp right then and there, but he might to prevent it from achieving its evil goal.

Find out after the imp has his item? In that case, the paladin has been duped into aiding a devil in some evil goal (taking it as granted that whatever an imp does has some evil purpose). I'd say the paladin would be justified in attacking the imp in an effort to make up for the evil he's helped.

Find out after the party has found their item, but before the imp has found its? I'd say the paladin should call off the deal, and probably attempt to stop the imp from achieving its goal. Attacking might be a little extreme, but warning the devil to leave and not come back seems appropriate.

Each of these should be accompanied by some cleansing and prayer by the paladin.

As for Hyp's army example, I think the proper thing to do is to suck it up. The enemy general bringing along an erinyes is pretty insulting, but attacking her under a flag of truce is chaotic and stupid. The greater good will be served by holding your tongue and keeping your sword sheathed. You'll get your chance at the erinyes once reinforcements have arrived (or whatever you're waiting for). And no, I would not consider this associating with an evil creature in any way significant to strip a paladin of his powers.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As I said before, killing a fiend unprovoked at best makes a person a blood-spiller and at worst it makes a person travel the path to being a fiend themselves.

Under ordinary circumstances, I don't have an issue with a paladin attacking a fiend.

But I don't consider it an evil act for him to refrain from doing so, if there are countervailing reasons.

However, I do consider it a dishonorable act for him to break a truce.

So from my point of view:

Encounter in a dungeon with a wandering imp? Attacking: not an evil act, and justifiable. Not attacking: not an evil act, and not an immediate violation of the code unless there are innocents in danger.

He can go either way.

The described situation, however? Not attacking: not an evil act, nor a violation of the code, and in keeping with the agreement. Attacking: not an evil act, but a dishonorable one in its breaking of a truce, and therefore a violation of the code.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As for Hyp's army example, I think the proper thing to do is to suck it up. The enemy general bringing along an erinyes is pretty insulting, but attacking her under a flag of truce is chaotic and stupid. The greater good will be served by holding your tongue and keeping your sword sheathed. You'll get your chance at the erinyes once reinforcements have arrived (or whatever you're waiting for). And no, I would not consider this associating with an evil creature in any way significant to strip a paladin of his powers.

See, that's how I'd expect a typical paladin to behave, and I wouldn't have an issue with your playing one if I were running that campaign.

Find out after the party has found their item, but before the imp has found its? I'd say the paladin should call off the deal, and probably attempt to stop the imp from achieving its goal.

That sounds a bit like Buyer's Remorse, to me. "I got what I wanted, but now I don't want to fulfil my side of the bargain..."

-Hyp.

 

[Fenris]

If Good cannot smite evil fiends for being fiends, then your campaigns must truly be gloomy, doom-filled places, NonlethalForce.

Yeah, and it's a great place to hang out. Personal experiance. The fight of good against evil is daunting, but not unachievable. But good can never waver in attaining it's goals through honor or it too will become part of the creeping evil.

Got your back NLF!

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Well, FWIW, I never said that the paladin would be committing an evil act. I did say he would be a blood-spiller in the best case scenario and on the path to darkness in the worst case scenario.

Blood-spiller can be interpreted negatively, but then again, most characters made are blood-spillers. That's what they do in D&D, most characters fight and slay things. Whether the spilled blood is justified or not, is situational.

Regarding the other extreme: On the path to being a fiend would be more dire. For a paladin that would be a first step of breaking their code and not seeking atonement. But attacking a random imp found in a dungeon wouldn't automatically be this extreme, of course!

However, I do understand your point. Most people hear the words "blood-spiller" and assume a negative context. But in D&D, it's really just saying that the character is normal.


As to the wandering monster slaying, to me it would be campaign dependant. In most campaigns I am involved in I personally would raise an eyebrow if anyone simply slays anything just for the sake of killing it. If the party is threatened or attacked, then of course they can respond!

I have run a few campaigns where the goal was to advance without ever killing a foe at all. But those campaigns are rare and I admit it.

EDIT:
[Sblock=For Fenris, Sblocked to avoid hijacking the thread]Long time no-see, Fenris! Totally an aside, of course, but good to see you around![/Sblock]