Paladin Actions - Appropriate?

[RigaMortus2]

Cool. Well, if you ever find yourself in north central PA, look me up!

I don't know my geography, is that anywhere near Philly per chance?

 

[RigaMortus2]

Very unlikely. Seeking out the item wouldn't be assisting in battle.

The OP never said he assisted them in battle. He said during combat the imp assisted the party. Assisted doing what? Fighting? Healing? Distracting? Searching? The OP never specifies, so why do we automatically assume out of all those options it was "fighting"? Also, just because he assisted DURING combat doesn't mean he assisted them by DOING combat. You are simply assuming the only assisting the Imp did was attacking, which in turn made him visible. I don't think you can assume this w/o more info from the OP.

It would not help the party win, help them escape, nor help them survive.

Since we don't know what the OP meant by "assisted the party", none of those are relevant until the OP gives us more info.

It would only save them time after the battle, while leaving them to deal with the danger by themselves.

It may not have been an effective tactic, but it is assisting (in finding the items).

Making noise is unlikely to work, especially not for more than 1 round.

Maybe if you were DM it wouldn't work. You can't say this for sure, since you were not there. What do you think the spell Ghost Sounds is for? An invisible Imp can be just as effective.

Very much not helpful if the opponents have been inside that building for a while and know that there's no one behind them in the house that would be interfering.

And how exactly would they "KNOW" this? This is a world with magic after all. They may feel safe in their house, but once the party busts in and starts swinging, you have to be prepared for anything. Was there a back door? Did someone sneak in? Is it someone invisible? Someone that can dimension door inside? Someone who can walk through walls? The enemies would have no idea, and they would be wise to send at least 1 person to check it out so they don't get jumped from behind.

Likely to be brushed off as a mage trying to fool them with pathetic illusions or something.

Possibly. But possibly not. If the DM ran the encounter intelligently, and this example had occured, the smart thing to do would be to make sure no one is sneaking up from behind by sending 1 or more people to check it out while the others continue to deal with the PCs.

Moving objects is going to be of limited usefulness, and Imps aren't terribly large or strong. And unlikely to be of much use, at most delaying an opponent for a round.

True. But it is a form of assisting, if even to stop an opponent for 1 more round.

And it depends on what's in the room to begin with. Very unlikely.

I am glad you were there to explain this to the rest of us. I suppose I will just counter with "very likely"?

I would very much doubt an imp to waste a healing potion on a mortal, let alone be carrying one himself to begin with, given his own fiendish defenses and Fast Healing.

*sigh* I have to explain this one to? Have you ever had a party member drop during combat before? Have you ever had to rummage through his items to find a healing potion and force feed him it (full round action, there ARE rules for his in the PHB)? I was not suggesting an Imp would use (let along carry) his own healing potion on the mortals. But if one dropped and the Imp was near by and he really needed the party to get the item, he very well might search the fallen party member for a healing potion and force feed him. You make this sound like it is uncommon or unheard of...

Your alternatives are weak, poor choices for assisting in the battle, and seem more like grasping at straws.

Your assumptions are weak as well. You weren't there but argue as if you were. You pull way too many assumptions out of very little info given to us by the OP. You seem to think the word "assist" is synonomous with "attack" lol.

None would have bought the party more than 1 round of time to finish dealing with a single foe before another gets into melee, rather than just shooting or zapping them if possible.

So what? Assisting is assisting. It doesn't have to be 100% effective. And it certainly doesn't have to deal damage like you seem to think it does. Perhaps the OP will chime in and explain that the Imp turned visible in the middle of combat when he cast a spell and blah blah blah. That would be great and clear a lot of things up.

And none of them would be very assist-ingly useful.

Sometimes it is the intent. A creative player or DM would have made them useful. From reading your responses, I can see how you might not think they are.

It would certainly be a weak, pathetic effort on the Imp's part to fulfill his end of the bargain, not likely to convince the PC adventurers that it really did intend to fulfill the bargain, rather than just use them to do all the fighting for it and help it out, rather than a mutual partnership.

What would be "a weak, pathetic effort"? Doing something during combat that didn't involve an attack roll or damage? Assisting the party in other ways that didn't involve an attack roll or damage? Surely for some people who think D&D is all hack n slash and can't be creative, I can see that being weak and pathetic. For most people I know, not only can it be fun for the DM and the players, it can be effective and memorable.

And you're still ignoring that it was apparently invisible until after the battle, or until the battle had started. Before then it was invisibly searching other parts of the house for its desired item, as the OP described it.

See, here's the thing. It matters (for the Paladin) if the Imp was visible during combat or after it. If the Imp did something that turned himself visible during combat, the Paladin should have did something about it right away ("You made a deal with that thing!?"). Called the deal off before it was fulfilled. But waiting until after the combat, after both parties got what they wanted, then killing the Imp, is certainly not a Lawful Good act IMHO.

Like others have said, there are no hard fast rules in regards to Paladins (or alignments for that matter). Each campaign will treat them differently. Every person (player and DM) will have their own views on it. All we can do is give advice on how we would handle it. Just form what I've read, I think you handle Paladins very one-dimensionally. I think there is more to a Paladin then smite first and ask questions later. Or smite with extreme prejudice. Oh well, to each his own, right?

 

[RigaMortus2]

Perhaps now would be a good time to bring up this... This is taken from the LotR RPG. I often use it for when I design and play a "heroic" character. I especially try to follow this anytime I play a Paladin. While it doesn't directly relate to D&D (or D&D Paladins), it is something I always liked and tried to play my characters buy. Just thought I would share

The Qualities of Heroes​

Compassion

Deep in his heart there was something that restrained him: he could not strike this thing lying in the dust, forlorn, ruinous, utterly wretched.
- The Return of the King

Heroes share the feelings of others, and they have pity on even the most wicked and wretched of creatures, such as Gollum. They do not wantonly slaughter their enemies, even when it might be prudent, for to do so would violate the hero’s code. Both Gandalf and Frodo spare Saruman, and though much evil might have been averted had they not, in the end both still recognize that their decision was the right one.

Responsible Free Will

Were you ten times as wise you would have no right to rule me and mine for your own profit as you desired.
- Theoden, The Two Towers

Free will is one of the most important concepts. Everyone has a choice to do good or evil, and heroes choose the good. To exert control over the will of another is one of the ultimate evils, and heroes reject it utterly, knowing that true wisdom lies in allowing each person to pick his own path.

Generosity

Then I say to you, Gimli son of Gloin, that your hands shall flow with gold, and yet over you gold shall have no dominion.
- Galadriel, The Fellowship of the Ring

Heroes give generously, both of themselves and of their goods, as need warrants. For example, Theoden gives Shadowfax to Gandalf, prized though the great horse is, because Gandalf deserves him, needs him, and has developed a bond of friendship with him. Heroes often acquire riches and glory during their lives, but obtaining them is not their main motivation. Those who are evil and cowardly are grasping, greedy, and grudging, often seeking gold for gold’s sake alone.

Honesty and Fairness
I would not snare even an orc with a falsehood.
- Faramir, The Two Towers

Heroes deal with other folk honestly and fairly at all times. Though they may, like Gandalf, not reveal all they know, simply to satisfy the curiosity of others, a true hero neither avoids nor skirts the truth when the proper time comes.

Honor and Nobility

We are truth-speakers, we men of Gondor. We boast seldom, and then perform, or die in the attempt.
- Faramir, The Two Towers

From the highest lord of Gondor, to the lowliest Hobbit of the Shire, true heroes always display the classic qualities of nobility and honor. They abide by their word, treat others fairly and with the respect due them - regardless of station - and have that graciousness of spirit which marks the true noble.

Restraint

Legolas is right,” said Aragorn quietly. “We may not shoot an old man so, at unawares and unchallenged, whatever fear or doubt be on us.
- The Two Towers

This point was touched on earlier, but it bears repeating: Heroes are not indiscriminate killers hacking down anyone who angers or threatens them, or spilling blood needlessly. They kill in battle and often accomplish great feats of arms, but that is a different thing that ruthlessly butchering anyone and anything that happens to cross their paths. They exercise restraint, slaying their foes only when they absolutely must.

Self-sacrifice

It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.
- Frodo, The Return of the King

Perhaps most importantly of all, heroes are self-sacrificing. They give of themselves, even unto death, to keep the world safe from evil. Frodo, a powerless Hobbit, willing walks into Mordor on a seemingly hopeless errand because it’s the right thing to do for the greater good. Aragorn puts off his own happiness for decades to help save the Free Peoples from the Shadow. Boromir sacrifices his own life to atone for his misdeeds and save two hobbits. These heroes care not for reward or glory. The accomplishment of the quest is reward enough.

Valor

By our valor the wild folk of the East are still restrained, and the terror of Morgul kept at bay.
- Boromir, The Fellowship of the Ring

Heroes possess great valor. They are brave, with the strength of will and spirit to meet fearsome servants of evil and stand against them. They do not shrink from danger, though it threatens their very lives.

Wisdom

For even the very wise cannot see all ends.
- Gandalf, The Fellowship of the Ring

Heroes possess wisdom and insight. They understand their own limitations and can judge the value and truth of things fairly, rather than through the lens of their own self-interest or foolish desires. They realize, for example, that they dare not use the Ring against Sauron, though its power might allow them to defeat him.

 

[Beckett]

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.

Yup. That's the one I was most conflicted on. I've inadvertently accepted aid from a soulless fiend from hell (or not so inadvertently- perhaps the party should ask more questions of overly helpful invisible strangers), and now I'm supposed to help him find something which will no doubt further the goals of his evil masters. I don't like backing out on a deal, but I also don't want to help an evil being.

 

[FireLance]

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..."

From a more generous perspective, it could also be, "Oops, I didn't realize it at the time, but it would be Evil to fulfil my side of the bargain..." If a paladin was put in a situation where it would be Lawful (but Evil) for him to fulfil a contract, and Good (but Chaotic) for him to breach it, the Good option at least allows him to retain his class abilities.

This is the D&D Rules forum, but let's muddy the waters a bit with some real-world contract law. The relevant principles here would be that of mistake:

In contract law a mistake is an erroneous belief, at contracting, that certain facts are true. It may be used as grounds to invalidate the agreement. Common law has identified three different types of mistake in contract: unilateral mistake, mutual mistake, and common mistake.

In this case, it would be a unilateral mistake, specifically, a mistake of identity. The general principles are:

A unilateral mistake is where only one party to a contract is mistaken as to the terms or subject-matter. The courts will uphold such a contract unless it was determined that the non-mistaken party was aware of the mistake and tried to take advantage of the mistake.

...

It is also possible for a contract to be void if there was a mistake in the identity of the contracting party. In the leading English case of Lewis v Avery [1971] ... Lord Denning held that the contract can be avoided only if the plaintiff can show, that at the time of agreement, the plaintiff believed the other party's identity was of vital importance. A mere mistaken belief as to the credibility of the other party is not sufficient.

Of course, in the real world, mistake of identity cases tend to arise because one party is believed to be a specific person when in fact, he is not. This case presents a rather interesting reversal: the imp is assumed not to be a specific type of creature (an evil outsider) when in fact, he is.

So, in analyzing this specific case, the first question we should ask is, was the imp aware that the party did not know he was an evil outsider, and did he try to take advantage of this fact? In the absence of any additional information, the fact that he was invisible at the time that the bargain was made is a strike against him as it is an indication that he was concealing something.

The next question is, would the fact that the imp was an evil outsider be of "vital importance" to the paladin? Again, in the absence of any additional information, I would say that paladins in general would avoid striking any deals with evil outsiders since it is reasonable to assume that whatever they want will further the cause of Evil in some way.

Now assuming the deal is struck, and the identity of the imp is revealed, would the paladin still be bound by the deal? Once more, in the absence of any additional information, I believe that a Lawful Good legal system (one that aims to deliver not just law, but justice) would have something similar to the above-mentioned principles that would allow for the non-fulfilment of bargains that would result in evil.

That said, the paladin is not entirely blameless. The fact that the imp was invisible should have made him suspicious. Although it is not clear from the OP whether he attempted to detect evil or otherwise determine the imp's true nature, the fact that went along with the deal in the first place (or appeared to) was unwise, to say the least.

Next: A question of honor.

 

[FireLance]

A single-classed paladin, a multi-classed knight/paladin and a multi-classed rogue/paladin walk into a tavern temple filled with evil cultists. Actually, only the paladin walks. The knight/paladin stands in the courtyard of the temple, challenging all the cultists within to come out and meet him in honorable combat. The rogue/paladin takes advantage of the distraction provided by the knight/paladin to sneak into the temple and creep into the high priest's room, where he finds the high priest (amazingly) still asleep.

Our rogue/paladin is bound by the paladin code, but not the knight's code. He has no problems with attacking flanked or flat-footed opponents, otherwise he wouldn't be able to use his sneak attack ability at all. The interesting question is, what does the paladin's code allow him to do to a helpless opponent? Of course, he can capture the high priest by dealing nonlethal damage, or he can demand his surrender, but let's say that for some reason, he has been ordered by legitimate authority to slay him. Can he coup de grace the sleeping high priest? Can he shout loudly enough to wake him up, but attack while he is flat-footed? Does he have to allow the high priest to arm himself? Does he have to allow the high priest to arm himself with his best weapon and armor, or can he just toss him a dagger? Would it make any difference if the high priest was 4 levels higher or lower than the rogue/paladin?

Now let's say it was the rogue/paladin that discovered he had made a deal with an imp. Assuming he has standing orders to destroy any evil outsider he encounters, how much warning should he give the imp before he breaks the truce? No warning at all, in an attempt to surprise and sneak attack the imp? A shouted warning, giving the imp the chance to win initiative and avoid the sneak attack? One round to flee or prepare to fight? One minute? One hour? One day? Would it make any difference if it was not an imp, but a more powerful devil? Would you take the relative power of the rogue/paladin and the imp into account?

I guess what I'm trying to illustrate with these examples is that the line between "honorable" and "dishonorable" is sometimes difficult to draw. What one person may consider acceptable, another may consider dishonorable. What one person considers to be the minimum requirements for honor, another may consider foolish. I, personally, enjoy playing extremely honorable paladins, but I don't believe that all paladins needs to be played that way.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The knight/paladin stands in the courtyard of the temple, challenging all the cultists within to come out and meet him in honorable combat.

I nearly had this happen, pretty much, in the first 3E game I DMed.

Kobold cavern complex. Guardpost in the entrance cave - three kobolds with a signal gong to alert the rest of the tribe.

The ranger and rogue managed to sneak to the cave entrance, and took out the three guards. (Our first ever attack of opportunity was provoked by the last kobold trying to run past the ranger to get to the gong.)

The ranger and rogue beckoned the rest of the party into the entrance cavern. The paladin spied the gong.

"Ah!" he said, picking up the striker. "Convenient!"

From memory, it was the cleric who got in the first tackle...

As far as the priest goes, I don't think the paladin's code forbids slaying a sleeping enemy... if you can time your attack on the giants' lair for when most of the giants are asleep and the sentry is dozey, that's good planning. On the other hand, if you had arranged a single combat with the priest for next Wednesday, assassinating him on Saturday feels iffy.

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

It wasn't pre-emptive treachery. It was smiting a fiend, that very much needed to die.

And this is based on what?

A fiend can have any alignment, it will always show up as "evil" due to its subtype that normally can't be lost though - so a paladin's smite evil will work. But it could be non-evilly aligned which causes a quandry.

There has been nothing to indicate that the imp acted "evilly" so it could have been struggling with its "true nature". If the imp had been "assisting" the party previously and had nothing "to harm" them, then it is logical that the paladin could be under the assumption that the imp was not totally evil. Now if the paadin attacks an imp that he firsts meets without any sort of previous indication of its dispostion and behaviour that is a different story. To me it is logical for a paladin to assume a fiend is evil unless there are indictations to the contrary (which there could have been in this scenario).

 

[Arkhandus]

Bah. I will not continue to repeat the same arguments I have already made. I have presented very thorough descriptions and reasoning, that seems to be completely ignored except for the few individual lines that you can take and comment on as though they were made in a void and as though they had no relevance, and treating them as though they are the major points of my argument.

I won't waste any more time on this when it is obviously being brushed off by people who cannot be bothered to put up a well-reasoned response beyond "well it's not that way in my campaigns, and don't you know that fiends are actually no different from ordinary, evil mortals?"

If no one is going to accept the default D&D version of fiends as valid or relevant to the discussion, then screw it. I'm not going to waste more time arguing that it is. Heaven forbid I try to get a logical response rather than straw men and red herrings. I can't help it if I'm not perfect at explaining things in words.

 

[Hawken]

Bah.

I couldn't agree with you more.

You can't apply your own morals and ethics to even other cultures without causing problems. Muchless an entirely different species. Muchless irredeemably corrupt fiends that spend eternity tormenting souls.

If some people think its wrong to whack an imp just because it hasn't done anything wrong that they witnessed, more luck to 'em! They'll be the ones wishing for a paladin to come in with a Smite when their morality gets shoved right back up their backside by a stronger, meaner fiend that they tried talking to first because it didn't attack them right away!

If a paladin doesn't whack an imp because he's got more pressing issues at hand, well, good for him; he knows how to prioritize threats! If he remains silent while his group bargains with an imp that is because he is already planning on dealing with the issue and how to do so best without endangering his companions. Silence does not equal compliance.

Wisely, the paladin did best by remaining silent until it was the correct time to act. There was nothing deceptive, chaotic, non-good or even remotely wrong with his actions. The only explanations a paladin owes are to his deity, not to his friends, or even his church or government, but to the one that supplies his power and directs him. Whether he knew of the agreement or not, he did not have to contribute to the discussion and didn't owe his friends any reason or insight for his silence or apparent compliance.

If the terms of the group's agreement with the imp come to an end simultaneously with the end of the danger greater than that posed by the imp, then the paladin has the satisfaction of Smiting the imp and at the same time sparing/saving the consciences of his companions by not having Smitten the imp until the terms of their agreement with the imp (and thus any truce) had come to an end so they would not have to worry/dread about any unfulfilled bargains with fiends.

Whether the player intended his actions that way or not, it all worked out quite well with the paladin's actions despite calls for penance or power loss. Paladins are not bodyguards. They don't wait for bad things to happen. They go out and bring the Good right to the Bad guys' front door! They should be cheered for taking the initiative, not reprimanded or punished because others do not share their holy mandate or their great desire to see evil purged from the world.