Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nonlethal Force" data-source="post: 3668661" data-attributes="member: 35788">I can find myself agreeing and disagreeing with these comments, totally depending upon the campaign.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.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. 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.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.</blockquote>

Verification