Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dross" data-source="post: 3669126" data-attributes="member: 33802">I took “the end justifies the means” not about giving a warning shot, but about breaking a truce and attacking.  Did the imp KNOW that there was a paladin around when it struck the deal (does it matter either way)? The imp would probably know that being around A paly would be dangerous. If the imp did not know about the paly, would that change your opinion Hawken?EDIT: Actually just read the Detect Good thing. There is an assumption that it was used before the agreement took place (not totally invalid).I don’t take the action as lawful (broke a truce). I’m leaning towards the act not being a good act (betrayal and all) except if some prior reasoning (attack all fiends regardless) was involved. Going along with the deal is a lawful act, but may not be a good act (not so important if not a paly)I would say that this also would preclude the party from having any authority to enter binding agreements to get paid for a job if the paly did not participate in the negotiations. I find the argument of “I wasn’t the one that agreed” an invalid one because the paly has to at least trusts that the party he is with which giving them authority. If the party is not legitimate authority in one case, it is not legitimate authority in the other case, fiend be damned.  Veto the deal right at the beginning, or accept it (and its repercussions).Lets look at it from a reverse angle: does the paly have to reveal himself as a paly during negotiations to allow an employer to pay him? Why does it make a difference?Then again, how does the imp know that he is a paladin? Given 8 PCs, maybe the imp was not going to betray for fear of its own safety?  No disagreement here, imps are tricky little devils!  But revealing that you are an imp (when as you say the imp KNOWS that there is a paly there) is Stupid Evil, which is on a par with Lawful Stupid.Agreed that the paly can’t let it go unpunished, but I don’t think that punishment should have been meted out right now (and a “Defend yourself Field” is more in line with the character, not the paly role in my estimation). I believe that the DM and player need to flesh this out between them. My take on it is: He didn’t know, but that does not by necessity invalidate the truce it’s up to other aspects of the character to determine thatPaly’s should smite evil. They should also honour agreements that they make are that they agree to (even if only but not disagreeing to). When the two come into conflict, something has to give. But I don’t find Hyp picking and choosing words any more than you are HawkenActually by your own words, when and how is not up to the discretion of the paly. If it isn’t obviously suicidal the when is NOW and the how is SMITE.</blockquote>

Verification