Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hawken" data-source="post: 3669157" data-attributes="member: 23619">Actually, I never said the paladin had to smite anything immediately. The player could have waited before dropping the imp--but doing so would have placed him and the group in jeopardy with each passing moment. It is true that the imp may not have tried anything because of its tactical inferiority, but it could easily have caused havoc with a well-placed, well-worded Suggestion then followed the group, spied on them and assassinated them at the right moment. Or not. But the paladin had every right to drop the imp, agreement or not (aware of the agreement or not) as the very presence of the imp was a threat to the safety and welfare of himself and his companions--truce or not.  No. But for the imp to approach them without gathering all available information on them would have been a mistake that would have gotten the imp killed long before meeting that party. Imps may not be geniuses, but going up against a well equipped, well-organized group alone--even under the pretext of a temporary truce--would be folly. Maybe like the group, time constraints prevented the use of the appropriate Detect spells on both sides, but when the imp's true nature was revealed, it should have expected a hostile reaction of some sort especially since it could have telepathically eavesdropped while verbally bargaining with the group. Whether the paladin knew about the truce or not is irrelevant. He never agreed to it. Authority issues aside, if he doesn't agree to it, he's not bound to it, especially once the imp is revealed as an imp. There was no law broken there but he did uphold the law (punish those that....). There was no betrayal and the paladin had a standing agreement (by virtue of his class) to kill all fiends. Going along with the deal is not lawful, its stupid. The deal was made under false pretenses and therefore not a valid agreement, muchless an honorable one. The party can do what they want (they obviously did), but the paladin is not bound by their deals if fiends are involved. They would know that already based on his class and code of honor. He could not be a party to any contract with fiends. They may have just gone ahead with the deal and thought to talk the paladin down from any smiting, but he went straight to work on the imp--as he should have. No different than if they negotiated with a vampire, demon or any other creature of pure, absolute evil. Also, the paladin would not be wrong for waiting until the fighting was over to take out the imp. His first responsibility is to the safety of himself and his group. With the imp (foolishly) fighting on their side, he wasn't an immediate threat--the "fighters and animals" were. Once that was dealt with, then of course, he would turn on the imp.   If that employer is a fiend or other obvious being of absolute evil, yes. "Sorry, Asmodeus, I'm a paladin and cannot accept your offer of employment without breaking my code of conduct. Thanks anyway". The difference is the paladin recognized the imp for what it was and dispatched it. Slaying fiends is in their job description (figuratively, if not literally so), not bargaining with them (actually, that is specifically prohibited). So, it makes all the difference. And the imp may not have attacked, but it definitely would have betrayed the group in some manner if given the chance--alerting enemies of the PCs, Suggestion, etc.As for the agreement, it was over. They agreed to work together. They both got their different trinkets, then the paladin killed the imp. It wasn't stated by the OP that there was a "part peacefully and go our separate ways" clause in the agreement (dumb of the imp to overlook that part during negotiations). So, with the goals of their mutual truce met, said truce was concluded and without any agreement of safe passage by either party, the paladin was still well within his rights, his responsibility and all facets of his alignment to smite that imp back to Avernus.</blockquote>

Verification