Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hawken" data-source="post: 3669190" data-attributes="member: 23619">I just noticed that my last post was being done at the same time as Dross' second and Mouse's posts.  Nothing was mentioned like: General, "Ok, paladin, if there's a fiend in there, don't attack it." Paladin, "Yes, sir." So, if the bad general says, here's my advisor, Ms. Erinyes. And then the paladin's sword 'slips' out of its sheath--"Sorry, general, you know how these sentient weapons are when they get worked up!"--and into the chest of the Erinyes. There's nothing deceptive about that. It's rather straightforward. If the enemy general wants to take offense at that and call off the truce, then he could, but would be at the mercy of the other general and a paladin. And considering that the Erinyes could use any manner of charms, telepathy and whatever else to gain advantage over the good general, the bad general shouldn't have brought an Erinyes to the meeting, or at least disguised her better. That's just an option. The paladin wouldn't have to attack the Erinyes, but tactically it would be a viable option. If you consider it cheating or whatever, then too, look at that bigger picture. If they can cut short a war to spare thousands of lives by taking out the general and advisor, then that is the greater good being served. The evil general, bringing in an Erinyes, would have no intention of complying with a truce, instead using the meeting (and stalling tactics) to draw information from the good general and the paladin to give them an advantage. The good general anyway, would not accept a telepathic, charm at will, fiend for an opposing advisor regardless.  I'm going to pass on this. It has nothing to do with the matter at hand. The discussion was about a paladin dropping a fiend after a truce had ended.  Matter of opinion. Maybe the general warned him, "use your powers and if there is a threat to negotiations, take it out." Maybe not. That is a hypothetical situation and I proposed only one hypothetical response.  Not true either. In my comment, the paladin said nothing about healing. Nothing deceitful about that, the paladin's intentions at that point would be painfully clear.  Again, no deceit involved. The paladin never said "accident", only that his "sword seemed to have a life of its own...." Nothing deceitful there, just a diplomatic way of stating that he struck down a fiend.  Not attacking the fiend when it could telepathically spy on the general, charm both the general and the paladin, toss in some suggestions regarding troop positions and numbers, and that would not be conducive to the greater good of the paladin and his general. The evil general would know that the other general would not accept a telepath with innate charming abilities into the meeting as an 'advisor'. He would also likely know the good general was bringing a paladin along and that the two would fight and thus he could claim foul play when that is what he intended all along.  Except when charming telepaths are involved. That right there would be considered 'cheating' and a violation of the truce. The paladin would also be responsible for his general's safety, and in the case of a telepath charmer, the safety of his army as well since that information could be telepathically 'overheard' or charmed out of the general. So, in that situation, the paladin would be watching out for his general and the army by striking down the Erinyes.  Never said that. But if the enemy is going to pull a stunt like bringing the Erinyes, then the good general has every right to have his paladin Smite the hell out of her! No Erinyes (or fiend of any sort) and no Smiting. Don't act so surprised either. The first thing the paladin is going to think is "Erinyes! She's either going to charm the general, plant a suggestion or take his information right out of his head! No way!"  True. And that may have been what the player said. But according to actual in-game events, the paladin dispatched the imp after the conditions of the truce were fulfilled and there was no mention of safe passage from either side, so he wasn't in the wrong.</blockquote>

Verification