Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nonlethal Force" data-source="post: 3670709" data-attributes="member: 35788">But this represents the very thing that I don't like about this arguement (and most that support the paladin free-will concept)!&nbsp; Do you hear how many assumptions are in here that are necessary to justify killing the imp?1.&nbsp; Assumed the imp was acting only out of its own interests2. Imp was probably going to sabotage the party anyway once it got its way3. Killing an imp is always acceptable because it is vile (and thus also assumed to be beyond redemption)4. Imp has probably caused damnation of other mortals5. Imp probably has just used a power on some human anyway, so killing it is justifiedNow, I agree that any of those may well be correct.&nbsp; I also agree that these are fair assumptions.&nbsp; But they are at best only that.&nbsp; They are assumptions, which just might be wrong!&nbsp; When I play a paladin, I find that playing off assumptions is usually the quickest way to blackguard without seeing it coming.&nbsp; Sure, there are quicker ways.&nbsp; But assumptions are the quickest way to getting there without honestly trying to get there!In the end, I have to go back to my earlier conclusion.&nbsp; Killing a fiend just for the sake of it being evil does not make one good.&nbsp; At the very best, it makes one guilty of shedding blood.&nbsp; At the very worst, it makes one another fiend.Killing a fiend for legitimate reasons (such as observable attempts towards corruption) is totally different.&nbsp; As far as I recall, the worst that the imp did was to make the deal while invisible.&nbsp; But if the party went along with it and the paladin never once activated his detect evil ... I'd hardly call that the imp's fault!&nbsp; I mean, even if the paladin wasn't present when the deal was made, wouldn't you be suspicious about someone invisible helping you out?&nbsp; Wouldn't you check it out, especially given that it doesn't cost you anything?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nonlethal Force, post: 3670709, member: 35788"] But this represents the very thing that I don't like about this arguement (and most that support the paladin free-will concept)! Do you hear how many assumptions are in here that are necessary to justify killing the imp? 1. Assumed the imp was acting only out of its own interests 2. Imp was probably going to sabotage the party anyway once it got its way 3. Killing an imp is always acceptable because it is vile (and thus also assumed to be beyond redemption) 4. Imp has probably caused damnation of other mortals 5. Imp probably has just used a power on some human anyway, so killing it is justified Now, I agree that any of those may well be correct. I also agree that these are fair assumptions. But they are at best only that. They are assumptions, which just might be wrong! When I play a paladin, I find that playing off assumptions is usually the quickest way to blackguard without seeing it coming. Sure, there are quicker ways. But assumptions are the quickest way to getting there without honestly trying to get there! In the end, I have to go back to my earlier conclusion. Killing a fiend just for the sake of it being evil does not make one good. At the very best, it makes one guilty of shedding blood. At the very worst, it makes one another fiend. Killing a fiend for legitimate reasons (such as observable attempts towards corruption) is totally different. As far as I recall, the worst that the imp did was to make the deal while invisible. But if the party went along with it and the paladin never once activated his detect evil ... I'd hardly call that the imp's fault! I mean, even if the paladin wasn't present when the deal was made, wouldn't you be suspicious about someone invisible helping you out? Wouldn't you check it out, especially given that it doesn't cost you anything? [/QUOTE]

Verification