Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 3671238" data-attributes="member: 3424">From a more generous perspective, it could also be, "Oops, I didn't realize it at the time, but it would be Evil to fulfil my side of the bargain..." If a paladin was put in a situation where it would be Lawful (but Evil) for him to fulfil a contract, and Good (but Chaotic) for him to breach it, the Good option at least allows him to retain his class abilities.This is the D&D Rules forum, but let's muddy the waters a bit with some real-world <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_law" target="_blank">contract law</a>. The relevant principles here would be that of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_%28contract_law%29" target="_blank">mistake</a>:In this case, it would be a unilateral mistake, specifically, a mistake of identity. The general principles are:Of course, in the real world, mistake of identity cases tend to arise because one party is believed to be a specific person when in fact, he is not. This case presents a rather interesting reversal: the imp is assumed not to be a specific type of creature (an evil outsider) when in fact, he is.So, in analyzing this specific case, the first question we should ask is, was the imp aware that the party did not know he was an evil outsider, and did he try to take advantage of this fact? In the absence of any additional information, the fact that he was invisible at the time that the bargain was made is a strike against him as it is an indication that he was concealing something.The next question is, would the fact that the imp was an evil outsider be of "vital importance" to the paladin? Again, in the absence of any additional information, I would say that paladins in general would avoid striking any deals with evil outsiders since it is reasonable to assume that whatever they want will further the cause of Evil in some way.Now assuming the deal is struck, and the identity of the imp is revealed, would the paladin still be bound by the deal? Once more, in the absence of any additional information, I believe that a Lawful Good legal system (one that aims to deliver not just law, but justice) would have something similar to the above-mentioned principles that would allow for the non-fulfilment of bargains that would result in evil.That said, the paladin is not entirely blameless. The fact that the imp was invisible should have made him suspicious. Although it is not clear from the OP whether he attempted to detect evil or otherwise determine the imp's true nature, the fact that went along with the deal in the first place (or appeared to) was unwise, to say the least.Next: A question of honor.</blockquote>

Verification