Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hypersmurf" data-source="post: 3672340" data-attributes="member: 1656">The code requires him to help those in need, and punish those who threaten innocents.If the fiend happened across is fighting someone who can obviously take care of himself, the paladin could leave them to it - the opponent is not 'in need'.If the fiend is about to devour an obviously defenceless commoner, the paladin could be forgiven for making the assumption that we've got at least one definite bad guy, and leap to the aid of the commoner.&nbsp; Now, it may turn out that the commoner is evil; it may turn out that the fiend is Planar Bound to some sorcerer nominally on the side of good; various scenarios may turn out to have been true, but the likely one is that we have an evil monster about to eat an innocent person.&nbsp; Taking three rounds to ascertain who's got evil auras is three rounds too long.Now, again, if we have the imp with whom the paladin has made some sort of truce, and then the imp finds a commoner and starts stinging him, we've got a conflict - the non-aggression pact on one hand, and help those in need on the other.&nbsp; The paladin needs to decide what the code demands, and either act or refrain from acting, and be judged accordingly.&nbsp; As a DM, I wouldn't call this a 'no-win' situation, even if a case might be made for a letter-of-the-code violation whatever he does.&nbsp; I'd hope for some serious roleplaying mileage out of it, of course.But in the OP's situation, there were no circumstances which elevated 'help those in need' to any immediate priority status, and so acting with honour was still something that needed to be observed.-Hyp.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hypersmurf, post: 3672340, member: 1656"] The code requires him to help those in need, and punish those who threaten innocents. If the fiend happened across is fighting someone who can obviously take care of himself, the paladin could leave them to it - the opponent is not 'in need'. If the fiend is about to devour an obviously defenceless commoner, the paladin could be forgiven for making the assumption that we've got at least one definite bad guy, and leap to the aid of the commoner. Now, it may turn out that the commoner is evil; it may turn out that the fiend is Planar Bound to some sorcerer nominally on the side of good; various scenarios may turn out to have been true, but the likely one is that we have an evil monster about to eat an innocent person. Taking three rounds to ascertain who's got evil auras is three rounds too long. Now, again, if we have the imp with whom the paladin has made some sort of truce, and then the imp finds a commoner and starts stinging him, we've got a conflict - the non-aggression pact on one hand, and help those in need on the other. The paladin needs to decide what the code demands, and either act or refrain from acting, and be judged accordingly. As a DM, I wouldn't call this a 'no-win' situation, even if a case might be made for a letter-of-the-code violation whatever he does. I'd hope for some serious roleplaying mileage out of it, of course. But in the OP's situation, there were no circumstances which elevated 'help those in need' to any immediate priority status, and so acting with honour was still something that needed to be observed. -Hyp. [/QUOTE]

Verification