Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hawken" data-source="post: 3674070" data-attributes="member: 23619">The paladin never agreed. If you're being arrested by a cop, are you passively agreeing to his assumption of guilt because you go along with him (with little/no protest)? Also, a lot of people on this board seem to feel that being Lawful means never or not being able to lie or break an agreement. That's not true either. Lawful people everyday, everywhere tell lies in some magnitude. Maybe to spare someone hurt feelings, maybe something more dramatic, but it happens. And it doesn't make them Chaotic to do so. Or even Neutral. It just means they are Lawful and lie on occassion. Remember, part of being Lawful (Good) is taking the concerns and welfare of society over your own personal needs (such as the compulsion to fulfill your word). No one in their right mind would think the paladin wrong for not continuing his agreement with the imp. Besides his class prohibits him from continuing such agreements without facing the consequences of losing his status as a paladin. Which he did! And, after the terms of the agreement was met. Yet some people around here still think the agreement was in effect when he took out the imp--and it wasn't!! That's about the dumbest argument I've heard on this topic so far! Whatever the reason (player inexperience, in-game time constraints, etc.), that proposal is even more ridiculous than everyone else believing the paladin even agreed to the agreement to begin with! The fact is that the imp was deceiving them by remaining invisible. Not a single person in that group would have agreed to work together with the inp had it revealed its nature ahead of time. Hell, the paladin probably would have Smitten it on the spot! Again, I'm sure there were plenty of reasons for the group not being able to sit down and ask the imp (or anyone else in any other encounter) 20 questions until they were 100% satisfied on the creature's identity, intentions, goals and motivations.  Says who? Invisibility is an even bigger deception than disguise. And sure you do. Why? Because the imp deceived them! Agreements, like contracts, are made in good faith on both sides. If one side breaks that faith (such as by withholding information that would result in the contract never having been made to begin with--or information that would prevent one party from being bound to the terms of the agreement), such as the paladin learning the identity of the imp, then the agreement is not valid. The paladin would actually be forbidden from continuing an agreement with the imp as that would have directly been furthering the cause of evil. And for a paladin to further the cause of evil is an evil act which means the paladin now becomes a feat-less Fighter.  In your example, nothing is prohibiting said cruiser from having to stay in that room, change rooms with someone else or even stay on the ship and not get off at the next port. That example has next to nothing to do with the OP's post.  It is not the same when the ambiguous side knows that the other party won't agree to a damn thing if it revealed itself. That's called a deception, or lie of omission. All you're trying to do with your argument is blame the victim (oddly enough, not the one that was killed). What you're arguing is no different than saying someone who got raped or beaten up deserved it just because they couldn't fight off their attacker.</blockquote>

Verification