Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="bodhi" data-source="post: 3681178" data-attributes="member: 19770">This reminded me of:With which I disagree. Granted, a paladin's ultimate allegiance is to his deity. However, if he is part of an organization, be it adventurer party, church, or government, which he has joined of his own free will, then he has obligations to that organization. Sometimes it might be spelled out in a contract: I, the undersigned, agree to blah blah blah. Sometimes it might involve an oath: I swear to uphold the tenets of the Brotherhood, defend and assist my Brothers, etc, etc.With a party, the obligations probably wouldn't be explicitly defined. I think almost every party would take for granted A) working together and not at cross-purposes (at least most of the time), and B) actively assisting each other (including buffs, healing, flanking, etc). I think most groups would, sooner or later, hash out division of treasure. And I think that being bound by an agreement made by the group (but not you personally) would be a reasonable assumption. And that if you were to break such an agreement then, as part of the group, you would owe the group an explanation.Imagine if the paladin, in parley, granted safe passage to a human necromancer. Then, once the necromancer passes the paladin, the rogue backstabs, killing the necromancer, saying "I never granted him safe passage, you did". IMHO, the paladin would be clearly justified in being upset, and demanding an explanation.That being said, I'd still like to know just when the paladin found out the ally was an imp, and how he proceeded at that point."I've been deceived, our agreement is null and void! *smite*" Fine by me. Perhaps not the most prudent move if combat hadn't been resolved, but fine."I've been deceived, but I have bigger fish to fry." or "I've been deceived, but I will honor my word." followed by "But we will have business between us when this is done.", I'm also okay with. Perhaps a little less righteous, but also more prudent."I've been deceived, but the imp makes my job easier, so I'll keep my mouth shut for now. I can always smite later." That's the one I have a problem with. This attitude indicates a willingness to actively work with (capital E) Evil as long as it's in the paladin's interest.Note that IMHO all of this can be the paladin's internal monologue. So, in this case at least, it's not about specific actions, but motivations. It's the difference between being forced to work with the imp (either because of the agreement or because it's the only chance for success), and choosing to do so. I'll grant it's a subtle difference, but I think it's an important one, especially for a paladin.</blockquote>

Verification