Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SlagMortar" data-source="post: 3683251" data-attributes="member: 24821">I admit I am not well versed in the interpretations that have been made in various official sources.  It sounds like the official answer is that they are both pure Evil and also capable of Good actions with Good motives.  I find that contradictory on a philosophical level, though not surprising give the number of authors of official sources and also the entertainment value of a surprise twist ending.  It also probably makes for good story telling so I'm fine with that.Sorry if I implied you hold your paladins to low standards.  I jumped to in-character thinking without clarifying.  My paladin might or might not feel that way depending on a host of other character traits.  However, if a DM has not talked to a player about it, the DM should be ready for the paladin to become disillusioned by any number of things, including his superior paladins who act differently from himself and possibly even his own diety.  Its not that the standards are low, but a paladin character might think the standards are low even if they are actually stricter in some areas he hasn't run into yet.I didn't specifically say that he shouldn't have a bad dream, though I didn't say that he should, either.  Actually, I do think he should have a bad dream and feel bad about breaking his agreement.  In my opinion, he should be admonished for making an agreement with an evil outsider, especially since in the original scenario there was no compelling reason to make the agreement in the first place.  Paladins should not casually make agreements with parties who refuse to show themselves.  He also shouldn't travel with people who casually make such agreements on his behalf.Surely some of the events I proposed in post <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3680114&postcount=232" target="_blank">232</a> would cause you to think it natural for the paladin to break the agreement with the imp.  If so, then we only differ on where we draw the line on "is the imp is a threat?" question.First, let's assume Erin was 100% bound to become Evil no matter what, even though that is different from the official (and your) standard assumption.  For example, a miracle Percival casts himself with a scroll and Use Magic Device showed that there was no way to prevent Erin from becoming Evil.  What if Percival killed her in her sleep, weeping all the way and feeling terrible about this deed he must do in order to spare her from the horror of turning into a creature of Evil?  Think of all the "good" vampire stories where the vampire eventually realizes it can not control its cravings and thus ends its own existance after years of misery and guilt caused by hurting/killing others in fits of bloodlust.  Wouldn't it possibly be good and merciful to end that before she has to suffer through years of failure and brokenness that leave her only capable of Evil?  It is clearly not "good" from a perspective of "respect for sentients to choose their own fate", but couldn't it be "good" from a "I must protect people even from themselves "kind of way?  (caveat:  not advocating anything analogous in real life as this is a wholly unrealistic set of assumptions for anything that could possibly happen in the real world.  The situation has no real world equivalent.  I don't want to get into a real world discussion of where this kind of thinking leads because it is not a good place in really any sense of the word.)</blockquote>

Verification