# Paladin Actions - Appropriate?



## Sam (Jul 28, 2007)

So we're playing my campaign last night, and things were moving along fairly well.  In and of itself that's surprising because it's a pretty large group (8 players) and we've been playing together so long that it normally winds up turning into a dysfunctional family rather than a cohesive party.  But we've been playing a new campaign for a few weeks and people are aglow with the headiness of being able to level a character every session or two.

Anyway, we're wrapping up a combat.  Prior to the combat starting, some of the party made an agreement with an invisible NPC to essentially work together.  They had similar goals.  The party was looking for a specific item in a house (guarded by fighters and animals) and the invisible NPC was looking for something else in the house.  The party is all human (again a surprising fact); one of the members is a paladin (and the only LG member of the party).  The pally was involved when the party made the arrangement with the NPC.  So, turns out the NPC was an imp that was invisible.  During the combat the imp assisted the party, and after the combat the party found what they wanted, as did the imp.  But as things are wrapping up, the paladin attacks the imp, smites him, and kills him with one critical smiting hit.

This started some discussion at the table about the paladin's actions.  The members of the party that made the agreement with the invisible imp were offended that the paladin broke their deal and thought it went against his lawful nature.  He took the position that evil outsiders should be killed/banished/etc. whenever possible.

I sat back and enjoyed the interplay at the table and will award roleplaying xp for it, but I'm not sure if he should have any repercussions as a paladin for his actions.  

Any thoughts?


----------



## Rhun (Jul 28, 2007)

Did he know the creature was an imp when he made the deal, or did he find out later? I think this is the important question in determining if he acted appropriately. Upon finding that he had been deceived by an evil outsider, the paladin is fully within code by smiting said imp.


----------



## Sam (Jul 28, 2007)

Nobody knew it was an imp when they made the deal.  He says he wasn't involved in the making of the deal.  He was about 20 feet away by the door of the house they were bursting into.

I'm not so worked up about the attack, more that he totally blindsided the imp and the party with his action.


----------



## Rhun (Jul 28, 2007)

It all comes down to how you think a paladin should act. Yes, they should keep their word and honor contracts they make...if those contracts are made with full disclosure and with trustworthy people. I believe the paladin was fully within his rights to break the agreement and kill the imp upon finding out what the creature truly was.


----------



## saucercrab (Jul 28, 2007)

I pretty much agree with Rhun. IMO, good-vs-evil generally takes precedence over law-vs-chaos for PCs. 

Plus, like you said Sam, he didn't make the deal.


----------



## Random Axe (Jul 28, 2007)

I agree with the above.  The LG paladin would be correctly offended by the discovery of the evil outsider, and justified in destroying said evil and preventing it from furthering its own evil ends.  Good on him I say.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jul 28, 2007)

I think he should have made a side deal with the Imp, killed his party members, and gone Blackguard 


Ok...  I agree, if he didn't make the deal and he found out there was an Imp there and his allies helped the Imp, not only was he right in killing the Imp, if anything, he should be upset with the allies that made the agreement.  I don't know why they were upset with him.

Also, had he been in on the agreement, or know about it, the first thing the Paladin should have done was used Detect Evil on the invisible person (again, this is assuming he knew there was an invisible "something" there).  Then he could have smited away.  If he neglected to do this, and made a deal with the unknown asailant, later finding out it was an Imp, I would say that any agreement they previously had is null and void the moment he finds ou what the creature is.

All in all, the Paladin was right in any instance.

Now if they was just an evil person (rather than an Imp), I am usually more into the less lethal ways of dealing with those types of creatures.  Use nonlethal damage, Diplomacy, make an arrest, etc.  Since this was an Imp and I play them as inherently evil (can't usually be redeemed) then I make exceptions for that.

All IMHO anyways...


----------



## Bayushi Seikuro (Jul 28, 2007)

I don't know.

Book of Exalted Deeds covers what it means to be Good in pretty good depth.  Is making war on Evil good?  Yes.  But not nessecarily as good as giving to the poor and helping your community.

Here's what I think.  To me, a lot of the answer is in the details.  To me, the 'I didn't make the deal, I was just nearby' is a bunch of bull, it sounds like, to get out of consequences.  

Did he know the party had a contract to help this 'invisible person'?  Did he act to help the party accomplish the mutual goals?  It's chaotic to break the contract and 'rationalize' it as War on Evil; he's essentially giving into his anger at being duped.

Being a paladin means you have to juggle the Law/Chaos AND Good/Evil axis at the same time.  I don't punish a paladin who errs on the side of Good and righteousness; I DO punish a paladin who acts chaotically - breaking a deal, even a deal his party members made and he supported, is chaotic.  And killing the evil afterwards, after he failed to take appropriate measures to guarantee the trustworthiness of the 'invisible person'...  

Remember also: his party made this deal.  There should definitely be consequences to that, if he's out to kill evil.  His party actively aided evil because it benefitted them; they wanted in this house, and it wanted something in the house.

And, generally, where paladins are concerned, siding with Law over Good is how Inquisitions start.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 28, 2007)

Remember that Paladins are primarily agents of Good, and secondarily agents of Law.  They'll do what's best for Good whenever possible, and try to stick to their Lawful honor as much as possible while fulfilling that goal.

But anyway, the thing is that the imp deceived them and the paladin had no idea their 'ally' was a fiend.  Once he learned the truth of that, he could not honorably work with the creature because his oaths do not permit it.

The creature voided its agreement with the party by deceiving them as to its nature and being dishonorable in the dealing process.  The paladin's honor demands he avenge that slight to his honor, and undo his mistake of accidentally sort-of helping a fiend.  In the end he prevented any evil being done as a result of his mistake, so it should not have any effect on his Paladin status.

Since he was unknowing when he made the deal, he is not at fault for agreeing to work loosely together.  He did not knowingly and willingly aid a fiend, and he did smite it after learning the truth, so no ill came of it.  Even Heironeous teaches prudence and optimal tactics in battle; the Archpaladin himself would not have allowed the battle to be lost just because an 'ally' turned out to be a fiend in disguise.  He just would've destroyed the deceitful fiend after the other foes were dispatched.



That said, it should be pointed out that the paladin _should_ have used his divinely-gifted ability to Detect Evil at will, and tried to discern if the group's invisible would-be ally was unworthy of his cooperation.  Now, if that ability failed, he would still be fine, but the Powers of Good did not give him that ability for nothing; he's expected to use it to aid his judgment in matters.

Heck, he shouldn't have even made a deal with an invisible 'ally' to begin with, unless there was no time to argue that the invisible fellow must reveal himself before any proper, honest agreement could be made.  So I'm guessing he probably exercised poor judgment.

That, itself, may warrant his powers being revoked for one day, to make it known that he failed in his duties somehow; the return of his powers the next day would at least make it obvious that his mistake was not of the seriousness that would cost him his divine sponsorship permanently.  It may help him realize his error in judgment.


----------



## Bayushi Seikuro (Jul 28, 2007)

I concur with Arhkhandus.  More or less what I was trying to say, but a few steps further. And better,


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Jul 29, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> But anyway, the thing is that the imp deceived them and the paladin had no idea their 'ally' was a fiend.  Once he learned the truth of that, he could not honorably work with the creature because his oaths do not permit it.
> 
> The creature voided its agreement with the party by deceiving them as to its nature and being dishonorable in the dealing process.  The paladin's honor demands he avenge that slight to his honor, and undo his mistake of accidentally sort-of helping a fiend.  In the end he prevented any evil being done as a result of his mistake, so it should not have any effect on his Paladin status.




It's not such much that the Imp deceived the party.  It's very possible that they never bothered asking what sort of creature it was.  The thing is that fiends are beings of pure evil with whom no peace can be possible or allowed.

If the invisible creature had just been an evil ogre magi for example, I would expect that the paladin would keep his deal.  (Or at the very least, issue an open challenge.)  But a fiend?  Smite, smite away as quickly as possible.



> That said, it should be pointed out that the paladin _should_ have used his divinely-gifted ability to Detect Evil at will, and tried to discern if the group's invisible would-be ally was unworthy of his cooperation.  Now, if that ability failed, he would still be fine, but the Powers of Good did not give him that ability for nothing; he's expected to use it to aid his judgment in matters.




I don't think that the mere fact that the invisible creature was evil should automatically mean the paladin couldn't make any kind of deal.  An Imp "only" has a moderate aura of evil, due to its low hitdice, so the paladin might plausibly have believed it to be merely an evil mortal of high level.



> That, itself, may warrant his powers being revoked for one day, to make it known that he failed in his duties somehow; the return of his powers the next day would at least make it obvious that his mistake was not of the seriousness that would cost him his divine sponsorship permanently.  It may help him realize his error in judgment.




I don't like the message that revoking his powers for a day would send to the player.  Resonable flexibility should be encouraged.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 29, 2007)

You do know I was advocating that the paladin should be fine, don't you?

And yes, I know that part of the matter is that since it was a fiend, he was right to smite it, deal or no deal.  It's just that the circumstances kind of demand a bit of consideration for whether or not he did so honorably, in keeping with his paladin code.  Which I think he did, for the reasons I described earlier (the imp's deception was reason enough for him to have an honorable excuse for slaying it rather than fulfilling the deal; he did not make the agreement knowing his 'ally' to be a fiend so he could not be expected to honor the deal, as it was deliberately made under false pretenses).


I already said as much that I didn't think his dealing with an invisible 'ally' would have any impact on his paladin status; he didn't know he was dealing with an evil creature to begin with, and the only reason to suspect it was that the individual was staying invisible.  But we don't know if he tried detecting its alignment or not (or if it had Undetectable Alignment or Misdirection active to prevent its true alignment from being discerned).  So we can't really be sure if he was as prudent as he should have been, but it is fairly obvious that the paladin did no wrong by accepting the deal initially since he had no knowledge that the 'ally' was an evil creature, let alone a fiend.


Now if he did learn it was evil beforehand, he would definitely have to refuse working with it.  That is demanded by his paladin code (even if it were only an evil mortal, it would still be against his code to willingly associate with it).  But unknowingly working with an evil creature for a time is not an infringement of his code, so until he learns the truth, he's not at fault (just probably not doing his duty in being diligent about making sure that his allies are decent enough to work with).  And in this case, when he did see the creature's true form, he followed through by smiting it as was proper for a paladin, and thus should not be punished for unwittingly helping it (after all, he killed it before it could make any evil use of whatever it had gone to that place to acquire).

I only suggested the possible 1-day revoking of his powers as a sign to the paladin that he made a minor mistake, and failed to live up to the expectations that come with the divine gifts provided to him.  A sign that he should exercise better judgment, caution, and prudence in the future (assuming, again, that he did not do his best beforehand to try and find out if the invisible ally was evil or not, or to find out if possible whether or not its intentions were evil).  As mentioned, Heironeous or the like didn't give him the power to sense evil or fight evil just so he could sit on his duff and accept every mysterious, charming, or suspiciously-helpful stranger at face value (and besides, an invisible fellow at face value would seem to be deceitful and potentially evil).


----------



## Greywarden (Jul 29, 2007)

> after the combat the party found what they wanted, as did the imp.



Goals Achieved, Contract Fulfilled, Cooperation Ended, Deceing Evil Fiend Terminated....


----------



## preacher (Jul 29, 2007)

I agree with most of what's been said above, but can't help wondering if reneging on a deal made by his companions, without discussing it with them first, is fully within the Lawful side of his alignment. Yes, he was duty bound to act when he discovered the imp's nature, but was he duty bound to do so unilaterally? It's understandable that his companions feel aggrieved. It's not so much that he broke the deal, it's that he broke it on their behalf as well as his own, without involving them. It wasn't just his honour at stake, but theirs as well. Isn't trampling over that a little chaotic?

Admittedly it's hard to have a secret conversation with the rest of the party when there's an invisible NPC around! What he said in the debate that followed would have a large part in how I ruled on this one, I think. Did he acknowledge their complaints at all or just rely on the "it was evil so I killed it" argument?


----------



## pallandrome (Jul 29, 2007)

My one question in situations like this is: Did he detect evil before smiting?

In my mind, Paladins should ALWAYS do so. If it isn't evil, you shouldn't be shooting to kill. For a paladin, the decision to end a life should always be a considered one, not a reactionary one.

That being said, if he determined that the fiend actually WAS evil (thus making sure it's not just some shapeshifted orphan boy, ect ect), then he was fully within his rights and responsibilities to destroy said fiend. He might need to pray for a little more wisdom next time, for allowing himself to become allied to another being without checking the credentials first, but other than that, he's fine.


----------



## cmrscorpio (Jul 29, 2007)

I would say that the paladin acted within his code, barely.  Sure, he didn't know that the deal was made with an evil outsider, but he should have taken the time to _detect evil_ when the party was making the deal with an invisible entity.  The biggest offense here should be the paladin's negligence in his duty to find out beforehand that they were dealing with an embodiment of evil.

If I were DM, next time that the paladin sleeps, he should get a dream that lets him know that he needs to be more vigilant.


----------



## Hawken (Jul 29, 2007)

In regard to the OP; I think you should give everyone involved an XP award for their roleplaying and simply just move on. 

No consequences for the group (for making bargains with infernal beings) or for the paladin. Everyone expressed their reasons for their actions. Time to move on. 

If the others were upset about the paladin breaking their deal with the imp, that alone should be reason enough for the paladin to leave their company. Imps are known deal-makers (deal-breakers) and fiends/baatezu on top of that. They barter with souls and such and do so for all eternity. If anything, the other PCs should be grateful for the paladin 'removing' the imp from their deal--though they could find out consequences later on of having made a bargain with a devil.... 

As for the paladin's actions, Lawful Good is not the same as Lawful Stupid! Whether he was part of the deal or not, nothing was mentioned about saving or protecting their invisible partner, so upon finding out it was an imp (evil outsider), the paladin would have been remiss on so many levels to have let the imp continue with its plans. For one, he would have been leaving his companions at the mercy of devilish forces (the imp itself, or the imp's master), not to mention continued association or compliance with an evil being's plans would almost definitely result in the (possibly permanent) revocation of paladin status. 

I think the heart of this debate is the fact that it seems (by the OP's wording) that the paladin just up and killed the imp with no warning or reason given--which may appear to be murder (definitely not a lawful or good act). However, the paladin--by the nature of her status/class as a paladin--is appointed the authority to dispatch evil. It is not just her job, but her calling. If you don't want dead imps around, keep the paladins away! Paladins do not have to give warning or advance notice of their intention to smite. People seem to assume this in just about every paladin case where they get the first (and sometimes only) shot in. The fact that they are a paladin is warning enough for evil beings. The imp knew the risks in 'dealing' with a paladin or in dealing with others with a paladin around. Imps are not honorable opponents so the paladin was not violating any code of honor (outside the code of conduct required by his class) by not saluting and offering a "prepare to be smitten!". 

If you want to go strictly by the PHB, then:
--"respect legitimate authority": The paladin would be disrespecting the authority of his deity/church/gov't by honoring a bargain with an evil outsider. And to a paladin, no authority could be more legitimate or higher than the one that provides their powers; as such, the paladin would not have the authority to enter into any bargain with an evil outsider.
--"act with honor": There is no honor in continuing a bargain/association with a known evil outsider. Imps are legendary in their untrustworthiness and as such, the paladin had every right to conclude that the imp would have broken (not if) any agreement with their group at any moment that would have put it to greatest advantage or his friends at a time of harm or peril. 
--"help those in need": His friends just made a bargain with a devil. There is rarely a time of greater need than that to a paladin. Not having acted would have risked the corruption of the souls of his friends if not directly placing their lives in danger. It is still a possibility that the imp could have placed a telepathic Suggestion on one of the PCs to do something nefarious later on--such as dispatch one or more other PCs next time they are on watch at camp. 
--"punish those who do harm or threaten innocents": The imp (and any evil outsider) fits this category with absolute certainty.

As for whether/why the paladin used or didn't use Detect Evil, well, there are all sorts of variables. The imp could have been behind a barrier thick enough for the paladin not to get a 'reading'. The imp could have moved out of range. There are all sorts of possibilities. As to why the paladin may not have used it, time could have been an issue. Not knowing where the invisible ally was means having to search and that would have wasted time they may otherwise not have had. Maybe the paladin was operating on the (naive) belief that a potential ally offering aid would not be evil. That is offering friendship and trust openly and in an honorable manner which should never be punished. Also, once the imp was revealed and the paladin recognized it for such, he shouldn't have to Detect Evil just to confirm. He was trained (or learned) to recognize such creatures, that alone would be enough confirmation. 

If it turned out to be a non-evil being, then the smite wouldn't have worked and the paladin could have turned around and used LoH or given them a healing potion or something. In that case, its more of a 'friendly fire' situation which means the paladin is not at fault. Should he feel remorse? Yes. Should he make amends? Maybe, it would be the honorable thing to do. But in a battle (war) there is rarely time for second-guessing or confirming things (detect evil) that have already been confirmed (recognized imp as an imp); and doing so places oneself and/or one's companions in danger.

Nothing sets a paladin on the road to Blackguard (or feat-less Fighter) faster than slapping him down for being good (and trusting, honorable, etc). He'll learn on his own to be more circumspect in his actions. But since they were looking through a house guarded only by 'fighters and animals' and an imp was involved--I'm wagering it was a low-level game and so the paladin would be inexperienced (or not paranoid) enough to not think of automatically detecting evil on every being he encounters. 

Penalizing a player of a paladin for playing his character in good faith is wrong. That will lead the player into 'performance paralysis' where he will be hesitant to take even a seemingly simple action for fear that he may lose his powers for the day (or maybe forever). DMs can tell when paladin players are behaving incorrectly or abusing their powers. In those cases, punish or warn, yes. But if the player is behaving in good faith, leave it alone. Or even have him 'debriefed' at the end of the quest and during that have his senior (boss, etc.) bring up whatever point the DM wanted to bring up ("Try using Detect Evil in this situation next time. And by the way, great job on that Smite! Wish I could have seen that! Here's a few extra potions of healing for you guys!", etc.).


----------



## the Jester (Jul 29, 2007)

I'm seeing a lot of "good trumps law" in this discussion... I don't agree with that; it depends entirely on the campaign.

Even then, however, if the paladin himself didn't make a deal... well... he might be okay, but if anything, HE should be the one angry at the party, not the other way around.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 30, 2007)

preacher said:
			
		

> I agree with most of what's been said above, but can't help wondering if reneging on a deal made by his companions, without discussing it with them first, is fully within the Lawful side of his alignment. Yes, he was duty bound to act when he discovered the imp's nature, but was he duty bound to do so unilaterally?




Yeah, he had to destroy the fiend afterward.  He cannot willingly associate with evil beings; and the fact that the imp had deceived him and hidden its fiendish nature meant that he was not honor-bound to fulfill the deal or let the imp go, but instead his honor demanded he make amends for the slight to his honor caused by the imp's deception; and as a fiend, surely anything it needed the McGuffin for would be evil, so he had to stop it from causing evil through the use of the paladin as a pawn to help it get the McGuffin for its evil plan.

As for the party, the paladin's honor demanded retribution more than it demanded staying true to his comrades' agreement with the fiend.  They didn't know its nature beforehand, so indeed, he would have seen it as being the honor of his entire party that had been slighted by the fiend's deception, given that fiends only ever do things for the sake of evil.  The party may've been upset afterward, but he was just avenging their honor and especially his own, and making sure that the fiend didn't use their unwitting help to get an item that would help it cause further evil.

Paladins are not lawful neutral or lawful evil; they do not see fulfillment of oaths/agreements as a permanently binding, unyielding duty that must absolutely be fulfilled, no matter the consequences, no matter what happens or changes afterward, and no matter the circumstances the oath/agreement was made under.  As lawful good individuals, they are to believe in the spirit of the law moreso than the letter of the law, and that any agreement was made in good faith, and becomes null and void if one party or another dishonors the agreement and those who agreed to it.

The drastic deception of the imp was too dishonorable to consider that the agreement was made in good faith; the party (the paladin especially) surely did not agree to the cooperative effort believing that they were aiding a fiend in its evil plots.  The paladin would never have agreed to it then.  There are other individuals who might try to make a deal while invisible; pixies, illusionists, cowardly wizards, disfigured individuals, the rare good drow who just doesn't want any trouble, and tricksters (like some dragons and fey) who just want to surprise people later or would like to keep them guessing even after the deal is completed.  So the party did not have to believe at first that the 'ally' was a fiend; most likely by that point in their careers they had encountered other spellcasters or creatures who could turn themselves invisible, and probably had not yet met a fiend who could do so.


----------



## bodhi (Jul 30, 2007)

Sam said:
			
		

> Nobody knew it was an imp when they made the deal.



When and how was the NPC's imp status revealed?



			
				Sam said:
			
		

> He says he wasn't involved in the making of the deal.  He was about 20 feet away by the door of the house they were bursting into.



I agree with Bayushi Seikuro that sounds like an attempt to avoid consequences. It's a pretty fine line between "I didn't make the deal" and "I didn't raise any objections when my friends made the deal".

You said the paladin attacked the imp after the fight. Was the sequence of events:
A) Fight ends. Imp is revealed. Paladin finds out the ally is an imp, which he attacks and kills.
or
B) Imp is revealed sometime prior to the fight, but the paladin decides to keep his mouth shut until the party fulfills their objectives, whereupon he attacks and kills the imp.

Situation A, IMHO, is fine, if perhaps a bit abrupt. "I've been deceived by a fiend! Have at thee!", and then maybe a dream telling him he should be more careful who he works with.

Situation B strikes me as someone turning a blind eye when it's in their favor, and being the good guy when that's in their favor. Which is someone you trust to do what's right _for themselves_. Which, for a _paladin_, is problematic.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 30, 2007)

pallandrome said:
			
		

> That being said, if he determined that the fiend actually WAS evil (thus making sure it's not just some shapeshifted orphan boy, ect ect), then he was fully within his rights and responsibilities to destroy said fiend. He might need to pray for a little more wisdom next time, for allowing himself to become allied to another being without checking the credentials first, but other than that, he's fine.




Fiends are inherantly evil.  There is such a diminutive chance of one being a risen fiend, that there is no point trying to make sure that a fiend is really evil before attacking it; and anyway, a risen fiend would not have deceived them, and would have tried to convince them it was trying to repent.  Of course, it would have likely flown away if the paladin tried to attack it then.

But no, it was evil, like 99.9999% of fiends, and avoided being honest with them in the first place.  Therefore it deserved no mercy or hesitation on the paladin's part.


If it had been a shapchanged creature or something, it would have been more forthright rather than allowing them to see it as a fiend right after it had been invisible for so long.  It would know that others would be likely to attack it on sight if it appeared as it did.  And if it were an orphan boy or something, I hardly think it would be so deceptive to people who might help him regain his true form and stop looking like a monster.  *It also wouldn't have been able to help them in the battle*, which the OP said it did.

Considering it didn't act like an innocent at any point, there was no reason to believe the suddenly-revealed fiend to actually be a decent, non-fiendish fellow in some unusual circumstances, let alone one of the practically-completely-unheard-of risen fiends.

And considering it managed to deceive them long enough and get them to agree to cooperate while it was invisible, it probably wasn't an idiot, so he couldn't just assume that it was a reasonably-decent fellow polymorphed into a fiend who was *just too damn stupid* to consider that revealing his fiendish appearance later would be _much more dire_ for him, than trying to explain himself beforehand without staying invisible (after all, he could explain while invisible at first, then remove his invisibility to show that he does indeed look like an imp now, and please don't kill him....).

_(I'm just trying to explain my position more thoroughly)_


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 30, 2007)

Hawken said:
			
		

> If the others were upset about the paladin breaking their deal with the imp, that alone should be reason enough for the paladin to leave their company. Imps are known deal-makers (deal-breakers) and fiends/baatezu on top of that. They barter with souls and such and do so for all eternity. If anything, the other PCs should be grateful for the paladin 'removing' the imp from their deal--though they could find out consequences later on of having made a bargain with a devil...




Mostly agree with your stance.  As for the deal, though, I don't think it matters at all in D&D unless they know it's a fiend to begin with, and sign a contract or otherwise seal the deal in an official, legally-binding manner.  Baatezu can't lay any claim to their souls otherwise.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 30, 2007)

bodhi said:
			
		

> You said the paladin attacked the imp after the fight. Was the sequence of events:
> A) Fight ends. Imp is revealed. Paladin finds out the ally is an imp, which he attacks and kills.
> or
> B) Imp is revealed sometime prior to the fight, but the paladin decides to keep his mouth shut until the party fulfills their objectives, whereupon he attacks and kills the imp.




I direct you to this section of the OP's description, emphasis mine:


> The party was looking for a specific item in a house (guarded by fighters and animals) and *the invisible NPC was looking for something else in the house*. The party is all human (again a surprising fact); one of the members is a paladin (and the only LG member of the party). The pally was involved when the party made the arrangement with the NPC. *So, turns out the NPC was an imp that was invisible. During the combat the imp assisted the party*




It seems to me that the imp became visible when he helped out in the battle, since attacking someone while you're invisible ends the invisibility.  Being tactically wise enough, the paladin did not attack the imp in the midst of battle with other foes, since the imp was apparently not attacking him or his comrades yet.  Instead he attacked it after the battle.  This is fine and in accordance with Heironeous' dogma, at least.

It does seem that he waited briefly after the fight, probably considering whether or not it would be dishonorable to slay the fiend then and there after having been at least somewhat involved in the agreement to work with it (while it was still invisible).  He did attack it before it could leave with the item it had come for, so no evil was done by his mistake in working together with the formerly-invisible creature.

Now it does seem that he made some poor decisions and was teetering on the _brink_ of being either neglectful of some duties or dishonorable in some actions, but not definitely so, and thus should not be punished with anything more than a warning.  A one-day loss of his powers would certainly give such a warning.  I don't know if the paladin actually follows a deity or not though, so I'm not sure if he should be receiving a dream or something instead.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Jul 30, 2007)

I can find myself agreeing and disagreeing with these comments, totally depending upon the campaign.



			
				Hawken said:
			
		

> If you want to go strictly by the PHB, then:
> --"respect legitimate authority": The paladin would be disrespecting the authority of his deity/church/gov't by honoring a bargain with an evil outsider. And to a paladin, no authority could be more legitimate or higher than the one that provides their powers; as such, the paladin would not have the authority to enter into any bargain with an evil outsider.




Totally depends on the deity being served.  If the deity respected life above killing, a case could be made that the fiend should have been captured and given the chance to repent and become sanctified.  If the deity sees all evil outsiders as hopeless and worthy only of target practice, then I agree with Hawken's comment.  But just because the creature is an outsider does not automatically mean in all cases that it is going against the authority of one's church/deity to allow it to remain alive.  Especially something like an imp, which could have been easily captured and given a fair chance to repent.



			
				Hawken said:
			
		

> --"act with honor": There is no honor in continuing a bargain/association with a known evil outsider. Imps are legendary in their untrustworthiness and as such, the paladin had every right to conclude that the imp would have broken (not if) any agreement with their group at any moment that would have put it to greatest advantage or his friends at a time of harm or peril.




Again, depending upon the campaign.  Some enemies are only capable fo being defeated by making temporary truces with its own enemies.  I don't know why, but I am reminded of the old D&D cartoon where the party has to be at a truce with Venger to defeat Demodragon.  Certain deities might even see honor in working with the powers of evil because it gives you a chance to demonstrate how good actually works, rather than just blindly killing because they're evil.  Again, however, there are of course deities that would draw black and white lines and say that all evil outsiders should die and give their agents carte blanche.  Totally depends on the deity being served as far as I am concerned.  But I think there can be great honor in bargaining with evil so long as the people are not tempted into evil themselves.  What better way to demonstrate how much better good is than evil than by accepting a potential vulnerability?  Granted, not all the time, but I can see merit in it.



			
				Hawken said:
			
		

> --"help those in need": His friends just made a bargain with a devil. There is rarely a time of greater need than that to a paladin. Not having acted would have risked the corruption of the souls of his friends if not directly placing their lives in danger. It is still a possibility that the imp could have placed a telepathic Suggestion on one of the PCs to do something nefarious later on--such as dispatch one or more other PCs next time they are on watch at camp.




I think this is a bit harsh, too.  Personally, I think the imp was far more vulnerable than all of his friends.  The imp could have easily been captured and brought to legitimate authorities and given a chance at sanctification rather than outright killed.  After all, if the paladin was able to bring the imp down in one smite, I doubt the imp was a terrible threat to the party as a whole.



			
				Hawken said:
			
		

> --"punish those who do harm or threaten innocents": The imp (and any evil outsider) fits this category with absolute certainty.




Perhaps, but the imp is just as much guilty of helping in the punishment of another evil-doer because it helped the party.  I see just as much reason for leniency as smiting on this angle.



In the end, I still think the paladin was fine, and should be warned in a dream to be more careful.  Depending on the deity and their thirst of violence, I could see the deity telling the paladin to consider less violent options with lesser evil outsiders - especially those that could be captured or incapacitated easily.  I wouldn't penalize anyone here.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Jul 30, 2007)

*Smite or Spite?*



			
				Sam said:
			
		

> Nobody knew it was an imp when they made the deal.  He says he wasn't involved in the making of the deal.



So, the paladin schooled a servant of evil who had deliberately deceived the party. What's the problem?



			
				Sam said:
			
		

> I'm not so worked up about the attack, more that he totally blindsided the imp and the party with his action.



Start the Imp Preservation Assocation (IPA) and find less emo players.

-Samir

P.S. If you want to check out a thornier paladin scenario, click HERE.

-S.A.


----------



## Hawken (Jul 30, 2007)

> Totally depends on the deity being served.



 Not really. In your case, a pacifist god would likely not have any paladin followers. Priests maybe but not holy soldiers out to rid the world of evil. Paladins are soldiers that get holy powers instead of feats. They are made for fighting evil, not sparing or converting it. If they get the chance to, yay!, bonus xp, but they are there to dispatch evil. It wasn't just an outsider but an evil one and a devil at that. Devil. Made from the stuff of Hell. Can't get much more evil than that. And any LG deity, even the peaceful ones, will think nothing of putting evil outsiders (or evil anything else) to the sword. And you're injecting your own 'what if' into this. Its not about 'what if's, its about hows and whys. 



> depending upon the campaign.



 Well, that's the kind of campaign it was. The paladin took out an evil outsider, per his code of conduct and class description. Nothing at all wrong with that. If you're upset because the paladin didn't give warning, too bad. Warning would have given the imp time to escape, where he could have followed the party and killed them all in their sleep as they camped. Or it could have used Suggestion on someone to do the same thing. Or any other number of possibilities. Imps are lawful evil outsiders made of the stuff of Hell. There's no redeeming that and paladins aren't in the business of redemption. They are given the authority to carry out justice, the paladin did that in the way he saw best. 

As for your working with evil comment, that doesn't slide for paladins (or anyone else with common sense). Paladins are not allowed to knowingly associate with evil. And anyone else stupid enough to make deals with devils (not necessarily pacts, but any kind of agreement) deserves exactly what they get from it. 



> I think the imp was far more vulnerable than all of his friends.



 You would think that. That's what devils would want you to think. Especially one 'apparently' helpless or disadvantaged. But being able to communicate telepathically means he could 'hear' them thinking about attacking as easily as if they said it. Being able to turn invisible, shapechange and what else at will is hardly vulnerable including having a poisonous stinger and the ability to plant suggestions. Played deviously (which is how imps are), the imp could have killed at least 1 if not more of the party or gotten them into far worse trouble. Your inclination to mercy would have gotten the party killed or in a bigger mess than "Oh no! Our paladin killed an imp!" HP-wise, yeah, the imp wasn't a threat, but that's not what makes them dangerous anyway. So, your point there isn't even a valid one. 



> imp is just as much guilty of helping in the punishment of another evil-doer because it helped the party.



 What? What does that mean? Leniency because it helped the party? That's lame. I'd have stripped the paladin of his powers permanently if he had let that imp get away! Your pacifist inclinations would make you a great player of some clerics but not any paladins. Imps are evil outsiders, they just don't _do_ evil, they _are_ evil. 



> I could see the deity telling the paladin to consider less violent options with lesser evil outsiders - especially those that could be captured or incapacitated easily.



 Where are you getting this stuff? How could they easily capture a creature that can shapechange, turn invisible, fly and do all sorts of other things? And fewer HP doesn't make something less dangerous or less evil. Evil is evil, regardless of its hit points. By your own argument, a 20th level paladin should be just ignoring or knocking out any of Hell's inhabitants short of exceptional Pit Fiends and the nobles and rulers there.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 30, 2007)

Interesting question.

To me, "Ah, but I wasn't a party to the agreement, therefore _I'm_ not bound by its terms!" is Lawful... but the sort of Lawful that devils are known for.  So the Paladinbot-Sneak-Attack! should have felt _familiar_ to the imp - he's probably weaseled out of any number of contracts over the centuries using similar loopholes - but he probably wasn't expecting it from a paladin.

See, the way I would have expected this to play out from a typical paladin's point of view would be a teeth-clenched statement that "I am bound by the terms of our agreement, but had I known your nature, I would not have agreed to a truce.  So leave now, but be warned that the next time we meet" etc etc.

I don't feel that using a loophole to circumvent a truce falls under the umbrella of 'acting with honour'.

-Hyp.


----------



## Patlin (Jul 30, 2007)

I think it's within the limits of acceptable paladin behavior, but that's because I don't like to straightjacket the class.  A better response might have been something like this:

"You have the item you came for.  Our agreement is concluded.  Defend yourself, fiend!"


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 30, 2007)

Patlin said:
			
		

> I think it's within the limits of acceptable paladin behavior, but that's because I don't like to straightjacket the class.  A better response might have been something like this:
> 
> "You have the item you came for.  Our agreement is concluded.  Defend yourself, fiend!"




That just feels like villain behaviour to me.

When one person agrees that yes, the agreed objectives have been achieved, and the other laughs and presses the button that releases the cage from the ceiling and summons the horde of minions because he's no longer bound by their agreement to abstain from their long-standing feud, I'd have no hesitation in saying "That's the bad guy!" even if I'd skipped the first six chapters.

I'm not sure you can get away with "He's evil, so he was obviously going to betray me, so I just betrayed him first!" and still call it honorable conduct.

-Hyp.


----------



## KingCrab (Jul 30, 2007)

I don't know.  Sometimes I think that pretty much just playing a paladin means you're asking for it to be taken away.  

To be serious, if he had made the contract I would say he would be in serious trouble if he didn't follow his word.  If he sorta was in on it then I think it's a grey area.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jul 30, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> I direct you to this section of the OP's description, emphasis mine:
> 
> 
> It seems to me that the imp became visible when he helped out in the battle, since attacking someone while you're invisible ends the invisibility.




Since when does "assisted" mean "attack"?  Have you never played a character that didn't fight during combat, but assisted the party in other ways?  Usually the DM gives XP for the whole party in those situations, even if you didn'tdeal x points of damage.

The OP said the Imp assisted the party, he never said he attacked or became visible.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 30, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> To be serious, if he had made the contract I would say he would be in serious trouble if he didn't follow his word.  If he sorta was in on it then I think it's a grey area.




There's a little aside scene in the Song of Ice and Fire series, where outlaws have captured a nobleman.

The outlaw leader says "Tell me what I want to know, and I'll tell them to let you go."

The nobleman tells them, and the outlaws start to string him up.

"You said you'd let me go!" he protests to the leader.

"No, I said I'd _tell them_ to let you go.  Boys, let him go."
"Sod off," replies one of the outlaws.  The leader shrugs, and they carry on hanging him.

Fun moment, and within the letter of his agreement, but not the spirit.

"We won't hurt you (but by 'we', we mean everyone except the paladin, wink wink!)" might be a grey area, but it's the sort of grey area a paladin should avoid!

-Hyp.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 30, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'm not sure you can get away with "He's evil, so he was obviously going to betray me, so I just betrayed him first!" and still call it honorable conduct.




In fact, such an action is _specifically_ called out as "unacceptable" in the _Book of Exalted Deeds_ (which, while questionable mechanically, is a perfectly solid resource in terms of alignment details).


----------



## frankthedm (Jul 30, 2007)

Every moment that imp exists furthers its goals of damning more souls to the nine hells. 

Good job paladin!

Now he needs to chastise the party on dealings with invisible benefactors. Especially if they kept him uninformed of the situation.


----------



## Hawken (Jul 30, 2007)

Agreement or not, catch-the-imp-off-guard or not, it boils down to one simple truth: The paladin killed an imp. Period. Circumstances of doing so are not important. He killed a fiend, a monster, one of Hell's creations. It wasn't a misguided rogue, a cruel wizard or even a drow with a touch of goodness waiting for the right moment to come out. It was a creature of irredeemable, calculating, eternal evil. You can't apply morals to such beings, or even laws. Its home is where souls of evil beings go when they die. For all the crimes each devil has commited, a swift execution is about the most merciful they could receive. There can be no mercy or protection or leniency for such creatures that deal in eternal torment. Regardless of how its slain, the paladin did a good thing. 

For those of you whining about striking unaware or mercy or any other such nonsense, stick to the cleric classes and leave the paladins to do what they do best; smiting evil back into the afterlife! 

Again, Lawful Good is not Lawful Stupid or even Lawful Cannot-Tell-A-Lie. Even if the paladin made a bargain, it was done so ignorant of the fiend's nature and the paladin's promise to his deity/church/gov't is a higher oath than any agreement unwittingly made to a fiend--which didn't include protection or allowing it to escape. His code of conduct is specific, "punish those that harm". That's what he did. "Keeping his word" is a LG thing, but not keeping one's word is not necessarily not a LG thing either. If a paladin does something that is not lawful, that doesn't make him chaotic or even neutral, it just means he did something not-lawful, nothing more or less. 

And for those of you that say "strip his powers for X days as a warning" need to realize that his powers are not just a personal asset but a party asset as well. Detect Evil, turn undead, cure disease, smite, those are all as important to the party on the whole as to the paladin himself. What happens when the party needs an emergency LoH but doesn't get it because the paladin is being punished for killing an imp?! Or someone is exposed to Green Slime and the paladin can't snap off a Cure Disease?! Give it a rest!

The paladin's powers are no more or less extraordinary than any other class's. The DM should not be an arbitrary light switch flipping them on or off based on his own opinions. If the player plays the character in good faith, leave him alone. If he's abusing things, warn first, then punish. The player is there to play a paladin not to perform to the DM's expectations or interpretations of what a paladin is or is not.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 30, 2007)

Hawken said:
			
		

> Agreement or not, catch-the-imp-off-guard or not, it boils down to one simple truth: The paladin killed an imp. Period.
> 
> Regardless of how its slain, the paladin did a good thing.




Ah, "the ends justify the means" - backbone of every good Paladin Code!



> His code of conduct is specific, "punish those that harm". That's what he did. "Keeping his word" is a LG thing, but not keeping one's word is not necessarily not a LG thing either.




Acting with honor is another precept of the code - including not lying or cheating.  Not keeping one's word is a violation of the code.  Not keeping one's word to not-cut-someone's-head-off is, I submit, a gross violation of the code.

-Hyp.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 30, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Since when does "assisted" mean "attack"?  Have you never played a character that didn't fight during combat, but assisted the party in other ways?  Usually the DM gives XP for the whole party in those situations, even if you didn'tdeal x points of damage.
> 
> The OP said the Imp assisted the party, he never said he attacked or became visible.




It was obvious though that the imp was not visble until the battle or afterward, not beforehand.  Before the battle it was looking for its target item/McGuffin elsewhere in the building or whatever, from the description.  Therefore the paladin did not just decide to let the imp live until the whole business was done; he at least didn't learn its nature until after the battle was underway or done with.

Also, what else is an _invisible_ *Imp* going to do to 'assist' in battle, if not attack enemies or use its spell-like abilities on them (both of which results in turning visible).  All it can do is Sting foes, turn into an Alternate Form that will allow it to bite or claw or gore them, or cast Suggestion on an opponent, all of which will turn it visible. (Imps can only turn themselves invisible, not other people, so it couldn't have helped out with friendly Invisibility effects)

It can't give allies a flanking bonus if the opponents aren't even aware it's hoving behind them invisibly to threaten with a natural weapon.  Most, maybe all but probably just most, uses of the Aid Another action would probably make it visible, and it's doubtful that all the Imp did to help in the battle was distract enemies with banter to give an adventurer some AC bonus through Aid Another.  Especially since they're described as enjoying a surprise attack when the opportunity presents itself to Sting someone or whatnot.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 30, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Ah, "the ends justify the means" - backbone of every good Paladin Code!
> 
> Acting with honor is another precept of the code - including not lying or cheating.  Not keeping one's word is a violation of the code.  Not keeping one's word to not-cut-someone's-head-off is, I submit, a gross violation of the code.
> 
> -Hyp.




Except, as I already mentioned, the Imp invalidated the agreement through its deception.  The agreement was made under false pretenses and the paladin strictly _cannot_ continue association with known evil creatures once he learns of their evil.  Seeing a fiend is usually enough to verify that it is evil, and once the other battle was over he would have had the chance to Detect Evil, though it wouldn't normally be necessary against a fiend since they're pretty much universally pure evil, through and through, down to their very core and the nature of their being.

The deception with the agreement was a slight to the paladin's honor, and he was honor-bound to avenge that slight by a fiend and fulfill his oaths to destroy evil, moreso than he was honor-bound to fulfill the oath that was made under false pretenses.

Paladins are put under the demands of pursuing Good moreso than Law; any evil act can make them lose their powers, but only a certain few nonlawful acts can cause the same loss of powers.  And most of their abilities are oriented towards opposing evil, not chaos, so they are undeniably more anti-evil than they are anti-chaos.  Good comes before law when a paladin must make a decision.


And, if the paladin could not have retained his paladin powers either way, what the heck was the point?  If he continues association with the fiend or allows it to go about its business with the item he had inadvertently helped it to acquire, he loses his powers for aiding evil and causing evil to be perpetuated (the imp cannot possibly have good intentions for the item).

If he smites the fiend for deceiving him and trying to use him as a tool of evil, he loses his powers, according to you who call foul on him for having done so.  It's an impossible situation for the paladin if you do not accept that he was fine in smiting the fiend after realizing its deception.  Smiting evil is the main thing that paladins *do*.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 30, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Except, as I already mentioned, the Imp invalidated the agreement through its deception.




What deception?  It didn't tell them a lot of things - it didn't tell them what it had for breakfast, it didn't tell them its cousin's dog's name, it didn't tell them it was a fiend from the Nine Hells.  How does that have a bearing on "Let's work together to achieve our separate objectives"?

Did the paladin disclose he was a paladin when the agreement was made?  If he didn't, is that a deception that would have given the Imp a valid excuse for killing the paladin first?



> Good comes before law when a paladin must make a decision.




I'm not talking about Good vs Law; I'm talking about acting with honour, per the Code.

_A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents._

Is refraining from smiting a creature with whom one has a truce an evil act?  I'd say not.

Does refraining from smiting a creature with whom one has a truce violate 'respect legitimate authority' or 'help those in need'?  I'd say not.

Is the Imp one who is harming or threatening innocents, necessitating punishment?  He may do at some time in the future, but there is no clear and present danger.

Does smiting a creature with whom one has a truce violate 'act with honor'?  Oh, hell, yes.

You've got, on the one hand, a clear code violation.  On the other hand, there's a case that might be made that a fiend, regardless of what he's actually doing or intending, threatens innocents by his very existence.

I'd say a hypothetical maybe vs a clear yes makes it a decision that's weighted strongly towards one side, and that one side is 'Act with honor'.



> And, if the paladin could not have retained his paladin powers either way, what the heck was the point?  If he continues association with the fiend or allows it to go about its business with the item he had inadvertently helped it to acquire, he loses his powers for aiding evil and causing evil to be perpetuated (the imp cannot possibly have good intentions for the item).




I wouldn't consider honouring the agreement to be a violation of the code.  Nor do I feel that a Paladin is required to automatically smite at the first ping on the Evildar.

-Hyp.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Jul 30, 2007)

*Spiteful Smiting?*



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Does smiting a creature with whom one has a truce violate 'act with honor'? Oh, hell, yes.



Excellent point; I do believe you have changed my mind.

-Samir


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Jul 30, 2007)

*Thayan Law*

Taking all arguments into account, I would inform the OP paladin that repeated actions of this nature (e.g., vengeance smitings) will shift his alignment towards *Neutral Good* ... or, possibly, *Chaotic Good*.

No powers lost; no clear Code violation ... yet.

-Samir​


----------



## Sejs (Jul 30, 2007)

the Jester said:
			
		

> I'm seeing a lot of "good trumps law" in this discussion... I don't agree with that; it depends entirely on the campaign.




Going by the default code of conduct for a paladin, they're in trouble if they ever willingly perform an evil act.  They do not suffer the same fate if they ever willingly perform a chaotic one, insofar as that they don't do them on so regular a basis as to make themselves no longer Lawful Good.

By following that logic, yes, good does indeed trump law.


----------



## Hawken (Jul 30, 2007)

If you want to throw out pithy quotes, try this one: "For evil to flourish, all that good men have to do is nothing." For the paladin to have not done what he did would have been an evil act, worthy of him losing his powers temporarily. For him to actively support the pact and even defend it would have been an evil act worthy of being stripped of his status as a paladin permanently. 

What he did, that's not ends justify the means at all. There is nothing in the paladin code that says paladin's have to give a 'warning shot' to any of their foes before sending them off. Fiends (evil outsiders) don't get warning shots because that gives them time to hurt someone else or escape and hurt someone else later. They are unremittingly evil. Undead aren't offered a chance to surrender because by the very nature of their existence they are Evil--same with devils and other fiends. 

The imp knew being around the paladin would be dangerous, but it stayed. It had plenty of time to flee, just leave, or do what it had to while the paladin and group were fighting. Instead it revealed itself and counted on being able to talk its way out of extinction. With its Suggestion power, just letting the imp talk was dangerous enough on its own, muchless waiting for it to do something or stalk and spy on the group unaware and plan their unsuspecting deaths. 

The group making a deal with the imp is where "the ends justify the means" comes into play--especially that the rest of the group were still willing to go along with the deal once they learned it was an imp. By slaying the imp, the paladin was avoiding "the ends justify the means" as well as preventing his friends from falling down that slippery slope too. His actions were lawful and good. 

In the same way a cashier is not authorized to approve corporate mergers, a paladin is not authorized by his deity/church/gov't to enter into binding agreements with fiends. His obligations to the source of his abilities precludes him from being able to do that. They cannot knowingly associate with evil or continue such associations. The imp knew that and still sought to make a deal that it knew the paladin could not accept. That is false pretenses. Contracts and agreements are done in 'good faith' while those done under false pretenses, by most courts are invalidated. Or you could look at it like the agreement was breached by the imp for being an imp since both it and the paladin knew that the paladin is forbidden to enter into any binding agreements with such beings. 



> Smiting evil is the main thing that paladins do.



 Hear, hear! And that's "Smite Evil", not "Smite Evil After Giving Fair Warning". And to those of you that say the paladin violated his honor by popping the imp off immediately; I want you to tell me what code of honor any paladin subscribes to that offers fiends a warning shot before smiting them! An enemy soldier on the battlefield, sure. Someone approaching the paladin as an equal but enemy, yeah. But an immortal, evil being who trafficks in souls and torment? Not a chance. Their 'warning' is just knowing they are within Detect Evil range of a paladin. 



> What deception?



 The omission of its true nature. It knew there would be no way in Hell (pun intended) that the group would have agreed to the plan had they known their "ally" was an imp. That's called full disclosure, and it wasn't present for that agreement. The imp knew the only way they would agree is if they didn't know what they were bargaining with. 



> Did the paladin disclose he was a paladin when the agreement was made?



 He doesn't need to. Imps know paladins are forbidden to enter into agreements with Evil creatures. Therefore by not disclosing its true nature, it voided the agreement with the paladin. 



> Is refraining from smiting a creature with whom one has a truce an evil act? I'd say not.



 Yes, it is. Especially when that truce was established under false pretenses and the mere presence of the imp compelled the paladin to take it out based on his code of conduct.



> Does refraining from smiting a creature with whom one has a truce violate 'respect legitimate authority' or 'help those in need'? I'd say not.



 Yes, it does. Because doing so brings mountains of disrespect  for the authority the paladin serves (deity, gov't, etc.) and it violates the 'help those in need' by further the cause of a known evil being pursuing an evil goal which would result in greater suffering for others. 



> Is the Imp one who is harming or threatening innocents, necessitating punishment? He may do at some time in the future, but there is no clear and present danger.



 It doesn't say 'harming' or 'threatening', it states, "those who harm or threaten" meaning those who have harmed/threatened, those who are harming/threatening, and those who will harm/threaten. It is not that the imp may do it in the future, its that it is guaranteed that it _has_ done it and _will_ do it again. Paladins can't let something like that go unpunished.



> Does smiting a creature with whom one has a truce violate 'act with honor'? Oh, hell, yes.



 Oh, hell no! The truce was invalid from the beginning--as explained above--so the paladin was free to Smite away. Besides Smite Evil does not have a clause in it to the effect of, "unless you have a pre-existing agreement with an evil being". 

There was no code violation. Hyp, you're picking an choosing words out of the code to try to support your argument. When the code itself and everything in the PHB supports the paladin Smiting Evil. And its not a case _might_ be made about fiends, that case was made eons ago! They do threaten others just by their existence. By their existence they harm others (tormenting/bartering souls for eternity does qualify for both of those things). 



> I wouldn't consider honouring the agreement to be a violation of the code. Nor do I feel that a Paladin is required to automatically smite at the first ping on the Evildar.



 If you wouldn't, then you're not thinking from the perspective of a paladin. Paladins have a greater agreement not to enter into those bargains in the first place, and by their own code, they are forbidden from continuing such agreements (or in your words, honouring). They dedicate their life and soul to their authority figure, that trumps any other agreements they can make on their own. In fact, they are no longer their own person, but instead agents of their authority figure; and I don't think there's any god of Good and/or Law that would allow their paladin servants to enter into agreements with fiends.

Also, paladins may not be required to Smite at the first ping of their Evil-dar (I like that term), but they sure as heck can't be penalized for it either. That's what its there for--to let them know who is a viable candidate for Smiting! When and how is of course up to the discretion of the paladin.


----------



## Sejs (Jul 30, 2007)

Hawken said:
			
		

> The omission of its true nature. It knew there would be no way in Hell (pun intended) that the group would have agreed to the plan had they known their "ally" was an imp. That's called full disclosure, and it wasn't present for that agreement. The imp knew the only way they would agree is if they didn't know what they were bargaining with.




Heh, and in all fairness, this is a devil we're talking about here.

The particulars of contract law should be something it's already very, _very_ familiar with.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 30, 2007)

There is due to be a battle.  You're a paladin, advisor and confidant of the general of your army.  The general has reason to want the battle delayed a couple of days - perhaps reinforcements are en route, or preparations need to be made, or whatever.  To this end, he has arranged a parlay with the opposition.

The two generals will meet under a flag of truce to discuss matters.  Each general may bring one associate.  Your general chooses you.

When you reach the site of the parlay, you discover that the opposing general has chosen, as his associate, an Erinyes.

Do you, as a Paladin, have a right to break the truce your general agreed to and smite the devil?  After all, you weren't informed beforehand that he'd be bringing a fiend to the meeting.  If you do so, does this mean the entire truce is void, and you are no longer obliged to honour the opposing general's safe conduct either?

Do you, as a Paladin, have a _duty_ to break the truce your general agreed to and smite the devil?

Do you, as a Paladin, have a responsibility to withdraw from the negotiations, so as not to 'willingly associate with an evil creature'?

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 30, 2007)

Hawken said:
			
		

> The omission of its true nature. It knew there would be no way in Hell (pun intended) that the group would have agreed to the plan had they known their "ally" was an imp. That's called full disclosure, and it wasn't present for that agreement. The imp knew the only way they would agree is if they didn't know what they were bargaining with.
> 
> He doesn't need to. Imps know paladins are forbidden to enter into agreements with Evil creatures. Therefore by not disclosing its true nature, it voided the agreement with the paladin.




How was the imp supposed to know he was a paladin?

-Hyp.


----------



## Dross (Jul 30, 2007)

Sam said:
			
		

> I sat back and enjoyed the interplay at the table and will award roleplaying xp for it, but I'm not sure if he should have any repercussions as a paladin for his actions.
> 
> Any thoughts?




If it was inconsistent with the way the the paly had been played previously, then there should be repercussions.

There should be repercusions for using "I wasn't the one that agreed" defence. 

Most other things need to be worked out by you and the player since you don't seem too upset about things. 
I as a player would not have taken that route unless my backstory had me hating fiends more than usual, and I'd have some problems as a DM in this case.


----------



## Hawken (Jul 30, 2007)

> Do you, as a Paladin, have a right to break the truce your general agreed to and smite the devil? After all, you weren't informed beforehand that he'd be bringing a fiend to the meeting. If you do so, does this mean the entire truce is void, and you are no longer obliged to honour the opposing general's safe conduct either?



 The issue of 'rights' is irrelevant and misleading. The paladin in question could smite or not smite. If the paladin had quick draw, took a swipe (smite + power attack, two-handed swing, etc, etc.) at the Erinyes...well, 'accidents' do happen--"Sorry, General, when these fiends are about, my keen holy thundering fiend-bane sword seems to have a life of its own! Perhaps if we had known the (opposing) general was in league with fiends, I would have been better prepared. (to the Erinyes) Oh--are you still alive? Dreadfully sorry about that...would you like me to Lay on Hands (sheathes sword, readies 2nd smite with spiked, blessed gauntlet)? (to all) Perhaps we should reconvene in a few days when the opposing advisor has had a chance to recover? That would be the honorable thing to do!" 

It wouldn't mean the truce is voided. The paladin didn't make the truce, the opposing generals did. Whether the paladin smiting the fiend breaks the truce or not is up to the generals. Smiting won't necessarily break the truce--and in that case, the opposing general would likely consider strongly keeping the truce just to get his yet-to-be-smitten butt out of there alive rather than face his opposite _and_ paladin advisor. 

Also the paladin would not have to withdraw from negotiations because he is not the one negotiating (associating). He is the one advising. The generals are doing the negotiating. And with a battle imminent, the paladin, rightfully expecting to find the Erinyes during the upcoming battle could definitely wait it out and slay her a few days later if an 'accidental' Smite didn't happen. With his general planning a battle against the Erinyes, that wouldn't offend the paladin's moral code at all, muchless enough for him to withdraw his aid from the general.



> How was the imp supposed to know he was a paladin?



 The imp has Detect Good--the blinding aura of holiness pouring off the paladin would be a good clue (along with the fact of the paladin wielding very un-cleric-like weapons). Then there's that pesky telepathy that lets the imp 'hear' the group's thoughts (if not their actual words) which would likely include the mention of the word 'paladin' at least half a dozen times or possibly even the phrase thought or spoken, "Oh crap! The paladin's never gonna go for this! Whaddaya say, guys?"



> There should be repercusions for using "I wasn't the one that agreed" defence.



 Unless the paladin was the leader of the group (more often than not the way it is). If he was group leader, the paladin would not be beholden to any agreements the others made without his knowledge. If he wasn't leader, considering his class and code of honor, he still wouldn't be beholden to any agreement with fiends and his companions would already know that.


----------



## Dross (Jul 30, 2007)

Hawken said:
			
		

> What he did, that's not ends justify the means at all. There is nothing in the paladin code that says paladin's have to give a 'warning shot' to any of their foes before sending them off. .




I took “the end justifies the means” not about giving a warning shot, but about breaking a truce and attacking. 



> The imp knew being around the paladin would be dangerous




Did the imp KNOW that there was a paladin around when it struck the deal (does it matter either way)? The imp would probably know that being around A paly would be dangerous. If the imp did not know about the paly, would that change your opinion Hawken?

EDIT: Actually just read the Detect Good thing. There is an assumption that it was used before the agreement took place (not totally invalid).



> The group making a deal with the imp is where "the ends justify the means" comes into play--especially that the rest of the group were still willing to go along with the deal once they learned it was an imp. By slaying the imp, the paladin was avoiding "the ends justify the means" as well as preventing his friends from falling down that slippery slope too. His actions were lawful and good. .




I don’t take the action as lawful (broke a truce). I’m leaning towards the act not being a good act (betrayal and all) except if some prior reasoning (attack all fiends regardless) was involved. Going along with the deal is a lawful act, but may not be a good act (not so important if not a paly)



> a paladin is not authorized by his deity/church/gov't to enter into binding agreements with fiends. .




I would say that this also would preclude the party from having any authority to enter binding agreements to get paid for a job if the paly did not participate in the negotiations. I find the argument of “I wasn’t the one that agreed” an invalid one because the paly has to at least trusts that the party he is with which giving them authority. If the party is not legitimate authority in one case, it is not legitimate authority in the other case, fiend be damned.  Veto the deal right at the beginning, or accept it (and its repercussions).



> His obligations to the source of his abilities precludes him from being able to do that. They cannot knowingly associate with evil or continue such associations. The imp knew that and still sought to make a deal that it knew the paladin could not accept. That is false pretenses. Contracts and agreements are done in 'good faith' while those done under false pretenses, by most courts are invalidated. Or you could look at it like the agreement was breached by the imp for being an imp since both it and the paladin knew that the paladin is forbidden to enter into any binding agreements with such beings.




Lets look at it from a reverse angle: does the paly have to reveal himself as a paly during negotiations to allow an employer to pay him? Why does it make a difference?
Then again, how does the imp know that he is a paladin? Given 8 PCs, maybe the imp was not going to betray for fear of its own safety?  



> It knew there would be no way in Hell (pun intended) that the group would have agreed to the plan had they known their "ally" was an imp. That's called full disclosure, and it wasn't present for that agreement. The imp knew the only way they would agree is if they didn't know what they were bargaining with.




No disagreement here, imps are tricky little devils!  But revealing that you are an imp (when as you say the imp KNOWS that there is a paly there) is Stupid Evil, which is on a par with Lawful Stupid.



> Yes, it does. Because doing so brings mountains of disrespect  for the authority the paladin serves (deity, gov't, etc.) and it violates the 'help those in need' by further the cause of a known evil being pursuing an evil goal which would result in greater suffering for others. ……. It doesn't say 'harming' or 'threatening', it states, "those who harm or threaten" meaning those who have harmed/threatened, those who are harming/threatening, and those who will harm/threaten. It is not that the imp may do it in the future, its that it is guaranteed that it _has_ done it and _will_ do it again. Paladins can't let something like that go unpunished.




Agreed that the paly can’t let it go unpunished, but I don’t think that punishment should have been meted out right now (and a “Defend yourself Field” is more in line with the character, not the paly role in my estimation). I believe that the DM and player need to flesh this out between them. My take on it is: He didn’t know, but that does not by necessity invalidate the truce it’s up to other aspects of the character to determine that



> There was no code violation. Hyp, you're picking an choosing words out of the code to try to support your argument. When the code itself and everything in the PHB supports the paladin Smiting Evil. And its not a case _might_ be made about fiends, that case was made eons ago! They do threaten others just by their existence. By their existence they harm others (tormenting/bartering souls for eternity does qualify for both of those things).




Paly’s should smite evil. They should also honour agreements that they make are that they agree to (even if only but not disagreeing to). When the two come into conflict, something has to give. But I don’t find Hyp picking and choosing words any more than you are Hawken



> Also, paladins may not be required to Smite at the first ping of their Evil-dar (I like that term), but they sure as heck can't be penalized for it either. That's what its there for--to let them know who is a viable candidate for Smiting! When and how is of course up to the discretion of the paladin.




Actually by your own words, when and how is not up to the discretion of the paly. If it isn’t obviously suicidal the when is NOW and the how is SMITE.


----------



## Dross (Jul 30, 2007)

Hawken said:
			
		

> The issue of 'rights' is irrelevant and misleading. The paladin in question could smite or not smite. If the paladin had quick draw, took a swipe (smite + power attack, two-handed swing, etc, etc.) at the Erinyes...well, 'accidents' do happen--"Sorry, General, when these fiends are about, my keen holy thundering fiend-bane sword seems to have a life of its own! Perhaps if we had known the (opposing) general was in league with fiends, I would have been better prepared. (to the Erinyes) Oh--are you still alive? Dreadfully sorry about that...would you like me to Lay on Hands (sheathes sword, readies 2nd smite with spiked, blessed gauntlet)? (to all) Perhaps we should reconvene in a few days when the opposing advisor has had a chance to recover? That would be the honorable thing to do!"



Legitimate authority be damned?



> It wouldn't mean the truce is voided. The paladin didn't make the truce, the opposing generals did. Whether the paladin smiting the fiend breaks the truce or not is up to the generals. Smiting won't necessarily break the truce--and in that case, the opposing general would likely consider strongly keeping the truce just to get his yet-to-be-smitten butt out of there alive rather than face his opposite _and_ paladin advisor.
> 
> Also the paladin would not have to withdraw from negotiations because he is not the one negotiating (associating). He is the one advising. The generals are doing the negotiating. And with a battle imminent, the paladin, rightfully expecting to find the Erinyes during the upcoming battle could definitely wait it out and slay her a few days later if an 'accidental' Smite didn't happen. With his general planning a battle against the Erinyes, that wouldn't offend the paladin's moral code at all, muchless enough for him to withdraw his aid from the general.



Legitimate authority be Damned. Would it make a difference if it was a general of the paly order?



> Unless the paladin was the leader of the group (more often than not the way it is). If he was group leader, the paladin would not be beholden to any agreements the others made without his knowledge. If he wasn't leader, considering his class and code of honor, he still wouldn't be beholden to any agreement with fiends and his companions would already know that.




Then veto the agreement, at the beginning not later. To do otherwise legitimises the agreement. Do you agree that if the agreement was for payment for a job, the paly could not take any $$ because he did not accept the job himself?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 30, 2007)

Hawken said:
			
		

> The issue of 'rights' is irrelevant and misleading. The paladin in question could smite or not smite. If the paladin had quick draw, took a swipe (smite + power attack, two-handed swing, etc, etc.) at the Erinyes...well, 'accidents' do happen--"Sorry, General, when these fiends are about, my keen holy thundering fiend-bane sword seems to have a life of its own! Perhaps if we had known the (opposing) general was in league with fiends, I would have been better prepared. (to the Erinyes) Oh--are you still alive? Dreadfully sorry about that...would you like me to Lay on Hands (sheathes sword, readies 2nd smite with spiked, blessed gauntlet)? (to all) Perhaps we should reconvene in a few days when the opposing advisor has had a chance to recover? That would be the honorable thing to do!"




None of this is appropriate to a paladin.

"Lawful good" requires that the character respect legitimate authority. The paladin here is not doing so.

The paladin's code prohibits deceit; therefore the "lay on hands/smite" switcheroo is inappropriate.

Again, no deceit; trying to claim that the "smite" was an accident is not only inappropriate, but ludicrous.

Paladins (and others who are lawful good) are required to consider the greater good. Attacking the fiend when it could easily ignite new hostilities between forces is the epitome of stupidity, and not conducive to the greater good.




> It wouldn't mean the truce is voided. The paladin didn't make the truce, the opposing generals did. Whether the paladin smiting the fiend breaks the truce or not is up to the generals.




This is nonsense. Anyone participating in a meeting under truce is expected to honor that truce. Anyone serving in a military capacity is expected to follow orders. The actions of a subordinate are the responsibility of a leader.

The paladin is aware of _all_ of this. The whole "Well, I didn't _actually_ agree, I just stood by while people agreed for me" is, at best, non-good, and in many respects non-evil.



> Smiting won't necessarily break the truce--and in that case, the opposing general would likely consider strongly keeping the truce just to get his yet-to-be-smitten butt out of there alive rather than face his opposite _and_ paladin advisor.




So it's okay to fight deceptively as long as you come out ahead? Yeah, that's _real_ paladin-like. 



> If he wasn't leader, considering his class and code of honor, he still wouldn't be beholden to any agreement with fiends and his companions would already know that.




If the entire party makes an agreement, and it's obvious that everyone--on both sides--thinks that the agreement includes the paladin, it's his duty to make any objection clear _at the time_. Waiting until later and then springing the "Well, I didn't really agree" defense is, again, dishonorable and unworthy of anyone claiming the title of paladin.


----------



## Hawken (Jul 30, 2007)

Actually, I never said the paladin had to smite anything immediately. The player could have waited before dropping the imp--but doing so would have placed him and the group in jeopardy with each passing moment. It is true that the imp may not have tried anything because of its tactical inferiority, but it could easily have caused havoc with a well-placed, well-worded Suggestion then followed the group, spied on them and assassinated them at the right moment. Or not. But the paladin had every right to drop the imp, agreement or not (aware of the agreement or not) as the very presence of the imp was a threat to the safety and welfare of himself and his companions--truce or not. 



> If the imp did not know about the paly, would that change your opinion Hawken?



 No. But for the imp to approach them without gathering all available information on them would have been a mistake that would have gotten the imp killed long before meeting that party. Imps may not be geniuses, but going up against a well equipped, well-organized group alone--even under the pretext of a temporary truce--would be folly. Maybe like the group, time constraints prevented the use of the appropriate Detect spells on both sides, but when the imp's true nature was revealed, it should have expected a hostile reaction of some sort especially since it could have telepathically eavesdropped while verbally bargaining with the group. 

Whether the paladin knew about the truce or not is irrelevant. He never agreed to it. Authority issues aside, if he doesn't agree to it, he's not bound to it, especially once the imp is revealed as an imp. There was no law broken there but he did uphold the law (punish those that....). There was no betrayal and the paladin had a standing agreement (by virtue of his class) to kill all fiends. Going along with the deal is not lawful, its stupid. The deal was made under false pretenses and therefore not a valid agreement, muchless an honorable one. 

The party can do what they want (they obviously did), but the paladin is not bound by their deals if fiends are involved. They would know that already based on his class and code of honor. He could not be a party to any contract with fiends. They may have just gone ahead with the deal and thought to talk the paladin down from any smiting, but he went straight to work on the imp--as he should have. No different than if they negotiated with a vampire, demon or any other creature of pure, absolute evil. 

Also, the paladin would not be wrong for waiting until the fighting was over to take out the imp. His first responsibility is to the safety of himself and his group. With the imp (foolishly) fighting on their side, he wasn't an immediate threat--the "fighters and animals" were. Once that was dealt with, then of course, he would turn on the imp.  



> Lets look at it from a reverse angle: does the paly have to reveal himself as a paly during negotiations to allow an employer to pay him? Why does it make a difference?



 If that employer is a fiend or other obvious being of absolute evil, yes. "Sorry, Asmodeus, I'm a paladin and cannot accept your offer of employment without breaking my code of conduct. Thanks anyway". The difference is the paladin recognized the imp for what it was and dispatched it. Slaying fiends is in their job description (figuratively, if not literally so), not bargaining with them (actually, that is specifically prohibited). So, it makes all the difference. And the imp may not have attacked, but it definitely would have betrayed the group in some manner if given the chance--alerting enemies of the PCs, Suggestion, etc.

As for the agreement, it was over. They agreed to work together. They both got their different trinkets, then the paladin killed the imp. It wasn't stated by the OP that there was a "part peacefully and go our separate ways" clause in the agreement (dumb of the imp to overlook that part during negotiations). So, with the goals of their mutual truce met, said truce was concluded and without any agreement of safe passage by either party, the paladin was still well within his rights, his responsibility and all facets of his alignment to smite that imp back to Avernus.


----------



## Hawken (Jul 30, 2007)

I just noticed that my last post was being done at the same time as Dross' second and Mouse's posts. 



> Legitimate authority be Damned. Would it make a difference if it was a general of the paly order?



 Nothing was mentioned like: General, "Ok, paladin, if there's a fiend in there, don't attack it." Paladin, "Yes, sir." So, if the bad general says, here's my advisor, Ms. Erinyes. And then the paladin's sword 'slips' out of its sheath--"Sorry, general, you know how these sentient weapons are when they get worked up!"--and into the chest of the Erinyes. There's nothing deceptive about that. It's rather straightforward. If the enemy general wants to take offense at that and call off the truce, then he could, but would be at the mercy of the other general and a paladin. And considering that the Erinyes could use any manner of charms, telepathy and whatever else to gain advantage over the good general, the bad general shouldn't have brought an Erinyes to the meeting, or at least disguised her better. 

That's just an option. The paladin wouldn't have to attack the Erinyes, but tactically it would be a viable option. If you consider it cheating or whatever, then too, look at that bigger picture. If they can cut short a war to spare thousands of lives by taking out the general and advisor, then that is the greater good being served. The evil general, bringing in an Erinyes, would have no intention of complying with a truce, instead using the meeting (and stalling tactics) to draw information from the good general and the paladin to give them an advantage. The good general anyway, would not accept a telepathic, charm at will, fiend for an opposing advisor regardless. 



> Do you agree that if the agreement was for payment for a job, the paly could not take any $$ because he did not accept the job himself?



 I'm going to pass on this. It has nothing to do with the matter at hand. The discussion was about a paladin dropping a fiend after a truce had ended. 



> "Lawful good" requires that the character respect legitimate authority. The paladin here is not doing so.



 Matter of opinion. Maybe the general warned him, "use your powers and if there is a threat to negotiations, take it out." Maybe not. That is a hypothetical situation and I proposed only one hypothetical response. 



> The paladin's code prohibits deceit; therefore the "lay on hands/smite" switcheroo is inappropriate.



 Not true either. In my comment, the paladin said nothing about healing. Nothing deceitful about that, the paladin's intentions at that point would be painfully clear. 



> Again, no deceit; trying to claim that the "smite" was an accident is not only inappropriate, but ludicrous.



 Again, no deceit involved. The paladin never said "accident", only that his "sword seemed to have a life of its own...." Nothing deceitful there, just a diplomatic way of stating that he struck down a fiend. 



> Paladins (and others who are lawful good) are required to consider the greater good. Attacking the fiend when it could easily ignite new hostilities between forces is the epitome of stupidity, and not conducive to the greater good.



 Not attacking the fiend when it could telepathically spy on the general, charm both the general and the paladin, toss in some suggestions regarding troop positions and numbers, and that would not be conducive to the greater good of the paladin and his general. The evil general would know that the other general would not accept a telepath with innate charming abilities into the meeting as an 'advisor'. He would also likely know the good general was bringing a paladin along and that the two would fight and thus he could claim foul play when that is what he intended all along. 



> This is nonsense. Anyone participating in a meeting under truce is expected to honor that truce. Anyone serving in a military capacity is expected to follow orders. The actions of a subordinate are the responsibility of a leader.



 Except when charming telepaths are involved. That right there would be considered 'cheating' and a violation of the truce. The paladin would also be responsible for his general's safety, and in the case of a telepath charmer, the safety of his army as well since that information could be telepathically 'overheard' or charmed out of the general. So, in that situation, the paladin would be watching out for his general and the army by striking down the Erinyes. 



> So it's okay to fight deceptively as long as you come out ahead? Yeah, that's real paladin-like.



 Never said that. But if the enemy is going to pull a stunt like bringing the Erinyes, then the good general has every right to have his paladin Smite the hell out of her! No Erinyes (or fiend of any sort) and no Smiting. Don't act so surprised either. The first thing the paladin is going to think is "Erinyes! She's either going to charm the general, plant a suggestion or take his information right out of his head! No way!" 



> If the entire party makes an agreement, and it's obvious that everyone--on both sides--thinks that the agreement includes the paladin, it's his duty to make any objection clear at the time. Waiting until later and then springing the "Well, I didn't really agree" defense is, again, dishonorable and unworthy of anyone claiming the title of paladin.



 True. And that may have been what the player said. But according to actual in-game events, the paladin dispatched the imp after the conditions of the truce were fulfilled and there was no mention of safe passage from either side, so he wasn't in the wrong.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 30, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> None of this is appropriate to a paladin.




Something about D&D that I really, really believe is that its paramount, when someone expresses an interest in playing a paladin, for the DM and the player to have some serious discussions about how they view the class.  Because different people can have such different ideas about paladins.

Sometimes, the player can adapt to the DM's view.  Sometimes, the DM might be able to accommodate the player.  Perhaps there can be compromise, or revelation.

And sometimes, it's just not a good idea for a particular player to try to run a paladin under a particular DM, because they'll never mesh.

I had a DM tell me once "No, you can't multiclass paladin and rogue, because rogues are thieves!"  I elected not to try a paladin under that DM.

I think it would be futile for me to play a paladin in Hawken's game, and I'd discourage him from running one in mine, 'cos I just don't think we could make it work.

-Hyp.


----------



## eamon (Jul 30, 2007)

Clearly, there are many different interpretations of what it means to be a paladin - and there's nothing weird or wrong about that.  I'd ask the player whether his actions fit in his code of conduct (and since he'll say yes)... then ask him to rationalize his actions.  I think it's perfectly possible to play a "viscous", gritty paladin that makes agreements only to respect no more than their letter, but on the other hand to help the downtrodden, and it's also possible to imagine a paladin that makes agreements in good faith and then respects their spirit even if doing so has evil consequences.  And as long as there's some code of conduct, some deity to whom that code of conduct seems reasonable, it's no more than decent role-playing flexibility.

You can enmesh the player into your campaign by for example letting him flesh out the deity in question, complete with a typical church or shrine and a typical symbol (if that's the kind of thing the player would enjoy).  Apparently the DM hasn't considered what his campaign's paladin's should be like - and since he hasn't considered it, it certainly wasn't told to the player, and given the vagueness and "deity-specificness" of a code of conduct in the first place, I wouldn't penalize the player, unless the code of conduct as they imagine it is violated.

The issue of weaseling out of an agreement by considering it not "his" agreement is quite serious though.  What was the level of the paladin's involvement - was he unaware that an agreement had been made at all?  Was he aware that his party members had agreed something with someone invisible but didn't know the details?  Was he out of ear-shot while the agreement was made but afterwards well-informed?  Was he within earshot, but distracted and in that sense unaware?  Was he aware but passive?

I'd say, let the player make his own noose now by defining his code of conduct now, and use it to hang him later should he behave inconsistently, rather than potentially irritating the player by interpreting the code of conduct very onerously.  It can't harm to have him clarify his code of conduct anyhow...


----------



## eamon (Jul 30, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Something about D&D that I really, really believe is that its paramount, when someone expresses an interest in playing a paladin, for the DM and the player to have some serious discussions about how they view the class.  Because different people can have such different ideas about paladins.
> 
> Sometimes, the player can adapt to the DM's view.  Sometimes, the DM might be able to accommodate the player.  Perhaps there can be compromise, or revelation.
> 
> And sometimes, it's just not a good idea for a particular player to try to run a paladin under a particular DM, because they'll never mesh.




Exactly ;-)


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 30, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> What deception?  It didn't tell them a lot of things - it didn't tell them what it had for breakfast, it didn't tell them its cousin's dog's name, it didn't tell them it was a fiend from the Nine Hells.  How does that have a bearing on "Let's work together to achieve our separate objectives"?
> 
> Did the paladin disclose he was a paladin when the agreement was made?  If he didn't, is that a deception that would have given the Imp a valid excuse for killing the paladin first?




The imp purposely remained invisible while making the deal with them.  The party was quite clearly a group of humans, some heavily armed.  The paladin may or may not have also been wearing the symbols of his patron deity, if any.  If the imp had been visible and in its normal form when making the deal, it would not have been deceptive in the dealing process.





> I'm not talking about Good vs Law; I'm talking about acting with honour, per the Code.
> 
> _A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents._
> 
> Is refraining from smiting a creature with whom one has a truce an evil act?  I'd say not.




Acting with honor does not necessarily require him to fulfill deals that were made under false pretenses; acting with honor would not have required him to fulfill the deal if it had, in fact, turned out to be the McGuffin of Ultimate Doom that the stranger was seeking, because he was tricked into agreeing to the deal; had he known the invisible fellow was an imp, he would never had agreed to it.

Instead he was lead to believe that the invisible foe was merely some stranger who needed to recover an item in yonder building, and wanted to work together with the adventurers for a while until finding it, so as to make things easier on them all.  He was never given any reason to believe it would be against his code to go along with the agreement, other than the fact that the stranger was apparently shy or kind of suspicious since they remained invisible as long as possible.

Someone who is dishonest in making a deal, and knows that honesty would most likely result in the other party not agreeing to it (as an imp would expect most mortals to reject cooperation with a fiend like him, at least at first), is not making the deal honorably while the other party is making the deal in good faith, not expecting such a significantly important deception.  The imp didn't make the deal in good faith, it made the deal expecting, as a devil would, that everyone in the party would just have to go along with it after they agreed to it, and that they would have to follow through on the agreement just because it's the 'honorable' thing to do, and devils live to bend deals and twist honor around their pinky fingers.



> Does refraining from smiting a creature with whom one has a truce violate 'respect legitimate authority' or 'help those in need'?  I'd say not.
> 
> Is the Imp one who is harming or threatening innocents, necessitating punishment?  He may do at some time in the future, but there is no clear and present danger.



Note the exception "(except when they would use that help for evil)."  Which you left out for some reason.  A paladin will not help anyone when it is only going to perpetuate more evil or be abused, which helping the imp would cause.  Fiends are evil incarnate.  Their only goals are to commit evil acts and further their own personal power, so they can do more evil to their 'lessers'.

There can be no doubt in a paladin's mind that, whatever a *fiend* wants _something_ for, their *ultimate purpose* for it is to use it for evil, or to use it to get something else that they can use to evil ends, or to use it to get out of a contract of theirs so they can get on with doing evil things for their own pleasure.

And the paladin is very clearly unable to help evil, commit any evil acts, or continue associating with evil creatures after learning that they are evil.  The revelation of the imp's true form certainly prevents the paladin from working with him any longer.  And he can almost certainly expect that whatever the imp wants the item for, it is intending to use that item for evil somehow, and paladins are not required to give aid when it would be used for evil, so he is not required to work with the imp at that point.  And I think that is listed before 'act with honor' in the description so it may take precedence.



> Does smiting a creature with whom one has a truce violate 'act with honor'?  Oh, hell, yes.



Sure, but the agreement may've been voided by the false pretenses it was made under, and the knowledge by the fiend that a paladin (or good cleric, to a less certain extent) would never agree to work with a fiend.  We don't know if the imp was sure he was a paladin or cleric beforehand, but the imp did feel a need to stay invisible while making the deal, as lawful evil always believes in the letter of the law and the exact wording of an agreement, never the spirit of the law or the spirit of the deal, only its exact wording and how they can twist it.



> You've got, on the one hand, a clear code violation.  On the other hand, there's a case that might be made that a fiend, regardless of what he's actually doing or intending, threatens innocents by his very existence.
> 
> I'd say a hypothetical maybe vs a clear yes makes it a decision that's weighted strongly towards one side, and that one side is 'Act with honor'.
> 
> ...



No, the paladin would definitely be violating his code if he fulfilled the agreement after learning the imp's true form.  *He is absolutely, spelled-out in the rules, not allowed to continue association with evil creatures*.  He is also not required to give help when it would be used for evil.  I believe these trump the supposed honor of the deal that was made under false pretenses.  Honor does not demand that he fall on his own sword.  And fulfilling the agreement while letting the fiend go would have cost him his paladin powers _without any shadow of a doubt_.

But considering the verbal agreement to be null and void by the fiend's deceptions and its true nature, then smiting the imp, is less certainly a violation.  The paladin is avenging the slight to his honor, from the imp trying to make him violate his oaths to never do evil and never willingly aid evil.  I mention the imp's true nature only because the fact that it is a fiend makes it fairly obvious to the paladin that, whatever it made them agree to, it will be used to help the imp do evil.

If it were an evil human it would be less clear, but we don't know if he would've attacked them as suddenly if it were a human; he may've challenged him more formally in that case or demanded that the evil human leave the place immediately, without its item, lest he be forced to smite the evil-doer for trying to turn the paladin's oaths against him.


Anyway, I do agree about not smiting stuff just because it's evil, but in this case we are talking about a fiend, and one who deceived the paladin to begin with, and was trying to get him to help with a task that probably had some evil purpose to it.  As a fiend it is already a corrupt, damned soul that has gone to the Lower Planes for its sins, and been twisted into an even-more-evil creature, that exists only to perpetuate _further_ evil.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 30, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> When you reach the site of the parlay, you discover that the opposing general has chosen, as his associate, an Erinyes.
> 
> Do you, as a Paladin, have a right to break the truce your general agreed to and smite the devil?  After all, you weren't informed beforehand that he'd be bringing a fiend to the meeting.  If you do so, does this mean the entire truce is void, and you are no longer obliged to honour the opposing general's safe conduct either?



No.  You haven't made any agreement with the other general, but you do owe it to your own general to keep your word and honor the truce for now.  You are to wait until the truce has ended or been violated by the enemy before you can smite the fiend.

You are not to associate with the Erinyes.  You must back out of the parlay, and will probably request that your general follow you for his own safety, as your oaths do not permit you to deal with the opposing general's fiendish ally.  You would probably ask that the other general send his associate back to his camp as you head back to yours, to maintain a fair parlay and facillitate a reasonable deal.

If the other general refuses, you will have to either move back enough to be left out of the parlay, or go back to the camp, or bring your general back to the camp with you for the sake of his own safety (rather than leaving him there by himself, completely vulnerable to the Erinyes and opposing general; it would be dishonorable to leave the general there alone).  Alternatively, you may request that the parlay be held off a short time longer, until another ally of yours could replace you at the general's side as his associate in the meeting.



> Do you, as a Paladin, have a _duty_ to break the truce your general agreed to and smite the devil?
> 
> Do you, as a Paladin, have a responsibility to withdraw from the negotiations, so as not to 'willingly associate with an evil creature'?
> 
> -Hyp.



Nope.  Unlike the example of the OP's, this is not a case of the paladin himself making an agreement with an individual that he does not know and who is intent on deceiving him.  This is a case of the paladin making an agreement with his own military superior.  Which he can honorably ignore by having a different soldier replace him at the parlay, since his first loyalty is to his oaths as a paladin, which deny him the leeway to attempt parlay with this fiend that the opposing general has brought along.  His general would have to understand, having brought a paladin along, that the paladin would have to act as though he has a 10-foot-pole up his rear.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 30, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> How was the imp supposed to know he was a paladin?
> 
> -Hyp.




Besides any obvious markings of devotion to Heironeous or St. Cuthbert or other such possible clues, I direct you to this, emphasis mine......



			
				Imp in the SRD said:
			
		

> Spell-Like Abilities
> *At will—detect good, detect magic*, invisibility (self only); 1/day—suggestion (DC 15). Caster level 6th. The save DC is Charisma-based.
> 
> Once per week an imp can use commune to ask six questions. The ability otherwise works as the spell (caster level 12th).




Also, a 6th-level paladin's aura under Detect Good would be a 'strong' aura of Good.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 30, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Something about D&D that I really, really believe is that its paramount, when someone expresses an interest in playing a paladin, for the DM and the player to have some serious discussions about how they view the class.  Because different people can have such different ideas about paladins.
> 
> Sometimes, the player can adapt to the DM's view.  Sometimes, the DM might be able to accommodate the player.  Perhaps there can be compromise, or revelation.
> 
> And sometimes, it's just not a good idea for a particular player to try to run a paladin under a particular DM, because they'll never mesh.



Agreed.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 30, 2007)

eamon said:
			
		

> I think it's perfectly possible to play a "viscous", gritty paladin




Just to quibble, but for future reference, it's spelled "vicious".  Viscous is a term for describing fluids, as being similar to glue or just not flowing well.

_*the Grammar Patrol drives off*_


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 30, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Something about D&D that I really, really believe is that its paramount, when someone expresses an interest in playing a paladin, for the DM and the player to have some serious discussions about how they view the class.  Because different people can have such different ideas about paladins.
> 
> Sometimes, the player can adapt to the DM's view.  Sometimes, the DM might be able to accommodate the player.  Perhaps there can be compromise, or revelation.
> 
> ...




QFT

Something else to remember is that each paladin and cleric is required to have a code of conduct.  The PHB paladin entry for Code of Conduct is not the only one, nor is it a complete one. IMO each player running a paladin (and also a cleric) should write down his code of conduct as part of his character write up and include it on his character sheet to remind him of how his PC is  commiting to behave.

This will help with the DM/player interaction aspects and assist in pinning down any "misunderstandings".


----------



## Patlin (Jul 30, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That just feels like villain behaviour to me.
> 
> When one person agrees that yes, the agreed objectives have been achieved, and the other laughs and presses the button that releases the cage from the ceiling and summons the horde of minions because he's no longer bound by their agreement to abstain from their long-standing feud, I'd have no hesitation in saying "That's the bad guy!" even if I'd skipped the first six chapters.
> 
> ...




How many villains announce their intention to do battle and give you fair warning before attacking?  Seems to me LE attack at the first 'legal' opportunity, LG gives fair warning first, and must accept the risks inherent: loss of surprise, a higher probability of escape, etc.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Jul 30, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Something about D&D that I really, really believe is that its paramount, when someone expresses an interest in playing a paladin, for the DM and the player to have some serious discussions about how they view the class.  Because different people can have such different ideas about paladins.
> 
> <snip for space, but the content is still good!>
> 
> ...




Thirded.  Good post.

Personally, I don't buy into the whole "paladins get carte blanche" when dealing with an outsider.  Paladins of certain deities, perhaps.  But paladins of all deities?  No way.  I don't buy into generalizations that broad!  

To me, being a paladin is so much more than just smite the evil foe.  I mean, look at the abilities a typical paladin receives.  The only outright offensive ones are _smite_ (and I admit that's a biggie) and _turn undead_ (which since it is at a reduced level may be more important for activating certain feats ... some of which are offensive and many are not).  

But on the other hand you've got _special mount_ - which could be used offensively in a charge, but it certainly could also be used as simple transportation, too.  You've got _lay on hands_ - which could be used offensively, but most often is used for healing.  You've got _remove disease_, which is obviously intended for something other than making a blow to the enemy.  You've got _detect evil_ - which should be used to avoid evil and identify it, but itself is not outright offensive in nature.  You've got _divine grace_ which is clearly defensive in its abilities.  You've got _aura of courage_ - which is also clearly defensive.  And there's _divine health_ - which is also clearly defensive.

Now, a case can easily be made that a good offense comes from an excellent defense.  But looking at the class abilities, I personally do not accept the argument that a good paladin is one who smites because he can.  There are many types of good paladins.  A paladin who heals more than smites is perfectly acceptable.  A paladin who is interested in being the benefactor for the downtrodden is perfectly acceptable.

In summary, I don't have a problem with the big offensive paladins.  In the OP's case, I think the paladin could have done many things better.  But then again I'm also much more interested in changing lives, not destroying them.  "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar" type person.  In my campaigns, I'd personally rather see a paladin who errs on the side of mercy.  After all, a big bad paladin slaying a lowly imp does nothing but fuel the enemy's hatred.  Capturing them and granting them some measure of mercy (and potentially converting them to your side) at least makes the enemy think and not just hate.

As a side note, this argument reminds me of the latest OotS cartoon - the one where Belkar tries to attack the creature under the umbrella.  There are two references to people in that strip who are the attack first and ask questions later type.  Interestingly enough, they are Belkar (a visual reference) and Xykon (a verbal reference).  I think it's been made clear that both of these characters have a bent towards evil, and I'm being nice here.  I'm not trying to make generalizations about all characters, but personally I think that paladins who are about smiting evil at will without evaluating the ramifications of their actions upon their code are in danger.  Being a paladin is hardly ever that black and white.  I think there hae been plenty of posts already about how the paladin could have acted differently and been far more close to the paladin code.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Jul 30, 2007)

Like most paladin threads, this one reinforces my conclusion that DMs should shut up and leave paladin code strictly to player determination.

DM: Do you think this is within keeping with a paladin's code of conduct?

Player: Yep!

DM: Your call.

It's amazing how many issues this resolves.  Surrender the power, DM's.  19 cases out of 20 the game will be better off for it.  You take a huge load off your shoulders and put it on the player.  If the player uses this as an excuse to ignore the code- so what?  Who cares?  Really more his problem than yours.  The paladin is balanced with the code of behavior or without.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Jul 30, 2007)

*Separatist = Solo Adventurer*



			
				Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> Like most paladin threads, this one reinforces my conclusion that DMs should shut up and leave paladin code strictly to player determination.



Dissing Rule #1 already? It must be Monday.







-Samir


----------



## Wystan (Jul 30, 2007)

Sam said:
			
		

> ...Anyway, we're wrapping up a combat.  Prior to the combat starting, some of the party made an agreement with an invisible NPC to essentially work together.  They had similar goals.  The party was looking for a specific item in a house (guarded by fighters and animals) and *the invisible NPC was looking for something else in the house.*
> 
> ...  and after the combat the party found what they wanted, *as did the imp.*  But as things are wrapping up, the paladin attacks the imp, smites him, and kills him with one critical smiting hit..... but I'm not sure if he should have any repercussions as a paladin for his actions.
> 
> Any thoughts?




He killed him after the deal was concluded in any case.
No Penalty


----------



## billd91 (Jul 30, 2007)

I have no qualm with what the paladin did. There was no code violation that wouldn't be fixed by standing vigil for a night in the chapel as penance for unknowingly getting into deal with a fiend in the first place.

You know, if any paladin PC isn't doing the fantasy religion equivalent of a few extra rosaries every couple of sessions, then I don't think the paladin is being played right. That paladin should be holding himself up to such standards that he's always finding failings within himself to reflect on and perform extra devotions as punishment. And the DM shouldn't have to impose it for anything but huge, blatant violations of the code.


----------



## udalrich (Jul 30, 2007)

the Jester said:
			
		

> I'm seeing a lot of "good trumps law" in this discussion... I don't agree with that; it depends entirely on the campaign.




Not by the rules.  A Paladin who commits a chaotic act is just that.  A Paladin (with all his powers) who has just committed a chaotic act.  A Paladin who commits an evil act is an ex-Paladin.  

One chaotic act does not cause an alignment change.  Even a Paladin who knowingly commits an evil act is still a lawful good ex-Paladin.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Jul 30, 2007)

*Alignment Semantics*



			
				udalrich said:
			
		

> Even a Paladin who knowingly commits an evil act is still a lawful good ex-Paladin.



It depends on the act, and the DM.

-Samir


----------



## IanB (Jul 30, 2007)

Hyp's argument is interesting but IMC at least, it is completely trumped by the fact that we're talking about an imp - which is to say, an evil outsider, a physical embodiment of the philisophical concepts that a paladin exists to oppose.

It is safe for me to say, in fact, that a paladin who didn't take steps to destroy an evil outsider who had deceived him in this way (assuming that the fiend is something the paladin can reasonably take on without throwing his life away) would be in big trouble with his church, deity, and/or conscience, unless by sparing the imp in the short term a greater good was being served.

Paladins vs. fiends = no mercy, no question in my game.

Now, if it had been a shady rogue or something who had tricked him, that is different, but outsiders are a different creature type for a reason.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 30, 2007)

Unless the Paladin had been regularly bending/breaking "the code" I don't think I would take away his powers for this particular infraction as an isolated incident. Instead I think a message from above in the form of a vision or dream which clearly communicated the displeasure of the higher power the Paladin is serving would be fine.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 30, 2007)

I'm so proud, since I'm pretty sure by the details listed that I wrote the adventure Sam is running. War of the Burning Sky, right? If that's the case, I have some, ahem, suggestions for later adventures that you might want to bear in mind, since I like me my moral dilemmas, and there are quite a few of them in the campaign saga.


Every group has to come to its own consensus on what is reasonable for paladins, but in my opinion, I have to agree with . . . one of the many posters above. Whenever someone wants to play a paladin, the following should happen.

*Guide to Cutting Down on Needless Arguments*
1. The GM and player discuss what their respective views of how a paladin should behave are.

2. The GM suggests what he'll be comfortable with, but as long as it sounds like the player is playing the paladin because he's interested in having a noble character, the GM promises to respect the player's interpretation of his character's code. If it sounds instead like the player wants to play a paladin to prove a point or to piss off another player (or the GM), the GM should heavily advise against such a character, the same way he would with any disruptive character.

3. The GM should explain to the rest of the group, "There is not just one 'right' answer to what constitutes a proper code of honor for a paladin, so even if you disagree with his version, it's not worth arguing about outside the game. Of course, if your character would have a disagreement with the paladin in-game, go for it, but let's not have real-life bitterness over what happens in a game where we kill stuff with dice."



Then, in the game, the paladin decides he has been deceived by a monster, and that letting the monster live would be emboldening evil. He attacks the monster, and the GM asks, "Do you think this is within the bounds of your paladin's code? It sounds a little dishonorable because of x, y, and z."

The player says, "But a, b, and c make me think this is the right course of action." 

The GM says, "Okay. Go for it. Your god trusted you enough to make you a paladin, so he trusts you enough to not violate your code."


Then, later, the paladin has to make a decision between accepting the bargain of a devil so it doesn't kill him and his party, or trying to fight it and probably dying. The devil's bargain requires the party to look the other way as it commits an evil act, but if they refuse and the devil manages to kill them, many might perish. 

The paladin bristles at the choice the devil offers, and is ready to attack, but the GM says, "This isn't the same situation as last time. Is failing your mission worth it just so you can take a swing at a monster? Remember, it's always possible to atone for associating with evil for the sake of the greater good. After atoning, you can accomplish this mission, and many people are counting on you to do so. But you can't finish the mission if you die. What do you decide?"

If the player decides his character's code requires him to fight, but that the greater good requires him to agree to the devil's bargain, then take away his powers, but give him a chance to atone. He has, after all, decided what his code requires. If instead the player decides that his character's code is lenient enough to allow suffering evil to live for the sake of the greater good, then don't take away his powers.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 30, 2007)

By the way, does it strike anyone else as a little odd that devils often commit small acts of good to further the cause of greater evil, such as helping a man's dying lover so he'll be drawn to the dark side, or giving a powerful weapon to a priest so he can kill a monster, in exchange for the priest not smiting him. Even though devils are supposedly "pure evil," they're able to do small bits of good. 

Yet many gamers don't let paladins perform even the smallest evil acts. For some reason, they expect paladins to be more 'pure' of good than devils are 'pure' of evil. 

Some theologians say that angels have no free will, because they can only perform the will of God. Paladins aren't angels, though. They have free will, and so they can make choices with some wiggle room. If you don't think paladins ever have choices, if you think that when one becomes a paladin one surrenders your free will to your god, then dammit, have the GM play them. When I play a character, I want to be able to decide how I act.

For the record, WotBS was not designed to be a story of black and white, evil and good. It's a war. People in the war are fighting for what they believe in, and few of them are evil. Most are neutral, but a few, even among the PCs' enemies, are actually good. They want to bring the war to an end, and only want to stop those fighting so they can get more power, not those who are fighting for a cause they believe in, or to defend their homelands.

There are, of course, some truly vile villains, some foes who you shouldn't feel any qualms about kicking the ass of. But I hope people playing it don't see all the enemies as pure evil, but instead come to learn that everyone is fighting for a reason, and just because someone's reasons are different doesn't make them evil, or unworthy of life.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 30, 2007)

Hawken said:
			
		

> Nothing was mentioned like: General, "Ok, paladin, if there's a fiend in there, don't attack it." Paladin, "Yes, sir."




Uh... "Truce" means "There's to be no violence unless the other side initiates it first." It does _not_ include exceptions, unless those are spelled out in advance. The fact that the erinyes is a fiend means the paladin has to be careful, and has to watch out for _charms_ and _telepathy_, but it is not, in and of itself, justification for breaking the truce. At worst, it means the paladin strongly suggests to the general that they depart and renegotiate the terms of the truce.



> So, if the bad general says, here's my advisor, Ms. Erinyes. And then the paladin's sword 'slips' out of its sheath--"Sorry, general, you know how these sentient weapons are when they get worked up!"--and into the chest of the Erinyes. There's nothing deceptive about that. It's rather straightforward.




Is the sword actually intelligent? Did it actually act on its own, _forcing_ the paladin to use it against his will?

If not, then yes, it's deceptive. Being honest doesn't mean making up a story that could be true. It means _telling the truth_. Obfuscating and lying and using the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law is what devils (and lawyers) do. It's beneath a paladin, and it doesn't qualify as "truthful" _at all_.



> If they can cut short a war to spare thousands of lives by taking out the general and advisor, then that is the greater good being served. The evil general, bringing in an Erinyes, would have no intention of complying with a truce, instead using the meeting (and stalling tactics) to draw information from the good general and the paladin to give them an advantage.




That's an assumption. The paladin cannot _know_ it's true. And even if he does, once he agrees, the paladin is bound by the truce until/unless the other side breaks it; _suspicion_ of breaking it is not sufficient.

This is actually spelled out in, among other sources, _the Book of Exalted Deeds_. Paladins and exalted characters must keep the greater good in mind, but they cannot perform evil acts to serve the greater good; those acts are still evil, and they're still forbidden.

Violating an agreed-upon truce, or violating an agreement purely because the other party is evil, is specifically _forbidden_ by one of the examples in that book.



> Matter of opinion. Maybe the general warned him, "use your powers and if there is a threat to negotiations, take it out." Maybe not. That is a hypothetical situation and I proposed only one hypothetical response.




If that was the case, obviously it changes things. But that wasn't mentioned in the example. And even if it were, the mere presence of the fiend isn't enough to qualify as a threat to negotiations; he'd have to know that she was actively attempting to influence the general. Otherwise, there's no _functional_ difference between the advisor being a fiend or being an evil wizard with access to _detect thoughts_ and _charm person_. 



> Not true either. In my comment, the paladin said nothing about healing. Nothing deceitful about that, the paladin's intentions at that point would be painfully clear.




Offering to "lay on hands" is a clear implication of healing. You're once again falling back on a "letter vs. spirit" argument that is completely inappropriate for a paladin. That's the sort of logic and argument that devils use, not paragons of _honesty_. A half-truth, or a lie of omission, is still dishonest. 



> Again, no deceit involved. The paladin never said "accident", only that his "sword seemed to have a life of its own...." Nothing deceitful there, just a diplomatic way of stating that he struck down a fiend.




Again, lies by omission and implication are still dishonest. The rule is that a paladin must be _honest and honorable_.

Frankly, playing a paladin like a trial lawyer, looking for loopholes and exceptions, is missing the entire point of the class as written. There are plenty of other classes that don't adhere to the code, that can be good _and_ deceptive. The paladin is not one of them. If a player doesn't want to play a stand-up, chivalrous, _honest_ hero, the solution is for them to pick a different class, not to try to find exceptions to the paladin's code.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 30, 2007)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Yet many gamers don't let paladins perform even the smallest evil acts.




I suspect that's becuase they take the rule that says "loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act" - which doesn't really leave a lot of wiggle room as written - and apply it.

-Hyp.


----------



## SlagMortar (Jul 30, 2007)

> There is due to be a battle. You're a paladin, advisor and confidant of the general of your army. The general has reason to want the battle delayed a couple of days - perhaps reinforcements are en route, or preparations need to be made, or whatever. To this end, he has arranged a parlay with the opposition.
> 
> The two generals will meet under a flag of truce to discuss matters. Each general may bring one associate. Your general chooses you.
> 
> ...



A paladin - as written in the PHB - should never enter any agreement that does not contain a clause like "But you know I'm a paladin and my first duty is to those oaths to fight evil."  The general, respecting that, should have communicated to the opposing general that he was bringing along a paladin who is sworn to fight evil wherever it lies and the safe conduct of evil persons can not be guaranteed.  If the general thinks the other army doesn't have any non-evil persons to send, then he should not bring the paladin along.  If the opposing general brings evil people or fiends anyway, then the paladin is free to attack or not without violating the agreement.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Jul 30, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> If the opposing general brings evil people or fiends anyway, then the paladin is free to attack or not without violating the agreement.




The problem I have with this kind of argumentation (and most of Hawken's, too) is that it doesn't represent "good."

The arguement is that "the paladin is good because in actively killing demons and devils he is fulfilling the goodness of his class."  As if actively killing demons and devils makes him good.  But the truth is that actively killing demons and devils is not what makes him good.  If killing demons and devils made a person good, then demons and devils (who kill each other in the great war that they have) would be highly conflicted!  By killing each other they would be setting themselves on the path to righteousness!  That is ridiculous, and it leads to this conclusion: The act of killing a demon or devil does not inherently make one good!

Now, the act of freeing someone from under the influence of a demon or devil does make one good.  The act of restoring hope to a land being dominated by demons and devils does make one good.  But simply pulling out one's sword and butchering a demon or devil does not make one good!  To adopt a powerful saying into D&D: "What makes killing demons and devils good?  Even demons and devils do that much themselves!"

I realize that there are times and places for killing demons and devils.  But killing one just because it is present is simply killing.  There is nothing inherently "good" about it.


----------



## SlagMortar (Jul 31, 2007)

> I realize that there are times and places for killing demons and devils. But killing one just because it is present is simply killing. There is nothing inherently "good" about it



That is why I said "free to attack or not."  The paladin can use his judgment to determine whether killing the fiend now does the most good or not killing the fiend now does the most good.  A paladin should never enter into an agreement where one of the stipulations is "no killing devils."

A paladin should:
1.  Always be free to decide what is best.
2.  Only make agreements under which he can still adhere to and allow for #1.

This may mean some people will not enter into an agreement with the paladin because the paladin can not say, "I will follow 100% of your orders" or "I will guarantee your safety even if you are a fiend."  That's part of doing business without compromising beliefs.  For example, a paladin might have to say to a king asking his allegience, "I will fight for what is honorable and true and I believe your cause is just.  I will pledge my sword to your cause as long as it continues to be so."  If that's not good enough for the king, then the paladin has no business giving his fealty.  If that prevents some greater good from happening, then that's too bad because the ends do not justify the means.  I'm not saying it is the only logical philosophy, but I believe it is the paladin's philosophy.



> Now, the act of freeing someone from under the influence of a demon or devil does make one good.



Isn't this what demons and devils do when fighting eachother?  I would also argue that the war of demons vs devils is, in fact, very "good", though its motives are not.  It prevents either side from focusing its attention on the prime material plane and thus frees many peoples who would otherwise be oppressed.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 31, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> Isn't this what demons and devils do when fighting eachother?  I would also argue that the war of demons vs devils is, in fact, very "good", though its motives are not.  It prevents either side from focusing its attention on the prime material plane and thus frees many peoples who would otherwise be oppressed.




We have an archmage who says to himself, "Now, shall I annihilate the adult population of the neighbouring kingdom and enslave all their children, or shall I have breakfast?"

Annihilating the adult population of the neighbouring kingdom and enslaving all their children is an evil act.

If he instead chooses to have breakfast, this saves all those neighbours from annihilation and enslavement.  Does that make having breakfast an act of good?

To me, having breakfast is neutral - neither evil nor good.

If an army of devils oppresses people, that's evil.  If an army of devils doesn't oppress people, that's not evil... but being not-evil doesn't automatically make it good.

Similarly, the archmage might decide to forego breakfast; now his decision is between attacking neighbour kingdom A, or attacking neighbour kingdom B.  If he chooses to attack A, this means that B is spared the attentions of a powerful evil villain!  His choice has saved the lives of thousands of innocent citizens of B!  Does this balance out the evil of his invasion of A?  I'd say not.

So whether the devils are waging a genocidal war against the demons, or waging a genocidal war against the humans, isn't the basic point that either way, they're waging a genocidal war?  The fact that this means they aren't doing other stuff isn't relevant; what's relevant is what they _are_ doing.

-Hyp.


----------



## SlagMortar (Jul 31, 2007)

One more note that I think is important:
In my opinion, a fiend's only tangible, real world equivalent, would be something like a tornado, which as far as I know has no ecological (or any other kind) of benefits.  
Killing a fiend would be equivalent to preventing tornados.  Preventing tornados would always be a good thing.  There's no reason to ever have a tornado and they kill people and damage things.  Sometimes atmospheric conditions prevent tornados, though that does not make atmospheric conditions "good".  However, someone who has the opportunity to prevent a tornado (kill a fiend) and does not has certainly forgone the opportunity to perform a good act, and may in fact have performed an evil act.  The tornado (fiend) might not hurt anyone, but the tornado (fiend) is not going to do anything good so why not prevent it?

If you instead think of fiends as closer to real world people than to forces of nature, then I agree that killing them is not inherently good.  However, as I said, I do not see fiends in D&D in that way.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If he instead chooses to have breakfast, this saves all those neighbours from annihilation and enslavement.  Does that make having breakfast an act of good?




 

Best. Alignment argument. Ever.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 31, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> The tornado (fiend) might not hurt anyone, but the tornado (fiend) is not going to do anything good so why not prevent it?




The imp in the given scenario assisted the party in a combat, which helped them to achieve their own objective.  Doesn't this contradict "The fiend is not going to do anything good"?

The imp may have his own agenda, but his interests in this case lay in cooperation with the party.  The imp carried out his side of the bargain - he helped the party find the object they sought.  The party helped the imp in return... and then killed him.

If I were an impartial observer who also had to find something in there, and I was given a choice - would I like assistance from another imp, or from the PCs? - I think I'd pick the imp.  He might be evil, but at least he doesn't have a track record of killing his allies afterwards.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 31, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Best. Alignment argument. Ever.




Last time it was lunch - the question was whether a paladin may elect to take an action that is not the most-good option available.

In this case, we had a hungry paladin sit down in a tavern for lunch.  The (short) menu had two choices - beef, 2 silver; or chicken, 2 silver (4 copper from every chicken sold goes to the Widows and Orphans Fund!).

Does the paladin have the right to choose beef?  Or is he _required_ to order the chicken, since it supports the helpless?

I find food is crucial to a proper alignment debate 

-Hyp.


----------



## SlagMortar (Jul 31, 2007)

> If I were an impartial observer who also had to find something in there, and I was given a choice - would I like assistance from another imp, or from the PCs? - I think I'd pick the imp. He might be evil, but at least he doesn't have a track record of killing his allies afterwards.



In an attempt to continue my example, I find this example analogous to:
A tornado is coming by and the druid could cast control winds to prevent it from harming the party.  Instead, the party elects to let the tornado take its course hoping it will conveniently destroy the house and leave behind the item they are looking for.  This scenario plays out and then the party has the option of stopping the tornado or allowing it to go free.

Just because they made the wrong decision the first time, does not mean it is right to make it the second time.

Edit:  And I'm happy to drop the demons vs devils argument.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 31, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> In an attempt to continue my example, I find this example analogous to:
> A tornado is coming by and the druid could cast control winds to prevent it from harming the party.  Instead, the party elects to let the tornado take its course hoping it will conveniently destroy the house and leave behind the item they are looking for.  This scenario plays out and then the party has the option of stopping the tornado or allowing it to go free.
> 
> Just because they made the wrong decision the first time, does not mean it is right to make it the second time.




This is the tornado they made an agreement with that they then get the druid to destroy once they've got all they needed from it, right?    The tornado's outlived its usefulness, so the spirit of the agreement is just a nuisance to be ignored?

-Hyp.


----------



## SlagMortar (Jul 31, 2007)

Hyp said:
			
		

> This is the tornado they made an agreement with that they then get the druid to destroy once they've got all they needed from it, right?



You can't make an agreement with a tornado.


----------



## IanB (Jul 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> This is the tornado they made an agreement with that they then get the druid to destroy once they've got all they needed from it, right?    The tornado's outlived its usefulness, so the spirit of the agreement is just a nuisance to be ignored?
> 
> -Hyp.




If the paladin had agreed to the deal (there is some question) and if he had known he was dealing with an imp (or, uh, a tornado disguised as a snow flurry) when he made the deal (no question about that) then I might agree with you - but at least one of these things is definitely not true and the other one may be as well.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The imp in the given scenario assisted the party in a combat, which helped them to achieve their own objective.  Doesn't this contradict "The fiend is not going to do anything good"?
> 
> The imp may have his own agenda, but his interests in this case lay in cooperation with the party.



No, the imp's interests lay in fulfilling his own agenda.  The party of adventurers is just a handy tool he found to help him in that goal, and _all he has to do_ is convince them that he's really there to help them 'so they can mutually accomplish their goals in the house'.

When the battle erupted, he chose to lend a bit of assistance to give credence to himself, and (try to) ensure that the adventurers would hold up their end of the bargain long enough for him to find the item he desired.  His own life may have been somewhat on the line as well, but we don't know, and anyway a fiend will just re-form on its plane of origin if it dies elsewhere, so he wouldn't be too terribly concerned about that.

The fact that he may have _incidentally_ helped the adventurers in the battle, is just a small nuisance that he has to bear for the sake of his greater scheme, and not so much _helping the adventurers_ as it was _helping himself_ to achieve _his goals_; which the adventurers were a handy tool to use toward that end, doing most of the risky fighting and legwork for him, so he doesn't lose valuable time with re-forming his body in Ba'ator.

Once he had item he sought, the imp would have considered the agreement fulfilled, and himself now free to sabotage the mortals' efforts if he could find a suitable opportunity to do so, _unless_ his fiendish master required him to return post-haste with the McGuffin.  If he could draw the adventurers a little closer to evil somehow, or into another deal with him, all the better.



> The imp carried out his side of the bargain - he helped the party find the object they sought.  The party helped the imp in return... and then killed him.
> 
> If I were an impartial observer who also had to find something in there, and I was given a choice - would I like assistance from another imp, or from the PCs? - I think I'd pick the imp.  He might be evil, but at least he doesn't have a track record of killing his allies afterwards.
> 
> -Hyp.



Of course, the party was slaying a vile imp, who is evil incarnate and very tricky, deceptive evil at that, who lives only to make deals and twist them to acquire mortal souls for the Nine Hells.  If the impartial observer were _completely ignorant_ of fiends, which an imp very much looks like, then sure he might expect the imp to be less treacherous, but he'd be so very, very wrong.  The one adventurer just turned on the deceptive imp before it could turn on them, most likely.

And the impartial observer would of course have to be ignorant of the fact that the imp has probably caused the deaths or damnation of numerous other mortals before and will continue to do so for the rest of its fiendish life.

Any average fellow, who knows that demons and devils are bad and often look something like that imp did, according to stories and what the Peloran preacher describes in his sermons, will be more wary of imps than of those humans who killed that one imp.  He may not understand why that one adventurer killed the imp when he seemed to have been a part of the agreement between it and the other humans, but he'd guess that the imp must've tried to use some evil power on the human, or that the human just didn't think he could trust an imp once he saw the invisible creature's true form.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Jul 31, 2007)

*Invisible Stalker Diplomacy*



			
				SlagMortar said:
			
		

> You can't make an agreement with a tornado.



Are you sure about this? After all, we're talking about D&D.    

-Samir


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jul 31, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Also, what else is an _invisible_ *Imp* going to do to 'assist' in battle, if not attack enemies or use its spell-like abilities on them (both of which results in turning visible).  All it can do is Sting foes, turn into an Alternate Form that will allow it to bite or claw or gore them, or cast Suggestion on an opponent, all of which will turn it visible. (Imps can only turn themselves invisible, not other people, so it couldn't have helped out with friendly Invisibility effects)




Gee I don't know...
*Look for the item the party is trying to find (as well as his own item) while the party is keeping the enemies at bay.
*Make sounds while invisible to possibly draw enemies away from the party
*Move objects infront of the enemies to prevent them from advancing, or to give the allies cover.
*Use a healing potion on a downed party memeber to revive them.

None of those "assists" would turn the Imp visible as far as I know...

Again, "assist" during combat does not have to mean attack.  All the examples you listed are things the Imp could do which would be considered an attack, which of course would turn him visible.  Since the OP never specified what he meant by the Imp "assisting" in the OP, we can't just assume he meant he helped to attack.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Jul 31, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> When the battle erupted, he chose to lend a bit of assistance to give credence to himself, and (try to) ensure that the adventurers would hold up their end of the bargain long enough for him to find the item he desired. <snipped for space reasons>
> 
> The fact that he may have _incidentally_ helped the adventurers in the battle, is just a small nuisance that he has to bear for the sake of his greater scheme, and not so much _helping the adventurers_ as it was _helping himself_ to achieve _his goals_; <snipped for space reasons>
> 
> ...




But this represents the very thing that I don't like about this arguement (and most that support the paladin free-will concept)!  Do you hear how many assumptions are in here that are necessary to justify killing the imp?

1.  Assumed the imp was acting only out of its own interests
2. Imp was probably going to sabotage the party anyway once it got its way
3. Killing an imp is always acceptable because it is vile (and thus also assumed to be beyond redemption)
4. Imp has probably caused damnation of other mortals
5. Imp probably has just used a power on some human anyway, so killing it is justified

Now, I agree that any of those may well be correct.  I also agree that these are fair assumptions.  But they are at best only that.  They are assumptions, which just might be wrong!  When I play a paladin, I find that playing off assumptions is usually the quickest way to blackguard without seeing it coming.  Sure, there are quicker ways.  But assumptions are the quickest way to getting there without honestly trying to get there!

In the end, I have to go back to my earlier conclusion.  Killing a fiend just for the sake of it being evil does not make one good.  At the very best, it makes one guilty of shedding blood.  At the very worst, it makes one another fiend.

Killing a fiend for legitimate reasons (such as observable attempts towards corruption) is totally different.  As far as I recall, the worst that the imp did was to make the deal while invisible.  But if the party went along with it and the paladin never once activated his detect evil ... I'd hardly call that the imp's fault!  I mean, even if the paladin wasn't present when the deal was made, wouldn't you be suspicious about someone invisible helping you out?  Wouldn't you check it out, especially given that it doesn't cost you anything?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 31, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> The one adventurer just turned on the deceptive imp before it could turn on them, most likely.




"It was self-defence, Your Honour!  I hit him back first!"

-Hyp.


----------



## IanB (Jul 31, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> 3. Killing an imp is always acceptable because it is vile (and thus also assumed to be beyond redemption)




I don't see this as an assumption, and (with the caveat that must always be assumed when talking about paladin yes/no questions) in my campaign it is the only justification the paladin would *ever* need to kill an imp (or a demon, or a yugoloth, or a demodand...) They're not *like* humans, who can (presumably) choose their own path.

There might be an atonement involved in this scenario, but it would be for making a deal with the imp in the first place - the invisibility of the deal-maker should have at least been a tip-off to toss out a detect evil. My big problem with the scenario as presented is that it seems like the paladin should have suspected what he was dealing with in the first place, and went along anyway.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Jul 31, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> I don't see this as an assumption, and (with the caveat that must always be assumed when talking about paladin yes/no questions) in my campaign it is the only justification the paladin would *ever* need to kill an imp (or a demon, or a yugoloth, or a demodand...) They're not *like* humans, who can (presumably) choose their own path.




And this is a legitimate comment so long as we are talking about your campaign.  And I certainly won't argue about it in your homebrew world.  But it is not a fair comment to make about D&D in general.  In my campaign, for example, outsiders are not beyond conversion.  It is a tough road with very impression skill checks.  But just as a red dragon can be sanctified, even an imp can find their way down the path to righteousness.

I am curious, though.  In your campaign, is the same curteousy granted to angels, guardinals, eladrins, and archons?  Are they always 100% good and beyond corruption regardless of what power is trying?  Because unless they are, the fiends have a clear advantage.

And are innevitables always 100% neutral?  I hope so!

Now, please don't see this as a challenge, because it is your world.  Just making sure that all sides are playing fair.


----------



## SlagMortar (Jul 31, 2007)

> Killing a fiend for legitimate reasons (such as observable attempts towards corruption) is totally different.



This is really where we differ.  In my opinion, a fiend does not get to be innocent until proven guilty.  It is a force of nature created by an evil deity to plague the lives of all sentient creatures.

Note, I'd be happy to play in a campaign that is much more gray where fallen angels and ascended fiends are not as uncommon, but I would not play a paladin in such a campaign, and I do not believe the paladin class was created with such ideas in mind.

Edit:  Though I might play a cleric who tries to redeem fiends in such a campaign.  I might even run such a campaign.


----------



## IanB (Jul 31, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> And this is a legitimate comment so long as we are talking about your campaign.  And I certainly won't argue about it in your homebrew world.  But it is not a fair comment to make about D&D in general.  In my campaign, for example, outsiders are not beyond conversion.  It is a tough road with very impression skill checks.  But just as a red dragon can be sanctified, even an imp can find their way down the path to righteousness.
> 
> I am curious, though.  In your campaign, is the same curteousy granted to angels, guardinals, eladrins, and archons?  Are they always 100% good and beyond corruption regardless of what power is trying?  Because unless they are, the fiends have a clear advantage.
> 
> ...




It might be getting a little off topic, but yes. This would not be true for mere descendents of outsiders (tieflings, aasimar, etc), but all of the "alignment embodying" outsiders - archons, eladrin, guardinals, modrons, etc., don't drift; they're not capable of it. (I suppose, thinking about it, that artifact/deity level effects could *force* a change to one, but that would not be any sort of free will... and who ever heard of a ring-of-turning-you-good anyway. That's not a good McGuffin.   )

The main exception I make is for outsiders of non-fixed alignments - a solar can fall, for example; a solar is not a manifestation of the essence of a particular aligned plane; they can be lawful, neutral or chaotic - and thus can be tempted into a fall (very unlikely of course.)

In any case my larger point here is that these arguments are very difficult to conduct with any kind of consistency, just because 'what can a paladin do' is going to be different in *every* game. The best we can do to answer a question like the OP poses is say "well, this is how it would go down in MY game." It isn't really a rules forum question, because the RAW doesn't really provide enough guidance for a concrete answer.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Jul 31, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> This is really where we differ.  In my opinion, a fiend does not get to be innocent until proven guilty.  It is a force of nature created by an evil deity to plague the lives of all sentient creatures.




I'm glad you added that it is true in your campaign, because I can't argue about your campaign.  I agree, though, this is our point of contention.



			
				SlagMortar said:
			
		

> Note, I'd be happy to play in a campaign that is much more gray where fallen angels and ascended fiends are not as uncommon, but I would not play a paladin in such a campaign,




Cool.  Well, if you ever find yourself in north central PA, look me up!



			
				SlagMortar said:
			
		

> and I do not believe the paladin class was created with such ideas in mind.




Yeah, I can see that.  But, I also know that they created the BoED with the sanctified creature template (which specifically calls out fiends of all kinds).  Certain a paladin could play in a BoED-style campaign, so there must be some room there.  I honestly think that playing a paladin in a campaign world like mine should be reserved for people who have gamed with me (DM) a while and know my cosmology and divine/fiend expectations.

In general, I don't think a player should ever play a paladin under a new DM unless they've specifically talked about and called out several issue.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 31, 2007)

You're really trying to twist my explanations around to suit your own needs, aren't you? :\ 

And you seem to be completely ignoring the nature of fiends in D&D.  We're not talking about ordinary, evil humans who deceived the party.  We're talking about damned souls that have gone to the Lower Planes and been twisted into even-more-Evil creatures that exist only to perpetuate more evil still.  They are formed pretty much from pure Evil.  Only the rare fluke, like A'kin (JUST MAYBE; we still don't know if he's really just unspeakably evil and puts on an act, or if he's actually a 'risen' fiend), and I mean _extremely_-rare fluke, has some abnormal inkling of Good in them that wasn't purged when they became fiends.

Yet even those ones are composed of more raw Evil than any mortal human.  The absolute worst human is still suffused with less raw Evil than the fiends who are created from Evil itself, even the 0.00001% of them who somehow retained a tiny shred of Good during their creation (and you have to keep in mind that most of those ones get destroyed by other fiends for their 'flaw', whereas fallen celestials are more likely to just be banished or something; fiends are never so merciful to those among their own kind who possess the 'taint' of Good).


THE POINT BEING........that Imp has already committed a lifetime of sins when it was a mortal, and continued to commit sins after its 'rebirth' as a fiend on the Lower Planes.  It has already murdered, corrupted, abused, violated, poisoned, betrayed, or orchestrated the doom of several other mortals before it ever met the party.  YOU CANNOT JUST IGNORE THAT.  It is not a fiend just because it happens to do evil things sometimes.  It is a FIEND because it has ALREADY GONE TO HELL for its atrocious sins.  It is already a damned soul.  It is already MORE THAN WORTHY OF SMITING.

You cannot simply disregard the reasons for why it is an Imp in the first place, or what terrible evil it has already perpetrated.  It cannot even be redeemed unless it is one of the rare, flawed fiends, whom other fiends are likely to have already destroyed anyway.  If it were one of the virtually-unheard-of few 'risen' fiends that escaped Hell intact, it would be trying a lot harder to figure out its purpose and how to either redeem itself or purge the 'taint' of Good within it.

It would not be deceiving a party of adventurers, whom it almost certainly had more than enough time to scan for Good while it was invisible before they had any idea it was even there.  It would have either been direct with them and tried to get their help honestly, to prove it wasn't going to use the item for evil and that it was trying to redeem itself, OR it would have avoided them altogether and left, or waited until after they had gone in and then tried to retrieve the item afterwards, invisibly.

It would not have followed the course of action that it did, in the manner that it did, unless it was as thoroughly, irredeemably evil as fiends generally are, or was giving in to its evil side and forsaking redemption rather if it was in fact 'tainted' with a shred of Goodness.


That Imp already deserved to be destroyed by the paladin, whether or not it had caused any direct harm to the party of adventurers _yet_.

It was already a creature of terrible sinfulness and villainy, not just a corrupt mortal, and was already one of the Damned.  The paladin needed no direct, personal reason to smite it, for it had already horribly wronged, probably killed, other mortals beforehand.  It was already an incarnation of pure, cosmic Evil, that would only commit further evil as long as it lived.  And there is _no doubt_ that it had already committed terrible sins against fellow mortals beforehand; while _possible_ that it had not killed anyone yet, it is not likely, and the imp still committed enough sins beforehand to go to the Nine Hells of Ba'ator upon its death as a mortal.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 31, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> But it is not a fair comment to make about D&D in general.  In my campaign, for example, outsiders are not beyond conversion.  It is a tough road with very impression skill checks.




Actually, it is.  The default in D&D, as spelled out in the rules (check Manual of the Planes, for instance), is that Fiends are damned souls who have gone to the Lower Planes after death because of their terrible sins and unrepentance.  They have already earned eternal torment for their actions.  And nearly all of them are truly, completely, irredeemable.

The _rare few_ who are not irredeemable are 'tainted' by a bit of Good that was not quite successfully purged from their souls, but those ones are still largely raw Evil, and still committed terrible sins beforehand.  And those few are almost always destroyed by their own kind, for the Fiends will not suffer any of their kind being 'tainted' by Good.


In standard D&D, only a few varieties of Fiend are not already-damned souls.  Those are the few sorts who were instead formed purely from the manifest, cosmic Evil of the Lower Planes, which really makes them even more Evil in nature, despite not having committed any sins personally before their formation on the Lower Planes.  These few varieties of fiend are rarely ever encountered by adventurers, and are typically either Archfiends or just lesser fiends that the main varieties (Ba'atezu, Tanar'ri, etc.) oppress and/or destroy as rivals.  I think Yugoloths are an exception to that, but they're different anyway, and typically serve as mercenaries in the Blood War, or fiendish bureaucrats working on the Lower Planes and amusing themselves by tormenting damned souls there, rather than being very active in the Material Plane corrupting mortals or the like.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 31, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> It might be getting a little off topic, but yes. This would not be true for mere descendents of outsiders (tieflings, aasimar, etc), but all of the "alignment embodying" outsiders - archons, eladrin, guardinals, modrons, etc., don't drift; they're not capable of it. (I suppose, thinking about it, that artifact/deity level effects could *force* a change to one, but that would not be any sort of free will... and who ever heard of a ring-of-turning-you-good anyway. That's not a good McGuffin.   )
> 
> The main exception I make is for outsiders of non-fixed alignments - a solar can fall, for example; a solar is not a manifestation of the essence of a particular aligned plane; they can be lawful, neutral or chaotic - and thus can be tempted into a fall (very unlikely of course.




Right.  The only times an Outsider can be 'redeemed'/turned/fallen/whatever is if they are one of the few that is flawed at the time of its creation on the Outer Planes, or if a powerful deity or similar entity (Archfiends, Archomentals, or the like, probably) forcibly changes them.

And solars or the like are specifically created by deities in the first place, so they could be different and a bit vulnerable to other powers of alignment.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> "It was self-defence, Your Honour!  I hit him back first!"
> 
> -Hyp.




That was only one very minor point in the argument.  *Fiends only ever act out of self-interest.*  They are utterly selfish creatures.  All compassion for others is torturously wrung out of them on the Lower Planes before they even fully form as fiends.  They are EVIL.  Goodly notions like compassion or a desire to help other creatures have _no place_ in their pure-evil hearts.  Anything that shows otherwise is _only_ an act by the fiend to garner trust by stupid, naive mortals so it can use them to further its own diabolical goals.  Always.

And the imp would garner more rewards, or a better chance of being promoted in the devilish hierarchy, if it could turn some mortals.  *Especially* if it could turn a Paladin off of his path, and maybe towards being a Blackguard.  That would _really_ earn it some brownie points with its fiendish masters.  Never think that a devil has greater considerations in mind than its own promotion and empowerment.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Jul 31, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Actually, it is.




Actually, it isn't.  To pull in other non-core sources, since the core sources are quiet and we need sources like MotP and BoED, I look to the Sanctified Template in the BoED.  Power-arguments aside, of course, this template specifically calls out outsiders.  Sanctified outsiders gain the good subtype and lose the following subtypes: baatezu (devil), tanar'ri (demon), and yugoloth.  Even more specifically, if a creature has a fiendish template it loses that.

My point is not that I am twisting your words to make my points, but thanks for the charge against me!  My point is that D&D Core is quiet on the issue.  Non-Core speaks to the possibility of sanctification and redemption in the BoED.  I admit that it is a hard process, but clearly possible.  You may say it is impossible in your game, and that's cool.  But D&D as published by WoTC has officially left the door open.

As for the MoTP, I'm not arguing that the demons and devils are notoriously evil.  I'm just saying that it isn't as black and white as you paint it.  I honestly don't know if the MoTP specifically says that Demons, Devils, Yugoloths, Inevitables, Angels, Solars, Guardinals, Eladrins, or Archons are uncorruptable from their predetermined alignment.  But I do note that the BoED says that sanctification is possible for outsiders.  

That isn't black and white to me.  That is shades of gray (no matter how dim the possibility).  Sanctification is always a possibility, even with fiends.  Not an easy one, granted.  but still a possibility.

EDIT: Also, I should note that the process of sanctification is covered by the spell Sanctify the Wicked in the BoED p. 106.  Again, this spell calls out specifically how the soul is removed from an evil creature and allowed to perform penance in a diamond.  This spell is 9th level and requires the sacrifice of a character level.  Not easy, but possible.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 31, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> That was only one very minor point in the argument.  *Fiends only ever act out of self-interest.*




And that's my point.  It was in the imp's self-interest to abide by the terms of the agreement, since he was weaker than the party.  There was nothing to be gained by double-crossing them.

The only double-cross came from the paladin, who attacked the imp with whom the party had agreed to cooperate, when it no longer served _his_ self-interest.

-Hyp.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 31, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Gee I don't know...
> *Look for the item the party is trying to find (as well as his own item) while the party is keeping the enemies at bay.
> *Make sounds while invisible to possibly draw enemies away from the party
> *Move objects infront of the enemies to prevent them from advancing, or to give the allies cover.
> *Use a healing potion on a downed party memeber to revive them.



Very unlikely.  Seeking out the item wouldn't be assisting in battle.  It would not help the party win, help them escape, nor help them survive.  It would only save them time after the battle, while leaving them to deal with the danger by themselves.  Making noise is unlikely to work, especially not for more than 1 round.  Very much not helpful if the opponents have been inside that building for a while and know that there's no one behind them in the house that would be interfering.  Likely to be brushed off as a mage trying to fool them with pathetic illusions or something.

Moving objects is going to be of limited usefulness, and Imps aren't terribly large or strong.  And unlikely to be of much use, at most delaying an opponent for a round.  And it depends on what's in the room to begin with.  Very unlikely.  _I would very much doubt_ an imp to waste a healing potion on a mortal, _let alone be carrying one himself_ to begin with, given *his own fiendish defenses and Fast Healing*.  The imp could always turn invisible or take on an alternate form if it needed to get away and find a short reprieve to Fast Heal.

Your alternatives are weak, poor choices for assisting in the battle, and seem more like grasping at straws.  None would have bought the party more than 1 round of time to finish dealing with a single foe before another gets into melee, rather than just shooting or zapping them if possible.



> None of those "assists" would turn the Imp visible as far as I know...
> 
> Again, "assist" during combat does not have to mean attack.  All the examples you listed are things the Imp could do which would be considered an attack, which of course would turn him visible.  Since the OP never specified what he meant by the Imp "assisting" in the OP, we can't just assume he meant he helped to attack.



And none of them would be very assist-ingly useful.  It would certainly be a weak, pathetic effort on the Imp's part to fulfill his end of the bargain, _not likely_ to convince the PC adventurers that it really did intend to fulfill the bargain, rather than just use them to do all the fighting for it and help *it* out, rather than a mutual partnership.


And you're still ignoring that it was apparently invisible until after the battle, or until the battle had started.  Before then it was invisibly searching other parts of the house for its desired item, as the OP described it.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And that's my point.  It was in the imp's self-interest to abide by the terms of the agreement, since he was weaker than the party.  There was nothing to be gained by double-crossing them.
> 
> The only double-cross came from the paladin, who attacked the imp with whom the party had agreed to cooperate, when it no longer served _his_ self-interest.
> 
> -Hyp.




No, the paladin only slew it after learning it was an imp, and after the immediate danger of the battle was dealt with, which is the tactically-sound way to handle it.  He wasn't continuing association with it merely by choosing not to attack it until he was no longer in immediate danger from other foes at the same time.  And after the battle was over, it is certainly possible that he was trying to figure out if his honor would permit him to slay the deceptive fiend while he was sort of loosely under a temporary agreement not to harm it (which the rest of the party had made, and he just went along with as part of their group).  He probably didn't participate in the search other than following his comrades afterward, until deciding whether or not he could slay the fiend yet or needed to wait for the agreement to expire.

And you are making assumptions that the imp had no intention of treachery after finding the item he sought.  If the party were sufficiently weakened by that point, he could very likely have slain them all or at least one or two of the weakest or most-annoyingly-goody-two-shoesy.  With its abilities it could stand a chance once they're weakened, of at least slaying one (the PCs weren't so high-level as to have an easy time hitting it, and bypassing its DR, and resisting its Poison or Suggestion.....especially since it can fly away invisibly, and wait for them to fall asleep in the first place.  They can only stay awake so long.....but the Imp is no weak mortal.  A Suggestion to the guard on duty, then some coup de grace's with the poison sting against the sleeping PCs while the guard is running after something in the distance according to the Suggestion.....).


----------



## bodhi (Jul 31, 2007)

Looking over the various posts, I seem to be in a minority. I'm fine with the imp-smiting. My question (which I don't think the OP has clarified, although I may have missed it), is when the imp was revealed. Did the paladin move to smite immediately, or did he turn a blind eye while it was his own (party's) interest?


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 31, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> Actually, it isn't.  To pull in other non-core sources, since the core sources are quiet and we need sources like MotP and BoED, I look to the Sanctified Template in the BoED.  Power-arguments aside, of course, this template specifically calls out outsiders.  Sanctified outsiders gain the good subtype and lose the following subtypes: baatezu (devil), tanar'ri (demon), and yugoloth.  Even more specifically, if a creature has a fiendish template it loses that.
> 
> My point is not that I am twisting your words to make my points, but thanks for the charge against me!  My point is that D&D Core is quiet on the issue.  Non-Core speaks to the possibility of sanctification and redemption in the BoED.  I admit that it is a hard process, but clearly possible.  You may say it is impossible in your game, and that's cool.  But D&D as published by WoTC has officially left the door open.
> 
> ...




So.  Rare and expensive means can actually be taken by mortal clerics or something to try redeeming a fiend, assuming they can make the fiend obey long enough to force it under the process, or to trap it long enough to argue it away from the path of evil and then try to use powerful magics to make it forsake evil once its will has been worn down.

And because someone can, with a Herculean effort and extremely rare circumstances, and nearly Epic levels of personal power, manage to make a fiend give up its evil ways and become a redeemed Outsider.....that makes it somehow badwrong to expect the vast, vast majority of fiends to be irredeemable and far too dangerous to allow surviving?  That's supposed to make it badwrong for Paladins to slay fiends, as they have sworn to do?  Especially low level ones who have nowhere near the resources necessary to even make the slightest, least-likely-for-success attempt at drawing a fiend away from its pure-evil nature?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 31, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> And you are making assumptions that the imp had no intention of treachery after finding the item he sought.




I'm not going to guarantee the imp had no scheme up its sleeve.  But a paladin shouldn't be engaging in preemptive treachery on a maybe.

-Hyp.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 31, 2007)

If Good cannot smite evil fiends for being fiends, then your campaigns must truly be gloomy, doom-filled places, NonlethalForce.  Fiends certainly have no compunctions against slaying their enemies, and will easily overwhelm Good forces if every dang Good creature must avoid harming evil creatures, even fiends, except when absolutely, immediately, direly necessary at that very moment.

D&D doesn't work that way.  Fiends exist to be smited by paladins and celestials/angels.  They are not composed of Raw Evil just so you can debate the morality of slaying creatures composed of Raw Primordial Cosmic Evil.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 31, 2007)

It wasn't pre-emptive treachery.  It was smiting a fiend, that very much needed to die.  Especially for deceiving the paladin and trying to make him break his Code and fall from grace.  The loose agreement that the paladin was partially involved in was invalidated when it proved to be a violation and slight against his honor as a paladin.  At the very most he could have waited until the rest of the party finished helping the fiend, but he could not have continued going with them during that time.  Then he would have had to slay the imp afterwards for its dishonor against him.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If I were an impartial observer who also had to find something in there, and I was given a choice - would I like assistance from another imp, or from the PCs? - I think I'd pick the imp.  He might be evil, but at least he doesn't have a track record of killing his allies afterwards.
> 
> -Hyp.




Which just goes to show you, the impartial observer, not having full information, can be wrong in his observations. First impressions are not always the correct ones upon which to make your judgements.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'm not going to guarantee the imp had no scheme up its sleeve.  But a paladin shouldn't be engaging in preemptive treachery on a maybe.
> 
> -Hyp.




I'm going to say it isn't treachery either. Whatever the agreement was before they got their mutual goals, new information has come to light. That new information changes the situation completely. The imp, evil personified, has no rights or value the paladin is bound to respect. In fact, it is one of the very targets the paladin is charged to eradicate when possible. The higher calling and the nature of the imp make any other consideration secondary at best.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 31, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Which just goes to show you, the impartial observer, not having full information, can be wrong in his observations. First impressions are not always the correct ones upon which to make your judgements.




I dunno.  What happens if the paladin decides _I_ need smiting as well?  It sounds like he has carte blanche!



> The imp, evil personified, has no rights or value the paladin is bound to respect.




So what's to stop the paladin promising anything he likes, knowing that the oaths have no force?  Is the paladin free to lie to the imp without it being considered dishonorable conduct?

Hawken gave an example before of the paladin saying "Oh, you're hurt - here, let me lay on hands... HOLY AVENGER SNEAK ATTACK!"  Is this all fine and honorable because of who the opponent is?



			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> It wasn't pre-emptive treachery. It was smiting a fiend, that very much needed to die. Especially for deceiving the paladin and trying to make him break his Code and fall from grace.




It didn't deceive the paladin, or try to make him break his code, or try to make him fall from grace.  It offered cooperation to find a couple of items, and gave that cooperation.

If anything (though there's no evidence the imp knew he was a paladin), staying invisible _protected_ the paladin from breaking his code, since it prevented the paladin from knowingly associating with an evil creature.

Failing to disclose "By the way, I'm an imp" isn't the same as claiming to be otherwise.

-Hyp.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Jul 31, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> If Good cannot smite evil fiends for being fiends, then your campaigns must truly be gloomy, doom-filled places, NonlethalForce.




I don't know what power you think you have to insult my campaigns, and I take offense at your pressuposition.  I have been nothing but respectful of your ability to interpret the rules in your campaigns.  At the very least, I expect the same in return, please.



			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Fiends certainly have no compunctions against slaying their enemies, and will easily overwhelm Good forces if every dang Good creature must avoid harming evil creatures, even fiends, except when absolutely, immediately, direly necessary at that very moment.




A few things.  First of all, it's an imp.  Dangerous, sure.  But nothing to get this worked up over.  If the paladin was powerful enough to smite/kill it in a single blow, I think the party was high enough level to not be in absolute mortal danger.  In truth, I doubt they were in danger at all.

Also, killing something simply because "it might kill you without compunction" is not justified.  It is killing.  You may see that differently, and are welcome to do so.  But just because an imp might kill my character does not give a paladin or any other good creature the right to kill it.  As I said before, killing a fiend unprovoked at best makes a person a blood-spiller and at worst it makes a person travel the path to being a fiend themselves.  What is the cliche?  The road to [That really warm place] is paved with good intentions.  Killing through assumption is just that: a good intention.  

It's like Miko in OotS.  Good intention, but making far too many assumptions on her deities' behalf.



			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> D&D doesn't work that way.  Fiends exist to be smited by paladins and celestials/angels.  They are not composed of Raw Evil just so you can debate the morality of slaying creatures composed of Raw Primordial Cosmic Evil.




You're welcome to believe so in your campaigns.  But my campaigns, which are supported by both the MotP and the BoED, are deeper than just fiend-killing.  {No implication intended regarding the depth of your campaigns, FWIW}  Fiends in my campaign do more than simply play the role of the BBEG.  Please feel free to play it your way, but don't assume that your way is the absolute right way.  MotP and BoED leaves plenty of room for my interpretation, like it or not.


----------



## Beckett (Jul 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> There is due to be a battle.  You're a paladin, advisor and confidant of the general of your army.  The general has reason to want the battle delayed a couple of days - perhaps reinforcements are en route, or preparations need to be made, or whatever.  To this end, he has arranged a parlay with the opposition.
> 
> The two generals will meet under a flag of truce to discuss matters.  Each general may bring one associate.  Your general chooses you.
> 
> ...




Must be a Monday- I'm taking part in a paladin-alignment thread.

With the OP Imp problem, I think it's important to know when the party discovered their invisible friend was an imp.  Before either item was found?  I think the paladin should drop out of the agreement then, refusing the imp's help and refusing to help the imp (and if the only way to get the item his party needs is with the imp's help, I'd be tempted to call the DM a jerk).  I don't think the paladin has to attack the imp right then and there, but he might to prevent it from achieving its evil goal.

Find out after the imp has his item?  In that case, the paladin has been duped into aiding a devil in some evil goal (taking it as granted that whatever an imp does has some evil purpose).  I'd say the paladin would be justified in attacking the imp in an effort to make up for the evil he's helped.

Find out after the party has found their item, but before the imp has found its?  I'd say the paladin should call off the deal, and probably attempt to stop the imp from achieving its goal.   Attacking might be a little extreme, but warning the devil to leave and not come back seems appropriate.

Each of these should be accompanied by some cleansing and prayer by the paladin.

As for Hyp's army example, I think the proper thing to do is to suck it up.  The enemy general bringing along an erinyes is pretty insulting, but attacking her under a flag of truce is chaotic and stupid.  The greater good will be served by holding your tongue and keeping your sword sheathed.  You'll get your chance at the erinyes once reinforcements have arrived (or whatever you're waiting for).  And no, I would not consider this associating with an evil creature in any way significant to strip a paladin of his powers.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 31, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> As I said before, killing a fiend unprovoked at best makes a person a blood-spiller and at worst it makes a person travel the path to being a fiend themselves.




Under ordinary circumstances, I don't have an issue with a paladin attacking a fiend.

But I don't consider it an evil act for him to refrain from doing so, if there are countervailing reasons.

However, I do consider it a dishonorable act for him to break a truce.

So from my point of view:

Encounter in a dungeon with a wandering imp?  Attacking: not an evil act, and justifiable.  Not attacking: not an evil act, and not an immediate violation of the code unless there are innocents in danger.

He can go either way.

The described situation, however?  Not attacking: not an evil act, nor a violation of the code, and in keeping with the agreement.  Attacking: not an evil act, but a dishonorable one in its breaking of a truce, and therefore a violation of the code.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 31, 2007)

Beckett said:
			
		

> As for Hyp's army example, I think the proper thing to do is to suck it up.  The enemy general bringing along an erinyes is pretty insulting, but attacking her under a flag of truce is chaotic and stupid.  The greater good will be served by holding your tongue and keeping your sword sheathed.  You'll get your chance at the erinyes once reinforcements have arrived (or whatever you're waiting for).  And no, I would not consider this associating with an evil creature in any way significant to strip a paladin of his powers.




See, that's how I'd expect a typical paladin to behave, and I wouldn't have an issue with your playing one if I were running that campaign.



> Find out after the party has found their item, but before the imp has found its? I'd say the paladin should call off the deal, and probably attempt to stop the imp from achieving its goal.




That sounds a bit like Buyer's Remorse, to me.  "I got what I wanted, but now I don't want to fulfil my side of the bargain..."

-Hyp.


----------



## Fenris (Jul 31, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> If Good cannot smite evil fiends for being fiends, then your campaigns must truly be gloomy, doom-filled places, NonlethalForce.




Yeah, and it's a great place to hang out. Personal experiance. The fight of good against evil is daunting, but not unachievable. But good can never waver in attaining it's goals through honor or it too will become part of the creeping evil.

Got your back NLF!


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Jul 31, 2007)

Well, FWIW, I never said that the paladin would be committing an evil act.  I did say he would be a blood-spiller in the best case scenario and on the path to darkness in the worst case scenario.

Blood-spiller can be interpreted negatively, but then again, most characters made are blood-spillers.  That's what they do in D&D, most characters fight and slay things.  Whether the spilled blood is justified or not, is situational.  

Regarding the other extreme: On the path to being a fiend would be more dire.  For a paladin that would be a first step of breaking their code and not seeking atonement.  But attacking a random imp found in a dungeon wouldn't automatically be this extreme, of course!

However, I do understand your point.  Most people hear the words "blood-spiller" and assume a negative context.  But in D&D, it's really just saying that the character is normal.


As to the wandering monster slaying, to me it would be campaign dependant.  In most campaigns I am involved in I personally would raise an eyebrow if anyone simply slays anything just for the sake of killing it.  If the party is threatened or attacked, then of course they can respond!  

I have run a few campaigns where the goal was to advance without ever killing a foe at all.  But those campaigns are rare and I admit it.

EDIT:
[Sblock=For Fenris, Sblocked to avoid hijacking the thread]Long time no-see, Fenris!  Totally an aside, of course, but good to see you around![/Sblock]


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jul 31, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> Cool.  Well, if you ever find yourself in north central PA, look me up!




I don't know my geography, is that anywhere near Philly per chance?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jul 31, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Very unlikely.  Seeking out the item wouldn't be assisting in battle.




The OP never said he assisted them in battle.  He said _during combat the imp assisted the party_.  Assisted doing  what?  Fighting?  Healing?  Distracting?  Searching?  The OP never specifies, so why do we automatically assume out of all those options it was "fighting"?  Also, just because he assisted DURING combat doesn't mean he assisted them by DOING combat.  You are simply assuming the only assisting the Imp did was attacking, which in turn made him visible.  I don't think you can assume this w/o more info from the OP.



			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> It would not help the party win, help them escape, nor help them survive.




Since we don't know what the OP meant by "assisted the party", none of those are relevant until the OP gives us more info.



			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> It would only save them time after the battle, while leaving them to deal with the danger by themselves.




It may not have been an effective tactic, but it is assisting (in finding the items).



			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Making noise is unlikely to work, especially not for more than 1 round.




Maybe if you were DM it wouldn't work.  You can't say this for sure, since you were not there.  What do you think the spell Ghost Sounds is for?  An invisible Imp can be just as effective.



			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Very much not helpful if the opponents have been inside that building for a while and know that there's no one behind them in the house that would be interfering.




And how exactly would they "KNOW" this?  This is a world with magic after all.  They may feel safe in their house, but once the party busts in and starts swinging, you have to be prepared for anything.  Was there a back door?  Did someone sneak in?  Is it someone invisible?  Someone that can dimension door inside?  Someone who can walk through walls?  The enemies would have no idea, and they would be wise to send at least 1 person to check it out so they don't get jumped from behind.



			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Likely to be brushed off as a mage trying to fool them with pathetic illusions or something.




Possibly.  But possibly not.  If the DM ran the encounter intelligently, and this example had occured, the smart thing to do would be to make sure no one is sneaking up from behind by sending 1 or more people to check it out while the others continue to deal with the PCs.



			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Moving objects is going to be of limited usefulness, and Imps aren't terribly large or strong.  And unlikely to be of much use, at most delaying an opponent for a round.




True.  But it is a form of assisting, if even to stop an opponent for 1 more round.



			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> And it depends on what's in the room to begin with.  Very unlikely.




I am glad you were there to explain this to the rest of us.  I suppose I will just counter with "very likely"?



			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> _I would very much doubt_ an imp to waste a healing potion on a mortal, _let alone be carrying one himself_ to begin with, given *his own fiendish defenses and Fast Healing*.




*sigh*  I have to explain this one to?  Have you ever had a party member drop during combat before?  Have you ever had to rummage through his items to find a healing potion and force feed him it (full round action, there ARE rules for his in the PHB)?  I was not suggesting an Imp would use (let along carry) his own healing potion on the mortals.  But if one dropped and the Imp was near by and he really needed the party to get the item, he very well might search the fallen party member for a healing potion and force feed him.  You make this sound like it is uncommon or unheard of...



			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Your alternatives are weak, poor choices for assisting in the battle, and seem more like grasping at straws.




Your assumptions are weak as well.  You weren't there but argue as if you were.  You pull way too many assumptions out of very little info given to us by the OP.  You seem to think the word "assist" is synonomous with "attack" lol.



			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> None would have bought the party more than 1 round of time to finish dealing with a single foe before another gets into melee, rather than just shooting or zapping them if possible.




So what?  Assisting is assisting.  It doesn't have to be 100% effective.  And it certainly doesn't have to deal damage like you seem to think it does.  Perhaps the OP will chime in and explain that the Imp turned visible in the middle of combat when he cast a spell and blah blah blah.  That would be great and clear a lot of things up.



			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> And none of them would be very assist-ingly useful.




Sometimes it is the intent.  A creative player or DM would have made them useful.  From reading your responses, I can see how you might not think they are.



			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> It would certainly be a weak, pathetic effort on the Imp's part to fulfill his end of the bargain, _not likely_ to convince the PC adventurers that it really did intend to fulfill the bargain, rather than just use them to do all the fighting for it and help *it* out, rather than a mutual partnership.




What would be "a weak, pathetic effort"?  Doing something during combat that didn't involve an attack roll or damage?  Assisting the party in other ways that didn't involve an attack roll or damage?  Surely for some people who think D&D is all hack n slash and can't be creative, I can see that being weak and pathetic.  For most people I know, not only can it be fun for the DM and the players, it can be effective and memorable.



			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> And you're still ignoring that it was apparently invisible until after the battle, or until the battle had started.  Before then it was invisibly searching other parts of the house for its desired item, as the OP described it.




See, here's the thing.  It matters (for the Paladin) if the Imp was visible during combat or after it.  If the Imp did something that turned himself visible during combat, the Paladin should have did something about it right away ("You made a deal with that thing!?").  Called the deal off before it was fulfilled.  But waiting until after the combat, after both parties got what they wanted, then killing the Imp, is certainly not a Lawful Good act IMHO.

Like others have said, there are no hard fast rules in regards to Paladins (or alignments for that matter).  Each campaign will treat them differently.  Every person (player and DM) will have their own views on it.  All we can do is give advice on how we would handle it.  Just form what I've read, I think you handle Paladins very one-dimensionally.  I think there is more to a Paladin then smite first and ask questions later.  Or smite with extreme prejudice.  Oh well, to each his own, right?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jul 31, 2007)

Perhaps now would be a good time to bring up this...  This is taken from the LotR RPG.  I often use it for when I design and play a "heroic" character.  I especially try to follow this anytime I play a Paladin.  While it doesn't directly relate to D&D (or D&D Paladins), it is something I always liked and tried to play my characters buy.  Just thought I would share 


*The Qualities of Heroes*​
*Compassion*

_Deep in his heart there was something that restrained him: he could not strike this thing lying in the dust, forlorn, ruinous, utterly wretched._
- The Return of the King

Heroes share the feelings of others, and they have pity on even the most wicked and wretched of creatures, such as Gollum.  They do not wantonly slaughter their enemies, even when it might be prudent, for to do so would violate the hero’s code.  Both Gandalf and Frodo spare Saruman, and though much evil might have been averted had they not, in the end both still recognize that their decision was the right one.

*Responsible Free Will*

_Were you ten times as wise you would have no right to rule me and mine for your own profit as you desired._
- Theoden, The Two Towers

Free will is one of the most important concepts.  Everyone has a choice to do good or evil, and heroes choose the good.  To exert control over the will of another is one of the ultimate evils, and heroes reject it utterly, knowing that true wisdom lies in allowing each person to pick his own path.

*Generosity*

_Then I say to you, Gimli son of Gloin, that your hands shall flow with gold, and yet over you gold shall have no dominion._
- Galadriel, The Fellowship of the Ring

Heroes give generously, both of themselves and of their goods, as need warrants.  For example, Theoden gives Shadowfax to Gandalf, prized though the great horse is, because Gandalf deserves him, needs him, and has developed a bond of friendship with him.  Heroes often acquire riches and glory during their lives, but obtaining them is not their main motivation.  Those who are evil and cowardly are grasping, greedy, and grudging, often seeking gold for gold’s sake alone.

*Honesty and Fairness*
_I would not snare even an orc with a falsehood._
- Faramir, The Two Towers

Heroes deal with other folk honestly and fairly at all times.  Though they may, like Gandalf, not reveal all they know, simply to satisfy the curiosity of others, a true hero neither avoids nor skirts the truth when the proper time comes.

*Honor and Nobility*

_We are truth-speakers, we men of Gondor.  We boast seldom, and then perform, or die in the attempt._
- Faramir, The Two Towers

From the highest lord of Gondor, to the lowliest Hobbit of the Shire, true heroes always display the classic qualities of nobility and honor.  They abide by their word, treat others fairly and with the respect due them - regardless of station - and have that graciousness of spirit which marks the true noble.

*Restraint*

_Legolas is right,” said Aragorn quietly.  “We may not shoot an old man so, at unawares and unchallenged, whatever fear or doubt be on us._
- The Two Towers

This point was touched on earlier, but it bears repeating: Heroes are not indiscriminate killers hacking down anyone who angers or threatens them, or spilling blood needlessly.  They kill in battle and often accomplish great feats of arms, but that is a different thing that ruthlessly butchering anyone and anything that happens to cross their paths.  They exercise restraint, slaying their foes only when they absolutely must.

*Self-sacrifice*

_It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them._
- Frodo, The Return of the King

Perhaps most importantly of all, heroes are self-sacrificing.  They give of themselves, even unto death, to keep the world safe from evil.  Frodo, a powerless Hobbit, willing walks into Mordor on a seemingly hopeless errand because it’s the right thing to do for the greater good.  Aragorn puts off his own happiness for decades to help save the Free Peoples from the Shadow.  Boromir sacrifices his own life to atone for his misdeeds and save two hobbits.  These heroes care not for reward or glory.  The accomplishment of the quest is reward enough.

*Valor*

_By our valor the wild folk of the East are still restrained, and the terror of Morgul kept at bay._
- Boromir, The Fellowship of the Ring

Heroes possess great valor.  They are brave, with the strength of will and spirit to meet fearsome servants of evil and stand against them.  They do not shrink from danger, though it threatens their very lives.

*Wisdom*

_For even the very wise cannot see all ends._
- Gandalf, The Fellowship of the Ring

Heroes possess wisdom and insight.  They understand their own limitations and can judge the value and truth of things fairly, rather than through the lens of their own self-interest or foolish desires.  They realize, for example, that they dare not use the Ring against Sauron, though its power might allow them to defeat him.


----------



## Beckett (Jul 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That sounds a bit like Buyer's Remorse, to me.  "I got what I wanted, but now I don't want to fulfil my side of the bargain..."
> 
> -Hyp.




Yup.  That's the one I was most conflicted on.  I've inadvertently accepted aid from a soulless fiend from hell (or not so inadvertently- perhaps the party should ask more questions of overly helpful invisible strangers), and now I'm supposed to help him find something which will no doubt further the goals of his evil masters.  I don't like backing out on a deal, but I also don't want to help an evil being.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That sounds a bit like Buyer's Remorse, to me.  "I got what I wanted, but now I don't want to fulfil my side of the bargain..."



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 contract law. The relevant principles here would be that of mistake:


> In contract law a mistake is an erroneous belief, at contracting, that certain facts are true. It may be used as grounds to invalidate the agreement. Common law has identified three different types of mistake in contract: unilateral mistake, mutual mistake, and common mistake.



In this case, it would be a unilateral mistake, specifically, a mistake of identity. The general principles are:


> A unilateral mistake is where only one party to a contract is mistaken as to the terms or subject-matter. The courts will uphold such a contract unless it was determined that the non-mistaken party was aware of the mistake and tried to take advantage of the mistake.
> 
> ...
> 
> It is also possible for a contract to be void if there was a mistake in the identity of the contracting party. In the leading English case of Lewis v Avery [1971] ... Lord Denning held that the contract can be avoided only if the plaintiff can show, that at the time of agreement, the plaintiff believed the other party's identity was of vital importance. A mere mistaken belief as to the credibility of the other party is not sufficient.



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.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 31, 2007)

A single-classed paladin, a multi-classed knight/paladin and a multi-classed rogue/paladin walk into a tavern temple filled with evil cultists. Actually, only the paladin walks. The knight/paladin stands in the courtyard of the temple, challenging all the cultists within to come out and meet him in honorable combat. The rogue/paladin takes advantage of the distraction provided by the knight/paladin to sneak into the temple and creep into the high priest's room, where he finds the high priest (amazingly) still asleep.

Our rogue/paladin is bound by the paladin code, but not the knight's code. He has no problems with attacking flanked or flat-footed opponents, otherwise he wouldn't be able to use his sneak attack ability at all. The interesting question is, what does the paladin's code allow him to do to a helpless opponent? Of course, he can capture the high priest by dealing nonlethal damage, or he can demand his surrender, but let's say that for some reason, he has been ordered by legitimate authority to slay him. Can he coup de grace the sleeping high priest? Can he shout loudly enough to wake him up, but attack while he is flat-footed? Does he have to allow the high priest to arm himself? Does he have to allow the high priest to arm himself with his best weapon and armor, or can he just toss him a dagger?  Would it make any difference if the high priest was 4 levels higher or lower than the rogue/paladin?

Now let's say it was the rogue/paladin that discovered he had made a deal with an imp. Assuming he has standing orders to destroy any evil outsider he encounters, how much warning should he give the imp before he breaks the truce? No warning at all, in an attempt to surprise and sneak attack the imp? A shouted warning, giving the imp the chance to win initiative and avoid the sneak attack? One round to flee or prepare to fight? One minute? One hour? One day? Would it make any difference if it was not an imp, but a more powerful devil? Would you take the relative power of the rogue/paladin and the imp into account?

I guess what I'm trying to illustrate with these examples is that the line between "honorable" and "dishonorable" is sometimes difficult to draw. What one person may consider acceptable, another may consider dishonorable. What one person considers to be the minimum requirements for honor, another may consider foolish. I, personally, enjoy playing extremely honorable paladins, but I don't believe that all paladins needs to be played that way.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 31, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> The knight/paladin stands in the courtyard of the temple, challenging all the cultists within to come out and meet him in honorable combat.






I nearly had this happen, pretty much, in the first 3E game I DMed.

Kobold cavern complex.  Guardpost in the entrance cave - three kobolds with a signal gong to alert the rest of the tribe.

The ranger and rogue managed to sneak to the cave entrance, and took out the three guards.  (Our first ever attack of opportunity was provoked by the last kobold trying to run past the ranger to get to the gong.)

The ranger and rogue beckoned the rest of the party into the entrance cavern.  The paladin spied the gong.

"Ah!" he said, picking up the striker.  "Convenient!"

From memory, it was the cleric who got in the first tackle... 

As far as the priest goes, I don't think the paladin's code forbids slaying a sleeping enemy... if you can time your attack on the giants' lair for when most of the giants are asleep and the sentry is dozey, that's good planning.  On the other hand, if you had arranged a single combat with the priest for next Wednesday, assassinating him on Saturday feels iffy.  

-Hyp.


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 31, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> It wasn't pre-emptive treachery.  It was smiting a fiend, that very much needed to die.




And this is based on what?

A fiend can have any alignment, it will always show up as "evil" due to its subtype that normally can't be lost though - so a paladin's smite evil will work. But it could be non-evilly aligned which causes a quandry.

There has been nothing to indicate that the imp acted "evilly" so it could have been struggling with its "true nature".  If the imp had been "assisting" the party previously and had nothing "to harm" them, then it is logical that the paladin could be under the assumption that the imp was not totally evil.  Now if the paadin attacks an imp that he firsts meets without any sort of previous indication of its dispostion and behaviour that is a different story. To me it is logical for a paladin to assume a fiend is evil unless there are indictations to the contrary (which there could have been in this scenario).


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 31, 2007)

Bah.  I will not continue to repeat the same arguments I have already made.  I have presented very thorough descriptions and reasoning, that seems to be completely ignored except for the few individual lines that you can take and comment on as though they were made in a void and as though they had no relevance, and treating them as though they are the major points of my argument.

I won't waste any more time on this when it is obviously being brushed off by people who cannot be bothered to put up a well-reasoned response beyond "well it's not that way in my campaigns, and don't you know that fiends are actually no different from ordinary, evil mortals?"

If no one is going to accept the default D&D version of fiends as valid or relevant to the discussion, then screw it.  I'm not going to waste more time arguing that it is.  Heaven forbid I try to get a logical response rather than straw men and red herrings.  I can't help it if I'm not perfect at explaining things in words.


----------



## Hawken (Jul 31, 2007)

> Bah.



 I couldn't agree with you more. 

You can't apply your own morals and ethics to even other cultures without causing problems. Muchless an entirely different species. Muchless irredeemably corrupt fiends that spend eternity tormenting souls. 

If some people think its wrong to whack an imp just because it hasn't done anything wrong that they witnessed, more luck to 'em! They'll be the ones wishing for a paladin to come in with a Smite when their morality gets shoved right back up their backside by a stronger, meaner fiend that they tried talking to first because it didn't attack them right away! 

If a paladin doesn't whack an imp because he's got more pressing issues at hand, well, good for him; he knows how to prioritize threats! If he remains silent while his group bargains with an imp that is because he is already planning on dealing with the issue and how to do so best without endangering his companions. Silence does not equal compliance. 

Wisely, the paladin did best by remaining silent until it was the correct time to act. There was nothing deceptive, chaotic, non-good or even remotely wrong with his actions. The only explanations a paladin owes are to his deity, not to his friends, or even his church or government, but to the one that supplies his power and directs him. Whether he knew of the agreement or not, he did not have to contribute to the discussion and didn't owe his friends any reason or insight for his silence or apparent compliance.  

If the terms of the group's agreement with the imp come to an end simultaneously with the end of the danger greater than that posed by the imp, then the paladin has the satisfaction of Smiting the imp and at the same time sparing/saving the consciences of his companions by not having Smitten the imp until the terms of their agreement with the imp (and thus any truce) had come to an end so they would not have to worry/dread about any unfulfilled bargains with fiends.

Whether the player intended his actions that way or not, it all worked out quite well with the paladin's actions despite calls for penance or power loss. Paladins are not bodyguards. They don't wait for bad things to happen. They go out and bring the Good right to the Bad guys' front door! They should be cheered for taking the initiative, not reprimanded or punished because others do not share their holy mandate or their great desire to see evil purged from the world.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Jul 31, 2007)

Hawken said:
			
		

> You can't apply your own morals and ethics to even other cultures without causing problems. Muchless an entirely different species. Muchless irredeemably corrupt fiends that spend eternity tormenting souls.




But see, that's just the point.  According to WotC materials they're not irredeemable!  They are corrupt.  They are almost always by default evil.  But not irredeemable.

If in your campaign they are irredeemable, then there is little wrong with smiting a demon/devil on sight because what else is it good for?  But in general D&D as written by WotC, there is a chance for redemption.  If a demon/devil has done nothing wrong that you are aware of by eyewitness or even story account, there is always a chance.



			
				Hawken said:
			
		

> If some people think its wrong to whack an imp just because it hasn't done anything wrong that they witnessed, more luck to 'em!




And in some respects, I think this goes even deeper than just whacking them.  It goes to motivation behind the game in general.  If playing the game is just about creating cool combat characters that can whack stuff, then who really cares?  Go whack 'em and have fun.

But if the players around the table want to have a deeper and more rounded experience full of the possibility of moral angst regarding their decisions and their impact upon the world around them, then they should be allowed to have that as well.  From the OP, the fact that a discussion about this broke out signifies that the players are doing more than just hack and slash.  Since fiends can be redeemed (no matter how remote the chance) in a general 3.5 WotC campaign, it sounds like a beautiful set-up for moral angst to me!

And for the record, even in my D&D I still support the "unjustified killing for the sake of killing is questionable."  There are many paths to righteousness (since we are talking about good/paladins here).  Not many of them involve ending life without justification.  This is true even in the case of a fiend.  You can banish it back to its own plane of existance.  You can capture it and take it to authorities that can handle it and potentially redeem it.  This type of thinking won't fly in a hack and slash game, but in a game that the players want to do more than just kill, this is the stuff that good stories and campaigns are made of.



			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> If no one is going to accept the default D&D version of fiends as valid or relevant to the discussion, then screw it. I'm not going to waste more time arguing that it is. Heaven forbid I try to get a logical response rather than straw men and red herrings. I can't help it if I'm not perfect at explaining things in words.




I don't think that people are having trouble accepting the default version of fiends (except for the fact that you keep seeming to think that they are irredeemable and you dismiss the chance for redemption so easily).  I also don't think that people have been putting up red herrings and straw men.  It isn't the defaults that people are having trouble with.  The trouble is coming at a moral level, not a game mechanics level.  I do think it is legitimate to put into question if slaying anything without provokation is honorable.  I think it is legitimate to put into question whether good can enter into a truce with evil in order to defeat another evil.  And of course its corollary ... can both parties in the truce still maintain their original alignment stances.



			
				RigaMortis2 said:
			
		

> I don't know my geography, is that anywhere near Philly per chance?




I'm about 5 hours from Philly (In a generally northwest direction).  I'm about 3 hours to Pittsburgh (In a generally northeast direction).


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jul 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> In this case, we had a hungry paladin sit down in a tavern for lunch.  The (short) menu had two choices - beef, 2 silver; or chicken, 2 silver (4 copper from every chicken sold goes to the Widows and Orphans Fund!).
> 
> Does the paladin have the right to choose beef?  Or is he _required_ to order the chicken, since it supports the helpless?
> 
> -Hyp.




He is not required to eat chicken.  He can choose the beef so long as he donates at least 4 copper of his own money to Widows and Orphans.  This way, the Paladin gets to have the meal he wants, and fulfill "supporting the helpless".


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Jul 31, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> He is not required to eat chicken.  He can choose the beef so long as he donates at least 4 copper of his own money to Widows and Orphans.  This way, the Paladin gets to have the meal he wants, and fulfill "supporting the helpless".




Ohhhh! Way to think outside the box.

So let's change the question a bit.  He only has 2 silvers on him, and nobody around him has enough money to buy any of his equipment so the most he'll have at the moment is 2 silvers.  [I admit, this extra addition is a bit contrived]  Now is he required to eat the chicken?


----------



## irdeggman (Jul 31, 2007)

Let's see:

Is an imp required to have an evil alignment?


It is of the evil subtype and that is so specified:



> Evil Subtype: A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction, above).




Is a monster always of the alignment type listed?



> Alignment
> This line gives the alignment that the creature is most likely to have. Every entry includes a qualifier that indicates how broadly that alignment applies to the species as a whole.





Can a character change his alignment?

DMG pg 134 describes how a character can in fact change his alignment.

Can a character be redeemed?



> Ex-Paladins
> A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.




Is it possible then for an utterly evil character to atone himself and then become a LG paladin?

Is it possible to have a good aligned vampire?

Etc.

My point was that just because a creature/character is a fiend (or of fiendish descent - half fiend anyone or warlock?) does not mean they are automatically evil in alignment and should automatically be under a death sentence from a standard paladin. 

If someone want to ignore all of the rules as written and examples of creatures/characters that are contrary to the standard then they can freely do so but they should recognize that the rules as written are not that strict.


Heck as the rules are written it is even possible to have an imp become a paladin - that would make for a real interesting set of stories.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 31, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Is a monster always of the alignment type listed?




To be fair, you should also quote what 'Always Alignment X' means:

_*Always:* The creature is born with the indicated alignment.  The creature may have a hereditary disposition to the alignment or comes from a plane that predetermines it.  It is possible for individuals to change alignment, bu such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions._

Which is why I don't have an issue with a paladin who doesn't ask questions before attacking a fiend - while it's theoretically possible for it to be non-evil, the _likelihood_ is negligible.  It's the sort of question the DA would restrict to Yes or No - "Is it _possible_, Doctor Mordenkainen - _possible_, sir - that a fiend might be non-evil?"  "Yes, I suppose it's theoretically possible, but the likel-" "Thank you, Doctor, that will be all."

Which is why I'm not taking the paladin to task for attacking the imp.  I'm objecting to his attacking an imp in contravention of an agreement not to.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hawken (Jul 31, 2007)

> I'm objecting to his attacking an imp in contravention of an agreement not to.



#1: There was no agreement _not_ to attack the imp at the end of their agreement. The agreement was to work together;, nothing more or less was stated. Which they did. Even the OP stated that. They both met their goals (got their respective items). Any implied truce that came with that agreement ended when both sides met their goals (getting their items). Before then, the paladin didn't attack the imp. After the agreement ended (and the imp for whatever reason didn't get the heck out of there) was when the paladin took out the imp. 

#2: As I stated in a previously ignored response, silence does not equal or imply compliance. Whether the paladin was involved in the agreement or not, his silence on the matter does not indicate his agreement to it. And no one apparently bothered to ask him if he agreed to it; they just assumed he did because he was silent on the matter. That's called reserving judgment. He appeared to be going along with the agreement (by not attacking the imp immediately); however, as I stated before, only indicates he prioritized his goals and dealt with the immediate concerns of the group over a different, less immediate threat. Once the group met their goals, their main threat taken care of (and incidentally, the terms of the agreement with the imp met), then he took it out. 

#3: Argue all you want. It was a given (by nature of the paladin's class) that unless the imp fled, its very nature as a devil (that had to commit unspeakable crimes to become a devil) meant that the paladin was going to deal with it or attempt to at one point or another. You can try to rationalize your morality into it, but the paladin killed an evil fiend. Period. And the terms of the group's agreement with the creature had been met when it died, so there was no killing it while protected by a truce.

And for those of you that argue the chance for the redemption of fiends or that not all of them are evil; take a trip down to the Abyss or Hell and see how many of them you can get to stop dismembering you and flaying your skin long enough for them to listen to your words and consider the "error of their ways"!


----------



## SlagMortar (Jul 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Encounter in a dungeon with a wandering imp? Attacking: not an evil act, and justifiable. Not attacking: not an evil act, and not an immediate violation of the code unless there are innocents in danger.



So would not attacking the imp be a violation of the paladin code if there are innocents in danger?  If so, please define "innocents in danger."


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 31, 2007)

Hawken said:
			
		

> #1: There was no agreement _not_ to attack the imp at the end of their agreement.
> 
> #2: As I stated in a previously ignored response, silence does not equal or imply compliance. Whether the paladin was involved in the agreement or not, his silence on the matter does not indicate his agreement to it.




And I consider both of those weaseling, loopholing, and lawyerin' unworthy of a paladin.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 31, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> So would not attacking the imp be a violation of the paladin code if there are innocents in danger?  If so, please define "innocents in danger."




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.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jul 31, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> So would not attacking the imp be a violation of the paladin code if there are innocents in danger?  If so, please define "innocents in danger."



 Here's an interesting side-question based on that.  What if there actually were not innocents in danger.

I present to you the following scenario.  It may be unlikely, but it is possible given the above scenario:

Til'dik the imp lived to serve in the eternal Blood War between the demons and the devils.  Thus, it was with great disgust that he was forced to journey to the mortal realms, but he knew the need was great.  A being of pure evil and law, Til'dik could not abide by the fact that a cultist of Baphomet was about to collect the seventh piece of an artifact that would bathe that realm in chaos and death, as demons walked the world and rent it asunder.  Hey, he had nothing against killing mortals, but that sort of chaotic destruction was ghastly compared to the careful nurturing of lawful evil souls to serve as his masters' energy, and besides, that would give the demons a huge advantage.  The only possibility to stop it was to grab the final piece of the artifact himself and return it to Avernus.  Lord Bel had determined that only in the fiery rivers of Avernus could it be destroyed, thus ending the threat.  Although he'd dearly like to torture or corrupt some pathetic mortals for his trouble in leaving Hell, he knows that he doesn't have the luxury--he must return to Baator as soon as possible on recovering the item or risk the demon cultists recovering it.  He hopes he will never have to go to this disgusting mortal plane ever again.  In his dreams, he will serve in the Blood Wars until he dies and is absorbed by the perfect order of Baator or succeeds enough to be promoted to a mort suitable combat form and continue to even greater victory.

~~~

Fast forward--Til'dik is killed by the Paladin.  The party either leaves the thing the imp wanted behind (in which case the cultists recover it) or take it with them (after the cultists figure it out, they steal it from the party).  The land is bathed in death and slaughter.  And Baphomet himself comes forth, sending an Aspect and rejoicing in the mayhem.  The only one from the kingdom who is spared is the Paladin, for letting his hatred overwhelm him and single-handedly allowing this to happen!


----------



## Hawken (Jul 31, 2007)

> And I consider both of those weaseling, loopholing, and lawyerin' unworthy of a paladin.



 How you interpret is up to you. But there was no 'weaseling' or any of that other nonsense on the part of the paladin. They agreed to work together to achieve mutual goals. They did. Agreement met and ended. There was no agreement for safe passage or anything else and the DM, knowing that it was an imp making the deal could easily have had the imp (in the bargaining process with the group) state, "Ok, we work together. I help you, you help me. We get our items and part as friends. Good?" But no, there was nothing mentioned about that. And that's not loopholing. The agreement was done. Its terms were met and thus it ended. Upon meeting the terms of the agreement, the imp could have hauled butt out of there at least until the paladin was gone, but for whatever reason decided to stick around. 

And you're full of it if you think that silence does equal compliance. Just as an easy, immediate example; if that were the case, everyone arrested or cited would be instantly found guilty of whatever they were being charged with and there wouldn't be a need for a judge or jury (or legal counsel for that matter). Think about that next time a cop pulls you over, serves you with a warrant or just flat-out arrests you. 

Reserving judgment, by remaining silent on a matter, is not being sneaky or deceptive or misleading in any way. If the paladin was the only one not vocal about his agreement, then it should have been obvious to the rest of the group there was some doubt or hesitation on his part, at which point, they should have checked with him on it instead of just assuming he agreed with them because he didn't say anything. But they didn't. They just assumed. But that's still irrelevant anyway because the agreement was fulfilled in good faith by both sides. 

Whether the paladin meant to or not, he did not break the terms of the agreement. The terms of the agreement/implied truce was met and fulfilled. Period. If there is any doubt of that, go back to the OP and re-read it. The paladin did not kill the imp until the agreement/implied truce had ended. He isn't anywhere in the wrong at all on this.


----------



## IanB (Jul 31, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Here's an interesting side-question based on that.  What if there actually were not innocents in danger.
> 
> I present to you the following scenario.  It may be unlikely, but it is possible given the above scenario:
> 
> ...




To me that sounds like a scenario deliberately crafted by a DM to say "screw you for playing a paladin" to the paladin player.


----------



## SlagMortar (Jul 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> 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.



What if there were a town full of defenseless commoners just over the hill and the imp was headed that way?



			
				Rystil said:
			
		

> The only one from the kingdom who is spared is the Paladin, for letting his hatred overwhelm him and single-handedly allowing this to happen!



I fully agree that such is possible.  It is also at least equally likely that the item was the final piece of an artifact required by Bob the Super Pit Fiend to complete his plan to end the Blood War and bring the Prime Material plane completely under his merciless thumb.  If it comes down to whether I would rather an imp or a paladin possess an item that is the key to universal destruction, I'd rather it be the paladin.  

Well, unless he dumped intelligence, which I guess is rather likely...  hmm.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jul 31, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> Ohhhh! Way to think outside the box.
> 
> So let's change the question a bit.  He only has 2 silvers on him, and nobody around him has enough money to buy any of his equipment so the most he'll have at the moment is 2 silvers.  [I admit, this extra addition is a bit contrived]  Now is he required to eat the chicken?




What is his Diplomacy skill?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jul 31, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> What if there were a town full of defenseless commoners just over the hill and the imp was headed that way?
> 
> 
> I fully agree that such is possible.  It is also at least equally likely that the item was the final piece of an artifact required by Bob the Super Pit Fiend to complete his plan to end the Blood War and bring the Prime Material plane completely under his merciless thumb.  If it comes down to whether I would rather an imp or a paladin possess an item that is the key to universal destruction, I'd rather it be the paladin.
> ...



 It is indeed equally likely the other way around.  But given the importance of the Blood War, there is a non-negligible chance that the Imp is out there doing something to stop Demons.  The Paladin would be within her rights to, once the Imp appeared in its true form, turn around and demand an explanation for the item's purpose, with the caveat that she cannot allow it to be used to harm innocents and will therefore be required to duel the Imp to the death once the current threat has passed.  But "Preemptive Sneak Attack Smite BANZAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!" is a different story.  Of course, the imp could have totally used its Alternate Form to pretend to be a raven familiar of a friendly Wizard or something.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Jul 31, 2007)

What I think we have emerging is something I predicted a few posts ago:  The question is not how evil is the imp.  The question is really concerning the morality of killing anything without proper cause and justification.

To refer back to Hawken's earlier example, when a cop pulls someone over, they have a reason.  Now, they might have been mistaken.  For example, I heard of a man being chased by a cop for travelling 20 miles over the speed limit.  It wasn't until they got to a stop light that the police officer was able to find out that the man was rushing his wife to a hospital because she had gone into labor 10 weeks too early.  The baby was viable, but they had to act within that golden hour window.  So, the cop decided to side on mercy and actually escorted the man to the hospital (actually to an ambulance that they met en route).  There's an example where suspicion doesn't pan out.  But I haven't ever heard a story where a cop pulled someone over without having suspicion at least.  It may turn out unjustified, but the cops have at least suspicion, if not proof.

The paladin who kills an imp just for being an imp and without observing the imp doing evil  has no proof.  Sure, the paladin has every right to be suspicious.  But suspicion does not equal proof.  The imp might be legitimate.  The paladin might be able to see more good in allowing the imp to live (see RA's semi-contrived scenario above as an example).  But to blatantly kill the imp just for being an imp does not make him good!

The path of good in narrow, and it is easy to fall from paladinhood.  In the OP's case, I still wouldn't say the paladin fell, but the paladin sure wasn't acting "good" and especially not "honorable."


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 31, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> But I haven't ever heard a story where a cop pulled someone over without having suspicion at least.




I'll just get in a Preemptive Moderatorial Sneak Attack (Banzai!), and remind people of EN World's policy regarding discussion of politics.

Just in case anyone's tempted 

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## IanB (Jul 31, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> What I think we have emerging is something I predicted a few posts ago:  The question is not how evil is the imp.  The question is really concerning the morality of killing anything without proper cause and justification.
> 
> To refer back to Hawken's earlier example, when a cop pulls someone over, they have a reason.  Now, they might have been mistaken.  For example, I heard of a man being chased by a cop for travelling 20 miles over the speed limit.  It wasn't until they got to a stop light that the police officer was able to find out that the man was rushing his wife to a hospital because she had gone into labor 10 weeks too early.  The baby was viable, but they had to act within that golden hour window.  So, the cop decided to side on mercy and actually escorted the man to the hospital (actually to an ambulance that they met en route).  There's an example where suspicion doesn't pan out.  But I haven't ever heard a story where a cop pulled someone over without having suspicion at least.  It may turn out unjustified, but the cops have at least suspicion, if not proof.
> 
> ...




But... why would a paladin need proof when talking about a devil? Devils and demons exist in large part to give PCs something unambiguous to fight - you *know* a demon is evil, there's no questionable motivations or moral grey territory, just get smiting. Back the camera out a little farther and look at this from a game design perspective. If the design goal in this encounter is to provide the party with an ambiguous moral decision, _don't use an imp_.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 31, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> But... why would a paladin need proof when talking about a devil? Devils and demons exist in large part to give PCs something unambiguous to fight - you *know* a demon is evil, there's no questionable motivations or moral grey territory, just get smiting.




I don't think the paladin's assumption that 'the imp is evil' is unreasonable.

The assumption I have a problem with is 'an agreement with an evil creature can be ignored'.

-Hyp.


----------



## IanB (Aug 1, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I don't think the paladin's assumption that 'the imp is evil' is unreasonable.
> 
> The assumption I have a problem with is 'an agreement with an evil creature can be ignored'.
> 
> -Hyp.




An agreement with an evil creature should never have been made in the first place, which is what the paladin should be atoning for (they get detect evil for a reason); thinking better of it when he realized what he'd gotten into would be a mitigating factor in the paladin's favor, it seems to me.

But in any case, after thinking about this overnight, I think the DM (or module writer, if they're different) may possibly deserve some blame for setting up a situation where the paladin is stuck with making an agreement with an imp. If you want to make your paladin player make hard choices, that's cool, but I don't think an obviously evil outsider is a good way to do it. Savage Tide spoiler: 



Spoiler



It is the same reason I think a lot of Savage Tide campaigns will break down when they get to the ending, where you have to go around and make deals with a bunch of other demon lords to help fight Demogorgon. Too many of them will just have players refuse to deal with Orcus or Malcanthet, and I can hardly blame those players for not playing along with the plot railroad in that case.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 1, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> But in any case, after thinking about this overnight, I think the DM (or module writer, if they're different) may possibly deserve some blame for setting up a situation where the paladin is stuck with making an agreement with an imp.




I think there's a difference between "Making an agreement with this creature may provide some advantage", and "Making an agreement with this creature is necessary to proceed with the adventure".

If the enemy stronghold is literally impenetrable - it's guaranteed that you will be detected and killed if you try to get in - and the only way to circumvent this is to deal with the traitor who demands a virgin sacrifice before he'll cooperate, it's a no-win situation for the paladin.

If the enemy stronghold is formidable - good chance of death, but potentially doable - but the danger can be waved away by dealing with the traitor who demands a virgin sacrifice before he'll cooperate, the paladin can certainly refuse to deal, preferring the risky but morally-less-repugnant option.

If the enemy stronghold is formidable - good chance of death, but potentially doable - but the danger can be waved away by dealing with the traitor who demands a bag of gold and a pardon for past misdeeds... the paladin might choose to take the deal.  But if he does so, I'd consider it extremely dishonorable of him to then cut the traitor down once they were inside the stronghold.  If he doesn't, he takes his chances with the guards.

The no-win situation isn't a fair one to put before the players when there's a paladin in the party.  Essentially, you've said "This adventure is impossible for the paladin to get through".

The other two options?  I don't think there's anything wrong with presenting those situations to a paladin.

-Hyp.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Aug 1, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> But... why would a paladin need proof when talking about a devil? Devils and demons exist in large part to give PCs something unambiguous to fight - you *know* a demon is evil, there's no questionable motivations or moral grey territory, just get smiting. Back the camera out a little farther and look at this from a game design perspective. If the design goal in this encounter is to provide the party with an ambiguous moral decision, _don't use an imp_.




See, I think I am reaching a point where I need to leave the discussion.  And the reason isn't because it is getting too personal or anything.  It is just that I have a serious problem with the premise that anything can be created for the sole purpose of giving anyone a carte blanche in killing.  It just isn't how I game.  I never want to even feel myaself rationalizing game violence from a good-aligned character by saying, "It's okay, demons and devils are put into the game so that they die."  It just doesn't *feel* right to me.  And please understand that I feel this way about good aligned characters.  Neutral and evil characters are a different story.  I'm not saying good characters can't fight and even kill.  I'm saying that it should never be such a black and white issue of "it's okay to kill it, because they're assumed evil."  The potential for redemption should always negate assumed killing.  Sure, redemption is difficult.  But no more difficult than assumed killing.  On that note, I don't think I can go any farther.  It's a variation of morals, ethics, and understanding of good/evil where the differences are.  It isn't a game mechanic problem any more.  It's an ethics/morality problem.



			
				Hyp said:
			
		

> I'll just get in a Preemptive Moderatorial Sneak Attack (Banzai!), and remind people of EN World's policy regarding discussion of politics.
> 
> Just in case anyone's tempted




Thanks for the clarification.  Please understand that my intention was not to start that type of a hijack.  I was merely trying to respond to an earlier comment, and if I pushed the line it was unintentional!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 1, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> Please understand that my intention was not to start that type of a hijack.  I was merely trying to respond to an earlier comment, and if I pushed the line it was unintentional!




The comment wasn't directed at you, or indeed at anyone - note that it was a _preemptive_ warning.

-Hyp.


----------



## Veril (Aug 1, 2007)

From my point of view:

The imp was clearly trying to decieve the party by remaining invisible.  
Answer this question: Would the party have made the agreement if the imp was visible?  It's clear the answer must be no.

The paladin would not have made an agreement with the imp - he is forbidden to do so.  Paladin's should not willing enter into an agreement with evil outsiders, that's pretty clear.  So, he was tricked into the agreement.  

Why did the imp do it?  because they love to corrupt mortals - and doing this to a paladin is *exactly* what they want to do.  The whole associating with evil thing is a classic way to "break" a Paladin.  

I believe that the paladin should uphold the agreement made (he passivly agreed by not raising any objections).  That's part of being Lawful - you should stick to your word.  

When it becomes obvious that it was a trick and the terms of the agreement have been satisfied he should Smite the imp at the earliest oportunity.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 1, 2007)

Veril said:
			
		

> The imp was clearly trying to decieve the party by remaining invisible.



I can't accept that he was decieving them by remaining invisible. He was withholding info, but they *knew* that info had been withheld. If there was something that info could be that would make the deal unacceptable, they should have insisted on clarification before agreeing. But any deception was essentially agreed to by the party.

If the Imp had been disguised as something else and make the deal in that guise, that would have been deception. But when you make a deal with something that you clearly and explicitly don't know the identity of, you don't get to cancel the deal later because you didn't know their identity.

If you are offered a low cost cruise on the basis that "you will share your room with someone whose identity will be reveal upon check-in, to be referred to as "Cruiser X" in the remainder of this document" and you agree to it, you have *not* been deceived if you check in and it's your old college ex. You can't say "I wouldn't have agreed if I knew I'd be sharing a room with HIM!" because you knew you could be sharing a room with anyone, and if there was a limit to that anyone that would have made you not accept the deal, you should have tried to clarify it before signing.

Anonymity is not the same thing as a false identity. One attempts to decieve, while the other lays the ambiguity out to be accepted or not.


----------



## IanB (Aug 1, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> See, I think I am reaching a point where I need to leave the discussion.  And the reason isn't because it is getting too personal or anything.  It is just that I have a serious problem with the premise that anything can be created for the sole purpose of giving anyone a carte blanche in killing.  It just isn't how I game.  I never want to even feel myaself rationalizing game violence from a good-aligned character by saying, "It's okay, demons and devils are put into the game so that they die."  It just doesn't *feel* right to me.  And please understand that I feel this way about good aligned characters.  Neutral and evil characters are a different story.  I'm not saying good characters can't fight and even kill.  I'm saying that it should never be such a black and white issue of "it's okay to kill it, because they're assumed evil."  The potential for redemption should always negate assumed killing.  Sure, redemption is difficult.  But no more difficult than assumed killing.  On that note, I don't think I can go any farther.  It's a variation of morals, ethics, and understanding of good/evil where the differences are.  It isn't a game mechanic problem any more.  It's an ethics/morality problem.




Well, obviously that is your prerogative - I would just point out that we're discussing something that doesn't have a real world analogue of any kind. Demons and devils aren't really living creatures in the sense that a rabbit or an orc or even a mind flayer are - they're sort of spiritual manifestations of a philosophy, and in this case of Evil with a capital E. Do your good PCs have to worry about fighting undead in the same way? Constructs? I see demons and devils as having more in common with the undead than they do with 'normal' living creatures, personally. They're more evil spirits than anything with any kind of ecological niche. Again, from a design perspective, like the undead, I feel they give you a tool you can use as a DM to give players a break from thorny moral problems and such - and they do it without screwing over classes that rely on will saves and sneak attack.


----------



## Hawken (Aug 1, 2007)

> I believe that the paladin should uphold the agreement made (he passivly agreed by not raising any objections). That's part of being Lawful - you should stick to your word.



 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.



> When it becomes obvious that it was a trick and the terms of the agreement have been satisfied he should Smite the imp at the earliest oportunity.



 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!!



> I can't accept that he was decieving them by remaining invisible. He was withholding info, but they knew that info had been withheld. If there was something that info could be that would make the deal unacceptable, they should have insisted on clarification before agreeing. But any deception was essentially agreed to by the party.



 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. 



> If the Imp had been disguised as something else and make the deal in that guise, that would have been deception. But when you make a deal with something that you clearly and explicitly don't know the identity of, you don't get to cancel the deal later because you didn't know their identity.



 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. 



> If you are offered a low cost cruise on the basis that "you will share your room with someone whose identity will be reveal upon check-in, to be referred to as "Cruiser X" in the remainder of this document" and you agree to it, you have not been deceived if you check in and it's your old college ex. You can't say "I wouldn't have agreed if I knew I'd be sharing a room with HIM!" because you knew you could be sharing a room with anyone, and if there was a limit to that anyone that would have made you not accept the deal, you should have tried to clarify it before signing.



 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. 



> Anonymity is not the same thing as a false identity. One attempts to decieve, while the other lays the ambiguity out to be accepted or not.



 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.


----------



## IanB (Aug 1, 2007)

Hawken said:
			
		

> 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.




Whoa whoa whoa! Inappropriate. So was the part where you described an argument as "stupid". If we want this discussion to be able to continue (and I have been enjoying it up until this post), we need to keep it civil.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 1, 2007)

> 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)?




Just because X doesn't _always_ equal Y, doesn't mean X _never_ equals Y.

Or, to put it another way, there's a _huge_ difference between remaining silent in the face of accusations, and remaining silent when a group, that you are _clearly_ a part of, makes an agreement.

The former certainly does not suggest agreement, but the latter very much does, at least by implication. I'm part of this group. This group agrees to something, in my presence. Unless I raise an objection _at the time_, I am indeed giving at least a tacit agreement. If my intent is to wait and see, it's incumbent on me to say so. It may not be as binding as formally giving my word, but there's at least an argument to be made that I agreed.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 1, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> Whoa whoa whoa! Inappropriate. So was the part where you described an argument as "stupid".




What he said. There's no reason to stoop to insults or being offensive.


----------



## starwed (Aug 1, 2007)

So here's the thing about the Paladin's Code, at least how I'd run it: it's there to screw you.  That's the whole point of it.  There will be times when the Good and the Lawful aspects of it conflict, and one doesn't trump the other.  The paladin could have avoided this situation by being more careful, but once he's in it, there's no way out.  He's _already_ broken the "be good" part of the code by consorting with a fiend.  He can only remedy that by breaking the "be lawful" part of it.

Either way, he's going to have to atone.


----------



## Hawken (Aug 1, 2007)

I didn't say "stupid". There was no personal name-calling involved. I didn't say anyone was stupid or dumb. 

Also, the other example was not inappropriate either. Kahuna is using his argument to essentially blame the victim. The PCs were deceived by the imp (victims of the imp's deception) and he's laying fault at their feet. It's a little more in-your-face what I stated, but its putting his premise into a context that can be understood more clearly and immediately by anyone reading it. That doesn't make it inappropriate.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 1, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> In fact, such an action is _specifically_ called out as "unacceptable" in the _Book of Exalted Deeds_ (which, while questionable mechanically, is a perfectly solid resource in terms of alignment details).




Its one possible way to rule/interpret alignment details.

I disagree with a lot of the morality judgments in there though and never look to it as a guide for D&D morality.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 1, 2007)

Hawken said:
			
		

> I didn't say "stupid". There was no personal name-calling involved. I didn't say anyone was stupid or dumb.
> 
> Also, the other example was not inappropriate either. Kahuna is using his argument to essentially blame the victim. The PCs were deceived by the imp (victims of the imp's deception) and he's laying fault at their feet. It's a little more in-your-face what I stated, but its putting his premise into a context that can be understood more clearly and immediately by anyone reading it. That doesn't make it inappropriate.



 So let's see if I have this right--  

We have a Lawful Good Paladin who really hates Chaos, especially that showboating god Kord.  In his character history, a Chaotic Neutral Cleric of Kord challenged his brother to a dangerous race and his brother died, etc.  So he gets hired by a friendly NPC to bring back an item in exchange for gold.  He does so and gets paid.  The NPC says "Thank you Sir Paladin.  You are truly an honourable person.  Kord be praised!"  The Paladin says "You worship Kord!  You deceived me!  Smiting Sneak Attack--Banzaiiiiiii!" and chops the friendly NPC in half.  When the watch comes to arrest him the Paladin says, "Don't you see.  He deceived me!  I'm the victim here!"  When they persist in arresting him and he notices that one of the guards has a holy symbol of Kord, he says, "Hey Mr. Guard, you look a bit injured.  Let me try a Lay on Hands for that" and then when he gets close enough he quickly draws his sword and yells "Smiting Sneak Attack--Banzaiiiii!" and kills the guard.  Cackling with glee, he runs away.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 1, 2007)

Mechanically RAW the paladin loses his paladin powers if he commits an evil act or grossly violates the code of conduct. 

If not an evil act or gross violation of the code of conduct (not just a violation but a gross one) then no mechanical repercussions.

I would not take away the imp-smiting paladin's powers or chastise the player.


----------



## IanB (Aug 1, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> So let's see if I have this right--
> 
> We have a Lawful Good Paladin who really hates Chaos, especially that showboating god Kord.  In his character history, a Chaotic Neutral Cleric of Kord challenged his brother to a dangerous race and his brother died, etc.  So he gets hired by a friendly NPC to bring back an item in exchange for gold.  He does so and gets paid.  The NPC says "Thank you Sir Paladin.  You are truly an honourable person.  Kord be praised!"  The Paladin says "You worship Kord!  You deceived me!  Smiting Sneak Attack--Banzaiiiiiii!" and chops the friendly NPC in half.  When the watch comes to arrest him the Paladin says, "Don't you see.  He deceived me!  I'm the victim here!"  When they persist in arresting him and he notices that one of the guards has a holy symbol of Kord, he says, "Hey Mr. Guard, you look a bit injured.  Let me try a Lay on Hands for that" and then when he gets close enough he quickly draws his sword and yells "Smiting Sneak Attack--Banzaiiiii!" and kills the guard.  Cackling with glee, he runs away.




Presumably in your example, the NPC Kord-worshipper in question isn't a physical manifestation of everything that is evil in the universe, though.  It is also somewhat unlikely to me that the legal framework the paladin subscribes to offers any legal rights to extraplanar hellspawn.

So much of this discussion is tied up just in how you frame the paladin's actions.

One camp seems to think this is what happened:

- Paladin makes agreement with invisible creature, planning from the start to take him out once said creature is no longer important.

But it could just as easily be:

- Paladin says nothing when his group makes a deal with an invisible creature, perhaps having misgivings but keeping them quiet in order to avoid a scene with his group, and as they progress through the search gets more and more suspicious - in the end, when their ally is revealed to be an evil imp, he realizes his mistake in not piping up earlier and attempts to rectify it (and salvage his paladinhood, which could be endangered otherwise) by destroying an evil abomination that opposes everything he stands for.

They're the same thing in terms of actual character actions taken in game, but very different in character/player motivation. We don't *know* what the player was thinking at the time.

EDIT: Also, due to the fact that MAD is a harsh mistress and the realities of the point-buy system, there's a good chance that the paladin has only an 8 intelligence. Does that change anything about the situation? It might easily explain why he didn't think to detect evil when it was just an invisible helper, for example.


----------



## IanB (Aug 1, 2007)

Hawken said:
			
		

> I didn't say "stupid". There was no personal name-calling involved. I didn't say anyone was stupid or dumb.
> 
> Also, the other example was not inappropriate either. Kahuna is using his argument to essentially blame the victim. The PCs were deceived by the imp (victims of the imp's deception) and he's laying fault at their feet. It's a little more in-your-face what I stated, but its putting his premise into a context that can be understood more clearly and immediately by anyone reading it. That doesn't make it inappropriate.




You're right, it was "dumb", I misquoted you. The point is, "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard" is not really civil discourse or a friendly way to conduct an argument.

On the other quote, bringing in certain real-world situations, *especially* rape, into the discussion is a good way for the conversation to devolve quickly - see Hyp's preemptive moderator warning earlier in the thread.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 1, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> Presumably in your example, the NPC Kord-worshipper in question isn't a physical manifestation of everything that is evil in the universe, though.  It is also somewhat unlikely to me that the legal framework the paladin subscribes to offers any legal rights to extraplanar hellspawn.
> 
> So much of this discussion is tied up just in how you frame the paladin's actions.
> 
> ...



 Let's try another scenario.  I'm interested to see what the 'Kill all fiends' people say for this one:

The end times are near.  Orcus has nearly completed a ritual that will infuse the soul of the entire world with negative energy, which will turn all the living into undead, allowing him to rise from the formerly pure Lifepool, now the Deathpool, and rule over his new world of the dead.  To finish the ritual, Orcus needed to place three magical foci in three different planar locations.  The only way to stop him now is to break into one of them and destroy the focus before Orcus notices the intrusion and sends his strongest minions to stop the heroes, or comes himself!  

Unfortunately, finding the foci, which are each on a special demiplane with a special key pass phrase, is a difficult task.  Even a Miracle spell can reveal only this:  Two of the foci's pass phrases are known only to Orcus himself, as he has killed the ones who created these places and eaten their souls.  However, he made a crucial flaw with the third--he had thought the creator of the demiplane, the angel Anyiel, was destroyed, but actually, she had Fallen, and that is why his magics had told him 'The Angel Anyiel is no more'.  

Anyiel is now an Erinyes.  The group contacts her and finds that she has already heard of their exploits.  Though she fell from grace, Anyiel is still a creature of order, and indeed, she has a strong attraction to paragons of Law and Good that remind her of what she has lost.  Furthermore, she thinks the group's paladin, Sir Pelinor, is quite handsome.  So she makes the following request: "I want to have a nice candlelight dinner in Sigil with Sir Pelinor in Sigil.  If you all promise me that and also promise not to harm or hinder me in any way, I shall be glad to provide you with the pass phrase you seek.  After all, it is not as if I want to see Orcus's chaos envelop your world."

So what does Sir Pelinor do, people on the 'Kill all fiends!' side?  I'll present some options--or you can pick your own.

A)  Sir Pelinor has a nice dinner with Anyiel.  Anyiel tells him the pass phrase.  He returns to his comrades and they use the pass phrase to stop Orcus's plan.  Anyiel returns to Baator and tells all her Erinyes sisters about her hot date with Sir Pelinor.

B) Sir Pelinor refuses because this requires contact with an evil outsider.  Orcus turns everyone in the world into undead and rules the world.

C) Sir Pelinor agrees, but when they meet at the restaurant, he decapitates Anyiel.  Take that, bitch!  On the downside, Orcus becomes supreme ruler.

D) Sir Pelinor agrees to the terms and has dinner with Anyiel.  The moment she whispers him the pass phrase he sneers 'Foul creature.  I can't believe I had to pretend to have a civil dinner with you,' and decapitates Anyiel.  Then they stop Orcus.

E) Sir Pelinor says nothing as his party agrees for him and makes the arrangements.  He goes to the appointed restaurant in Sigil because he overheard the party's agreement.  Then he sits at the same table with Anyiel--not because he's having dinner with her or anything, oh no.  In fact, he's not really associating with her, but that seat happened to be open.  Once she gives him the pass phrase (assuming she does so despite his rudeness), he grins and pulls out his sword.  
"But you promised..." she protests in horror, a helpless and betrayed look in her eyes.  
"Stupid hellspawned bitch, I never agreed to your terms.  Only the rest of my group did.  Now rot in the Hells where you belong!" and he decapitates her.  Then he and his comrades stop Orcus.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 1, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Let's try another scenario.  I'm interested to see what the 'Kill all fiends' people say for this one:
> 
> snip hypothetical




This is why hypothetical arguments are not very useful. There are all sorts of complex and situational arguments that can be made to try to argue against a general point. And very few of them are really germaine to the issue at hand. 
The paladin smote an imp after having an agreement with it. There's no overarching plot by Orcus involved, no fallen angel, no nothing. Just a dead imp who wanted an object.


----------



## SlagMortar (Aug 1, 2007)

It depends on the personality of my the paladin I'm playing, but my character choses either


			
				Rystil said:
			
		

> A) Sir Pelinor has a nice dinner with Anyiel. Anyiel tells him the pass phrase. He returns to his comrades and they use the pass phrase to stop Orcus's plan. Anyiel returns to Baator and tells all her Erinyes sisters about her hot date with Sir Pelinor.



in which case he falls from grace for breaking his oaths and either seeks atonement, or realizes that sometimes those damn paladin oaths just get in the way.  He would probably no seek atonement because he knowingly and willingly violated his oaths so what's the point of pretending to say them again when he will just violate them again when it is expedient.
OR


			
				Rystil said:
			
		

> B) Sir Pelinor refuses because this requires contact with an evil outsider. Orcus turns everyone in the world into undead and rules the world.



knowing that Anyiel is likely lying to set up some other scheme and tries to figure out some other way of saving the day.  He does this comfortably knowing that there are always more than one way to solve a problem, especially when one has a patron diety who is much stronger than all the evil in the world, so some way, some how his effort will be all that is necessary.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 1, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> So what does Sir Pelinor do, people on the 'Kill all fiends!' side?  I'll present some options--or you can pick your own.
> 
> A)  Sir Pelinor has a nice dinner with Anyiel.  Anyiel tells him the pass phrase.  He returns to his comrades and they use the pass phrase to stop Orcus's plan.  Anyiel returns to Baator and tells all her Erinyes sisters about her hot date with Sir Pelinor.
> 
> ...




What do you mean what does he do? Whatever his player says he does, obviously. There are simply mechanical consequences to his actions as interpreted by the DM.



> A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.




So to analyze option A):

Associating with evil is prohibited, but there are no listed consequences for violation of that class prohibition. 



> Associates
> While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.




So you could legitimately take the pirate captain view that this is more of a guideline really and having the dinner will not lose him his paladin status for associating with evil.

Or if the DM rules that it is a falling violation the paladin can choose to fall for the greater good and have the dinner, realizing that falling from his paladin status is the price for gaining a fiend's cooperation.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 1, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> It depends on the personality of my the paladin I'm playing, but my character choses either
> (A) in which case he falls from grace for breaking his oaths and either seeks atonement, or realizes that sometimes those damn paladin oaths just get in the way.  He would probably no seek atonement because he knowingly and willingly violated his oaths so what's the point of pretending to say them again when he will just violate them again when it is expedient.
> OR




I knew this would make some people expect a fall 



> knowing that Anyiel is likely lying to set up some other scheme and tries to figure out some other way of saving the day.  He does this comfortably knowing that there are always more than one way to solve a problem, especially when one has a patron diety who is much stronger than all the evil in the world, so some way, some how his effort will be all that is necessary.




Well, even the Miracle indicated that there was no other way to stop Orcus's plan.  Now, it is possible for Sir Pelinor to let all mortals in his world die while he waits on another plane and then swoop in to try to kill Orcus after Orcus arises from the Deathwell.  Would that be okay for a Paladin to do?

I also find 







> especially when one has a patron diety who is much stronger than all the evil in the world



 a presumption that is quite presumptuous.  I made the scenario.  Let's say Sir Pelinor worships Mayaheine, goddess of Paladins in Greyhawk and a very minor deity.  She is quite clearly less powerful than all the evil in the world.  In fact, depending on how you play Orcus's power level in your campaign, she is possibly less powerful than Orcus.

But here's the one I really want to play with 







> knowing that Anyiel is likely lying to set up some other scheme




Okay, let's say Anyiel agrees to undergo powerful truth-detection magic.  The result is that she is not lying or setting up some other scheme.  She really does just want to have dinner with the Paladin, mostly because she'd like to see Orcus's plan thwarted and she is attracted to Lawful Good paragon of good sorts and thinks the Paladin is cute.  There is nothing else.


----------



## IanB (Aug 1, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Let's try another scenario.  I'm interested to see what the 'Kill all fiends' people say for this one:
> 
> The end times are near.  Orcus has nearly completed a ritual that will infuse the soul of the entire world with negative energy, which will turn all the living into undead, allowing him to rise from the formerly pure Lifepool, now the Deathpool, and rule over his new world of the dead.  To finish the ritual, Orcus needed to place three magical foci in three different planar locations.  The only way to stop him now is to break into one of them and destroy the focus before Orcus notices the intrusion and sends his strongest minions to stop the heroes, or comes himself!
> 
> ...




Honestly? Speaking for myself as a DM, If I have a paladin in the party, I *don't use this plot development.* It is a hypothetical that isn't very relevant to my own game, as I don't really have an interest in forcing situations on my paladin players like this.

E isn't really an exact match for the scenario currently under discussion either; he knows Anyiel is a fiend from the start and thus can't really safely make any kind of deal with her in the first place.


----------



## Patlin (Aug 1, 2007)

> A) Sir Pelinor has a nice dinner with Anyiel. Anyiel tells him the pass phrase. He returns to his comrades and they use the pass phrase to stop Orcus's plan. Anyiel returns to Baator and tells all her Erinyes sisters about her hot date with Sir Pelinor.




This is clearly the best option, and I don't think a single dinner in order to solicit information would even rise to the level of 'association.'  Pelinor certainly couldn't accurately describe Anyiel as 'my associate' based on such a limited relationship.

Pelinor would do even better if he tried to reform the fallen angel.  The fall itself suggests the possibility of change, and a peacefull encounter might allow Sir Pelinor to advance that agenda.

However, 'best' isn't the question here, is it? The question is what is permissible in terms of the Paladin code.  In my opinion, the code:

1) Doesn't require the Paladin to succeed.  If the Paladin is an idiot and through poor choices allows Orcus to rule the world, that's not a code violation.
2) Doesn't require the Paladin to be personable.  The days of a Paladin needing a 17+ Charisma are gone.  He might be a really lousy dinner date, darkly muttering about slaying fiends, lost opportunities, and the indignities a paladin must face throughout the meal.
3) Doesn't prohibit looking for a fight.  If after gaining the information, the Paladin provokes Anyiel into violating the truce and slays her in a fair fight, that's within the realm of reasonable Paladin activity.  Similarly, even a more genteel Paladin might announce at the end of the night that the truce expires at a particular time, and that after that point any contact between the two would be decidedly less cordial.

If Pelinor started a long term relationship with the fallen angel, he'd have some trouble.  If he launched a surpriise attack during the truce, he'd have some trouble.  The dinner itself might have interesting non-alignment, non class-status plot implications.  ("Sir Pelinor, I know you to be a trustworthy man, so when I saw you with that woman Anyiel I assumed she also could be trusted.  She took advantage of that trust, and no my youngest son is missing, last seen in her company... you must help me!")

The code should be broad enough so that a Paladin has choices to make, just like any other character.  There shouldn't be a solitary correct course of conduct for the character to follow based on class.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 1, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> Honestly? Speaking for myself as a DM, If I have a paladin in the party, I *don't use this plot development.* It is a hypothetical that isn't very relevant to my own game, as I don't really have an interest in forcing situations on my paladin players like this.
> 
> E isn't really an exact match for the scenario currently under discussion either; he knows Anyiel is a fiend from the start and thus can't really safely make any kind of deal with her in the first place.



 To each his own, I guess.  Personally, I think that, particularly with the addition of my addendum at the very end of the last post, it is not even a moral dilemma or a screwing-the-paladin situation at all any more, it's just a really interesting roleplaying opportunity.  Come on, don't you think (assuming you agree with me that it isn't a violation) a dinner-date between a Paladin and an Erinyes would be fun to roleplay?  I heard Piratecat's players once made peace with a villain unexpectedly when they set up the crazy demonologist with his infatiated Erinyes lieutenant and the (Lawful Good if I recall) Cleric married the pair.  That sounds like a fun and interesting idea to me!

However, you're right about the one inconsistency--what if I changed option E to make a new option F:

F) Sir Pelinor says nothing as his party agrees for him and makes the arrangements.  In fact, he's distracted by something shiny, so he doesn't even pay attention to the details.  He just knows he's supposed to have dinner with some chick named Anyiel.  Technically, he didn't agree to any terms, but she has the pass phrase, so he's going. He goes to the appointed restaurant in Sigil. Then when he sees her, he realises she is a fiend!  He is aghast with horror.  He sits at the same table with Anyiel--not because he's having dinner with her or anything, oh no. In fact, he's not really associating with her, but that seat happened to be open. Once she gives him the pass phrase (assuming she does so despite his rudeness), he grins and pulls out his sword.
"But you promised..." she protests in horror, a helpless and betrayed look in her eyes.
"Stupid hellspawned bitch, I never agreed to your terms. Only the rest of my group did. Now rot in the Hells where you belong!" and he decapitates her. Then he and his comrades stop Orcus.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 1, 2007)

Patlin said:
			
		

> This is clearly the best option, and I don't think a single dinner in order to solicit information would even rise to the level of 'association.'  Pelinor certainly couldn't accurately describe Anyiel as 'my associate' based on such a limited relationship.
> 
> Pelinor would do even better if he tried to reform the fallen angel.  The fall itself suggests the possibility of change, and a peacefull encounter might allow Sir Pelinor to advance that agenda.
> 
> ...



 This is why I like you, Patlin--this post parallels my thoughts on the matter, and you even threw in some extra RBDM complications.  Devious!


----------



## SlagMortar (Aug 1, 2007)

Rystil said:
			
		

> I knew this would make some people expect a fall



I knew that you'd know that someone would expect it.  Did you know that?

I guess I read "associate" as can't voluntarily be around.  I might re-write the paladin's code for my game if I wanted to run such a scenario, but I do think a "dinner date" with a fiend is a violation of the code.



			
				Rystil said:
			
		

> I also find
> Quote:
> especially when one has a patron diety who is much stronger than all the evil in the world
> 
> a presumption that is quite presumptuous. I made the scenario. Let's say Sir Pelinor worships Mayaheine, goddess of Paladins in Greyhawk and a very minor deity. She is quite clearly less powerful than all the evil in the world. In fact, depending on how you play Orcus's power level in your campaign, she is possibly less powerful than Orcus.



If I were playing a paladin in a world where one must cavort with evil in order to overcome greater evil, I would (as I said) either cease to be a paladin, or try my best to continue being a paladin, not covort with evil, and die if it came to that.  I think either makes a great story.  While my paladin favors a particular diety as my patron, there are other gods of good that my paladin puts his faith in.  If these good gods together are not enough to overcome any evil, then the evil has already won.


			
				Rystil said:
			
		

> Okay, let's say Anyiel agrees to undergo powerful truth-detection magic. The result is that she is not lying or setting up some other scheme. She really does just want to have dinner with the Paladin, mostly because she'd like to see Orcus's plan thwarted and she is attracted to Lawful Good paragon of good sorts and thinks the Paladin is cute. There is nothing else.



If she is willing to go so far, then why is she not willing to just tell me outright?  It must still be a trick.  My Int 8 paladin doesn't know much, but he knows there is an awful lot about magic that he doesn't know.


----------



## IanB (Aug 1, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> To each his own, I guess.  Personally, I think that, particularly with the addition of my addendum at the very end of the last post, it is not even a moral dilemma or a screwing-the-paladin situation at all any more, it's just a really interesting roleplaying opportunity.  Come on, don't you think (assuming you agree with me that it isn't a violation) a dinner-date between a Paladin and an Erinyes would be fun to roleplay?  I heard Piratecat's players once made peace with a villain unexpectedly when they set up the crazy demonologist with his infatiated Erinyes lieutenant and the (Lawful Good if I recall) Cleric married the pair.  That sounds like a fun and interesting idea to me!
> 
> However, you're right about the one inconsistency--what if I changed option E to make a new option F:
> 
> ...




Now to make it match even better, she doesn't reveal she's a fiend until *after dinner is over.*   

I agree that in the right kind of game, the encounter could be fun to roleplay - a Planescape or Eberron game, for example, something with more shades of gray when it comes to outsiders. It is all about how a paladin is expected to behave in a given game. In a game like mine, where the expectation is fairly clear that paladins do not go on dinner dates with devils, then the scenario would be pointless. Even in a game where that sort of behavior would not *necessarily* result in "Go to jail immediately, do not pass go" for a paladin, there are ways to set that sort of encounter up that don't require a paladin to explicitly make a deal with a fiend in order to get something he wants.

And really, would the encounter be all that different with, say, a chaotic aligned outsider like a lillend, or even a CN fey? The roleplaying dynamics are essentially the same, and you're not putting your player into what may be a really uncomfortable position for them - having dinner with a lillend isn't going to cost a paladin their class abilities, but will be just as entertaining to roleplay. Anything, especially a forced situation, that puts the game stats of a beloved character at risk has a chance of being viewed very antagonistally by a player, and I think there's good reason for that.


----------



## SlagMortar (Aug 1, 2007)

Btw, I agree that the paladin in the OP's scenario has acted dishonorably.  However, the "wrong" thing the paladin did was enter an agreement with an unknown stranger without questioning the stranger's motives.  Once presented with the situation of "Let imp leave with important item I know nothing about" or "Slay imp before he can turn invisible again and escape," I think he chose the right course.

Any admonition of the paladin should be for being stupid and entering agreements with unknown people, not for slaying the imp.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 1, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> I guess I read "associate" as can't voluntarily be around. I might re-write the paladin's code for my game if I wanted to run such a scenario, but I do think a "dinner date" with a fiend is a violation of the code.




The writers could have stood to be more clear, I admit.  But check out the first five definitions of associate (v) in my dictionary:  
1. To join as a partner, ally, or friend.
2. To connect or join together; combine.
3. To connect in the mind or imagination: "I always somehow associate Chatterton with autumn" John Keats.
4. To join in or form a league, union, or association. See Synonyms at join.
5. To spend time socially; keep company: associates with her coworkers on weekends.

Only #5 is the sort that would prevent Anyiel's date.  I propose that the one screwing over the Paladin is not the GM who sets up Anyiel's dinner date, but the GM who purposefully chooses the stricter 5th definition of the verb, rather than definition #1, which makes more sense in the context given that the next parts of that paragraph also talk about alliances.



> If I were playing a paladin in a world where one must cavort with evil in order to overcome greater evil, I would (as I said) either cease to be a paladin, or try my best to continue being a paladin, not covort with evil, and die if it came to that. I think either makes a great story. While my paladin favors a particular diety as my patron, there are other gods of good that my paladin puts his faith in. If these good gods together are not enough to overcome any evil, then the evil has already won.




I, on the other hand, wouldn't want to play in a game where the Justice League of Good Gods deus-ex-machinas around overcoming every evil.  If they have the ability and the desire to overcome any evil, then all evil would be expunged.



> If she is willing to go so far, then why is she not willing to just tell me outright? It must still be a trick. My Int 8 paladin doesn't know much, but he knows there is an awful lot about magic that he doesn't know.




But as I said, it's not a trick, so the Paladin would be deluding himself.  She doesn't want to tell the Paladin outright because she wants to have a date with the Paladin.  

What if the spell was cast by a cleric of the Paladin's deity.  What if the spell was cast by the Paladin.  What if a proxy who speaks with the voice of the Paladin's goddess says "She is telling the truth, and this isn't a trick."


----------



## Raduin711 (Aug 1, 2007)

I think that there isn't necessarily 1 plan of action for a paladin, because there is more than 1 way for a LG person to behave.

Letting the Imp go could be considered the right thing to do because he would be keeping a promise; even if it wasn't one he himself made, he could consider himself honor-bound to leave the imp be by virtue of belonging to the group.

Killing the Imp could be considered the right thing to do because the Imp has hidden himself from the paladin's sight until that moment; allowing him the item in question could be considered the same as associating with that Imp, which a paladin cannot do.  This revelation could be seen as an indication that the Imp means to do evil with the treasure.  

I wouldn't concern myself too much with the paladin's actions.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 1, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> Now to make it match even better, she doesn't reveal she's a fiend until *after dinner is over.*




Sure, I'll buy that addendum.  She probably assumes it's known by everyone, and she's likely appearing in an alternate form anyway and just looks like a beautiful young woman.



> I agree that in the right kind of game, the encounter could be fun to roleplay - a *Planescape* or Eberron game, for example, something with more shades of gray when it comes to outsiders. It is all about how a paladin is expected to behave in a given game. In a game like mine, where the expectation is fairly clear that paladins do not go on dinner dates with devils, then the scenario would be pointless. Even in a game where that sort of behavior would not *necessarily* result in "Go to jail immediately, do not pass go" for a paladin, there are ways to set that sort of encounter up that don't require a paladin to explicitly make a deal with a fiend in order to get something he wants.




Emphasis added by me.  Planescape, by definition, uses the default D&D cosmology.  If you admit that it's okay in a Planescape game, then it's okay in a regular D&D game that goes to the outer planes 



> And really, would the encounter be all that different with, say, a chaotic aligned outsider like a lillend, or even a CN fey? The roleplaying dynamics are essentially the same, and you're not putting your player into what may be a really uncomfortable position for them - having dinner with a lillend isn't going to cost a paladin their class abilities, but will be just as entertaining to roleplay. Anything, especially a forced situation, that puts the game stats of a beloved character at risk has a chance of being viewed very antagonistally by a player, and I think there's good reason for that.




It would be a very different dynamic but also a fun one to put the Paladin on a date with a Chaotic Neutral fey.  The difference is that the Chaotic Neutral fey shares no alignment aspects with the Paladin and would mainly be fun because of the way her capricious nature would likely rub the Paladin the wrong way.  But the Paladin could continue associating with her--could in fact marry her if he so chose.  The dynamic is very different than it would be with a fallen angel, a constant reminder of what becomes those who fall from the path of good while also dangerous in the way that she agrees with the Paladin on many sorts of issues and seems like a nice person (evil can be nice, after all), so he has to constantly remind himself that she is anathema.


----------



## SlagMortar (Aug 1, 2007)

Wow are we ever talking about this from totally different perspectives.  I'm trying to address what my paladin character would be thinking when presented with your situation.


			
				Rystil said:
			
		

> The writers could have stood to be more clear, I admit. But check out the first five definitions of associate (v) in my dictionary:
> 1. To join as a partner, ally, or friend.
> 2. To connect or join together; combine.
> 3. To connect in the mind or imagination: "I always somehow associate Chatterton with autumn" John Keats.
> ...



I'll admit I still think of paladins somewhat in 2nd edition terms.
Ok, how's this for an even better plot.  My paladin decides to have dinner with the fiend, fully expecting to lose his status as a paladin, and then he doesn't.  Now he's just learned something about his faith.  Yay for character growth.  


			
				Rystil said:
			
		

> I, on the other hand, wouldn't want to play in a game where the Justice League of Good Gods deus-ex-machinas around overcoming every evil. If they have the ability and the desire to overcome any evil, then all evil would be expunged.



Me neither.  I never said it was true of the campaign world.  I said that's what my paladin believes.


			
				Rystil said:
			
		

> What if the spell was cast by a cleric of the Paladin's deity. What if the spell was cast by the Paladin. What if a proxy who speaks with the voice of the Paladin's goddess says "She is telling the truth, and this isn't a trick."



If the paladin could be convinced it was not a trick, and he had permission (that he believed) from his diety to go, then he would go.  It would basically be a pre-atonement without the disillusionment of having actually failed to keep his oaths.

Now, I've been thinking about this from a player's perspective.  As a DM who decided to present the paladin with such a situation, I would expect and plan for either outcome, and probably allow neither to cause a fall.  I would certainly not spend a bunch of time writing an adventure where I expected the paladin to go on the dinner date.

The paladin class seems to have been almost intentionally constructed to show that finding a global optimum can not be done by making locally optimal decisions.  For example for the non-math people out there, you can't reach the highest point on the earth by starting in New York and walking only uphill.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 1, 2007)

If a paladin couldn't "associate" with an evil individual for such a dinner as suggested, how could he ever attempt to redeem someone who wasn't already his prisoner? I think some people are taking the "associate" clause a bit too far.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 1, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> Now, I've been thinking about this from a player's perspective. As a DM who decided to present the paladin with such a situation, I would expect and plan for either outcome, and probably cause neither to fall. I would certainly not spend a bunch of time writing an adventure where I expected the paladin to go on the dinner date.




For what it's worth, I think the Paladin choosing option B has grossly violated 'Protect innocents' and a Paladin who chooses option C has done so as well while also violating 'Act with honour'.  They would lose their status in my game, as would option E (or F if you prefer) for being a sneaky letter-of-the-law "But _*I*_ technically didn't agree" little weasel who was acting more Lawful Evil in the situation than the Lawful Evil Outsider.  Option D violates 'Act with honour' but it may not grossly do so, so the Paladin might not lose the abilities right away, as per the section of Ex-Paladins (Paladins can violate the code as long as they don't grossly do so).  There might be a vision or sign of displeasure, and a continued record of doing things like this would lead to a fall.  Option A is not a violation of any sort, or alternatively it may be  a small one if you disagree with me on the best definition of 'associate'.  Either way, it is clearly not gross enough to warrant a fall.  Grossly violating the 'associate with evil' would be starting a romantic relationship with Anyiel, for instance.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 1, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> If a paladin couldn't "associate" with an evil individual for such a dinner as suggested, how could he ever attempt to redeem someone who wasn't already his prisoner? I think some people are taking the "associate" clause a bit too far.



 Postcards in the mail?


----------



## SlagMortar (Aug 1, 2007)

KB said:
			
		

> If a paladin couldn't "associate" with an evil individual for such a dinner as suggested, how could he ever attempt to redeem someone who wasn't already his prisoner? I think some people are taking the "associate" clause a bit too far.



Through his shiny example of piety.    


			
				Rystil said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, I think the Paladin choosing option B has grossly violated 'Protect innocents' and a Paladin who chooses option C has done so as well while also violating 'Act with honour'. They would lose their status in my game, as would option E (or F if you prefer) for being a sneaky letter-of-the-law "But I technically didn't agree" little weasel who was acting more Lawful Evil in the situation than the Lawful Evil Outsider. Option D violates 'Act with honour' but it may not grossly do so, so the Paladin might not lose the abilities right away, as per the section of Ex-Paladins (Paladins can violate the code as long as they don't grossly do so). There might be a vision or sign of displeasure, and a continued record of doing things like this would lead to a fall. Option A is not a violation of any sort, or alternatively it may be a small one if you disagree with me on the best definition of 'associate'. Either way, it is clearly not gross enough to warrant a fall. Grossly violating the 'associate with evil' would be starting a romantic relationship with Anyiel, for instance.



I agree the options other than A and B were not valid.  I'm not really sure that option F is a real equivalent to what happened with the imp.  As I understand it, they were in combat when the paladin realized the imp was an imp and the paladin slew the imp immediately after the combat ended.  That's quite different from sitting down with dinner.  I agree his excuses that it wasn't his agreement were lame, but I still think he did the right thing.

Back to option B, so a paladin in your game loses his status for being wrong because he didn't believe a fiend?


----------



## SlagMortar (Aug 1, 2007)

KB said:
			
		

> If a paladin couldn't "associate" with an evil individual for such a dinner as suggested, how could he ever attempt to redeem someone who wasn't already his prisoner? I think some people are taking the "associate" clause a bit too far.



So, is it ok for a paladin to have dinner with a different evil person every Tuesday?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 1, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> Back to option B, so a paladin in your game loses his status for being wrong because he didn't believe a fiend?




It depends.  The given situation is that the Miracle spell indicated that Anyiel was the only one with the information, and the party approached Anyiel for help.  By refusing to agree to Anyiel's terms of the dinner date, the Paladin was basically sacrificing the innocents' lives for an attempt to strike at Orcus after the ritual is complete and Orcus emerges from the Deathwell.  If he had the date with her, he would have been doing his best to protect them, even if he failed to destroy the focus, or even if she gave him the wrong pass phrase or betrayed him, at least he tried to help.  But that's the thing about devils--multiple times people say that they are beings of 'pure evil', but they are actually beings of a pure and equal mix of evil and law.  She's unlikely to break the letter of her agreement.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 1, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> So, is it ok for a paladin to have dinner with a different evil person every Tuesday?



 I would say absolutely, if he is trying to reform evil every time.  It is a noble cause, and it is absolutely fine.  Maybe some of them will actually reform, which is a victory for good.  This reminds me of one of my favourite British prime ministers, William Gladstone, who regularly and consistently invited prostitutes to dinner with himself and his wife, wherein he attempted to reform them.


----------



## IanB (Aug 1, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> If a paladin couldn't "associate" with an evil individual for such a dinner as suggested, how could he ever attempt to redeem someone who wasn't already his prisoner? I think some people are taking the "associate" clause a bit too far.




I'm arguing from the point of view that devils, etc., are a special case and effectively irredeemable. An evil human would be a _much_ different scenario.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 1, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> I'm arguing from the point of view that devils, etc., are a special case and effectively irredeemable. An evil human would be a _much_ different scenario.



 Wouldn't a dinner date with an evil human trigger the exact same clause of association (if you think that constitutes association) that the evil outsider does?  It doesn't say 'Will never knowingly associate with evil characters, except it's okay to associate with non-outsiders for a little bit, maybe, but definitely not outsiders, not even a little'.


----------



## IanB (Aug 1, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Emphasis added by me.  Planescape, by definition, uses the default D&D cosmology.  If you admit that it's okay in a Planescape game, then it's okay in a regular D&D game that goes to the outer planes




Weellll... sort of. Planescape, as a pre-3E setting, is full of all sorts of odd little exceptions to the 3.5 presentation of things and as such I don't really see it as canon to the core setting at this point, personally (not that I am arguing that my own current take on things is any closer - nor am I saying that I wouldn't go more for a Planescape-type approach in another game, etc.) For example, the 3E FR cosmology is no longer that used in old Planescape stuff, despite the fact that Planescape products still think that the FR use their cosmology, FR-related NPCs show up in many products, etc.


----------



## Patlin (Aug 1, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> So, is it ok for a paladin to have dinner with a different evil person every Tuesday?




I checked a few dictionaries, and they don't have perfect agreement on the definition either.  Here's Merriam-Webster's:



> intransitive verb
> 1 : to come or be together as partners, friends, or companions




I think it depends on the purpose.  If you have dinner because your buddies, you're associating, and a code violation.  If you have dinner in an effort to advance some good cause, to try to redeem the villain, to gather information (maybe your palladin is a cop and the 'dinner date' is his snitch) or otherwise to conduct some sort of business, that's perfectly OK.  Your snitch isn't your partner, friend, or companion... there are lots of reasons you might have to deal with someone that wouldn't make the person your associate.

Heck, you might even have the head of a whole order of Paladins dedicated to Heironeous asked to serve on his Lawfull Neutral monarch's council, right alongside the head of an order of Knights dedicated to Hextor.  Showing up to the King's council wouldn't IMO violate the association clause.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 1, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> Weellll... sort of. Planescape, as a pre-3E setting, is full of all sorts of odd little exceptions to the 3.5 presentation of things and as such I don't really see it as canon to the core setting at this point, personally (not that I am arguing that my own current take on things is any closer - nor am I saying that I wouldn't go more for a Planescape-type approach in another game, etc.) For example, the 3E FR cosmology is no longer that used in old Planescape stuff, despite the fact that Planescape products still think that the FR use their cosmology, FR-related NPCs show up in many products, etc.



 Ah FR...I've never met an FR fan who both knows of the random and pointless change and doesn't despise and ignore it.  And I don't even mean it in the weaker sense where they're allowed to be ambivalent as long as they don't like it.  I wouldn't take that as Planescape not describing the default D&D cosmology (indeed, by all other accounts it does, include the recent Expedition to the Demonweb Pits) but more of a "designers made an inscrutable and very stupid change to the FR cosmology with no clear or defined possible outcome other than to enrage fans"


----------



## IanB (Aug 2, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Wouldn't a dinner date with an evil human trigger the exact same clause of association (if you think that constitutes association) that the evil outsider does?  It doesn't say 'Will never knowingly associate with evil characters, except it's okay to associate with non-outsiders for a little bit, maybe, but definitely not outsiders, not even a little'.




Well, first off, I think it is fairly clear from the context of "associate" in the code of conduct that it mostly means "go adventuring with" - the first half of the sentence is "While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment..."

But yeah, I do see a clear distinction between devils and people and that extends to what sort of behavior is appropriate for a paladin with regard to making deals with them, plot-required or not - or trying to convert them. One is actually possible, and could thus be allowed.


----------



## IanB (Aug 2, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Ah FR...I've never met an FR fan who both knows of the random and pointless change and doesn't despise and ignore it.  And I don't even mean it in the weaker sense where they're allowed to be ambivalent as long as they don't like it.  I wouldn't take that as Planescape not describing the default D&D cosmology (indeed, by all other accounts it does, include the recent Expedition to the Demonweb Pits) but more of a "designers made an inscrutable and very stupid change to the FR cosmology with no clear or defined possible outcome other than to enrage fans"




Well, I certainly can't describe myself as an FR fan, but I do have to say when I saw the change I thought "hey, alright, they've made an attempt to make the cosmology fit the setting rather than having the setting fit a cosmology that was designed for something else." Seemed like a good idea to me, but I don't run a FR game.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 2, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> Well, first off, I think it is fairly clear from the context of "associate" in the code of conduct that it mostly means "go adventuring with" - the first half of the sentence is "While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment..."
> 
> But yeah, I do see a clear distinction between devils and people and that extends to what sort of behavior is appropriate for a paladin with regard to making deals with them, plot-required or not - or trying to convert them. One is actually possible, and could thus be allowed.



 I agree with you on the definition of 'associate'.  Now that you have admitted as such and we can take that line off the table, please point to the line in the Paladin's Code of Conduct that prevents him from having dinner with Anyiel.  I don't see a single one.  Now, it's perfectly reasonable and cool for you, as the GM or as the player, to add in extra lines to the Paladin's Code that aren't actually in the RAW--in fact, Nonlethal Force has been consistently encouraging coming up with separate deity-appropriate Paladin's Codes for different deities.  But if you agree with me on associate, then by the RAW Paladin's Code, there is no violation in the dinner date.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 2, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> Well, I certainly can't describe myself as an FR fan, but I do have to say when I saw the change I thought "hey, alright, they've made an attempt to make the cosmology fit the setting rather than having the setting fit a cosmology that was designed for something else." Seemed like a good idea to me, but I don't run a FR game.



 I don't really run FR at all anymore, but I used to extensively.  As you may have guessed, I find that change was superfluous and terrible.  The new cosmology was actually significantly a worse fit for FR and contradicted many years of fun and useful bits of FR material.  Keeping many of the planes similar and renaming them was just superfluous and silly, but the worst thing was when they started adding in these new planes that had once been layers of other planes.  But that's a story for a very different thread


----------



## IanB (Aug 2, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I agree with you on the definition of 'associate'.  Now that you have admitted as such and we can take that line off the table, please point to the line in the Paladin's Code of Conduct that prevents him from having dinner with Anyiel.  I don't see a single one.  Now, it's perfectly reasonable and cool for you, as the GM or as the player, to add in extra lines to the Paladin's Code that aren't actually in the RAW--in fact, Nonlethal Force has been consistently encouraging coming up with separate deity-appropriate Paladin's Codes for different deities.  But if you agree with me on associate, then by the RAW Paladin's Code, there is no violation in the dinner date.




Again, as I have maintained all along, that is *entirely* campaign dependent. RAW is insufficient for determining stuff like this (as I think I said several pages ago.) It could, depending on the campaign, be a violation of any of these parts of the code:

"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act." - this would require a pretty draconian interpretation of "evil act," and would not be *my* interpretation, but it is a possibility.

"respect legitimate authority" - there are plenty of campaign-specific legitimate authorities who may restrict a paladin's behavior with regard to evil outsiders, including very likely in most games (I would think) the paladin's church.

"punish those who harm or threaten innocents." - this is the relevant clause in my own game. Evil outsiders, like an imp, threaten innocents by their very existence. Their entire purpose, their entire existence, is predicated on tempting, corrupting, or just killing innocents. Making a deal with one, going on a dinner date with one, etc., all of these are deliberately passing on a chance to enforce this clause in my current view (which is really a function of how my current game works - as I said before, if I was running an Eberron game or something I would take a different reading.)


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 2, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> "punish those who harm or threaten innocents." - this is the relevant clause in my own game. Evil outsiders, like an imp, threaten innocents by their very existence. Their entire purpose, their entire existence, is predicated on tempting, corrupting, or just killing innocents.




Not all of them do, though.  There's a fair subset of them that will never do any of those things and will instead spend their existence doing one of the following:

(a) serving in the Blood War against the demons or (b) torturing the damned souls in Baator

Others may also be (c) killing Lawful Evil people so they can then be tortured in Baator

If one believes the primary 3.5 source on Devils, which most certainly is FC2, a book all about devils, the (a) and (b) I listed above are in fact the primary goals of devils, and (c), along with tempting innocents followed by (c) when they aren't innocents, are just things that they do a lot in pursuit of those goals.  Killing innocents though? FC2 Devils would find that to be a foolish waste, the kind of thing an unrefined and brutish demon would do.


----------



## IanB (Aug 2, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Not all of them do, though.  There's a fair subset of them that will never do any of those things and will instead spend their existence doing one of the following:
> 
> (a) serving in the Blood War against the demons or (b) torturing the damned souls in Baator
> 
> ...




Indeed I included "killing" in there specifically because I was talking about evil outsiders as a whole and thinking specifically of demons with that word. (You'll note I said "evil outsiders", not just devils.) If we include the Blood War as part of the package (not mentioned in the MM as far as I recall, so technically not "core") my recollection is that the tempting of people and the gathering up of souls is connected to that anyway (don't have the details at arm's reach atm), so it is all largely the same thing in the end.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 2, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> If we include the Blood War as part of the package (not mentioned in the MM as far as I recall, so technically not "core") my recollection is that the tempting of people and the gathering up of souls is connected to that anyway (don't have the details at arm's reach atm), so it is all largely the same thing in the end.




I actually already said that, but it might have been confusing because of the (a) and (b)   To wit, they tempt innocents only so they can become non-innocents, go to Baator, and be tortured.  This helps in the Blood War.

But since any given devil may never be a threat to innocents, and certainly not a threat right now, whereas Orcus is indeed a threat, I maintain that the dinner could not be a violation by the 'threat to innocents' clause, and if a particularly nasty GM somehow made it a violation, then not having dinner with Anyiel must also be a violation.  Besides, if the 'threat to innocents' clause includes preventing hypothetical and unspecified threats, then the Paladin would be in serious trouble whenever she did anything that wasn't the equivalent to Plane Shifting onto a Lower Plane with a Contingency of some sort to return her body when she was knocked out and then killing as many fiends as possible before the Contingency hits.  After all, if he doesn't do that, he's leaving those fiends alive, right?


----------



## IanB (Aug 2, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I actually already said that, but it might have been confusing because of the (a) and (b)   To wit, they tempt innocents only so they can become non-innocents, go to Baator, and be tortured.  This helps in the Blood War.
> 
> But since any given devil may never be a threat to innocents, and certainly not a threat right now, whereas Orcus is indeed a threat, I maintain that the dinner could not be a violation by the 'threat to innocents' clause, and if a particularly nasty GM somehow made it a violation, then not having dinner with Anyiel must also be a violation.  Besides, if the 'threat to innocents' clause includes preventing hypothetical and unspecified threats, then the Paladin would be in serious trouble whenever she did anything that wasn't the equivalent to Plane Shifting onto a Lower Plane with a Contingency of some sort to return her body when she was knocked out and then killing as many fiends as possible before the Contingency hits.  After all, if he doesn't do that, he's leaving those fiends alive, right?




I don't know that an imp at arm's reach from you who has just recovered a mysterious item on some sort of mission is necessarily hypothetical or unspecified!

A long-standing rule in I *think* all the games I've played in (if not all, then most, anyway) is that paladins are never expected to throw their lives away uselessly, which would seem to preclude extended crusades to the lower planes, illustrations in the 1e PHB notwithstanding. That is, a paladin who cannot reasonably expect to succeed in a task dictated by the code of conduct is not obligated to take it; thus if the paladin was obviously going to get his ass kicked (say, the imp was not actually an invisible imp, but was revealed to be a pit fiend!) he would not get in trouble if he didn't immediately charge. If we want to be literal, the code of conduct does not enshrine this clause, but as the paladin becomes almost literally unplayable without it, I can't think of a game I've played in that hasn't used a variant on it.


----------



## SlagMortar (Aug 2, 2007)

Perhaps I am reading too strongly into associate.  That's a good thing if paladins are allowed a little more leeway than I thought in RAW.  Honestly, I hate classes with built in flavor.  Also, I hadn't looked at the "grossly violate" language.  Apparently in RAW, a paladin can regularly violate his code in small ways as long as he stays Lawful Good and never commits an evil act.

Still, dinner with evil outsiders is, in my opinion, something for paladins to avoid.  Since it is something to avoid, that is still true even if it makes saving the world more difficult.  When playing a paladin, I would be much more likely to go to crazy extremes than compromise my beliefs.

I also don't really see paladins as the ones tasked with converting evil doers.  Their abilities say to me that they are more SWAT team than councilor, though I have no problem with DMs or players who would rather play them that way.  This is especially true when dealing with evil outsiders.



			
				Rystil said:
			
		

> It depends. The given situation is that the Miracle spell indicated that Anyiel was the only one with the information, and the party approached Anyiel for help.



I still think that a paladin would be perfectly justified in not trusting a Devil.  If the characters have access to Miracle then they are probably fighting things with nearly equal power.  It could all be an elaborate hoax, and that seems just about as likely as there truly being only one way to stop the end of the world.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 2, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> I don't know that an imp at arm's reach from you who has just recovered a mysterious item on some sort of mission is necessarily hypothetical or unspecified!
> 
> A long-standing rule in I *think* all the games I've played in (if not all, then most, anyway) is that paladins are never expected to throw their lives away uselessly, which would seem to preclude extended crusades to the lower planes, illustrations in the 1e PHB notwithstanding. That is, a paladin who cannot reasonably expect to succeed in a task dictated by the code of conduct is not obligated to take it; thus if the paladin was obviously going to get his ass kicked (say, the imp was not actually an invisible imp, but was revealed to be a pit fiend!) he would not get in trouble if he didn't immediately charge. If we want to be literal, the code of conduct does not enshrine this clause, but as the paladin becomes almost literally unplayable without it, I can't think of a game I've played in that hasn't used a variant on it.



 The Paladin will probably kill some of them and then return on the Contingency.  Every day, each of those crusades will be killing fiends that, by your definition of fiends, are guaranteed to have been killing innocents, so even killing some of them each time is protecting more innocents than if the Paladin spends a day on some of the missions I've seen Paladins take.

The imp's item might have been--

A) An item to be used against Demons in the Blood War
B) A valuable item the imp promised to an Evil being who summoned it and made a Faustian pact.  Perhaps it was a Lawful Evil fellow who sold his soul for medicine for his dying wife, who knows.  Either way, it wouldn't have to threaten innocents.
C) A valuable trinket the imp wanted to have to help garner status on the lower planes, perhaps a gift to a greater devil or just a status item in and of itself
D) A valuable trinket the imp wanted to sell for money.

None of those necessarily puts innocents at risk.  Now, it could have been something that put innocents at risk, but that's possible even for non-evil beings.  It doesn't hurt to find out before decapitating people.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 2, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> Still, dinner with evil outsiders is, in my opinion, something for paladins to avoid. Since it is something to avoid, that is still true even if it makes saving the world more difficult. When playing a paladin, I would be much more likely to go to crazy extremes than compromise my beliefs.




Here's an interesting character interaction question then.  What if the other PCs, perhaps including a Lawful Good Cleric of the Paladin's deity, were added to the picture and they said to your Paladin "Dude, what the heck is wrong with you?  Just have dinner with the Erinyes so we can get to that focus and stop Orcus."  Does the opinion of the other PCs make a difference, particularly when it isn't a code violation?


----------



## IanB (Aug 2, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> fiends that, by your definition of fiends, are guaranteed to have been killing innocents




That's a misrepresentation of what I said. I said their continued existence constitutes a threat to innocents, which is a subtle difference, I think. The circumstances of a paladin who somehow has access to a personal-only arcane spell of 6th level that isn't even capable of triggering a plane shift coming up with a method to reliably do this are so likely to be rare that I may just *add* a semi-crazy paladin NPC in my game that behaves this way, I find the idea sort of amusing.

But anyway, aren't we just back to 'it depends on your game'? Without a RAW definition of things like exactly what "legitimate authority" expects from a paladin, can we really use RAW to come to any kind of conclusion? I don't think we can.


----------



## SlagMortar (Aug 2, 2007)

Rystil said:
			
		

> Here's an interesting character interaction question then. What if the other PCs, perhaps including a Lawful Good Cleric of the Paladin's deity, were added to the picture and they said to your Paladin "Dude, what the heck is wrong with you? Just have dinner with the Erinyes so we can get to that focus and stop Orcus." Does the opinion of the other PCs make a difference, particularly when it isn't a code violation?



Depends on the character and his relationships with the other characters.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 2, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> That's a misrepresentation of what I said. I said their continued existence constitutes a threat to innocents, which is a subtle difference, I think. The circumstances of a paladin who somehow has access to a personal-only arcane spell of 6th level that isn't even capable of triggering a plane shift coming up with a method to reliably do this are so likely to be rare that I may just *add* a semi-crazy paladin NPC in my game that behaves this way, I find the idea sort of amusing.
> 
> But anyway, aren't we just back to 'it depends on your game'? Without a RAW definition of things like exactly what "legitimate authority" expects from a paladin, can we really use RAW to come to any kind of conclusion? I don't think we can.



 Plane Shift is a lower level spell for a Cleric, and scrolls are good for that kind of thing.  You just need cross-class ranks in Use Magic Device and the good old-fashioned Paladin Charisma   There's also a Contigency Belt in MIC.

As for the 'it depends on your game', I agree that these details may depend on your campaign, but I think we can agree that in any game, the Paladin's breach of the agreement and weaseling excuses violated 'acting with honour'.  Enough to fall?  That depends on the game.  But I don't think the GM in question would have even posted this dilemma on ENWorld if he was of the mind that you can ignore the rest of the code when you're dealing with Evil Outsiders, since then it would have not been an issue.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 2, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> Depends on the character and his relationships with the other characters.



 Interesting.  Clearly if I'm ever in a game with a Paladin of yours, I need to make sure my PC has a good relationship with your Paladin.  After all, the world may be at stake  

Sounds like we've wandered a bit afield from the OP though.  We're getting into 'how might you roleplay the Paladin' rather than 'what are the consequences, if any for what the Paladin did'.  It's fun to speculate though.


----------



## SlagMortar (Aug 2, 2007)

Rystil said:
			
		

> Interesting. Clearly if I'm ever in a game with a Paladin of yours, I need to make sure my PC has a good relationship with your Paladin. After all, the world may be at stake



And clearly if I'm ever in a game with a PC of yours, I'll need to be vigilent for your character falling into the traps laid by evil outsiders.


----------



## Pielorinho (Aug 2, 2007)

Hawken said:
			
		

> 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.



Moderator's Notes:

*Hawken*, I know you've said that you don't consider this to be a violation of the rules, but I'm here to tell you that, as the moderators interpret the rules, it is.  You and all posters should feel free to engage in a civil, courteous, respectful debate on the issues involved in this thread--but *please* do not try to analyze other people's motives for posting the way they do (e.g., starting sentences with "All you're trying to do with your argument is...."), and absolutely avoid comparing what someone is doing in a discussion of a rule of a game to blaming the victim of a rape for the violence against them.  Both ways lie madness, and being booted from the thread next time it happens .

Incidentally, know what I love to read?  Harry Potter, Graham Joyce, Minister Faust, China Mieville, cooking threads, threads about druids, threads about funny things that happen in games.  Notice what's not on that list?  Threads about whether a particular paladin act is a violation of the paladin code.  I freakin' hate these threads.  

I tell you that not because you care, but to forestall any complaints that other people may have acted as badly or worse in this thread:  I haven't read it, I only read the reported post.  If other folks have misbehaved, please use the exclamation point under their post to report it, and I'll take a look at that one too.

As always, if you have any questions or complaints or compliments about this post, do not respond to it in this thread; instead, feel free to email me or another moderator, using our emails that can be found in the sticky post in Meta.

Daniel


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 2, 2007)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Incidentally, know what I love to read?  Harry Potter, Graham Joyce, Minister Faust, China Mieville, cooking threads, threads about druids, threads about funny things that happen in games.  Notice what's not on that list?  Threads about whether a particular paladin act is a violation of the paladin code.  I freakin' hate these threads.
> 
> I tell you that not because you care, but to forestall any complaints that other people may have acted as badly or worse in this thread:  I haven't read it, I only read the reported post.





But if we act rudely in a thread about Harry Potter, you'll read it, so it's okay to point the finger at other posters then, right?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 2, 2007)

preacher said:
			
		

> I agree with most of what's been said above, but can't help wondering if reneging on a deal made by his companions, without discussing it with them first, is fully within the Lawful side of his alignment. Yes, he was duty bound to act when he discovered the imp's nature, but was he duty bound to do so unilaterally? It's understandable that his companions feel aggrieved. It's not so much that he broke the deal, it's that he broke it on their behalf as well as his own, without involving them. It wasn't just his honour at stake, but theirs as well. Isn't trampling over that a little chaotic?




It is not quite everything one would hope for from a very honorable paragon of Law, but as a Paladin is not actually required to be a paragon of Law, there is no technical breaking of the Code.

But you put your finger on the heart of the "problem" IMO.  Making other party members feel like they broke their word is not setting a good example because it is arguably encouraging chaotic behavior, even if the precise actions of the Paladin are not Chaotic in themselves.

IMO this is not the best example of roleplaying a paladin, but technically there is no Code violation.  Best resolved through roleplaying.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 2, 2007)

I see it like this.

Would a good cleric of Pelor be in trouble of losing their powers? 

Why does the paladin get saddled with such a heavy restriction when the clerics basically can pretty much do whatever.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 2, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I see it like this.
> 
> Would a good cleric of Pelor be in trouble of losing their powers?
> 
> Why does the paladin get saddled with such a heavy restriction when the clerics basically can pretty much do whatever.



 Two very compelling reasons that the comparison is not helpful at all.  

One, the Cleric of Pelor can be Chaotic Good and keep her powers, so you're not even comparing two classes with the same alignment restrictions to begin with.  Two, she does not have a Code of Conduct class feature that states that she will lose her powers in her class description in the Player's Handbook.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 2, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Two very compelling reasons that the comparison is not helpful at all.
> 
> One, the Cleric of Pelor can be Chaotic Good and keep her powers, so you're not even comparing two classes with the same alignment restrictions to begin with.  Two, she does not have a Code of Conduct class feature that states that she will lose her powers in her class description in the Player's Handbook.




Which is my point in a roundabout way.

Why do paladins get stuck with the code and the divine spellcasters like the druid and the cleric basically have non-existent codes? Its not like paladins are any closer to their deities than the clerics. It's not like they are more powerful than their cleric friends either so what gives?

It gets back to my belief that paladins should not exist in the same universe with clerics/druids. There's nothing special about paladins in any version of D&D which is the problem.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 2, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Which is my point in a roundabout way.
> 
> Why do paladins get stuck with the code and the divine spellcasters like the druid and the cleric basically have non-existent codes? Its not like paladins are any closer to their deities than the clerics. It's not like they are more powerful than their cleric friends either so what gives?
> 
> It gets back to my belief that paladins should not exist in the same universe with clerics/druids. There's nothing special about paladins in any version of D&D which is the problem.



 Ah.  That is a fair and reasonable question.  Many have asked it, few have definitive answers.  It seems likely that perhaps Paladin fans enjoy the roleplaying tension caused by the code, or maybe they like the fact that NPCs will know they follow the code and thus be able to trust the Paladin more completely (this is the case for the Aes Sedai in the world of the Wheel of Time, for instance--they adopt their Three Oaths for that same reason).


----------



## Pielorinho (Aug 2, 2007)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> But if we act rudely in a thread about Harry Potter, you'll read it, so it's okay to point the finger at other posters then, right?



My wife and I are reading the last book together, and we're only up to chapter 12.  If someone reports a post in a Harry Potter thread that contains spoilers, I'm gonna permaban the both of you.

Think I'm joking?  Do you feel lucky, punk?  Well, do ya?

Daniel

[Disclaimer:  okay, I'm joking]


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 2, 2007)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> My wife and I are reading the last book together, and we're only up to chapter 12.  If someone reports a post in a Harry Potter thread that contains spoilers, I'm gonna permaban the both of you.
> 
> Think I'm joking?  Do you feel lucky, punk?  Well, do ya?
> 
> ...



That would be so great.... In that un paladiny, evil sort of way....


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 2, 2007)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> My wife and I are reading the last book together, and we're only up to chapter 12.  If someone reports a post in a Harry Potter thread that contains spoilers, I'm gonna permaban the both of you.




Well, just so you know ... Spoiler for the world!


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Aug 2, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Ah.  That is a fair and reasonable question.  Many have asked it, few have definitive answers.  It seems likely that perhaps Paladin fans enjoy the roleplaying tension caused by the code, or maybe they like the fact that NPCs will know they follow the code and thus be able to trust the Paladin more completely (this is the case for the Aes Sedai in the world of the Wheel of Time, for instance--they adopt their Three Oaths for that same reason).




Another possibility is that people read the code way too strictly, and that it's possible for different paladins to take different positions on a wide variety of matters without either one being in objective violation of the code.

Smite the imp, don't smite the imp... isn't it possible that both decisions are in keeping with proper paladin behavior?


----------



## irdeggman (Aug 3, 2007)

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> Another possibility is that people read the code way too strictly, and that it's possible for different paladins to take different positions on a wide variety of matters without either one being in objective violation of the code.
> 
> Smite the imp, don't smite the imp... isn't it possible that both decisions are in keeping with proper paladin behavior?





Or, as is my belief, people read what is in the PHB as "The Paladin's Code of Conduct".  The reference in the text refer to it as "a".  I have stated that each paladin requires his own that reflects his beliefs and what the character is going to be held accoutnable for.


Unearthed Arcana upened the door for paladins of different alignments and Dragon magazine followed that up.


At Birthright.net we did the same thing - based on the 2nd ed Br materials that had a paladin with a CG alignment.

Here is a summary of what we did with paladins in Birthright. It fits the rules as written and the "variants" opened up by official WotC products.



> Cerilian paladins must be devoted to a specific patron deity, chosen at the start of their career as paladins.  No paladin may serve just a cause, philosophy, or other abstract source of divine power.  Only the gods Haelyn, Avani, Cuiraécen, Nesirie, and Moradin accept paladins into their service. All paladins must serve one of these five deities. Paladins are recognized as knights throughout Cerilia, and bear the responsibilities for behaving as such.  Except as specified below, paladins are as written in the Player’s Handbook.
> 
> *Paladins of Avani* must be Lawful Neutral in alignment.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 3, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Or, as is my belief, people read what is in the PHB as "The Paladin's Code of Conduct".  The reference in the text refer to it as "a".




Well, yes?  The Class Feature of the Paladin class, Code of Conduct, states "A paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority..."

Does this mean "One example of a code is one that requires..."?  No - the 'a' refers to 'a paladin'.  Does it mean 'one example of a paladin'?  No, it means 'Anyone who is a paladin'.

Just like "At 2nd level, a paladin gains a bonus equal to her Charisma bonus on saving throws" refers to anyone who is a paladin, and "At 3rd level, a paladin gains immunity to all diseases" refers to anyone who is a paladin.

If you're playing a class which is not, in fact, the PHB Paladin, like the Paladin of Freedom or Paladin of Slaughter or whatever, this doesn't apply - you use the class features of the Paladin of Freedom, not the class features of the Paladin.  But if you're playing a Paladin, you are subject to the class feature Code of Conduct, and you meet the criterion for "A paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority..."

-Hyp.


----------



## irdeggman (Aug 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Well, yes?  The Class Feature of the Paladin class, Code of Conduct, states "A paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority..."
> 
> Does this mean "One example of a code is one that requires..."?  No - the 'a' refers to 'a paladin'.  Does it mean 'one example of a paladin'?  No, it means 'Anyone who is a paladin'.
> 
> -Hyp.





I'm sorry but I read it as saying that a paladin's code of conduct must include these. .  . .

Not that that is the entire Code of Conduct.

That is how I distguish "a" from "the".

If not than every PHB will be identical and I can not see that as ever being the intent of the designers.

I see each paladin's individual code of conduct relfecting their own behaviour.

For example the "detect evil"/"smite" style of play can be one way of running things (and that paladin's code should reflect that).

Likewise the diplomacy first and then lawfully "imprison" the evil is likewise a different means of meeting the same core principles.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Aug 4, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> What if there were a town full of defenseless commoners just over the hill and the imp was headed that way?




What if there wasn't?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Aug 4, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Here's an interesting side-question based on that.  What if there actually were not innocents in danger.
> 
> I present to you the following scenario.  It may be unlikely, but it is possible given the above scenario:
> 
> ...




I don't think you can hold a person (Paladin or not) responsible for something they have no knowledge of.

Here are two examples...

Paladin climbs a mountain to battle an evil sorcerer who is about to sacrifice the mayor's daughter.  As he climbs the mountain, he accidentially starts an avalanche which destroys the small town below.  Obviously the Paladin would feel bad about this, and would want to atone, but I don't think his choice to climb the mountain was "evil", because he didn't know that was going to happen.

versus

Before he climbs, the town mayor says, "Be careful, that mountain can be rigourous to travel and the wrong step could cause an avalanche." and the Paladin chooses to climb it anyway.

I see a difference between these two things.  Others may not I suppose.  I guess you could say, I look at intentions as well as actions, whereas I see a lot of people here only thinking that actions matter, not the intetion behind the action.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Aug 4, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> An agreement with an evil creature should never have been made in the first place,




But it was, due to extenuating circumstances, and now the Paladin has to deal with it.  He has many choices to deal with it (I will only list 2, but I am sure there are others):

1) Finish the bargain and warn the imp that if you ever cross paths again, it will be smited.  I see this as being a non-evil action, and an honorable one.
2) Kill the imp who "tricked" you.  I see this as being a non-evil action, but a dishonorable one.

Given those two choices (like I said, I am sure everyone can come up with others), I think the first is more in the Paladins favor.  I don't think the second choice would make the Paladin change alignment or fall from grace, I just think that it is less optimal than the first choice.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Aug 4, 2007)

Hawken said:
			
		

> 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)?




That is a horrible anaology.  No, because when a person is being arrested, they aren't being arrested because they are guilty.  In fact, it is the opposite.  Innocent until proven guilty.  A person usually gets arrested because they are suspected of a crime.



			
				Hawken said:
			
		

> 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.




No one in their right mind would equate "not continuing the agreement" with "permission to kill target with prejudice".


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Aug 4, 2007)

Hawken said:
			
		

> 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.




All viable options.  Should the cruiser also be allowed to kill his ex-college room mate?


----------



## SlagMortar (Aug 4, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To me?  It doesn't matter.  As I said previously, the fiend's existance is a threat to the good people of the prime material plane.

I was hoping with the question to narrow down how immediate and probable the threat must be in order to make breaking the agreement the best choice.  Assuming in all cases the imp's back is turned, should the paladin break the agreement if:
the imp is attacking a commoner?
the imp is attacking a passing guard who is overmatched, but might win without the paladin's help?
the imp is smiling and moving toward a commoner who is 50 feet away?
the imp is smiling and moving toward a commoner who is 500 feet away?
the imp is no where near any commoners, but says "Aha!  Now that I have my new toy, its time to torture some peasants"?
the imp is heading toward a viliage full of defenseless commoners?
the imp is leaving on a major roadway, but the paladin does not know how close the closest town in that direction is?
the imp starts to leave after saying "Hooray!  <insert name of devil overlord here> will be most pleased with his new acquisition."


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 4, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but I read it as saying that a paladin's code of conduct must include these. .  . .
> 
> Not that that is the entire Code of Conduct.




Ah!  Okay.  Then I agree.

I thought you were saying "You can play a PHB paladin with a code that doesn't include 'Act with honor', since that's only an example".

I think that as written, a PHB paladin's code automatically includes 'Act with honor'... and it sounds like so do you.

I think you could have one PHB paladin whose code also includes "Don't drink alcohol" and a second PHB paladin whose code doesn't.  But the bits that appear in the Class Feature description are non-negotiable.

-Hyp.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Aug 4, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> To me?  It doesn't matter.  As I said previously, the fiend's existance is a threat to the good people of the prime material plane.
> 
> I was hoping with the question to narrow down how immediate and probable the threat must be in order to make breaking the agreement the best choice.  Assuming in all cases the imp's back is turned, should the paladin break the agreement if:
> the imp is attacking a commoner?
> ...




I see your point, but they are still all "what ifs" and there can be an infinite amount of questions like that with an infinite amount of answers.  So rather than go through every single "what if" scenario, I prefer to deal with the one at hand.

FWIW, to give you a better (more broad) answer...  I think each case should be looked at individually.  Given the circumstances of the OP, without knowning any more than we already do, and without making broad assumptions, I don't think killing the Imp was the Paladin's *best* choice or option.  I think if it were any other LG person, the choice of killing the imp would not be under as much scrutiny...  But I like to keep Paladins to a higher standard than average LG characters, and if there is an option that is more viable to pick, they should pick it.

Given the choice of not killing the imp and letting it go, but warning it not to cross your path again if it valued its life is the more honorable one vs just smiting it and voiding your agreement.  Both actions are not evil.  Both actions are not good.  But only one action is honorable, and one action is dishonorable.  Breaking your word is breaking your word, no matter who you give it to.  And if the Paladin was so concerned about being involved in an agreement with a possible enemy, he should have spoke up.

Really, when it comes down to it, I think the player of the Paladin is to blame for not taking a more active role in the agreement.  Even if his intentions were not to agree at all, for the sake of his friends (and their souls) he should have been more involved in the discussion with the invisible creature.  I mean, they can Detect Evil at will.  Doesn't that tell you something about the player if he chose not to use it?  Every player I know has Detect Evil on speed dial, heh.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 5, 2007)

Sam said:
			
		

> Nobody knew it was an imp when they made the deal.  He says he wasn't involved in the making of the deal.  He was about 20 feet away by the door of the house they were bursting into.
> 
> I'm not so worked up about the attack, more that he totally blindsided the imp and the party with his action.



To roll this almost all the way back, there's a significant issue here for the party and the players.... Regardless of whether the paladin actions were appropriate, I think the player actions were inappropriate both in breaking a group agreement and lamely justifying it afterwards. This sort of behavior has the potential for "And now you better metagame accepting my actions even as I refuse to apologize, because I'm a PC" written all over it. I have been in far too many groups where the party unrealisticly held on to loose cannon disruptive members because one player was taking advantage of the team player mentality of the others (and occasionally claiming they were a better roleplayer for "just playing my character".)

If all the players were actually thrilled by the paladin's actions but just roleplaying a conflict they look forward to having again in the future, you can of course ignore this advice.   

If the Paladin does not make any concessions to in the future participating in party deal making and accepting that he is bound by their agreements, and it seems the other party members are letting the incident drop due to players not wanting conflict, I strongly suggest that you step in as a DM speaking to players, not a god speaking to the paladin. In most groups, either everyone has to occasionally metagame a little to keep "the party" together, a few people end up metagaming a lot and possibly feeling bitter about it, or you stop metagaming completely and take the conversation to it's logical in character conclusion where the party gives the paladin an ultimatum about ether being part of the group and bound by group agreements (which he may ask to have strong input into) or not being part of the group and going his own way. For some groups, the last option is the prefered one, for some the first, but I find the middle option only works for the "I'm just playing my character" guy.


----------



## irdeggman (Aug 5, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Ah!  Okay.  Then I agree.
> 
> I thought you were saying "You can play a PHB paladin with a code that doesn't include 'Act with honor', since that's only an example".
> 
> ...





Yes that is what I meant (for a standard PHB paladin) - the things listed in the PHB must be _part_ of his Code of Conduct.

But, unlike some who have posted with a differing opinion, I don't believe that it is a _required_ part of the standard PHB CoC to kill all evil creatures (just because they can Smite Evil doesn't mean they have to).

The only thing it says on this regard is that they must "punish those who harm and threaten innocents" and

they also cannot "knowingly associate with evil characters nor those who consistently offend her morale code."

This is following immediately under the description of "alignment" so I do not believe this is automatic for creatures with the "evil" subtype.

Can a child of a fiend be innocent?

How about child age goblins?


----------



## bodhi (Aug 5, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> If the Paladin does not make any concessions to in the future participating in party deal making and accepting that he is bound by their agreements,



This reminded me of:



			
				Hawken said:
			
		

> The only explanations a paladin owes are to his deity, not to his friends, or even his church or government, but to the one that supplies his power and directs him.



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.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 5, 2007)

> Can a child of a fiend be innocent?




The child of a fiend, assuming the Half-Fiend template, is still an evil outsider.  Interesting question.

Here's another scenario for the "Kill all Evil Outsiders!  Always!  Immediately!" folks:


Sir Percival is a world-renowned demon slayer--he has been for many years.  His parents were slain by demons, and he found his path when the God of Justice answered his prayers and offered him the Lawful and Holy might to defeat those Chaotic Evil outsiders and rid the land of their scourge.  That is when Sir Percival became a Paladin.  

He and his wife of ten years, a lady warrior named Anya, have slain demons together since they met, stopping dozens of major plots by various demon lords to exploit the powerful nexuses of axiomatic energy that are prevalent in Percival's homeland and make it a target--long ago, the demons began a sinister plan here, but great wardens of Law set up these nexuses.  If the nexuses were tainted with chaos, the land would begin to melt, and it could be merged with the Abyss.  With Percival's Holy Blade and Aegis Shield and Anya's Longsword, +1 Flaming Composite Longbow, and Magic Rope, they have entrusted their lives to one another and held off against the demons together.           

Percival and Anya are deeply in love.  Lately, they have been forced to scale back their assaults a bit because of the newest member of their family, their young daughter Erin, a cute, cheerful, and inquisitive young girl of 6.  Cue the scene:

PERCIVAL: Time for bed sweetie
ERIN: Okay.  I love you Daddy!

Erin gives Percival a big hug and heads off to bed, but Percival frowns.  He calls out to the kitchen--

P: Honey?
Anya: Yes, my love?
P: Can you come here, please?  There's something that's bothering me.
A: Of course, dear.  I'm baking cookies.  It _is_ Erin's birthday tomorrow after all.  But shh, that's going to be a surprise
P: Right, right...but, look, I've never tried this intentionally because it just seemed paranoid, but the other day when I was walking to town with Erin, I saw a vagrant who looked like he might be evil and used Detect Evil.  Well, the vagrant wasn't after all, but Erin gave off a Moderate aura of Evil.  How is that even possible?  I thought it might be local disturbances or something wrong with my powers, but I've tried it again and again, and I'm getting the same reading on my evil-dar.

Anya gives a deep and regretful sigh

A: I knew this day would come eventually, my love.  It seems our perfect life is at an end.
P: What in the world do you...?
A: It would have become obvious sooner or later, when she hit adolescence and started growing wings.  I'm just surprised she has 2 Hit Dice at the age of 6, maybe because she's advanced like me.
P: Wings?  Okay honey, that's not funny.

Anya sighs again.

A: It's not a joke, my love.  My real name isn't Anya.  It's Anyiel.  I'm an Erinyes--a Fallen Angel.  Since time immemorial, it has been my task to protect those Axiomatic nexuses from demonic control, first when I served the hosts of Heaven, and now for my dark masters in Baator.
P: Okay, stop this.  You're a woman of honour, so stop this lying.  Are you trying to cover for something Erin did?  I know you.  You've never committed an evil act as long as we've been together.
A: No dear, I'm afraid I'm telling the truth.  I fell from grace because I was willing to use any means necessary to protect the nexuses, and it required some dark means indeed, but I found that those in Hell approved of what I had done and offered me a new home with my old job back.  But...I fell in love with the champion whose resolve to kill demons and protect the nexuses matched my own.  A part of me envied you that you could do it and maintain your morals.  I've been able to get away with not committing any evil deeds because I'm doing exactly as the dark masters demand...I knew I couldn't continue alone without you, for both practically for your mighty holy power and because of my smitten heart, so I didn't commit any evil acts because I know that it would then violate your code of conduct to associate with me.
P: It can't be...but you're not evil, you're my...

Anya bursts into hysterical tears and shouts:

A: If you don't believe me, look!

She uses Alternate Form to revert to her true form and rips off the tiny gold ring with the Celestial writing on it that she's worn for all this time and never removed.

A: There, now try to Detect Evil again without my ring! 

Percival uses Detect Evil and finds an Overwhelming aura of Evil.

***P: Holy Erroneous Heironeous!  You tricked the ability with that ring!  You're...

Anyiel looks down at the floor, downcast and devastated.

A: I am.  I know you can never associate with me again, so I'll just leave.  But please, I want you to raise Erin here.  She'll be persecuted enough for her strange features, but I think she can still keep the purity of heart and kindness of spirit that has been lost to me forever, if only she has a loving father who cares about her.  If I took her back to Hell, she would become nothing more than another Devil...And please, I know you have to act with honour, but we still tell Erin about the tooth fairy, so you understand that sometimes comfortable little tales are important to help children live comfortable lives...
P: Actually, the tooth fairy is real.  She's actually a Nixie named Lydentia.  I met her once when the demons tried to invade the Faerie Woods.
A: Alright, but _anyway_, could you just tell Erin that I died fighting a demon...At least she won't think as ill of me as you do and live knowing her mother is a monster.  I will leave you now forever, my love.  You won't see me ever again...

Tears of loss continue to stream down Anyiel's face as she turns her back to Percival, unable to face him any longer, and waits for his answer before she leaves.  She thinks to herself--

A: _Though this loss hurts dearly, I should look on the bright side.  At least I'll be able to perform evil acts again--that corrupt part of my soul has been killing me on the inside from all this holding in._


What does Percival do?  I'll post below the list of possible choices I can think of, but you can pick your own!


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 5, 2007)

Okay, you're Percival.  What do you do?

A) You agree to raise Erin in a loving one-parent household and to tell Erin that her mother died fighting demons.  Anyiel turns around, smiles through her tears, gives you one last hug (or tries to but notices the way you recoil in horror at the thought of touching such a filthy creature and cries some more) and Teleports away.  Then you do what you said and raise Erin.

B) As (A), but then after Anyiel is gone, you kill Erin.  Agreements with Evil Outsiders?  Ha!  Those don't count!  And you killed an Evil Outsider!  Score!

C) As (A) but you refuse to agree to tell Erin the story, so you tell her her mother is a monstrous devil from Hell.  Her friends say that's what all their dads who are divorced tell them too during the weekends the dad has custody.

D) When Anyiel turns around, you lop off her head.  Smiting Sneak Attack--Banzaiiiiii!  Score!  That's one less Evil Outsider in the world.  Then you raise Erin anyway, though you're probably a bit disgusted by her at the same time.

E) When Anyiel turns around, you lop off her head.  Score!  One down and one to go!--Too bad they weren't five feet from each other or you could cleave!  Oh well, you bash into Erin's room and slit her throat.  You can cleave to her Teddy Bear or her crayon drawing with a little girl (labeled 'Me') and a bigger man (labeled 'Daddy') and a big heart that says "I Love Daddy!" instead.   

F) Huh?  Whatchoo talking about Rystil?  I don't have to make this choice because we'd never make it to this point.  See the place with triple asterisk marked *** in your dialogue.  That's where the bitch is dead.  Right after I detected Evil and she turned into her true form.  THERE CAN BE NO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR DETECTING AS EVIL!  BANZAI!!!!!!  

G) I'll drop my Paladin status and let Anyiel stay and be Erin's mother.  Children in broken homes don't turn out as well, plus maybe I'll be able to redeem Anyiel if I love her enough, or something.

H) As (B), (D), (E), or (F), except you challenge Anyiel/Erin/Both to a duel before you kill them.

I) Your option here!


----------



## SlagMortar (Aug 5, 2007)

Rystil said:
			
		

> Here's another scenario for the "Kill all Evil Outsiders! Always! Immediately!" folks:



Why is that just a question for the "Kill all Evil Outsiders! Always! Immediately!" folks?  That sounds like a dilly of a pickle no matter what your paladin's beliefs.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 5, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> All viable options.  Should the cruiser also be allowed to kill his ex-college room mate?



Heh. The point of the example, which Hawken either missed or just choose to ignore, is that most of the "options" stated were not options. The low price cruise was offered (we will call this "the agreement made") under a specific condition, which was sharing a room with an unknown person to be revealed upon check-in (we will call this "the ambiguity"). While in this particular example the cruiser has the single alternative of walking off the boat before it sails, generally, if the roommate turns out to be your college ex ("revealing the ambiguous point"), you can't say "This agreement is void, I would never agree to room with him/her/it!" Because you agreed to room with ANYONE, and by the very nature of the offer (that explicit ambiguity)   reasonably could have guessed it wasn't gonna be Fabio in there.... 

Now, if the offer was "If you agree to room with the person shown here" and showed you a picture with your old college buddy who you haven't seen in years but parted on very friendly terms with... and then it's the Ex when you check in and they say "no look, he/she/it was in the picture, you can see the back of the head through the window!" That is a deception. You made the agreement not in a state of ambiguity, but under a deliberately formed wrong impression, and have in fact been truely tricked.

(in neither case should you kill the Ex (unless it's *that Ex**), but one allows you to void the contract and sue for the money and time spent, because there actually was deception involved.)

*I kid, I kid....


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 5, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> Why is that just a question for the "Kill all Evil Outsiders! Always! Immediately!" folks?  That sounds like a dilly of a pickle no matter what your paladin's beliefs.



 Okay, it can be a question for the other people too.  I'm interested to see what people think.  And which would violate the Paladin's Code (other than the one I already told you would violate where you stay married to her).  I like this one too because it is a direct parallel to the OP except that in this case you can make a much better case that Anyiel has been directly tricking him, whereas with the Imp, it wasn't directly tricking him, it was just invisible, just like making a deal with an Invisible Stalker doesn't involve the Stalker tricking you.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 5, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Okay, you're Percival.  What do you do?
> 
> G) Your option here!



Let the fiend go, under the condition that if they should ever meet in conflict she will not not attempt to use her Anyiel guise to cause hesitation. She is Lawful, a strong enough oath should bind her*. Tell Erin that both of her parents love her very much, but because of something that has come up in their greater planar duties they cannot live with her anymore. Send her to that monastery run by the church where all those baby orcs and surrendered not-that-evil kobalds end up so that she can be taught the path of good, or at least lawful neutral. Come to the conclusion that the path of the Paladin of one which can have allies but never true life partners, and continue a life of service.  

*In a magic infused world with supernatural Law as a real force, I've always thought there should be some sort of supernatural oath witnessing mechanic. It would make surrenders so easy to give and accept as well. Even the "splash" in the Apprentice Adept books would do as a sign of sincerity.... But thats another topic.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 5, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Let the fiend go, under the condition that if they should ever meet in conflict she will not not attempt to use her Anyiel guise to cause hesitation. She is Lawful, a strong enough oath should bind her*. Tell Erin that both of her parents love her very much, but because of something that has come up in their greater planar duties they cannot live with her anymore. Send her to that monastery run by the church where all those baby orcs and surrendered not-that-evil kobalds end up so that she can be taught the path of good, or at least lawful neutral. Come to the conclusion that the path of the Paladin of one which can have allies but never true life partners, and continue a life of service.
> 
> *In a magic infused world with supernatural Law as a real force, I've always thought there should be some sort of supernatural oath witnessing mechanic. It would make surrenders so easy to give and accept as well. Even the "splash" in the Apprentice Adept books would do as a sign of sincerity.... But thats another topic.



 That seems like a really sad choice to have to live with, but it certainly doesn't violate the code at all.  The whole 'no life partners' thing reminds me of shilsen's Cedric, actually, who always refuses to marry all the reformed prostitutes who want to start a family with him.

Oh, and for those who are using my choices instead of picking your own, I added a new one where you challenge them to a duel instead of lopping the head off.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 5, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> That seems like a really sad choice to have to live with, but it certainly doesn't violate the code at all.  The whole 'no life partners' thing reminds me of shilsen's Cedric, actually, who always refuses to marry all the reformed prostitutes who want to start a family with him.



Sadly, I really do think that a paladin who get married outside of an arranged "marry the princess to join the kingdoms and see her once a year to father heirs" sort of thing is cruising for heartbreak. I recall a paladin thread back when where said pally smote a helpless mook in the middle of a lawful and basicly good city... it was justified by many based on the fact that the mook had attacked the pally's wife and "that's what I would do if he hurt MY wife!". well, yeah, thats why no one posting here is a paladin... Dedication at that level leaves little room for personal feelings. (Captain Carrot, for instance is often cited as a good model of a paladin, and is a horrible model of a boyfriend. He cares for everyone so much he is basicly incapable of giving special caring to anyone.)


----------



## Arkhandus (Aug 6, 2007)

I just had to look around at this point and see how the heck this thing was still going on.  It's now roughly twice as long as when I stopped paying attention to it.  

People just love to screw over paladins, don't they?  

Anyway.....  Some brief interjections on what I've skimmed over now.

Hyp: At most the paladin in the original post was somewhat dishonorable, but it could not have been a serious enough infraction under the circumstances to get his paladinhood revoked.  Small, occasional acts of chaos will not an ex-paladin make.

RE: the invisibility.  You should realize that it is no different from disguising itself; the imp did not want the humans to see its true form while making an agreement with it.  The imp would expect humans to be leery of making any kind of deal with it if they saw it as a fiend; it wants their help to make the task easier so it doesn't have to risk itself so much, and its search might go faster with their help.  So it wants them to make the deal and trust it.

It is being deceptive by avoiding revealing itself; do NOT confuse deception with 'lying' only, deception covers a lot more than just lies.  A paladin cannot lie, but he is not incapable of deception; only incapable of lying, which is but one form of deception.  The imp is deliberately hiding its true form in order to garner the trust of these mortals for its own goals, and knows they would likely refuse the deal if they knew what it was; especially that one human that detects as strongly good-aligned, as imps can detect good at will, so he'll know that at least one group member is likely to argue against the deal if the imp reveals itself.

ALSO: if the imp was just trying to stop demons from winning the Blood War or taking over the Prime Material, because it wants devils like itself to win or take over instead, then it would have told the PCs that it was seeking an item that would help it stop a demonic plot.  That would have only motivated the PCs to accept his agreement despite his invisibility, and ensured that they would be more willing to help out and take risks for him.  So most likely its motivations did not have to do with anything that the PCs, as at least somewhat-good people, would want to help with.  It could have more easily garnered their trust or cooperation if it had used such an excuse.



Rystil: Regarding the last example, Sir Percival is screwed.  Congrats, you've made a paladin fall.  It isn't hard.  And why must paladin-supporters be stereotyped as those of a mind that 'fiends must die and nothing else matters!' ?  

Percival should have gotten a priest to discern the reasons for his detection of evil around his daughter, _as soon as he noticed it_, and then tried to confront and deal with the matter immediately somehow.  So he may have already lost his paladinhood anyway, for being a freaking moron and ignoring his duty and the entire frikkin' reason the Forces of cosmic Good gave him the ability to Detect Evil at will.

Percival can't kill his wife and child for being evil abominations, for it would be evil and dishonorable, so he would fall from grace and undoubtedly be scarred for life, probably falling into melancholy and/or rage against fiends for causing that situation to befall him.  He might crusade against fiends afterwards, but he'll be a broken man, just looking to die, and he won't be a paladin anymore.  He'll eventually end up on one of the Lower Planes after he's died, or at best one of the neutral and/or neutral-but-almost-evil planes.

He can't just try to ignore the conundrum and keep living with his fiendish wife and child.  That would require forsaking his paladin code and becoming an ex-paladin.  It would be the most agreeable choice for him as a person, but he would have to forsake his paladinhood and try to deal with the fact that his wife is a sworn servant of evil.  He might at least eventually accept his situation and avoid breaking up the family.  But he would have a great deal of trouble with the situation, to be sure.  And he just might have to give in to evil himself in order to cope with it rather than going insane or something, becoming a blackguard.  At the very least he'll become neutral and advance as a fighter if not turning to evil.

He can't just try to redeem his wife and child, purifying them or something and drawing them away from Evil.  It wouldn't work.  The wife had deceived him all this time rather than ever trying to find redemption or some kind of middle ground, despite _seemingly_ caring for him and finding kinship with him.

Which I take issue with anyway, as fiends should not be capable of love; it is a goodly emotion and requires some degree of compassion and a certain degree of selflessness (we're talking about D&D here, not real-world morality where it's debatable; D&D evil is capable of being monolithic, in fact it's what the Lower Planes are made of; and in D&D forces of alignment, love must surely be a 'good' thing given what goes with it, and thus not something that pure Evil can possess); fiends are selfish incarnations of Evil itself, and a fallen celestial/angel has accepted that suffusion of immense, primordial Evil into itself to become _powerful_ once more.

That's pretty damn selfish right there.  Instead of accepting her fall and the loss of divine, holy power, she pledged herself to evil masters in order to become powerful again.  She did not take any harder path of self-improvement (through level advancement or whatnot, or through redemption as a celestial/angel).  She is Evil with a capitol E now.  She should not be capable of love anymore.  Lust is the only thing even remotely close to being mistaken for love that she should be capable of at that point.  The erinyes should not have been living with the paladin for any reason other than to try corrupting him towards evil.

Sir Percival is an ex-paladin regardless of what he does.  His daughter is naturally evil as a half-fiend, his wife has long been pledged to the service of evil, and he can't just abandon them and forget it all.  It would be evil.  So he has to either deal with the situation somehow, becoming an ex-paladin in the process, or he has to leave it and become an ex-paladin just the same.

As for the earlier scenario:


			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Let's try another scenario.  I'm interested to see what the 'Kill all fiends' people say for this one:
> 
> The end times are near.  Orcus has nearly completed a ritual that will infuse the soul of the entire world with negative energy, which will turn all the living into undead, allowing him to rise from the formerly pure Lifepool, now the Deathpool, and rule over his new world of the dead.  To finish the ritual, Orcus needed to place three magical foci in three different planar locations.  The only way to stop him now is to break into one of them and destroy the focus before Orcus notices the intrusion and sends his strongest minions to stop the heroes, or comes himself!
> 
> ...




Sir Pelinor is also doomed to become an ex-paladin.  If he refuses the offer, demons take over the world and evil wins.  He will have failed in his paladin duties and become an ex-paladin, unless he can find some way to avert the demon apocalypse without making a 'deal with the devil'.

If he accepts the offer, he will become an ex-paladin but just might avert the demon apocalypse, and is likely to receive atonement if he seeks it after that violation.  This is the choice Sir Pelinor will take unless he is too selfish or too disgusted by the devil's offer to even consider it.  As a paladin he is sworn to serve the greater Good above all else; Law and paladinship are secondary to that.

If he is a proper paladin, he will make the personal sacrifice of his paladinship in order to serve the greater good, then he will seek atonement afterward with the understanding that he had to commit a sin in order to serve that greater good, because he was unable to find a different solution that would avert the demon apocalypse.  The forces of Good will forgive him if he serves the greater good and truly regrets having felt the need to sin for the sake of that goal.

Optimally, he would find a better solution to the demon apocalypse, but if he cannot, then he is backed into a corner and must decide to sin and save the world, or let the world fall to Evil because of his unwillingness to make any self-sacrifice for others.

If Sir Pelinor refuses the offer without finding a better solution, he will become an ex-paladin for permitting the demon apocalypse to occur just because he has a 10-foot pole up his arse, and refuses to remove it for any reason whatsoever.  And possibly also (depending on why he refuses) for putting personal, selfish priorities above the service of Good and therefore valuing himself and his own desires as more important thant he cause of Good and justice that he is supposed to be serving as a paladin.


Your options C, D, and E don't really work.  They only serve to unleash Orcus' evil, or to make the paladin an ex-paladin while managing to at least save the world, not that it puts him in the good graces of the Forces of cosmic Good, since he was very unpaladinlike in how he handled it and did not respect the spirit of the agreement nor the burden of his duty as a paladin.  If he slays the erinyes right after learning the password, he's badly violating his code.  He's already going to become an ex-paladin for the 'date', but he has to suck it up and serve the greater good if he hopes to be allowed atonement.  Slaying the fiend then and there will just be an additional violation and disrespecting of his code, acting so dishonorably and ignoring the spirit of the agreement.



The OP's paladin is not behaving in that way, though, and it is under rather different circumstances.  Pelinor is aware that he has to go have dinner with a fiend in order to learn the secret that is needed to foil Orcus' plan and save the world.

The OP's paladin is being tricked into an agreement, possibly a very loose agreement (we don't know how it actually played out at the table), to go along with an invisible creature and help it find an item in the building while he and his fellows get some help from the invisible creature as they seek out their own objective within the building.  Then he finds out later that the invisible creature is a fiend.

He isn't sure at first if there is sufficient basis in paladin terms for his group's agreement with the formerly-invisible fiend to be null and void now that new information has come to light and it involved the fiend's intentional deception.  He doesn't want to break the agreement that he was at least partially involved in, but he also does not want to violate his oaths if going along would do so.  He is not required to act without reasonable hesitation.  And as long as he doesn't help the imp any further after learning its fiendish identity, he is not violating his oaths while he considers whether or not he should kill it, and when.

Once the agreement is fulfilled, he is not necessarily obliged to let the imp leave with its item.  He has every reason to believe it is going to be used for evil (because it is an imp that is taking the item), which he cannot allow himself to be a knowing accomplice to.  Though his group's agreement was to help the invisible creature for a while, the imp's significantly important deception in the dealing process may render it acceptable to the paladin's honor to smite the imp before it can make off with the item, though it is not quite honorable but merely a minor dishonor or something grey inbetween honor and dishonor.


Personally I'd just hate a DM that forced a paladin to deal with such a situation, as there is no possible way the paladin can avoid either losing his paladinship or teetering on the brink of doing so.  It reeks of bad railroading and spite towards paladins.  "Oh, sure, you wanna play a paladin, huh...?  Great!  Now I have a reason to screw you over royally for wanting to play a nice guy and challenge yourself, because you have no idea how much I've been waiting to piss someone off for bothering to attend my games every week!"


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 6, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> RE: the invisibility.  It is foolish to NOT consider it deception on the imp's part.  You have to realize that it is no different from disguising itself;



No, I really, really don't.   Nor do I consider it "foolish" to make a distinction between someone signing a letter "Your Friend X" and signing it "Mom", when they are really your uncle. You obviously *disagree* on this point, and I don't see a need to go back and forth arguing it, particularly if you are going to do so in an insulting fashion.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 6, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Hyp: At most the paladin in the original post was somewhat dishonorable, but it could not have been a serious enough infraction under the circumstances to get his paladinhood revoked.  Small, occasional acts of chaos will not an ex-paladin make.




See, I'd consider breaking an agreement to be a violation of the code (frowned upon, but not insta-fall), but breaking an agreement _in order to kill the other party_ to be a gross violation of the code.



> RE: the invisibility.  It is foolish to NOT consider it deception on the imp's part.  You have to realize that it is no different from disguising itself; the imp did not want the humans to see its true form while making an agreement with it.




I think there _is_ a difference, and it's the same one Kahuna Burger referenced earlier in discussion of the cruise ship.

In one case, you're entering into an agreement with a party of undisclosed identity, aware that the identity is undisclosed.  In the other, you're entering into an agreement with a party whose identity is not that which is presented, and you are unaware of any ambiguity.

Let's take two gameshows.  The first gameshow says "You can take the hundred dollars, or you can take what's in the bag."  The second gameshow says "You can take the hundred dollars, or you can take what's in the bag, worth _two_ hundred dollars!"

The contestants on both shows choose the bag, and open it to find a piece of cheese.  The first host says "Well, I guess you should have chosen the money."  The second host says "Well, I guess you should have chosen the money.  We lied about the two hundred dollar value."

Can the first contestant be legitimately angry that the prize turned out to be worth less than the money? Can the second contestant be legitimately angry that the prize turned out to be worth less than the money?  Is there a difference in the two situations?

-Hyp.


----------



## Arkhandus (Aug 6, 2007)

Why do people have to keep acting like tricking people through invisibility is any different from using a disguise to trick them?  Either way you're hiding your identity, and generally on purpose.  Everyone just keeps brushing stuff aside though like it's unimportant and irrelevant, just because it doesn't support their argument.  I merely try to point out that people are ignoring it and that it is foolish to do so.  No insult intended, just trying to make it clear that it's stubborn to ignore that point.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Let's take two gameshows.  The first gameshow says "You can take the hundred dollars, or you can take what's in the bag."  The second gameshow says "You can take the hundred dollars, or you can take what's in the bag, worth _two_ hundred dollars!"



"The box! I'll take the box!"

"And in the box is..... NOTHING! Absolutely nothing!!! Stupid! You're so STUPID!!!!"


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 6, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Why do people have to keep acting like tricking people through invisibility is any different from using a disguise to trick them?




Didn't I just answer that?

The difference is between "You don't know my identity, and you know that you don't know my identity", and "You don't know my identity, and you don't know that you don't know my identity".

If I'm invisible, I'm not tricking you; you're perfectly aware that you don't know who I am.

If I'm in disguise, I'm tricking you; I'm allowing you to think I am someone I am not.

When I'm invisible, you don't think I'm someone I'm not; rather, you are conscious of the fact that I could be anyone.

-Hyp.


----------



## bodhi (Aug 6, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Why do people have to keep acting like tricking people through invisibility is any different from using a disguise to trick them?



Because there _is_ a difference.



			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Either way you're hiding your identity, and generally on purpose.



True, they're the same on that point. But, there's a difference in what information the other party is presented. In one, I make it clear I'm not revealing my identity, you _know_ I'm obfuscating, and you act on your suspicions accordingly. In the other, I claim a false identity, so you _don't know_ I'm obfuscating, and I sidestep your suspicions.



			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Everyone just keeps brushing stuff aside though like it's unimportant and irrelevant, just because it doesn't support their argument.



And you keep brushing aside the difference between the two situations.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 6, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> People just love to screw over paladins, don't they?




No, not really.  Though I am greatly interested by your analysis of the situation and its repercussions for your game, it is only screwing over Paladins in your game, but not mine, and it seems not Hyp's and several others.  I think for some of these situations, it isn't the person that is coming up with the situation who is screwing the Paladin (after all, in my game, there are palatable options to the dinner date scenario like going to dinner) but rather it is you who are screwing the Paladin in that situation by virtue of an extremely draconian interpretation of 'associate' and 'grossly violate' (Based on the definitions of associate I posted from the dictionary, I think it would be very hard to say the dinner date grossly violates that clause, hard enough to claim it violates at all without choosing a low priority definition).  Though I do agree with you that the seemingly most human choice in the Percival situation, to keep the family together, is definitely a falling offense.



> That's pretty damn selfish right there. Instead of accepting her fall and the loss of divine, holy power, she pledged herself to evil masters in order to become powerful again. She did not take any harder path of self-improvement (through level advancement or whatnot, or through redemption as a celestial/angel). She is Evil with a capitol E now. She should not be capable of love anymore. Lust is the only thing even remotely close to being mistaken for love that she should be capable of at that point. The erinyes should not have been living with the paladin for any reason other than to try corrupting him towards evil.




Meh, I disagree.  Though BoED logic does tell you that using Evil means to prevent Evil is a good way to fall, it wasn't selfishness that made Anyiel fall.  It was her extreme Lawful feeling of duty to protect the nexuses.  (Some of this is not expressly spelled out, but it was my intention She initially lost her angelic powers for using extreme means to protect the nexuses, and then she stuck around as a Lawful Neutral fallen angel doing her best until she was fighting a battle she couldn't win, at which point the powers of Hell offered her a return to power on the spot and a guarantee that she would keep her old task of guarding the nexuses with no extra random evil soul temptations or the like added to her job requirements.  Hell couldn't let those Lawful nexuses fall any more than Celestia could, after all.  She only accepted their offer rather than the alternative of letting the demons win.  It was a sacrifice she made, and in some ways selfless, but still an Evil choice that damned her.  

Okay, so what's my point?  I don't understand these assertions.



			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> She should not be capable of love anymore. Lust is the only thing even remotely close to being mistaken for love that she should be capable of at that point.




Why?  She finds Percival to be a kindred spirit and is, while somewhat jealous, also strongly attracted to him and what he stands for.  They both hate demons and (as long as she's guiding his steps) they both guard the nexuses to prevent demonic plots.  Also, she feels really good because someone Lawful Good loves her again, and she lost that when she fell--it's the one thing missing that the Devils could not replace, so now she takes great comfort in having it again.  She cherishes that, and she is willing to bend a bit in order to keep it.  It isn't just lust where she finds him attractive and wants to repeatedly mate.  



> The erinyes should not have been living with the paladin for any reason other than to try corrupting him towards evil.




Why not?  Her main job, the sole purpose of her existence to which she sacrificed everything she had, including her immortal soul, is to guard those nexuses.  And her dark masters in Hell have tasked her to guard those nexuses, with no requirement for soul reaping or the like.  Her purpose for living with the Paladin is guarding the nexuses and killing the demons, stopping the demonic threats.  Why should she corrupt him towards Evil?  His holy powers are better against demons than Blackguard powers would be, plus if she makes him fall, she loses one of the main things that attracts her in the first place, the love of a pure champion of good, though if he _does_ lose his powers over the deal in the story, she knows these guys... 



> He can't just try to redeem his wife and child, purifying them or something and drawing them away from Evil. It wouldn't work. The wife had deceived him all this time rather than ever trying to find redemption or some kind of middle ground, despite seemingly caring for him and finding kinship with him.




She didn't find a middle ground because she didn't have to in order to maintain the status quo.  Things happen when a catalyst pushes towards them.  Maybe if Percival tries really hard, he could redeem Anyiel.  Who knows?  Very unlikely, but possible.  I could add that option where he accepts a loss to his Paladin powers in order to stay with her and convert her to good, then getting an Atonement if he can succeed.

But I get your point that it is at least unlikely to help Anyiel.  What I don't understand is why you're so mean to poor Erin.  Templates are an interesting thing because they can't give an 'Always' 'Sometimes' alignment so they list a change, but actual half-fiends we know about have always been in the 'Usually X Evil' category (For instance, Alu Fiends, the daughters of succubi, had a respectable chance of being Chaotic Neutral in the Planar Compendium Appendix 1, and Cambions were sometims not evil as well).  And in any case, Erin may very well already not be evil.  She might be Lawful Good.  She'll still detect as Moderate Evil due to being an Outsider with that subtype though.  Happens to redeemed fiends all the time.


----------



## Seeten (Aug 6, 2007)

Thats a great scenario, Rystil, definitely something I'd enjoy rping out in a game. Personally, I couldnt leave the wife I love, or stop raising our child, depending on my paladin, and would likely end up as a Lawful Evil Blackguard.


----------



## Arkhandus (Aug 6, 2007)

The difference is not that significant.  The chances of the invisible person being a pixie, mage, or other non-extraplanar creature were better than the chances of it being a fiend on the Material Plane.  The invisibility still served to deceive the party and made the agreement dubious to begin with; if it had been something less sinister behind it, it would not have caused as much trouble as it did, and the party would certainly forgive a fragile pixie or hideous critter for not wanting to reveal itself to potentially-dangerous humans (who have a distinct tendency towards violence -_- ).

The paladin had to do SOMETHING once it was revealed as a fiend.  And he could not have known how long the invisible creature had observed them beforehand or anything; he could not have known if it was purposely scheming to try and destroy his paladinhood or not, but given its fiendish nature and its hiding earlier, he could not just ignore the possibility that it was there specifically to try warping or manipulating a champion of good like himself.  It's what fiends DO for eternity; corrupt mortals so they can add them to the fiendish ranks.  Well, it's what they do when they're not out to just cause suffering among mortals.




			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> No, not really.  Though I am greatly interested by your analysis of the situation and its repercussions for your game, it is only screwing over Paladins in your game, but not mine, and it seems not Hyp's and several others.




I have no idea what you're talking about.  Most folks in this thread, except for me and a scant few others, seem to be saying that the paladin is supposed to have lost his powers for having slain the imp, when he would have lost them anyway if he had not carried out his duty in service to Good.  The imp's agreement would have required him to continue associating with the fiend, helping it out in accomplishing its goal in the building.  The paladin is explicitly incapable of doing so unless he becomes an ex-paladin.  And if he just stops going along and leaves, he'd be breaking the agreement too.

But he cannot just let the imp go.  His duty as a paladin is to fight evil.  The imp is a fiend, evil incarnate, and even if it is one of the rare few that is flawed and not quite entirely evil, it is still very heavily evil.  It would have been more honest with the group if it had good intentions, to garner their trust.  Therefore it is most likely not up to any kind of good, not even the kind that fiends do only to gain the trust of mortals they are trying to corrupt.  If it were just a human or even a goblin, there would be fair reason to believe it might not be up to any evil, but it was instead an imp, which is universally a minion of evil by its very nature.  There was no reason given to doubt that it wasn't up to the usual fiendish acts of evil; all the paladin knows is that it hid itself from him to avoid being smited or turned away in the first place, and that it has some (probably evil) designs on an item to be found within the building, and schemed to get the humans' help in finding that item.



> I think for some of these situations, it isn't the person that is coming up with the situation who is screwing the Paladin (after all, in my game, there are palatable options to the dinner date scenario like going to dinner) but rather it is you who are screwing the Paladin in that situation by virtue of an extremely draconian interpretation of 'associate' and 'grossly violate' (Based on the definitions of associate I posted from the dictionary, I think it would be very hard to say the dinner date grossly violates that clause, hard enough to claim it violates at all without choosing a low priority definition).  Though I do agree with you that the seemingly most human choice in the Percival situation, to keep the family together, is definitely a falling offense.




Err, is this all in reference to your own examples, or the original poster's responses?  You're rather unclear on that.

And let's take a look at some dictionary definitions of the word "associate."



			
				OneLook online dictionary said:
			
		

> * noun:   a person who is frequently in the company of another
> *verb:   bring or come into association or action
> *verb:   keep company with; hang out with (Example: "He associates with strange people")





			
				Webster's dictionary said:
			
		

> 1. To join with one, as a friend, companion, partner, or confederate; as, to associate others with s in business, or in an enterprise.
> 4. To accompany; to keep company with. [Obs.]
> 
> 1. To unite in company; to keep company, implying intimacy; as, congenial minds are disposed to associate.
> ...




Far as I know I'm not interpreting "associate" too 'draconian'-ly.  If the paladin's hanging out with the fiend for a while for dinner, or joining the fiend on a venture for mutual gain, he's associating with the fiend.  Not the same as just meeting them, mind you; I'm not saying that just encountering it and trading a few words will break the paladin's code.  It's having a prolonged contact of a nonviolent, nonthreatening manner, which having dinner together certainly qualifies as.



> Meh, I disagree.  Though BoED logic does tell you that using Evil means to prevent Evil is a good way to fall, it wasn't selfishness that made Anyiel fall.  It was her extreme Lawful feeling of duty to protect the nexuses.  (Some of this is not expressly spelled out, but it was my intention) She initially lost her angelic powers for using extreme means to protect the nexuses, and then she stuck around as a Lawful Neutral fallen angel doing her best until she was fighting a battle she couldn't win, at which point the powers of Hell offered her a return to power on the spot and a guarantee that she would keep her old task of guarding the nexuses with no extra random evil soul temptations or the like added to her job requirements.  Hell couldn't let those Lawful nexuses fall any more than Celestia could, after all.  She only accepted their offer rather than the alternative of letting the demons win.  It was a sacrifice she made, and in some ways selfless, but still an Evil choice that damned her.




So......what's your point exactly?  That since she didn't really go to Evil asking for power, she is somehow _not_ that Evil after accepting aid from Evil incarnate, which involved infusing her with raw Evil to the extent of turning her into an erinyes?  I'm also not seeing how the celestials would've left her there to defend it herself if they're so damn intent on preventing demon apocalypse.  She shouldn't have had to stay to protect the nexus.  She should've been able to seek out the power to defend it while the celestials and devils continued to guard it against demons as usual.

I hardly believe that one fallen celestial is the only damn protector of the nexus at that point, and that she alone, despite having lost her power, would make the key difference when there should have been other celestials or devils around guarding the place if it's so dang important.  She shouldn't have needed to accept the Baatorians' offer; if they could give her the power to protect the nexus, and had a vested interest in preventing their hated foes, the demons, from taking it over, then they damn well could have protected it themselves and she shouldn't have felt a need to stay and accept their offer.  She could've allowed herself to perish in the battle or she could have left to find a new power for herself that didn't involve forsaking her heritage and kin among the celestial realms.



> Okay, so what's my point?  I don't understand these assertions.
> 
> Why?  She finds Percival to be a kindred spirit and is, while somewhat jealous, also strongly attracted to him and what he stands for.  They both hate demons and (as long as she's guiding his steps) they both guard the nexuses to prevent demonic plots.  Also, she feels really good because someone Lawful Good loves her again, and she lost that when she fell--it's the one thing missing that the Devils could not replace, so now she takes great comfort in having it again.  She cherishes that, and she is willing to bend a bit in order to keep it.  It isn't just lust where she finds him attractive and wants to repeatedly mate.




Once Anyiel is suffused with raw cosmic Evil from Baator, she cannot rightly be called just a fallen celestial anymore.  She has forsaken her goodly essence and been purged by Baatorians, suffused with Evil power to make her strong again in fighting to defend the nexus.  No matter that she won't use that Evil power _now_ to do harm to non-fiends; it's still raw cosmic Evil from Hell itself, filling her in place of the Good that once filled the same portion of her essence.

Note that Outsiders are formed from the Outer Planes and do not have normal, pure-flesh-and-blood bodies.  They are formed of raw extraplanar essences, like cosmic Evil or cosmic Good.  When Anyiel fell from grace, she lost much of the Good that had previously composed a significant chunk of her being; now she has fallen further still to Evil, and her Good has been replaced with Evil.  Evil is now a core, major component of her physical body (and Outsiders have no separate soul; their body and soul are one and the same, a soul with physical form).  Evil will influence her whether she allows it or not, as she has accepted it as a major part of her essence.  And she no longer has the essence of Good that she once possessed, or at least no longer possesses more than a small inkling of Good, which is far outweighed by the vast infusion of Evil.

Love is a 'good' emotion.  It requires feeling certain things, like compassion, that cannot exist in D&D's monolithic, cosmic Evil forces that comprise part of reality, most notably the part that is Baator and the rest of the Lower Planes.  Raw Evil cannot feel love; only lesser evil, of the sort that mortals may possess, can feel love because evil is not a major component of their very existence, just one small part of it alongside good and law and chaos.  Fiendish Evil is far beyond mortal evil in its completeness; it is not a composite of other elements, unlike Material Plane natives; fiends are formed of Evil itself.  Those who were not originally fiends are still infused with a great deal of cosmic Evil to replace the opposing forces that once existed within them.


Anyiel, like it or not, has accepted a great deal of Evil power, else she would not now be a fiend, but more like a half-fiend or something else.  No, she is an erinyes now, and that means that Evil is part of her core essence at this point.  It has replaced at least the vast majority the Good that once filled her body/soul.  Evil will control her, and in time she will be willing to harm innocent mortals if they wander too close, regardless of her intentions at the time she made the decision to let Evil infuse her with so much power as to change her nature to that of a fiend.


A fiend cannot love.  It is too thoroughly composed/infused of/with raw, primordial Evil.  Anyiel forsook her Good for the sake of Law, and then went even further and accepted the power of Evil into her core essence, becoming an erinyes, a fiend of the Lower Planes.  She has not only lost her Goodness from falling, but had the remainder of it, or at least the majority of that remainder, purged by the massive infusion of Evil that changed her very nature to the point of being considered a Native of Hell (despite not having formed there originally, she is now a Native of Hell since she became a devil, and gained the associated traits; she has been infused with a chunk of Baator's essence, bestowing her with fiendish power).

Anyiel's capacity to love has been quashed by her drastic change in nature to a creature of primordial Evil; there is not enough Good left in her to so seriously disrupt the vast selfishness and powermongering that Evil compels her toward.  No tiny shred of Good within a thoroughly Evil-infused creature could manage to generate strong feelings of love.  Anyiel would care only about herself.  She is far more likely to feel contempt for the paladin, as a sign of what she was once like, of how she had to obey the pathetic laws of the celestials previously when they did not put the nexus' defense at a higher priority, then was cast aside by those same celestials when she refused to cooperate with their poor judgment, as she sees it.  Evil is Anyiel's companion now, and Evil will shape her thoughts whether she wants it to or not; she accepted the devil's deal, now she has to live with it.


The child, as a half-fiend, could feel love because it is half mortal, and thus possesses some essence of cosmic Good within it from birth, unlike Anyiel who forsook it.  Though the child's fiendish side compels it to be evil, the child at least has a chance to have its inherant Goodness nurtured and strengthened to overcome some of the Evil that suffuses a significant chunk of the child's essence.



> Why not?  Her main job, the sole purpose of her existence to which she sacrificed everything she had, including her immortal soul, is to guard those nexuses.  And her dark masters in Hell have tasked her to guard those nexuses, with no requirement for soul reaping or the like.  Her purpose for living with the Paladin is guarding the nexuses and killing the demons, stopping the demonic threats.  Why should she corrupt him towards Evil?  His holy powers are better against demons than Blackguard powers would be, plus if she makes him fall, she loses one of the main things that attracts her in the first place, the love of a pure champion of good, though if he _does_ lose his powers over the deal in the story, she knows these guys...




She sacrificed her Goodness too.  She was an Outsider to begin with.  Her body is her soul.  She is now comprised of Evil and Law, no longer Good and Law.  Her newly Evil essence will compel her to harbor nothing but contempt or lust for others; at best her shred of remaining, non-perged Good inkling will make her uncomfortable around a mortal that reminds her of what she once was, and how she abandoned it and threw it all away, yet this mortal does not yield to such temptations himself, that smug righteous bas***d.

This is how she will think.  The majority of her very being is now composed of Evil drawn directly from Hell, Baator, itself.  The paladin is a useful tool against the demons, at best, as far as a devil of Baator will be concerned.  She may want to turn him into a more direct and willing servant of the infernal powers, to pledge himself to the Blood War as a soldier of Hell, to fight the Tanar'ri eternally as she herself will do.  Though he's more immediately useful as a paladin, so she may've wanted to wait longer before corrupting him.  But at most her actions up to that point would have been a fraud to make the paladin fight demons at her side.  Until she could find a suitable time to turn him fully toward the side of Baator.



> She didn't find a middle ground because she didn't have to in order to maintain the status quo.




She didn't have to accept the fiends' deal.  If the nexus were so important, they would have guarded it themselves if she left, and she knew full well that the devils of Baator would never let the demons win if they could do anything about it.  The devils would protect the nexus from Tanar'ri if she left.  And once she found a neutral or Lawful source of power, or just advanced enough in level, she could resume guarding the nexus herself.



> What I don't understand is why you're so mean to poor Erin.  Templates are an interesting thing because they can't give an 'Always' 'Sometimes' alignment so they list a change, but actual half-fiends we know about have always been in the 'Usually X Evil' category (For instance, Alu Fiends, the daughters of succubi, had a respectable chance of being Chaotic Neutral in the Planar Compendium Appendix 1, and Cambions were sometims not evil as well).  And in any case, Erin may very well already not be evil.  She might be Lawful Good.  She'll still detect as Moderate Evil due to being an Outsider with that subtype though.  Happens to redeemed fiends all the time.




Note that the half-fiend entry in the 3E/3.5E Monster Manuals says "Alignment: Always evil (any)".  They don't gain the Evil subtype (though the 3E MM shows a half-fiend medusa with the Evil and Lawful subtypes for some reason), but they're still heavily inclined towards evil.  It takes some generations of further breeding with mortals to produce Tieflings, who have less significant Evil in them and more of the usual mortal mixing of Good with that Evil.  Half-fiends have a very tough time overcoming their evil nature, and that's assuming that they actually _want_ to overcome it.

Erin can be redeemed or raised up as good, but it would not be easy; one half of her heritage is raw Evil.


----------



## irdeggman (Aug 6, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> RE: the invisibility.  You should realize that it is no different from disguising itself; the imp did not want the humans to see its true form while making an agreement with it.  The imp would expect humans to be leery of making any kind of deal with it if they saw it as a fiend; it wants their help to make the task easier so it doesn't have to risk itself so much, and its search might go faster with their help.  So it wants them to make the deal and trust it.
> 
> It is being deceptive by avoiding revealing itself; do NOT confuse deception with 'lying' only, deception covers a lot more than just lies.  A paladin cannot lie, but he is not incapable of deception; only incapable of lying, which is but one form of deception.  The imp is deliberately hiding its true form in order to garner the trust of these mortals for its own goals, and knows they would likely refuse the deal if they knew what it was; especially that one human that detects as strongly good-aligned, as imps can detect good at will, so he'll know that at least one group member is likely to argue against the deal if the imp reveals itself.




Realy big assumption here on what the imp's intentions were.

It could have merely been a matter of survival. The party as presented would seem to be more than a match for a mere imp. It might (and nothing in hte OP posts indicate otherwise) have been a matter of survial. Just becasue both sides are looking for different things does not put them in opposition.


----------



## Seeten (Aug 6, 2007)

I'd just like to state that I categorically reject all assertions which state that Evil is incapable of love. Sorry Arkhandus.

As such being infused with evil, or composed of it does not, in any way, render one incapable of love. Evil may mean lots of things, but it doesnt mean any one thing to the exclusion of all others.


----------



## irdeggman (Aug 6, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> The paladin had to do SOMETHING once it was revealed as a fiend.  And he could not have known how long the invisible creature had observed them beforehand or anything; he could not have known if it was purposely scheming to try and destroy his paladinhood or not, but given its fiendish nature and its hiding earlier, he could not just ignore the possibility that it was there specifically to try warping or manipulating a champion of good like himself.  It's what fiends DO for eternity; corrupt mortals so they can add them to the fiendish ranks.  Well, it's what they do when they're not out to just cause suffering among mortals.




But where in the material requried to be a paladin's code of conduct does it say "destroy evil"?

That is the issue here, IMO.  The paladin can no longer associate with the imp but it doesn't state he must "kill" the creature does it?


Just for reference from the SRD:



> Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
> 
> Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), *and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.*
> 
> Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin *will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.* A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.





Where in the generic CoC does it state that the paladin must "detect evil" and "Smite"?

If this paladin's specific CoC stated so then I could follow that logic, but people are responded as if the CoC in the PHB is the end-all of the CoC. There is more than one way to "punish".

Just because a paladin has the smite evil ability doesn't mean he has to use it all the time.

Just because a paladin has the ability to "detect evil" doesn't mean he has to do it to everyone he meets.

Just because a paladin has a "special mount" doesn't mean he has to always be riding.

Each paladin looks at the specifc requirements of the PHB CoC and incorporates them into their own outlook and way of behaving. Otherwise how can one determine if his fellows are "consistently offending his moral code" if he hasn't established one?


----------



## Nail (Aug 6, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Here's another scenario for the "Kill all Evil Outsiders!  Always!  Immediately!" folks:
> 
> 
> Sir Percival is a world-renowned demon slayer--he has been for many years.....



That's a really  cool story, Rystil Arden.  Thanks.  It made reading this thread (Arrgg!  Yet Another Paladin Thread!) worth while.


----------



## Seeten (Aug 6, 2007)

Rystil's posts here, "analogies" I guess, I think were meant to be reductio ad absurdum, but didnt really work as such, and instead, just sounded like really interesting scenarios to rp.

So, great job, Rystil, and I hope some Paladin gets to enjoy them, as a DM perusing just steals the ideas for a campaign. They are great.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 6, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Thats a great scenario, Rystil, definitely something I'd enjoy rping out in a game. Personally, I couldnt leave the wife I love, or stop raising our child, depending on my paladin, and would likely end up as a Lawful Evil Blackguard.






			
				Nail said:
			
		

> That's a really cool story, Rystil Arden. Thanks. It made reading this thread (Arrgg! Yet Another Paladin Thread!) worth while.






			
				Seeten said:
			
		

> Rystil's posts here, "analogies" I guess, I think were meant to be reductio ad absurdum, but didnt really work as such, and instead, just sounded like really interesting scenarios to rp.
> 
> So, great job, Rystil, and I hope some Paladin gets to enjoy them, as a DM perusing just steals the ideas for a campaign. They are great.




 

Aww, thanks guys!  I admit they weren't exactly supposed to be reductio ad absurdum, particularly the latter one with Percival.  That one was just a cool idea I came up with that would put a more human touch on a similar situation (fiend tricks paladin then later is found out).  The Pelinor was a bit of reductio on the 'associate' clause.  Both were mostly interesting ideas I had while reading this thread.  Also, I just like the line 'Holy Erroneous Heironeous'. 

I'd be thrilled if some GM uses them and then posts back to tell about it!  

I think the litmus test to find people with similar gaming styles to me whom I'd enjoy gaming is whether they respond to by scenarios by saying 'Oh great, another guy who just likes to screw over Paladins' or 'That's cool!  I'd love to play that scenario out'.  Because I know I would have fun with those on either side of the screen


----------



## IanB (Aug 6, 2007)

I'd analyze the scenario you provided, but the motivations you list for the erinyes in your post are simply not possible in the game I run now, so it wouldn't really be a relevant scenario.

EDIT: That was sort of a terse response, sorry. To expand a little bit, the things that don't really work in my game: the idea that a devil would care more about the law/chaos difference than the good/evil difference (in reality she has as much in common with a demon as she does with a paladin), the idea that a devil could stomach social contact in any kind of extended sense with a paladin (let alone love one), the idea that love in any kind of virtuous sense is a valid motivation for evil-subtype outsiders, etc. A devil might attempt to enter into a scenario like this in order to specifically tempt and cause a paladin to fall (or otherwise destroy one) but there would be no danger of any sentimentality affecting the proceedings.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 6, 2007)

That's interesting.  Your game is quite different than mine and some of it seems a bit non-standard for a D&D world, but I can definitely see how the dynamics of your game could lead to many interesting conclusions.  Certainly it would lead to differences in views on Paladins!  Let's explore a bit--



> To expand a little bit, the things that don't really work in my game: the idea that a devil would care more about the law/chaos difference than the good/evil difference (in reality she has as much in common with a demon as she does with a paladin)




This much is actually from the core D&D cosmos, though.  Left over from a primordial conflict of Order vs Chaos, with Wind Dukes and Obyriths and other stuff, there's a Blood War between Demons and Devils that will kill each other in a frenzy of hatred.  There isn't a Blood War between Baator and Celestia.  Also, I think a Fallen Angel who used to be Lawful Good and in any case has the exact same goal as the Paladin (to protect the Lawful nexuses from the Demons) and who fell from grace for it shares more in common with the Paladin than the Demons here.



> the idea that a devil could stomach social contact with a paladin




It seems in most games I've seen (and some modules), Evil Outsiders delight in social contact with Paladins.  Even if they don't have Anyiel's particular neuroses and are doing it out of completely ill intent, they like to do it because continued Association can make the Paladin fall, peaceful contact is enough to qualify for Blackguard, and they're in a good spot to tempt towards a fall regardless.



> the idea that love in any kind of virtuous sense is a valid motivation for evil-subtype outsiders, etc




Love is not always totally and completely virtuous--in fact, it is rarely so.  Sometimes, the love exists with a lot of emotional and psychological baggage.  This is true for humans too:  that's why there's the stereotypical clingy girlfriend with abandonment issues whose self-worth is tied up in feeling that she is being loved--she'll follow her boyfriend anywhere and demand increasingly more time together, though all the while she may still be displaying strong love and affection, emotions you would definitely call love rather than lust.  Heck, even a Succubus might be able to be that kind of girlfriend, where for whatever reason initial lust turns into an extremely clingy love.  Of course, you're much better off getting rid of her before that, since she's going to take proactive and incredibly evil steps in her clinginess (you're spending time gaming with friends every week?  Why not seduce the friends and drain their souls!).  Even yochlols, the demonic servants of Lolth, are specifically mentioned as randomly falling in love with mortals and living with them faithfully without ever betraying or hurting them, though the mortal inevitably falls to ruin due to the fact that everyone else knows he's dating a demon.

Surely for Anyiel, it makes even more sense than for the aforementioned demons.  She has psychological abandonment issues and she has a void in her soul where once there was the love of others and now only evil remains.  But she remembers what it felt like to be loved--it felt incredibly good.  Really truly loved by someone of pure heart and spirit, not just someone saying 'I love you' to get in her pants or a Charmed or Dominated enthralled victim commanded to love her.  It is not a little bit manipulative, as devils are wont, that she won his love through false pretenses by appearing as a mortal, though in this case it wasn't her initial intention, since she meant to just manipulate him into helping her fight demons and only later fell for him when he starting showing her love.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 6, 2007)

Hmm, so as for your edit, what you're saying is that if you were playing as the Paladin (remember, you're not running this game, you're playing the Paladin), you would kill Anyiel and Erin because you'd assume it could only possibly be a trick to make you fall.

Aha, now I've seen it directly--assumptions from how Person A would run the game when she's GMing cause her, when playing a Paladin in Person B's campaign, to make a choice that befuddles Player B.  The next step is that Player B posts on ENWorld.  I wonder what would happen if I posted the Anyiel story in the General Forum as if it actually happened in my game and claimed the player decapitated Anyiel and Erin.  I'm honestly curious as to the general sentiments--it could be a poll even.


----------



## IanB (Aug 6, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Hmm, so as for your edit, what you're saying is that if you were playing as the Paladin (remember, you're not running this game, you're playing the Paladin), you would kill Anyiel and Erin because you'd assume it could only possibly be a trick to make you fall.
> 
> Aha, now I've seen it directly--assumptions from how Person A would run the game when she's GMing cause her, when playing a Paladin in Person B's campaign, to make a choice that befuddles Player B.  The next step is that Player B posts on ENWorld.  I wonder what would happen if I posted the Anyiel story in the General Forum as if it actually happened in my game and claimed the player decapitated Anyiel and Erin.  I'm honestly curious as to the general sentiments--it could be a poll even.




Ah, if I'm *playing* the paladin, I need to know what the DM's interpretation of the paladin's code is first. I have been speaking mostly as a DM for this whole thread. If I was playing in my own game (setting aside the autoerotic connotations) I would be pretty pissed at myself for setting myself up for a fall I guess, and if I as a DM had failed to give myself as a player any hooks at all on which to hang suspicions before it got to the point of an actual childbirth, etc., then I would probably deserve it.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 6, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> Ah, if I'm *playing* the paladin, I need to know what the DM's interpretation of the paladin's code is first. I have been speaking mostly as a DM for this whole thread.



 Ah, from the perspective of post 264, I was more thinking 'If you were playing the Paladin and assuming the game had your typical assumptions'.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 6, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> ***P: Holy Erroneous Heironeous!




Heh.


----------



## IanB (Aug 6, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Surely for Anyiel, it makes even more sense than for the aforementioned demons.  She has psychological abandonment issues and she has a void in her soul where once there was the love of others and now only evil remains.  But she remembers what it felt like to be loved--it felt incredibly good.  Really truly loved by someone of pure heart and spirit, not just someone saying 'I love you' to get in her pants or a Charmed or Dominated enthralled victim commanded to love her.  It is not a little bit manipulative, as devils are wont, that she won his love through false pretenses by appearing as a mortal, though in this case it wasn't her initial intention, since she meant to just manipulate him into helping her fight demons and only later fell for him when he starting showing her love.




I guess it comes down to whether you essentially treat outsiders as humans writ large, or as something _different_. I do the latter, so human psychology doesn't necessarily apply except insofar as a given type of outsider might be a kind of exemplar of a particular psychological trait (like the succubus you mention.) Also, I don't remember, is erinyes-as-fallen-angel specifically canon in 3.5? IMC I think I would likely just apply the corrupted template to a deva or one of the other 'any good' outsiders if I wanted to use a 'fallen' angel (per my earlier thoughts about aligned outsiders) in which case the scenario changes in a few ways (significantly I don't think the child would end up a half-fiend? I can't remember if the corrupted template changes subtype or not, but I sort of remember it not doing so.)


----------



## SlagMortar (Aug 6, 2007)

Rystil said:
			
		

> Love is not always totally and completely virtuous--in fact, it is rarely so. Sometimes, the love exists with a lot of emotional and psychological baggage. *This is true for humans too*: that's why there's the stereotypical clingy girlfriend with abandonment issues whose self-worth is tied up in feeling that she is being loved--she'll follow her boyfriend anywhere and demand increasingly more time together, though all the while she may still be displaying strong love and affection, emotions you would definitely call love rather than lust.



I bolded the part that is a fundamental difference in this conversation.  I think IanB, Arkhandus, myself, and some others would say "This is true for humans (or sentients without an alignment subtype if you prefer) *only*."  It is not true for fiends.



			
				Rystil said:
			
		

> Aha, now I've seen it directly--assumptions from how Person A would run the game when she's GMing cause her, when playing a Paladin in Person B's campaign, to make a choice that befuddles Player B.



I think this is spot on.  I think it can be resolved in two ways.  Having a long talk with a bunch of scenarios before ever starting the campaign so the DM and player reach an understanding.  Or forging ahead with the campaign with the DM realizing that putting the paladin in an ambiguous situation may result in the DM wanting to revoke the paladin's status - which may make the player decide screw it, I'm going blackguard - or the player deciding the paladin has become disillusioned with his diety's low standards as he repeatedly makes what he feels are infractions that are not punished by so much as a bad dream.  A paladin's behavior may seem more predictable than another class, but in fact it probably isn't.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 6, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> I guess it comes down to whether you essentially treat outsiders as humans writ large, or as something _different_. I do the latter, so human psychology doesn't necessarily apply except insofar as a given type of outsider might be a kind of exemplar of a particular psychological trait (like the succubus you mention.) Also, I don't remember, is erinyes-as-fallen-angel specifically canon in 3.5? IMC I think I would likely just apply the corrupted template to a deva or one of the other 'any good' outsiders if I wanted to use a 'fallen' angel (per my earlier thoughts about aligned outsiders) in which case the scenario changes in a few ways (significantly I don't think the child would end up a half-fiend? I can't remember if the corrupted template changes subtype or not, but I sort of remember it not doing so.)



 Yes, Erinyes as Fallen Angels is canon in 3.5.  It's even in MM (it says 'rumour in the underworld', but then every other book that mentions them, like FC2, treats it as fact).  In 3.5 Erinyes are the only regular sort of female Devil whose womb is not sterile (due to their nature as fallen angels apparently), so they can give birth to Erinyes babies with other Baatezu (this is even in MM again--it says the skies are littered with their descendants, though the flavour of 'littered' for Erinyes is a big departure from 2e with its rare Erinyes, so I might keep them rarer personally).  That's already a difference--by virtue of being a fallen angel, they have something different in them that no other female baatezu has.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 6, 2007)

Interesting thoughts!



			
				SlagMortar said:
			
		

> I bolded the part that is a fundamental difference in this conversation. I think IanB, Arkhandus, myself, and some others would say "This is true for humans (or sentients with an alignment subtype if you prefer) only." It is not true for fiends.




Only humans can have ambiguous love with psychological baggage that makes it somewhat clingy and selfish?  Even IanB agrees that the Succubus could have it as an exemplar of that type of flawed love, and the Yochlol is a specific example of a demon that is listed as (admittedly rarely) doing something very similar to this scenario, including never betraying the lover or doing anything particularly evil, though if former friends kill the lover for wedding a demon, the yochlol will revert after his death and slaughter the killers before returning to the Demonweb Pits. 



			
				SlagMortar said:
			
		

> or the player deciding the paladin has become disillusioned with his diety's low standards as he repeatedly makes what he feels are infractions that are not punished by so much as a bad dream.




That's an interesting characterisation of how your Paladin would feel in my games, but I think it isn't the best one.  I don't think I have low standards--I have different ones.  To wit, if I remember specifically your opinion (forgive me if I don't--they blend together a bit, you know?) your paladin would feel like he should have lost all powers for the dinner date and he would feel like he shouldn't have so much as a bad dream for betraying his honour to slay Evil Outsiders because agreements with evil outsiders don't count.  I would probably make Percival fall for decapitating Erin in her sleep (cleave to the Teddy Bear!).  You might have him fall for raising her in a loving household (it's technically associating with an Evil Outsider after all, though she may not in fact have Evil alignment--if she's actually Lawful Neutral, there will be literally no game-rule way to tell the difference from Lawful Evil thanks to having the Evil subtype).


----------



## Arkhandus (Aug 6, 2007)

Whatever.  I'm not going to continue trying to make you understand that D&D worlds have different morality because of how each alignment is a force unto itself in D&D.  I've wasted more than enough of my time, twice now, trying to make you understand that there is a _difference_ between D&D alignments and real-world morality.  I have made it abundantly clear that I am only arguing about _fiends in D&D_, who are literally composed of Evil itself, not mortals, who are extremely different in nature.

I'm not going to bother trying to clarify my posts in this thread any further.  You just keep on debating in circles about one tangent after another and I'll go do something else rather than frustrate myself any more over this stubborn thread.  If you only derive pleasure from stories of gray morality, than good for you, but I don't play _D&D_, of all things, to just emulate the sucky gray reality that we already live in.  The D&D alignment system is not made for tales of gray morality, it's made to clarify what's considered good and what's considered evil _in the context of the game setting_.  It is not there to emulate real-world ethics which are far more complex and unclear.


----------



## IanB (Aug 6, 2007)

The real lesson to take away here? _Phylacteries of faithfulness_ only cost 1,000 gp. *Buy one*.   

I think I'd be inclined to write off that fallen angel Erinyes stuff as more campaign-specific flavor text, personally - which of course may be the central problem with the paladin code in the first place: it takes flavor text and elevates it to the status of rule.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 6, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Whatever.  I'm not going to continue trying to make you understand that D&D worlds have different morality because of how each alignment is a force unto itself in D&D.  I've wasted more than enough of my time, twice now, trying to make you understand that there is a _difference_ between D&D alignments and real-world morality.  I have made it abundantly clear that I am only arguing about _fiends in D&D_, who are literally composed of Evil itself, not mortals, who are extremely different in nature.
> 
> I'm not going to bother trying to clarify my posts in this thread any further.  You just keep on debating in circles about one tangent after another and I'll go do something else rather than frustrate myself any more over this stubborn thread.  If you only derive pleasure from stories of gray morality, than good for you, but I don't play _D&D_, of all things, to just emulate the sucky gray reality that we already live in.  The D&D alignment system is not made for tales of gray morality, it's made to clarify what's considered good and what's considered evil _in the context of the game setting_.  It is not there to emulate real-world ethics which are far more complex and unclear.



 I think that assertion here (and really, it is unique among posters who share similar views to you like SlagMortar and IanB who make interesting points about their games that are fun to think about) has too much hubris and derision for other people's views.  It seems to be tewlling people in this thread that they are wrong, they aren't 'playing D&D as it's made to be played'.  And who is to say that these are tales of 'gray morality'.  I think the dinner date tale is pretty harmless fun that would be interesting to roleplay.  It's only gray morality if you've already presupposed that your view must be correct, in which case you've established a circular tautological definition.

But honestly, I'm interested in all different viewpoints.  I'd really like to see your thoughts about the discussion, but, as you have mentioned here, when it comes to fiends and love, you have only really posted "Fiends can't love." and sometimes "Fiends can't love because they are made of evil" without really explaining why.  I agree that fiends are made of Evil.  I still think they can love.  I have offered numerous examples from both D&D books and my own head, a few of which (like a Succubus as exemplar of the ultimate clingy love) satisfied some of the others with similar thoughts to you.  I would like to see justification from you as to your opinion, as each of the others who offered such have been interesting to me, but I guess if you're just going to leave now it means you don't have any?

Sometimes we find things so self-evident that we can't really explain them.  It happens to me all the time too, and that's okay.  If that's the case here, I guess you truly have said all you can say, and I wish you good gaming!


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 6, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> The real lesson to take away here? _Phylacteries of faithfulness_ only cost 1,000 gp. *Buy one*.
> 
> I think I'd be inclined to write off that fallen angel Erinyes stuff as more campaign-specific flavor text, personally - which of course may be the central problem with the paladin code in the first place: it takes flavor text and elevates it to the status of rule.



 Ah yes, it is worth every penny!

As for the flavour text, I'll admit you can definitely change it.  I've seen some truly awesome campaigns where the GM toys with flavour on monsters and other things to create their desired flavour.  The only reason it matters to me somewhat that the interpretation is the default core is that my interpretations and ideas have had arguments claiming I'm changing D&D / not playing D&D any more, so I like to point out the sources from regular D&D that at least back me up here.

I'm in agreement with you on the Paladin's Code.  I haven't actually had a Lawful Good Paladin player yet in 3.5, though I've had Paladins of Freedom, but I always talk to my players about flavour, cosmological, and alignment issues when they want to have a discussion (one player in particular has sometimes discussed with me for hours).  This can be helpful.  I also don't feel constrained in houseruling my own Paladin's Codes for each deity that are different from normal (for instance, the FR love goddess Sune is inexplicably yet specifically allowed to have LG Paladins despite being CG.  If someone wanted to play one, I would change their code to state that they have to protect and cherish love, which could change the Percival situation dramatically if he only worshipped her instead of Heironeous!)


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 6, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> A fiend cannot love.




It's BoED p7 that has the two succubi, and the "A Paladin must choose between destroying evil and honoring love" caption, isn't it?

-Hyp.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It's BoED p7 that has the two succubi, and the "A Paladin must choose between destroying evil and honoring love" caption, isn't it?
> 
> -Hyp.



 I have that one on hand, let me check--yep, that's the one.  I can't believe I didn't remember to mention that caption!


----------



## IanB (Aug 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It's BoED p7 that has the two succubi, and the "A Paladin must choose between destroying evil and honoring love" caption, isn't it?
> 
> -Hyp.




There's got to be some sort of text over table problem with image captions.  Otherwise truespeakers really *could* make themselves immune to mummy paralysis.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 6, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> There's got to be some sort of text over table problem with image captions.  Otherwise truespeakers really *could* make themselves immune to mummy paralysis.



 No, that's definitely the correct caption--there's no other picture that fits it, and it is a somewhat reasonable caption (sort of, though still a bit odd if you don't come up with a bigger story in your head to explain it better) if you don't assume that 'Fiends are incapable of love' is a D&D rule.


----------



## SlagMortar (Aug 6, 2007)

Rystil said:
			
		

> Only humans can have ambiguous love with psychological baggage that makes it somewhat clingy and selfish? Even IanB agrees that the Succubus could have it as an exemplar of that type of flawed love, and the Yochlol is a specific example of a demon that is listed as (admittedly rarely) doing something very similar to this scenario, including never betraying the lover or doing anything particularly evil, though if former friends kill the lover for wedding a demon, the yochlol will revert after his death and slaughter the killers before returning to the Demonweb Pits.



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.


			
				Rystil said:
			
		

> That's an interesting characterisation of how your Paladin would feel in my games, but I think it isn't the best one. I don't think I have low standards--I have different ones.



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.


			
				Rystil said:
			
		

> To wit, if I remember specifically your opinion (forgive me if I don't--they blend together a bit, you know?) your paladin would feel like he should have lost all powers for the dinner date and he would feel like he shouldn't have so much as a bad dream for betraying his honour to slay Evil Outsiders because agreements with evil outsiders don't count.



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 232 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.


			
				Rystil said:
			
		

> I would probably make Percival fall for decapitating Erin in her sleep (cleave to the Teddy Bear!). You might have him fall for raising her in a loving household (it's technically associating with an Evil Outsider after all, though she may not in fact have Evil alignment--if she's actually Lawful Neutral, there will be literally no game-rule way to tell the difference from Lawful Evil thanks to having the Evil subtype).



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.)


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 6, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> 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.




Granted.  I also think that Anyiel's love is not necessarily 'Good' motives.  I'd call them Neutral because she does it to make herself feel good.  I agree with the thought about good storytelling.   



> 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 agree--some of the most interesting stories can happen when the paladin and his superiors differ strongly on their standards (in either direction) and the deity keeps granting all of them their powers!



> 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.




Ah, I see.  I wouldn't make him lose his powers either for the OP.  I'd send a bad dream or something for breaking his word, but I don't consider it a gross violation yet.



> Surely some of the events I proposed in post 232 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 "the imp is a threat" question.




I would tell the imp "While I am honour-bound to let you live for the moment as per our agreement, you'd best not do <Pick Event in Post 232>, for I assure you I shall slay you then and there.  If you take that action, take it forewarned of the consequences."



> 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.)




See, I like this discussion because you just gave me another cool idea--Precrime Paladins!

Your situation could be reverse-engineered, though I do it not just to make you question your argument but to propose an interesting idea:

What if a Paladin by law was required to baptise every baby in the town.  But he had a magic relic that could tell him with the same shadow of a doubt as with Erin in your scenario that the baby would become Evil, with no way to prevent it.  This time it's a human baby, but fate says it will be Evil for sure.  Does the Paladin crush the baby's throat every time he gets that reading on his relic?  What if it is his own human daughter?

If you tell me he should kill the babies, then I'll agree that the viewpoint holds valid on the same hypothetical with Erin.  And then I'll write an adventure where the reason that babies in the town of Falston are mysteriously disappearing is the last person you'd ever expect--the Paladin!


----------



## SlagMortar (Aug 6, 2007)

Rystil said:
			
		

> What if a Paladin by law was required to baptise every baby in the town. But he had a magic relic that could tell him with the same shadow of a doubt as with Erin in your scenario that the baby would become Evil, with no way to prevent it. This time it's a human baby, but fate says it will be Evil for sure. Does the Paladin crush the baby's throat every time he gets that reading on his relic? What if it is his own human daughter?



Depends on the paladin.    I agree it raises questions.  That's the campaign where I play a Chaotic Good wizard who rescues as many children as possible and then is horror struck when he realizes the paladins are having such an easy time finding him because he detects as Chaotic Evil - assuming that the Paladins really had a Good reason for such a practice and it was sanctioned by all the Good gods and assuming its the actions and not the motives that the DM finds important.  

I've said before (not in this thread) on solving alignment issues, I pick my character's personality and what alignment I think fits it.  Then once the game starts, I let the DM figure out what alignment that makes my character in his campaign world.  Of course, that's a problem if your class has an alignment restriction.

It's also a reason I don't like future telling magic that has any kinds of absolutes.

Edit for your edit:  I believe in a world of absolute future telling magics, killing babies who are destined to become Evil could be considered fine.  For human babies, you would need to know what being evil meant.  If it meant they were going to become crazy serial killers, then yes its probaby ok as these are the type of people the paladin would be smiting anyway.  If it meant they might occasionally cheat on their taxes, then no its probably not.  Note that in the Erin example, I meant she would become capital 'E' evil as in just as Evil as a fiend.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 6, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> Depends on the paladin.    I agree it raises questions.  That's the campaign where I play a Chaotic Good wizard who rescues as many children as possible and then is horror struck when he realizes the paladins are having such an easy time finding him because he detects as Chaotic Evil - assuming that the Paladins really had a Good reason for such a practice and it was sanctioned by all the Good gods and assuming its the actions and not the motives that the DM finds important.
> 
> I've said before (not in this thread) on solving alignment issues, I pick my character's personality and what alignment I think fits it.  Then once the game starts, I let the DM figure out what alignment that makes my character in his campaign world.  Of course, that's a problem if your class has an alignment restriction.
> 
> It's also a reason I don't like future telling magic that has any kinds of absolutes.



 I agree with you for sure.  It takes free will out of the equation, and it eliminates the much-more-interesting 'last resort' clauses: "No matter how lovingly you raise her, if something drastic is not done, your daughter will still revert to evil.  However, there is still a way to save her.  If you were willing to perform a powerful ritual on the Celestial planes to infuse her with a portion of your own soul, it could strengthen that part of her that is good and allow her to keep a pure and good heart.  However, that would entail convincing the Celestials, especially the Archons, to let you bring a fiend there and perform the ritual (not an easy task), gathering the rare ingredients needed for the ritual, and then risking your own death as a portion of your soul is ripped away."

I will point out, though, that it was you who suggested the absolute future telling magic in the first place  

EDIT for the EDIT for the EDIT: It is a tricky and slippery slope, though.  Because you are killing someone who is currently an innocent baby (and I could substitute that for a child who is sentient enough to have an alignment and is currently good-aligned, though destined by absolute future-telling magic to become an Evil serial killer).  And then we come to the next layer of the onion--absolute future-telling magic tells you for certain that if you don't kill this baby who won't become Evil, an entire country of innocent Good-aligned people will die (if you want an example of how this could be possible, perhaps we just killed Helen of Troy and averted the Trojan War).


----------



## SlagMortar (Aug 6, 2007)

I agree that the OP's paladin did not handle the situation in precisely the best way - a warning would have been more appropriate, I think.  


			
				Rystil said:
			
		

> I would tell the imp "While I am honour-bound to let you live for the moment as per our agreement, you'd best not do <Pick Event in Post 232>, for I assure you I shall slay you then and there. If you take that action, take it forewarned of the consequences."



Still, what if the imp then said to your paladin, "No thanks, I like the terms of our original agreement just fine and you are not allowed to add terms to it unilaterally.  After all, its not really an agreement if you can just go around changing it however you want.  Now watch while I pull the ears off that farmer over there."


----------



## SlagMortar (Aug 6, 2007)

Rystil said:
			
		

> I agree with you for sure. It takes free will out of the equation, and it eliminates the much-more-interesting 'last resort' clauses: "No matter how lovingly you raise her, if something drastic is not done, your daughter will still revert to evil. However, there is still a way to save her. If you were willing to perform a powerful ritual on the Celestial planes to infuse her with a portion of your own soul, it could strengthen that part of her that is good and allow her to keep a pure and good heart. However, that would entail convincing the Celestials, especially the Archons, to let you bring a fiend there and perform the ritual (not an easy task), gathering the rare ingredients needed for the ritual, and then risking your own death as a portion of your soul is ripped away."
> 
> I will point out, though, that it was you who suggested the absolute future telling magic in the first place



I used the absolute truth telling magics just like you did in your dinner date example.  I find an absolute "This will definitely happen unless you do this" to be just as frustrating as "This will definitely happen."


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 6, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> I agree that the OP's paladin did not handle the situation in precisely the best way - a warning would have been more appropriate, I think.
> 
> Still, what if the imp then said to your paladin, "No thanks, I like the terms of our original agreement just fine and you are not allowed to add terms to it unilaterally.  After all, its not really an agreement if you can just go around changing it however you want.  Now watch while I pull the ears off that farmer over there."



 Does the imp have the item yet?  If not the Paladin knocks the imp out and gets it the promised item.  If the imp already has the item, the Paladin says

"Letting you take the item and then immediately killing you would be a Lawful Evil loophole out of the agreement, since you don't actually get to keep the item at all, and as such, I chose not to take that action to uphold the spirit of the law and maintain my honour.  However, by letting you go right now, my obligation to you has been fulfilled and we are finished with the previous transaction."  

"I have merely warned you that now that I have let you go, any future actions on your part will not be bound by the previous agreement.  Like your assault on the farmer, for instance.  If you try it, I will slay you."


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 6, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> I used the absolute truth telling magics just like you did in your dinner date example.  I find an absolute "This will definitely happen unless you do this" to be just as frustrating as "This will definitely happen."



 In this case, I don't consider mine to be absolute truth telling magic--they used the spell to find a complete list of all ways to access the dimensional pockets where the ritual pieces were held.  Unfortunately, the complete list was very short--either Orcus himself could tell them (yeah right  ) or Anyiel could.  The magic was not used to predict the future--instead, it found them an obscure way that Orcus hadn't considered that would let them access the ritual pieces and destroy one of them.  Similarly, if they said "I hate this troll!  It keeps coming back.  How can I possibly get rid of it for good?" and the spell said "Use fire or acid damage or it will just regenerate", I would not consider it to be absolute truth-telling magic if they refused to use fire or acid damage and the troll regenerated.  Am I missing something in this analogy?


----------



## SlagMortar (Aug 6, 2007)

Rystil said:
			
		

> EDIT for the EDIT for the EDIT: It is a tricky and slippery slope, though. Because you are killing someone who is currently an innocent baby (and I could substitute that for a child who is sentient enough to have an alignment and is currently good-aligned, though destined by absolute future-telling magic to become an Evil serial killer). And then we come to the next layer of the onion--absolute future-telling magic tells you for certain that if you don't kill this baby who won't become Evil, an entire country of innocent Good-aligned people will die (if you want an example of how this could be possible, perhaps we just killed Helen of Troy and averted the Trojan War).



Definitely a slippery slope and one best to avoid in real life due to the fact that you never absolutely know anything, and especially because when you think you have an "either or" decision in real life, there is often a less obvious option that is better than either one, but you will never see it if you just put the decision in terms of "it's ok to do X because it is the lesser of two evils."  

In a world of absolute truth telling magics, you then have to ask whether one person is more valuable than a country of people and I submit that such is firmly in the unprovable opinion category.  I think the most one can say is that an argument can be made for either choice and so either could be considered the Good choice.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 6, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> Definitely a slippery slope and one best to avoid in real life due to the fact that you never absolutely know anything, and especially because when you think you have an "either or" decision in real life, there is often a less obvious option that is better than either one, but you will never see it if you just put the decision in terms of "it's ok to do X because it is the lesser of two evils."
> 
> In a world of absolute truth telling magics, you then have to ask whether one person is more valuable than a country of people and I submit that such is firmly in the unprovable opinion category.  I think the most one can say is that an argument can be made for either choice and so either could be considered the Good choice.



 Either one might be considered the Good choice, but I'm actually worried that neither one is an acceptable choice for a Paladin.  This is why I do avoid absolute truth-telling magic that uses loopholes and self-fulfilling prophecies to bite you no matter what you do through a series of coincidences like poor Oedipus (See above post for why I don't consider that to be the case in the dinner-date, though).

At the very least, you could have two Paladins fighting each other to the death over which of those options to pick.


----------



## SlagMortar (Aug 6, 2007)

Rystil said:
			
		

> In this case, I don't consider mine to be absolute truth telling magic--they used the spell to find a complete list of all ways to access the dimensional pockets where the ritual pieces were held. Unfortunately, the complete list was very short--either Orcus himself could tell them (yeah right  ) or Anyiel could. The magic was not used to predict the future--instead, it found them an obscure way that Orcus hadn't considered that would let them access the ritual pieces and destroy one of them. Similarly, if they said "I hate this troll! It keeps coming back. How can I possibly get rid of it for good?" and the spell said "Use fire or acid damage or it will just regenerate", I would not consider it to be absolute truth-telling magic if they refused to use fire or acid damage and the troll regenerated. Am I missing something in this analogy?



Granted, I guess the miracle in your example was more of an absolute present telling magic, though the end result was the same.  I don't like the idea that the list is complete.  I'm ok with the question, "How can we do this?" and the response "This will work."  I'm not ok with the quesiton, "How can we do this?" and the response "This is the only thing you can do."

In your troll analogy, I learned in a recent thread that trolls can be killed by suffocation.  They can also be killed by death magic.  It could also be charmed, talked into going away, trapped in a prison, dropped in the ocean, etc.  

In the dinner date example, Orcus left one vulnerability.  Perhaps he left others as well, but when I brought up the possibility, you said, "Nope, the miracle said there's only one way."


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 6, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> Granted, I guess the miracle in your example was more of an absolute present telling magic, though the end result was the same.  I don't like the idea that the list is complete.  I'm ok with the question, "How can we do this?" and the response "This will work."  I'm not ok with the quesiton, "How can we do this?" and the response "This is the only thing you can do."
> 
> In your troll analogy, I learned in a recent thread that trolls can be killed by suffocation.  They can also be killed by death magic.  It could also be charmed, talked into going away, trapped in a prison, dropped in the ocean, etc.
> 
> In the dinner date example, Orcus left one vulnerability.  Perhaps he left others as well, but when I brought up the possibility, you said, "Nope, the miracle said there's only one way."



 I have no problem with absolute present-telling magic, since the present, by default, is static.  As for the troll, it was only an analogy--feel free to add all possible other ways to kill the troll to that list and pretend that's what I said  

As to the dinner date, Orcus specifically consumed the souls of the only beings who knew the pass phrases for the demiplanes.  He did so preemptively and with great evil genius before anyone knew his plan because he considered the scenario where heroes try to smash one of the seven, and he knew that once the souls were consumed, not even a Miracle could produce the lost knowledge.  But he himself relied too much on present-telling magic that he used wrong, so he missed Anyiel through arrogance--he asked: "Name all entities that ever knew the pass phrase for this demiplane" The spell gave him two names, one some arbitrary guy from whom he extracted the knowledge then consumed the soul, the other was "The creator of the Demiplane, the angel Anyiel."  So Orcus asked "Where can I find the angel Anyiel." The response: "The angel Anyiel is no more, so never shall she be found." (truthful, but fatally flawed).  To me, that's a believable slip-up on Orcus's part.  Leaving all the entities alive that knew the pass phrases but then guarding the demiplanes with minions that the heroes can beat just seems to me to be playing stupid and falling into the kinds of cliche stereotypical villain mistakes that are mentioned in the Evil Overlord list, which I try to avoid when playing beings of vast Intelligence.

Because Orcus otherwise had his act together, there were no more beings left that knew the pass phrases to one of the seven demiplanes.  The option to go down to the Abyss and kill Orcus existed, but it was doomed to certain failure--to fight Orcus in Thanatos is to challenge Thanatos itself.  The Paladin could also let his world die and then at least kill Orcus on the material plane after Orcus arose from the Deathwell.  So there were some other options, but they were pretty grim.


----------



## SlagMortar (Aug 7, 2007)

Rystil said:
			
		

> I have no problem with absolute present-telling magic, since the present, by default, is static. As for the troll, it was only an analogy--feel free to add all possible other ways to kill the troll to that list and pretend that's what I said



If you've studied relativity, you'll note that absolute present-telling magic is pretty much the same thing as absolute future telling magic.  But to avoid mixing my physics with my D&D, the troll example really illustrats my point.  No matter what list you propose, it will likely be incomplete, especially as the question approaches the complexity of "What could be done to stop a plan that results in the end of the world?"



			
				Rystil said:
			
		

> So Orcus asked "Where can I find the angel Anyiel." The response: "The angel Anyiel is no more, so never shall she be found." (truthful, but fatally flawed). To me, that's a believable slip-up on Orcus's part. Leaving all the entities alive that knew the pass phrases but then guarding the demiplanes with minions that the heroes can beat just seems to me to be playing stupid and falling into the kinds of cliche stereotypical villain mistakes that are mentioned in the Evil Overlord list, which I try to avoid when playing beings of vast Intelligence.



I agree it is plausible, and also a cool and creative story line.  I also agree that it would be silly if Orcus were easily thwarted.  However, in my opinion, the paladin should not know it is the only way and if he does, then it is basically absolute future telling magic.  A cool story line would be for the paladin to go off and kick in a few lesser demon strongholds in an effort to find another slip up by Orcus.  Meanwhile, the party's rogue creates the greatest disguise the world has ever seen and tricks Anyiel into revealing the pass phrase.  Problem solved.

But that wouldn't happen if you told the paladin he had to go on the dinner date or lose because he would never be off trying to be productive and give the rogue a chance.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 7, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> If you've studied relativity, you'll note that absolute present-telling magic is pretty much the same thing as absolute future telling magic. But to avoid mixing my physics with my D&D, the troll example really illustrats my point. No matter what list you propose, it will likely be incomplete, especially as the question approaches the complexity of "What could be done to stop a plan that results in the end of the world?"




Heisenberg doesn't exist in D&D though--you can use Divination magic to know the position and speed of a particle 

Ah, but the specifics of the scenario make it more interesting because the only way to stop the ritual is to kill the one who started it (Orcus) or destroy a focus.  You could also try to convince Orcus to not do it.



> I agree it is plausible, and also a cool and creative story line. I also agree that it would be silly if Orcus were easily thwarted. However, in my opinion, the paladin should not know it is the only way and if he does, then it is basically absolute future telling magic. A cool story line would be for the paladin to go off and kick in a few lesser demon strongholds in an effort to find another slip up by Orcus. Meanwhile, the party's rogue creates the greatest disguise the world has ever seen and tricks Anyiel into revealing the pass phrase. Problem solved.




Ah, but the magic didn't say they couldn't do it--they're free to try the disguise.  The magic said that only Anyiel or Orcus could get them in.  It didn't tell them they had to accept the dinner date--that was what Anyiel herself said later.  Heck, another option they could use is to agree, then have the Paladin not show up and send someone to capture her and torture her until she gave up the information.  The magic only said that Orcus and Anyiel are the only entities with the information.  Kicking in the lesser demon strongholds is bound to failure, however, and I contend that having a party member do dishonourable things for him by proxy is pretty much the same as the Paladin doing it.

"As a Paladin, I shall never condone torture of this orc.  Now that I've told you that, since torture chambers sicken me, I'm going to leave you in this torture chamber with the orc while I go pray."  There have been discussions earlier, and I'm of the mind that standing by and ignoring while your comrades do dishonourable deeds for you by proxy is another one of those Lawful Evil twisting violations of the code.  This has been discussed before in other threads, though.


----------



## lukelightning (Aug 7, 2007)

I'm beginning to get the idea that nothing a paladin does is appropriate and there is nothing they can do to avoid falling.


----------



## SlagMortar (Aug 7, 2007)

Rystil said:
			
		

> Kicking in the lesser demon strongholds is bound to failure



No, its really not unless you as the DM decide that it is.  It won't reveal the pass key, but it might reveal an alternative method of disrupting the plan.


			
				Rystil said:
			
		

> , however, and I contend that having a party member do dishonourable things for him by proxy is pretty much the same as the Paladin doing it.



I certainly agree.  However, in my example, the paladin truly did not know the rogue was even thinking about going in his stead.  The paladin did not leave so that the rogue could go get the pass phrase, but instead the paladin left so he could try to find some other means of disrupting the pland.  Surely the paladin should not disown the rogue or refuse to use the pass phrase because it was gotten through dishonest means?  Surely if the rogue does not regularly do this sort of thing, but did only because the world was on the line, then the rogue and paladin can continue to adventure together?


			
				lukelightning said:
			
		

> I'm beginning to get the idea that nothing a paladin does is appropriate and there is nothing they can do to avoid falling.



That's not what Rystil or I is saying at all.  We are only pointing out many of the various points on which a player and DM might disagree on whether a paladin should fall.  Such disagreements are bound to happen from time to time and so are good things to be aware of if anyone in any group is playing a paladin.  However, it is certainly true that if a DM is determined to make a paladin fall, the paladin is going to fall in much the same way as "rocks fall, everyone dies" can end any campaign.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 7, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> No, its really not unless you as the DM decide that it is. It won't reveal the pass key, but it might reveal an alternative method of disrupting the plan.




Killing random demons is fun and all, and it is certainly an overall gain for the multiverse, but by the terms I set in the story, to disrupt the casting, you have to mess with the caster (Orcus himself on his home turf, Thanatos) or the foci (in the demi-planes).  I think that's fairly reasonable.  The trouble comes for them due to the fact that Orcus himself is too strong.  Now if he was willing to make a deal with Grazz't or something to stage a coordinated attack on Orcus, Grazz't would be likely to accept something like that, and they stand a decent chance of disrupting him--it's a neat idea too...but that's Associating with Evil much more than Anyiel's dinner date anyway.



> I certainly agree. However, in my example, the paladin truly did not know the rogue was even thinking about going in his stead. The paladin did not leave so that the rogue could go get the pass phrase, but instead the paladin left so he could try to find some other means of disrupting the pland. Surely the paladin should not disown the rogue or refuse to use the pass phrase because it was gotten through dishonest means? Surely if the rogue does not regularly do this sort of thing, but did only because the world was on the line, then the rogue and paladin can continue to adventure together?




Ah, I think there's a crucial point you're missing then--my apologies.  The Paladin knows that they accepted the dinner date already or refused, since he was there when the party first contacted Anyiel and made the decision, and they certainly took his input on it.  So if he says "I'll never go!" and they say "Okay, but we're going to tell her you will.  You go kill demons instead.  And do you have any armour and capes in Trechor the Rogue's size?" he would know   If they somehow managed to keep him legitimately oblivious, of course he wouldn't disown them for it afterwards.  He would shake his head at the consorting (because I assume this is your Paladin who thinks that kind of dinner date is an instant Fall from Grace action) but admit that they got the job done.



> That's not what Rystil or I is saying at all. We are only pointing out many of the various points on which a player and DM might disagree on whether a paladin should fall. Such disagreements are bound to happen from time to time and so are good things to be aware of if anyone in any group is playing a paladin. However, it is certainly true that if a DM is determined to make a paladin fall, the paladin is going to fall in much the same way as "rocks fall, everyone dies" can end any campaign.




Yup, I completely agree.  To phrase it another way: No matter how perfectly you think you play your Paladin, you may fall if your GM has a different view on Paladins or even if they have the same view on Paladins and a different view on something else tangential in the campaign!  For instance, I would make the Paladin fall if he went to dinner with Anyiel and then decapitated her after getting his info.  I would not make him fall for going to dinner and getting the info and then leaving.  Some GMs are just the opposite.  And it pays to have a dialogue to figure out if you're on the same page.


----------



## Seeten (Aug 7, 2007)

I'm just as interested in playing the paladin during the fall, and after the fall, as I am before the fall. Paladins, ex-Paladins, and Blackguards, can all have extraordinary stories revolving around them, including the fall itself, and possibly redemption.

Of course, the same DM's who are out to "screw" Paladins are generally the ones who do not allow PC's to be evil, so for them, once you fall, your Paladin becomes an NPC, etc

I like to ask those questions beforehand, so I can not game with those guys.


----------

