I agree. In the worst case scenario, you'd be looking at dissent within the enmey ranks, which can only be good for you.
I would say in "worst case scenario" you, and all your friends are dead. O_o
And PC party is looting your corpses.
Can you elaborate futher?
Worst case scenario probably was the wrong term to use, sorry. What I meant was that, assuming a tiefling guard at the wall noticed that there was another group fighting the raiders, then even if you're pessimistic and assume they're part of the same group as the raiders, I think the smart thing would be to leave that group to last because A, they're farther away and probably harder to hit anyway and more importantly B. if the enemy is busy killing each other, there's less of them to kill your people. It's just better tactically to let any in-fighting go on for as long as possible to thin out the herd.
Of course there's a possibility that they just don't notice in the scuffle, but this is a story, not real life. I think "the teiflings attack you along with the raiders and you either die or flee with no opportunity to interact with the grove at all" is just the less interesting possibility that could happen. It might arguably be more realistic, but I'm of the opinion that realism should only be implemented when it makes a story more interesting. In game of thrones, realistically most characters should probably die of infection and disease, especially if they get cut. Most children in fantasy stories shouldn't make it past childhood, even in noble families. In real life, stuff just happens randomly and it's not in any way satisfying or interesting.
