# OotS 406



## Voadam (Jan 26, 2007)

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html

Wow, she did it.


----------



## Ashy (Jan 26, 2007)

unreal....sounds like something my players would do.


----------



## Felix (Jan 26, 2007)

Da-yum.

If that ain't a paladin falling, I don't know what is.


----------



## Asmor (Jan 26, 2007)

Anyone else think that Belkar's gonna be jealous that Shojo is the one who made her lose her paladin-hood?


----------



## paradox42 (Jan 26, 2007)

"...she has that Monk class ability that lets you jump as far as you want, only for her, it applies to conclusions." 

But yes, it looks to me like those who have been wishing for Miko's fall have finally gotten their- oh, who am I kidding, *our*- wish...

Up side: now we get to see how Rich draws a Blackguard.


----------



## BullMarkOne (Jan 26, 2007)

Asmor said:
			
		

> Anyone else think that Belkar's gonna be jealous that Shojo is the one who made her lose her paladin-hood?




Man.. poor Belkar, outmaneuvered by an old kook and his cat.. what a rip.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 26, 2007)

Ashy said:
			
		

> unreal....sounds like something my players would do.




Wait a minute. I was one of your players in a pbp game. Playing a crusading LG clerical smiter of evil.  But this situation never came up.


----------



## sckeener (Jan 26, 2007)

Ashy said:
			
		

> sounds like something my players would do.




It sounded exactly like some of the paladins I've had to deal with....

This is the reason I think anti-paladins work so much better in a party.


----------



## Ashy (Jan 26, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Wait a minute. I was one of your players in a pbp game. Playing a crusading LG clerical smiter of evil.  But this situation never came up.




LOL - true dat - blame the Net Nazis...


----------



## Klaus (Jan 26, 2007)

Oh.

Oh, crap.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 26, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Oh. Oh, crap.




QFTOMGWTFBBQ!

Trouble has come from without and within. "It doth not rain, but that it pours."

 -- N


----------



## Henry (Jan 26, 2007)

I'll be damned. I hope Hinjo kicks her butt.  Miko's not an example of a paladin, or a bad paladin; she's an example of an *unhinged *paladin!


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jan 26, 2007)

"They teach you to detect evil, but not sarcasm?"

Priceless!


----------



## paradox42 (Jan 26, 2007)

Something else just occurred to me. Belkar's there in the throne room, the only OotS member other than Roy present. Isn't it interesting that his prophecy has yet to be fulfilled, in this situation? I can see one of two prime fulfillments happening, almost immediately: (1) Miko summons her horse to either help against Hinjo, Roy, and Belkar, and Belkar kills it, or (2) Belkar kills Miko and Xykon later brings her back as a death knight after his overwhelming force gets him into the city and palace.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 26, 2007)

For the record I would not remove her paladin status. She honestly, though unreasonably, believes he is evil and I would not make take away powers over a paladin striking against what it thought was evil.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 26, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> For the record I would not remove her paladin status. She honestly, though unreasonably, believes he is evil and I would not make take away powers over a paladin striking against what it thought was evil.




She did NOT believe he was evil. Note what she says about detecting their alignments. "Whether they detect as evil or not."

She's not using a Smite Evil, either.
She knows he's not Evil.
She's killing him anyway.
"See you next fall!"

 -- N


----------



## KB9JMQ (Jan 26, 2007)

Hoo boy. Better hang on tight it's going to be some ride for the next few strips.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jan 26, 2007)

Prayer: Oh God, please let the next several OOTS strips live up to my now very wild expectations!

Quasqueton


----------



## Tiberius (Jan 26, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> For the record I would not remove her paladin status. She honestly, though unreasonably, believes he is evil and I would not make take away powers over a paladin striking against what it thought was evil.




You could make a case for her to not lose her powers permanently. She overstepped her bounds, sidestepped the judiciary, and murdered an old man who was no threat to her in the mistaken belief he was an agent of evil. She was, in her mind, right, but the gods can take a more objective view. Shojo was working toward the greater good of keeping the world from being eaten by the Snarl. He may not be engaging in Lawful behavior, but he's far from evil. I'd strip her of her powers at least until she came to her sense and atoned.


----------



## Shroomy (Jan 26, 2007)

I actually got chills reading that strip....


----------



## Pbartender (Jan 26, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> She did NOT believe he was evil.




She simply thinks he's working for someone who is Evil.

What do we know about Shojo?  We know he's a 14th level Noble who isn't Lawful (but is most likely Good).

Let's review what Miko must do to become an Ex-Paladin...



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *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.
> ...




Technically, she's following the Paladin Code pretty strictly, however...

She's quickly on her way to becoming one of those people she's supposed to be punishing for harming or threatening innocents -- due to that aforementioned tendency to jump to conclusions.  Plus, her precipitious and vigilante method of dealing with those who offend her code is likely nudging her away from the Lawful half of Lawful Good...  Rather than her becoming not-Good, I think she's more likely to become not-Lawful, especially considering her now utterly shaken faith in what she had previously thought was the legitimate authority of Azure City and the Sapphire Paladins.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Jan 26, 2007)

Miko has become somebody who values her own view of the world over those of others, and is willing to kill somebody who a) does not detect as evil, and b) is not an immediate threat to her, and is willing to do so c) in a way that violates the law of the land, and d) is in direct contradiction of the opinion of another paladin (Hinjo), who she clearly believes to be pure of intent.

I would say she is wandering down the path to evil.  Justifying your actions with delusions that are contradicted by those around you does not allow you to stay "good," even if you perceive it that way.

I wonder if her pantheon has a god of vengeance, and what the alignment of that god might be?


----------



## paradox42 (Jan 26, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Let's review what Miko must do to become an Ex-Paladin...



Yes, let's.



			
				Pbartender said:
			
		

> SRD said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




(underlined sections above marked by me)

No, technically she just broke it wide open and left its shattered chunks bleeding on the floor. 

First, the Evil act part. One must keep in mind that Paladins are beholden to Divine laws above those of the mortal world, first and foremost. Thus, the important question to answer here is not whether Miko views what she's doing as an Evil act; it is whether the *gods* would see it as an Evil act. Given that Shojo really was working in the best interests of the city, world, and even the gods themselves, even if it meant breaking the Oath- and further given that he's definitely not Evil-aligned- it's difficult to argue that the gods could see his murder as anything but an Evil act. It places the city in more danger than it was already in, since it creates a power vacuum at the top of the city hierarchy at precisely the worst possible time. Shojo was an unarmed man, old and feeble physically, clearly no threat to Miko in combat terms (or even, likely, in legal terms since he needed her for political purposes)- innocent or not, just up and killing him is either downright Evil, or close enough that when combined with the other circumstances it makes no difference.

As for the Paladin's Code, it seems clear that Shojo was the legitimate ruler of Azure City, and thus represents that pesky "legitimate authority" that Miko as a Paladin is supposed to respect. Killing him outright, even *after a fellow Paladin pleaded with her to stop*, is a clear violation of the requirement to treat him respectfully. In fact, it could be argued that since Shojo was presumably to be put under arrest and on trial later, he was no longer the ruler of the city, which would mean *Hinjo* was- which means Miko directly disobeyed an order from her superior in killing Shojo.

Finally, though the quoted Paladin's code says nothing about attacking unarmed people who are no physical threat, it's tough to argue that that could be considered "honorable" and I personally would tell a Paladin player that he'd been dishonorable in attacking Shojo in this case. Attacking unarmed old people with no magical powers just isn't my idea of the honorable knight in shining armor that the Paladin is supposed to represent.


----------



## Aaron L (Jan 26, 2007)

Holy Crap.



Blackguard.


----------



## Ry (Jan 26, 2007)

I know what good vs. evil is better than the detect evil spell = fallen paladin.


----------



## jeffh (Jan 26, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> For the record I would not remove her paladin status. She honestly, though unreasonably, believes he is evil and I would not make take away powers over a paladin striking against what it thought was evil.



Key words: THOUGH UNREASONABLY. She was reckless and irresponsible, and that's thouroughly un-Paladin-like behaviour. And don't even get me started on how her ego ties into it; she cares more about her own sense of righteousness than about the consequences of her actions, as clearly illustrated in her exchange with Hinjo.

Besides, by your standard it would be almost impossible to lose your paladinhood, ever. _Alignment is not relative_. It doesn't matter what she _thought _was evil, if the basis for her thinking that was lacking; and it was, in spades.


----------



## DJCupboard (Jan 26, 2007)

By the end I felt retroactively bad for laughing at the funny bits.

Wow.

Monday is too far away.


----------



## mhensley (Jan 26, 2007)

Won't somebody please think of poor Mr. Scruffy?


----------



## iwatt (Jan 26, 2007)

It'll be interresting to see how she fares to Sir Greenhilt when he actually is using his sword instead of a club.


----------



## werk (Jan 26, 2007)

I guess it's a good thing that cleric is almost there to raise the teleport wizard.


----------



## Simm (Jan 26, 2007)

The question I have is what abilities Miko has that let's her put a 14th level aristocrat down in one hit? I mean we're talking about an a person with 14 levels at d8 per level no max dice at first level, probably a -1 con modifier due to age and not having a great constitution to begin with so an average of 59 (average of 14d8-14) hit points and she can smite evil against him so how did she deal 69 damage (enough to put him down to -10) in one hit.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 26, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> For the record I would not remove her paladin status. She honestly, though unreasonably, believes he is evil and I would not make take away powers over a paladin striking against what it thought was evil.



This gets back to the "does intention matter in alignment" argument.  She just murdered a non-evil person in cold blood.  She can determine, using a supernatural ability, that he is not evil.  She is also failing to respect legitimate authority.

Also she's come completely unhinged, and I think that pretty much means that she's unable to stay on the moral razor's edge that paladins are supposed to balance on.

Anyway, I hope Belkar gets to kill her soon.  Her entire purpose as a plot device is that you want to see her die, but if you stand around admiring an ice cream cone too long it melts.  Likewise, if Miko goes without dying for too long, you start to lose interest in watching it happen.

Also, what the hell does she think is going to happen...that they're not going to raise Shojo from the dead with a 5th level spell?  And shouldn't a 12th level Aristocrat have enough HP to survive more than one attack with a bastard sword?


----------



## BullMarkOne (Jan 26, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Won't somebody please think of poor Mr. Scruffy?




Heh, Mr. Scruffy is a cat, he'll do alright. Heck, mebbe Belkar'll adopt him.


----------



## BullMarkOne (Jan 26, 2007)

Simm said:
			
		

> The question I have is what abilities Miko has that let's her put a 14th level aristocrat down in one hit? I mean we're talking about an a person with 14 levels at d8 per level no max dice at first level, probably a -1 con modifier due to age and not having a great constitution to begin with so an average of 59 (average of 14d8-14) hit points and she can smite evil against him so how did she deal 69 damage (enough to put him down to -10) in one hit.




Multiple natural 20's in a row?
Artistic License?


----------



## Andor (Jan 26, 2007)

Miko is totally an ex-paladin now. She slew her boss in a mad fit, without even trying to detect if he was evil. 

I mean honestly even Hinjo should be looking skancewise at the value of an oath designed to avoid conflict amongst a mostly dead group of adventurers vs the entire world and all the gods. Properly it shouldn't even apply once the adventurers are dead.


----------



## Gez (Jan 26, 2007)

Simm said:
			
		

> The question I have is what abilities Miko has that let's her put a 14th level aristocrat down in one hit? I mean we're talking about an a person with 14 levels at d8 per level no max dice at first level, probably a -1 con modifier due to age and not having a great constitution to begin with so an average of 59 (average of 14d8-14) hit points and she can smite evil against him so how did she deal 69 damage (enough to put him down to -10) in one hit.




You underestimate age penalties to Constitution. Let say he started with 10. If he's as old as he looks, that puts him at a whooping 4 Con score now, so a -3 modifier, giving him a grand total of 21 hit points.

Furthermore, you can always argue, since Shojo was defenseless and sitting on the throne and unprepared to the attack, that the DM let her make a coup de grâce.

(Oh, and now's the time for her to be killed by Belkar.)


----------



## iwatt (Jan 26, 2007)

BullMarkOne said:
			
		

> Multiple natural 20's in a row?
> Artistic License?




Massive damage save?

Using the Iron Hereos Aristocrat?

The guy is really old (average con to start and a -3 from age)? That would give him 14d8-3. That would give him 14-21 hps


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 26, 2007)

Even worse for Miko's case in the fallen/not-fallen debate, she wasn't merely kiling Lord Shojo out of a feeling of duty or because she was doing good. I think it was pretty clear that she was heavily motivated byher own anger and feeling of betrayal.

So, is kiling a defenseless old man, who is the leader of a city who she has sworn loyalty to, out of revenge and anger, anything close to Paladin behavior? I don't think she even gets the "I did it for the greater good" argument on her behalf.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 26, 2007)

Who says Shojo's dead? He looks wounded and shocked to me in that last panel, but there's nothing to say he's kicked it.


----------



## Ozmar (Jan 26, 2007)

paradox42 said:
			
		

> Finally, though the quoted Paladin's code says nothing about attacking unarmed people who are no physical threat, it's tough to argue that that could be considered "honorable" and I personally would tell a Paladin player that he'd been dishonorable in attacking Shojo in this case. Attacking unarmed old people with no magical powers just isn't my idea of the honorable knight in shining armor that the Paladin is supposed to represent.




Man, you guys are tough! I say, "Go Miko!" Its not easy being a LG Paladin Villain. And "Go Rich" for the complex and consistent character portrayal that is driving this thoroughly enjoyable and detailed plot.

I never thought I'd be wishing the weekend was over. Can't wait till Monday.

Ozmar the Entertained


----------



## Ghostwind (Jan 26, 2007)

Welcome to the Dark Side, Miko.


----------



## Mean Eyed Cat (Jan 26, 2007)

Wow, that was probably one of the most intense OotS strips yet...

Roy's drawing his sword in the second to last panel.  Maybe we'll see another fight.  For once, I can't wait until Monday.


----------



## Andor (Jan 26, 2007)

To become a Blackguard...

If I recall correctly don't you need ranks in Move Silently? Of course Miko could easily have those from her Monk levels. And peacefull contact with an evil outsider? I wonder if our umbrella weilding friend counts...


----------



## Tiberius (Jan 26, 2007)

Simm said:
			
		

> The question I have is what abilities Miko has that let's her put a 14th level aristocrat down in one hit? I mean we're talking about an a person with 14 levels at d8 per level no max dice at first level, probably a -1 con modifier due to age and not having a great constitution to begin with so an average of 59 (average of 14d8-14) hit points and she can smite evil against him so how did she deal 69 damage (enough to put him down to -10) in one hit.




A power attack critical. If you'll note, she used both hands on the sword thus giving her double her BAB investment in PA damage. The bastard sword is 1d10 (19-20/x2), and he's an unarmored old man (so his AC isn't that high). She can afford to PA for the bulk of her BAB. So let's say she's 15th level (since she was able to best a Disintegrate-tossing OOtS solo). We know she took one level of monk, and we can assume the rest is ex- paladin. So that gives us a BAB of +14. If she PAs for 10, she gets +20 on her roll. If she crits, that's added again. So, let us assume a critical hit. That's 2d10 + 3xStr bonus + 40. Assuming a Str 20 (through magic items, or what have you) and average damage, that's 11+15+40 = 61 hp. If she rolls a little better, power attacks for more, or has a level-appropriate magic weapon, she could one-shot Shojo.


----------



## Immak Antunel (Jan 26, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> To become a Blackguard...
> 
> If I recall correctly don't you need ranks in Move Silently? Of course Miko could easily have those from her Monk levels. And peacefull contact with an evil outsider? I wonder if our umbrella weilding friend counts...




I think it's 2 ranks in Hide, which of course she could also have from her monk level.


----------



## Delta (Jan 26, 2007)

Simm said:
			
		

> The question I have is what abilities Miko has that let's her put a 14th level aristocrat down in one hit?




Poison Use? Smite Good? Sneak Attack?


----------



## Gez (Jan 26, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Who says Shojo's dead? He looks wounded and shocked to me in that last panel, but there's nothing to say he's kicked it.



Dude, he's cut in half. Saying he's not dead because his eyes aren't little X yet is like saying the police chief wasn't dead when Nale beheaded him. (And I think some people did.)

He just didn't die instantly, but he won't be living the next time we see him. (Knowing Rich, I expect the next strip will bring us back to Xykon.)


----------



## Kishin (Jan 26, 2007)

Simm said:
			
		

> The question I have is what abilities Miko has that let's her put a 14th level aristocrat down in one hit? I mean we're talking about an a person with 14 levels at d8 per level no max dice at first level, probably a -1 con modifier due to age and not having a great constitution to begin with so an average of 59 (average of 14d8-14) hit points and she can smite evil against him so how did she deal 69 damage (enough to put him down to -10) in one hit.




Do we even need to rationalize this? Its a story that plays to D&D tropes. I highly doubt Rich is sitting there with character sheets and dice in front of him as he writes the comic.

Also, when supernatural powers from beyond (read: Granted Detect Evil ability) tell you someone is not evil, and you decide they are anyway....Yeah, hello Miko, Fighter Without Bonus Feats.


----------



## theredrobedwizard (Jan 26, 2007)

Let me be the first to say that I've prayed for this since she was introduced.  Maybe she'll die so that I can do my happy dance. 

Seriously, this is why I dislike paladins.

-TRRW


----------



## Felix (Jan 26, 2007)

theredrobedwizard said:
			
		

> Seriously, this is why I dislike paladins.



You dislike Hinjo?


----------



## Defender_X (Jan 26, 2007)

considering how unhinged she got, I'm thinking instant blackguard.  And Miko may be too unhinged to even know the difference.  And from an earlier post talking about how much damage she can do, let's add an instant switch to blackguard for smite good or if you want to get more humorous and specific with the mechanics a 'smite everyone I think is evil or doesn't agree that my vision of the world is the only one' or to keep it short a 'smite everyone else' to make sure that 'traitor' Shojo goes down to -10 HP and stays there.  Most blackguards are characterized as willingly converting to evil.  Miko is going to show us that lack of sanity is just as an effective path.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jan 26, 2007)

Holy [bleep]ing [bleep]!!!!     

Rich actually went through with it.  My jaw hasn't hit the floor like this for quite some time (well, outside of the stunts 24 has been pulling at any rate).  Go Rich!!!

Is it Monday yet?


----------



## Pbartender (Jan 26, 2007)

paradox42 said:
			
		

> No, technically she just broke it wide open and left its shattered chunks bleeding on the floor.




Hold on...  I didn't say that she wasn't doing things that would turn into an ex-paladin, but that's she's very strictly and inflexibly following the Paladin's Code while wearing a big set of moral blinders.

1. _A paladin must be of lawful good alignment._ I think it's safe to assume has been and still is, technically, Lawful Good, though her DM is likely considering changing that in the near future.

2. _...and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act._ Thus far, Miko has never willingly commited an evil act.  She has acted against good aligned characters, she has commited acts that have unwittingly furthered the evil plans of others, she has acted out of vengeange, anger and hatred, but she has not, technically, done anything evil...  yet.

3. _Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority..._  Up until now, she has.  Even now, it's highly debatable whether or not has broken this tenet by attacking Shojo.  Consider: Shojo was the legitimate authority. Hinjo has refused to step up to take over. Miko is currently the highest ranking Paladin (yes, she outranks Hinjo until he takes Shojo's place). As far as Miko is concerned, with Shojo's loyalty compromised, she is the legitimate authority in Azure City.

4. _...act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)..._ She's hasn't done any of the explicit examples in the strip. Some people might consider attacking a defensless old man dishonorable, but that's not what she was doing...  She was executing a proven traitor.

5. _...help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends)..._ There any real examples of this one way or the other.  The closest we come is her agreeing to help the watchtower guards with their supply problem.

6. _...and punish those who harm or threaten innocents._ Such as anyone who sells out Azure City to an Evil Lich and his hobgoblin horde.

7. _...a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters..._  Like Belkar.

8. _...nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code._ Like Lord Shojo (years of lying, at the very least, high treason at the worst) and the rest of the Order of the Stick (for a myriad of reasons).


See what I mean?  She's taking it to an extreme that'll ruin her in the end, but from her (or perhaps her player's) perspective, she's still following the Code, and she is, ostensibly, doing it for the good of Azure City and the Sapphire Paladins.

I'm certainly curious to see how it turns out.


----------



## Victim (Jan 26, 2007)

Kishin said:
			
		

> Do we even need to rationalize this? Its a story that plays to D&D tropes. I highly doubt Rich is sitting there with character sheets and dice in front of him as he writes the comic.
> 
> Also, when supernatural powers from beyond (read: Granted Detect Evil ability) tell you someone is not evil, and you decide they are anyway....Yeah, hello Miko, Fighter Without Bonus Feats.




Detect Evil is easy to fool, so ignoring it sometimes is a good plan.  But she gets FX on her successful smites and that ability is pretty much infallible.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 26, 2007)

I think the old guy was evil.

I mean, come on, "Convenient Morality"? This is typical villain-speak. He circumvented justice for his own expedience, he betrayed those who put trust in him, and he abused his power. Miko is serving as an agent of true divine retribution here -- he's guilty as sin for what he's done.

Now, whether or not it's *smart* to do this.....well......Miko's not the most level-headed individual...


----------



## Voadam (Jan 26, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> For the record I would not remove her paladin status. She honestly, though unreasonably, believes he is evil and I would not make take away powers over a paladin striking against what it thought was evil.




I stand by my statement.


----------



## shilsen (Jan 26, 2007)

O
M
F
G
!!!!


----------



## Kestrel (Jan 26, 2007)

What a crazy b*tch...hope Belkar gets to stick it to her!


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 26, 2007)

Gez said:
			
		

> Dude, he's cut in half. Saying he's not dead because his eyes aren't little X yet is like saying the police chief wasn't dead when Nale beheaded him. (And I think some people did.)



Not to continue this line of discussion, but I don't think you can say he's actually "cut in half" based on the drawing, especially with his big paunch and all this stick-figure jobbiness. The *throne* is what Miko did the most damage to.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 26, 2007)

Defender_X said:
			
		

> considering how unhinged she got, I'm thinking instant blackguard.  And Miko may be too unhinged to even know the difference.  And from an earlier post talking about how much damage she can do, let's add an instant switch to blackguard for smite good or if you want to get more humorous and specific with the mechanics a 'smite everyone I think is evil or doesn't agree that my vision of the world is the only one' or to keep it short a 'smite everyone else' to make sure that 'traitor' Shojo goes down to -10 HP and stays there.  Most blackguards are characterized as willingly converting to evil.  Miko is going to show us that lack of sanity is just as an effective path.



Oh god, if she gets Smite Good and doesn't know she's fallen and gone blackguard it'll only reinforce her delusions.

Miko: Die, evildoer!  *smites Roy*
Roy: Ow.  That hurt more than I would expect.
Miko: Aha!  You are evil!  This proves it!

Seriously, someone should feed her to a digester.


----------



## Pbartender (Jan 26, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Not to continue this line of discussion, but I don't think you can say he's actually "cut in half" based on the drawing, especially with his big paunch and all this stick-figure jobbiness. The *throne* is what Miko did the most damage to.




No...  Sorry...  Take another look.

If it weren't for the little black line that denotes the right-hand side of Lord Shojo's tunic, he would be cut in half.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 26, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Hold on...  I didn't say that she wasn't doing things that would turn into an ex-paladin, but that's she's very strictly and inflexibly following the Paladin's Code while wearing a big set of moral blinders.
> 
> 1. _A paladin must be of lawful good alignment._ I think it's safe to assume has been and still is, technically, Lawful Good, though her DM is likely considering changing that in the near future.
> 
> 2. _...and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act._ Thus far, Miko has never willingly commited an evil act.  She has acted against good aligned characters, she has commited acts that have unwittingly furthered the evil plans of others, she has acted out of vengeange, anger and hatred, but she has not, technically, done anything evil...  yet.




Willingly |= knowingly.  She has willingly committed an evil act.  She just didn't know that the act was evil at the time.  When she finds out, she'll probably throw a big hissy fit like she always does, blame all her problems on others, and try to kill everyone.  Typical.

Arguing that a paladin must know an act is evil in order to suffer the consequences of performing it is like arguing that ignorance of the law is an adequate defence.  It's not.  You do the crime, you do the time...as a fighter with no bonus feats.


----------



## Aeric (Jan 26, 2007)

The idea of someone becoming an "instant blackguard" is a bit silly to me.  Being a blackguard is not as simple as falling from grace as a fallen paladin; you have to actively pledge yourself to the powers of evil.  The "peaceful contact with an evil outsider" is essentially the Fausian deal wherein the future blackguard offers his or her services to that creature's master (or possibly to the creature itself, if it's powerful enough) in return for supernatural power.  It's not something I think Miko would ever do.  She, like the best villains in literature, genuinely believes that she is doing the good and right thing.  Blackguards know that what they are doing is evil, and embrace it.

Now, I can see Miko becoming a blackguard, but it would take a bit more than simply losing her paladin status.  I think if she does what she thinks is the good act (killing Lord Shojo), what she believes the gods want her to do, and then loses her powers because of it, she will become totally disillusioned with the paladin order.  At that point, she is ripe for the forces of evil to sneak in and with honeyed words convince her to join the other team.  That's how I would play it, at least.

Now watch, after all of this discussion, she gets capped in Monday's script. 

I can't wait!


----------



## lukelightning (Jan 26, 2007)

What if he's secretly her father?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 26, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think the old guy was evil.
> 
> I mean, come on, "Convenient Morality"? This is typical villain-speak. He circumvented justice for his own expedience, he betrayed those who put trust in him, and he abused his power.



He did these things in order to help save the world from total annihilation, and to keep the country running.  I can understand where a hereditary ruler with his country's interests in mind is coming from when he says that sometimes you just have to do what needs to be done to make sure the place is still standing at the end of the day.  It's not really good, but it's also sure as hell not evil.  He's not in it for himself, he's doing what he thinks is necessary to ensure that his country doesn't go to hell in a handbasket.  That he sometimes uses deceit and other questionable methods (but nothing definitely evil) is hardly a basis for calling him a villain.  He's neutral at worst, and is probably a really pragmatic Chaotic Good.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 26, 2007)

Of course if she had dected evil and then smited you would get all the paladin haters going detect evil is not good enough for all she knew the poor man had a spell that cursed him with dectecting evil even though he was good.  

Miko has lost it but I can see her point in not believing in the laws of her land. She just overheard that the last trial was a sham. 

I think Miko was put in one of those favorite situations love to put paladins in. Let's throw all this moral dilemma at the paladin and see kf she fails.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 26, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> He did these things in order to help save the world from total annihilation, and to keep the country running.  I can understand where a hereditary ruler with his country's interests in mind is coming from when he says that sometimes you just have to do what needs to be done to make sure the place is still standing at the end of the day.  It's not really good, but it's also sure as hell not evil.  He's not in it for himself, he's doing what he thinks is necessary to ensure that his country doesn't go to hell in a handbasket.  That he sometimes uses deceit and other questionable methods (but nothing definitely evil) is hardly a basis for calling him a villain.  He's neutral at worst, and is probably a really pragmatic Chaotic Good.




He practiced the ends justify the means and that is something a paladin has a hard time wrapping their mind around because it is something that a paladin should never do.


----------



## Pbartender (Jan 26, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Arguing that a paladin must know an act is evil in order to suffer the consequences of performing it is like arguing that ignorance of the law is an adequate defence.  It's not.  You do the crime, you do the time...as a fighter with no bonus feats.




Come now...  If that's the case, then Miko's DM is being an  plain and simple.

I think we've all known DMs who've treated their paladins like this in the past, and while to a certain degree moral ambiguity to the decisions a paladin faces is fun and interesting, purposefully screwing over the paladin with a Good/Evil bait-and-switch is just mean and is the sort of situation that prevents players from ever playing a particular class or race ever again.

It's not so much that Miko might have done something evil-ish, intentional or not, but the fact that she refuses, no matter what, to ever admit that she might have been wrong.  Her player likely insists that she is still following the Paladin's Code -- but from the DM's side fo the table, she probably isn't.

The comic is echoing and emphasizing what is likely an out-of-game arguement that's happening between Miko's player and the the DM over the interpretation of the Paladin's code.  We've all seen this sort of thing happen ourselves over one bit of rules text or another.

I'm not particularly fond of Miko, or how she portrays paladins, but to use the words of Obi-Wan:  She still is following the Paladin's Code...  from a certain point of view.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 26, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> No...  Sorry...  Take another look.
> 
> If it weren't for the little black line that denotes the right-hand side of Lord Shojo's tunic, he would be cut in half.



I don't agree. That cut goes about halfway into his body, but there's a bit of space between the right-hand side of his tunic and where the blade ends up. Anyway, as I said, that's an artifact of the stick-figure drawing, so I'm perfectly willing to believe he's dead. But not necessarily, and Rich may make some sort of joke about hit points out of it.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 26, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Willingly |= knowingly.  She has willingly committed an evil act.  She just didn't know that the act was evil at the time.  When she finds out, she'll probably throw a big hissy fit like she always does, blame all her problems on others, and try to kill everyone.  Typical.
> 
> Arguing that a paladin must know an act is evil in order to suffer the consequences of performing it is like arguing that ignorance of the law is an adequate defence.  It's not.  You do the crime, you do the time...as a fighter with no bonus feats.




It was obviously a willing act. She meant to strike him down.

I would argue that though she did the act willingly, it is not necessarily an evil act and I would therefore not as a DM, remove her paladin powers.

Whether the act of 'striking down someone she (unreasonably) believes is a hidden evil who betrayed a sacred trust to protect the safety of the entire world and therefore she believes is a current ongoing threat to the safety of the world' is evil.

I would not.


----------



## GwydapLlew (Jan 26, 2007)

Simply awesome.

For the record, I'm going to have to agree with Voadam. I see Miko walking a thin line, but IMC she'd still be a paladin - granted, she'd also be executed for her actions, but she'd still be a paladin. 



			
				ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Not to continue this line of discussion, but I don't think you can say he's actually "cut in half" based on the drawing, especially with his big paunch and all this stick-figure jobbiness. The *throne* is what Miko did the most damage to.




This lends a bit of credence to the Blackguard thinking. Sunder is, after all, a required feat.


----------



## Agent Oracle (Jan 26, 2007)

Simm said:
			
		

> The question I have is what abilities Miko has that let's her put a 14th level aristocrat down in one hit? I mean we're talking about an a person with 14 levels at d8 per level no max dice at first level, probably a -1 con modifier due to age and not having a great constitution to begin with so an average of 59 (average of 14d8-14) hit points and she can smite evil against him so how did she deal 69 damage (enough to put him down to -10) in one hit.





Please, If he's been on the throne for 47 years it's entirely feasable he might not have ascended to power until he was in his late twenties, those two facts alone put him in the third age category for humans (over 70) which imposes a massive -6 con, further dropping his HP. In that case, his HP average PLUMMETS (possibly lower than -42 hp!) almost cutting his HP average in half..

Much like Miko just did.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 26, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Come now...  If that's the case, then Miko's DM is being an  plain and simple.
> 
> I think we've all known DMs who've treated their paladins like this in the past, and while to a certain degree moral ambiguity to the decisions a paladin faces is fun and interesting, purposefully screwing over the paladin with a Good/Evil bait-and-switch is just mean and is the sort of situation that prevents players from ever playing a particular class or race ever again.




Who decided Shojo is evil?  Not the DM.  Not her Detect Evil.  Not a preliminary test smite.  She did, hubris and egomania a-flyin'.  She decided to act like a putz, and so she should lose her powers.  *Killing someone because you have a paranoid conspiracy theory is under no circumstances a good act.*  Performing an evil act because you're deluded into believing it's good, does not mean that you are not responsible for the act.  That's what Atonement is for.  It's for when you screw up.  If you honestly meant to do good and accidentally did evil, Atonement will fix up your troubles.  There is language in the spell itself about committing evil acts unwittingly, and how it affects the atonement.


----------



## Vanuslux (Jan 26, 2007)

Declaring all laws of her realm invalid on the spot ("The laws have no meaning!") and electing yourself judge, jury, and executioner so you can kill a defenseless old man in a fit of anger has to be a violation of Lawful Good somehow or anyone with a weak rationalization for their behavior would be Lawful Good.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 26, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> For the record I would not remove her paladin status. She honestly, though unreasonably, believes he is evil and I would not make take away powers over a paladin striking against what it thought was evil.





So, if I come home and find someone has killed my cat, I can erroneously kill all my neighbors just because I THOUGHT they did it?  Evil actions cause a paladin to lose status, not thoughts.  She purposely commits regocide because she refuses to either see or gather facts.  This is undoubtedly evil.  A thousand tyrants thought they were bettering the world, that does not make them shining examples of goodness.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 26, 2007)

She's so ex-paladin I think her monk levels are ex-paladin too!

Let's see...

1. A paladin must be of lawful good alignment. Boy, did she go Chaotic here! Lawful would be to summon the magistrates (as Hinjo suggested) and place Shojo under arrest (as Hinjo suggested). Good would be to prepare for the coming evil horde (as Hinjo suggested) and then take care of this matter (as Hinjo suggested). Plus "the laws have no meaning" to her anymore.

2. ...and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Shojo was innocent of her accusations. He may not be Lawful, but he isn't Evil.

3. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority... Based on Hinjo's suggestions, the magistrates would be the legitimate authority. Miko just performed a coup-d'etat. Just because she's the highest ranking paladin doesn't make her the leader. That's a "might makes right" mentality.

4. ...act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)... She attacked a helpless, unarmed venerable man. How's that "honor"?

5. ...help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends)... In this case, those in need are the people of Azure City. She should have followed Hinjo's plan of incarcerating Shojo and dealing with the more pressing matter of Xykon's horde.

6. ...and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. Clearly, in this case Xykon is more fitting than Shojo.

7. ...a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters... She doesn't even know Belkar is Evil, she never managed to detect him.

8. ...nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. If she thinks Shojo has consitently offended her moral code, she should quit the order and become a wandering paladin. But she's acting on Shojo's words and equating Chaos with Evil.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Jan 26, 2007)

And let's not forget, Azure City is now doomed thanks to her.  I don't think even paladins will fall neatly into line behind the highest-ranking paladin present if that paladin just offed the ruler of the city.

Additional question - does this mean that Hinjo is now the only one who knows the location of the Azure City gate?  If he doesn't know, then does anybody?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jan 26, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> To become a Blackguard...
> 
> If I recall correctly don't you need ranks in Move Silently? Of course Miko could easily have those from her Monk levels. And peacefull contact with an evil outsider? I wonder if our umbrella weilding friend counts...



Wouldn't she have to know the umbrella guy was an evil outsider?


----------



## RedWick (Jan 26, 2007)

Shojo's not dead.  He hasn't given his dying words speech to Hinjo yet.


----------



## paradox42 (Jan 26, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> 1. _A paladin must be of lawful good alignment._ I think it's safe to assume has been and still is, technically, Lawful Good, though her DM is likely considering changing that in the near future.



Granted. No doubt she is, in fact, still Lawful Good, though rapidly slipping. I as DM in this situation would agree with that.



			
				Pbartender said:
			
		

> 2. _...and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act._ Thus far, Miko has never willingly commited an evil act.  She has acted against good aligned characters, she has commited acts that have unwittingly furthered the evil plans of others, she has acted out of vengeange, anger and hatred, but she has not, technically, done anything evil...  yet.



Here is clearly where you and I part company. I just don't see how anybody could think that killing Shojo was *not* an Evil act- he was a defenseless old man sitting in a chair, and she'd already admitted he didn't Detect as Evil. Regardless of what he'd recently been doing, killing him was Evil. Even if this is Miko's first genuinely Evil act- which I granted you above- she loses her Paladin powers for this, instantly and inarguably.



			
				Pbartender said:
			
		

> 3. _Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority..._  Up until now, she has.  Even now, it's highly debatable whether or not has broken this tenet by attacking Shojo.  Consider: Shojo was the legitimate authority. Hinjo has refused to step up to take over. Miko is currently the highest ranking Paladin (yes, she outranks Hinjo until he takes Shojo's place). As far as Miko is concerned, with Shojo's loyalty compromised, she is the legitimate authority in Azure City.



Hinjo never refused to take the throne, anywhere in the strip. He did not refuse to make decisions- in fact, his decision was fairly plain. "We have to deal with the big invasion right now- put Shojo aside and we'll deal with it when we *don't* have the Army of Ultimate Darkness breathing down our necks." Either Shojo was still ruler of the city, in which case she betrayed and murdered him, or Hinjo was the ruler- in which case she disobeyed a direct order from him and thus was not respecting his authority. Miko is not and never was, even as head of the Sapphire Guard, in a position to assume legitimate control of the city. She therefore broke this tenet wide open.



			
				Pbartender said:
			
		

> 4. _...act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)..._ She's hasn't done any of the explicit examples in the strip. Some people might consider attacking a defensless old man dishonorable, but that's not what she was doing...  She was executing a proven traitor.



Granted- she didn't break this tenet according to the RAW- though as I said, I would personally as DM call this up and call her dishonorable. But that's me. 



			
				Pbartender said:
			
		

> 5. _...help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends)..._ There any real examples of this one way or the other.  The closest we come is her agreeing to help the watchtower guards with their supply problem.



This one she's actually fairly consistently been keeping up with, the closest she's come to breaking it is likely when she went to track Belkar down alone.



			
				Pbartender said:
			
		

> 6. _...and punish those who harm or threaten innocents._ Such as anyone who sells out Azure City to an Evil Lich and his hobgoblin horde.



Granted- but this doesn't excuse the fact that she clearly committed an Evil act, while also in the process of breaking tenet #3. 



			
				Pbartender said:
			
		

> 7. _...a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters..._  Like Belkar.



Irrelevant. Belkar isn't even part of the discussion of whether killing Shojo broke the Paladin's Code. Belkar had no involvement other than standing on the sidelines enjoying the show.



			
				Pbartender said:
			
		

> 8. _...nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code._ Like Lord Shojo (years of lying, at the very least, high treason at the worst) and the rest of the Order of the Stick (for a myriad of reasons).



Granted. Miko cutting off association with Shojo's government, even helping to bring it down (likely in conjunction with Hinjo, who at least seemed poised to do just that) is what a Paladin should do in this situation. Miko backing the old man up to his throne, roughly shoving him down into it, and then cutting both him and the throne nearly in half... is clearly not.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 26, 2007)

I'm not particularly a Miko-hater. She was an interesting Paladin.

Now, though, not so much. She's fallen so hard and fast I wouldn't be surprised if she made a new Gate on her way out the other side of the world.

Hello, Darth Miko! 

 -- N


----------



## sniffles (Jan 26, 2007)

I have now concluded that Rich Burlew is the #1 Rat Bastard DM, hands down.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 26, 2007)

paradox42 said:
			
		

> Here is clearly where you and I part company. I just don't see how anybody could think that killing Shojo was *not* an Evil act- he was a *defenseless old man sitting in a chair*, and she'd already admitted he *didn't Detect as Evil*. *Regardless of what he'd recently been doing*, killing him was Evil. Even if this is Miko's first genuinely Evil act- which I granted you above- she loses her Paladin powers for this, instantly and inarguably.




This is the crucial issue. If it is an evil act then she falls under the RAW.

I find his physical defenselessness irrelevant. 

I find his failure to detect as evil irrelevant.

I find the recent revelations relevant.

I can see how killing him can be not an evil act and I would therefore rule on not losing paladin powers in my game.


----------



## blargney the second (Jan 26, 2007)

Miko = Jaime Lannister?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jan 26, 2007)

I'm waiting for the day that Rich redesigns a classic D&D monster, so the argue-about-rules-in-OotS threads can finally achieve infinite mass and become a black hole.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 26, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> Miko = Jaime Lannister?




Jamie has Evasion?!

 -- N


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jan 26, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> Miko = Jaime Lannister?




Miko = Mace Windu.

IMO, this whole scene is intended as a recasting of the Mace & Anakin confront Palpatine in Revenge of the Sith, with Shojo as Palps, Miko as Mace and Hinjo as Anakin.  Obviously with a different background, outcome and right answer - but to me, the changes only serve to highlight the parallels (possibly even to make this scene a commentary on the one in Ep. 3?).

Mace was breaking the jedi code by attempting to strike down an apparently helpless Palpatine... = Miko is breaking the paladin code by striking down helpless Shojo...

... because he believed the Senate could or would not deal with Palpatine because he has corrupted them... = ... because she believes the magistrates could or would not deal with Shojo because he has corrupted them...

... as well as believing Palpatine is actually working in concert with the Separatists to achieve dictatorial control... = ... as well as believing Shojo is working with Xykon to achieve dictatorial control...

... while Anakin looks on in stunned horror as his mentor and friend, who he nonetheless was willing to condemn and deal with legally, is about to be executed. = ... while Hinjo looks on in stunned horror as his uncle and mentor, who he nonetheless was willing to condemn and deal with legally, is executed.

Now, the big differences are a) Palpatine is actually conspiring with the Separatists and is faking being helpless, whereas Shojo isn't guilty (presumably), b) Anakin stops Mace, whereas Hinjo doesn't (again, presumably - we don't *know* Shojo is dead), and c) Roy and Belkar are present as observers.  However, R&B appear to be, for purposes of this scene, purely observers, completely removed from the action.


----------



## brehobit (Jan 26, 2007)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> Declaring all laws of her realm invalid on the spot ("The laws have no meaning!") and electing yourself judge, jury, and executioner so you can kill a defenseless old man in a fit of anger has to be a violation of Lawful Good somehow or anyone with a weak rationalization for their behavior would be Lawful Good.



Agreed.

Mark


----------



## Voadam (Jan 26, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Miko = Mace Windu.
> 
> IMO, this whole scene is intended as a recasting of the Mace & Anakin confront Palpatine in Revenge of the Sith, with Shojo as Palps, Miko as Mace and Hinjo as Anakin.  Obviously with a different background, outcome and right answer - but to me, the changes only serve to highlight the parallels (possibly even to make this scene a commentary on the one in Ep. 3?).
> 
> ...




Neat analysis.


----------



## Delta (Jan 26, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> See what I mean?  She's taking it to an extreme that'll ruin her in the end, but from her (or perhaps her player's) perspective, she's still following the Code...




But this is the whole point of the "Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game" line in the PHB. The perspective of her or her player don't matter. Somewhere there's an objective line she doesn't get to cross (largely dictated by _detect evil_), and this strip was it. 

It's tough being a paladin. Arguably they don't get enough benefits to reward them for the code of coduct and alignment restrictions (in 3E).


----------



## Andor (Jan 26, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> It was obviously a willing act. She meant to strike him down.
> 
> I would argue that though she did the act willingly, it is not necessarily an evil act and I would therefore not as a DM, remove her paladin powers.
> 
> ...




Yeah but that's not what anything points too. The oath has nothing to do with protecting the world, it has to do with protecting the egos of a bunch of dead adventurers and actively interferes with protecting the world (and the GODS) from the Snarl. That's all that Shojo has been working around. That and a city full of lunatics who will try to assasinate him over meatloaf....

Furthermore whether the act was evil has nothing to do with Miko's beliefs, it has to do with Shojo's actions. If he had been acting as Miko though he was acting then her attack would not have been an evil action (although it still would have been a chaotic one.) D&D morality is not relative, it's absolute.


----------



## Harlath (Jan 26, 2007)

Not necessarily deliberate, but shades of Nixon's "In all the decisions I have made in my public life, I have always tried to do what was best for the nation. I have never been a crook" in the ruler's last words?


----------



## kigmatzomat (Jan 26, 2007)

Miko's big mistake is in being certain, without any real evidence, than OotS & Shojo are in cahoots with Xykon.  Since she takes that to be an *incontravertible fact* she can rationally conclude that the non-Evil Shojo & OotS are willingly consorting with Evil.  

The Linear Guild, currently in Azure City prison, were the ones working with Xykon.  Sure, she has 3rd-party descriptions of the LiG that _also_ match OotS but she has never brought any of the OotS before their so-called accusers to confirm this, even when the OotS was in chains.  

So she has performed an evil act by killing the basically innocent (if perhaps manipulative) Shojo based on faulty reasoning that, had she not been so impulsive (_not_ a good quality for Lawful), would have been resolved by a rather brief hearing with the magistrates and the "political prisoners."  

Miko should lose her paladin powers but not fall (think "being grounded" rather than "being banished").  She would be able to _atone_ to her god if she is willing and accepts that she in fact did something wrong.   If she refuses to believe she was wrong in her actions _then_ she would become an ex-paladin and be ripe for the vengeful path of the blackguard.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 26, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Miko = Mace Windu.
> 
> ...
> 
> Now, the big differences are a) Palpatine is actually conspiring with the Separatists and is faking being helpless, whereas Shojo isn't guilty (presumably), b) Anakin stops Mace, whereas Hinjo doesn't (again, presumably - we don't *know* Shojo is dead), and c) Roy and Belkar are present as observers.  However, R&B appear to be, for purposes of this scene, purely observers, completely removed from the action.




Also, being a world where D&D mechanics apply, death from reasons other than old age and certain spells is pretty easily reversible, and in fact someone capable of performing that task is on their way (and that person is one of at least two in the city who can, as Durkon is also).


----------



## the Jester (Jan 26, 2007)

...speechless.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 26, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> Yeah but that's not what anything points too. The oath has nothing to do with protecting the world, it has to do with protecting the egos of a bunch of dead adventurers and actively interferes with protecting the world (and the GODS) from the Snarl. That's all that Shojo has been working around. That and a city full of lunatics who will try to assasinate him over meatloaf....
> 
> Furthermore whether the act was evil has nothing to do with Miko's beliefs, it has to do with Shojo's actions. If he had been acting as Miko though he was acting then her attack would not have been an evil action (although it still would have been a chaotic one.) D&D morality is not relative, it's absolute.




I'm not talking about the oath of not going to the other gates.

Aren't the paladins there to guard the gate to prevent the Snarl from getting out and destroying the world? Isn't that a "a sacred trust to protect the safety of the entire world"?


----------



## Mycanid (Jan 26, 2007)

Yeesh.


----------



## orsal (Jan 26, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think the old guy was evil.
> 
> I mean, come on, "Convenient Morality"? This is typical villain-speak.




That's Chaotic, but not necessarily Evil. No interest in ethics -- clearly not Lawful. He considers that the end justifies the means, so as long as the ends are good, he can be Good.



			
				Kamikazi Midget said:
			
		

> He circumvented justice for his own expedience,




He circumvented justice for his own objectives, which are good objectives.



			
				Kamikazi Midget said:
			
		

> he betrayed those who put trust in him, and he abused his power. Miko is serving as an agent of true divine retribution here -- he's guilty as sin for what he's done.




The legal concept of guilt is not the same as the moral concept of evil. I place him well in the CG corner of the chart.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 26, 2007)

I apologise for turning this into a paladin morality thread.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 26, 2007)

I would dearly like to see Miko fall.  She has clearly ignored the laws of her own land, but not taking Shojo to trial, which is unforgiveable even if Shojo were evil.

But I doubt she will actually fall -- Shojo failed to be a legitimate authority as soon as he admitted to bypassing the laws, which undermines them, and puts Mikos act into a questionable grey area.

Rich's ability to combine good storytelling, humor (Shojo's comments about Miko are priceless), and commentary on D&D rules (look at the massive paladin discussion) are really impressive.  Looking forward to the next series of strips!


----------



## orsal (Jan 26, 2007)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> The Linear Guild, currently in Azure City prison, were the ones working with Xykon.  Sure, she has 3rd-party descriptions of the LiG that _also_ match OotS but she has never brought any of the OotS before their so-called accusers to confirm this, even when the OotS was in chains.




Third party description*s*? As in, plural? IIRC, all but one of the witnesses actually were describing OotS and acts that they really did commit. The only one who had encountered the Linear Guild was the blacksmith, and he knew nothing of Xykon -- in fact, the Guild was not working for Xykon at the time.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 26, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> She just murdered a non-evil person in cold blood.



Miko thinks she executed a traitor. Death is the legitimate punishment for traitors all over the multiverse. 







			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> She is also failing to respect legitimate authority.



I doubt she feels traitors have “legitimate authority”.







			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> And shouldn't a 12th level Aristocrat have enough HP to survive more than one attack with a bastard sword?



Double power attack output with a two handed weapon against a sitting target  can easily be enough to cut through 20-30 HP which old age’s -6 to con can leave a high level aristocrat with.


----------



## Goldmoon (Jan 26, 2007)

Belkar was dreaming the whole thing. He wakes up and we move on.......


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Jan 26, 2007)

Ok, here's something else to argue about: If the Gates are destroyed, the Gods will probably be destroyed. So why aren't they doing something about it, like destroying Xykon and his gang? I've always hated that sort of suicidal nonsense.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 26, 2007)

Kestrel said:
			
		

> What a crazy b*tch...hope Belkar gets to stick it to her!



_"The Belkster don't have time for the fuglies"_ 

Question: Will the old man accept the _Raise Dead_?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 26, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Miko thinks she executed a traitor. Death is the legitimate punishment for traitors all over the multiverse. I doubt she feels traitors have “legitimate authority”.



That's nice for her.  I'd hate to think that some reality might intrude on the sanctity of her delusional world.  Unfortunately Miko is not the authority on what is or is not a good act, and her powers hinge on her upholding the principles of goodness, not the principles inherent to her twisted little self-centered universe, so when she commits an act which is actually evil, she loses her powers no matter what she happens to believe about the situation.

If she were so far gone into her mental disorder that she believed that killing babies and bathing in their blood was not only necessary, but honest-to-god exalted, it would still be evil as all hell.  The same goes for lesser evils.  Her powers are granted to her by an external force that acts as a moral authority, not by her own self-image.  She loses those powers if and only if that force determines that she has performed an evil act.  That authority presumably has access to more information than she does.

If she really did not believe her acts were evil, she can go procure an Atonement at no cost to the caster of the Atonement spell.  If she knows that her acts are evil, it will cost that caster XP.  She does not need to know that she's doing evil to fall.  She can, in fact, learn too late the error of her ways.


----------



## Jakar (Jan 26, 2007)

Simm said:
			
		

> The question I have is what abilities Miko has that let's her put a 14th level aristocrat down in one hit? I mean we're talking about an a person with 14 levels at d8 per level no max dice at first level, probably a -1 con modifier due to age and not having a great constitution to begin with so an average of 59 (average of 14d8-14) hit points and she can smite evil against him so how did she deal 69 damage (enough to put him down to -10) in one hit.



It is a comic.  It does not have to follow the rules.


----------



## Bad Paper (Jan 26, 2007)

Remember the good old days when OotS wasn't so damn wordy?  When it was fun to read?    

OotS has jumped the shark, but it's on the Erfworld site, so, hey, I'll catch up once in a while.

As far as Miko goes, yeah, there is absolutely no way that she is still a paladin.  Regardless of any motivation, the fact stands that she acted without honor.  Even putting Shojo up before a rigged court would have been the *honorable* thing to do, since a rigged court would bring dishonor upon itself, not upon Miko.

Whatever.  Hopefully Roy speaks the word to release Belkar, and everyone dies.  I like those "everyone dies" endings.


----------



## Jim Hague (Jan 26, 2007)

Jakar said:
			
		

> It is a comic.  It does not have to follow the rules.




Or she just acquired _Smite Good_.


----------



## Jakar (Jan 26, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Or she just acquired _Smite Good_.



   Had not thought of that one.

Bet the next few comics have nothing to do with this.


----------



## Andor (Jan 26, 2007)

Jakar said:
			
		

> Bet the next few comics have nothing to do with this.




If we do go to a cutscene now, does Rich fall? Is there PrC for fallen cartoonists?


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Jan 26, 2007)

I am going to insert OotS general rule #1:

*Rich will seldom take the reader in the direction the reader anticipates.*

After 406 episodes ... I would assume people would expect this.  I would assume people would immediately not jump to their foregone conclusions.  Yet people still do.

Rich wants everyone out there to suddenly spring up and feel sympathy for the old man and hate Miko.  Why?  So that when he reveals what's truly going on people are blown away.



Personally, I think Miko is walking a fine emotional line for a paladin.  Thank God she's got levels of monk so that she isn't a complete paladin.  Walking this much of an emotional line is bad for a monk/paladin.  For a full paladin it would be unthinkable!  However, I still think Miko is within her paladinhood.

I think this because I think the old man is evil.  Think about it.  Everyone here is all "Oh, poor old man.  Oh, bad bad Miko."  Rich is playing everyone at this moment and is doing it beautifully!  But never once did anything in the script point to the old man not being evil.

Now, that doesn't make what Miko did right.  I'm not arguing that Miko is some kind of saint.  But I think all the Miko haters here are going to be shocked when the final truth is spun out.  Miko's not innocent by a long shot.  But neither is Miko the Blackguard that many here make her out to be.

I only hope that Roy and OotS takes their original advice.  Stay out of it.  The plot here is so deep that if Roy is so much as "figuratively" standing on the shoreline when the wave of plot comes rolling in, the OotS will be caught in the Tsunami that will destroy him/them.  Stay out of it, Roy.

{On a side note, I do hope Belkar gets involved.  It's about time he dies.}


----------



## Voadam (Jan 26, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> Furthermore whether the act was evil has nothing to do with Miko's beliefs, it has to do with Shojo's actions. If he had been acting as Miko though he was acting then her attack would not have been an evil action (although it still would have been a chaotic one.) D&D morality is not relative, it's absolute.




I agree that whether her action is evil or not is a yes/no absolute issue.

However I feel that to judge whether her action is evil is not dependent on things she does not know. If shojo was secretly an evil demon worshipper who used misdirection to prevent detect evil and secretly sacrificed babies on the side and Miko did not know about it, it would be irrelevant to whether her action in striking him down was evil. Similarly, the fact that she is actually wrong about his allying with Xykon is irrelevant to whether her action is evil.

The question is whether you feel her striking him down given her unreasonable understanding of the situation is an evil action. That is the relevant issue for determining whether her action is evil or good.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 27, 2007)

Rich's essay about Miko and her motivations in "No Cure for the Pladin Blues" is particularly enlightening.

Miko ain't gong any place good.


----------



## Saloric Windrunner (Jan 27, 2007)

My prediction for the future: Miko will become a blackguard. I don't think she has fallen yet, but her faith has been badly shaken. The only thing left is for her to meet an outsider and who is waiting in the dungeon for her Sabine. Sabine will corrupt her and when they break out she will be the newest member of the Linear Guild.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Jan 27, 2007)

Miko, I'd like you to meet Blackguard.

Blackguard meet Miko.

I'm sure you too will get along great.

Olaf the Stout


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jan 27, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> Miko = Jaime Lannister?




Let's not get carried away.



Spoiler



At the end of the 2nd book, it was revealed he saved King's Landing from wildfire. And IMO, killing the mad king was a good thing, oath or not. That almost makes up for the twincest and the near-murder of Bran.


----------



## LoneWolf23 (Jan 27, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Miko = Mace Windu.
> 
> IMO, this whole scene is intended as a recasting of the Mace & Anakin confront Palpatine in Revenge of the Sith, with Shojo as Palps, Miko as Mace and Hinjo as Anakin.  Obviously with a different background, outcome and right answer - but to me, the changes only serve to highlight the parallels (possibly even to make this scene a commentary on the one in Ep. 3?).
> 
> ...




Wooaah there..  "Apparantly Helpless" Palpatine?   Are we talking about the same Palpatine who, the moment the Jedi showed up to _arrest_ him for treason, drew a lightsaber and killed all but Mace and Anakin, then started throwing Force Lightning at Mace who had to keep up his defensive guard just to repel the Lightning back at Palpatine?   'Cause that was about as "Helpless" as pinning down a vicious alligator and begging for your comrade to club it before it gets loose.

I mean, maybe if Lord Shojo had drawn a sword and started attacking Miko to kill her, I'd see some parallels, but the two situations are clearly not the same.

She, as a Paladin of the Sapphire Guard, is tasked with upholding the laws of the land.  And unless she's empowered to serve as Judge, Jury and Executionner (which she isn't), then she just overstepped her authority by far beyond a mile.

Furthermore, she had no justification for killing Lord Shojo in cold blood like that.  She barely had more then suspicions and her anger to base her actions on.   Acting in Anger out of Suspicions is NOT an act of Law.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jan 27, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> I can see how killing him can be not an evil act and I would therefore rule on not losing paladin powers in my game.





What actions would you consider taking their powers away?


----------



## Sir Elton (Jan 27, 2007)

Simm said:
			
		

> The question I have is what abilities Miko has that let's her put a 14th level aristocrat down in one hit? I mean we're talking about an a person with 14 levels at d8 per level no max dice at first level, probably a -1 con modifier due to age and not having a great constitution to begin with so an average of 59 (average of 14d8-14) hit points and she can smite evil against him so how did she deal 69 damage (enough to put him down to -10) in one hit.




Actually, the Universe became governed under Rolemaster's ARMS LAW in that instant.


----------



## Sejs (Jan 27, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> For the record I would not remove her paladin status. She honestly, though unreasonably, believes he is evil and I would not make take away powers over a paladin striking against what it thought was evil.




Nah, I've got to disagree with ya on this on Voadam.  I'm normally pretty easy going when it comes to paladin infractions, but the whole "they're evil regardless of what their alignment is" pretty much seals the deal for me.

Or more to the point how she follows through on it.  But yeah.  Miko didn't fall from grace, she threw herself from it.


----------



## Sir Elton (Jan 27, 2007)

No.  I hate to be the DM in this situation.

IF the paladin's player pulled a stunt on me like that, I'd probably say: "what is your conscience tell you?"


----------



## Sejs (Jan 27, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> I apologise for turning this into a paladin morality thread.




Nah, s'all good.  Would've happened in any case.

What I'd like to see from here - Shojo's not quite dead, Hinjo rushes foreward to Lay On Hands... Miko turns to strike him down.

Really get things going.


----------



## WarlockLord (Jan 27, 2007)

I think Miko's fallen.  This would give her a great excuse to date Belkar, as that would be awesome!


----------



## Andor (Jan 27, 2007)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> I think Miko's fallen.  This would give her a great excuse to date Belkar, as that would be awesome!




Ewww. I think I need to bathe now. Talk about [Craft: Disturbing Mental Images].


----------



## amazingshafeman (Jan 27, 2007)

Savage Wombat said:
			
		

> And let's not forget, Azure City is now doomed thanks to her.  I don't think even paladins will fall neatly into line behind the highest-ranking paladin present if that paladin just offed the ruler of the city.
> 
> Additional question - does this mean that Hinjo is now the only one who knows the location of the Azure City gate?  If he doesn't know, then does anybody?




Xykon probably knows.


----------



## amazingshafeman (Jan 27, 2007)

Saloric Windrunner said:
			
		

> My prediction for the future: Miko will become a blackguard. I don't think she has fallen yet, but her faith has been badly shaken. The only thing left is for her to meet an outsider and who is waiting in the dungeon for her Sabine. Sabine will corrupt her and when they break out she will be the newest member of the Linear Guild.




This fits the flavor of the comic more than any of the other proposed plot twists.  Opens up several more side arcs and humorous points than any of the others, too.  Above all, it allows the murderous tension between Miko and Belkar to continue to rage, then eventually to only smolder as the OotS manage to "save" Miko and help her regain her paladin status, possibly only to die saving the last, final gate as Xykon is almost victorious.  Or her and the Thing in the Darkness head off to get tea....


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jan 27, 2007)

amazingshafeman said:
			
		

> Xykon probably knows.





I thought the whole reason xylon bought the scying crystal was to spy on her and see where the gate was?


Be funny if this was all a set up for his benefit...


----------



## BronzeGolem (Jan 27, 2007)

amazingshafeman said:
			
		

> Xykon probably knows.




No...Xykon didn't know. The only reason why Xykon had Miko spared was because Xykon knew that it was in Azure City and that was it. He expected Miko to lead him exactly to where the gate was, so he could 'tag along' via scrying and find the location.


----------



## Vraille Darkfang (Jan 27, 2007)

Has Miko fallen?

Short answer:

Maybe.

What if she is right?  The old guy is some polymorphed demon who was only interested in keeping the Snarl Imprisoned as if its all destroyed, you can't take it over.

If I was the DM....

It really depends on the Player.  I've had players where they act this way dut to stupidity on their part & others who are trully role-plying their characters.

In my games, I wouldn't Strip her of her power for this action (Assuming she is just operating on faulty information, much of her own assumption), but I'd let here know she better think real hard about what just happened.

I'd probablly take away the Highest Level of Spells as a warnig to reflect on her actions.  Then, I'd strip further powers or restore the spells based on the Player's Actions.


Then again this could just be a case where it is a Bad Idea to use Int as your Dump Stat*


*I have a Halfling Rouge that wishes to stress that he in no way cast a Vetriliquism Spell after the Paladin got hit by a Touch of Idiocy spell that convinced said Paldin his Penis was Possessed by Satan and in need of Sundering.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 27, 2007)

Vraille Darkfang said:
			
		

> ... and in need of Sundering.




Once the Paladin has "Improved Sunder", it's probably too late. 

 -- N


----------



## Sound of Azure (Jan 27, 2007)

Holy palooza!    

Roll on Monday!   (Well, Tuesday here....    )


----------



## Grog (Jan 27, 2007)

Miko brutally murdered a defenseless old man in cold blood.

Anyone who thinks she's still a paladin after that, I want to play in your game, because you don't have a paladin class, you have a "fighter who gets bonus cool abilities for free" class since there's no way anyone could ever lose their paladin status in your game.


----------



## Hawkshere (Jan 27, 2007)

Bad Paper said:
			
		

> Remember the good old days when OotS wasn't so damn wordy?  When it was fun to read?
> 
> OotS has jumped the shark, but it's on the Erfworld site, so, hey, I'll catch up once in a while.




If Rich was _still_ telling spot skill and dungeon bathroom jokes after all this time, we would have *all* given up on it long before now...


----------



## jeffh (Jan 27, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think the old guy was evil.
> 
> I mean, come on, "Convenient Morality"? This is typical villain-speak. He circumvented justice for his own expedience, he betrayed those who put trust in him, and he abused his power. Miko is serving as an agent of true divine retribution here -- he's guilty as sin for what he's done.



Nonsense. Saving the entire world from anhiliation is a long, long way from "his own expedience"; indeed, thinking in such blackl-and-white terms is precisely where Miko goes wrong. Putting her own personal revenge ahead of the safety of Azure City is far closer to evil than anything Shojo has done.


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 27, 2007)

I love it when we get triple panels.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 27, 2007)

jeffh said:
			
		

> Nonsense. Saving the entire world from anhiliation is a long, long way from "his own expedience"; indeed, thinking it is, is precisely where Miko goes wrong. Putting her own personal revenge ahead of the safety of Azure City is far closer to evil than anything Hinjo has done.




Exactly. Shojo has been underhanded, devious, and manipulative for the greater good. He has  subjected himself to ridicule and serious inconvenience (with the senile act). He could have achieved a bit of safety in far more evil ways, but he chooses to NOT kill those who would wish to assassinate him, but rather to suffer indignity. Self-Sacrifice: It's Good(tm).

Miko, on the other hand, puts her anger and desire for revenge ahead of the public good. She puts it ahead of the law. She puts it ahead of the lives of the many innocents who need defending against the *known* evil army of hobgoblins and undead.

She's just done herself some cold-blooded murder, with a dash of regicide for spice.

Miko, welcome to the Dark Side.

 -- N


----------



## Vraille Darkfang (Jan 27, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Miko brutally murdered a defenseless old man in cold blood.




Attacked.  Attacked a defenseless old man in cold blood.  He's not Dead Yet.

Well, he's got the Resources of an Entire City-State at his disposal, so he could have who-knows-what in terms of magic items on him.

So:

Attacked a Seemingly Defenseless old man in cold blood.

Actually, she seemed to be pretty upset (Or angry as a janitor following Ogre Beans & Fiber Fest).

So, she attacked a seemingly defenseless old man in a fit of anger.

Again, I wouldn't be surprised if the old coot lives.  Massive Resources, Paranoia +5.  I think he might have a Ring of Regeneration or a Contingency Spell tucked up his tukus.

Plus.  Miko seems to really believe Shojo is in League with the Lich (after all what's 40 years to a lich).  If she is reacting due to her beliefs (and Paladin Codes vary from World to World) I'd still say I wouldn't have her be a Fallen Paladin.

That's not saying a wouldn't have her God make her horse appear & kick her in the rear for being such a Jackass.


To Point:

Being Stupid is NOT against the Paladin's Code (no matter how much I sometimes wish it was).

"OK.  You want a Gelding for a Special Mount, they'll make you one.  OK"*

A real phrase I used in one of my 2nd ed games.

First Paladin betrayed by his horse when the BBEG promised a Regenerate spell & some "Eye for an Eye" Justice.


----------



## Sejs (Jan 27, 2007)

Vraille Darkfang said:
			
		

> What if she is right?  The old guy is some polymorphed demon who was only interested in keeping the Snarl Imprisoned as if its all destroyed, you can't take it over.
> 
> If I was the DM....




A polymorphed demon interested in taking over the world... _that's in command of a legion of paladins._

Talk about suicidal.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Jan 27, 2007)

Sejs said:
			
		

> A polymorphed demon interested in taking over the world... _that's in command of a legion of paladins._
> 
> Talk about suicidal.




But ... would it surprise you if in the next 10 (or 40...) panels we discover some kind of crazy plot like this?

Again, I'm not trying to make Miko into the saint she isn't.  But I think the "She killed an old defenseless man" cries that are leaping out of this thread are a bit too simplistic for the past experience of OotS, no?


----------



## Hussar (Jan 27, 2007)

Whoa.  Just... whoa.  

Well done.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 27, 2007)

Sejs said:
			
		

> A polymorphed demon interested in taking over the world... _that's in command of a legion of paladins._
> 
> Talk about suicidal.



Um, how? 

This sounds like the classic fiend of corruption plotline to me. Conniving, charismatic fiend infiltrates Lawful Good religious order. Said fiend subtly influences order to undertake evil deeds "for the good of the people," or "for the greater good," or "in the name of [x]." Said fiend simultaneously brings into the picture a bunch of sketchy allies/cohorts.\

IMHO, almost everything that makes Miko's behavior controversial here is driven by reader knowledge. We *know* that Shojo is an okay guy. We know that the OotS is, by and large, not such a bad bunch of folks (Belkar excepted). We know that they're not plotting with Xykon to take over the city. But Miko doesn't know those things. The only really unreasonable thing she does is to physically attack Shojo without justification.


----------



## LoneWolf23 (Jan 27, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Um, how?
> 
> This sounds like the classic fiend of corruption plotline to me. Conniving, charismatic fiend infiltrates Lawful Good religious order. Said fiend subtly influences order to undertake evil deeds "for the good of the people," or "for the greater good," or "in the name of [x]." Said fiend simultaneously brings into the picture a bunch of sketchy allies/cohorts.\
> 
> IMHO, almost everything that makes Miko's behavior controversial here is driven by reader knowledge. We *know* that Shojo is an okay guy. We know that the OotS is, by and large, not such a bad bunch of folks (Belkar excepted). We know that they're not plotting with Xykon to take over the city. But Miko doesn't know those things. The only really unreasonable thing she does is to physically attack Shojo without justification.




...And, what, that's not enough?  Even if you take reader knowledge out of the equation, she's basically acting impulsively (chaotic) and reacting out of anger and hubris (Evil).  She's also betraying her vows of loyalty to her liege in order to avenge what she considers a stain on her honor and the honor of the Sapphire Guard, without even taking into consideration the needs of the greater good...

I just can't accept those being the actions of a Lawful Good Paladin.   At best, she acted Chaotically out of an emotional impulse.  At worst, she acted Evilly out of selfish reasons.

Either way, she lost her Paladinhood.


----------



## LoneWolf23 (Jan 27, 2007)

And if I may add...

Miko's fall pretty much mirrors the fall of Warcraft's Prince Arthas: A Paladin becoming both so convinced they're holier and more righteous then everyone else, and so obsessed with hatred against someone else, that the become completly blind to how dark and twisted their actions are becoming...


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 27, 2007)

Yeah only at least Arthus made a much cooler looking Death Knight and then Lich king.


----------



## Ripzerai (Jan 27, 2007)

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> I wonder if her pantheon has a god of vengeance, and what the alignment of that god might be?




If she worships a version of the Chinese pantheon similar to the AD&D one, then the god of vengeance is Lei Kung, the Duke of Thunder, and he's lawful evil. I know that the society here is more Japanese, but what we've seen of their gods looks more Chinese to me.


----------



## Deuce Traveler (Jan 27, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Won't somebody please think of poor Mr. Scruffy?




I bet Belkar gets the cat.


----------



## Deuce Traveler (Jan 27, 2007)

BullMarkOne said:
			
		

> Heh, Mr. Scruffy is a cat, he'll do alright. Heck, mebbe Belkar'll adopt him.




Great minds...


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 27, 2007)

LoneWolf23 said:
			
		

> ...And, what, that's not enough?  Even if you take reader knowledge out of the equation, she's basically acting impulsively (chaotic) and reacting out of anger and hubris (Evil).  She's also betraying her vows of loyalty to her liege in order to avenge what she considers a stain on her honor and the honor of the Sapphire Guard, without even taking into consideration the needs of the greater good...
> 
> I just can't accept those being the actions of a Lawful Good Paladin.   At best, she acted Chaotically out of an emotional impulse.  At worst, she acted Evilly out of selfish reasons.
> 
> Either way, she lost her Paladinhood.



I would have to disagree. Miko has a perfectly plausible rationale for her actions. She did NOT act out of an emotional impulse.

1) The early warning beacons were destroyed, in a manner that bespoke treachery rather than outside action.

2) Shojo admits that the paladins are an inconvenience to his manner of governance.

3) Shojo rigged the OotS trial, up to and including having some random ghost-dude impersonate a celestial rendering judgment.

4) Miko prayed to the 12 Gods that the betrayers would be revealed to her, and she showed up at Shojo's throne room just in time to hear him tell Roy how it's been.

I'd say Miko is guilty of acting *impulsively,* but not *chaotically.* She is dispensing justice not as *she* deems fit, but as she believes the *gods* would deem fit. I find this hard to deem anything other than LG behavior. 

There's a gigantic difference between how Miko acts and how Arthas cts, incidentally. Miko lashes out against someone she sees as evil and a traitor. She's acting to preserve her city against what she sees as an imminent threat. And, according to what she's heard, she has probable cause to believe that there exists a conspiracy that threatens the security of Azure City.

Is this a misunderstanding of tragic and immense proportions? Yes. Is this the sort of fomented discord that Demogorgon would give one of his heads to create? Yes. But is it the result of chaotic or evil acts on Miko's part? That I don't see.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 27, 2007)

> Exactly. Shojo has been underhanded, devious, and manipulative for the greater good. He has subjected himself to ridicule and serious inconvenience (with the senile act). He could have achieved a bit of safety in far more evil ways, but he chooses to NOT kill those who would wish to assassinate him, but rather to suffer indignity. Self-Sacrifice: It's Good(tm).




Okay, in defense of my half-cocked theory:

He can't rule over it with his manipulative little hands if the Snarl destroys it all. 

Was it for the Greater Good of Everyone? Or is his manipulation and deviousness for the Greater Good of Himself as he sat high and mighty on the throne supping on porridge and manipulating paladins for his own twisted amusement? Do we *know* he was telling the truth to the Order? Or was he just using their belief in their own righteousness to advance his own ends...which only happen to be in the world's best interest by chance. 

I mean, he's such a shady dealer, he can't be keeping the world alive out of respect for the people that inhabit the world. He's probably keeping the world alive because *he* wants to be alive, and the Paladins might just muck it all up for him.

It might be a half-cocked theory, but it's a _plausible_ half-cocked theory.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 27, 2007)

I'd remind everyone that Shojo and his casters _tried_ summon a _real Celestial_. Roy's father interceded, and only _then_ made his deal with Shojo.

Just something to keep in mind when debating his alignment and methods.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jan 27, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> I'd say Miko is guilty of acting *impulsively,* but not *chaotically.* She is dispensing justice not as *she* deems fit, but as she believes the *gods* would deem fit. I find this hard to deem anything other than LG behavior.




Unless the gods themselves specifically told her that Shojo must die, she wasn't acting under the paladin's code of honor.



> Is this a misunderstanding of tragic and immense proportions? Yes. Is this the sort of fomented discord that Demogorgon would give one of his heads to create? Yes. But is it the result of chaotic or evil acts on Miko's part? That I don't see.




Just because she doesn't believe she's being evil doesn't mean she isn't. The fastest road to hell...


----------



## Seonaid (Jan 27, 2007)

Triple-length strip! All right!

"She has that Monk class ability that lets you jump as far as you want, only for her, it applies to conclusions." Best line ever. Ahhh, monks. 

"[T]hey can teach you how to detect Evil, but not sarcasm??" Second-best line ever. Ahhh, paladins. 


			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Oh god, if she gets Smite Good and doesn't know she's fallen and gone blackguard it'll only reinforce her delusions.



Exactly. Gotta love it!







			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Of course if she had dected evil and then smited you would get all the paladin haters going detect evil is not good enough for all she knew the poor man had a spell that cursed him with dectecting evil even though he was good.



I agree. Can't please 'em all! 



			
				RedWick said:
			
		

> Shojo's not dead. He hasn't given his dying words speech to HinjoMiko yet.



FIFY.







			
				lukelightning said:
			
		

> What if he's secretly her father?



Exactly. 



			
				frankthedm said:
			
		

> "The Belkster don't have time for the fuglies"



I was just thinking that same thing. 



			
				Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> I think this because I think the old man is evil. Think about it. Everyone here is all "Oh, poor old man. Oh, bad bad Miko." Rich is playing everyone at this moment and is doing it beautifully! But never once did anything in the script point to the old man not being evil.



Of course, now that you've said this, Rich is going to do something different from this, and everything everyone else has thought. 


			
				Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Be funny if this was all a set up for his benefit...



Now *that* would be awesome. And quite Rich-like. Damn you for coming up with this! Now it ain't gonna happen!  



			
				Andor said:
			
		

> Talk about [Craft: Disturbing Mental Images].



QFT. Ewww.


----------



## Nyeshet (Jan 27, 2007)

*Miko has fallen, but she is not yet a Blackguard.*

Personally, I think that during the fight with Roy, Belkar, and Hinjo she will realise her paladin powers are gone. Rather than think she is being punished for breaking her code, I think she will turn on the gods, believing they too are in the wrong. I think she will survive the fight, and later on she will appear again - likely as a blackguard. She will not be serving Xykon, however, as she believes him to be evil and thus one of her (several) foes. Instead, I think she will be fighting on her own. 

Also, as I recall, didn't Belkar learn he might kill Miko's mount? I don't think it was specified that the mount would be the same one that Miko currently (or, rather, formerly) rode. I think instead that Belkar will slay Miko's next - fiendish - mount.

Note that while she stated to Shojo, etc that she had prayed to have the betrayers revealed, the flashback shows her praying to "see through their lies to the truth." She equated lying with betrayal. So while the deities granted the letter of her request (arriving just in time to learn of the truth), she misinterpreted this to mean those lying were those betraying - due to her own personal view.


In any case, this strip had several great lines, great action and drama, and an excellent cliff hanger. I look forward to the next strip.


----------



## Nyeshet (Jan 27, 2007)

orsal said:
			
		

> That's Chaotic, but not necessarily Evil. No interest in ethics -- clearly not Lawful. He considers that the end justifies the means, so as long as the ends are good, he can be Good.



Not quite. 

If the ends are good and the means non-evil, then CG or NG can apply. 

If the ends are good but the means are evil, then CN or NN apply. This, however, is a slippery slope that can easily lead to CE or NE, depending on how often the means are evil and how evil the means become. Minor but often / consistent evil acts or just one or two moderate to major evil acts and the fact that Good will result no longer prevents alignment change for the character causing these 'means' to occur. 

Lord Shojo, however, is not evil. I would peg him as NG with chaotic leanings. He might be CG, but I think his paladins would have noticed something by now if that were the case, as consistent chaotic acts tend to stand out - especially after 47 years of lordship. Just running the city and keeping it organized and orderly likely is enough of a limit upon his character. He commits so many lawful leaning acts in following the dictates of his position, that his chaotic acts are not enough to fully result in a slide into Chaotic alignment - at least in my opinion. Thus I view him as NG - with chaotic leanings.


----------



## Nyaricus (Jan 27, 2007)

Ghostwind said:
			
		

> Welcome to the Dark Side, Miko.



Immediately, Anakim Skywalked killing all those dune people came to mind while reading thisw comic strip; "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

Hello 'Fallen Paladin' status, Ms. Miko  

cheers,
--N


----------



## Nyeshet (Jan 27, 2007)

amazingshafeman said:
			
		

> Xykon probably knows.



Actually, I was under the impression that Xykon was scrying Miko solely because he does *not* know.

Which brings to mind another issue. It is entirely possible that Xykon was scrying Miko during the altercation. I wonder how he might make use of this?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jan 27, 2007)

Nyeshet said:
			
		

> Actually, I was under the impression that Xykon was scrying Miko solely because he does *not* know.
> 
> Which brings to mind another issue. It is entirely possible that Xykon was scrying Miko during the altercation. I wonder how he might make use of this?



 If he teleported in right now and congratulated the Order of the Stick for their aid and complicity in his evil plans (just to watch Miko fall faster, of course), it would make me laugh.


----------



## Nyeshet (Jan 27, 2007)

Deuce Traveler said:
			
		

> I bet Belkar gets the cat.



You know, Belkar is a 10-11th level Ranger (with a level of Barbarian), but he does not (at the moment, at least), have an animal companion. Should he take the cat, wouldn't that significantly empower the cat? +2 HD, +2 Natural armor, +1 Str/Dex, Link, Share Spells (useless, granted), and Evasion. That cat really will seem to have nine lives after that! The only flaw with this plan that I see is that the cat is not on the druids RaW list of potential animal companions. Oddly enough, the dog *is* on the list . . . . I get the feeling the developers may have a bias here . . . .



> If [Xykon] teleported in right now and congratulated the Order of the Stick for their aid and complicity in his evil plans (just to watch Miko fall faster, of course), it would make me laugh.



That could be interesting, especially as it might cause Hinjo to consider believing Miko, perhaps even taking her side / joining her against the OotS. On the other hand, Xykon by himself might be at a slight disadvantage, as everyone in the throne room would attack him. But I think he will wait on using that Teleport spell until he can actually see the gate (or the door leading to it) in his scrying crystal.


----------



## Grog (Jan 27, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> I'd say Miko is guilty of acting *impulsively,* but not *chaotically.* She is dispensing justice not as *she* deems fit, but as she believes the *gods* would deem fit. I find this hard to deem anything other than LG behavior.




So, by your interpretation, how could anyone ever lose their paladin status?

Say I'm a paladin. I'm in a village that was attacked by orcs yesterday. The orcs had some knowledge of the village's defenses and so were able to kill a lot of people before they were finally driven off. I know that a teenage boy was seen going into the woods yesterday from which the orc raiding party came from.

So I walk up to this teenage boy in the street and brutally cut him down with my sword. I figure that he was working with the orcs and told them the weak points in the village's defenses. After all, he was seen going into the forest where the orcs came from, the orcs had knowledge of the village's defenses, and the boy wasn't hurt in the attack. That's good enough for me. This defenseless boy dies in the street like a dog.

According to you, I'd still be a paladin. What you're saying is that as long as someone can justify their actions to themselves, no matter how thin the justification actually is, they won't lose their paladin status. I don't think it's supposed to work that way - and it certainly doesn't in the games I run.


----------



## delericho (Jan 27, 2007)

Yeah, Miko falls. Not so much because her attacking Shojo is Evil (although it is), but because she has just ceased to be Lawful.

She has declared that the laws are meaningless. She has appointed herself judge, jury and executioner. She has ignored the legitimate authorities (Shojo and/or Hinjo). And she has engaged in summary execution without stopping to gather the evidence that she should have been required to have.

She's not a Paladin (or shouldn't be). She's not Lawful. And she's probably not Good. But she's not yet a Blackguard, either.

Edit: Oh, and incidentally, she is right that Shojo should not be running the country. If he wanted the services of the Order of the Stick, there are a great many ways that that could be achieved that would not have required him to make a mockery of the lawful structure of their society. Shojo has probably done irreprable damage to the fabric of that society by his actions, a fact that Roy (himself LG) was rightly outraged at when he found out about it. However, what is required in that society is a very public enquiry, governmental reform, and the replacement of Shojo - all of which Miko has rendered impossible. Summary execution renders the damage permanent, since whatever happens next will sound like 'coup d'etat' and 'cover up' to outside observers.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jan 27, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> Edit: Oh, and incidentally, she is right that Shojo should not be running the country.



Hehe, it's right. As much as I like him, a CG leader is not a good fit for a LG society.


----------



## LoneWolf23 (Jan 27, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Hehe, it's right. As much as I like him, a CG leader is not a good fit for a LG society.




Chaotic Good?   Just because he occasionally breaks his own nation's laws, doesn't mean he's Chaotic.   I'd rate him more as Neutral Good: willing to work within the rules if it helps, but willing to break them for the greater Good.


----------



## LoneWolf23 (Jan 27, 2007)

Nyeshet said:
			
		

> Personally, I think that during the fight with Roy, Belkar, and Hinjo she will realise her paladin powers are gone. Rather than think she is being punished for breaking her code, I think she will turn on the gods, believing they too are in the wrong. I think she will survive the fight, and later on she will appear again - likely as a blackguard. She will not be serving Xykon, however, as she believes him to be evil and thus one of her (several) foes. Instead, I think she will be fighting on her own.




Perhaps not on her own...   She still needs "peaceful contact with an Evil Outsider" to become a Blackguard... 

...and wouldn't you know it, there currently is an Evil Outsider within conveniant distances, right in the Sapphire Guard's own jail, along with a master manipulator skilled in Bluffing, who has a grudge against the Order of the Stick himself.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 27, 2007)

Uh oh... Miko and the succubus...


----------



## Andor (Jan 27, 2007)

My Predictions:

Miko gets beaten and thrown in jail ('cause Hinjo has to show her the difference between her actions and LG). She's in the cell next to the Linear Guild, after a chat with Nale she is shocked but not surprised when Sabine 'reveals' herself to be a celestial. Some standard fodderol about how her gods have abandoned her, but there are still forces for good in the world from Sabine and *Bamm* Miko swears herself to Sabines 'Gods' and Ta-Da! Blackguard.

Unless Rich reads this and changes his mind just to spite me.


----------



## Gez (Jan 27, 2007)

Jakar said:
			
		

> Bet the next few comics have nothing to do with this.



I called it on the first page!


			
				Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> Rich wants everyone out there to suddenly spring up and feel sympathy for the old man and hate Miko.  Why?  So that when he reveals what's truly going on people are blown away.



Obviously. Just like when he revealed the truth behind the Nale and the Cliffport Police Chief, we were blown away. Now, wait, we weren't. The Chief was a likable old man, and Nale is still a murderous villain.


			
				Saloric Windrunner said:
			
		

> My prediction for the future: Miko will become a blackguard. I don't think she has fallen yet, but her faith has been badly shaken. The only thing left is for her to meet an outsider and who is waiting in the dungeon for her Sabine. Sabine will corrupt her and when they break out she will be the newest member of the Linear Guild.



Very possible, indeed. In her deluded world, she will think that if Nale, Sabine and Thog are enemies of Shojo and the Order, then they are good guys.

Maybe she'll become the Guild's new anti-Belkar. Would that make her... Mikobold?   


			
				Sejs said:
			
		

> Shojo's not quite dead



Again, just like the Chief. Oh wait...


			
				Nifft said:
			
		

> Exactly. Shojo has been underhanded, devious, and manipulative for the greater good. He has  subjected himself to ridicule and serious inconvenience (with the senile act). He could have achieved a bit of safety in far more evil ways, but he chooses to NOT kill those who would wish to assassinate him, but rather to suffer indignity. Self-Sacrifice: It's Good(tm).
> 
> Miko, on the other hand, puts her anger and desire for revenge ahead of the public good. She puts it ahead of the law. She puts it ahead of the lives of the many innocents who need defending against the *known* evil army of hobgoblins and undead.
> 
> ...



Yup.


			
				Vraille Darkfang said:
			
		

> Attacked.  Attacked a defenseless old man in cold blood.  He's not Dead Yet.



Again, this was also said profusely back in strip 360, when the little flying head of the Chief had not Xs for eyes yet. Somehow, he wasn't alive and well in 361, joking about how he couldn't feel his elbows.


			
				Grog said:
			
		

> So, by your interpretation, how could anyone ever lose their paladin status?
> 
> Say I'm a paladin. I'm in a village that was attacked by orcs yesterday. The orcs had some knowledge of the village's defenses and so were able to kill a lot of people before they were finally driven off. I know that a teenage boy was seen going into the woods yesterday from which the orc raiding party came from.
> 
> ...



Very apt transposition.

Miko will fall. Remember her fight with Belkar? She was going to snap there. And she was much more justified in killing Belkar (who is really evil, and a murderer, and provoked her repeatedly) than in killing Shojo. Miko fell.


----------



## Vraille Darkfang (Jan 27, 2007)

Gez said:
			
		

> Yup.
> 
> Again, this was also said profusely back in strip 360, when the little flying head of the Chief had not Xs for eyes yet. Somehow, he wasn't alive and well in 361, joking about how he couldn't feel his elbows.




I'm not saying I'd be surprised, if, in fact, he is dead.

After all, this is a Comic Strip, that while it uses a lot of in-jokes based on D&D, is not in fact, 100% D&D Rules 100% of the time.

I'm just saying that his death is not guarenteed.

As opposed to some 3-4th Level Warrior with some pretty severe Wealth Limitations, Shujo is a High Level Noble.  He has access to the Wealth of an Entire City-State.  A State with a Good Divine Presence.  He's Paranoid & has to look out for Assassination attempts everywhere.

So if you tell me that someone can just chop down on him with a sword & do enough to take him down to -10 HP & that he has NO MAGICAL ITEMS TO AID HIM....

I wouldn't buy that module.  Too much DM Fiat to make that work.


Again, if he's dead fine.

I just think that if I was running him as an NPC.  You can bet a good deal of his Character Wealth would be invested in Items to Keep him Alive during an Assassintion Attempt.

Especially if he spends a good deal of time pondering when the next attempt will be.


Ring of Regeneration is the most Obvious Item.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 27, 2007)

Heh, as much as people hate Miko, that's the one character that can generate the most chatter about a strip.  I haven't seen a OOTS strip discussion go into 5 pages since... oh since Miko last danced with Belkar.


----------



## Aaron L (Jan 27, 2007)

Huh.  In my games, intentional killing of in innocent being is an automatic and permanent loss of Paladin abilities.  It doesn't matter if the Paladin "thought" he was doing the right thing or not.

PS I'm pretty sure Shojo has specifically said hes a Neutral Good Aristocrat.


[Edit] I jut looked it up, he just says he's not Lawful.  But I still agree that he's Neutral Good.  He hasn't done anything really Chaotic, just "for the greater good" type stuff, which is definite Neutral Good behavior[/Edit]


----------



## Nifft (Jan 27, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Heh, as much as people hate Miko, that's the one character that can generate the most chatter about a strip.  I haven't seen a OOTS strip discussion go into 5 pages since... oh since Miko last danced with Belkar.




I don't hate Miko... but I'm a sucker for Paladin threads.
Like quite a few people here. 

 -- N


----------



## ephemeron (Jan 27, 2007)

Sir Elton said:
			
		

> No.  I hate to be the DM in this situation.
> 
> IF the paladin's player pulled a stunt on me like that, I'd probably say: "what is your conscience tell you?"



I think that if I were the DM, Miko would have gotten a couple of memos from the gods by now.  "Please review the 'Justice vs. Vengeance' section of your employee handbook, and do be aware that disciplinary action will be required if..."


----------



## Valesin (Jan 27, 2007)

Kishin said:
			
		

> Also, when supernatural powers from beyond (read: Granted Detect Evil ability) tell you someone is not evil, and you decide they are anyway....Yeah, hello Miko, Fighter Without Bonus Feats.




This is like the 5th post suggesting Detect Evil is a foolproof divination spell, and I am only on page 2.

Do I really need to list the ways that an ability based on a 1st level spell can be defeated?  Do you really only allow Paladins in your game to attack stuff that detects as evil?


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Jan 27, 2007)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> PS I'm pretty sure Shojo has specifically said hes a Neutral Good Aristocrat.
> 
> 
> [Edit] I jut looked it up, he just says he's not Lawful.  But I still agree that he's Neutral Good.  He hasn't done anything really Chaotic, just "for the greater good" type stuff, which is definite Neutral Good behavior[/Edit]




And ... we ahve any reason to believe Shojo?  The man is as much of a manipulator of the truth as Nale is a manipulator of people.  In fact, I think Shojo is a better manipulator than Nale!  You've got to be good to fool 100% of the paladins 100% of the time.

I still stand by my prediction that Shojo is evil. He'se definately not Lawful.  I'd put him at a solid NE.


----------



## amazingshafeman (Jan 27, 2007)

The trouble with Shojo being evil is the sheer amount of chance he faces that someone will find out.  Surrounded by paladins, dealing with clerics, nobles hunting for any little secret they can use against him, and occasionally summoning celestials for trials are not points in an Evil characters life that they just shrug away.  The first time a Hound Archon says, "I can not do this deed for the likes of _him_," and points out Shojo, the gig is up.


----------



## Scorpion13 (Jan 27, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> And ... we ahve any reason to believe Shojo?  The man is as much of a manipulator of the truth as Nale is a manipulator of people.  In fact, I think Shojo is a better manipulator than Nale!  You've got to be good to fool 100% of the paladins 100% of the time.
> 
> I still stand by my prediction that Shojo is evil. He'se definately not Lawful.  I'd put him at a solid NE.





So, do you have any proof of this? Any evidence for this conclusion at all, outside of  "He broke the sacred codes of the order"? Because in my book, something like that doesnt make you evil in itself: Its makes you non-lawful.

Lets not forget that Miko also said that she knew the OOTS were working for Xykon. And how did she come to this conclusion?  Xykon told her. And she chose to believe a friggin Lich. Why? Because she wants to believe him. 

If youre a Paladin, and youre where you want to do something _so bad_  that you would believe a Lich instead of your own lying eyes, then I cant believe that you have any kind of sense of duty or morality besideswhatever makes you feel good.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jan 27, 2007)

amazingshafeman said:
			
		

> The trouble with Shojo being evil is the sheer amount of chance he faces that someone will find out.  Surrounded by paladins, dealing with clerics, nobles hunting for any little secret they can use against him, and occasionally summoning celestials for trials are not points in an Evil characters life that they just shrug away.  The first time a Hound Archon says, "I can not do this deed for the likes of _him_," and points out Shojo, the gig is up.



Exactly, he strikes me as a NG type.  He means quite well, even altruistically to a degree, but he is willing to bend or break laws, and lie and deceive when needed to see what is good for Azure City and the world done.  It's not a global statement of "The ends justify the means" as much as it is "it's worth breaking an oath to save the world from destruction".

If he was Evil, I'd think that with all the summoned Celestials, Detect Evil, and intrigue and spying that happens in Azure City, people would have noticed now.  He acts senile as a defense, but that just makes him look very chaotic.  One of the various factions that would look to overthrow him would just love to use a provably Evil alignment as a political tool, a way to turn his Paladins against him.  

Just because you have to lie to get your job done doesn't mean you're evil, it just means you probably aren't LG.


----------



## Pbartender (Jan 27, 2007)

Dr. Awkward, paradox42 and others...

For the record, I honestly think that Miko will end up becoming an ex-Paladin, at the least, in the near future.  

All I was saying is that Miko's player may...  almost certainly...  believes she's following the Paladin's Code the way she's supposed, and is likely using the sorts of justifications I mentioned above.  Those justifications don't necessarily make what's going right (and I honestly don't necessarily agree with them), but I can certainly understand how Miko the character, and Miko's player, could have gotten this far into this big of a mess without ever realizing they were doing anything overtly wrong.


----------



## Andor (Jan 27, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> All I was saying is that Miko's player may...  almost certainly...  believes she's following the Paladin's Code the way she's supposed, and is likely using the sorts of justifications I mentioned above.  Those justifications don't necessarily make what's going right (and I honestly don't necessarily agree with them), but I can certainly understand how Miko the character, and Miko's player, could have gotten this far into this big of a mess without ever realizing they were doing anything overtly wrong.




But Miko doesn't have a player, she's an NPC. Whatever she does she does for the purpose of furthering the GMs story. And right now I'm watching a story about a falling paladin. What the future holds is a more open question, but I've already put in my 2¢ in there.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Jan 27, 2007)

Scorpion13 said:
			
		

> So, do you have any proof of this? Any evidence for this conclusion at all.




No, that's why it is caled a prediction.  If I had proof, then I'd call it a fact.

After all, I thought this thread was about discussion the possibilities of the future.  I didn't realize anyone actually knew for certain what Rich was going to write besides Rich.  I don't mean this to be snarky, so I'm sorry if it comes off that way.  I guess I'm just trying to say that this is a comic.  There's no need to push the discussion to "I'm right and you're wrong," is there?  Because if there is, then I'm dropping out before it becomes an arguement.  I was just having fun asserting a possibility against the tide of "Miko's so already a blackguard."  I do think she's falling to an ex-paladin (but not necessarily a blackguard).  I also think claiming that Shojo has to be good is also a bit presumptuous.  All we know about him is whats been written, and most of that is from Shojo's own mouth.


----------



## Victim (Jan 27, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> Edit: Oh, and incidentally, she is right that Shojo should not be running the country. If he wanted the services of the Order of the Stick, there are a great many ways that that could be achieved that would not have required him to make a mockery of the lawful structure of their society. Shojo has probably done irreprable damage to the fabric of that society by his actions, a fact that Roy (himself LG) was rightly outraged at when he found out about it. However, what is required in that society is a very public enquiry, governmental reform, and the replacement of Shojo - all of which Miko has rendered impossible. Summary execution renders the damage permanent, since whatever happens next will sound like 'coup d'etat' and 'cover up' to outside observers.




What makes you think that the society is lawful good?  Sapphire Guard /= Azure City. Remember that the Guard is basically secret, so mapping its values on to that of the society as a whole is especially going to be problematic.  Where exactly is the lawful structure in a society with whimsical laws like meatloaf day, and plotting nobles with assassins?

 Certainly, he's not the right person to head up the Sapphire Guard, but that's the problem you get with making the leader of an order of pallies and clerics a hereditary position.  And amazingly enough, non paladins don't have to follow the paladin code.  It's not going to be illegal for them not to do so.


----------



## paradox42 (Jan 27, 2007)

The idea of Miko joining the Linear Guild after they reveal themselves to be enemies of the OotS, having her "peaceful contact with an Evil Outsider" in the form of Sabine, and gaining powers as a Blackguard, is definitely where I see the tale of Miko going next- it's too perfect a setup for Rich not to take advantage of it (or have scripted it this way from the start). The one gotcha here is that it'll have to be before the Linear Guild gets placed in the anti-magic cells, because once that happens Sabine is stuck in fiendish form and Miko won't listen to her.

The question is- when will we get to see it? I don't think it'll happen next week, since I suspect the next few comics will be a cut scene to show Xykon and the army invading. It's the perfect time for Rich to leave readers in suspense, squirming or howling for blood depending on who it is.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 27, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'd remind everyone that Shojo and his casters _tried_ summon a _real Celestial_. Roy's father interceded, and only _then_ made his deal with Shojo.
> 
> Just something to keep in mind when debating his alignment and methods.



Good point.  Roy's dad is hardly an evil figure either, but he's working behind the scenes to direct Shojo.  There's not much room for Shojo to be evil between his attempt to get advice from a celestial and his actual gaining of advice from Roy's father.


----------



## orsal (Jan 27, 2007)

Scorpion13 said:
			
		

> Lets not forget that Miko also said that she knew the OOTS were working for Xykon. And how did she come to this conclusion?  Xykon told her. And she chose to believe a friggin Lich. Why? Because she wants to believe him.




When did Xykon ever say, or even imply, that OotS was working for him? All he said revealed is that they had not destroyed him and that he had encountered "Bluepommel and his buddies". Moreover, he revealed his not having been destroyed not by anything he said, but merely by presenting himself in undestroyed state. The rest was Miko's Abundant Stepping to conclusions. OotS had spoken untruly; therefore, they had willingly lied; therefore, their purpose was deceitful; therefore, they were in league with Xykon.


----------



## jeffh (Jan 27, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> Shojo has probably done irreprable damage to the fabric of that society by his actions.



What the hell does _that _mean?

I've heard this sort of phrase bandied about before, but it's so vague and metaphorical that not only do_ I _have no idea what it's actually supposed to be telling me, but I can't help but suspect that people who use it don't either. What is "the fabric of that society" and, in concrete terms, how does one damage it, irreparably or otherwise? What, _in specific and literal terms, _is it you're accusing Shojo of here, exactly?


----------



## Maggan (Jan 27, 2007)

The one thing I keep thinking is ...

This is how Anakin Skywalker should have fallen to the Dark Side.

I think this storyline really shows how someone can become and do evil while at the same time telling themselves they're doing good.

/M


----------



## Scorpion13 (Jan 27, 2007)

orsal said:
			
		

> When did Xykon ever say, or even imply, that OotS was working for him? All he said revealed is that they had not destroyed him and that he had encountered "Bluepommel and his buddies". Moreover, he revealed his not having been destroyed not by anything he said, but merely by presenting himself in undestroyed state. The rest was Miko's Abundant Stepping to conclusions. OotS had spoken untruly; therefore, they had willingly lied; therefore, their purpose was deceitful; therefore, they were in league with Xykon.





Man, youre right. I must have remembered it wrong. 


Ah well. She's all the more damned, then.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Jan 27, 2007)

Darklone said:
			
		

> Uh oh... Miko and the succubus...




OK, am I the only perv who read this and for the first time wished this wasn't a stick figure comic?


----------



## Andor (Jan 27, 2007)

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> OK, am I the only perv who read this and for the first time wished this wasn't a stick figure comic?




Miko and Belkar = Disturbing Mental Image

Miko and Sabine = slash fanfic  

Belkar and Sabine = Wrongness cubed


----------



## delericho (Jan 27, 2007)

jeffh said:
			
		

> What the hell does _that _mean?




Okay, I hope this is going to make sense... and I hope it doesn't get too political.

The reason we have court systems is that sometimes folks who are accused of crimes aren't guilty of those crimes. This should be obvious. So, instead of rushing to judgement, we have a process whereby evidence is gathered and presented, and weighed carefully (by a jury of one's peers in the UK and US, but by celestial forces in OotS). Then, sentence is passed, which can result in an acquital or condemnation.

This is all well and good, but it _only_ works if the powers-that-be play 'by the rules'. If, instead, they engage in show-trials, having prejudged the situation, then they make a mockery of justice. If the public are aware of this, they lose faith in the system, and law breaks down - since in reality there is no justice, and so no reason not to stab your neighbour, provided he doesn't have any great influence.

On the other hand, if the 'powers-that-be' are succeptible to corruption, and instead acquit criminals who should be found guilty (or happen to 'lose' evidence, or have the jury replaced by the ghostly remains of the father of the accused), then again they make mockery of justice. And, again, the public lose faith in the system, and law breaks down - only this time you can stab your neighbour if you have sufficient influence.

And, of course, the Order of the Stick actually _were_ guilty of the crime they were accused of, they just didn't know it.

In any event, if Shojo wanted the services of the Order of the Stick, he could very easily have sent them some sort of message that would have compelled them to come. Instead, he had them dragged back in chains, and went through with a 'trial' which has now been revealed to be a fraud. This sets a precedent for trials in the land not being fair... and also raises a very important question - if _this_ trial was rigged, how many others have been? How many other murderers have been set free when they should have been executed, but who were convenient agents for the government? How many innocent men have been executed because they knew something they shouldn't? And what happens next time?

It is a very, very dangerous precedent Shojo has set.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jan 27, 2007)

Well, I'm pretty sure that when Miko next calls Windstriker, he won't heed that call.
True, Shojo was exposed as a liar and manipulator, but the charge of treason is pretty much a fabrication of hers. She may not realize that she fabricated it, because she connected the dots the wrong way and got a twisted mockery of the true image, but it remains a fabrication, fueled by her need to be right. She has no interest in the truth, only in her satisfaction to be right. Otherwise, she should have listened to Hinjo, who, in that moment, would most likely be the supreme authority of Azure City and who expressed that Shojo would be dealt with *after the more pressing matter of an approaching army*. If bad comes to worse, her actions may lead to the Azure City defenses being essentially headless, unprepared, and thus overwhelmed. Even without that, it appears that any possible planning was at least delayed.
Shojo, I'm pretty sure that he is dead. In fact, to me it looks as if he willingly accepted the deadly blow after realizing what Miko is up to (third to last panel, "Everything I did, I did for my people."). Whether that is a final manipulation, or a self-sacrifice (or entirely my imagination, for that matter) remains to be seen.


----------



## Victim (Jan 27, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> Okay, I hope this is going to make sense... and I hope it doesn't get too political.
> 
> The reason we have court systems is that sometimes folks who are accused of crimes aren't guilty of those crimes. This should be obvious. So, instead of rushing to judgement, we have a process whereby evidence is gathered and presented, and weighed carefully (by a jury of one's peers in the UK and US, but by celestial forces in OotS). Then, sentence is passed, which can result in an acquital or condemnation.
> 
> ...




Just having a secret order of paladins dispensing justice separately from the normal laws of the land is a dangerous precendent.  Sapphire Guard stuff has nothing to with normal Azure City laws.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0267.html 
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0287.html


----------



## Darklone (Jan 27, 2007)

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> OK, am I the only perv who read this and for the first time wished this wasn't a stick figure comic?



"It's all about your own fantasy, son..."


----------



## Gez (Jan 27, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> On the other hand, if the 'powers-that-be' are succeptible to corruption, and instead acquit criminals who should be found guilty (or happen to 'lose' evidence, or have the jury replaced by the ghostly remains of the father of the accused)




New reminder that it's the ghostly remains of the father who organized that.


----------



## Endur (Jan 27, 2007)

And thus, Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 27, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> Miko and Belkar = Disturbing Mental Image
> 
> Miko and Sabine = slash fanfic
> 
> Belkar and Sabine = Wrongness cubed




Sabine and Miko = exotic slash fanfic 

 -- N


----------



## delericho (Jan 27, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> Just having a secret order of paladins dispensing justice separately from the normal laws of the land is a dangerous precendent.  Sapphire Guard stuff has nothing to with normal Azure City laws.
> 
> http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0267.html
> http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0287.html




True that. Strange that none of the Paladins have thought to bring that up. Unless, of course, the paladins, while within the area controlled by the Azure City are subject to Azure City law in addition to the Sapphire Guard codes.

(One more thing occurs: since Azure City affairs are distinct from Sapphire Guard affairs, and since Shojo was the head of state as well as the head of the order of paladins, surely Miko must now stand trial for regicide, quite aside from killing the head of her order?)



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> New reminder that it's the ghostly remains of the father who organized that.




Yeah, but Shojo knew about it, and could have chosen not to go along with it. Even if he didn't organise the corruption of his courts, he is complicit in it.

The thing is, I can understand why Shojo did as he did. His motives make sense, and he is correct in his assessment that something had to be done, and it couldn't be done by his paladins. It's his methods that are all wrong.


----------



## The Grackle (Jan 28, 2007)

Now it's clear that Miko's had a fallen-paladin-story-arc from the very beginning.  Next comes losing her powers, trying to rationalize it, and finally becoming evil. And then in the end, hopefully, Belkar will kill her.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jan 28, 2007)

Great strip.  Darth Miko, here we come!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 28, 2007)

> Huh. In my games, intentional killing of in innocent being is an automatic and permanent loss of Paladin abilities. It doesn't matter if the Paladin "thought" he was doing the right thing or not.




I agree....

....which is why my half-cocked theory throws doubt on whether or not the old meddler really was an innocent being. Because if Miko is at least half-right and she really is serving the greater good by cutting him down and hornoring the legacy of the ancestor of her paladin order, she may not loose her Paladin status.

And, personally, I think that having a LG foil violently oppose the OotS is *much* more interesting than having a clear-cut villainous fallen blackguard cliche. 

(Not that Rich will fall too easily into the cliche trap...I trust him enough even if Miko does fall).


----------



## Nifft (Jan 28, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> And, personally, I think that having a LG foil violently oppose the OotS is *much* more interesting than having a clear-cut villainous fallen blackguard cliche.




Hinjo is still around. He's a better foil, because nobody hates him.




			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> (Not that Rich will fall too easily into the cliche trap...I trust him enough even if Miko does fall).




Oh, man. She's fallen so hard, she's going to have to look up to see Nessus.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## WarlockLord (Jan 28, 2007)

What's so wrong about Belkar+Miko?


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 28, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> This is all well and good, but it _only_ works if the powers-that-be play 'by the rules'. If, instead, they engage in show-trials, having prejudged the situation, then they make a mockery of justice. If the public are aware of this, they lose faith in the system, and law breaks down - since in reality there is no justice, and so no reason not to stab your neighbour, provided he doesn't have any great influence.
> 
> On the other hand, if the 'powers-that-be' are succeptible to corruption, and instead acquit criminals who should be found guilty (or happen to 'lose' evidence, or have the jury replaced by the ghostly remains of the father of the accused), then again they make mockery of justice. And, again, the public lose faith in the system, and law breaks down - only this time you can stab your neighbour if you have sufficient influence.




This is all well and good, but you have the slight problem that the correct legal verdict was reached, even though the verdict was prejudged. It was prejudged with a full review of the evidence (provided by Roy's father, which is presumably accurate), and nothing broght forth at the trial itself changed the information Shojo had on hand before he sent Miko out to retrive the OotS. So, even though it was a "show trial" it was only a "show trial" in the sense that the facts were already known, and the legally correct outcome already known to everyone except for the members of the Sapphire Guard.


----------



## Herobizkit (Jan 28, 2007)

Dang paladin threads.

Killing a non-evil person is NOT evil to the paladin, if said person is directly in line of causing evil or allowing evil to happen as a result of his or her action or non-actions.

If a paladin happens to serve a Lawful Neutral Lord (hoping to sway him to Good) and learns that said Lords employs assassins, for example, the paladin must:
a) Leave the Lord's service, as said Lord willingly and knowingly associates with Evil people;
b) Kill all of the assassins;
C) Bring the Lord who hired them to justice, or summarily execute him on the spot for his transgressions.

Remember, the Law in Paladin's Lawful Good is Divine Law, not "law and order" law.


----------



## Nyaricus (Jan 28, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> The one thing I keep thinking is ...
> 
> This is how Anakin Skywalker should have fallen to the Dark Side.
> 
> ...



My thoughts exactly: I love how Star Warsian this strip is right now


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 28, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Oh, man. She's fallen so hard, she's going to have to look up to see Nessus.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




That or to see Asmodeus' ass.


----------



## Grog (Jan 28, 2007)

Herobizkit said:
			
		

> Dang paladin threads.
> 
> Killing a non-evil person is NOT evil to the paladin, if said person is directly in line of causing evil or allowing evil to happen as a result of his or her action or non-actions.
> 
> ...




So paladins committing cold-blooded murder is okay with you, so long as they think the victim is/was up to something bad?


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 28, 2007)

Grog,

Welcome to D&D morality!


----------



## Paragon Kobold (Jan 28, 2007)

Ther has been a lot of talk about Paladins in this tread. I think it is worth noting that Miko also is a Samurai (As a title not as a Class). 

As I understand it cutting your boss in two when he didn't ask you to is pretty high up on the list of things samurai are not supposed to do.


----------



## Herobizkit (Jan 28, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> So paladins committing cold-blooded murder is okay with you, so long as they think the victim is/was up to something bad?



So long as they KNOW the victim is/was up to something bad.  Paladins are the ultimate vigilante.  They will tromp all over the laws of Lawful societies if they differ from or oppose their own moral compass, provided it is in the realm of their Deity's will.

Combine that with the unswerving sense of duty of your "traditional" romanticized samurai and you have the most focused loose cannon of them all.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 28, 2007)

"Respect legitimate authority" seems to be in the code somewhere.

The strip clearly counterpoints the way a true paladin should act (Hinjo's suggestions of calling the magistrates, arresting his uncle, dealing with the horde first) with the way a misguided paladin acts in his way to a fall (Miko's actions).


----------



## Jolly Giant (Jan 28, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> "Respect legitimate authority" seems to be in the code somewhere.




Yes, but whether or not Shojo could be considered a _legitimate _ authority at the time is questionable. Miko certainly didn't think so. Myself, I think he was.

Even if he wasn't though, Miko setting abandoning the laws and killing him like that is enough for her to loose her paladinhood IMHO.


----------



## delericho (Jan 28, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> This is all well and good, but you have the slight problem that the correct legal verdict was reached, even though the verdict was prejudged.




The Order of the Stick actually were guilty of the crime of which they were accused, alveit only through Elan's incompetence.

Edit: Additionally, the beings who pre-judged the trial (Shojo and Roy's Dad) aren't the beings who have the right to judge the trial. If they'd really wanted to be sure, they should have called in those Celestial beings of Law to ask their opinion. Of course they didn't, because they couldn't be sure that said beings would give the convenient result.



> It was prejudged with a full review of the evidence (provided by Roy's father, which is presumably accurate), and nothing broght forth at the trial itself changed the information Shojo had on hand before he sent Miko out to retrive the OotS. So, even though it was a "show trial" it was only a "show trial" in the sense that the facts were already known, and the legally correct outcome already known to everyone except for the members of the Sapphire Guard.




The outside observer, though, will always be left with the question: what if something _had_ come up during the trial that by rights should have changed the verdict? Would the outcome have been the same? Or would justice have been done?

There is no way the outside observer can ever tell. Therefore, there will now always be a doubt as to the effectiveness of the legal process. And that is damaging to the society (or at least the Sapphire Guard).

In a Lawful society (or, order, in the case of the Sapphire Guard) it is vitally important not only that justice be done, but also that it be _seen_ to be done. Where corruption like this is exposed, and even where the correct verdict results, the corruption must be thoroughly rooted out, or else the house of cards wobbles. Hence, Shojo needed to be removed (although, there again, Miko went about things in the wrong way - Shojo needed to be arrested, tried, and his actions publicly exposed. Once again, justice needs to be seen to be done to restore faith in the system).


----------



## Gez (Jan 28, 2007)

Jolly Giant said:
			
		

> Yes, but whether or not Shojo could be considered a _legitimate _ authority at the time is questionable. Miko certainly didn't think so.




This has been addressed twenty thousand times already, but the legitimate authority here, even if you remove Shojo from the picture, is Hinjo.



			
				delericho said:
			
		

> In a Lawful society (or, order, in the case of the Sapphire Guard) it is vitally important not only that justice be done, but also that it be _seen_ to be done.




Yeah. And Miko is completely failing here. No trial, so no inspection of the charges. If she was asked to prove her accusations against Shojo, she couldn't. She could just blurt out things such as "I know it!" and "the Gods showed me!" and fail to convince anyone.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 28, 2007)

"Anger dries the soul;
brittle leaf ignites the Fall
of a Paladin."

 -- N


----------



## Andor (Jan 28, 2007)

Herobizkit said:
			
		

> Dang paladin threads.
> 
> Killing a non-evil person is NOT evil to the paladin, if said person is directly in line of causing evil or allowing evil to happen as a result of his or her action or non-actions.
> 
> ...




Nope. A Paladins law is _both_ divine law and the law of the land. That's the 'respect legitimite authority' part. That's why being a paladin is rough. If you could ignore mundane law there would be no tension in playing a paladin.

Secondly a Paladin may not himself associate with evil, there's nothing that says he must prevent others from associating with evil. By your logic paladins would be required to kill every bartender in a bad neigborhood for knowingly serving drinks to thugs. I don't know about your GM, but if my paladin started walking into dockside bars and gutting the waitstaff it would be sayonara paladinhood.


----------



## delericho (Jan 28, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> Secondly a Paladin may not himself associate with evil, there's nothing that says he must prevent others from associating with evil. By your logic paladins would be required to kill every bartender in a bad neigborhood for knowingly serving drinks to thugs.




WT...?

Since when does "prevent(ing) others from associating with evil" == "required to kill..."?

I actually agree with your point, but this bit just seems so far out there as to be absurd.


----------



## Andor (Jan 28, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> "Anger dries the soul;
> brittle leaf ignites the Fall
> of a Paladin."
> 
> -- N




All belief differs,
and so a paladin thread 
ends in a standoff.

-Andor


----------



## Andor (Jan 28, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> WT...?
> 
> Since when does "prevent(ing) others from associating with evil" == "required to kill..."?
> 
> I actually agree with your point, but this bit just seems so far out there as to be absurd.




I was extending the example I quoted. It was intended to be absurd.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 28, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> All belief differs,
> and so a paladin thread
> ends in a standoff.
> 
> -Andor




Excellent! 

"Like a bitter leaf,
the Paladin's soul may Fall.
But it's Spring in Oz."

 -- N


----------



## Pbartender (Jan 28, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> So paladins committing cold-blooded murder is okay with you, so long as they think the victim is/was up to something bad?




Absolutely.

Otherwise you wouldn't have so many Paladins wandering around slaughtering hundreds upon hundreds of goblins, orcs, drow and such without so much as a by-your-leave.  And if Paladins couldn't go crusading against evil like that without consequenses, what's the point of playing one?






EDIT: By the way, did anyone else catch Rich's Babylon 5 reference?  Emperor Mollari: “Everything I have ever done, I did for my people.”


----------



## Nifft (Jan 28, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Otherwise you wouldn't have so many Paladins wandering around slaughtering hundreds upon hundreds of goblins, orcs, drow and such without so much as a by-your-leave.  And if Paladins couldn't go crusading against evil like that without consequenses, what's the point of playing one?




IMHO, this is exactly why Tolkien-esque "evil" races are useful. So you have a "color-coded" moral value for killin' them.

Same for dragons, of course.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Andor (Jan 28, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Excellent!
> 
> "Like a bitter leaf,
> the Paladin's soul may Fall.
> ...




I like that.   

A paladin is
a trial. But if he could not
fall... Who would play one?

-Andor

P.S. Is line wrapping legitimate in haiku?


----------



## rowport (Jan 28, 2007)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> What if he's secretly her father?



Luke-

I wondered if I was the only one expecting this!


----------



## Nifft (Jan 28, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> I like that.
> 
> A paladin is
> a trial. But if he could not
> ...




Yes, totally legit. You can't split a word, but you can freely split lines (or one big line).

"This one time? At Bard
camp? I met a Paladin.
She so fell for me."

 -- N


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jan 28, 2007)

orsal said:
			
		

> When did Xykon ever say, or even imply, that OotS was working for him? All he said revealed is that they had not destroyed him and that he had encountered "Bluepommel and his buddies". Moreover, he revealed his not having been destroyed not by anything he said, but merely by presenting himself in undestroyed state. The rest was Miko's Abundant Stepping to conclusions. OotS had spoken untruly; therefore, they had willingly lied; therefore, their purpose was deceitful; therefore, they were in league with Xykon.



Right, her only information was that 1) Xykon was currently in existance, and 2) he misidentified the Order after prompting that they had been in his dungeon and commented that they had made a mess.

1) With monk and paladin levels, she doesn't have the minimal ranks in Know (religion) to realize that you can physically destroy a lich and have it later return? Not just at the moment she saw him, but on a nice long ride home with time to think? He's a fricking lich with a high level evil cleric right beside him!

2) They said that they were in the dungeon, and leaving a mess is entirely compatible with what they said they did.

Miko grabbed any information she could find or invent to shoehorn into a preconcived opinion of the Order. There was no pushing, no manipulation, nothing that would have lead to any sort of crisis for someone who wasn't filled with irrational hate already.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 28, 2007)

I have been on the boards for a long time and those who see my occasional posts know that I pretty much fall into the fire-and-brimstone paladin school of thought.

I fully support the zealous crusader paladin who is well within their right to use sneak attacks, ambushes, and pretty much ruthlessly bring down fire and death upon evil doers. I also believe that paladins can be judge, jury, and executioner.

HOWEVER,  if I was DMing, Miko just lost her paladinhood.

And she lost it because, although I consider it appropriate for paladins to act as judge, jury, and executioner, they have a responsibility to do so while keeping the big picture in mind. They also have a responsibility to act rationally and to make a good faith effort to understand all the relevant facts. Although Shojo may seem to be duplicitous, there is also evidence that he was still good and she failed to investigate further. She acted irrationally out of rage, anger, and hatred with no thought but the satisfaction of her own self-righteousness.

Being a paladin isn't about always following the letter of the code (that's just lawful stupid), but you MUST always follow the intent of the code.


----------



## paradox42 (Jan 28, 2007)

Herobizkit said:
			
		

> Dang paladin threads.
> 
> Killing a non-evil person is NOT evil to the paladin, if said person is directly in line of causing evil or allowing evil to happen as a result of his or her action or non-actions.
> 
> ...



Incorrect. The Paladin's Code (as previously copied to the thread courtesy of Pbartender, back on page 2 or so) forbids associating with Evil people.

It does *not* forbid associating with "people who associate with Evil."

People who associate with Evil characters are *not themselves made Evil* as a result of said association. Roy is the clearest example of that I could offer here.

Thus, a Paladin could remain in the employ of a Lawful Neutral lord even if said lord hired assassins, and not break the Code- although if said Paladin were ever ordered to go on a mission with such an assassin, he or she would obviously have to refuse (and depending on circumstances, kill the assassin as well).


----------



## Aaron L (Jan 28, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> And ... we ahve any reason to believe Shojo?  The man is as much of a manipulator of the truth as Nale is a manipulator of people.  In fact, I think Shojo is a better manipulator than Nale!  You've got to be good to fool 100% of the paladins 100% of the time.
> 
> I still stand by my prediction that Shojo is evil. He'se definately not Lawful.  I'd put him at a solid NE.





I think that's really, really, _really_ far-fetched.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 28, 2007)

> Edit: Additionally, the beings who pre-judged the trial (Shojo and Roy's Dad) aren't the beings who have the right to judge the trial. If they'd really wanted to be sure, they should have called in those Celestial beings of Law to ask their opinion. Of course they didn't, because they couldn't be sure that said beings would give the convenient result.




Again, a point in favor of Shojo not really being legitimate authority. 

Heck, Miko even punished him in the name of the Sapphire Guard and the ancestor that founded it, which, I don't think anyone can debate, Shojo is very very guilty of pissing all over. 

IMC, corrupting a lawful and good process just for your own expedience doesn't fall into Good territory. I don't buy "everything I did was for my people" as any more honest than "Of course this is a celestial being! And this trial is totally legit! And also, I'm senile!" The man has a reputation of lying to achieve his own ends. His end may be to keep the Snarl imprisoned, or it may be to control the final closed gate so he could extort the entire world to keep the great evil at bay (the Order didn't succeed at their last mission, why would he think they would succeed at this one?)

Again, the man's a serial liar, who fibs at the drop of a hat for his own convenience. His words being untrustworthy, we're left to evaluate his actions -- which could certainly serve evil ends just as easily as they serve good ones.

I say, even if he is Good, Miko doesn't fall for this one action. It's dangerous, but alignment has three components: motive, action, and reaction. The motive was Lawful Good (to restore justice to the throne), the action was debatably Lawful Good (applying standards of justice to one who had abused their power), and the reaction could be Lawful Good as well (Instituting a new, legitimate ruler in the throne, making sure Shojo can't hurt anyone else, etc.).


----------



## prosfilaes (Jan 28, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Miko thinks she executed a traitor. Death is the legitimate punishment for traitors all over the multiverse.




But there's a reason at least one set of constitutional law that calls for two witness to an overt act or an open confession along with such niceties as a jury trial. Due process is part of law, too, and paladins are obliged to follow it as part of lawful good, when in civilized lands.


----------



## Pbartender (Jan 28, 2007)

paradox42 said:
			
		

> Incorrect. The Paladin's Code (as previously copied to the thread courtesy of Pbartender, back on page 2 or so) forbids associating with Evil people.
> 
> It does *not* forbid associating with "people who associate with Evil."




No, but it does forbid associating "with someone who consistently offends her moral code."

Arguably, Shojo and every member of the Order of Stick (with the possible exception of Durkon) could fit that description, depending on how cranky the DM was that day.


----------



## Gez (Jan 28, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I say, even if he is Good, Miko doesn't fall for this one action. It's dangerous, but alignment has three components: motive, action, and reaction. The motive was Lawful Good (to restore justice to the throne), the action was debatably Lawful Good (applying standards of justice to one who had abused their power), and the reaction could be Lawful Good as well (Instituting a new, legitimate ruler in the throne, making sure Shojo can't hurt anyone else, etc.).



I am very tempted to godwin this thread now, because when you look only on the part that's convenient for your argument and forget everything else, you can say that Hitler was lawful good in motive, action, and reaction. You just have to focus on building highways, making trains run on time, breathing new life in the economy, and so on; and completely forget the world war and the genocide.

Just like you're doing with Miko who's busy killing the leader of a country in the eve of an onslaught by an army of undead and hobgoblins led by a lich and an evil cleric.

By disorganizing the country just before the start of the war, she is guilty of high treason.

Another paladin could execute her for she is an ally of Xykon: she was captured, but Xykon released her after talking to her of letting her join her side, and ever since she has worked contrarily to the interests of Azure City.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Jan 28, 2007)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> I think that's really, really, _really_ far-fetched.





Assuming that you are talking about my prediction of Shojo being evil ...

I never said it wasn't far fetched.  But, I honestly think that it wouldn't be the most shocking thing the Rich has done with OotS.  In fact, I'd put it somewhere solidly in the middle.

If you were talking about Shojo being more of a manipulator than Nale, I don't think it is far fetched at all.  Shojo has confused an entire city and the entire paladin guard regarding his motivations for what, 47 years?  That's not only good, it's legendary.  He should be the idol of all bards, to be honest.  [And Belkar confesses so much in the strip]

What has Nale done?  He's confused a city guard for a scant few minutes.  Still certainly good, but no where near Shojo's manipulation ability.


----------



## Grog (Jan 28, 2007)

Herobizkit said:
			
		

> So long as they KNOW the victim is/was up to something bad.




The problem with this is that it's almost impossible to KNOW something with absolute certainty. You have a witness that says someone was up to something bad? Witnesses can lie (and not all paladins have access to Discern Lies). You have documents saying the same thing? Documents can be forged. Hell, even a confession might not be trustworthy, since it could have been magically compelled.

Taking the example of this OotS strip, Miko didn't KNOW anything - she made a lot of assumptions and acted on them. And simply making assumptions does not give a paladin license to murder.



			
				Herobizkit said:
			
		

> Paladins are the ultimate vigilante.  They will tromp all over the laws of Lawful societies if they differ from or oppose their own moral compass, provided it is in the realm of their Deity's will.




Well, all I can say is that you run paladins very differently from how they're written in the PHB. It sounds to me like your paladins aren't even Lawful.


----------



## Grog (Jan 28, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Otherwise you wouldn't have so many Paladins wandering around slaughtering hundreds upon hundreds of goblins, orcs, drow and such without so much as a by-your-leave.  And if Paladins couldn't go crusading against evil like that without consequenses, what's the point of playing one?




Killing goblins, orcs, and drow isn't murder. Those races attack humans/demi-humans all the time - they're a threat to the civilizations the paladin is sworn to protect.


----------



## Grog (Jan 28, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I say, even if he is Good, Miko doesn't fall for this one action. It's dangerous, but alignment has three components: motive, action, and reaction. The motive was Lawful Good (to restore justice to the throne), the action was debatably Lawful Good (applying standards of justice to one who had abused their power), and the reaction could be Lawful Good as well (Instituting a new, legitimate ruler in the throne, making sure Shojo can't hurt anyone else, etc.).




The action most certainly was not Lawful Good. The cold-blooded murder of a defenseless old man is an Evil act, and ignoring the legitimate authority in the situation (Hinjo) is a Chaotic act. And the reaction (destabilizing the country with an undead invasion imminent) is both Chaotic and Evil as well.

Let me ask this question again - if brutally murdering a defenseless old man in cold blood isn't enough to make a paladin fall, _what is?_


----------



## Gez (Jan 28, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Let me ask this question again - if brutally murdering a defenseless old man in cold blood isn't enough to make a paladin fall, _what is?_




Especially when it was already established BY THE STRIP ITSELF that killing Belkar at the conclusion of the chase would have made her fall.

You'd have an easier justification for her killing Belkar than her killing Shojo, so...


----------



## blargney the second (Jan 28, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> "This one time? At Bard
> camp? I met a Paladin.
> She so fell for me."



*laugh*

The paladin code
causes the fall of many
internet posters.


----------



## Gez (Jan 28, 2007)

Haiku are strange things
Many people post them, but
They're not haiku.


----------



## Andor (Jan 28, 2007)

It should be noted
in japanese 'haiku' 
has three syllables.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 28, 2007)

Gez said:
			
		

> Haiku are strange things
> Many people post them, but
> They're not haiku.




Your first line requires
"haiku" have two syllables,
but three for your last.

(I will not allow
as valid an accent with
two syllable "they're".)

- - -

I think that I shall
never see, a paladin
lovely as a tree.

- - -

Paladins, haiku
purity, and alignment:
recipe for war.

- - -

Speculation grows
dull as Miko's flirting. Let's
en-verse: *smite topic!*


Cheers, -- N


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Jan 28, 2007)

Just to note, Undetectable Alignment is on the Paladin spell list. If they're supposed to be so holier than thou, what's that doing there? Play on!


----------



## Pbartender (Jan 28, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Killing goblins, orcs, and drow isn't murder. Those races attack humans/demi-humans all the time - they're a threat to the civilizations the paladin is sworn to protect.




So, it's okay to kill without provocation a goblinoid that's minding it's own business and doing nothing wrong just because he's a goblinoid, but it's evil to kill a human, elf or dwarf whom you are convinced is committing high treason that would jeopardize an entire city just because he's not?

Are you saying that race determines what is and isn't murder?   

That's a slippery slope, there, pal. :\ 

It's almost a shame we can't mention politics on this board...  Rich may be giving us a blatant object lesson concerning current events, here, but I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Victim (Jan 28, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> So, it's okay to kill without provocation a goblinoid that's minding it's own business and doing nothing wrong just because he's a goblinoid, but it's evil to kill a human, elf or dwarf whom you are convinced is committing high treason that would jeopardize an entire city just because he's not?
> 
> Are you saying that race determines what is and isn't murder?
> 
> ...




No, he's saying that basically a state of low (or not) intensity war exists between goblin societies and human ones.


----------



## shilsen (Jan 28, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> So, it's okay to kill without provocation a goblinoid that's minding it's own business and doing nothing wrong just because he's a goblinoid, but it's evil to kill a human, elf or dwarf whom you are convinced is committing high treason that would jeopardize an entire city just because he's not?




The second might be okay, but probably not. And the first is definitely not okay in my game. If a paladin just tried to kill a goblin for being a goblin IMC, he'd be in trouble. And not just because it might be a gninja.


----------



## Slife (Jan 28, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> So, it's okay to kill without provocation a goblinoid that's minding it's own business and doing nothing wrong just because he's a goblinoid, but it's evil to kill a human, elf or dwarf whom you are convinced is committing high treason that would jeopardize an entire city just because he's not?
> 
> Are you saying that race determines what is and isn't murder?
> 
> That's a slippery slope, there, pal. :\



Species, mister.  As I believe is true for RL laws as well.


----------



## blargney the second (Jan 28, 2007)

Order of the Stick
reminds me of 2000.
So C'mon Monday!


----------



## Nifft (Jan 28, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> So, it's okay to kill without provocation a goblinoid that's minding it's own business and doing nothing wrong just because he's a goblinoid




In many games: *yes*. Evil races are evil for a reason... and that's the reason. So you can kill lots of them every session and never lose sleep. They exist to die at the end of a hero's sword.

Wait, let me put that in verse:

The goblins of spring
like weeds we must hack and slash
(but weeds with GP).





			
				Pbartender said:
			
		

> but it's evil to kill a human, elf or dwarf whom you are convinced is committing high treason that would jeopardize an entire city just because he's not?




How is he committing high treason and doing all these allegedly evil things while not detecting as evil? The judgement of the gods is frikkin' *visible*. Evil people detect as evil.

Killin' folks who don't detect as evil ... that's your slippery slope. Paladins get to do this at will, and it's for a good reason.

Wait, let me put that into verse:

To slay, or not to
slay? That is the question. Iff
it glows red, then yes.


Lying is a sin.
Can I kill a liar? Iff
it glows red, then yes.


Cheers, -- N


----------



## Nifft (Jan 28, 2007)

Slife said:
			
		

> Species, mister.  As I believe is true for RL laws as well.




Dog bites man? Good bye,
bad doggie. Man bites dog? We
may buy the book rights.

 -- N


----------



## Grog (Jan 28, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> So, it's okay to kill without provocation a goblinoid that's minding it's own business and doing nothing wrong just because he's a goblinoid, but it's evil to kill a human, elf or dwarf whom you are convinced is committing high treason that would jeopardize an entire city just because he's not?
> 
> Are you saying that race determines what is and isn't murder?
> 
> That's a slippery slope, there, pal. :\




I'm not your pal, pal. And that's not what I'm saying at all.

Under the Monster Manual entry for goblins, this is what it says:



> Goblins survive by raiding and stealing (preferably from those who cannot defend themselves easily), sneaking into lairs, villages, and even towns by night to take what they can. They are not above waylaying travelers on the road and stripping them of all possessions, up to and including the clothes on their backs. Goblins sometimes capture slaves to perform hard labor in the tribe's lair or camp.




According to the Monster Manual, goblins don't just "mind their own business and do nothing wrong." They steal, take slaves, and even kill people. Thus, it's justifiable for a paladin to kill a group of goblins who are stealing/slaving/killing in order to defend the humans and/or demi-humans he's charged with protecting. It is *not* justifiable for a paladin to murder someone just because he or she *thinks* that person is committing treason. That's not how a paladin acts, it's how a vigilante acts. Paladins are not vigilantes.

It's not about race.


----------



## blargney the second (Jan 28, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> To slay, or not to
> slay? That is the question. Iff
> it glows red, then yes.




Did you know that 'if'
has four less syllables than
'iff'?


----------



## orsal (Jan 29, 2007)

Slife said:
			
		

> Pbartender said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




OK, so replace "goblinoid" with "orc". The RAW establishes that they are of the same species as humans (see under "half-orc").


----------



## Gez (Jan 29, 2007)

orsal said:
			
		

> OK, so replace "goblinoid" with "orc". The RAW establishes that they are of the same species as humans (see under "half-orc").



Dragons too (see under "half-dragon").

And since dragons are the same species as everything else, there's only one species in D&D.

Or maybe we could not put pointless semantics in the debate? As far as I know, Paladins don't go randomly attacking peaceful goblin towns. They explore some dungeon to quest for a lost relic or to slay an evil lich, get ambushed by a bunch of goblins, and then with the help of their teammate eliminate the goblin threat that's in their way.


----------



## AFGNCAAP (Jan 29, 2007)

[Keanu Reeves]Whoa.[/Keanu Reeves]

Didn't expect that to happen (well, at least not that soon...).  And, as everyone else has said, is it Monday yet?  

As for Miko, IMHO...

She fell.  Hard.  I think she was a good example of a LG character focusing more on the Lawful aspect of the AL (thinking that the Good will come through strict adherence to Lawful).  I think she'll stay Lawful.  However, I see her becoming a LE Blackguard like there's no tomorrow.

Hinjo disagreed with his uncle's actions, but he was willing to still use the system to do what was necessary.  Miko abused & used the system (or her view of the system) to do what she did.  I won't say she's CE (yet), since she's still acting by the system.

And, as Shojo said, the paladins followed a code which (from how I read it) tied their hands behind their backs.  Frankly, if it WASN'T for the OotS's actions in the first story arc, the paladins wouldn't have been able to do much of anything about Xykon until it was too late.  I'm not too sure if Shojo himself was supposed to be LG (I'm guessing more NG, or maybe LN), but his concern was the city & its people (and the gates), rather than the narrow view of Soon's original code.

In a way, she pulled an Anakin--went down a very dark road believing it was the right way to do right, and beign to arrogant to realize how wrong those beliefs were until it's too late.

I also have to wonder if this arc may see Durkon "going home" per the prophecy.  Maybe not, though.  Then again, why is it that it's the dwarf PC who winds up buying it (like Flint from Dragonlance, or Ghim from Lodoss War, or even the dwarf barbarian who traveled with Soon and Dorukan)?


----------



## Nifft (Jan 29, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> Did you know that 'if'
> has four less syllables than
> 'iff'?




Yes, but officer,
it has not expired, my
poetic license.

 -- N


----------



## blargney the second (Jan 29, 2007)

Nice!   (btw, I mostly just wanted to end a haiku with a three-letter five-syllable word.)


----------



## Nifft (Jan 29, 2007)

AFGNCAAP said:
			
		

> I'm not too sure if Shojo himself was supposed to be LG (I'm guessing more NG, or maybe LN), but his concern was the city & its people (and the gates), rather than the narrow view of Soon's original code.




I get the feeling he's Chaotic in his Goodness.



			
				AFGNCAAP said:
			
		

> In a way, she pulled an Anakin--went down a very dark road believing it was the right way to do right, and beign to arrogant to realize how wrong those beliefs were until it's too late.




I think she's just really angry, and is letting her anger get the best of her judgment.
After all, she prays to be allowed to kill people who are (mostly) good and not evil at all.
That's one angry, bitter young lady.



			
				AFGNCAAP said:
			
		

> I also have to wonder if this arc may see Durkon "going home" per the prophecy.  Maybe not, though.  Then again, why is it that it's the dwarf PC who winds up buying it (like Flint from Dragonlance, or Ghim from Lodoss War, or even the dwarf barbarian who traveled with Soon and Dorukan)?




I bet there are several who buy it -- but not Elan or Haley. If either of them died, Elan wouldn't get a happy ending. (Or Banjo. And Thog probably lives, too.)

Cheers, -- N


----------



## BlueBlackRed (Jan 29, 2007)

I can't help but think there's some level of irony hiding in here somewhere because of something a cartoon did.   

I almost expect to see an oversized OotS cartoon about whether or not she technically broke the paladin code; mirroring these arguments.
Either that or there will be a sideways comment like "What did you think? That we were going to argue pointlessly back and forth over whether or not Miko broke her code?"


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 29, 2007)

BBR,

Bah, if there is a balloon about this I'll be extremely disappointed in Rich.


----------



## Vanuslux (Jan 29, 2007)

I don't think discussions about the fine print of right vs. wrong are ever pointless, regardless of what catalyzes them, especially when there are a lot of differing views involved.


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 29, 2007)

Van,

They aren't pointless so much as they keep giving me headaches when they show up here.


----------



## Slife (Jan 29, 2007)

orsal said:
			
		

> OK, so replace "goblinoid" with "orc". The RAW establishes that they are of the same species as humans (see under "half-orc").



Where did it say that half-orcs could produce fertile offspring?

Hmm?


----------



## Nifft (Jan 29, 2007)

Disorder blooms: "true"
Law births Chaos; quick judgment
spawns lengthy debate.

Fruit of solitude
fertilizes these threads; which
I'm sure Rich avoids.

 -- N


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Jan 29, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> They aren't pointless so much as they keep giving me headaches when they show up here.




QFT.



			
				Vanuslux said:
			
		

> I don't think discussions about the fine print of right vs. wrong are ever pointless, regardless of what catalyzes them, especially when there are a lot of differing views involved.




And for what it is worth, I also agree that discussing right and wrong is always worth the effort.  But in order to discuss right and wrong worthwhile we need to be able to shed D&D's illusion of simple morality.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can do that without getting a legitimate warning from the mods.  Questions like ... "Is it ever right to kill another human being" tend to get religious or political pretty fast.  {And no, please don't take that as an invitation to discuss that topic.  Mods, if stating that question crosses a boundary, I'll be happy to edit it out.  I don't mean to cross a line.}


----------



## Vraille Darkfang (Jan 29, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> In many games: *yes*. Evil races are evil for a reason... and that's the reason. So you can kill lots of them every session and never lose sleep. They exist to die at the end of a hero's sword.




Yes,

But Goblins are not an Evil Race.

They are a "Usually Neutral Evil" Race.

That means that "More than 50%" of Goblins are Evil.

That means a lot on Non-Evil Goblins are running around.  Even if 85-90% are Evil of some sort, that would still leave tens of thousands (if not more) of non-evil goblins running around (based on how many of the vermin-like creatures are running around).

If it doesn't have an Always in the Alignment Block, there is no guarantee that a given Creature is Evil.  Or Good.  Or Lawful.




But, I don't think Miko will Fall.  Here's why:

The Lawful Stupid Paladin Archtype has a lot of Fuel in the Tank.  Miko's been offstage a lot.  The Paladin as "Holier than Thou" and "I'm Always Right"  "Smite now, Detect Later" has reams of material to keep Rich Busy.

Unless he really has a bunch of material related to BlackGuards, Fallen Paladins, or Maybe a guest Sabine-Miko "_Peaceful _ Contact with an Evil Outsider" Drawn by Boris Vallejo & Julie Bell    (Not all clicks grandma friendly); I don't see why he'd rush the "Miko Goes Coo-Coo" Angle.

And I think that is waht it really boils down too:

Does Rich want to continue to use Miko as Paladin Material or as Blackguard Material?

Or maybe just "NPC who Advances Plot".


----------



## Andor (Jan 29, 2007)

Slife said:
			
		

> Where did it say that half-orcs could produce fertile offspring?
> 
> Hmm?




In Eberron they breed true. I don't recall if it's stated anywhere in baseline D&D, but they are WAY too common to be an infertile cross unless humans and orcs just really dig each others hormones.

Once you go Orc you
never go back. The same can
not be said of Gnomes.


----------



## Slife (Jan 29, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> In Eberron they breed true. I don't recall if it's stated anywhere in baseline D&D, but they are WAY too common to be an infertile cross unless humans and orcs just really dig each others hormones.




Or maybe orc barbarianss just aren't as... refined in their looting and plundering habits as the average PC party is.  I will say no more, as this is a delicate issue, and I'm not sure where the line is.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 29, 2007)

Slife said:
			
		

> Or maybe orc barbarianss just aren't as... refined in their looting and plundering habits as the average PC party is.  I will say no more, as this is a delicate issue, and I'm not sure where the line is.




"The unconscious are considered willing." -- Old Orc Proverb (and mage targeting advice)

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 29, 2007)

Paragon Kobold said:
			
		

> Ther has been a lot of talk about Paladins in this tread. I think it is worth noting that Miko also is a Samurai (As a title not as a Class).
> 
> As I understand it cutting your boss in two when he didn't ask you to is pretty high up on the list of things samurai are not supposed to do.



Cha-ching!  We have a winner.  How many other codes and/or laws of the universe has Miko broken, I wonder?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 29, 2007)

Gez said:
			
		

> I am very tempted to godwin this thread now, because when you look only on the part that's convenient for your argument and forget everything else, you can say that Hitler was lawful good in motive, action, and reaction. You just have to focus on building highways, making trains run on time, breathing new life in the economy, and so on; and completely forget the world war and the genocide.




I dunno, Miko hasn't committed genocide or anything....y'know...yet....  



> Just like you're doing with Miko who's busy killing the leader of a country in the eve of an onslaught by an army of undead and hobgoblins led by a lich and an evil cleric.
> 
> By disorganizing the country just before the start of the war, she is guilty of high treason.




That really depends on her actions from this point on. Killing a leader doesn't nessecarily disorganize a country: Lincoln was assassinated, but America stood intact and the South hasn't risen again. Disorganization does not nessecarily follow from the execution of an authority. In fact, it could be argued that with the corruption at the heart of the nation gone, the unified front the Paladins will present (without subversion from within by criminal elements) will be stronger and more able to repel invading forces.

For instance, think of the recent coup in Thailand, where the government was overthrown by a military force that was more popular than the reigning PM (IIRC...I might not). Order ruled the day, not chaos.

It also depends on how authority is handed down in the world of OotS. She sees herself as an element of divine justice restoring a tradition that has been discarded. There's no real reason to believe she's wrong in that belief. If there is a lawful chain of command and authority to follow, she has not plunged her nation into chaos, she has just done her legally appointed duty: to destroy those in the system who corrupt the system for their own ends.

Gloom and doom hasn't been shown yet, and is hardly guaranteed.



> Another paladin could execute her for she is an ally of Xykon: she was captured, but Xykon released her after talking to her of letting her join her side, and ever since she has worked contrarily to the interests of Azure City.




Well, it hasn't been shown she's working against the interests of Azure City. It's entirely possible that she's working for the interests of Azure City. It's possible that they *both* are working for the interests of Azure City, just in fundamentally different ways.

That said, I don't think it would be against the code to execute her, either. Paladins can war and both keep their LG standing and code. It's definately possible for LG to fight LG in bloody sacred warfare, debating over the best ways to serve the people, both unable to give an inch to the other side.



> The action most certainly was not Lawful Good. The cold-blooded murder of a defenseless old man is an Evil act, and ignoring the legitimate authority in the situation (Hinjo) is a Chaotic act. And the reaction (destabilizing the country with an undead invasion imminent) is both Chaotic and Evil as well.




Is the legitimate authority the Gods or mortals? Is she beholden to Hinjo (some guy) or is she beholden to the Code, to her Alignment, to her Ancestors, to her Nation, and to her Gods (any or all of which could dictate that what she did was just)? Is the nation truly plunged into chaos, or is it made *stronger* by having a united front, rather than a corruption at its core? 



> Let me ask this question again - if brutally murdering a defenseless old man in cold blood isn't enough to make a paladin fall, what is?




Cold-blooded? Miko was issuing the punishment mandated, as far as we know, by every authority she respects. Shojo violated every aspect of honor and justice recognized by the nation and by the LG alignment. 

Brutal? One cut. Seems almost a mercy killing, and the best way to ensure justice is done. 

Defenseless old man? Shojo had proven himself capable at the very least of surrounding himself in powerful allies more than willing to bend to his beck and call (the OotS), if not a potent warrior in his own right. 

If executing a traitor to justice and honor isn't part of the Paladin's duty, what is?


----------



## Nyeshet (Jan 29, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> The one thing I keep thinking is ...
> 
> This is how Anakin Skywalker should have fallen to the Dark Side.
> 
> I think this storyline really shows how someone can become and do evil while at the same time telling themselves they're doing good.



Actually, I was more reminded of that scene in Return of the Jedi, when the Emperor says something like: "Strike me down with all your anger and hatred and your journey to the Dark Side will be complete!" Then Luke strikes only to have it blocked by his father. Miko, however, did not have anyone to block her - and thus she has fallen, whereas Luke was saved from falling by his father. (Although it is highly debatable as to whether Anakin was attempting to save his son or defend his master when he blocked Luke's strike.)


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 29, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> I'm not your pal, pal. And that's not what I'm saying at all.
> 
> Under the Monster Manual entry for goblins, this is what it says:
> 
> ...






Just because they do the above does not make them evil, first of all if stealing is evil then no more rogues who grew up on the streets and joined the thieves guild can be good. Pleanty of human cultures have slavery so I guess then all humans should line up to be killed by paladins.

Adventuers go into forgotten temples , old dungeons and slaughter creatures and then plunder because that is what looting is plunder so I guess they should be next on the paladin's list of things to do.

I believe Miko fell hard for one major reason amd that is she let her anger take over. She was not alone in the wilderness, she had the chance to arrest  Shojo and if she thought they could not trust the law of Azure City she could have brought him in from a tribunal made up of her fellow Sapphire Guard.

As for Shojo not dectecting evil there are items that can hide your alignment so that is not always viable and sure fire way. So saying that it is wrong for a paladin to slay someone who is not dectecting evil is wrong.

Miko heard with her own ears that Shojo had lied, broken the laws of his city, interfered with justice. She had just prayed to her gods asking for guidence and the next thing that happens is she hears Shojo confession. Just because he does not detect as evil does not make him less guilty of all the above and that makes him a traitor. A traitor whom she believes will not have a fair trial because she believes that the system is now corrupt. I do not believe she was totally wrong in delivering justice. I do believe however that she had alternatives open to her so that she did not need to deliver such a hasty sentence and that is why I feel she is in the wrong.


----------



## GwydapLlew (Jan 29, 2007)

The Giant is wise;
Contentious stories always
Generate readers.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 29, 2007)

> Miko heard with her own ears that Shojo had lied, broken the laws of his city, interfered with justice. She had just prayed to her gods asking for guidence and the next thing that happens is she hears Shojo confession. Just because he does not detect as evil does not make him less guilty of all the above and that makes him a traitor. A traitor whom she believes will not have a fair trial because she believes that the system is now corrupt. I do not believe she was totally wrong in delivering justice. I do believe however that she had alternatives open to her so that she did not need to deliver such a hasty sentence and that is why I feel she is in the wrong.




I can buy that. 

IMC, though, it takes more than a rash action of anger for a paladin to loose their paladin status. Paladins aren't perfection -- they make mistakes, they don't see every consequence. She may have to atone (because not atoning indicates she's not sorry for letting anger get the better of her), but she's probably okay.

Still, that's one of those campaign-specific wafflings I can live with.

I can live with Miko falling fast and hard, too, but I do think it's important to be the devil's advocate...and to note that her turning blackguard and fighting the OotS would be kind of *lame*...


----------



## Nifft (Jan 29, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I can live with Miko falling fast and hard, too, but I do think it's important to be the devil's advocate...and to note that her turning blackguard and fighting the OotS would be kind of *lame*...




Chill wind howls, and tolls
the harvest bell of Fall. Hope
she's not Atone-deaf.

C, -- N


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 29, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I can buy that.
> 
> IMC, though, it takes more than a rash action of anger for a paladin to loose their paladin status. Paladins aren't perfection -- they make mistakes, they don't see every consequence. She may have to atone (because not atoning indicates she's not sorry for letting anger get the better of her), but she's probably okay.
> 
> ...




I have a problem with how easy a lot of people think a paaldin should lose their paladinhood. They put them in a straight jacket one small misstep and boom lost paladinhood.

I am DMing a paladin and playing one. I get so frustrated with the Dm and some of the players. There is a lot of argument in game by the other players, myself and the Dm about if I have slipped. There is such a difference of opinion on what is considered breaking your paladin vows.

In my game I have made a rule that other players are not to bring up alignment issues in game and say I think what the paladin did is evil why is he still a paladin. I and only I will say if the paladin has fallen.

I also am working on a code with the player. As far as I am cocerned as long as he follows his code there should not be a problem.

This paladin thread reminds me of a situation in another game we had a paladin who followed a god who opposed all undead. This god believed that it was an unatural state and an abomination the paladin took an oath to uphold the tenets of his faith and to rid the world of any abominations. 

We came across a good lich. Because he did not detect as evil the paladin challenged him to honorable combat. The Lich  was destroyed in the combat. It caused a lot of arguments about how the paladin had fallen because he had killed a good creature.

The Dm disagreed saying that it was not a good vs issue. It  was a paladin upholding the tenets of his faith, his vow to a lawfully good god.


----------



## Grog (Jan 29, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> IMC, though, it takes more than a rash action of anger for a paladin to loose their paladin status. Paladins aren't perfection -- they make mistakes, they don't see every consequence. She may have to atone (because not atoning indicates she's not sorry for letting anger get the better of her), but she's probably okay.




We are not talking about a small mistake here. We are not talking about something like tithing only 5% of your gold to your church instead of 10%.

We are talking about a *murder*. In our society, we put people in prison for a long, long time for that. They don't get to say "I just made a mistake, please don't punish me." (Well, they can say it, but it doesn't usually do them any good).

Do you mind if I ask exactly what _does_ make paladins lose their paladin status in your campaign?



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I have a problem with how easy a lot of people think a paaldin should lose their paladinhood. They put them in a straight jacket one small misstep and boom lost paladinhood.




Murder isn't a small misstep.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 29, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I have a problem with how easy a lot of people think a paaldin should lose their paladinhood. They put them in a straight jacket one small misstep and boom lost paladinhood.




*Regicide.* It's not on the misdemeanor list.

 -- N


----------



## Grog (Jan 29, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Is the legitimate authority the Gods or mortals? Is she beholden to Hinjo (some guy) or is she beholden to the Code, to her Alignment, to her Ancestors, to her Nation, and to her Gods (any or all of which could dictate that what she did was just)? Is the nation truly plunged into chaos, or is it made *stronger* by having a united front, rather than a corruption at its core?




So now we're back to the self-justification. According to you, paladins can do anything they want, no matter how Chaotic or Evil the act, so long as they can justify it to themselves.

Go back to the example in my earlier post:

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3305924&postcount=160

I cut a defenseless boy down in the street because I think he helped some orcs attack a village. I have no hard evidence of this, I just believe he did something wrong, so I kill him. According to you, I'm still a paladin, right?


----------



## Nifft (Jan 29, 2007)

In D&D world, the judgment of the gods is *visible* to Paladins. If the bastard glows red, he needs killin'. They can _detect evil_ at will for a reason.

What is evil, though? It is *what the Gods decide is evil*. It is literally divine judgment.

- - - - -

Killing an unarmed man who poses no immediate threat is cold-blooded murder.

 -- N


----------



## Baron Opal (Jan 29, 2007)

IIRC, didn't Shojo in the strip before mention that the clerics that were going to raise the dead wizard would be stopping by the throne room "at any moment?"

Some good points have been raised as to whether or not Miko would lose her paladin-hood for these current actions. I would submit, however, that if she has fallen that she will resist Hinjo from arresting her. I can't imagine that Hinjo would just let Miko walk away after slaying his uncle and the ruler of Azure City.


----------



## Wolv0rine (Jan 29, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> I cut a defenseless boy down in the street because I think he helped some orcs attack a village. I have no hard evidence of this, I just believe he did something wrong, so I kill him. According to you, I'm still a paladin, right?



Eh, I'd say a closer analogy to what Miko did would be I cut a defenseless boy down inthe street after I heard him admit to helping some orcs attack the village so that they would take their loot and move on instead of sacking and burning it to the ground.  My evidence is I heard him admit it, though not to me, and I refuse to hear the hows and whys of it.  He puts up no defense or struggle, so I chop him in half *in anger*.

Either way; You, I, and Miko would fall by my PoV.


----------



## Grog (Jan 29, 2007)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> Eh, I'd say a closer analogy to what Miko did would be I cut a defenseless boy down inthe street after I heard him admit to helping some orcs attack the village so that they would take their loot and move on instead of sacking and burning it to the ground.  My evidence is I heard him admit it, though not to me, and I refuse to hear the hows and whys of it.  He puts up no defense or struggle, so I chop him in half *in anger*.
> 
> Either way; You, I, and Miko would fall by my PoV.




Well, if we want to keep it as close to OotS as we can, an even closer analogy would be that the boy didn't admit to helping the orcs at all, rather he made some other comments about "acting for the greater good" and I simply assumed that he'd been helping the orcs and then cut him in half.

It absolutely baffles me that anyone could think I'd still be a paladin after that.


----------



## Sarellion (Jan 29, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I can buy that.
> 
> IMC, though, it takes more than a rash action of anger for a paladin to loose their paladin status. Paladins aren't perfection -- they make mistakes, they don't see every consequence. She may have to atone (because not atoning indicates she's not sorry for letting anger get the better of her), but she's probably okay.




You still get punished for rash actions of anger. Murder can be one of these rash actions of anger but that doesn´t mean you won´t be punished.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 29, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> We are not talking about a small mistake here. We are not talking about something like tithing only 5% of your gold to your church instead of 10%.
> 
> We are talking about a *murder*. In our society, we put people in prison for a long, long time for that. They don't get to say "I just made a mistake, please don't punish me." (Well, they can say it, but it doesn't usually do them any good).
> 
> ...




I was not talking about just this when I said so many people make a paladin fall because of a misstep.

Let me ask you this what if Miko had heard all that she heard then detected evil on the group and they detected evil would it still be murder?

Should she lose her paladinhood?

Miko asked for guidence from her gods and since the gods are real in her world what was she supposed to think when she heard what she heard? Now if this happened in a game I DMed I would have her lose her powers not because she killed a man who she believed was betraying her order, her city and her gods, but because she took the law in her own hands. She had alternatives. And this belief was based on evidence she heard with her own ears right after she prayed to her gods asking for a sign.

She also knows that an evil army is at the gates if she truly beoieves that Shojo has betrayed everything and is in allegience with Xylon them allowing him to live would be a mistake. Who knows what harm he could do. A city cannot afford to be divided at this moment. A live Shojo could cause much more disruption than a dead one. He could influence people to free him, or to follow and order without question that causes the guard to lose to Xylon.

playing a paaldin sometimes means making a judgement call. Knowing what Miko heard and the fact that she asked for guidence right before all this happened I would be willing to give her a little more leeway. Its not like out of the blue she just walked into the throne room and killed Shojo.

Actually if this ever happened in a game I would say the DM was being a major a&& who wanted the paladin to fall and set it up in such  away as to happen.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 29, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> ...and the fact that she asked for guidence right before all this happened...




Nope. She asked for guidance _weeks ago_ (in OotS time; months in real time). She's merely _assuming_ that her request for guidance is applicable to this situation, because it's what she wants to believe.

She also knew she only heard part of the story, and didn't bother to find out the rest, instead simply assuming (note that word again) that it meant what she thought it did.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 29, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Let me ask you this what if Miko had heard all that she heard then detected evil on the group and they detected evil would it still be murder?




Maybe. Then at least it's open to debate.

The fact is: she says she does not care if they detect as evil or not. Huge difference in attitude and intent there.




			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Miko asked for guidence from her gods and since the gods are real in her world what was she supposed to think when she heard what she heard? ... And this belief was based on evidence she heard with her own ears right after she prayed to her gods asking for a sign.




Her gods do give signs, though. They give her a big red "THIS GUY IS EVIL" sign at will.

They also gave her a giant "THIS ARMY IS EVIL" sign -- they showed her the real enemy. What did she do? Jump to a conclusion about an imaginary enemy in order to justify her prejudice and enable her to take revenge. That's some hefty dark side points.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Imp (Jan 29, 2007)

Ok, I'm gonna call it.  I draw my own cartoons – I do that a whole ton more than the dungeons and dragonsing, actually, though I'm not claiming great mastery or anything – and I'm gonna guess what Burlew would do based on what I would do.  Does this call for spoiler tags?  I'll be safe:

[sblock]So Monday there's a big ol' fight, Miko vs. Hinjo and Roy and Belkar.  Miko KOs Hinjo, fights off Roy and takes the opportunity to smite Belkar.  Doesn't work.  Miko staggers back, convinced she's fallen.  Belkar of course denies it.  After all, he's not evil!  Oh no.  They argue a bit, and Belkar dares her to try detecting evil on him.  Doesn't work.  Results inconclusive.  Roy makes with the quippy.  Conveniently, Hinjo is down so he can't provide corroborating evidence.

_Then_ we switch to Xykon come Wednesday.

And this argument rages for a WEEK! [/sblock]

If only I could place a bet somehow... it feels cheap calling it like this and not having to pay for being wrong


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 29, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Nope. She asked for guidance _weeks ago_ (in OotS time; months in real time). She's merely _assuming_ that her request for guidance is applicable to this situation, because it's what she wants to believe.
> 
> She also knew she only heard part of the story, and didn't bother to find out the rest, instead simply assuming (note that word again) that it meant what she thought it did.




I just reread the comic and she says she prayed and then came to the throne door so it does not seem to me that she did that weeks ago.

She stood their and listened to Hinjo and Shojo talking and Shojo admitting that what they heard was correct that he lied to them and was practicing The ends justify the means. 

What part of the story did she not overhear?


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 29, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Maybe. Then at least it's open to debate.
> 
> The fact is: she says she does not care if they detect as evil or not. Huge difference in attitude and intent there.
> 
> ...




But in the game spells can hide alignment so that is not always an accurate method. You can have items that hide evil you have items that can change aligment so someone could read as evil but really be good. Its not a 100% effective tool.

Also just because someone is not evil does not mean that they have not violated the law. For example a person who sells out his country to another invading army may do it because he feels it is the right thing to do. or is under some kind of compulsion like a kidnapped spouse. That does not make him evil yet a paladin of his country would be in the right to execute him if under the that law paladins dispensed justice.

I am saying that given everything that happened from Miko's POV she has some wiggle room.


----------



## Grog (Jan 29, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Let me ask you this what if Miko had heard all that she heard then detected evil on the group and they detected evil would it still be murder?




Yes. If Miko charged in and cut them down while they offered no resistance, that would still be murder.

However, if Miko attempted to take them into custody, and they fought against her, *then* she would be justified in killing them.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 29, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> But in the game spells can hide alignment so that is not always an accurate method. You can have items that hide evil you have items that can change aligment so someone could read as evil but really be good. Its not a 100% effective tool.




Let me repeat: she says she does not care. Big difference.

 -- N


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 29, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Let me repeat: she says she does not care. Big difference.
> 
> -- N




I think she does not care because her trust has been totally violated by Shojo. I read it as her saying I don't care that they don't decect evil they are doing evil acts.

Take Belkar she can't detect evil on him but look at his actions he tried to kill a celestial being. Miko's horse is a being of pure good and the halfling wants to kill him. Roy even admitted to her that Belkar was not good but loyality was more important.

Shojo has said that he will do what he has to do to protect his city that the means justify the ends which is a very slippery slope.

She was tasked by Shojo to go arrest the order because they had broken rhe law and to bring them in for a trial. All of that was a sham she was used by Shojo.

I think Miko has had help on this fall from grace.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 29, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I think she does not care because her trust has been totally violated by Shojo. I read it as her saying I don't care that they don't decect evil they are doing evil acts.




If they were doing enough evil acts, they would detect as evil.

Enough according to whom?

*ACCORDING TO THE GODS*.

Whose will is she serving?

*NOT THE GODS*.





			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Shojo has said that he will do what he has to do to protect his city that the means justify the ends which is a very slippery slope.




Wait. It's okay to murder unarmed old men if they may be on a slippery slope?

That's ... beyond irony. 

 -- N


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 29, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Yes. If Miko charged in and cut them down while they offered no resistance, that would still be murder.
> 
> However, if Miko attempted to take them into custody, and they fought against her, *then* she would be justified in killing them.




I disagree. There is an evil army at that gates. If these people were evil and involved then it would be dangerous and stupid to leave them around so th they could may  escape from their cells and open the gates to allow the evil hoard in.

If there was no army at the gates then yeah I could see taking them in and throwing them in a cell and having a trial.


----------



## Nyeshet (Jan 29, 2007)

Having re-read the relevant strip, the only crime Hinjo and Miko overheard was that he faked the trial of the OotS. He also admitted to lying to his paladins by going behind their backs in secret to hire a group [the OotS] to go to one of the Gates and investigate it. 

So, Miko had - from his own lips - an unknowing confession that he had staged a false trial. That was the only crime she had heard (as the other matters were matters of honor, not law: not seeking out or investigating other Gates, not lying to the Paladins of the Sapphire Guard).

From that she extrapolated everything else - that he was evil or willingly / knowingly associating with evil [the OotS, perhaps Xykon], that he had betrayed both the Sapphire Guard and Azure City, etc. 

She presumed, because he had 1) been in power for 47 years, and 2) had managed to stage one false trial (to her certain knowledge, based on his own words), that the entire court system was corrupt(ed, by him) and that the laws of Azure City were corrupt (as he had had a hand in shaping them over the last half century). 

All in all, she did a lot of assuming and jumping to conclusions based upon knowledge of only a single crime. 

As for the timing of her prayer - she had been galloping to Azure City to warn it of the coming Army of Darkness. I somehow doubt she would have had time to stop along the way and pray for a few minutes to be shown those lying to her. Her duty would have compelled her to warn the city and the Shojo as soon as possible. Thus I tend to believe that the prayer was made sometime before she arrived at that beacon tower - maybe the day before? That would have still be rather recent (no more than 24 hours - or perhaps even that very morning). 

In any case, she jumped to a lot of conclusions. 

I still consider her fallen, but I don't think she will realize it any time soon. As she did not take time to Detect Evil or even use Smite Evil on the Shojo, I doubt she would use it in the middle of a battle with Roy, Belkar, and Hinjo. I think she will fight with Hinjo and the others, be forced to flee, and either hide in the city, be captured and placed in prison with the Linear Guild (for regicide), or escape the city and vanish from the strip for a few weeks - showing up later as either a Blackguard or something else entirely. 

I just wonder what will happen next. 


As an aside, presuming she does not atone, what other options are available to her? I can think of no other class offhand that would all her to trade out her Paladin levels than the Blackguard PrC. We know she is ~12th level, that she has 1-2 levels of Monk, 10-11 levels of Paladin. Should she go Blackguard, she will get the whole 10 level package almost immediately, I would think, transforming her to Monk 2 / Blackguard 10. But with the slew of new PrCs out these days, there must be a few I have not heard of that also allow a fallen Paladin to trade out her levels. What are they like? Could she perhaps come back as one of them as a surprise to us?


[Edit] Oh, and I second the opinion that the Cleric will be used to Raise the Shojo, especially as the point of going to that other gate was the knowledge that it was the next Gate Xykon would seek out (excluding Azure City Gate). With Xykon about to arrive at Azure city with a horde of Hobgoblins, it is rather evident that Azure City gate is the next target, not that other Gate. So, Shojo is dead, but in a few strips he will likely be raised. 

The question remains - what will Hinjo do with the OotS? One of them is evil - or at least all but proven to have murdered a prison guard. The groups former trial - which allowed them out of prison - was a sham. Also, the group was there in Azure city specifically to be hired by the Shojo to take on a dishonorable mission - the seeking out and investigation of one of the Gates. All in all, I can see Hinjo not allowing them to leave the city - and perhaps even seeking to imprison them again (or at the very least Belkar). Unless, of course, Hinjo is KOed during the fight with Miko and the OotS take the opportunity to escape. 

But if they do escape, what next for them? They no longer have a reason to seek out the other gate, but do they want to hang around in a besieged city? They cannot exactly reach Xykon through his horde of 10k+ hobgoblins, at least not immediately.

I wonder what will happen next? [/edit]


----------



## Nifft (Jan 29, 2007)

Nyeshet said:
			
		

> But with the slew of new PrCs out these days, there must be a few I have not heard of that also allow a fallen Paladin to trade out her levels. What are they like? Could she perhaps come back as one of them as a surprise to us?




There's always Dashing Swordsman... 

 -- N


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 29, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> If they were doing enough evil acts, they would detect as evil.
> 
> Enough according to whom?
> 
> ...




I find this a fuuny argument being used in reverse. I have read so many paladin threads about how detect evil is not enough for a pladin to use to judge someone they have to have evidence. Because of spells that mask and change alignmnet. I have played with DMs who have had paladins fall from grace because they detected evil on a prisoner and he had been the victim of change aligment spell.

I did not say that just because he was on a slippery slope I said it was just one of many things Shojo has done that could make him evil in a paladin eyes. Even Hinjo thinks he may be evil from his actions. The difference is that Hinjo still believes in the law and that it can work Miko does not.

If a paladin knows that the law is corrupt and that turning over a law breaker means that there will be no justice delivered than I think the paladin has the right to deliver justice in that case.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jan 29, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> For the record I would not remove her paladin status. She honestly, though unreasonably, believes he is evil and I would not make take away powers over a paladin striking against what it thought was evil.




I would not her turn Evil or become a fallen paladin just yet.

I would indeed remove her paladin powers since she's apparently doing a mistake which will help the real evil guys to conquer the city. Removing her power will put her in front of the truth, that she made a wrong move and has to work to fix her mistakes.

If she then insists that she was right, even after losing her powers, that puts her in dire danger of really become a fallen paladin, because she would be basically saying that the gods (who removed her powers as a punishment) were wrong.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 29, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I just reread the comic and she says she prayed and then came to the throne door so it does not seem to me that she did that weeks ago.




Do you really think that, with an undead army less than a few days behind her, she stopped to pray before reporting?

Besides, she's referring to a specific incident we've already seen, way back in strip #298. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0298.html) We don't have to _guess_ when this prayer she's talking about took place; we _know_.


----------



## Nyeshet (Jan 29, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I did not say that just because he was on a slippery slope I said it was just one of many things Shojo has done that could make him evil in a paladin eyes. Even Hinjo thinks he may be evil from his actions. The difference is that Hinjo still believes in the law and that it can work Miko does not.



Actually, no, Hinjo does not believe Shojo to be evil. He believes / knows that Shojo has broken the laws of Azure City - by staging a false trial, and that Shojo has acted dishonorably - by hiring a party of adventurers to seek out and investigate another Gate. He never once stated that he believed Shojo to be evil. 



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> If a paladin knows that the law is corrupt and that turning over a law breaker means that there will be no justice delivered than I think the paladin has the right to deliver justice in that case.



Possibly correct, but not a point in this case. Miko has only one example of a court case being falsified - only one. And yet she now presumes that all the courts and laws of Azure City are false and thus no longer legitimate and thus takes the law into her own hands. That is a very major assumption on her part, with no proof to back it up.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 29, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Her gods do give signs, though. They give her a big red "THIS GUY IS EVIL" sign at will.




I Detect Evil.
Something pings on my radar?
_Paladinbot Smite!_

-Hyp.


----------



## PhoenixDarkDirk (Jan 29, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> This paladin thread reminds me of a situation in another game we had a paladin who followed a god who opposed all undead. This god believed that it was an unatural state and an abomination the paladin took an oath to uphold the tenets of his faith and to rid the world of any abominations.
> 
> We came across a good lich. Because he did not detect as evil the paladin challenged him to honorable combat. The Lich  was destroyed in the combat. It caused a lot of arguments about how the paladin had fallen because he had killed a good creature.
> 
> The Dm disagreed saying that it was not a good vs issue. It  was a paladin upholding the tenets of his faith, his vow to a lawfully good god.




If it was up to me, calling for the destruction of all undead would make the god evil.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Jan 29, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Do you really think that, with an undead army less than a few days behind her, she stopped to pray before reporting?
> 
> Besides, she's referring to a specific incident we've already seen, way back in strip #298. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0298.html) We don't have to _guess_ when this prayer she's talking about took place; we _know_.




Man, good catch!

And it demonstrates one nice feature of the zealot -- they can always find some way to rationalize their prejudices, even if it takes 106 (_edit_: 108) strips.


----------



## Herobizkit (Jan 29, 2007)

paradox42 said:
			
		

> Incorrect. The Paladin's Code (as previously copied to the thread courtesy of Pbartender, back on page 2 or so) forbids associating with Evil people.
> 
> It does *not* forbid associating with "people who associate with Evil."
> 
> ...



I stand corrected.  Thanks for pointing out my flawed logic.  I believe I was mixing "the samurai code" with "the paladin code" willy-nilly. :x

And to add in a bit more, thanks for mentionning that Paladins are allowed to kill capital-E Evil creatures without cause or provocation, but as soon as traditionally Good races who Evil come into the picture, it's suddenly taboo.  It's a perfect example of how players confuse the Lawful Good alignment "guidelines" with modern-day "law and order" law.


----------



## Herobizkit (Jan 29, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Killing goblins, orcs, and drow isn't murder. Those races attack humans/demi-humans all the time - they're a threat to the civilizations the paladin is sworn to protect.



  Sure it is.  Evil humans, elves and dwarves attack civilizations as well.  Why do the laws of the land apply only to "people" and not "humanoids"?


----------



## Herobizkit (Jan 29, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> The problem with this is that it's almost impossible to KNOW something with absolute certainty. You have a witness that says someone was up to something bad? Witnesses can lie (and not all paladins have access to Discern Lies). You have documents saying the same thing? Documents can be forged. Hell, even a confession might not be trustworthy, since it could have been magically compelled.
> 
> Taking the example of this OotS strip, Miko didn't KNOW anything - she made a lot of assumptions and acted on them. And simply making assumptions does not give a paladin license to murder.



Didn't she overhear Shojo CONFESS what he had done?


> Well, all I can say is that you run paladins very differently from how they're written in the PHB. It sounds to me like your paladins aren't even Lawful.



To be fair, I don't enforce alignment restrictions; I don't use alignment at all in the traditional D&D sense.  Grey morality is always more interesting than a Deity taking your powers away for being questionable.


----------



## Herobizkit (Jan 29, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> According to the Monster Manual, goblins don't just "mind their own business and do nothing wrong." They steal, take slaves, and even kill people. Thus, it's justifiable for a paladin to kill a group of goblins who are stealing/slaving/killing in order to defend the humans and/or demi-humans he's charged with protecting. It is *not* justifiable for a paladin to murder someone just because he or she *thinks* that person is committing treason. That's not how a paladin acts, it's how a vigilante acts. Paladins are not vigilantes.
> 
> It's not about race.



Paladins don't read the Monster Manual.  It is, essentially, about race.  Goblinoids act in the manner described because the Good races traditionally don't let Goblins (et al) intermingle with their own humanocentric culture.

(The world of Iron Kingdoms does, however, just to illustrate one example that is non-traditional D&D for comparison.)


----------



## Gez (Jan 29, 2007)

Herobizkit said:
			
		

> Didn't she overhear Shojo CONFESS what he had done?




Shojo never confessed to being in league with Xykon.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 29, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I Detect Evil.
> Something pings on my radar?
> _Paladinbot Smite!_




Yes. Yes, she does.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 29, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> The Order of the Stick actually were guilty of the crime of which they were accused, alveit only through Elan's incompetence.




However, the mitigating circumstances were what exonerated them. And those mitigating circumstances were relevant no matter who was judging the trial.



> _Edit: Additionally, the beings who pre-judged the trial (Shojo and Roy's Dad) aren't the beings who have the right to judge the trial. If they'd really wanted to be sure, they should have called in those Celestial beings of Law to ask their opinion. Of course they didn't, because they couldn't be sure that said beings would give the convenient result._




Why not? Are they incapable of evaluating the correct legal outcome of a proceeding? They used Roy's dad because he was on hand and they needed him to bring Roy on board to accomplish the actual goal of hauling the OotS to Sapphire City - investigating the other gates. If Shojo didn't want that, it seems pretty obvious that he wouldn't have bothered to send Miko to get OotS in the first place, and thus there would have been no trial at all.



> _The outside observer, though, will always be left with the question: what if something had come up during the trial that by rights should have changed the verdict? Would the outcome have been the same? Or would justice have been done?_




Well, no. The actual conduct of the trial was handled entirely seperately of the issue of the celestial/not-celestial thing. There was a prosecution, and there was a defense. That was handled entirely seperate of the issue of who actually rendered the verdict. We have a pretty firm basis for believing that the evidence revealed was all there was.



> _There is no way the outside observer can ever tell. Therefore, there will now always be a doubt as to the effectiveness of the legal process. And that is damaging to the society (or at least the Sapphire Guard)._




It won't be damaging at all to the society of Azure City. They probably could not care less. The Sapphire Guild might be damaged, but then again, I think killing the head of the order without a trial on the eve of an invasion by a force of unstoppable evil will be much worse.



> _In a Lawful society (or, order, in the case of the Sapphire Guard) it is vitally important not only that justice be done, but also that it be seen to be done. Where corruption like this is exposed, and even where the correct verdict results, the corruption must be thoroughly rooted out, or else the house of cards wobbles. Hence, Shojo needed to be removed (although, there again, Miko went about things in the wrong way - Shojo needed to be arrested, tried, and his actions publicly exposed. Once again, justice needs to be seen to be done to restore faith in the system)._




Yes, justice must be seen to be done. Hence the show trial. The correct legal outcome was reached, but it needed to be shown to the Sapphire Guild that it was correct.

In any event, Miko has fallen so hard I am somewhat amused that there is even any debate on the issue. Jumping to conclusions, inventing paranoid conspiracy theories, not caring if the theories are true or not, not caring if the individuals involved are evil or not, and assassinating a defenseless old man rather than dealing with the unstoppable evil force is pretty much a one-way ticket to non-paladinhood.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 29, 2007)

PhoenixDarkDirk said:
			
		

> If it was up to me, calling for the destruction of all undead would make the god evil.




Why? It makes perfect sense to me. Being undead is not a natural state. One could argue that necromancers raising bodies and ghast killing people to make new undead spawn is evil.

The next time the undead come and munch on a villege the paladins should say sorry folkes we can't help, undead are just misunderstood.  

Gods can be zealots in their views without being evil.


----------



## delericho (Jan 29, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> However, the mitigating circumstances were what exonerated them. And those mitigating circumstances were relevant no matter who was judging the trial.
> 
> Why not? Are they incapable of evaluating the correct legal outcome of a proceeding?




They don't have the right to render judgement - the legal system in place requires that summoned Celestial beings of Law do so. Whether their assessment of the judgement was correct or not is irrelevant; it was not their place to make that assessment in the first place. The situation is exactly analogous to a judge hand-picking the jury in a trial to ensure the result he wants... whether the right result comes about or not, the system is still corrupt.



> They used Roy's dad because he was on hand and they needed him to bring Roy on board to accomplish the actual goal of hauling the OotS to Sapphire City - investigating the other gates. If Shojo didn't want that, it seems pretty obvious that he wouldn't have bothered to send Miko to get OotS in the first place, and thus there would have been no trial at all.




There should have been no trial in the first place. Rather that bothering with having Miko drag the OotS back in chains, going through with a show trial, corrupting the legal proceedings of the Sapphire Guard, indirectly causing the fall of Miko, and getting himself killed, Shojo could have used any number of other options. For example, he could have taken the extremely radical solution of... asking the Order of the Stick for help. ("Miko, I have a very important message here that you must deliver to one Roy Greenhilt. On your honour, this message must fall into no other hands, nor must it fail to be delivered by strip #250.")



> Well, no. The actual conduct of the trial was handled entirely seperately of the issue of the celestial/not-celestial thing. There was a prosecution, and there was a defense. That was handled entirely seperate of the issue of who actually rendered the verdict. We have a pretty firm basis for believing that the evidence revealed was all there was.




We do. Miko does not. Hinjo does not. What's more, neither we nor any of the characters in the story will ever be able to answer the nagging question, "what if there had been more evidence?" Would the verdict have been reversed, or would Shojo's need of the services of the Order, and Roy's Dad's probable reluctance to sentence his son to death won out?

That question can never be fully resolved, because it's predicated on an unknown. But, as long as it remains open, it's a blight on the legal system that was used. And that's why you need an impartial jury (summoned Celestial) - it gives you the assurance that the whole thing is handled properly.



> It won't be damaging at all to the society of Azure City. They probably could not care less.




One suspects, if it were to become widely known what had happened, a great many murderers and other criminals would press to have the ghosts of their dear departed fathers standing judgement in their trials. Probably not too many patricides, though.



> Yes, justice must be seen to be done. Hence the show trial. The correct legal outcome was reached, but it needed to be shown to the Sapphire Guild that it was correct.




Justice has been seen very clearly to have not been done - the 'impartial jury' used in the trial was very obviously nothing of the sort. The trial has been revealed as a sham, the ruler of the nation has shown he is willing to ignore proper legal proceedings in the name of expedience, and it is time for him to suffer the consequences of his actions.

One other question Shojo shouldn't have been able to duck: if he was so convinced that he'd assessed the situation correctly, and had given the right verdict, why make a mock of the legal process? Why not just use an actual summoned Celestial, and proceed from there? That way, there's no half-witted cover up for Miko to discover, and no fallout from that revelation.



> The Sapphire Guild might be damaged, but then again, I think killing the head of the order without a trial on the eve of an invasion by a force of unstoppable evil will be much worse.
> 
> In any event, Miko has fallen so hard I am somewhat amused that there is even any debate on the issue.




I'm not questioning whether Miko fell or not - my first post on this topic stated clearly that she had. However, there is plenty of blame to go around. And it remains my contention that Shojo should not have been left in his position of authority.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 29, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I can live with Miko falling fast and hard, too, but I do think it's important to be the devil's advocate...and to note that her turning blackguard and fighting the OotS would be kind of *lame*...



Well, she already fights the OotS on a regular basis.  Maybe she'd ease up a bit and chill out if she were a blackguard.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jan 29, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> One other question Shojo shouldn't have been able to duck: if he was so convinced that he'd assessed the situation correctly, and had given the right verdict, why make a mock of the legal process? Why not just use an actual summoned Celestial, and proceed from there? That way, there's no half-witted cover up for Miko to discover, and no fallout from that revelation.



Because they really did summon a Celestial, and Roy's dad took the place of the summoned Celestial because he had been investigating the destruction of the dungeon himself and realized that Shojo was investigating it as well.  

While Roy's dad wasn't the target celestial, he is a spirit from the upper planes who was able to respond to the summons.  Depending on the wording of Azure City law, it could be a technically legal trial since they did summon a being from the upper planes to give the verdict.  Shojo admitted he wasn't a lawful person, so he probably wasn't too worried about the technical wording of it, just that even if technically allowed the Sapphire Guard wouldn't like it one bit because they might see it as a violation of justice even if technically legal (kind of like what just happened).  Shojo had to duck enough assassination attempts that he started to feign senility to seem harmless, the last thing he needed was to upset his Paladins and get them turned against him.

On another note, even if Miko was somehow justified by the Paladin's Code in killing Shojo, there is no way she was justified in killing him under her Samurai's Code.  In addition to a fallen Paladin, she's also a dishonored Samurai.  If she turns to challenge Roy & Belkar, or Hinjo, her first sign she's fallen should be when Windstrider doesn't answer her call in the first round (but she's so paranoid she'll probably attribute that or any other failings in her powers in that battle to trickery or interference by the OotS).


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 29, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> They don't have the right to render judgement - the legal system in place requires that summoned Celestial beings of Law do so. Whether their assessment of the judgement was correct or not is irrelevant; it was not their place to make that assessment in the first place. The situation is exactly analogous to a judge hand-picking the jury in a trial to ensure the result he wants... whether the right result comes about or not, the system is still corrupt.




Are ou sure they don't have that right? Are you certain that the head of the Sapphire Order doesn't have the power to render judgments? Are you certain that Roy's father, who answered the summons for a celestial, is not capable of rendering such a judgment? Shojo didn't hand pick Roy's father, he showed up when the priests requested a celestial.



> _There should have been no trial in the first place. Rather that bothering with having Miko drag the OotS back in chains, going through with a show trial, corrupting the legal proceedings of the Sapphire Guard, indirectly causing the fall of Miko, and getting himself killed, Shojo could have used any number of other options. For example, he could have taken the extremely radical solution of... asking the Order of the Stick for help. ("Miko, I have a very important message here that you must deliver to one Roy Greenhilt. On your honour, this message must fall into no other hands, nor must it fail to be delivered by strip #250.")_




Shojo could not have done that for two reasons. He feared (probably correctly) that Roy, without the background information provided at the trial about the snarl, and the prodding from his dead father, would simply ignore the message. Remember, the only way to provide the "state secret" about the snarl to Roy and company was to have them demand it at the trial. Furthermore, the paladins of the Sapphire Order are prevented by their oaths from seeking out the other gates, and preventing others from doing so, which means that Miko could not carry the message to Roy in the first place.



> _We do. Miko does not. Hinjo does not. What's more, neither we nor any of the characters in the story will ever be able to answer the nagging question, "what if there had been more evidence?" Would the verdict have been reversed, or would Shojo's need of the services of the Order, and Roy's Dad's probable reluctance to sentence his son to death won out?_




But Shojo was not the only one presenting the prosecution. Hence, he didn't control the flow of information. If there was more evidence, it would have been brought forward at trial. That's why we have trials.



> _That question can never be fully resolved, because it's predicated on an unknown. But, as long as it remains open, it's a blight on the legal system that was used. And that's why you need an impartial jury (summoned Celestial) - it gives you the assurance that the whole thing is handled properly._




Actually, you need a called celestial, not a summoned one. And Roy's father seems to fit the bill.



> _One suspects, if it were to become widely known what had happened, a great many murderers and other criminals would press to have the ghosts of their dear departed fathers standing judgement in their trials. Probably not too many patricides, though._




Assuming that they can credibly be called celestial beings, there shouldn't be much of a problem with that.



> _Justice has been seen very clearly to have not been done - the 'impartial jury' used in the trial was very obviously nothing of the sort. The trial has been revealed as a sham, the ruler of the nation has shown he is willing to ignore proper legal proceedings in the name of expedience, and it is time for him to suffer the consequences of his actions._




It has, by everyone at this point except Miko and Hinjo. And even Hinjo seems to think that there is a need for a trial to determine Shojo's guilt, so he's not entirely on the "no justice" wagon. And in their position, they could have been shown (had Miko been willing to listen) that justice had actually been done, resolving the problem. Of course, Miko didn't care whether justice was actually done or not, her statements and actions clearly show that.



> _One other question Shojo shouldn't have been able to duck: if he was so convinced that he'd assessed the situation correctly, and had given the right verdict, why make a mock of the legal process? Why not just use an actual summoned Celestial, and proceed from there? That way, there's no half-witted cover up for Miko to discover, and no fallout from that revelation._




Because it was the only way to get the OotS to the Sapphire City, get them the secret information about the snarl and the other gates, and  convince them to do what he needed them to do. Shojo explained all of this about a hundred fifty strips ago.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 29, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> If they were doing enough evil acts, they would detect as evil.
> 
> Enough according to whom?
> 
> ...




Not necessarily.

Mind Shielding
This ring is usually of fine workmanship and wrought from heavy gold. *The wearer is continually immune to * detect thoughts, discern lies, and *any attempt to magically discern her alignment.* 

Faint aburation; CL 3rd; Forge Ring, nondetection; Price 8,000 gp. 

As a PC I don't care if someone does not detect as evil in general when judging whether to act or not, there are numerous ways to screw around with alignment detection.

Another good one (if you can cast it somehow) for infiltrating a paladin organization:

Misdirection
Illusion (Glamer)
Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 2 
Components: V, S 
Casting Time: 1 standard action 
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) 
Target: One creature or object, up to a 10-ft. cube in size 
Duration: 1 hour/level 
Saving Throw: None or Will negates; see text 
Spell Resistance: No 

By means of this spell, you misdirect the information from divination spells that reveal auras (detect evil, detect magic, discern lies, and the like). On casting the spell, you choose another object within range. For the duration of the spell, the subject of misdirection is detected as if it were the other object. (Neither the subject nor the other object gets a saving throw against this effect.) Detection spells provide information based on the second object rather than on the actual target of the detection unless the caster of the detection succeeds on a Will save. For instance, you could make yourself detect as a tree if one were within range at casting: not evil, not lying, not magical, neutral in alignment, and so forth. This spell does not affect other types of divination magic (augury, detect thoughts, clairaudience/clairvoyance, and the like). 

In particular, beware good goblins   

Spell-Like Abilities
*At will*—blink, levitate, *misdirection* (DC 14), rage (DC 15); 1/day—charm monster (DC 16), crushing despair (DC 16), dimension door. Caster level equals the *barghest*’s HD.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 29, 2007)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> What actions would you consider taking their powers away?




Deliberate evil. Casting [Evil] spells (but this is for the [Evil] subtype tapping into supernatural Evil that pollutes the paladin Good powers and requires a clerical atonement purification to access the Good powers again, this is not a judgment on the morality of the action). Rape. Murder and torture that is not justifiable. If a PC says "this is evil but I'm going to do it anyway" I will go with their judgment and let them have their atonement/fall storyline.

I've had a 1e ranger in my game (before 2e) lose his good ranger powers and become a CN fighter from deliberate evil, sacriligeous acts.

Miko? In my game I would say continue to go forth and smite evil you crazy unreasonable fanatic. Gods help those who you find to be targets of your wrath, be they innocent and good or not.


----------



## orsal (Jan 29, 2007)

Imp said:
			
		

> [sblock]Belkar of course denies it.  After all, he's not evil!  Oh no.[/sblock]




How would you explain that, in light of the past 406 strips?
[sblock=elaboration]I thought Belkar's evilness was apparent beginning when he was unaffected by the _Unholy Blight_ spell. More recently, we've seen time and again that he likes killing people just for the XP. I don't think there's any doubt about Belkar's alignment.[/sblock]


----------



## HalWhitewyrm (Jan 29, 2007)

What an awesome strip! And a perfect example why I normally don't allow paladins in my games. They tend to slip from Lawful Good to Lawful Idiotus very quickly and do stupid things like this, and I already have enough NPCs as it is.

I have to say, for all the light-hearted tone this strip normally has, this has been a deeply complex storyline that I am eagerly looking forward to see develop. Great job, Rich!


----------



## delericho (Jan 29, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Are ou sure they don't have that right? Are you certain that the head of the Sapphire Order doesn't have the power to render judgments? Are you certain that Roy's father, who answered the summons for a celestial, is not capable of rendering such a judgment? Shojo didn't hand pick Roy's father, he showed up when the priests requested a celestial.




If they have that right, there's no need for deception. In any event, there can be no doubt that having the accused's father serving as the jury cannot be considered impartial.

But I will accept that something is seriously out of joint here - Roy's father isn't Lawful, and doesn't seem particularly Good. Therefore, his answering a call for a Lawful Good celestial doesn't fit. (Although, don't the Fiendish Codices make mention of Lower Planar powers sometimes hijacking such summons, much as Roy's father was seen to do? If so, it stands to reason that a Chaotic Good power could do likewise.)



> Shojo could not have done that for two reasons. He feared (probably correctly) that Roy, without the background information provided at the trial about the snarl, and the prodding from his dead father, would simply ignore the message.




With input from Roy's father, he could almost certainly have phrased the message such that it wouldn't have been ignored. Or, just have Miko ask Roy really nicely (although, to be fair, Shojo couldn't have known about that reaction on Roy's part). Or don't send Miko with a message - call another Celestial and send it with the message. Or just hire someone else entirely.



> Remember, the only way to provide the "state secret" about the snarl to Roy and company was to have them demand it at the trial.




Since Shojo obviously doesn't consider himself bound by the oath not to meddle in the other gates, he almost certainly doesn't consider himself bound to keep the state secret. As such, there is absolutely nothing him just telling Roy when they're in private... much like the way he asks the OotS to look in on the other gates.

In any event, relying on Roy demanding the 'state secret' at the trial makes for a really sucky plan. What if Miko had 'accidentally' killed him? What if he'd decided not to cooperate? What if he mounted some other form of defence? What if they'd escaped?



> Furthermore, the paladins of the Sapphire Order are prevented by their oaths from seeking out the other gates, and preventing others from doing so, which means that Miko could not carry the message to Roy in the first place.




Miko does not need to be told the content of the message. Furthermore, the message to be delivered can be nothing more than "Azure City desperately need your help in a noble endeavour. Will pay lot$". This (by itself) hardly violates the paladin oath, and it's no more a manipulation of Miko than is sending her out to recruit the OotS via a show trial.



> But Shojo was not the only one presenting the prosecution. Hence, he didn't control the flow of information. If there was more evidence, it would have been brought forward at trial. That's why we have trials.




That, I believe, is my point exactly. Suppose the prosecution had presented some piece of information Shojo hadn't been aware of. For example, "Roy Greenhilt's father swore an oath of loyalty to the lich Zykon binding unto the seventh generation."

Now, what would the outcome of the trial have been in that scenario? Will the verdict be guilty or not-guilty?



> It has, by everyone at this point except Miko and Hinjo. And even Hinjo seems to think that there is a need for a trial to determine Shojo's guilt, so he's not entirely on the "no justice" wagon. And in their position, they could have been shown (had Miko been willing to listen) that justice had actually been done, resolving the problem. Of course, Miko didn't care whether justice was actually done or not, her statements and actions clearly show that.




I agree with most of this. There did indeed need to be a trial of Shojo, putting him up on the charge of "perverting the course of justice". A charge of which he is guilty. And then he should be removed from power.

By summarily executing him, Miko has rendered a public enquiry impossible, and prevented the damage caused being fixed.



> Because it was the only way to get the OotS to the Sapphire City, get them the secret information about the snarl and the other gates, and  convince them to do what he needed them to do. Shojo explained all of this about a hundred fifty strips ago.




A way, certainly. The only way? Hardly. Just because Shojo is so used to manipulating everyone as a matter of course, and so couldn't see a means that didn't involve such manipulation, doesn't mean that no such means exists.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 29, 2007)

orsal said:
			
		

> How would you explain that, in light of the past 406 strips?
> [sblock=elaboration]I thought Belkar's evilness was apparent beginning when he was unaffected by the _Unholy Blight_ spell. More recently, we've seen time and again that he likes killing people just for the XP. I don't think there's any doubt about Belkar's alignment.[/sblock]




[SBLOCK]Belkar is evil, but does not mind lieing to the paladin to deny it. If her smite evil does not work because she fell then he could opportunistically claim that as proof, just to set her off more and mess with her more. Although I think his character would more probably say something like "Wait. It didn't work? Ha, ha, ha, you fell off your high horse!"[/SBLOCK]


----------



## Endur (Jan 29, 2007)

To be honest, I didn't care for the ruler of this town or Miko, so I didn't like the last strip.

On the other hand, I did think it was funny that Elan's friend blasted all the catapaults one day before the city gets invaded.

Furthermore, it does look like Belkar will get to kill Miko or Miko's horse.


----------



## orsal (Jan 29, 2007)

Nyeshet said:
			
		

> So, Miko had - from his own lips - an unknowing confession that he had staged a false trial. That was the only crime she had heard (as the other matters were matters of honor, not law: not seeking out or investigating other Gates, not lying to the Paladins of the Sapphire Guard).




She also heard Roy noting -- and Shojo agreeing -- that their plan involves something that the Sapphire Guard oath forbids. If you overheard that, without knowing the context, what would be your guess?


----------



## Gez (Jan 29, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Why not? Are they incapable of evaluating the correct legal outcome of a proceeding? They used Roy's dad because he was on hand and they needed him to bring Roy on board to accomplish the actual goal of hauling the OotS to Sapphire City - investigating the other gates. If Shojo didn't want that, it seems pretty obvious that he wouldn't have bothered to send Miko to get OotS in the first place, and thus there would have been no trial at all.




Nope. Completely false.

Roy's dad used _them_. They just agreed with Roy's dad's plan.



			
				delericho said:
			
		

> The situation is exactly analogous to a judge hand-picking the jury in a trial to ensure the result he wants... whether the right result comes about or not, the system is still corrupt.




No. The situation isn't that at all. It's rather a case of a juror handpicking the court where he'll do his duty. Again, Shojo DIDN'T make Roy's dad come, it's Roy's dad who imposed his presence.


----------



## delericho (Jan 29, 2007)

Gez said:
			
		

> No. The situation isn't that at all. It's rather a case of a juror handpicking the court where he'll do his duty. Again, Shojo DIDN'T make Roy's dad come, it's Roy's dad who imposed his presence.




Shojo could have refused to go along with Roy's Dad's plan, and called another Celestial. Indeed, since there was considerable time between Roy's Dad first approaching Shojo and the trial actually taking place, there was similarly plenty of time for Shojo to deal with the situation. There had to be two summons - the first where Roy's Dad first appeared, and then the second for the trial itself. To get Roy's Dad for the trial, the second calling probably had to be of him by name... which suggests choice on the part of Shojo.


----------



## iwatt (Jan 29, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> Shojo could have refused to go along with Roy's Dad's plan, and called another Celestial. Indeed, since there was considerable time between Roy's Dad first approaching Shojo and the trial actually taking place, there was similarly plenty of time for Shojo to deal with the situation. There had to be two summons - the first where Roy's Dad first appeared, and then the second for the trial itself. To get Roy's Dad for the trial, the second calling probably had to be of him by name... which suggests choice on the part of Shojo.





There was only one summons. Roy dad couldn't return because he'd have toe xplain to the celestial host why he had tied up the true envoy (bob IIRC). The father and Shojo say it at some point after the trial.


----------



## PatrickLawinger (Jan 29, 2007)

Okay, the next strip is up, I believe it answers whether or not she falls ...

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html


----------



## Grog (Jan 29, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I disagree. There is an evil army at that gates. If these people were evil and involved then it would be dangerous and stupid to leave them around so th they could may  escape from their cells and open the gates to allow the evil hoard in.
> 
> If there was no army at the gates then yeah I could see taking them in and throwing them in a cell and having a trial.




So in other words, paladins get to murder whoever they want to so long as there's an imminent threat on the horizon.

And given how fungible the definition of "imminent threat" is, you're basically saying that paladins can murder whoever they want to, whenever they want to.

Before we go any further in this discussion, why don't you tell us exactly what you think it takes for a paladin to fall. That would be extremely helpful.


----------



## Grog (Jan 29, 2007)

Herobizkit said:
			
		

> Sure it is.  Evil humans, elves and dwarves attack civilizations as well.  Why do the laws of the land apply only to "people" and not "humanoids"?




If a group of evil humans, elves, and dwarves was attacking a civilization, a paladin would be perfectly justified in killing them, as well. I never said that wouldn't be the case.


----------



## Grog (Jan 29, 2007)

Herobizkit said:
			
		

> Paladins don't read the Monster Manual.




Oh, good lord. Of *course* paladins don't read the Monster Manual. Paladins know how goblins act in the world in which they live, which is what the Monster Manual tells us. If a particular DM is running a different kind of world, then paladins in it will have to behave differently. But in a standard D&D campaign world, goblins act as described in the Monster Manual, and thus paladins are justified in killing them to protect and/or rescue their victims.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 29, 2007)

PatrickLawinger said:
			
		

> Okay, the next strip is up, I believe it answers whether or not she falls ...
> 
> http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html




CLANG!


----------



## Darklone (Jan 29, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> CLANG!



Cool. Not as cool as Thors last intervention, but close!


----------



## Jim Hague (Jan 29, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Oh, good lord. Of *course* paladins don't read the Monster Manual. Paladins know how goblins act in the world in which they live, which is what the Monster Manual tells us. If a particular DM is running a different kind of world, then paladins in it will have to behave differently. But in a standard D&D campaign world, goblins act as described in the Monster Manual, and thus paladins are justified in killing them to protect and/or rescue their victims.




And what _is_ the 'standard' D&D world, pray tell?  Because I'm seeing things like 'usually' in the alignment in my MM.  For that matter, how does a Paladin without with appropriate Knowledge skill know these things?  You're on entirely unsupported ground here, Grog - until you can find us all the core rule that lays out exactly how it is that PCs know the behaviors of creatures in the MM.

In any case, your argument is moot.  As others have said:

CLANG!


----------



## orsal (Jan 29, 2007)

Slife said:
			
		

> Where did it say that half-orcs could produce fertile offspring?
> 
> Hmm?




Hmmm, indeed. I went back to the PhB and discovered, to my surprise, that the text under "half-elf" explaining that there are second-generation half-elves is not matched by similar text under "half-orc".

So, you are correct. My point was not valid. However, Gez' point remains well-taken. D&D biology is sufficiently different from real-world biology to make the adaptation of the word "species" iffy. Since the standard D&D literature uses "races" to refer to the many sorts of humanoid, the other poster was quite correct to use that word.


----------



## Grog (Jan 29, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> And what _is_ the 'standard' D&D world, pray tell?  Because I'm seeing things like 'usually' in the alignment in my MM.  For that matter, how does a Paladin without with appropriate Knowledge skill know these things?  You're on entirely unsupported ground here, Grog - until you can find us all the core rule that lays out exactly how it is that PCs know the behaviors of creatures in the MM.




Um, because the behavior of common monsters is common knowledge?

Anywhere there are goblins, people are going to know about goblin raids. When you ride into a village after a goblin attack, you don't need a Knowledge skill to find out what happened from Bob the farmer.

Do you seriously make your players roll Knowledge checks to find out that goblins/orcs/etc. attack human settlements?


----------



## orsal (Jan 29, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> And what _is_ the 'standard' D&D world, pray tell?  Because I'm seeing things like 'usually' in the alignment in my MM.




And, we might add -- regardless of what the "standard" D&D situation is, it is known (to us at least) that in the OotS world, good goblins do exist, even if they're just teenagers with a rebellious streak.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 29, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> In particular, beware good goblins




Although it's nowhere near as easy to use Misdirection to emulate an alignment as it is to emulate _no_ alignment.  Remember, you take on the aura of an object you select... and there are very few objects with alignments.  A Holy weapon is an object that is good-aligned (unless it's intelligent, in which case it's a creature)... that's one of the few examples around.

So a Barghest who keeps a Holy dagger lying around his cave for emergencies might appear to be a Good Goblin, but it's not going to be a common circumstance...

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 29, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Yes. Yes, she does.




Evil creatures fear
Radiation from my brain.
Try a hands-free kit.

-Hyp.


----------



## Imp (Jan 29, 2007)

Ah, brap, he went with the fireworks.  I guess I am more impish than the Giant, then...

(Yeah, Belkar's obviously evil, but he gets a kick out of plausible deniability, what with sheets of lead and all...)


----------



## orsal (Jan 29, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Evil creatures fear the




Buzzz! That's too many
Syllables. Thanks for playing.
Try again some time.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 29, 2007)

orsal said:
			
		

> Buzzz! That's too many
> Syllables.




Not any more!

-Hyp.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 29, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Evil creatures fear
> Radiation from my brain.
> Try a hands-free kit.




Nice. 

"Paladin and Monk!
Fear my saves! Also, I can
kill you with my feet."

Cheers, -- N


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 29, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> So in other words, paladins get to murder whoever they want to so long as there's an imminent threat on the horizon.



You say murder, I say execution.

Look at it through Miko's eyes for a second. She *genuinely* believes (and, IMHO, it's not a convenient fiction; she seems quite motivated about this) that Shojo has betrayed the ideals of the Sapphire Guard and conspired with Xykon to leave the city open to being overrun by an evil lich-led horde. She's just heard a discussion between Shojo and Roy that plausibly seems to back this up. If Shojo is a traitor, then he is no longer the legitimate authority. If Shojo is no longer the legitimate authority, then Miko a) is not required to obey him and b) is the ranking official responsible for determining liability and culpability in the city. She has the right to try and convict Shojo under the laws of the Sapphire Guard. 

Now, the problems with this are threefold: First, there's no reason to just go ahead and slay Shojo instead of arresting him. What's he going to do if he remains alive? Moreover, he may have valuable info as to what exactly is going on. Second, Miko is refusing to listen to anyone else's input; this is less an issue of law or good than of a simple rule of reason. Third, Miko is showing no mercy, which has been a problem with her from the get-go. So I buy how she could fall, but I have a hard time seeing it as a no-brainer.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 29, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Look at it through Miko's eyes for a second.




But we don't have to. In D&D, alignment and what is good and evil are not relative. The fact that Miko was mistaken doesn't make her actions "not-evil" or "not-chaotic".



> _She *genuinely* believes (and, IMHO, it's not a convenient fiction; she seems quite motivated about this) that Shojo has betrayed the ideals of the Sapphire Guard and conspired with Xykon to leave the city open to being overrun by an evil lich-led horde._




Her belief is irrelevant.



> _She's just heard a discussion between Shojo and Roy that plausibly seems to back this up._




If you make huge paranoid conspiracy leaps that make no sense and are entirely implausible. No, her belief is not "plausible". Her belief is deranged.



> _If Shojo is a traitor, then he is no longer the legitimate authority. If Shojo is no longer the legitimate authority, then Miko a) is not required to obey him and b) is the ranking official responsible for determining liability and culpability in the city. She has the right to try and convict Shojo under the laws of the Sapphire Guard._




No, Hinjo is. And, even if she is the legitimate ruler of the Guard, given the elaborate trial required for the OotS, she likely does _not_ have that right.

Her fall, it seems, is a no-brainer for most people.


----------



## Gez (Jan 29, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> So I buy how she could fall, but I have a hard time seeing it as a no-brainer.




She would have fallen if she had killed Belkar, way back then.

So her fall WAS a no-brainer now. If killing Belkar (given the circumstances and the evil nature of Belkar) was enough to make her fall, there's no way in Hell (or rather in Heaven, because the way in Hell, Miko found it, teehee) she could have not fallen now.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 29, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> "Paladin and Monk!
> Fear my saves! Also, I can
> kill you with my feet."




Divine Grace is gone!
Smite Evil license revoked!
I blame the halfling.

-Hyp.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 29, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> But we don't have to. In D&D, alignment and what is good and evil are not relative. The fact that Miko was mistaken doesn't make her actions "not-evil" or "not-chaotic".
> 
> Her belief is rrelevant.



Not true. Her belief about the nature of right and wrong would be irrelevant, because, as you point out, good and evil in the D&D universe are not relative. However, her belief about the *facts* (which is what I was commenting on) is quite relevant. 

Let me put it this way. A pit fiend charms a harmless peasant into wreaking havoc and casts a seeming spell over him to make him look like a barbed devil. An adventurer sees this happening and attacks the "barbed devil," killing him. Is that an evil deed?

In short, intentions count. Mistake of fact can shape intentions dramatically; the law recognizes this quite strongly in the establishment of standards for determining mens rea (for criminal culpability) and intentional/reckless/negligent conduct standards (for civil liability).


> _If you make huge paranoid conspiracy leaps that make no sense and are entirely implausible. No, her belief is not "plausible". Her belief is deranged._



Ah, but that's the question. I'm not fully convinced that her belief is implausible. I don't think it's quite set up that way. 

Miko knows that Belkar is evil. She knows that the OotS is guilty, and that the trial was faked. She knows that Shojo has been lying to the paladins about his true intentions from the get-go, and she knows that he doesn't follow the code of the Sapphire Guard, even though he pretends to (or at least makes no representations to the contrary). Shojo's deceptions are even enough to shock Hinjo. Miko also knows that Xykon's army is on the way; she believes (not completely implausibly) that the OotS is in allegiance with Xykon, and now she's overhearing a bunch of potentially nefarious-seeming plotting going on. I don't think this is an implausible conspiracy theory; I think it's a vast, tragic misunderstanding.


> _No, Hinjo is. And, even if she is the legitimate ruler of the Guard, given the elaborate trial required for the OotS, she likely does not have that right._



To the first: Hinjo is not. Miko is his superior. The only scenario under which Hinjo would be rightful leader is if Shojo's appointment of him as heir is legitimate. If Shojo's rule is not legitimate, then neither is his determination of the succession.

As to the second: You're absolutely right. As I pointed out in my post, this is where I think Miko goes too far. She's doing the same thing vis-a-vis Shojo as she was about to do with Belkar: Violate his right of due process. *That's* what I think should cost her paladinhood. But the idea that she's wilfully ignoring the facts is a bit hard to swallow for me.


----------



## delericho (Jan 29, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Um, because the behavior of common monsters is common knowledge?




Common knowledge is very often wrong. And if Dave the farmer wants Bob the farmer out of the way, then he might well consider that that there goblin tribe makes for a very convincing patsy...

Woe betide the paladin who places too much stock in 'common knowledge'.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jan 29, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> she believes (not completely implausibly) that the OotS is in allegiance with Xykon, and now she's overhearing a bunch of potentially nefarious-seeming plotting going on. I don't think this is an implausible conspiracy theory; I think it's a vast, tragic misunderstanding.



Miko never really gave the OotS a fair chance, and never even bothered to think how Xykon can still be in existance (unlike Durkon, where it is for comedy value, she doesn't have much of an excuse to lack Knowledge (religion)).



			
				ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> To the first: Hinjo is not. Miko is his superior. The only scenario under which Hinjo would be rightful leader is if Shojo's appointment of him as heir is legitimate. If Shojo's rule is not legitimate, then neither is his determination of the succession.



Hinjo is the legitimate authority for Azure City, I believe, and Miko for the Sapphire Guard at most. Shojo's rule was legitimate (his actions were a disgrace to his posts, but he inherited the throne), and it seems that a monarchical order of succession is in place for Azure City, with Hinjo being the next on the list of successors.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 29, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> So in other words, paladins get to murder whoever they want to so long as there's an imminent threat on the horizon.
> 
> And given how fungible the definition of "imminent threat" is, you're basically saying that paladins can murder whoever they want to, whenever they want to.
> 
> Before we go any further in this discussion, why don't you tell us exactly what you think it takes for a paladin to fall. That would be extremely helpful.




First of all I have to say that the crap writen in the PHB is just that crap. It is one of the main reasons paladins are often not fun to play and cause problemsin the game. 

It expects that paladin to answer to three masters, their god, the law and good. Sooner or later this is going to come into conflict with each other and the paladin is just screwed.

First of all I don't have modern 21 law or ethics in my game which is one of the big problems. People judge paladins based on todays morality like you don't kill prisoners, you don't execute without a trial, bigorty makes you evil, slavery is evil. 

I have the player tell me how they see their paladin and who do they serve. A paladin of Pelor is going to be different that a paladin of St Cuthbert.

Then I ask them do they see themselves as more lawful or more good. 

Then comes the code one that we work on together. This code is from the gods it is the divine law that a paladin follows. This is the code that if the paldin breaks will cause them to fall. It takes precedence over in law made by man.

Some general things will make a paldain fall in my game. Some examples stealing from a merchant because you don't want to pay the price he is asking for an item.

Lying in some cases like telling a priesoner that if he surrenders and tells you everything he knows that you will spare him knowing full well that you have no intention to do so.

Making a vow that you had no intention of keeping.

Using evil items and evil spells. Acting in a selfish self centered way for personal gain is another way for a paladin to fall.

I have not said anything about killing. Becuase this depends on the code and the god they serve and the society they live in. For example in one game there is a war going on between elves and humans. They are fighting a holy war over who has the right to occupy the most holy city the birthplace of the elven and human gods. Both sides have a legal claim both sets of gods want it for their followers. You have paladins on both sides they are obeying their gods and their codes. 

Right now the elves have control of the city so the humans have it blockaded and are attacking any reinforcements or supplies that the elves are trying to get through, If the humans catch any elf trying to aid the city they face summary execuation. No trial no prisoner exchange just a swift death. It does not matter the reason it does not matter if the elf in question is not evil.  The elves know this and know the risk before they try.

The human god that the paladin serves in my game is a god patterned on St Cuthbert a god who believes in divine retribution. His paladins follow law over good. They bring evil doers to justice they are tasked with being judge, jury and exioner and they are leading the charge to return the city to the humans control. So a paladin of this order can kill an innocent elf who is breaking their law a leader in a throne room who has been judged by the paladin to have broken one the the gods laws. 

Now this not mean that they can kill just because they feel like it they have to have  astrong belief that the person has viloated the law. Take the Miko case if this was happening in my game Miko would not have done anything wrong becuase Shojo broke the law and admited it.

There is another human god based on Pelor her paladins are more intrested in doing good, helping the humans and protecting them. They kill to protect themselves and the humans under their protection but their order belives in the possibility of redemption (we use the rules from Exalted deeds to turn evil to good) they are not allowed to kill if there is another way. A lot of their holy weapons have the ability to use subdual damage rather than lethal damage. If Miko was of this order in my game she would have fallen because Shojo was not armed he was not currently trying to harm any under her protection and even though he broke the law she needed to offer him the chance to atone for what he had done.

The rules of this goddess only apply to humans and not elves so these paladins can slay any elf they find trying to aid the enemy without losing their paladinhood. 

As for your question about "imminent threat" there is a hobgoblin army led by a Litch about to attack. If your code states that you bring lawbreakers to justice and your code allows you to judge and decide punishment then yes a paladin could very well kill a leader breaking the law as quickly as possible because there is not time to deal with a trial. There is no time at the present to deal with the distraction that a trial would cause.

I can also see a paladin locking the leader up again in this situation I would look to see what the paaldin in question's code was what evidence they had and why they were doing what they were doing.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 30, 2007)

PatrickLawinger said:
			
		

> Okay, the next strip is up, I believe it answers whether or not she falls ...
> 
> http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html




Ahem.  

zOMGLOLROFLMAO!

*cough*

Quite satisfying, like a relieving expulsion of gas after a somewhat disagreeable meal.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 30, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> You say murder, I say execution.
> 
> Look at it through Miko's eyes for a second. She *genuinely* believes (and, IMHO, it's not a convenient fiction; she seems quite motivated about this) that Shojo has betrayed the ideals of the Sapphire Guard and conspired with Xykon to leave the city open to being overrun by an evil lich-led horde.



The only reason she believes this is because she's actively trying to find an excuse to murder the OotS.  It's a complete fabrication on her part.



> She's just heard a discussion between Shojo and Roy that plausibly seems to back this up.



It does not support her conclusion at all.  It suggests that something is amiss, but not that either of the two have conspired with Xykon to attack the city.  The only reason she makes the connection to that conclusion is because she's looking for an excuse to murder people...and her desire to murder is stronger than her desire to uphold her paladin vows.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 30, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Then comes the code one that we work on together.




This is a key point any time anyone plays a paladin.  Before the game begins, the DM and the player need to make sure they're on the same page regarding what the paladin's code entails.

If I'm DMing a serious game, I'd consider a paladin who started hacking on someone in a tavern because they radiated evil to be exceeding their mandate.

If I'm DMing a beer-and-pretzels game, I'd consider a paladin who started hacking on someone in a tavern because they radiated evil to be successfully snatching at the plot hook.

But I wouldn't DM a paladin without making sure the player knew what I expected, and if there's a fundamental disconnect between our views, we need to either resolve it somehow, or the player's better off going with another class.

Similarly, I once played under a DM who declared that a Paladin/Rogue multiclass was an impossibility, because "Rogues are thieves, and paladins can't steal".  That made me pretty determined to play neither a paladin nor a rogue under her (and before very long had passed, anything else either!), since our views on the classes were too dissimilar.

-Hyp.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 30, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Divine Grace is gone!
> Smite Evil license revoked!
> I blame the halfling.




"Anger is red, and
Miko shows us all: it cures
the Paladin blues."


Great sky arrow, spin,
sing, and stop: "The Rooster says,
Pride hath come, now fall."


... although the original "-a-doo-dle-doo" would have worked, too, if you speak chicken.

 -- N

EDIT: Oh man! I was totally rooster blocked up there!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 30, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> EDIT: Oh man! I was totally rooster blocked up there!




Nifft fell a-fowl of
the profanity filter.
Ha!  Pwned by Grandma.

-Hyp.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 30, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> This is a key point any time anyone plays a paladin.  Before the game begins, the DM and the player need to make sure they're on the same page regarding what the paladin's code entails.
> 
> If I'm DMing a serious game, I'd consider a paladin who started hacking on someone in a tavern because they radiated evil to be exceeding their mandate.
> 
> ...




We are agreement on this. And why I have not found the entire Miko storyline all that good. I find a lot of it really funny but I find some of it a little annoying as well.  If this was not a comic script but a game and Miko was a PC and the player wa telling us all this I think some of us would be crying foul on the DM and talking about railroading and how this DM was just setting her up for failure.


----------



## Jim Hague (Jan 30, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Um, because the behavior of common monsters is common knowledge?




And again, since you're trying to incorrectly bring rules into this - page cite, please?



> Anywhere there are goblins, people are going to know about goblin raids. When you ride into a village after a goblin attack, you don't need a Knowledge skill to find out what happened from Bob the farmer.




Ah, so everyone is an expert investigator, then?  With comprehensive knowledge of battle tactics, creature behaviors and the like?  They somehow know the paragraphs from the MM inside and out?  And the justification for this is...what, exactly?



> Do you seriously make your players roll Knowledge checks to find out that goblins/orcs/etc. attack human settlements?




Mostly I make them do this crazy _roleplaying_ stuff we all keep hearing about.  Knowledge checks come in where it's appropriate - like discerning the behaviors of monsters.  Your argument that 'everyone' knows something like this, well:

"Most of the things 'everyone knows' are wrong.  The rest are merely misinformed." - Neil Gaiman


----------



## Vanuslux (Jan 30, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> We are agreement on this. And why I have not found the entire Miko storyline all that good. I find a lot of it really funny but I find some of it a little annoying as well.  If this was not a comic script but a game and Miko was a PC and the player wa telling us all this I think some of us would be crying foul on the DM and talking about railroading and how this DM was just setting her up for failure.




If someone playing a paladin starts hacking on unarmed old man who is the leader of her country based 90% on the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence (the only thing that Miko knows for a fact about Shogo, rather than from her own guesses, is that he is a liar who doesn't respect the Paladin's oath to Soon) I'd avoid inviting him into any future games.  I like players who actually think.  What if in a sci-fi espionage game a special taskforce agent charged into the White House one day and popped a cap in the president's forehead just because the agent found out that the president had rigged a suspected terrorists trial, so he believed that the President must be a terrorist doppelganger plotting to facilitate the overthrow of the US?  Dumb...plain dumb.  

Even if all the things that Miko believed were true, she chose a pretty stupid way to handle the situation, but either way Miko was not railroaded into believing anything other than that her ruler wasn't lawful.  Everything else she assumed on her own.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 30, 2007)

Ooo! Top of page is mine!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 30, 2007)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> What if in a sci-fi espionage game a special taskforce agent charged into the White House one day and popped a cap in the president's forehead just because the agent found out that the president had rigged a suspected terrorists trial, so he believed that the President must be a terrorist doppelganger plotting to facilitate the overthrow of the US?




Why, that's so simple!
Rocks fall.  Evèryone dies.
The classic response.

-Hyp.


----------



## Grog (Jan 30, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Ah, so everyone is an expert investigator, then?




"Hey Bob, what happened here?"

"Goblin attack."

It hardly takes an expert investigator to unearth that kind of information.



			
				Jim Hague said:
			
		

> With comprehensive knowledge of battle tactics, creature behaviors and the like?  They somehow know the paragraphs from the MM inside and out?




Oh, please. Knowing that goblins attack human settlements is not the same thing as knowing the paragraphs from the MM inside and out, and you know it.



			
				Jim Hague said:
			
		

> And again, since you're trying to incorrectly bring rules into this - page cite, please?




It's simple common sense. Goblins are common enough creatures that players will either know they attack human settlements straight out, or they'll be able to learn that information easily enough when they visit settlements that are near goblin lands. We're not talking about demons or something here - of course it's true that not that many people are going to know what a glabrezu is and what it does - but goblins?

But hey, if you want to make your players roleplay a long investigation and make Knowledge checks to learn that the recently attacked village that borders on goblin lands was, in fact, attacked by goblins, it's your game....


----------



## Jim Hague (Jan 30, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> "Hey Bob, what happened here?"
> 
> "Goblin attack."
> 
> It hardly takes an expert investigator to unearth that kind of information.




Unless, you know, it actually wasn't goblins.  Perhaps it was something else pretending to be goblins.  Perhaps the goblins attacked because the villagers were stealing their land, or murdering their kin.  Again, it's those crazy roleplaying and story concepts...



> Oh, please. Knowing that goblins attack human settlements is not the same thing as knowing the paragraphs from the MM inside and out, and you know it.




Again, I ask you to actually support the argument that you're making - which is that the PCs know the information contained in the writeups from the MM, without having the appropriate Knowledge skill.



> It's simple common sense. Goblins are common enough creatures that players will either know they attack human settlements straight out, or they'll be able to learn that information easily enough when they visit settlements that are near goblin lands. We're not talking about demons or something here - of course it's true that not that many people are going to know what a glabrezu is and what it does - but goblins?
> 
> But hey, if you want to make your players roleplay a long investigation and make Knowledge checks to learn that the recently attacked village that borders on goblin lands was, in fact, attacked by goblins, it's your game....




Common in what campaign world?  Again, you're really making claims here you can't support.


----------



## Grog (Jan 30, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Now this not mean that they can kill just because they feel like it they have to have  astrong belief that the person has viloated the law. Take the Miko case if this was happening in my game Miko would not have done anything wrong becuase Shojo broke the law and admited it.




This is where we differ. Murder, even of a lawbreaker, is never acceptable for a paladin. There may be some form of dispensation for "frontier justice" if the paladin is unable to bring someone back for trial, but when a paladin is in a city, as Miko was, it's his/her duty to _arrest_ the lawbreaker and deliver them to the authorities so they may be tried and punished under the laws of the land.

That's really the only way to do it. Most Lawful Good societies are not going to tolerate church (and possibly state)-sanctioned murder for very long. Brutal punishment dispensed on the spot by knights of the church/state is a hallmark of a Lawful *Evil* society, not a Lawful Good one.

And it's also worth noting that Miko's "strong belief" was based on nothing more than a lot of jumping to conclusions on her part, but that's been said over and over again already.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts on paladins.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 30, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Unless, you know, it actually wasn't goblins.




Lurk Slystalker: "It wasn't goblins?!"

Old Bjorn Kairnoble: "Goblins ride their wargs single-file... to hide their numbers."

 -- N


----------



## Felix (Jan 30, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Unless, you know, it actually wasn't goblins. Perhaps it was something else pretending to be goblins.




These tracks are side-by-side; sand people always ride single-file to hide their numbers!

EDIT: DAMNIT, Nifft!


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 30, 2007)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> If someone playing a paladin starts hacking on unarmed old man who is the leader of her country based 90% on the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence (the only thing that Miko knows for a fact about Shogo, rather than from her own guesses, is that he is a liar who doesn't respect the Paladin's oath to Soon) I'd avoid inviting him into any future games.  I like players who actually think.  What if in a sci-fi espionage game a special taskforce agent charged into the White House one day and popped a cap in the president's forehead just because the agent found out that the president had rigged a suspected terrorists trial, so he believed that the President must be a terrorist doppelganger plotting to facilitate the overthrow of the US?  Dumb...plain dumb.
> 
> Even if all the things that Miko believed were true, she chose a pretty stupid way to handle the situation, but either way Miko was not railroaded into believing anything other than that her ruler wasn't lawful.  Everything else she assumed on her own.




 If it was in game it could be considered railroading. Miko is sent by her leader (the DM) to bring to trial this band of NPCs for a crime of weaking the stability of the universe. One of them often acts in what might be considered an evil way by some of what he says and his actions. When paladin tried to derect evil she cannot.

Now one of the members kills a paldin and is supposedly in jail for it.

The paladin is captured by the evil undead escapes finds out that they early warning have been destroyed and the towers protecting the city have been destroyed. As she is hurring to tell the leader of the city all this. The DM says at the door you hear that the trial was a sham, that the leader has been lying all along to the palasins of the city and when you look in the room you see an NPC who killed a paladin who is supposed to be in jail free and walking around  armed.

As the player you know that the halfling has some kind of item or spell up that blocks detect spells so the fact that you are not dectecting evil maybe a DM trick. Also the DM played the leader of the nPCs at first as falling for your character and then turning on your character.

So player makes a decision leaps to a conclusion and goes to smite evil on who she percives to be the BBEG.

I could see the discussion now. You have some people saying this was a bad case of DMing or you would have people saying that the player didn't pick up the clues so its the players fault and then it would evolve into a evil vs good thread and why paaldins suck the fun out of the game and that is why they don't allow them, to this is why I got rid of alignment in my game to a debate on just what makes a paladin fall.


----------



## Felix (Jan 30, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> this is why I got rid of alignment in my game



With whom do you agree?


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 30, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> This is where we differ. Murder, even of a lawbreaker, is never acceptable for a paladin. There may be some form of dispensation for "frontier justice" if the paladin is unable to bring someone back for trial, but when a paladin is in a city, as Miko was, it's his/her duty to _arrest_ the lawbreaker and deliver them to the authorities so they may be tried and punished under the laws of the land.
> 
> That's really the only way to do it. Most Lawful Good societies are not going to tolerate church (and possibly state)-sanctioned murder for very long. Brutal punishment dispensed on the spot by knights of the church/state is a hallmark of a Lawful *Evil* society, not a Lawful Good one.
> 
> ...




This is a matter of opinion and role play style. History certainly allowed for knights (which paladins are based on to ) to dispense the king's judgement. Priest could over rule the law of the land to enforce religious law.

If you don't want to allow paladins this right in your game then that is your choice.


----------



## Grog (Jan 30, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Unless, you know, it actually wasn't goblins.  Perhaps it was something else pretending to be goblins.  Perhaps the goblins attacked because the villagers were stealing their land, or murdering their kin.  Again, it's those crazy roleplaying and story concepts...




We're talking about goblins here. You can make up as many alternate plotlines as you want, but it doesn't change the fact that goblins attack human/demi-human settlements, steal, take slaves, kill people, etc. This is per the Monster Manual. Goblins may behave differently in your campaign world, but that's not pertinent to the discussion here.



			
				Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Again, I ask you to actually support the argument that you're making - which is that the PCs know the information contained in the writeups from the MM, without having the appropriate Knowledge skill.




Since I *never said* the PCs know the information contained in the writeups from the MM, you are arguing against a straw man here.

Sheesh.

What I *actually said* was that one particular section of the goblin entry in the MM describes the way goblins behave in the world, and since goblins are common monsters, this behavior is going to be common knowledge to many people in the world, since it directly or indirectly impacts upon them. Thus, this knowledge is likely going to be either already known by, or easily obtainable by, the PCs.



			
				Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Common in what campaign world?  Again, you're really making claims here you can't support.




They're supported by what's written in the Monster Manual, to wit (emphasis mine):



> However, if (goblins) are left unchecked, their *great numbers*, rapid reproduction, and evil disposition enable them to overrun and despoil civilized areas.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 30, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> The only reason she believes this is because she's actively trying to find an excuse to murder the OotS.  It's a complete fabrication on her part.



That kind of psychoanalysis of a comic-book character would require some evidence for me to buy it. I don't see that in the narrative as presented.


			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> Miko never really gave the OotS a fair chance, and never even bothered to think how Xykon can still be in existance (unlike Durkon, where it is for comedy value, she doesn't have much of an excuse to lack Knowledge (religion)).



Absolutely correct. IMHO, this is a personality issue rather than an alignment issue. (Actually, I could totally buy, given the portrayal of Miko's character, that she *doesn't* have ranks in Knowledge: religion). 

IMHO, this strip emphasizes how inflexibility and fanaticism can cause problems beyond those related explicitly to alignment.


----------



## Grog (Jan 30, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> This is a matter of opinion and role play style. History certainly allowed for knights (which paladins are based on to ) to dispense the king's judgement. Priest could over rule the law of the land to enforce religious law.
> 
> If you don't want to allow paladins this right in your game then that is your choice.




And what happens when an innocent person is executed on the spot (as will inevitably happen at some point), either by genuine mistake, or malfeasance on the part of the paladin (as we saw with Miko here)? Does everyone just shrug, call it "collateral damage," and move on?

That might fly in a Lawful Evil society, but not a Lawful Good one.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 30, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> This is a matter of opinion and role play style. History certainly allowed for knights (which paladins are based on to ) to dispense the king's judgement. Priest could over rule the law of the land to enforce religious law.




And none of those people could conceivably be considered paladins, so the point is kind of moot.


----------



## Sound of Azure (Jan 30, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And none of those people could conceivably be considered paladins, so the point is kind of moot *in my game*.




Fixed that for ya. Just tryin' to help.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jan 30, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> This is a matter of opinion and role play style. History certainly allowed for knights (which paladins are based on to ) to dispense the king's judgement. Priest could over rule the law of the land to enforce religious law.



The problem with just calling it "King's judgment" here with what she did was, she pronounced it on the King herself.

Saying a Paladin might have some right to pronounce sentence on a petty thief he witnesses pickpocketing, or upon a brigand who tries to rob him on the trail is one thing, to confront her sovereign in his throne room, accuse him openly of treason, ignore the calls of a fellow paladin to detain him for trial, then pronounce her sworn lord guilty of said treason, and strike him down as he sits on the throne she previously bowed before, unarmed and protesting his innocence . . .is completely different.


----------



## Herobizkit (Jan 30, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> We're talking about goblins here. You can make up as many alternate plotlines as you want, but it doesn't change the fact that goblins attack human/demi-human settlements, steal, take slaves, kill people, etc. This is per the Monster Manual. Goblins may behave differently in your campaign world, but that's not pertinent to the discussion here.



Strictly from this reading, I tend to agree with you, Grog.  As written, intended for the generic carbon-copy D&D world, Goblins are Bad.

Now, change the word "Goblin" to "Human".

What does your Paladin do in your game?  I'm going to wager a guess and say "Detect Evil".  So now, your Paladin can kill a Goblin on sight but you have to "double-check" to make sure the normally(?) Good-aligned Human is Evil or not.  This reeks of a form of racism that goes beyond the scope of Alignment in D&D, which is why I don't use alignment.

In MY games, Lawful and Good can be summed up thusly:
a) Don't hurt people or cause people to come to harm.
b) Don't take stuff that isn't yours or allow stuff to be taken from its rightful owners.
c) People who hurt others or take stuff that isn't theirs should be captured if possible, brought to local justice if possible, but the Paladin has the Divine right to execute a *known* and proven criminal.

Also in my games, the capital-E Evil and capital-G Good are reserved for outerplanar entities, Holy/Unholy artifacts, and sites where great Good/Evil have transpired (or the appropriate spells to create such sites have been cast).


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 30, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> And what happens when an innocent person is executed on the spot (as will inevitably happen at some point), either by genuine mistake, or malfeasance on the part of the paladin (as we saw with Miko here)? Does everyone just shrug, call it "collateral damage," and move on?
> 
> That might fly in a Lawful Evil society, but not a Lawful Good one.




What happens in a society when an innocent person is executed because a jury found them guilty? Does thtis society suddenly become a lawful evil society?

At least in a DnD world you can rectify the situation this mistake and being a person back.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 30, 2007)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> The problem with just calling it "King's judgment" here with what she did was, she pronounced it on the King herself.
> 
> Saying a Paladin might have some right to pronounce sentence on a petty thief he witnesses pickpocketing, or upon a brigand who tries to rob him on the trail is one thing, to confront her sovereign in his throne room, accuse him openly of treason, ignore the calls of a fellow paladin to detain him for trial, then pronounce her sworn lord guilty of said treason, and strike him down as he sits on the throne she previously bowed before, unarmed and protesting his innocence . . .is completely different.




 I was talking about one to view paladins in a game ,not that this is the way it is being written in Rich's comic.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 30, 2007)

Herobizkit said:
			
		

> Strictly from this reading, I tend to agree with you, Grog.  As written, intended for the generic carbon-copy D&D world, Goblins are Bad.
> 
> Now, change the word "Goblin" to "Human".
> 
> ...




Not that I disagree with everything you said but how do you handling looting in your game? 

I do agree with you about the different rules for treating goblins and humans.


----------



## Vanuslux (Jan 30, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> What happens in a society when an innocent person is executed because a jury found them guilty? Does thtis society suddenly become a lawful evil society?
> 
> At least in a DnD world you can rectify the situation this mistake and being a person back.




It depends on whether the jury found the innocent person guilty through an honest mistake (all evidence supported their guilt and the defendant's lawyer sucked) or whether it was a matter of assuming the person's guilt based on circumstantial evidence.  Ever read 12 Angry Men?  I'll never forget the juror who just wanted the defendant sentenced to death as quickly as possible so that he could make it to the ball game he had tickets to and got extremely angry when the other juror's "wasted time" by actually going over the evidence carefully.  That's hardly Lawful Good, I'd think.  Hence the reason trials have 12 jurors instead of one or two...to dilute the possibility that one jerk will destroy an innocent persons life by simply not caring.  It's not a perfect system, obviously, but its far better than one person acting as judge, jury, and executioner all at once while they're in a ticked off mood.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 30, 2007)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> It depends on whether the jury found the innocent person guilty through an honest mistake (all evidence supported their guilt and the defendant's lawyer sucked) or whether it was a matter of assuming the person's guilt based on circumstantial evidence.  Ever read 12 Angry Men?  I'll never forget the juror who just wanted the defendant sentenced to death as quickly as possible so that he could make it to the ball game he had tickets to and got extremely angry when the other juror's "wasted time" by actually going over the evidence carefully.  That's hardly Lawful Good, I'd think.  Hence the reason trials have 12 jurors instead of one or two...to dilute the possibility that one jerk will destroy an innocent persons life by simply not caring.  It's not a perfect system, obviously, but its far better than one person acting as judge, jury, and executioner all at once while they're in a ticked off mood.






In the games that I have seen a paladin with the ability to dispence justice the paladins in question have used tools like detect evil, discern lie, even an augury. So I doubt that an innocent would just be killed by an angry paladin having a pissy day. Also I would rather take my chances with a paladin if I was innocent than with a bunch of jurors who rather be anywhere else and who if they make a bad call it is really no skin off their nose but if a paladin does he has more to lose. So in the end I think he might just be a little more careful.


----------



## PallidPatience (Jan 30, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> In the games that I have seen a paladin with the ability to dispence justice the paladins in question have used tools like detect evil, discern lie, even an augury. So I doubt that an innocent would just be killed by an angry paladin having a pissy day. Also I would rather take my chances with a paladin if I was innocent than with a bunch of jurors who rather be anywhere else and who if they make a bad call it is really no skin off their nose but if a paladin does he has more to lose. So in the end I think he might just be a little more careful.




How does this support your defense of Miko's paladinhood? She refused to do anything to verify any of what she believed. She took it for fact, and, in a fit of obvious rage, struck down the defendant in the midst of his self-defense. 

Honestly, I think all of your problems with the alignment system aren't with the system itself, but with your experiences following it under bad DMs. If you'd seen it run under a good DM, you'd probably not have these problems.

As for your medieval morality for your alignment system... It probably works in your game, but it'd be a really hard sell for the core system. It's really hard to relate to medieval morality, mainly because most of the stuff that was considered "good" or even just overlooked was downright cruel and evil. How could you play a "good" character in that sort of world?


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 30, 2007)

PallidPatience said:
			
		

> How does this support your defense of Miko's paladinhood? She refused to do anything to verify any of what she believed. She took it for fact, and, in a fit of obvious rage, struck down the defendant in the midst of his self-defense.
> 
> Honestly, I think all of your problems with the alignment system aren't with the system itself, but with your experiences following it under bad DMs. If you'd seen it run under a good DM, you'd probably not have these problems.
> 
> As for your medieval morality for your alignment system... It probably works in your game, but it'd be a really hard sell for the core system. It's really hard to relate to medieval morality, mainly because most of the stuff that was considered "good" or even just overlooked was downright cruel and evil. How could you play a "good" character in that sort of world?




I was not defending Miko in this post I was talking about paladins in general. And in society's that allow paladins to dispence judgement. BTW not allowing paladins to dispence justice didn't stop Miko at all.  

I have had great DMs and bad DMs and I have seen paladins played with both. With bad rigid DMs playing a paladin is not fun. You end up either falling or just pissing the rest of the party off because you are terrified of falling and you agonize over every decision.

I use a modified medieval viewpoint. Other wise there would be a lot of things you could not do. When I say try not to be handicapped by 21 century morality this is what I mean. In our modern system we have a way of dealing with criminals we put them in jails. We have airplane and cars so if an evil doer does something in the wilderness miles from a city it is not impossible to get them to the city in a relative short time. We can even call the police to come and take them so we can back to our trek in the wildnerness. 

In a lot of settings there would not enough jails or resources to handle say a tribe of marauding kobolds. So a PCs often have to make a choice on to handle them. Let them go or kill them. With 21 century thinking killing those kobolds would be considered murder. 

In today world we have the Geneva convention to handle rules of warfare. We don't kill prisoners, soldiers can be arrested for plundering and looting.

There is one medieval viewpoint that DnD players love and that is the right to plunder. The right to plunder was often considered part of the payment for soldiers. We today would be horrified if people went onto a battlefield and looted the clothes and belongings off the soldiers yet that was a common occurance in the medieval ages.

And as for 21 century law lets take a look at that. You have a mafia don who has killed, blackmailed, bribed, and caused a lot of pain and suffering and death of innocents with his tainted herion his soul is as black as they come.

He is on trial for a killing he did not commit. Our laws say that you can only judge him guilty  or not guilty for this crime. So by the law he is not guilty but he is still evil and will go on to commit more evil crimes. But you can't lock him up. 

In the medieval DnD world say you have the same type of situation. The clerics and the paladins find out that he did not commit this crime but his soul is black with evil taint. The clerics cast disern lie on him and question him and find out that he has killed before. The paladin prays and communes with his god on what to do is this man evil does he deserve punishment. So the man is executed.

I don't want to play all the time in a historical correct game but I find being rigid about applying 21 century law and ethics to pCs in a fantasy setting tends to make it harder to play a good character. I also enjoy mature themed games where everything is not black and white. The elves human holy war is based on the crusades and got some of its inspiration from the movie Kingdom of Heaven. Neither side is evil. Using the limited code from the PHB it would be much harder to play a paladin in this setting.

Besides there are a lot of weird rules that just don't make sense take the rule that a paladin can't use poison. So if a paladin coats his weapon with a poison that does strenth damage that is evil even though the person gets a fort save. And if he makes the fort save nothing happens. But he has to atone for this.

But under the rules a wizard paladin could cast Ray Of Enfeeblement which also does strength damage and has no save. And under the RAW he would not lose his paladinhod for this. 

so in my games using poison is not an evil act in and of itself it is no more evil than a sword. It is a tool. It is what you do with it that makes it an evil act.


----------



## Renfield (Jan 30, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Technically, it's still the Year of the Dog. The Year of the Pig doesn't begin until the first day of the Lunar New Year, next month (18 Feb).




That's how I found out I was actually born in the year of the Dog,  Feb 3rd 1983, coincidentally I believe that's a day before the two week celebration of the chinese new year begins   




			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I think what truly caused Mikos fall was her refusal to even attempt to ascertain the truth - no one was going to try to stop her and Hinjo if they decided to take Shojo prisoner and hold him for trial. Shojo appears to have been willing to tell them everything once they had uncovered the deception, and they had a high enough level cleric coming by to be able to cast, say _zone of truth_ to verify that he and the OotS was not working with Xykon. But she didn't even try to find out the truth, she explicitly said she didn't care what the truth was, or who detected as evil, or really, what the gods might say on the issue.
> 
> But Miko did not choose any of these options. She jumped to a conclusion, assumed she was right, and arrogated to herself the power to render immediate judgment. Her sin was pride, and that led to her acting in anger to strike down a defenseless man who posed no real threat, and furthermore was actually innocent of the charges she murdered him for.
> 
> Finally, I'll note that the maneuvering that Shojo engaged in was to evade an oath constructed by a _human_ agent, not a divine mandate. The paladins of the Sapphire Order took an oath based upon the decision of a _human_ directive, not a _divine_ directive, and Shojo's machinations were to get around this restriction foolishly imposed by a fallbile _human_. Miko mistakenly conflated the _human_ directives for the Sapphire Order with a _divine_ instruction, and thus, forgot who it is truly important to obey.





I think Storm Raven said it best here. Alignment is tricky, even by D&D terms, hell, Monte Cook has a list somewhere of core guidelines someone might adapt to be of an alignment for larifications sake. Also, one may argue the flexibilities intention might have with alignment but when you're a Paladin intention isn't the be all and end all, she foolishly rushed in, and with lawful good alignments that = mad mojo. I could also quote Yoda here if someone wants to say there was no evil in her actions  Though I think ultimately Storm Raven sums everything up quite nicely and the Richards strip makes me all warm inside.

Interestingly the guy is either an genius, likes to make us think, is an accidental genius, or a little bit of all of the above. There are naysayers for the blackguard argument and I typically agree with them. Losing Paladinhood doesn't = alignment change -> evil. However don't be dissapointed if Rich Burlew does take that path, have faith in the mans intelligence, he's smarter than that. If he did make Miko a blackguard then he'd do it in a rather impressive manner. 

Presently it seems to me the door is open both ways. She may have had the slap in the face needed for her to try to atone and become one of the good Paladins, perhaps leading to her death (which I wouldn't mind seeing) or what not; or, she'll go to jail where a certain succubus presently dwells and find a change of heart towards a different route. There are other options as well these just seem the most likely in my mind, Rich has surprised us all before I'm sure so it could go in a completely different direction. Anyway, awesome comic, can't wait to see what happens next. I also forsee a potential escape of the Linear Guild during the chaos of war.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jan 30, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> First of all I don't have modern 21 law or ethics in my game which is one of the big problems. People judge paladins based on todays morality like you don't kill prisoners, you don't execute without a trial, bigorty makes you evil, slavery is evil.




The Tang Dynasty (618-907 AD) didn't execute people without a trial where the suspect confessed. They could beat the confession out of him, but only in open court, and if the suspect died, the judge was executed. Due process varies a lot, but was not invented for the 20th century.


----------



## PhoenixDarkDirk (Jan 30, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Why? It makes perfect sense to me. Being undead is not a natural state. One could argue that necromancers raising bodies and ghast killing people to make new undead spawn is evil.
> 
> The next time the undead come and munch on a villege the paladins should say sorry folkes we can't help, undead are just misunderstood.
> 
> Gods can be zealots in their views without being evil.




Many things which aren't natural also aren't evil, although I agree with you about the ghasts.

I have no problem with defending against actual threats, such as your village-munchers. Your example which I originally cited, however, involved a character specifically identified as good. In my view, the undead status of the character is no justification of the paladin murdering it.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 30, 2007)

Sound of Azure said:
			
		

> Fixed that for ya. Just tryin' to help.




Nope. In general. Actual historical knights and priests who participated in the midaevil political and legal process could not adhere to the paladin code in the PHB as written. Trying to map historical practice on to the PHB version of paladinhood simply doesn't work; a review of historical sources easily demonstrates that they just cannot meet the standards. Especially those who dispensed summary judgment without inquiry into the actual facts of a situation.

Now, this is primarily because the PHB alignments and paladin restrictions are written based upon 20th century morality. So I guess you could change that morality if you wanted to, but then you wouldn't be playing D&D by the rules as written, and are instead playing something else entirely. Which makes the issue entirely moot for this discussion, since we are talking about OotS, which seems to adhere pretty closely to the "official" version of the game (much of the humor of the strip would be lost if it did not).


----------



## Herobizkit (Jan 30, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Not that I disagree with everything you said but how do you handling looting in your game?



Dead people don't have stuff.  They're dead. 

In a role-playing heavy game, the Paladin will oftentimes try to find out the history of the people he kills.  If an evil wizard harassed a village, the paladin might give all of the treasure to the village, or most of and tithe the rest to the church, or even keep a few coins to cover his  living expenses.  But I don't enforce one way or the other; it's up to the Paladin and what s/he feels is right.  If the Paladin tends to keep all of the treasure all of the time, I comment on her  greedy habits and that she starts to feel "uneasy".

I don't believe in an all-or-nothing scenario on Paladinhood unless the Paladin blatantly does something to further the cause of capital-E Evil; allowing an Evil artifact to pass into the hands of an Evil user, ignoring the town's requests for aid knowing that the town is defenseless without it, killing an innocent just to "take his stuff", and so on.   I would start stripping powers, one at a time, until the PC Got It.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 30, 2007)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> The Tang Dynasty (618-907 AD) didn't execute people without a trial where the suspect confessed. They could beat the confession out of him, but only in open court, and if the suspect died, the judge was executed. Due process varies a lot, but was not invented for the 20th century.




I think we all agree that confession obtained under torture often is not a true confession but a way to stop the pain.

And I can imagine the cries of foul if a paladin engaged in beating a subject until they confessed.  

And I never said that there should be no due process and that was a 21 century thing alone.

Due process in one of my games goes like this paladin thinks person has commmitted an evil act he then detect evil, he questions said subject under the spell discern lies if he still not sure he does a commune and then if the evidence of all this says the person is evil then he can execute him. So the person has a form of due process.


----------



## Grog (Jan 30, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> In the games that I have seen a paladin with the ability to dispence justice the paladins in question have used tools like detect evil, discern lie, even an augury.




But Miko didn't do any of those things here and you've been defending her.


----------



## Grog (Jan 30, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> What happens in a society when an innocent person is executed because a jury found them guilty? Does thtis society suddenly become a lawful evil society?




There is a world of difference between a defendant being found guilty by a jury after due process of law, and a single "paladin" cutting him down on the street because he believed he was guilty of something.

There's a very good reason that police aren't allowed to summarily execute people who commit crimes in civilized societies.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 30, 2007)

PhoenixDarkDirk said:
			
		

> Many things which aren't natural also aren't evil, although I agree with you about the ghasts.
> 
> I have no problem with defending against actual threats, such as your village-munchers. Your example which I originally cited, however, involved a character specifically identified as good. In my view, the undead status of the character is no justification of the paladin murdering it.




Unless the paladin's god and the oaths he took say that he has the duty to destroy undead.

Lich's have their soul at least in the game that we played in with this undead slayer and the soul is trappped in the undead's body unable to continue its journey. The paladin frees the soul. In this game any sentient being could chose to be good or evil they were not trapped by what the monster manual says. So we came across a lich who was good. The paladin had a hugr dilemma about what to do he cast commune with his god who answered him and guide him to destroy the lich and free his soul so it could continue on its journey.

If the paladin had not done this he would have lost his paladinhood because he broke his oaths to his god. Now he could have atoned or choosen to follow a different god at this point. One in keeping with his now changed world view.

The DM explained this to the player so that he could make an informed choice.

BTW in this game no one was immortal reincarnation played a huge part of the theme of the game.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 30, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> There is a world of difference between a defendant being found guilty by a jury after due process of law, and a single "paladin" cutting him down on the street because he believed he was guilty of something.
> 
> There's a very good reason that police aren't allowed to summarily execute people who commit crimes in civilized societies.





That is because police don't have access to detect evil, discern lies and commune and aurgy spells.  

I am not saying that a paladin should walk around the street just detecting evil and then when he gets a ping he pulls out his sword and kills the person. 

I am saying that in a society that allows the paladin to be judge , jury and the final say on what punishment is due  the paladin uses his abilities to get to the truth of the matter and then passes judgemment.


If I was a member of a society I would rather have a paladin judge me then take my chances with people who can be swayed by a silver tongued lawyer. Or have the verdict influenced because I am half orc and most people don't like half orcs at least with the paladin he has spells that can tell him if I am good or evil and these are not influenced by how he feels personally.


----------



## Ozmar (Jan 30, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> It's simple common sense. Goblins are common enough creatures that players will either know they attack human settlements straight out, or they'll be able to learn that information easily enough when they visit settlements that are near goblin lands. We're not talking about demons or something here - of course it's true that not that many people are going to know what a glabrezu is and what it does - but goblins?
> 
> But hey, if you want to make your players roleplay a long investigation and make Knowledge checks to learn that the recently attacked village that borders on goblin lands was, in fact, attacked by goblins, it's your game....




Reminds me of an anecdote. 

DM asked us to make 10th-level Forgotten Realms characters for playing the City of the Spider-Queen mega-adventure. He stipulated that we were not to use knowledge of our planned adventure to make optimized, drow-killing characters. Sounds fair, right?

But he took it several steps farther. Our characters did not know anything about drow. We had never even heard of them. 10th-level adventurers. In Faerun. And we've never heard of drow. We had no clue what they were. So when we heard some dim rumors about mysterious creatures know as "drow", we concluded they must be some kind of half-dragon cow... dragon-cow = drow.

Strangely, the campaign never really took off.

Ozmar the Clueless


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 30, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> But Miko didn't do any of those things here and you've been defending her.




I am defending her because I don't think she is evil. I think she is misinformed and that she acted without thinking. I have also been saying that she had reason to believe in Shojo guilt and that I can see why she did what she did. I totally disagree with the people feel that she has fallen to evil and that she had no motivations for what she was doing.

She overheard it from Shojo lips she saw with her own eyes that Belkar who is guilty of killingva paladin who is supposed to be in a cell is walking around free and armed.

I can see why she did what she did and I have said if this was game and not a comic I would think the DM was doing a pretty lousy job of DMing that he was railroading the paladin into falling. Which is why I have not really liked this whole Miko storyline.

Do I think she deserves to lose her paladin ability maybe if the law states that she has no right to pass judgement. The fact that she acted use her emotions instead of using her logic is also a reason to be strippped of her paladin powers. I do not think she has slipped to evil and I believe that she could atone for what she has done.

I also believe if Shojo lived or was brought back to life that he should also face charges for violating the law. It does not matter that he was doing it to save the world he still violated the law and needs to face the consquences of his choice of actions.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 30, 2007)

Ozmar said:
			
		

> But he took it several steps farther. Our characters did not know anything about drow. We had never even heard of them. 10th-level adventurers. In Faerun. And we've never heard of drow. We had no clue what they were. So when we heard some dim rumors about mysterious creatures know as "drow", we concluded they must be some kind of half-dragon cow... dragon-cow = drow.
> 
> Strangely, the campaign never really took off.




*DROW-TIPPING DISCOURAGED!*

What kind of world would it be if it were full of dragon-cows? More vegetarian, I'd think.

 -- N


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 30, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I am defending her because I don't think she is evil. I think she is misinformed and that she acted without thinking. I have also been saying that she had reason to believe in Shojo guilt and that I can see why she did what she did. I totally disagree with the people feel that she has fallen to evil and that she had no motivations for what she was doing.




Except that most people here seem to disagree that she had reason to believe in Shojo's guilt. She had an entirely _unreasonable_ belief. Her leaps of logic ("Shojo helped rig a trial, therefore he is in league with Xykon" and "Xykon is alive even though the OotS said they killed him, therefore the OotS is in league with Xykon" in a world where resurrections are so routine that they are sitting around the throne room waiting to have a nameless NPC wizard brought back from the dead) are quite simply unsupportable; seemingly the product of an unhinged mind. It would be the equivalent of saying something like "you rigged a trial to let a petty thief go, therefore you are in league with evil communists bent on subverting the government!" - a leap that simply makes no sense on any level. Her motivations, such as they are, are simply nonsensical. She may believe them, but her belief is pretty much irrelevant in an absolute alignment system like D&D uses. She may not have fallen to evil (yet, that will have to wait until she curses the gods for punishing her), but she has certainly knowingly commited an evil act.


----------



## Felix (Jan 30, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I am defending her because I don't think she is evil.



A paladin can still be Lawful Good and fall; she doesn't have to be evil.

One evil act not changing people's alignments, and all that.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 30, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Except that most people here seem to disagree that she had reason to believe in Shojo's guilt. She had an entirely _unreasonable_ belief. Her leaps of logic ("Shojo helped rig a trial, therefore he is in league with Xykon" and "Xykon is alive even though the OotS said they killed him, therefore the OotS is in league with Xykon" in a world where resurrections are so routine that they are sitting around the throne room waiting to have a nameless NPC wizard brought back from the dead) are quite simply unsupportable; seemingly the product of an unhinged mind. It would be the equivalent of saying something like "you rigged a trial to let a petty thief go, therefore you are in league with evil communists bent on subverting the government!" - a leap that simply makes no sense on any level. Her motivations, such as they are, are simply nonsensical. She may believe them, but her belief is pretty much irrelevant in an absolute alignment system like D&D uses. She may not have fallen to evil (yet, that will have to wait until she curses the gods for punishing her), but she has certainly knowingly commited an evil act.




Just because most people agree on something does not make it right. Most polls showed that Americans thought OJ was gulity but a jury found him innocent.

I think a lot of people are using knowledge that Miko does not have access to. As the readers we are aware of everything that has happened she is not. I also think that some people are judging her actions based on a dislike of stick in the rump paladins and the fact that the OOTS are the good guys and we have been following their adventures from the start.

I have read that she should know more about Lichs because she has knowledge relgion so that would tell her that the OOTS was not lying when they said he was destroyed. But she is a multiclass paladin so how do we know that she has enough ranks if any in religion to know this.

If Miko does not know how lichs have to be destroyed then it is perfectly reasonable for her to form an opinion that the OOTS lied about destroyed him. And then wonder why did they lie what possible purpose could lying hold. Except as a cover to hide their allegience with the lich. And can Lich's be raised with spells? 

Miko was told to bring them back for trial if Shojo really wanted to talk to them why not send a messanger with an offer of a lot of gold for them to come instead of the ruse of a trial. So there was a trial that now Miko knows was rigged. Why is it such unreasonable thought that she might wonder why Shojo did this.  He had other ways to get them to come to Azure City so is it possible that he wanted a cover becuase he is indeed working with evil.

The point I am trying to make is simply this while I think Miko acted rashly and this lead to her paladin powers being stripped I don't think her reasoning is totally out of whack based on what she saw and heard. 

I have played in games where I have gotten the DMs clues wrong and based on what I saw and heard I formed the wrong opinion. This is what I think the case is for Miko she based her opinion on the information that she had and yes on her emotions. I think her emotions colored a lot of her actions.

She had feelings for Roy and he rejected her so that had to co,lr how she felt. And to find out that her leader and someone who she really looked up to had lied, broken faith with the paladins that he himself had brought her to serve with had to feel like the ultimate betrayal. Even Hinjo felt betrayed by Shojo. Taking all these feelings into consideration and what she had heard I do not find it unreasonable that she would come to the conclusions that she did.

Where she made her mistake was not in gathering evidence to support her conclusions.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 30, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> A paladin can still be Lawful Good and fall; she doesn't have to be evil.
> 
> One evil act not changing people's alignments, and all that.




Yeah I know which is why I am surprised at all the people who are saying that she is now evil or chaotic.


----------



## Gez (Jan 30, 2007)

They're saying she's been Chaotic Evil for a long time, but has only shown it now. 

By the way, I'm amused how this thread is still going, nine pages and one strip later. Tomorrow we'll get OotS 408 (barring unforseen problems)... Will the thread be dead by then, or will it, like Chronos, devor its youngs and survive the OotS 407 discussion thread and even the OotS 408 thread?


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 30, 2007)

Gez said:
			
		

> They're saying she's been Chaotic Evil for a long time, but has only shown it now.
> 
> By the way, I'm amused how this thread is still going, nine pages and one strip later. Tomorrow we'll get OotS 408 (barring unforseen problems)... Will the thread be dead by then, or will it, like Chronos, devor its youngs and survive the OotS 407 discussion thread and even the OotS 408 thread?




It has occured to be that not only are we debating the morality of a cartoon figure but a stick figure at that.


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Jan 30, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> It has occured to be that not only are we debating the morality of a cartoon figure but a stick figure at that.




Is there any higher calling?


----------



## PallidPatience (Jan 30, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Just because most people agree on something does not make it right. Most polls showed that Americans thought OJ was gulity but a jury found him innocent.




Because of a technical mistake by the police, which caused the damning evidence to be inadmissible in a court of law. I'm not saying that most people agreeing on something makes it right. I'm just saying that most people agreeing on something doesn't make it wrong, either, and that sometimes, it really is simple enough that most people can see it clearly.



> I think a lot of people are using knowledge that Miko does not have access to. As the readers we are aware of everything that has happened she is not. I also think that some people are judging her actions based on a dislike of stick in the rump paladins and the fact that the OOTS are the good guys and we have been following their adventures from the start.




It is true that we know a lot of things that she does not. However, we have been present for every interaction she has had with the OotS, and Xykon. Therefore, we have a good idea what she knows about those two entities. At the same time, we have a good idea what she knows about Shojo (through analysis of what others know of Shojo, especially within her own order). We also know all the clues that she has been given to leap to this conclusion. These clues follow.

1. Xykon is still around, despite the fact that the OotS claims to have destroyed him.
2. Shojo lied in order to get the OotS to perform a task which the paladins, due to a dead man's oath, are incapable of doing.
3. Belkar may or may not be evil, and does not like having _Detect Evil_ cast on him.

Her conclusion is that the OotS and Shojo have been working with Xykon all along. Is that reasonable? No one is judging Miko for not being omniscient. We are only saying that she is filling in large gaps of facts with her "theory" in order to satisfy her version of the world. She is not making an effort to verify her facts, or even find out what in the Nine Hells is happening around her. She merely assumes large portions of things are true, and then acts on it. That's not very WISE, and Wisdom is one of a Paladin's required high ability scores (as it is for a Monk, which is her other class).



> I have read that she should know more about Lichs because she has knowledge relgion so that would tell her that the OOTS was not lying when they said he was destroyed. But she is a multiclass paladin so how do we know that she has enough ranks if any in religion to know this.
> 
> If Miko does not know how lichs have to be destroyed then it is perfectly reasonable for her to form an opinion that the OOTS lied about destroyed him. And then wonder why did they lie what possible purpose could lying hold. Except as a cover to hide their allegience with the lich. And can Lich's be raised with spells?




She is a Paladin/Monk, both of which have Knowledge (religion) as a class skill. At the same time, she is a member of a Paladin Order which we can reasonably assume would have some knowledgeable people about, and probably some books on common or particularly dangerous forms of undead. Therefore, her not knowing about a lich is entirely her own fault, because she made no effort to find out, even KNOWING that Xykon IS a lich.

And, yes. _True Resurrection_ would restore a destroyed lich to life, and his phylactery is still intact.





> Miko was told to bring them back for trial if Shojo really wanted to talk to them why not send a messanger with an offer of a lot of gold for them to come instead of the ruse of a trial. So there was a trial that now Miko knows was rigged. Why is it such unreasonable thought that she might wonder why Shojo did this.  He had other ways to get them to come to Azure City so is it possible that he wanted a cover becuase he is indeed working with evil.




That has been covered. He sent her to bring them in to the trial because that was the only way that he could tell them about the gates, which he wanted them to investigate and defend. While it is possible that she would assume that the reasons were unsavory, does that assumption really excuse her method of dealing with him? She cut him in half in anger, despite Hinjo's pleas for reasonability, and his lack of self-defense.



> The point I am trying to make is simply this while I think Miko acted rashly and this lead to her paladin powers being stripped I don't think her reasoning is totally out of whack based on what she saw and heard.




The point we are trying to make is that this kind of rashness is not a quality conducive to paladinhood. Risking one's own life rashly is one thing, and, while foolish, will never leave one stripped of paladinhood. Rashly striking down someone that one is convinced, despite the facts or lack thereof, is evil and in league with greater evils is an entirely different story. Paladins are supposed to be WISE, as I've said before. 



> I have played in games where I have gotten the DMs clues wrong and based on what I saw and heard I formed the wrong opinion. This is what I think the case is for Miko she based her opinion on the information that she had and yes on her emotions. I think her emotions colored a lot of her actions.
> 
> She had feelings for Roy and he rejected her so that had to co,lr how she felt. And to find out that her leader and someone who she really looked up to had lied, broken faith with the paladins that he himself had brought her to serve with had to feel like the ultimate betrayal. Even Hinjo felt betrayed by Shojo. Taking all these feelings into consideration and what she had heard I do not find it unreasonable that she would come to the conclusions that she did.




This is far more than getting the DM's clues wrong. She invented her own clues, and made up a story for it and everything. This isn't a situation where she got a road map, and just knocked on the next door of the proper answer. She ended up on another planet. 

And you've hit the jackpot of most of the problem. She didn't act based on facts or on reasonable suspicions. She acted based on the fact that she was ANGRY. Roy had had the guts to reject her, and that made her angry. Xykon merely toyed with her and let her go, and that made her angry. Shojo had been lying to her, and that made her angry. So she concocted a story based on her rage that would justify her striking the man down. She took out her anger on Shojo. There was no justice involved. That's not something a paladin does.

While she is free to have emotions, it is not her perogative to act based on them. She, being an agent of divine Law and Good, is supposed to be above such petty actions. But she succumbs to them, and how!

[QUOTEWhere she made her mistake was not in gathering evidence to support her conclusions.[/QUOTE]

Where she made her mistake was in acting solely out of anger and a need for vengeance.


----------



## Felix (Jan 30, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Yeah I know which is why I am surprised at all the people who are saying that she is now evil or chaotic.



I had thought you were arguing that the act of executing Shojo was not an Evil act, instead of arguing the current state of Miko's alignment.

Oh, and something I had meant to write earlier; a paladin can commit Chaotic acts without reprocussion until their alignment shifts. It is only an Evil act which causes an immediate revocation of power.

Thus, her fall from grace would not have been due to the circumvention of the law in making herself judge/jury/executioner _unless_: that act shifted her alignment towards Chaotic or that act was also Evil.

I do not believe one act can shift alignment, nor do I think Miko the type to go around doing enough Chaotic deeds that this act would shift her.

I _can_ see how the bestowal of authority on herself could be Evil, so we're back at Miko commiting an Evil act. Loss of Powers.


----------



## Wilphe (Jan 31, 2007)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> Man, good catch!
> 
> And it demonstrates one nice feature of the zealot -- they can always find some way to rationalize their prejudices, even if it takes 106 (_edit_: 108) strips.




I expect she has been doing that for at least an hour a day ever since then...


----------



## Wilphe (Jan 31, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> But I will accept that something is seriously out of joint here - Roy's father isn't Lawful, and doesn't seem particularly Good. Therefore, his answering a call for a Lawful Good celestial doesn't fit. (Although, don't the Fiendish Codices make mention of Lower Planar powers sometimes hijacking such summons, much as Roy's father was seen to do? If so, it stands to reason that a Chaotic Good power could do likewise.)




His Lawfulness was established in the prequel strips.


----------



## jeffh (Jan 31, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I can see why she did what she did and I have said if this was game and not a comic I would think the DM was doing a pretty lousy job of DMing that he was railroading the paladin into falling. Which is why I have not really liked this whole Miko storyline.



This would make sense, if the conclusions Miko came to were, despite being wrong, the most reasonable ones possible given the evidence available to her. But she fails that standard *miserably *at virtually every turn; in particular, the leap from "Xykon is still active" to "The OotS are working with Xykon" is a huge one that nobody who wasn't _determined _to find fault with the Order would make. At every turn, she grasps at straws to justify her preexisting prejudices; as a result she acts rashly and irresponsibly. This is the opposite of how a paladin should behave.



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I also believe if Shojo lived or was brought back to life that he should also face charges for violating the law. It does not matter that he was doing it to save the world he still violated the law and needs to face the consquences of his choice of actions.



So he should have been prepared to sacrifice the world because of a poorly thought-out law that obviously failed to anticipate the situation at hand? Preposterous. Absolutely preposterous.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jan 31, 2007)

jeffh said:
			
		

> So he should have been prepared to sacrifice the world because of a poorly thought-out law that obviously failed to anticipate the situation at hand? Preposterous. Absolutely preposterous.



Yeah, when the choice is between a law made by a mortal over a matter of pride, and between saving the world, only the most insanely Lawful people would see upholding the law to be more important than saving the world, then again (it makes me remember Rufus's line in Dogma:  "It's not a matter of pride, stupid!" ).  I've been saying that Miko has been on the edge of an alignment shift to Lawful Neutral for quite a while.

I won't say that she's Chaotic, or Evil in alignment from what she's been doing, but I will say that it may have pushed her over the line down to LN if she was on the threshold and commited a major evil act (like she did with Shojo).  She's caring only about the "law" in how she sees it, she doesn't so much want to do good as she wants to destroy "evil" but now to her "evil" is just anything she doesn't like or agree with and will go to any lengths to justify it (will she now see the Twelve Gods as "Evil" for stopping her and seek out a way to bring them "Justice"?  A rationalization for her becoming a Blackguard perhaps?).


----------



## Sound of Azure (Jan 31, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Nope. In general. Actual historical knights and priests who participated in the midaevil political and legal process could not adhere to the paladin code in the PHB as written. Trying to map historical practice on to the PHB version of paladinhood simply doesn't work; a review of historical sources easily demonstrates that they just cannot meet the standards. Especially those who dispensed summary judgment without inquiry into the actual facts of a situation.
> 
> Now, this is primarily because the PHB alignments and paladin restrictions are written based upon 20th century morality. So I guess you could change that morality if you wanted to, but then you wouldn't be playing D&D by the rules as written, and are instead playing something else entirely. Which makes the issue entirely moot for this discussion, since we are talking about OotS, which seems to adhere pretty closely to the "official" version of the game (much of the humor of the strip would be lost if it did not).




You do realise that the code in the PHB is an example code, right?

I was just pointing out that you seemed to be saying that Elf Witch was wrong to have Paladins play in that fashion, and that they weren't really paladins. In Elf Witch's game... they are, it would appear. And that's fine.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 31, 2007)

Sound of Azure said:
			
		

> You do realise that the code in the PHB is an example code, right?
> 
> I was just pointing out that you seemed to be saying that Elf Witch was wrong to have Paladins play in that fashion, and that they weren't really paladins. In Elf Witch's game... they are, it would appear. And that's fine.




No, I'm saying that paladins as presented in the PHB behave in the manner described in the PHB. And that is what we have to go on when evaluating paladins in things like OotS, since that is the baseline to measure from. I suppose a DM could change the paladin code in their home campaign to include a tenet that every paladin roasts a baby alive each day as part of their religious observances, but then you have diverged from the PHB model, and your assessments of the paladin code are of limited value in discussions like these.

And assessments of paladins that would fit 14th/15th century nobles in the real world who made summary judgments and executions also stray _very_ far from the PHB, making assessments involving those types of examples not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 31, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Just because most people agree on something does not make it right. Most polls showed that Americans thought OJ was gulity but a jury found him innocent.




And the jury in that case was probably wrong.



> _I think a lot of people are using knowledge that Miko does not have access to._




No. I'm basing my assessment upon the knowledge that Miko explicitly does have access to, and how she has filled in the gaps in that knowledge with deranged delusions, paranoid conspiracy theories and illogical leaps of assumptions.



> _As the readers we are aware of everything that has happened she is not. I also think that some people are judging her actions based on a dislike of stick in the rump paladins and the fact that the OOTS are the good guys and we have been following their adventures from the start._




No. I am basing my assessment upon her bizarre leaps of logic and disregard for the truth.



> _I have read that she should know more about Lichs because she has knowledge relgion so that would tell her that the OOTS was not lying when they said he was destroyed. But she is a multiclass paladin so how do we know that she has enough ranks if any in religion to know this._




Knowledge: Religion is a class skill for both paladins and monks. She has an entire order of paladins, monks, and clerics to consult. She did not do this to ascertain if her assumptions were correct. She has diregarded actually finding the truth in favor of leaps of logic.



> _If Miko does not know how lichs have to be destroyed then it is perfectly reasonable for her to form an opinion that the OOTS lied about destroyed him. And then wonder why did they lie what possible purpose could lying hold. Except as a cover to hide their allegience with the lich. And can Lich's be raised with spells?_




Shojo, Roy, and Belkar were sitting in the throne room waiting for a cleric to raise the NPC wizard. A condition of Belkar's release was that his share of the treasure go to reaising the murdered guard. Belkar assumed that Durkon could return him from the dead if Miko had killed him. People returning from the dead is not an uncommon occurrence, so her surprise at seeing Xykon and huge leap of logic to this meaning that OotS is working with him is entirely unwarranted. Even if she knows _nothing_ about liches (actually, especially if she knows nothing about liches), his return from the dead should not be surprising to her at all.

In point of fact, when she fought Redcloak, an individual clearly allied with Xykon, he used a spell _higher level_ than raise dead against her (_harm_, if I remember correctly).



> _Miko was told to bring them back for trial if Shojo really wanted to talk to them why not send a messanger with an offer of a lot of gold for them to come instead of the ruse of a trial. So there was a trial that now Miko knows was rigged. Why is it such unreasonable thought that she might wonder why Shojo did this.  He had other ways to get them to come to Azure City so is it possible that he wanted a cover becuase he is indeed working with evil._




But, of course, the fact that he rigged the trial does not lead in any way to the conclusion that he is in league with Xykon. That is simply the reasoning of a paranoid mind, deranged and delusional. She didn't try to find out if it was true. She just assumed it was, despite having plenty of resources at hand to do so.



> _The point I am trying to make is simply this while I think Miko acted rashly and this lead to her paladin powers being stripped I don't think her reasoning is totally out of whack based on what she saw and heard._




It was totally out of whack. Her conclusions don't follow in any way from what she knows.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 31, 2007)

jeffh said:
			
		

> So he should have been prepared to sacrifice the world because of a poorly thought-out law that obviously failed to anticipate the situation at hand? Preposterous. Absolutely preposterous.




No he should be prepared to accept the responsibility that comes with what he did. I am not saying her should have chosen the world's destruction what I am saying is that he knew he was breaking the law to accomplish his acts and had to know if he got caught that their would be a penalty. But he chose to put the world's safety over his own life and possible freedom, that is a sign of a brave man.

Shojo needs to come to trial for his breaking of the law. Now I would think that saving the world would have some kind of mitigating  circumstance when it came to a sentence. 

His saving the world does not change the fact that he is guilty of breaking the law he swore to uphold.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 31, 2007)

PallidPatience said:
			
		

> Because of a technical mistake by the police, which caused the damning evidence to be inadmissible in a court of law. I'm not saying that most people agreeing on something makes it right. I'm just saying that most people agreeing on something doesn't make it wrong, either, and that sometimes, it really is simple enough that most people can see it clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> Where she made her mistake was in acting solely out of anger and a need for vengeance.



 So what you are saying is that the people who disagree and there  are people who disagree both here and on several other forums just don'tt see it as clearly as the majority do. :\ 

For thousands of years people believed the world was flat and I am sure that it was simple enough for them that they could see clearly it was flat. 

The funny thing is that most of the people in my gaming group feel the same way I do and that they can see how Miko made the leap of logic that she did due to everything she had seen and heard. But then most of us think that Belkar is an evil little halfling  whose is going to come to a bad end one day. 

It kind of irks me when people in debates use the argument that because more people agree with their view then it is the more logical right view.

I see quite clearly thank you very much how someone like Miko could come to the conclusions that she did as wrong as they are.  I can easily follow her chain of thought from reading the comic. I can see how with the evidence she saw and heard and her emotionally unhealthy state of mind that she could put together the scenero that she did.

Vengence is the flipside of justice and most people who go out for vengence feel and think that they are getting justice for something wrong that happened to them or their loved ones. Vengence is not justice but to the person doing vengence is it justice. Miko in her twisted world view really believed she was getting justice on wrong doers and she paid the price for that.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 31, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> I had thought you were arguing that the act of executing Shojo was not an Evil act, instead of arguing the current state of Miko's alignment.
> 
> Oh, and something I had meant to write earlier; a paladin can commit Chaotic acts without reprocussion until their alignment shifts. It is only an Evil act which causes an immediate revocation of power.
> 
> ...




If we are talking about intent then no I don't think Miko was in her mind commiting an evil act. That is what I have been trying to argue. That if given what Miko believed and if it was true then no it was not an evil act it was an act of paladin justice. 

The fact is that Miko was wrong and she killed a man and that is what made the act evil. 

What I have been arguing is Miko POV. And from that POV she was a paladin bringing an evildoer to justice.


----------



## PallidPatience (Jan 31, 2007)

My argument isn't that i's right because many people agree on it. My argument is that it is right, and that it's being right (as per D&D alignment) coincides with the majority's agreement on it. 

And you are overlooking my point. Vengeance is not justice, you are correct. Vengeance is (arguably) the evil version of justice. Justice is about setting things right. Vengeance is about getting back at the people who hurt me. If you're saying that Miko acted for vengeance, but her act was not evil, then I think that you're wrong. She acted out of anger and wrath. She acted out of vengeance. She acted for HER, not for the greater good. Therefore, her act was EVIL, and she has been punished for it. Her emotional upset does not protect her. If you do evil, it doesn't matter if you do it because someone took away your ice cream cone when you were little, or because someone decided they didn't want a relationship with you. You're still doing evil. 

Not that I think her alignment is Evil. I wouldn't be surprised if she was LN now, though.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 31, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, I'm saying that paladins as presented in the PHB behave in the manner described in the PHB. And that is what we have to go on when evaluating paladins in things like OotS, since that is the baseline to measure from. I suppose a DM could change the paladin code in their home campaign to include a tenet that every paladin roasts a baby alive each day as part of their religious observances, but then you have diverged from the PHB model, and your assessments of the paladin code are of limited value in discussions like these.
> 
> And assessments of paladins that would fit 14th/15th century nobles in the real world who made summary judgments and executions also stray _very_ far from the PHB, making assessments involving those types of examples not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.




You do realize that paladins are based on a combo of knights from history and from literature?

I don't agree with everything that PHB says about paladins because I think it is poorly written and that is why we have so many multi page paladin threads.

You are saying that because I don't agree totally with the PHB that their is noway for us to evaulate paladins because there is no common ground. Why is it eating babies always comes up in these paladin threads? Sheesh just because you are not a slave to the PHB paladin code it means that you think paladins should be going around eating babies.  

You get several gamers in a conversation on the PHB paladin code and you will not be able to come up with a conseus of just how that code should be applied.

Evaulating Miko using the pladin code in the PHB she did not break it until she killed Shojo. The only non paladin act she has commited was killing someone who was not gulity of the crimes she accused him off. If he had been guilty and she killed him she would not have lost her paladin ability. Not for one chaotic act. As another poster said and quite rightly that doing one chaotic act does not cost you your paladinhood but doing an evil act does.

Killing an evil person in DnD is not an evil act and so does not lead to lose of paladinhood.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 31, 2007)

PallidPatience said:
			
		

> My argument isn't that i's right because many people agree on it. My argument is that it is right, and that it's being right (as per D&D alignment) coincides with the majority's agreement on it.
> 
> And you are overlooking my point. Vengeance is not justice, you are correct. Vengeance is (arguably) the evil version of justice. Justice is about setting things right. Vengeance is about getting back at the people who hurt me. If you're saying that Miko acted for vengeance, but her act was not evil, then I think that you're wrong. She acted out of anger and wrath. She acted out of vengeance. She acted for HER, not for the greater good. Therefore, her act was EVIL, and she has been punished for it. Her emotional upset does not protect her. If you do evil, it doesn't matter if you do it because someone took away your ice cream cone when you were little, or because someone decided they didn't want a relationship with you. You're still doing evil.
> 
> Not that I think her alignment is Evil. I wouldn't be surprised if she was LN now, though.




I am not saying vengence is not an evil act. What I am saying is that in Miko eyes she was not getting vengence she was delivering justice. 

And because she can't see the difference she fell.

And what does DND alignment have to do with why I think she did the things she did? What is so hard to understand the point I am making which is simply I understand how with her mindset and the evidence she had she could come to the conclusions that she did. 

What I have always said is that in Miko mind she is justified in what she did.

One of the things that some people have said is that even if she was right her choosing to execute him instead of bring him to trial was an evil act and caause for losing her powers. It is not an evil act it is a chaotic act. And one chaotic act does not make a paladin lose her power.


----------



## Grog (Jan 31, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> One of the things that some people have said is that even if she was right her choosing to execute him instead of bring him to trial was an evil act and caause for losing her powers. It is not an evil act it is a chaotic act. And one chaotic act does not make a paladin lose her power.




Unless Miko is specifically empowered under the law to dispense the death penalty to lawbreakers without a trial, then her killing Shojo wasn't an execution - it was a murder. And there's nothing in the PHB about paladins having that power, and there's nothing in the comic about it, either. (Indeed, we've seen evidence to the contrary - Miko wasn't allowed to kill Belkar on the spot, he was to be taken into custody and tried on charges of murder).

There's a big difference between an execution and a murder.


----------



## PhoenixDarkDirk (Jan 31, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Lich's have their soul at least in the game that we played in with this undead slayer and the soul is trappped in the undead's body unable to continue its journey.




My problem with this is that lichhood is completely voluntary so, if there are good liches, I see no proof of lichhood being evil.

As far as I can tell, this god's antipathy towards all undead is just pointless bigotry and is thus evil.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 31, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Unless Miko is specifically empowered under the law to dispense the death penalty to lawbreakers without a trial, then her killing Shojo wasn't an execution - it was a murder. And there's nothing in the PHB about paladins having that power, and there's nothing in the comic about it, either. (Indeed, we've seen evidence to the contrary - Miko wasn't allowed to kill Belkar on the spot, he was to be taken into custody and tried on charges of murder).
> 
> There's a big difference between an execution and a murder.




Miko chose to let Shojo bring Belkar to trial for the murder he commited we saw how well thay worked out. :\ I wonder if Belkar will ever face the charge of  that murder. And the reason she was not allowed to kill Belkar on the spot was because Shojo who she gave tooks vows to as a Samuri was her leader an ordered her to stop.

The players handbook does not say that a paladin cannot kill evil doers. Killing an evil doer in DnD is not murder.


----------



## jeffh (Jan 31, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Shojo needs to come to trial for his breaking of the law. Now I would think that saving the world would have some kind of mitigating  circumstance when it came to a sentence.
> 
> His saving the world does not change the fact that he is guilty of breaking the law he swore to uphold.



It doesn't change that fact, but it does render it irrelevant. Not just mitigate it a little. Render it *completely irrelevant*. It is just not reasonable to hold it against him *at all*.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 31, 2007)

PhoenixDarkDirk said:
			
		

> My problem with this is that lichhood is completely voluntary so, if there are good liches, I see no proof of lichhood being evil.
> 
> As far as I can tell, this god's antipathy towards all undead is just pointless bigotry and is thus evil.




In the eyes of the god voluntarily twarting the natural progression of life death rebirth is againist divine law. A law that the paladins uphold and swear vows to. 

It is not pointless bigorty in this world it is a divine fact that death is necessary to the balance of the world and that having a soul trapped forver in the body of a lich starts to unravel the balence.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 31, 2007)

jeffh said:
			
		

> It doesn't change that fact, but it does render it irrelevant. Not just mitigate it a little. Render it *completely irrelevant*.





No it does not. Even if you break the law because you were doing something for the greater good does not change the fact that you broke the law. 

Shojo made a vow when he took the title and he swore to uphold the laws of Azure City. He broke those laws. So if he lived he would need to be tried and have a chance to explain why he did what he did. I am pretty postive that saving the world would either get him aquited or a suspended sentence and a parade with ballons.  

If he is a wise leader he would understand the importance of allowing himself to be tried to show that number 1 he is not above the law and 2 and by facing and answering to his crime can lay the groundwork for changing the laws he broke.

Violating laws because they are inconvient even if you are doing it for all the right reasons does change the fact that you are guilty of breaking the law. 

At this point he has not saved the world and there are arguments that there could have been other steps he could have taken to save the world.

Besides think of the slippery slope this creates it says that laws are not important and should be able to be broken without consquence because you were doing it for a noble reason.


----------



## jeffh (Jan 31, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> No it does not. Even if you break the law because you were doing something for the greater good does not change the fact that you broke the law.
> 
> Shojo made a vow when he took the title and he swore to uphold the laws of Azure City. He broke those laws. So if he lived he would need to be tried and have a chance to explain why he did what he did. I am pretty postive that saving the world would either get him aquited or a suspended sentence and a parade with ballons.
> 
> ...



What gives the law this magical normative force you're attributing to it? Law is *at its best *best a rough guide to right and wrong, and even then it's liberally mixed in with stuff that's got nothing to do with right and wrong but nevertheless helpful or necessary to maintaining social order. At its worst law is an arbitrary impediment to doing the right thing, or indeed to running one's life at all, made worse by the fact that some people see it the way you apparently do - as somehow an end in itself - or mistake lawfulness for good. This instance falls squarely into the latter category. In no case is law _constitutive _of right and wrong, not even partially. Laws are like sausages in that if you knew how they were made, you would want nothing to do with them. Law is a necessary evil. It is never an end in itself.

And even a paladin can believe this. They must believe in social order, respect authority and follow a consistent code, yes - none of which need coincide with what laws a given society happens to have written down (though admittedly the middle one can get dicey for people with such an attitude). D&D Lawful does not mean "obeys laws".

Legally your argument is correct, but near-vacuous and in any case irrelevant to the discussion. Ethically it's a non-starter.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 31, 2007)

jeffh said:
			
		

> What gives the law this magical normative force you're attributing to it? Law is *at its best *best a rough guide to right and wrong, and even then it's liberally mixed in with stuff that's got nothing to do with right and wrong but nevertheless helpful or necessary to maintaining social order. At its worst law is an arbitrary impediment to doing the right thing, or indeed to running one's life at all, made worse by the fact that some people see it the way you apparently do - as somehow an end in itself - or mistake lawfulness for good. This instance falls squarely into the latter category. In no case is law _constitutive _of right and wrong, not even partially. Laws are like sausages in that if you knew how they were made, you would want nothing to do with them. Law is a necessary evil. It is never an end in itself.
> 
> And even a paladin can believe this. They must believe in social order, respect authority and follow a consistent code, yes - none of which need coincide with what laws a given society happens to have written down (though admittedly the middle one can get dicey for people with such an attitude). D&D Lawful does not mean "obeys laws".
> 
> Legally your argument is correct, but near-vacuous and in any case irrelevant to the discussion. Ethically it's a non-starter.




Well thank you for calling my arguement stupid and irrelevent to the discussion.   

And since we are talking about DnD if law is a necessary evil then why do paladins have to be *lawful* good? Instead of say neutral good. That would sure make their lives a lot easier.

You think that because I think Shojo should be brought to trial the way Hinjo wants that I  mistaking lawfulness for goodness. Well you are wrong I just happen to feel that a person like Shojo who helpes write the laws and adminsters the law is not above the law. 

Who decides when someone like Shojo breaks the law that it is okay and he should not be brought in front of a legal body to answer why he did what he did? Who Shojo himself, popular opinion. 



According to Hinjo Shojo broke laws and knew he was breaking laws because of how well he covered it up. When something like this happenes don't you think that the smart thing to do is for Shojo to explain to who ever is the judge in Azure City just why he felt that he needed to do what he did. 

What someone breaks a law for the greater good and everyone should just take their word for it?  

I don't think he should be punished in any way for what he is done but I think the best thing for him, the paladins and the people is for him to have his day in court so his actions can be explained. 

A society has to trust that their laws are impartial and that they apply to everyone fairly. By not bringing him to trial the message is the law does not apply to those in power.

tell me something do you think Belkar should be brought up on charges of murder for killing the guard? And if goes out and saves the world does that mean he should not be tried for murder?


----------



## PallidPatience (Jan 31, 2007)

Hinjo needs no defense. He was calling for the right thing. He was pairing Law and Good. "He needs to be taken care of... but not right now, and in the correct way."

Miko was performing the actions that were overly "LAW"ful. I personally think that she was behaving far more chaotically than lawfully, but meh.


----------



## Falkus (Jan 31, 2007)

> What someone breaks a law for the greater good and everyone should just take their word for it?




That's often the case in DnD and a lot of fantasy I've read.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 31, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> You do realize that paladins are based on a combo of knights from history and from literature?




Well, no. Paladins are based pretty much entirely on literary antecedents. Primarily they are based upon a single character in _Three Hearts and Three Lions_, but they also have a limited amount of influence from the Arthur cycle, the tales of Charlemange's paladins and a few other sources. No figure in actual human history could successfully abide by the paladin code as presented in any iteration of the D&D RAW.



> _I don't agree with everything that PHB says about paladins because I think it is poorly written and that is why we have so many multi page paladin threads._




I agree to some extent. But there is an ancillary point too - the PHB description of the alignment lawful good excludes most historical characters. It certainly excludes the 14th/15th century nobles who were empowered to render on-the-spot justice and engaged in summary executions. So the historical precedent of such individuals existing in our history is not really relevant to this discussion.



> _You are saying that because I don't agree totally with the PHB that their is noway for us to evaulate paladins because there is no common ground. Why is it eating babies always comes up in these paladin threads? Sheesh just because you are not a slave to the PHB paladin code it means that you think paladins should be going around eating babies. _




I didn't say eating babies. I said roasting babies. The Russians accused the Teutonic knights who invaded their country in the 13th century of exactly that crime. The Teutonic knights are one of the crusader orders that is often cited as a real world prototype for paladins. I submit that (even if these charges were not true, and they probably were not) the documented evidence concerning the various crusader orders shows that the individuals who made up these orders could never qualify as paladins or even as LG using the PHB definitions.



> _Evaulating Miko using the pladin code in the PHB she did not break it until she killed Shojo. The only non paladin act she has commited was killing someone who was not gulity of the crimes she accused him off. If he had been guilty and she killed him she would not have lost her paladin ability. Not for one chaotic act. As another poster said and quite rightly that doing one chaotic act does not cost you your paladinhood but doing an evil act does._




No, if she had killed him, even if he had been guilty, that would have still been an evil act. His guilt or innocence is entirely separate from whether he was evil, and even if evil, striking down an unamred defenseless man when viable alternatives are not only present, but are better alternatives, remains an evil act.



> _Killing an evil person in DnD is not an evil act and so does not lead to lose of paladinhood._




This is just wrong. Killing an evil person in D&D may or may not be an evil act, depending upon the circumstances.


----------



## delericho (Jan 31, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Well, no. Paladins are based pretty much entirely on literary antecedents. Primarily they are based upon a single character in _Three Hearts and Three Lions_, but they also have a limited amount of influence from the Arthur cycle, the tales of Charlemange's paladins and a few other sources. No figure in actual human history could successfully abide by the paladin code as presented in any iteration of the D&D RAW.




There is also influence from Joan of Arc, an idealised version of the (very) early Knights Templar, and some other knightly orders. Those figures don't need to have matched the paladin 100% to have had an influence.

Otherwise, I agree with your take on Miko's actions, your take on alignment, and your assessment of historical morality.


----------



## jeffh (Jan 31, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Well thank you for calling my arguement stupid and irrelevent to the discussion.



 :\ 

Before I say anything else, nowhere did I say stupid. You're putting words in my mouth. Where do you see that?

(That isn't what "vacuous" means, if that's where you're getting it. That just means the argument's conclusion doesn't advance the discussion beyond the premises you have to accept to get that conclusion. And _on the interpretation I was talking about,_ it doesn't - that version of your argument would boil down to "breaking laws is illegal". That is a point of agreement between us, but - as I'm sure you'll agree - not a very interesting one. And anyway, I did not say your argument was vacuous, I said *one *of *two *possible interpretations of it was, and if you pay attention to certain subtle clues like, oh, _what I actually spent 90% of the post talking about_, you would have realized that wasn't the version of it I was attributing to you.)


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 31, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> There is also influence from Joan of Arc, an idealised version of the (very) early Knights Templar, and some other knightly orders. Those figures don't need to have matched the paladin 100% to have had an influence.




_Highly idealized_ versions of those figures. Which is, in effect, a literary antecedent with almost no relation to the actual historical figures in question. And that doesn't contradict the point I was making, which is that you cannot use actual historical figures as examples for D&D paladins or the lawful good alignment - since those definitions in the PHB are driven almost entirely by 20th century morality. (None of which, it seems, you disagree with).


----------



## delericho (Jan 31, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> _Highly idealized_ versions of those figures. Which is, in effect, a literary antecedent with almost no relation to the actual historical figures in question.




Oh, okay. That seems a bit like hair-splitting to me, but is fair enough.

And, as you said, I don't otherwise disagree with your point.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 31, 2007)

jeffh said:
			
		

> :\
> 
> Before I say anything else, nowhere did I say stupid. You're putting words in my mouth. Where do you see that?
> 
> (That isn't what "vacuous" means, if that's where you're getting it. That just means the argument's conclusion doesn't advance the discussion beyond the premises you have to accept to get that conclusion. And _on the interpretation I was talking about,_ it doesn't - that version of your argument would boil down to "breaking laws is illegal". That is a point of agreement between us, but - as I'm sure you'll agree - not a very interesting one. And anyway, I did not say your argument was vacuous, I said *one *of *two *possible interpretations of it was, and if you pay attention to certain subtle clues like, oh, _what I actually spent 90% of the post talking about_, you would have realized that wasn't the version of it I was attributing to you.)




That is way over simplifying what I said. 

My point is that without some kind of recourse for a society to question a persons actions then pass judgemment of those actions you have anarchy where the srtong and powerful prey on the weak.

Now how you do this depends on the society in question.  

Since we are talking about Azure City that is the society I have been talking about. It seems to be a lawful society where the leader takes oaths to uphold the law. It has a samuri influence and is a city with a strong paladin presence.

At this point in time in the strip the world has not been saved but Shojo's plan has been found out. It is not enough for him to just hand wave away his breaking of his vow with the answer I am doing it to save the world. 

He needs to answer to what the paladins of the city see as a crime.


----------



## Felix (Jan 31, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> If we are talking about intent then no I don't think Miko was in her mind commiting an evil act.



If what she did was Evil, does it matter what she thought?

And by "intent", I'm refering to the "intent to execute Shojo", the immediate goal of her act of using her sword.



> What I have been arguing is Miko POV. And from that POV she was a paladin bringing an evildoer to justice.



It seems that not only are you arguing that from her point of view she is dispensing justice, but that you are also arguing that because she believes what she is doing is just and Good, then her act of execution ceases to be Evil.

It's a question about the subjectivity of morality: does what Miko believes her act to be have any influence on the morality of the act, or not?

My answer is, "No". Evil act: bang, loss of powers.

What's your answer?


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 31, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Well, no. Paladins are based pretty much entirely on literary antecedents. Primarily they are based upon a single character in _Three Hearts and Three Lions_, but they also have a limited amount of influence from the Arthur cycle, the tales of Charlemange's paladins and a few other sources. No figure in actual human history could successfully abide by the paladin code as presented in any iteration of the D&D RAW.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Not in DnD evil is a real and tangible thing. Not an abstract as it is in our world where we base decisions of law on guilt or innocence not good vs evil.

A paladin's duty is to deal with evil. Either by reforming it, or making sure it cannot contiune to do its deeds. And that is accomplished by either some kind of prison or death. Nowhere in the PHB does it say which path the paladin must choose.

We are going around and around on this historical morality. I never said that you should play with a complete historical mindset. What I said was that the game does not easily support playing with a modern mindset.

It needs to have both. If you do not use some historical mindset then a lot of pCs actions are unlawful and evil.

Killing unarmed prisoners evil , looting and plundering their bodies unlawful, a paladin detecting evil without a warrant or permission of some kind from the person unlawful. Forcing criminals into slavery like in the Kingdom of Kalamar unlawful and most likely evil.

Executing  criminals in some modern countries is considered evil and unlawful.

Cutting off a thieves hand wow could you imagine the outcry over that.

Slaying goblins and kobolds because they are in a dungeon and you want what they have would get the adventures brought up on charges not to mention getting the ire up of the people for the ethical treatment of goblins.

You are saying that paladins are not based on an idolized version of historical knights but on fictional knights. You are splitting hairs there because fictional knights are based on idolized versions of historical knights.

Poul Anderson who I meet with and talked with when he was guest of honor at a local SF con that I helped run was a history buff. Both he and his wife were involved with the SCA. He based the character in Three Hearts and three Lions on real knight orders from the medieval times. Sure it is not a totally historical accurate version but then he practiced the philosophy of the SCA which is the middle ages as they should have been.

Which is how I view most DnD games as an idolized version of the middle ages.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 31, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> If what she did was Evil, does it matter what she thought?
> 
> And by "intent", I'm refering to the "intent to execute Shojo", the immediate goal of her act of using her sword.
> 
> ...




Yes Miko should use lose her paladin powers because she executed an innocent man who was not in league with evil or evil himself.

That is not what I am saying when I say from Miko POV she was fulfilling her duty as a paladin. I am not saying that what she did was not evil because it was. 

But intent does matter and by that I mean it is a big difference between Miko killing Shojo because in her twisted mind she thought he was evil and if Miko killed Shojo because she was tired of claening out the litterbox.

So she loses her powers for her actions but because she became evil. And because in her mind she thought she was oing her duty I would find it horrible for her to be killed by say Belkar as some have suggested as a fitting punishment for her actions.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 31, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Not in DnD evil is a real and tangible thing. Not an abstract as it is in our world where we base decisions of law on guilt or innocence not good vs evil.




That's nice. However, it does not make killing an evil individual automatically a non-evil act.



> _A paladin's duty is to deal with evil. Either by reforming it, or making sure it cannot contiune to do its deeds. And that is accomplished by either some kind of prison or death. Nowhere in the PHB does it say which path the paladin must choose._




No, the description of "good" and the "lawful good" alignment does.



> "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
> 
> A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
> 
> Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.




Compassion is a key here. Respect for life is a key here. Killing a defenseless old man clearly falls short of these ideals.



> _We are going around and around on this historical morality. I never said that you should play with a complete historical mindset. What I said was that the game does not easily support playing with a modern mindset._




Actually, the game _only_ supports playing with a modern midnset, becasue the alignments are written with modern morality in mind. Even the mindset of a "good" person in the late 19th and early 20th century would fall well short of "good" in D&D terms.



> _It needs to have both. If you do not use some historical mindset then a lot of pCs actions are unlawful and evil.
> 
> Killing unarmed prisoners evil , looting and plundering their bodies unlawful, a paladin detecting evil without a warrant or permission of some kind from the person unlawful. Forcing criminals into slavery like in the Kingdom of Kalamar unlawful and most likely evil._




Killing unarmed prisoners _is_ evil, by D^D terms. Forcing prisoners into slavery may very well be evil, by D&D terms, as the alignments are written in the PHB.



> _Executing  criminals in some modern countries is considered evil and unlawful.
> 
> Cutting off a thieves hand wow could you imagine the outcry over that._




And these historical precedents are exactly why you cannot use such arguments when debating D&D morality.



> _You are saying that paladins are not based on an idolized version of historical knights but on fictional knights. You are splitting hairs there because fictional knights are based on idolized versions of historical knights._




All well and good, but that means you cannot use actual historical practice to justify behaviour in a D&D game world. Highly idealized versions of knights, nobles, and clergy don't dispense summary justice at the drop of a hat.



> _Poul Anderson who I meet with and talked with when he was guest of honor at a local SF con that I helped run was a history buff. Both he and his wife were involved with the SCA. He based the character in Three Hearts and three Lions on real knight orders from the medieval times. Sure it is not a totally historical accurate version but then he practiced the philosophy of the SCA which is the middle ages as they should have been.
> 
> Which is how I view most DnD games as an idolized version of the middle ages._



_

Which is why arguing that because historical nobles and church officials in the real world used summary execution means that paladins in D&D should be able to do the same thing is simply off-base._


----------



## Felix (Jan 31, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> But intent does matter and by that I mean it is a big difference between Miko killing Shojo because in her twisted mind she thought he was evil and if Miko killed Shojo because she was tired of claening out the litterbox.



Nitpick: those are motives, not intents.



> So she loses her powers [*not*] for her actions but because she became evil.



[*Emphasis*] added.

You think she's evil now? The grammar of this sentence works if you add the "not", but is otherwise confusing. What do you mean?



> And because in her mind she thought she was oing her duty I would find it horrible for her to be killed by say Belkar as some have suggested as a fitting punishment for her actions.



You're not arguing the morality of her act, since you call it evil.
You're not arguing that she fell, or that she should fall, since you agree with it.
You _are_ upset that some folks suggest that Belkar now kill her, something which nobody who is "discussing" with you at the moment has brought up.

What are you trying to get at? What is the point of contention?


----------



## Grog (Jan 31, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Miko chose to let Shojo bring Belkar to trial for the murder he commited we saw how well thay worked out. :\ I wonder if Belkar will ever face the charge of  that murder. And the reason she was not allowed to kill Belkar on the spot was because Shojo who she gave tooks vows to as a Samuri was her leader an ordered her to stop.
> 
> The players handbook does not say that a paladin cannot kill evil doers. Killing an evil doer in DnD is not murder.




Please point out where, in the D&D rulebooks, it says that "killing an evil doer is not murder."

Murder is the unlawful and intentional killing of another human being. In D&D, in many places, this would be extended to cover demi-humans and other civilized races as well. And unless paladins are specifically empowered under the law to deliver the death penalty to "evil doers" on the spot (which they are not, as per the PHB), if one of them were to cut someone down in the street, they would be guilty of murder. Period. As Miko was guilty of murder when she *unlawfully* killed Shojo.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 31, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> If what she did was Evil, does it matter what she thought?
> 
> And by "intent", I'm refering to the "intent to execute Shojo", the immediate goal of her act of using her sword.
> 
> ...



The thing that gets me about arguments like that is the obvious _reducio ad absurdum_.  If Miko had been even crazier than she was, and her delusions led her to the conclusion that every man, woman, and child in Azure City had been replaced by demons, and she proceeded to butcher every person she laid eyes on, by the arguments given by the "she thought she was doing Good" crowd, she'd keep her paladinhood.

Paranoid delusions under no circumstances justify committing evil acts.  Period.  This is not a case of the DM railroading the paladin by giving him bad information on which he makes a reasonable decision.  This is a case of the paladin making crap up to justify evil actions.  And making crap up does not count as determining the grounds for a reasonable decision.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 31, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Please point out where, in the D&D rulebooks, it says that "killing an evil doer is not murder."
> 
> Murder is the unlawful and intentional killing of another human being. In D&D, in many places, this would be extended to cover demi-humans and other civilized races as well. And unless paladins are specifically empowered under the law to deliver the death penalty to "evil doers" on the spot (which they are not, as per the PHB), if one of them were to cut someone down in the street, they would be guilty of murder. Period. As Miko was guilty of murder when she *unlawfully* killed Shojo.





 Please point out to me in the players handbook where it says that a paladin cannot be empowered by the law to deliver the death penalty on the spot? I have never seen that written.

Page 44 code of contact has nothing in it about killing evildoers being murder. It does say that paladins help those  in need and punish those who harm or threathen innocents. It does not say anywhere just what that punishment has to be.

I would also like to point out on the same page that paladins get detect evil at will and the ability to smite evil. 

Under the ability smite evil it says that if they use this ability on a non evil person the smite as no effect and the ability is used up. It does not say anything about it being an evil act. 

It is up to the DM to decide what the laws are in his societies in his game. It is also up to the DM to decide if killing an evil person on the street is an evil act in his game.

There are no rules that say a DM cannot have a society where paladins are the ultimate judge of wrongdoers and have the ability to deliver judgement on the spot.

Just because you feel that killing an evildoer without first giving them a trial by jury and then allowing them to be executed does not mean that is how it is wriiten in the rules and to do allow the opposite to be some kind of house rule.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 31, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> The thing that gets me about arguments like that is the obvious _reducio ad absurdum_.  If Miko had been even crazier than she was, and her delusions led her to the conclusion that every man, woman, and child in Azure City had been replaced by demons, and she proceeded to butcher every person she laid eyes on, by the arguments given by the "she thought she was doing Good" crowd, she'd keep her paladinhood.
> 
> Paranoid delusions under no circumstances justify committing evil acts.  Period.  This is not a case of the DM railroading the paladin by giving him bad information on which he makes a reasonable decision.  This is a case of the paladin making crap up to justify evil actions.  And making crap up does not count as determining the grounds for a reasonable decision.




I would not find a delusional person who thinks they are doing good to be doing evil actions.

This is different from someone who makes stuff up to justify evil actions.

Evil is not just a bad result.

Honestly (but unreasonably) thinking you are doing good is different from justifying a known evil.

Mistakes are not evil.

Stupidity is not evil.

Unreasonableness is not evil.

Being wrong is not evil.

Evil is more serious. Evil is a conscious decision to do wrong. Intention matters.

A panther that stalks and kills a person is not evil.

A person that stalks and kills another person could be doing evil, but the intention and knowledge of the person matters.

I think fall is bad term. Paladins should not accidentally fall becase they blindly step in the wrong direction.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 31, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> The thing that gets me about arguments like that is the obvious _reducio ad absurdum_.  If Miko had been even crazier than she was, and her delusions led her to the conclusion that every man, woman, and child in Azure City had been replaced by demons, and she proceeded to butcher every person she laid eyes on, by the arguments given by the "she thought she was doing Good" crowd, she'd keep her paladinhood.
> 
> Paranoid delusions under no circumstances justify committing evil acts.  Period.  This is not a case of the DM railroading the paladin by giving him bad information on which he makes a reasonable decision.  This is a case of the paladin making crap up to justify evil actions.  And making crap up does not count as determining the grounds for a reasonable decision.




You do realize that not all of us who believe that Miko thought she was doing a good act is saying that she was shouldn't have lost her paladin powers or that what she did was not an evil act?

And while paranoid delusions does not justify commiting evil acts is does justify that she keeps her good alignment. If Miko killed people because she was seeing demons she would still lose her paladinhood but she would not suddenly became evil and on par with the worshipper of an evil god who killls babies on his alter every full moon.

And we have disagee that this is a case of a paladin making up crap to justify evil actions. There are some valid reasons why Miko had reason to believe that there was something hinky going on. Thinking that with the evidence as she precived it there was a good possibailty that the OOTS and Shojo were up to evil was not that far fetched. She just didn't out of the blue come up with the fact that Shojo had violated his vows even Hinjo thought he had and that he should be arrested and tried.

Miko did not commit an evil act by judging the evidence wrong she committed an evil act by slaying an innocent man. What she should have done was use the law to investigate she has been giving special powers to aid in that.  Her rashness and anger lead her to comitting an evil act thus costing her paldinhood.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 31, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> Nitpick: those are motives, not intents.
> 
> 
> [*Emphasis*] added.
> ...




Sorry I forgot to add not.

By point of contention is that one evil act does not make a person evil and that intent matters when it comes to matter of DnD alignment. 

A town merchant lives in an evil society ruled over by clerics of an evil god he by law has to practice worship of this evil god. So he tithes to the church, goes to temple and helplessly watches the monthly blood letting. But he does not particpate in the actual killing he lives his life with as much honor that he can. He does not cheat his customers or lie to his wife. He gives aid to others when he can. Therefore even though he gives worship to and evil god this does not make him evil. 



As for Belkar killing her I have been reading a lot of other threads both here and in the forums on Giant in the playground after awhile they tend to blur amd merge and I forget just which thread had what in it.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 31, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Please point out to me in the players handbook where it says that a paladin cannot be empowered by the law to deliver the death penalty on the spot? I have never seen that written.




Reading the PHB definitions, as written, they don't. However, that is not what Miko did. She acted without knowledge of the truth, in point of fact, in total disregard for the truth. She didn't deliver a death penalty on the spot, she made up a scenario, assumed it to be true without any actual evidence that it was so, and then committed murder. Further, we have the evidence from the actions of Hinjo and previous doings of Miko that Sapphire Guard paladins are _not_ empowered to deal the death penalty on the spot.



> _Page 44 code of contact has nothing in it about killing evildoers being murder. It does say that paladins help those  in need and punish those who harm or threathen innocents. It does not say anywhere just what that punishment has to be._




Compassion. Respect for life. Required by the "good" alignment.



> _There are no rules that say a DM cannot have a society where paladins are the ultimate judge of wrongdoers and have the ability to deliver judgement on the spot._




No there aren't. We aren't talking about home game rulings though. We are talking about the PHB, and Miko's conduct falls well outside the definitions for paladins and lawful good characters as defined by that source.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 31, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> And we have disagee that this is a case of a paladin making up crap to justify evil actions. There are some valid reasons why Miko had reason to believe that there was something hinky going on. Thinking that with the evidence as she precived it there was a good possibailty that the OOTS and Shojo were up to evil was not that far fetched.




Thinking they were evil was deranged and delusional, especially since she has the ability to _detect evil_ at will, but not only did not do that, she _did not care_ what that would have revealed. Thinking they were in league with Xykon was insane in the extreme.



> _She just didn't out of the blue come up with the fact that Shojo had violated his vows even Hinjo thought he had and that he should be arrested and tried._




Shojo, not being a paladin, did not take the vow.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 31, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> So she loses her powers for her actions but because she became evil. And because in her mind she thought she was oing her duty I would find it horrible for her to be killed by say Belkar as some have suggested as a fitting punishment for her actions.




I would find it entirely apropos and a form of poetic justice. Miko brought down by Belkar, having become a criminal, justifiably killed by her nemesis just after she has run amok and killed the ruler of Azure City. Killed, effectively, by her own pride and paranoid delusions.


----------



## Grog (Jan 31, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Please point out to me in the players handbook where it says that a paladin cannot be empowered by the law to deliver the death penalty on the spot? I have never seen that written.




It doesn't say that paladins can't be empowered by the law to paint people blue whenever they feel like it, either.

You're the one claiming that it's just fine for paladins to kill whoever they want so long as they think they've done something wrong, so I'm asking for a cite to support that.



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> It is up to the DM to decide what the laws are in his societies in his game. It is also up to the DM to decide if killing an evil person on the street is an evil act in his game.
> 
> There are no rules that say a DM cannot have a society where paladins are the ultimate judge of wrongdoers and have the ability to deliver judgement on the spot.




True. There's also no rule that says a DM cannot have a society where paladins roast babies every week in a holy ritual, to use an example from earlier in this thread. However, that kind of world is a far cry from the PHB model of paladins and thus isn't useful for discussion purposes. And so is a world where paladins are allowed to butcher people in the street whenever they feel it's warranted.

But since we're specifically talking about OotS here, we can use that world as a model for our discussion. So if you think paladins in the OotS world are allowed to kill whoever they like, please show me the strip that tells us that. Otherwise, we can conclude that Miko's killing of Shojo was unlawful, and thus, a murder.


----------



## Felix (Jan 31, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> By point of contention is that one evil act does not make a person evil



Who, by name, disagrees with this? Anyone?



> and that intent matters when it comes to matter of DnD alignment.



Agreed. But Good intentions will not make an Evil act not Evil. 

It may make it understandable and forgivable, but that is something else altogether.

Miko has (at least) two intents in attacking Shojo. Killing him, and delivering justice.

She intends to kill him, for all the wrong reasons. Evil intent.

She wishes to deliver Justice by way of executing a traitor. Lawful intent.​(_We don't know if she had it within her powers to assume judge/jury/executioner status because that would require knowledge of the laws of Azure city. Anyone have a copy of their laws? No? Thought not. _) What she did is not necessarily Chaotic. Nor is it necessarily Lawful, but it's just as valid a proposal for what we know.

So you may try to worm Good intent out of her motives for killing Shojo, but the Evil and Lawful intent is fairly well demonstrable. Couple that with Evil action, and you've got a fallen paladin.



> A town merchant lives in an evil society ruled over by clerics of an evil god he by law has to practice worship of this evil god. So he tithes to the church, goes to temple and helplessly watches the monthly blood letting. But he does not particpate in the actual killing he lives his life with as much honor that he can. He does not cheat his customers or lie to his wife. He gives aid to others when he can. Therefore even though he gives worship to and evil god this does not make him evil.



Worshipping an Evil god is an Evil act.

It may not make the character's alignment Evil, because after all, you can have _clerics_ of Evil deities that are Neutral. But that does not mean that worshipping an Evil god isn't Evil.

Seperate "Evil acts" from "Evil alignment"; many places in this thread they have become confused, as in this quotation.



> As for Belkar killing her I have been reading a lot of other threads both here and in the forums on Giant in the playground after awhile they tend to blur amd merge and I forget just which thread had what in it.



It's dangerous to accuse folks of things when you can't support it. 

Besides, what Belkar does now is wholly seperate from Miko's paladin status. Frankly, I think he's gotten such jollies seeing Miko fall and Shojo die that he should be sated as far as schadenfreude goes.


----------



## Grog (Jan 31, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> (_We don't know if she had it within her powers to assume judge/jury/executioner status because that would require knowledge of the laws of Azure city. Anyone have a copy of their laws? No? Thought not. _)




Actually, we do know from a previous strip that Miko was specifically *not* allowed to assume judge/jury/executioner status with Belkar.


----------



## Felix (Jan 31, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Actually, we do know from a previous strip that Miko was specifically *not* allowed to assume judge/jury/executioner status with Belkar.



Do you refer to when Shojo stopped her from killing Belkar? Or another strip?


----------



## Grog (Jan 31, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> Do you refer to when Shojo stopped her from killing Belkar? Or another strip?




The one where she was about to kill him in the throne room.


----------



## Felix (Feb 1, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> The one where she was about to kill him in the throne room.



In that strip, what stopped her was an order from her master. It does not mean that she would not have been within her rights to kill him, merely that her master forbade that particular line of action.

Is there some subtlety about the strip that I'm missing where the fact that she is not allowed to act as j/j/e is clearly spelled out?


----------



## Grog (Feb 1, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> In that strip, what stopped her was an order from her master. It does not mean that she would not have been within her rights to kill him, merely that her master forbade that particular line of action.
> 
> Is there some subtlety about the strip that I'm missing where the fact that she is not allowed to act as j/j/e is clearly spelled out?




If Miko is not allowed to act as judge, jury, and executioner, that doesn't need to be spelled out. That's the default condition in the PHB - paladins are not allowed to kill whomever they like, whenever they like.

If things are different in the OotS campaign world, then *that* is what needs to be clearly spelled out. But it isn't, and we have an example of Miko not being allowed to act as judge, jury, and executioner as further supporting evidence.

I'll say it again - if you think paladins in the OotS world are allowed to kill whoever they like, please show me the strip that tells us that. Otherwise, we can conclude that Miko's killing of Shojo was unlawful, and thus, a murder.


----------



## Felix (Feb 1, 2007)

> I'll say it again - if you think paladins in the OotS world are allowed to kill whoever they like, please show me the strip that tells us that.



Please show me where in my posts I have claimed such a stupid thing. If you're going to put words in my mouth, give me some credit.



> Otherwise, we can conclude that Miko's killing of Shojo was unlawful, and thus, a murder.



If the head of the Sapphire Guard is not allowed special powers in the event of treason, you're quite right. It can still be a lawful killing as well as an evil killing; the two are not mutually exclusive.




> That's the default condition in the PHB - paladins are not allowed to kill whomever they like, whenever they like.



Had Miko killed Belkar, would it have been unlawful? He was lawfully arrested, thrown in jail, escaped, murdered and desecrated, assualted an officer, resisted arrest, aggrivated assualt with a deadly weapon. I don't see that Belkar's killing and Shojo's killing are on equal ground. So I don't see that Miko would not have been within her lawful rights to kill him.

However, Shojo, whom she was bound to obey, ordered her not to. It is from that order that killing Belkar would certainly have become unlawful.

That strip, which _you_ referenced to show that paladins:
"Actually, we do know from a previous strip that Miko was specifically not allowed to assume judge/jury/executioner status with Belkar."​
This strip shows that she was not allowed to assume j/j/e status because of Shojo's order. _Not_ because she is unable to do so because of other standing laws.​
So my prior claim stands: We don't know if she had it within her powers to assume judge/jury/executioner status because that would require knowledge of the laws of Azure city.



> If things are different in the OotS campaign world, then that is what needs to be clearly spelled out.



And it may very well be extraordinarily clearly spelled out in Article VII, Section 3, Addendum iv, Paragraph 2. Simply because we arn't shown it, does not mean that it _can't_ be there. It's the child's logical fallacy: just because you can't see something does not mean it doesn't exist.

I'm not saying it _does_ exist, merely that it _may_, and so her execution of Shojo _could_ be Lawful as well as Evil.


----------



## Grog (Feb 1, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> So my prior claim stands: We don't know if she had it within her powers to assume judge/jury/executioner status because that would require knowledge of the laws of Azure city.




Well, that's true. We don't know that. And we also don't know if Miko has it within her powers to execute anyone who recites poetry or passes gas anywhere in her vicinity. And for that matter, we also don't know if Roy sneaks away from the group and eats a baby every week.

OotS is a work of fiction. We can only go by what we're explicitly shown, or can _reasonably_ infer from what we're shown. Since we were never told that Miko has special powers under the law to execute people as she sees fit, we can reasonably infer that she does not (since a practice that unusual in Azure City would certainly merit a mention in the strip, especially because it impacts directly upon the main characters). Thus, the only logical and reasonable reading of recent events in the strip is that her killing of Shojo was a murder. You can say "Well we don't _know_ that's true," if you like, but as I said, this is fiction, so we don't know _anything_ for certain. The entire strip could be Durkon's fever-induced hallucination, for all we know. Arguing along those lines gets us nowhere.


----------



## Felix (Feb 1, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> We can only go by what we're explicitly shown, or can reasonably infer from what we're shown.



What I've seen is that Miko is more Lawful than she is Good; this is what leads to her fall. We also know that though we don't know squat about Azure City's laws, Miko sure will. She feels confident that it is within her lawful remit to execute Shojo. 

Of course she also believes it to be a Good act, and she is wrong. But simply because it is an Evil act does not make it a non-Lawful one.


----------



## Grog (Feb 1, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> What I've seen is that Miko is more Lawful than she is Good; this is what leads to her fall. We also know that though we don't know squat about Azure City's laws, Miko sure will. She feels confident that it is within her lawful remit to execute Shojo.




Miko also feels confident that Shojo is in league with Xykon when that's not the case (and she has _no evidence whatsoever_ that it _is_ the case). Just because Miko thinks something doesn't make it so, as has been forcefully demonstrated in the last few strips.


----------



## Felix (Feb 1, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Just because Miko thinks something doesn't make it so, as has been forcefully demonstrated in the last few strips.



You mean, like when I just said:

Of course she also believes it to be a Good act, and she is wrong.​
Because if that's what you mean, then Miko being wrong about things at times is not something we disagree over.

On the other hand, just because Miko thinks something doesn't make it _wrong_, either. We have proof that her act was Evil (her falling). Proof as to the Law-Chaos morality of her act we lack. You can't successfully argue that her act was non-Evil. But neither can you conclusively argue that the act was non-Lawful.


----------



## Grog (Feb 1, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> On the other hand, just because Miko thinks something doesn't make it _wrong_, either. We have proof that her act was Evil (her falling). Proof as to the Law-Chaos morality of her act we lack. You can't successfully argue that her act was non-Evil. But neither can you conclusively argue that the act was non-Lawful.




Just as you can't conclusively argue that Roy doesn't sneak off and eat babies. Or that the entire strip isn't a hallucination.

As I've said already, this is fiction. The only person who can _conclusively_ say anything about it is the author.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 1, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> And while paranoid delusions does not justify commiting evil acts is does justify that she keeps her good alignment. If Miko killed people because she was seeing demons she would still lose her paladinhood but she would not suddenly became evil and on par with the worshiper of an evil god who killls babies on his alter every full moon.




Actually, last time I checked, killing innocent people was evil, regardless of your motives for doing so.  If you kill people because you like to, it's evil.  If you kill people because you're crazy, it's evil.  The act is evil, and perpetrating the act means that you are committing evil.  If performing such acts becomes typical for you, you become evil.

Your reasons for performing evil are immaterial.  What counts is that you did the evil act.



> And we have disagee that this is a case of a paladin making up crap to justify evil actions. There are some valid reasons why Miko had reason to believe that there was something hinky going on.



I agree that she had reason to believe that something was up.  I said so myself.  But she made up the whole conspiracy as an excuse to commit murder because at that moment she felt like murdering someone.  There was no evidence that any of what she made up was going on.  The sequence of events she describes is completely her invention, and does not correspond to the evidence that was presented to her.



> Thinking that with the evidence as she precived it there was a good possibailty that the OOTS and Shojo were up to evil was not that far fetched.



"Not that far fetched" is not sufficient to justify murder.



> She just didn't out of the blue come up with the fact that Shojo had violated his vows even Hinjo thought he had and that he should be arrested and tried.




Shojo was not a paladin, and so had not made the same vows that the paladins had.



> Miko did not commit an evil act by judging the evidence wrong she committed an evil act by slaying an innocent man.



Agreed.  No one is arguing otherwise.  What is this intended to address?


----------



## Felix (Feb 1, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Just as you can't conclusively argue that Roy doesn't sneak off and eat babies. Or that the entire strip isn't a hallucination.
> 
> As I've said already, this is fiction. The only person who can _conclusively_ say anything about it is the author.



Ok, if we're going to talk about likelyhood:

Do you think that Miko, a character who has always been more Lawful than Good, often Lawful to the exclusion of Good, who knows and follows the law, when she commits an Evil act simultaneously commits a Chaotic one...

is as likely

As Roy eating babies?


----------



## Grog (Feb 1, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> Ok, if we're going to talk about likelyhood:




Who said anything about likelihood? You said that it's impossible to _conclusively_ state that Miko doesn't have special powers to execute people as she sees fit, and I was just pointing out that you can't conclusively state anything at all about the comic.

Now, if you'd rather talk about what's _likely_ than what one can conclusively prove, that's fine with me. As to the question of likelihood on the following matters: a) That Miko has special powers under the law of Azure City to execute whomever she likes, whenever she likes, and this was, for some reason, never mentioned in the strip despite the fact that it's a radical departure from the PHB norms for paladins and it would have been directly relevant to what was going on on more than one occasion, and b) That Roy sneaks off to eat babies every once in a while....

The answer is, I think they're both pretty far-fetched.


----------



## Felix (Feb 1, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Who said anything about likelihood?



Well...


			
				Grog said:
			
		

> We can only go by what we're explicitly shown, or can reasonably infer from what we're shown.



If "reasonably infer" doesn't mean something very near "likely", then I don't speak English.

So it seems that you were talking about likelihood.​


> Now, if you'd rather talk about what's _likely_ than what one can conclusively prove, that's fine with me.



I figured since you agreed with me that you can't conclusively prove what Miko is allowed to do, even though you previously said you could, that I would address your point of how reasonable it was.



> That Miko has special powers under the law of Azure City to execute whomever she likes, whenever she likes



Again, give me some credit. That, or tell me _where_ I said something so patently stupid. It's tiresome to have an idiotic notion like this ascribed to me.

It is not stupid to think that the head paladin of the Sapphire Guard has, in times of emergency, the power to declare martial law. Xykon outside the gates constitutes an emergency. Shojo corrupting the courts constitutes treason. Simply because she was wrong in her execution _does not mean_ she was not legally empowered to do it.

But somehow it's as likely as Roy eating babies.

That was the sound of my eyes rolling.


----------



## Grog (Feb 1, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> If "reasonably infer" doesn't mean something very near "likely", then I don't speak English.
> 
> So it seems that you were talking about likelihood.




Fair enough. I was talking about likelihood. But you were talking about certainty, at least until your last comment when you shifted your argument.



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> I figured since you agreed with me that you can't conclusively prove what Miko is allowed to do, even though you previously said you could, that I would address your point of how reasonable it was.




Wrong. I never said that one could conclusively prove what Miko was allowed to do. All I said in the post you cite is that in a previous strip, Miko was not allowed to act as judge, jury, and executioner with respect to Belkar.



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> Again, give me some credit. That, or tell me where I said something so patently stupid. It's tiresome to have an idiotic notion like this ascribed to me.




Earlier in the thread, you said this:



> (We don't know if she had it within her powers to assume judge/jury/executioner status because that would require knowledge of the laws of Azure city.




There's nothing there about declaring martial law in times of emergency. You were advancing the possibility that Miko had the power to act as judge, jury, and executioner under the laws of Azure City - or, in other words, that she has the power to execute whomever she likes, whenever she likes.



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> It is not stupid to think that the head paladin of the Sapphire Guard has, in times of emergency, the power to declare martial law. Xykon outside the gates constitutes an emergency. Shojo corrupting the courts constitutes treason. Simply because she was wrong in her execution _does not mean_ she was not legally empowered to do it.




So I will ask _again_ - if Miko was legally empowered to execute Shojo, _show me the strip that tells us that._ Simply saying "There's nothing in the strip that says she wasn't" is no argument at all. The fact that something is not explicitly denied in the strip does not constitute evidence that it's true. It just means that OotS is a work of fiction with a limited amount of space to tell a story, and the author can't afford to spend hundreds of strips explicitly spelling out all the things that _aren't_ true in it. There's nothing in the strip that says Roy _doesn't_ eat babies.



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> But somehow it's as likely as Roy eating babies.




Which I also never said. You're arguing against straw men here.


----------



## frankthedm (Feb 1, 2007)

> Originally Posted by Elf Witch
> By point of contention is that one evil act does not make a person evil





			
				Felix said:
			
		

> Who, by name, disagrees with this? Anyone?



 I do. One single evil act willfully committed can easily change a good person to an evil person. 

Not all evil acts will do so. But plenty are heinous enough to say, yep, you're evil.


----------



## Felix (Feb 2, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Fair enough. I was talking about likelihood. But you were talking about certainty, at least until your last comment when you shifted your argument.



I was talking about _un_certainty; namely that you can't be certain that what she did was not Lawful. After you agreed with me that this is the case, I did not press the issue and moved on to your "reasonably infer" business.



> Wrong. I never said that one could conclusively prove what Miko was allowed to do. All I said in the post you cite is that in a previous strip, Miko was not allowed to act as judge, jury, and executioner with respect to Belkar.



Except that in the strip you cite, she is not allowed to do so because of an order from her superior, _not_ because she is not otherwise empowered to do so.



> You were advancing the possibility that Miko had the power to act as judge, jury, and executioner under the laws of Azure City - or, in other words, that she has the power to execute whomever she likes, whenever she likes.



I am advancing the possibility that Azure City possesses a clause concerning Martial Law. And just as Martial Law does not mean "kill who you want when you want", neither does my proposition for Miko.

Unless that's what you think martial law is, in which case, no need to continue.




> So I will ask _again_ - if Miko was legally empowered to execute Shojo, _show me the strip that tells us that._



The burden of proof is not on me. I suggested a possibility. You countered with saying that it was not the case. If by that you meant to say it is impossible, please cite your own sources. It is not my responsibility to disprove when I'm not arguing conclusivity and you are. I simply have to show the possibility.



> Simply saying "There's nothing in the strip that says she wasn't" is no argument at all.



1. Azure City is in a state of emergency with an army of hobgoblins and undead outside.
2. Shojo admitted that he had operated outside the remit of law.
3. Shojo admitted he has used the Sapphire Guard at his convienience for his own ends.
4. Shojo admitted he corrupted the legal system for his own ends.  
5. Miko assumed j/j/e powers in a manner which can be consistent with Martial Law.
6. Miko holds a position of authority consistent with someone who would be able to declare Martial Law.
7. Miko has consistently demonstrated Lawful behavior, often to the exclusion of Good behavior.

1. It is likely that Azure City's laws allow for Martial Law.
2. It is likely that the Sapphire Guard, during times of Martial Law, is the governing force.
3. It is likely that treason carries a sentence of death.
4. It is likely that Miko, who as the highest ranking paladin of the Sapphire Guard, and an extraordinarily Lawful character, would be familiar with the laws pertaining to Martial Law.

Her act of execution was an Evil act, evidenced by her fall. Given the above circumstances, it is not implausable that the execution was also a Lawful act.



> There's nothing in the strip that says Roy _doesn't_ eat babies. Which I also never said. You're arguing against straw men here.




"a) That Miko has special powers ... and b) That Roy sneaks off to eat babies every once in a while.... The answer is, I think they're both pretty far-fetched."​
My apologies. You did not say they were both likely. You equated them by saying they were both far fetched. Starting from the highest ranking paladin being able to declare martial law, how much further would you have to fetch to reach Roy snacking on baby corpses?


----------



## Baron Opal (Feb 2, 2007)

Actually, I don't believe that it is well known that Xykon's army is on it's way. Only Miko, Hinjo, Shojo, Roy and Belkar know that they are close.

Still, I concur that Miko at least _believes_ that her actions were lawful.


----------



## Felix (Feb 2, 2007)

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> Actually, I don't believe that it is well known that Xykon's army is on it's way. Only Miko, Hinjo, Shojo, Roy and Belkar know that they are close.



True, but I don't think that you need to tell everyone before you have a state of emergency. Three of the folks that know (Shojo, Hinjo, Miko) comprise the upper echelons of Azure City's governing bodies.



> Still, I concur that Miko at least believes that her actions were lawful.



Oh, certainly. Like Grog has said, though, her belief that her actions are lawful do not make them so.

But simply because she was wrong as to the Goodness of Shojo's execution, does not necessitate that she is also wrong as to its Lawfulness.


----------

