Miko

[kpenguin]

There once was a time when this board raged with arguments over one chracter: Miko Miyazaki. Something about the misguided, self-righteous paladin inflamed the passion of nearly every reader. Now, we've moved on.

I would like to look back at her.

I'm not saying that I want to revist the flame wars that ensued over Miko, of course. I hope that the time that has passed since she has had any influence over the strip has hopefully cooled down any high-strung emotions about her.

Anywho, things to think about:

1) What was Miko's alignment post-fall up to her death? Did she actually go through an alignment shift or was she still LG, despite committing an evil and/or chaotic act.
2) What legitimate complaints, if any, does Miko have against the Order of the Stick? Conversely, what legitimate complaints, if any, does the Order of the Stick have against Miko?
3) Did you, at any point in the story, feel sympathy for Miko, especially the strip in which she died?
4) Did you, at any point in the story, feel frustrated or angry with Miko. Has Miko inspired any real hatred?
5) Is Miko a good literary character? Was her role in the story a significant one and would her removal improve or harm the strip?
6) Did Rich ever really intend for Miko to be a romantic interest for Roy?
7) Will Miko return?

[Raging Gene Ray]

There's already the Celia vs. Miko thread... (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101920)



I'm not saying that I want to revist the flame wars that ensued over Miko, of course. I hope that the time that has passed since she has had any influence over the strip has hopefully cooled down any high-strung emotions about her.


Apparantly not. Also see the Most Annoying Character Thread.

[Ganurath]

1) I hypothesize that she was strongly lawful all her life, if not following the law of the land then following a personal code of "smite evil and serve the gods, preferably in that order." As for the axis of Good versus Evil, all her life she has fought evil, made a pointed effort to resist temptation, and went out of her way to help others, in order of frequency. Although she definitely commited a fall-worthy act in killing Lord Shogo and later in sundering the Sapphire Gate, I believe that as a whole she was Lawful Good. However, since by D&D rules actions one takes near one's demise way more heavily on which afterlife one is bound for, I believe that her afterlife will be shifted more toward LN or LE... Acheron is the one with endless warfare, right?

2aa) Roy initially made unwanted advances, but after apologizing for them (of his own initiative, to his merit) he went on to insult everything Miko stood for and incite rebellion among his peers who had initially agreeded to come along quietly. After that he took up arms to defended an admitted and unashamed murderer on the grounds that he was responsible for him, when by that logic he should have punished him himself rather than fight on his behest. Finally, Roy verbally abused her during her post-fall emotional trauma.
2ab) Belkar is so evil it's measured in kilonazis, including and not limited to attacking and murdering a citizen of the city she was sworn to defend within the palace grounds. Although she wasn't aware of it, I doubt she would have taken to the idea of Belkar getting off first degree murder with a warning. A magical one, granted, but still.
2ac) Vaarsuvius tried to charge her for his aid in fighting evil, then shortly after attempted to commit magical assault, although the latter went unnoticed by Miko much to the good fortune of Vaarsuvius. Vaarsuvius then succeeded in commited magical assault against Miko to prevent her from executing a murderer, and she insulted her to boot! Or rather, he insulted Belkar then later stated that she thought Miko was worse.
2ad) Haley is a shameless criminal who deliberately abused the hospitality Miko gave her while she was her prisoner.
2b) Trying to kill them on multiple occasions, succeeding in killing one of their main allies, and verbally kicking some members of the OotS while they were down from atop her pedestal. I want to stipulate, someone not being willing to listen to reason in general is not cause for the level of hatred Miko has received.

3) When I started reading, the latest update was the comic featuring Roy's death. It's hard to get emotionally involved in a character during an archive binge. Looking back, however, I can't help but feel sad for her. She was a good person who was trying to do the right thing... she just RPed her penalty to Charisma a little too well, so to speak.

4) ...Not from me.

5) Yes, yes, and improve if only because the effort to keep her around after the fall of Azure City would diminish her character. Her time had come.

6) I do not know. I am not Rich, and to my knowledge he has not spoken on this matter.

7) Rich has spoken on this matter, however. Miko's gone.

[Raging Gene Ray]

A resounding "What Ganurath said" from me.

I came in at the strip with the Ti elementals and immediately started reading from the start, and always found her to be very sympathetic. I always thought Roy and the rest of the Order acted out of character when they decided to make her an enemy.

Nale betrayed us and impaled Elan on a longsword? Don't kill him!
The bandits tried to kill us? Let them off with a warning and trust their word that they won't return to thievery the very next day!
Miko apologized for attacking us because she heard of violent crimes that just happened to becommited by our Evil Twins and Roy just happened to be wearing Xykon's Evil crown around his neck for some reason? Kill Her!

Except I believe she was still LG...it just didn't show through layers of neuroses and that any Deva would be able to see that eternal warfare would only worsen her mental state. I think that it's possible she got into Celestia, but was immediately sent to a Sanitarium where she slowly comes to terms with the damage she's caused and is released, letting her own guilt be her punishment. It would fit the idea of Paladins escorting her (playing the role of the Men in White Suits) and Windstriker coming to visit.

Also, I don't know if she'll return or not. Rich only said she was "to explore what happens when a fallen hero doesn't get the chance to redeem themselves." This could only mean that Miko won't become a paladin again. It doesn't preclude her appearing wallowing in guilt, or living the life of a commoner in the afterlife, or being mentioned again.

I personally noticed that when Haley learned of Miko's death, she seemed shocked. This may be a setup for:
Haley revealing that she feels sympathy for Miko, after learning what it was like to take the responsibility of defending Azure City. Something along the lines of: you screwed up bad...but I'm sorry for how I treated you. (What, I can dream can't I?)

[Ganurath]

I personally noticed that when Haley learned of Miko's death, she seemed shocked. This may be a setup for:
Haley revealing that she feels sympathy for Miko, after learning what it was like to take the responsibility of defending Azure City. Something along the lines of: you screwed up bad...but I'm sorry for how I treated you. (What, I can dream can't I?)Considering that her shock came before the Memory Charm, dreaming is all you can do in this regard... Unless you're the type to write fanfics.

[Raging Gene Ray]

Considering that her shock came before the Memory Charm, dreaming is all you can do in this regard.

I know, I meant it could be forshadowing for when she relearns about Miko's death. And no, I'm not the type to write fanfics...except for one I gleefully entitled "Miko Gets Drunk, Puts Her Head In Between Haley'sBreasts(R), And Goes 'Blbbhblbbhblbbh!'"

It's not just the title, it's the entire story!

[kpenguin]

Strangely enough, I have seen little in the way of OotS fanfic. Fan comics, yes, but not fanfic.

[Kioran]

Miko is the Giant's unintended masterpiece.

I mean the commentary in "No cure" basically comes out and says that he himself never expected that kind of response, and the severity of that response. Miko polarized the readers of this strip more than any other character, and so to speak, blindsided even her own creator....

I do think that the love-interest idea was quickly canned after the author resolved to do a piece about how not to run Paladins. What has been the makings of Miko, and partially the unmaking of is own plans and stories, was that the giant wanted her to be a believable character, nonetheless, despite her meta-baggage.
He wanted her to behave in a certain, annoying or semi-antagonistic way. He proceeded to give her a backstory and proper motivation. And then, when it was time to move the plot ahead and resolve things, these elements had developed their own weight. She could never be that love-interest, that much was clear.

The Giant himself wrote that sometimes, these character develop their own lives, or move the story in another direction simply because it would be the logical follow-up from their perspective and experience. Miko was built as a straight Paladin, but also meant to be overzealous and annoying. Unintentionally, he had created a sharp contrast to the OotS: they ware easygoing and mostly normal, but were cutting corners, in it for the money, or not particularly interested in the greater good. In short, with the metric of Miko, it was shown that the OotS is a neutral party.
Which means that Miko wasn't 100% wrong. Making Miko a character has derailed the plot intended for her.

Even after the plot finally still followed through, and Miko was disgraced and killed, I clearly remember her as the only character in this comic which is
a) Good
b) Principled (Roy is cutting to many corners, see Belkar)
c) and has a spine/shows initiative and powerful Determination (Durkon's single weakness)
The reason why she is a tragic hero is that she's a hero, in a story that has been lacking one for long stretches of it's plot. Roy has potential, and the comic is sadly lacking for his overlong absence. He could become another powerful figure.

But Miko is the most compelling and powerful character the strip has seen until now. And I bet she was never intended that way.

[Trixie]

1) LN/possibly LE.
2) None/Many.
3) Maybe, but I think not.
4) Yes.
5) Maybe.
6) Possibly.
7) Maybe.

[Järnblomma]

She was defenetly LG all the way up to the murder of Lord Shojo. It is impossible to see her as good after that, but she was never evil.

Well, the OotS IS kinda laid-back, maybe a bit too much for the real world. And she, well, got stick up in a body-orifice of your choosing.

I sympathized with her from the very start of her traveling with the OotS 'till her death, especially her death. She represents one of my great flaws, zeal, and I can recognize aspects of myself in her. Her death, without a second chance is great. Just incredible and unique in a story like this.

I never hated her. Never. I was never frustrated, more sad when she did the wrong choice.

A good literary character? She was LAWFUL GOOD VILLAIN. 'nuff said.

I can't speculate on the Giant. He always suprizes me and never explain what he does and why.

[hamishspence]

"my blades will be bathed in the blood of those responsible" suggests she was more than a little overeager to kill even before we knew who she was.

[Kish]

3) Did you, at any point in the story, feel sympathy for Miko, especially the strip in which she died?

Yes.


4) Did you, at any point in the story, feel frustrated or angry with Miko. Has Miko inspired any real hatred?

No. Though sometimes--only sometimes--she was an over-the-top caricature. I think being angry with or hating her hinges on feeling a degree of sympathy for the members of the Order that I just don't.


5) Is Miko a good literary character? Was her role in the story a significant one and would her removal improve or harm the strip?

Ehh...For the most part, I'd say she was. (See "over-the-top caricature.") Her removal from the strips she appeared in would require a massive rewrite, and as such would definitely be harmful.


6) Did Rich ever really intend for Miko to be a romantic interest for Roy?

He intended for her to be a temporary romantic foil for Roy, kill Shojo, destroy Soon's gate, Fall, and die. He intended all of this when she first appeared in the comic. He did not intend for her to be Roy's long-term love interest. He's said all of this; some people seem to think he's lying, but I don't get it.


7) Will Miko return?
No.

[David Argall]

1) What was Miko's alignment post-fall up to her death? Did she actually go through an alignment shift or was she still LG, despite committing an evil and/or chaotic act.
The closer we put her to LG, the more reasonable we find Soon's speech to her. She is obviously not worthy of paladin status, but that does not preclude LG status.


2) What legitimate complaints, if any, does Miko have against the Order of the Stick? Conversely, what legitimate complaints, if any, does the Order of the Stick have against Miko?
Resisting arrest, siding with a guilty murderer to prevent his receiving justice.
A harsh manner. [No, not illegal arrest. That is the fault of Shojo, not Miko.]


3) Did you, at any point in the story, feel sympathy for Miko, especially the strip in which she died?
Of course. She got a raw deal all the way.


4) Did you, at any point in the story, feel frustrated or angry with Miko. Has Miko inspired any real hatred?
Of course, she causes frustration. So does every other character of note.


5) Is Miko a good literary character? Was her role in the story a significant one and would her removal improve or harm the strip?
Are you serious? She dominated the stage when she appeared. You would have to do major rewrite to redo the story without her. Absent the party members, and likely not most of them, she may be the most memorable character in the story to date.


6) Did Rich ever really intend for Miko to be a romantic interest for Roy?
Depends on your definition of romantic interest. Roy was obviously interested. But there is no serious evidence that any such feelings were ever supposed to last past 250. That is too bad. She could have been a much better "girlfriend" than the rather insipid Celia, but our writer didn't like the idea, and given he wasn't able to make Miko work for the Inn romance scene, he may well have not been able to do the idea justice anyway.


7) Will Miko return?
Most unlikely. 464 was obviously very final. That may be unfortunate, but it seems pretty definite.

[[TS] Shadow]

1) Miko was LG. I don't like her definition of LG, but she does follow the rules.
2a) Defying her, for the most part.
2b) Being rude, beating the crap out of them, destroying the gate, not letting the Order explain themselves.
3) Only in the strip where she died. No matter how her life was set up, much of her own misery comes from her own self-rightous behavoir. An extra scene in War and XP's showing Miko refusing to go out to dinner with two other paladins because she's too rightous to go to a resturant where the workers gamble. She, in my opinion, brought a lot of her misfortune on herself, so I didn't feel pity for her. Only when she died, and when both Miko and I realized she could change, I felt a tinge of remorse. But still, it's Vader syndrome. Near death redemption doesn't cover a whole lot of stupid actions.
4) Yes. See above.
5) Yes. Miko is my definition of how to write a character you should love to hate.
6) I don't know. Ask him.
7) I hope that at the very end of the strip's run, after the main plot is resolved, that the Giant does a quick series of epilouge strips where we see the characters after the story is resolved. If that happens, I want to see Miko, and how she tries to live her afterlife. That would make me happy.

[ericgrau]

1) What was Miko's alignment post-fall up to her death? Did she actually go through an alignment shift or was she still LG, despite committing an evil and/or chaotic act.
Through the mouth of Roy the Giant made it clear that there's more to what's right than following your alignment. So I think in the eyes of the Giant she was LG right up to the fall, and maybe in post-fall too, I dunno. Just a "bad" LG from his POV. IMO she was really LN or LE from the start and merely believed herself to be good. It's an equally interesting contrast either way. And in a world with detect evil, letting her be actually LN/LE would have ruined a good story. The paladin in OoPCs who tried to get Durkon killed supposedly without violating his alignment takes this to a greater extreme, though that guy seems to be more for humour and lacks the depth of Miko.


2) What legitimate complaints, if any, does Miko have against the Order of the Stick? Conversely, what legitimate complaints, if any, does the Order of the Stick have against Miko?
None and everything. This is what happens when arbitrary rules meets legitimate practicality. OotS probably shouldn't have rubbed it in and they are at fault for *annoying* the daylights out of her, but nothing serious. She was way oversensitive and the OotS can't be held responsible for that. Their practical complaints against Miko, though more crude, are legitimate because they had a real impact on the OotS.


3) Did you, at any point in the story, feel sympathy for Miko, especially the strip in which she died?
No, not really. Some at her death, though that was more pity that sympathy. And not out of hate. I wasn't reading the forums and the thought simply didn't cross my mind since I had my answer to (1) pretty early. I was mostly thinking "Bravo" to the Giant for creating such a character and pushing the issue right to the fall. Now that I've read people's reactions, I think they're as interesting as the character herself.


4) Did you, at any point in the story, feel frustrated or angry with Miko. Has Miko inspired any real hatred?
I think I felt to distant to her as a story character to feel any real hatred, and I wasn't frustrated because I expected her behavior. But she is the kind of person I would think the very least of if she were real.


5) Is Miko a good literary character? Was her role in the story a significant one and would her removal improve or harm the strip?
**** yes, and her presence made the strip way better.


6) Did Rich ever really intend for Miko to be a romantic interest for Roy?
No, he said he intended her to fall from the start. I think the love interest was part of that, to explore every facet of the topic in (1) more deeply. Roy's initial positive impression contrasted with his later rejection once he sees more clearly helps develop the matter. It is a reflection of the world in general gazing at supposedly good figures like Miko. In general the Giant seems to be fantastic at developing a story from every possible angle before allowing a conclusion. Everything that can go wrong does go wrong, and only when there's nothing else that can possibly go bad does an issue finally resolve itself.

If the first thing we saw was the regicide scene, sure we'd think she was self-righteous but actually bad. But without things like the romance plot we'd miss out on depth of character and people wouldn't feel so strongly for her. Her character traits, as explained in (1) and (2), made her fall as inevitablely As Vader's anger made him fall. But development like this between her introduction and fall is what makes the Giant a good storyteller and Lucas past his prime.


7) Will Miko return?
Just as the Giant planned for Miko to fall from the start, I don't think he'll bring her back. Unless he changes his mind from his original plan. I don't think he will, but maybe he'll throw fans a bone or bring in a brief epilogue.

[Zevox]

I'm not saying that I want to revist the flame wars that ensued over Miko, of course. I hope that the time that has passed since she has had any influence over the strip has hopefully cooled down any high-strung emotions about her.
You haven't been paying attention to these boards much, then, because she still causes just as much strife on these boards as before when she gets brought up. She just gets brought up less since her death since, of course, she isn't around anymore.


1) What was Miko's alignment post-fall up to her death? Did she actually go through an alignment shift or was she still LG, despite committing an evil and/or chaotic act.
I'm of the opinion that she was always borderline Lawful Neutral, and dropped to that after murdering Shojo.


2) What legitimate complaints, if any, does Miko have against the Order of the Stick? Conversely, what legitimate complaints, if any, does the Order of the Stick have against Miko?
For the former, not much. Some of the group were rude to her, but that's about it, and it isn't as if she wasn't equally so to them. Everything else was just her own delusions and horrible misinterpretations of the events and facts.

For the latter, well, similar to Miko's rudeness complaint against them, she was a huge pain in the ass who kept trying to force her views on them. There was also beating the daylights out of them and dragging them back to Azure City in chains - which, however lawfully sanctioned by Shojo, is certainly something to complain about. Not to mention trying to kill them all when they prevented her from killing Belkar, killing Shojo, coming close to killing Hinjo as well, again attempting to kill Belkar during that incident, plenty of false accusations, and destroying the Azure City Gate. And probably some I missed.


3) Did you, at any point in the story, feel sympathy for Miko, especially the strip in which she died?
Hell no.


4) Did you, at any point in the story, feel frustrated or angry with Miko. Has Miko inspired any real hatred?
You bet.


5) Is Miko a good literary character? Was her role in the story a significant one and would her removal improve or harm the strip?
To the former, to a degree. She was an excellent example of the worst possible way to play a Paladin character from start to finish. I don't know what else to say about her on that regard, though.

To the latter, she did quite plainly play a significant role. Whether her removal would improve or harm the strip is debatable, and frankly I don't want to have to consider the possible scenarios for how things would have gone without her or with someone else in her place.


6) Did Rich ever really intend for Miko to be a romantic interest for Roy?
Don't know, but others seem to have answers for this.


7) Will Miko return?
Great Cthulu I hope not. Not only because I hate her, but because her death scene had quite the air of finality, especially after the Tsukiko gag which made a point of telling us that she would not return as an undead. I can't see her return coming off well at all given that.

Zevox

[kpenguin]

You haven't been paying attention to these boards much, then, because she still causes just as much strife on these boards as before when she gets brought up. She just gets brought up less since her death since, of course, she isn't around anymore.

Given the fairly civil tone of the posters in this thread thus far, I'd disagree.

While Miko still lived, a thread about here would have gone three pages by now with insults traded on both sides.

[Jural]

Fascinating idea, I think it's a good time to look at her, especially in light of Celia getting so much attention.

1) I feel confident in saying she was lawful good or lawful neutral. But which one? It depends upon what her motivations were. Was she extremely hard headed and misguided? Or was she self-centered and unwilling to examine the world without her place in the center of it? I honestly don't know. I have always assumed that she was going to a neutral plane due to her conversation with the Paladin before her death... But I don't know enough about the cosmology of the OOTS world for that to be conclusive. If I had to guess though, I'd say Lawful Neutral.

2) Miko may have complaints against the OOTS, but now that she can see the whole of the situation, I would assume her only complaint would be that the OOTS helped undermine Azure City by working with Lord Shojo in a deceptive manner. Is that legitimate or not? Certainly the OOTS is not completely altruistic... that might be a legitimate excuse as well. The OOTS can complain that Miko killed Lord Shojo and hastened the fall of Azure City. The OOTS can complain that she allowed Xykon to live to threaten the world. The OOTS has legitimate complaints.
3) Miko is a tragic hero, and I believe she thought she was doing the right thing. I felt legitimate sympathy for her.
4) The Miko character was as funny as it was annoying. It was very interesting, but it also felt like it was getting in the way of the "true story."
5) Miko was not a good literary character, she was a great one. Her death was tragic because we never see her arc completed, does she get redemption, or does she cross over to evil? But on the other hand, she was a side character, and would have sidelined the narrative too much.
6) I believe he planned on her to be a romantic foil and interest. When she first appeared, I don't know what he had in mind for her ultimately in that regard.
7) I believe Miko will return, if only as a minor part of some other story, maybe just in one panel. She is very interesting, and I that type of character tends to bounce around an author's mind a lot, sooner or later it's coming out again!

[MickJay]

1. I think it's very possible she retained her LG alignment, her actions after she fell and dying scene can be interpreted as supporting this.
4. Definitely anger and frustration, but not hatred.
7. If she did remain LG, she could still appear in the LG afterlife, perhaps shown chiding Roy's father for his Azure city trial stunt :smallwink:

[Dacia Brabant]

You know I've been thinking, given Miko's strong tendency to smite-first ask-questions-later and to jump to conclusions at great lengths based on her own pre-conceptions, I wonder why she was not a fallen Paladin long before meeting the Order of the Stick.

I know, I know, the narrative required her to be a Paladin in good standing at the start, but she seems awfully pre-disposed to killing things just because they register on the Detect-Evil-o-meter, and that's a recipe for disaster even if it's acceptable (which it shouldn't be) to go around killing people just because they have an Evil alignment. Roy, for example, wasn't Evil even though he appeared as such in their first encounter, and she attempted to "execute him". Wouldn't she have fallen if she had succeeded? Shouldn't she have learned her lesson after coming so close to Fallsville?

[Raging Gene Ray]

7. If she did remain LG, she could still appear in the LG afterlife, perhaps shown chiding Roy's father for his Azure city trial stunt :smallwink:

:roy: Miko? What are you doing here?
:miko: Can't talk. Busy beating the crap out of your lousy, nogoodnik father.
:roy: Oh...mind if I join?
:miko: Sure!
Eugene: Oh, peanut brittle.

[Samurai Jill]

I hope that the time that has passed since she has had any influence over the strip has hopefully cooled down any high-strung emotions about her.
*breaks down howling in gales of laughter*

Well, the rest of the post should certainly put a stop to that.

[Samurai Jill]

You know I've been thinking, given Miko's strong tendency to smite-first ask-questions-later and to jump to conclusions at great lengths based on her own pre-conceptions, I wonder why she was not a fallen Paladin long before meeting the Order of the Stick.
Oh, I don't know, possibly, just maybe, because she was willing to risk life and limb in the defence of innocents, was painfully honour-bound and scrupulously fair.

I know, I know, the narrative required her to be a Paladin in good standing at the start, but she seems awfully pre-disposed to killing things just because they register on the Detect-Evil-o-meter, and that's a recipe for disaster even if it's acceptable (which it shouldn't be) to go around killing people just because they have an Evil alignment.
You know, some people here seem to be labouring under the unfortunate misconception that Evil means "pokes puppies with a sharp stick every now and then, maybe." EVIL IMPLIES HURTING, KILLING, AND OPPRESSING OTHERS. BY DEFINITION. So, yes, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that perfunctory execution is not as unreasonable a response as it might first appear.
Not that Miko actually does that, or Belkar would never have survived the trip to Azure City in the first place. Cripes.

Roy, for example, wasn't Evil even though he appeared as such in their first encounter, and she attempted to "execute him". Wouldn't she have fallen if she had succeeded? Shouldn't she have learned her lesson after coming so close to Fallsville?
Right, and the extensive witness testimony (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0174.html) clearly had nothing to do with her response there. What more you could reasonably ask of Miko by way of alignment confirmation here?
Oh, right:

:roy: "Why certainly I am Evil- indeed, I am a veritable exemplar of nefarious vice and villainy, unrepentant and devoid of shame! Pray, unsheath thy blade and begin thy righteous smiting forthwith!"

[Ganurath]

:roy: Miko? What are you doing here?
:miko: Can't talk. Busy beating the crap out of your lousy, nogoodnik father.
:roy: Oh...mind if I join?
:miko: Sure!
Eugene: Oh, peanut brittle.I don't see it going like that, more like this:

:roy: Not that he didn't have it coming, but is that Miko beating the crap out of my dad?
:roy:'s Archon: It would appear so. Do you want to get involved.
:roy: One way or another... Miko, you realize that's my dad you're laying the smiteless smite on, right?
:miko: *pauses violence* Killing Lord Shojo was a mistake, I realize that now. I've had a lot of time to think-
:roy: Gods help us.
:miko: -and with the help of Miko's Archon, I found out your father helped rig your trial.
:roy: And that's why you've been wailing on him.
:miko: No, that was earlier. He offered to do scrying on the past to help me with my soul searching, and after conferring with Miko's Archon, I agreed. After he showed me when Shojo explained the reasons for his fake senility, I took some time to think.
:roy: Gods help us.
:miko:'s Archon: You know, I not only have a good enough Listen modifier to hear you, but I heard the Deva tell you to cut back on such quips.
:roy: ...So, what conclusion did you reach?
:miko: Lord Shojo was not evil, but the corrupting influences around him made me mistake him for such. Your father was one such corrupting influence.
:roy: Not that he doesn't deserve it, but won't this set you on the wrong direction from atonement?
:miko:'s Archon: Actually, your actions in the afterlife don't influence your standing in future ressurections.
:roy: *to his Archon* Seriously?
:roy:'s Archon: We have a One Night Stand Bar in the Lawful Good afterlife.
:roy: ...Mind if I join you, Miko?
:miko: Now, I don't know what slight you may have against your father, but take it from someone who's intimately familiar with the slippery slope-
:roy: He killed my baby brother in an arcane mishap.
:miko: Let me move to give you a flanking position.
:eugene: Hate you both...

@\/: Considering this is the fifth time I've spelt his name like that this week and you're the only one to point it out, I'd say so.

[kpenguin]

@/\: Shogo? Has it really been that long since Shojo's death?


*breaks down howling in gales of laughter*

As I have said before, this thread has very low amount of posts and has kept a fairly civil tone compared to threads about Miko created while she was alive.

Your skepticism, while reasonable when reading the OP, should have been dispelled as you perused the thread.


Well, the rest of the post should certainly put a stop to that.

If you're implying that you will be rude or flamey when discussing Miko, I must ask that you please don't.



You know, some people here seem to be labouring under the unfortunate misconception that Evil means "pokes puppies with a sharp stick every now and then, maybe." EVIL IMPLIES HURTING, KILLING, AND OPPRESSING OTHERS. BY DEFINITION.

Is not poking puppies with a sharp stick hurting it? While agree that simply being a jerk does not qualify you as evil, the evil alignment is not entirely made up of Xykons and Belkars

[Samurai Jill]

As I have said before, this thread has very low amount of posts and has kept a fairly civil tone compared to threads about Miko created while she was alive.
Claiming that you don't want to revisit the old flame wars, then dragging up exactly the same topics that led to those flame wars in the first place, is what I would call a case of 'sending mixed messages'.

...the evil alignment is not entirely made up of Xykons and Belkars
No, it's just composed entirely of people who have persistently committed Evil acts equivalent in severity to murder or worse. You know- Evil people. Not 'unpleasant', 'antisocial', 'dysfunctional', 'mean-spirited' or even 'bad'- EVIL. Capital 'E'!

[kpenguin]

Claiming that you don't want to revisit the old flame wars, then dragging up exactly the same topics that led to those flame wars in the first place, is what I would call a case of 'sending mixed messages'.

One hopes that flame wars are created not by the topic at hand but by those who throw the flames. A flame can be created over any topic and simply revisting a topic that has caused flame wars before with the hope that it will not again is not at all a mixed signal. It is an optimistic request for civility over a topic that is obviously interesting enough to spark discussion.



No, it's just composed entirely of people who have persistently committed Evil acts equivalent in severity to murder or worse. You know- Evil people. Not 'unpleasant', 'antisocial', 'dysfunctional', 'mean-spirited' or even 'bad'- EVIL. Capital 'E'!

As you yourself have cited before:


"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others

None of this is equivalent in severity to murder, including "killing others". Hurting, oppressing, and killing others are not automatic death sentences or even deserving of legal punishment, in the case of hurting or oppressing.

[Raging Gene Ray]

:miko: ...He offered to do scrying on the past to help me with my soul searching...

That's exactly how I imagine Miko evaluating herself and her actions and obtaining atonement (I mean admitting her own shortcomings and becoming more mentally balanced, not becoming a Heroic Bastion of Good. That second one is precluded by the Giant's statement somewheres), only she won't be using Eugene.

Scrying on the past, even with Epic Inside, would probably take an intimate knowledge of Divination magic, and if she's going to learn how Eugene rigged the trial, it should be from someone who doesn't have a motive to hide it...possibly someone who's on the Southern Gods side of the mountain. And (naturally, since I am a huge pervert), she'd show her gratitude to this Diviner with certain...actions that would involve this exchange:

Do you want the blindfold on or off? http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2197/2247108392_0774b63c4f_m.jpg
:miko: Off, please.
...Too bad! http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2197/2247108392_0774b63c4f_m.jpg

[Dacia Brabant]

EVIL IMPLIES HURTING, KILLING, AND OPPRESSING OTHERS. BY DEFINITION. So, yes, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that perfunctory execution is not as unreasonable a response as it might first appear.
Not that Miko actually does that, or Belkar would never have survived the trip to Azure City in the first place. Cripes.
See, this is what people don't like about how a lot of people play Paladins. Evil thoughts, evil ideas, evil beliefs do not necessarily equate to evil actions; and attacking and killing someone for what they are, what they think or believe, not for what they do, is arguably evil itself and certainly prejudicial. Say what you will about the guy, but Redcloak has a very good argument against this exact behavior by the Azurite Paladins.


Right, and the extensive witness testimony (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0174.html) clearly had nothing to do with her response there. What more you could reasonably ask of Miko by way of alignment confirmation here?

You realize that this is the exact same line of thinking that led Miko to kill Shojo and fall, right? If she'd learned her lesson way back then, "that [she] even acknowledge that [she] could, in fact, be wrong" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html), maybe she wouldn't have turned that shade of beige and then bisected by the gate shrapnel.

[Kaytara]

Great thread idea, kudos to you.



1) What was Miko's alignment post-fall up to her death?
Alignments are such peculiar things. I could see reasons to peg her as Chaotic as much as Lawful. I'm going to have to go with Crazy Neutral. She wasn't really good... Comparable to Redcloak, she served some abstract Greater Good but thought nothing of hurting and humiliating others. And I get the impression was that she was so zealous about stopping evil-doers, rescuing farmers in distress and pursuing justice because she had been spoon-fed to believe that it was her duty, not because she really felt all that much empathy for other sentient beings.


2) What legitimate complaints, if any, does Miko have against the Order of the Stick?
Not much. The way she presented herself - attacking them just because they refused to surrender to a complete stranger and accusing them of being evil the whole time - hardly made a good first impression. Moreover, she retained her contemptuous opinion of them even when they were proved not to be evil. You'd have to be a saint NOT to snap back at that. The only person who didn't oppose her was Durkon and that was just because he (mistakenly) believed that Thor wanted it that way.

There is one thing, though. I think Roy made a really bad move attacking Miko directly after her fall. She was clearly in shock. If she was ever close to reconsidering her views, it would've been then. Roy attacking her was what sent her into the "killing mood" and re-cemented her own confidence in herself - by attacking her, he presented himself when her ego was most desperate to find someone to blame. If he'd stood aside and let Hinjo talk to her, things may not have gotten that desperate.
Oh, and of course, the way he openly defied Miko after the inn incident really should've been thought through better.


Conversely, what legitimate complaints, if any, does the Order of the Stick have against Miko?
Plenty. Attacking them with no explanation and condemning them for defending themselves. Abusing them for no good reason other than because she'd already formed an opinion of them. In general, making things difficult for them, jumping to assumptions and conclusions based on a pre-conceived bias of them, insulting them, accusing them of being evil, etc.


3) Did you, at any point in the story, feel sympathy for Miko, especially the strip in which she died?
I discovered OotS way, way after Miko kicked the bucket, so it was more of an archive binge thing for me... but yes. I kind of felt sympathy for her when Roy insulted her after the inn, because a moment ago she'd displayed some potential of softening up and he just went and threw that out the window...
Certainly at her death. It emphasized that she was, in fact, still trying to be a hero and was just terribly misguided about it.

4) Did you, at any point in the story, feel frustrated or angry with Miko. Has Miko inspired any real hatred?
Hatred, no. Frustration, yes. Particularly the beginning of her arc, when she unceasingly abused the other party members and still had Roy on her side.

5) Is Miko a good literary character? Was her role in the story a significant one and would her removal improve or harm the strip?
A great character. As it's been said already, her role was unpleasant, but huge and important. She was also important because of the closeness of her interaction with the Order, the only NPC to act as foil for them rather than villain or ally to stick around so long. In short, her presence always had an extreme influence on them and provided plenty of opportunity to explore their personalities.

6) Did Rich ever really intend for Miko to be a romantic interest for Roy?
According to Paladin Blues, no. Even without Rich's word on it, the way she kept acting after meeting them would have made it extremely difficult to make her a likeable romantic interest for Roy, to us the readers as much as to the Order.

7) Will Miko return?
Why should she? Her story has been told and told well. It's complete, there shouldn't be anything else tacked on.

[Simanos]

Miko is a cop.

[Kish]

@\/: Considering this is the fifth time I've spelt his name like that this week and you're the only one to point it out, I'd say so.
People called him Shinjo when he was still alive.

[Samurai Jill]

One hopes that flame wars are created not by the topic at hand but by those who throw the flames.
kp, it's ridiculous to claim you don't want to revisit the old flame wars: This IS revisiting them. You're revisiting them right now. The entire thread was, of necessity, a revisiting of those old topics!

Any difference in intensity is purely a matter of degree, not kind.

None of this is equivalent in severity to murder, including "killing others". Hurting, oppressing, and killing others are not automatic death sentences or even deserving of legal punishment, in the case of hurting or oppressing.
Right, much as in the case of 99% of Good-aligned adventurers. They must be 'Evil' then.

Evil thoughts, evil ideas, evil beliefs do not necessarily equate to evil actions...
No amount of unpleasant thinking/ideas/beliefs will make you Evil unless you ACT on them. Cripes!

...Redcloak has a very good argument against this exact behavior by the Azurite Paladins.
I think the Azurite 'paladins'- and I use the term very loosely- were more at fault for slaughtering defenceless children and geriatrics with, as far as we could tell, no specific evidence for Evil alignment. Heck- they weren't even Smiting the head honcho!

You realize that this is the exact same line of thinking that led Miko to kill Shojo and fall, right? If she'd learned her lesson way back then...
What 'lesson'? That bizarre, byzantine, phenomenally unlikely circumstances can lead to mistaken conclusions? Ooh- there's a profound philosophical insight! Or, maybe the lesson is, 'bend over backwards to be accommodating toward your enemies, and you can expect to have it spat back in your face'- I dunno, maybe she did learn from that lesson.

[hamishspence]

It could be a hope that discussion with be intricate, well reasoned, and calm, with no yelling back and forth.

Or even raising new, or at least not discussed in depth, questions.

[Samurai Jill]

*sigh* Fine. I just see very little hope of that when people ignore half of Miko's record of conduct in the process.

[hamishspence]

on the "equivalent to murder or worse" Not entirely true- a con-man can be evil, a professional torturer can be evil, a ruthless bully can be evil.

Dig around in campaign books, D&D novels, etc, there are plenty of examples.

The "Thinking evil thoughts don't count" is true in some cases- by Fiendish Codex rules, a Lawful person who never does an evil act but thinks about them all the time could not be sent to Nine hells no matter how unpleasant his personality. Maybe Acheron though.

BoVD, Champions of Ruin, Savage Species, Exemplars of Evil, all have things to say.

that said, I'd say the murder of Shojo might be enough to move Miko from Good to Neutral (I wouldn't find either a shift, or no shift, implausible), but it would have to be a more spectacular act than that to break the "must take time" principle in DMG for a shift to Evil (DMG points out exceptions do exist)

Classic 2nd ed one was "burn a village with everyone in, to contain an outbreak" Full Good to Evil shift.

[David Argall]

I get the impression was that she was so zealous about stopping evil-doers, rescuing farmers in distress and pursuing justice because she had been spoon-fed to believe that it was her duty, not because she really felt all that much empathy for other sentient beings.
"Get the impression" pretty much amounts to "I have no evidence". But we need to notice here that she is the first to want to help the dirt farmers for Good motives. On grounds of duty, she should have passed them by. She was on an important mission and they were not citizens she was charged to defend. Miko of course describes it as her duty, but she considered good and law as entirely mixed.



There is one thing, though.
Well, you mention 2, and unmentioned is the more important one is that the party supported the clearly evil Belkar over her, and denied any duty to law or good in doing so.


Attacking them with no explanation
Explanation was given.


and condemning them for defending themselves. Abusing them for no good reason other than because she'd already formed an opinion of them. In general, making things difficult for them, jumping to assumptions and conclusions based on a pre-conceived bias of them, insulting them, accusing them of being evil, etc.
These seem to be annoyances, valid reasons to be happier that you are not near her, but not reasons to condemn her.


According to Paladin Blues, no. Even without Rich's word on it, the way she kept acting after meeting them would have made it extremely difficult to make her a likeable romantic interest for Roy, to us the readers as much as to the Order.

Our writer has a point in saying he just couldn't manage to get the right tone here, but lovers that are always fighting have tremendous comic potential.
Consider... Miko hears of the trial and is convinced that there is something wrong [reasoning something like the OOTS is evil, and must be guilty rather than that the evidence actually showed guilty], so she decides to investigate, by trying to be friendly. After this and that mishap, she does get a date with Roy, and decides he might talk if he were drunk. This of course ends with her being drunk and saying a number of things she shouldn't, and waking up in the morning in Roy's bed.
She of course accuses him of taking advantage of her and when he protests that he hadn't done it with her, she accuses him of lying too. Things go downhill.
That sounds a lot better than Roy's date with Celia.



The OOTS can complain that she allowed Xykon to live to threaten the world.
Invalid on technical and major grounds.
Xykon is not living. He is unliving.
She did not allow him to live. She was doing her best to stop him. That these actions in fact allowed him to survive does not make a matter she allowed, or one she can be complained against. She made a reasonable, but wrong, decision.

[kpenguin]

kp, it's ridiculous to claim you don't want to revisit the old flame wars: This IS revisiting them. You're revisiting them right now. The entire thread was, of necessity, a revisiting of those old topics!

Any difference in intensity is purely a matter of degree, not kind.


Degree of intensity is what defines a flame war, not topic.

[Assassin89]

*stockpiles fire extinguishers*

What? I'm preparing to explain Miko in a different light. I think Miko as one who was trained as a paladin in order to gain self-control. Miko's attitude towards justice often overrided this self control, meaning that enjoying life would be an impossibility.

[Ganurath]

*stockpiles fire extinguishers*

What? I'm preparing to explain Miko in a different light. I think Miko as one who was trained as a paladin in order to gain self-control. Miko's attitude towards justice often overrided this self control, meaning that enjoying life would be an impossibility.An interesting hypothesis. Allow me to reverse it:

Miko started out as a Monk, a class that focuses on a structured lifestyle directed inward and focused on serenity. Odds are this is what provided self-control. When she became a paladin, her focus turned toward the differences: Initiative, zeal, and faith. By going from Monk to Paladin, she became everything bad in paladins that we saw in her.

Thus, Lord Shojo is responsible for Miko's death.

[Kroy]

*Snip*
Thus, Lord Shojo is responsible for Miko's death.

And Miko caused Shojo's death. It's a paradox!:smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

[whitelaughter]

Miko started out as a Monk, a class that focuses on a structured lifestyle directed inward and focused on serenity.

Yes. If Miko had remained a monk, she wouldn't have been nearly so annoying - her actions make sense for a cloistered, overly Lawful contemplative. She's a perfect example of the Peter Principle - promoting her to Paladin was a mistake. Asa monk she could rely on the authority of her order; asa Paladin she was responsible for making her own ethical judgements, and she frankly didn't have the social skills to do that.

Poor Miko. Still, there are Prestige Classes for ex-monk/ex-paladins, so hopefully she can find her niche in Arcadia.

[Assassin89]

Thus, Lord Shojo is indirectly responsible for Miko's death.

Fixed it for you.

It would be interesting if we could see an alternative reality where Miko did not become a paladin.

[Raging Gene Ray]

Thus, Lord Shojo is responsible for Miko's death.

As leader of the Sapphire Guard, it was his job to keep her from acting stupid!

[Ganurath]

Poor Miko. Still, there are Prestige Classes for ex-monk/ex-paladins, so hopefully she can find her niche in Arcadia.Arcadia? Please, she's the most successful Gray Guard in Acheron. Happiest, too, given her nature and the nature of the plane of endless battles.

[kpenguin]

Speaking of Miko's monastic background...

Have we actually seen any monks in Azure City? The only monk I recall appearing in OotS other than Miko is the one in OotOoPCs. Will the monastery that raised Miko have any significance at any point?

[FujinAkari]

Arcadia? Please, she's the most successful Gray Guard in Acheron. Happiest, too, given her nature and the nature of the plane of endless battles.

Would this be a bad time to point out that Fallen Paladins can't become Grey Guards? Grey Guards are more brutal Paladins, but they are Paladins still.

[Demented]

1) "What was Miko's alignment post-fall up to her death?"
Lawful Stupid Square. Or maybe Lawful Square Stupid, depending on which sounds better.

2) "What legitimate complaints, if any, does Miko have against the Order of the Stick?"
I'm not aware she made any complaints, nor, conversely, did the stick. 'Overbearing self-righteous bitch' is merely an observation.

3) "Did you, at any point in the story, feel sympathy for Miko, especially the strip in which she died?"
I feel no sympathy for anything which cannot feel pain...getting stabbed with a sword notwithstanding.

4) "Did you, at any point in the story, feel frustrated or angry with Miko. Has Miko inspired any real hatred?"
Hatred of Miko threads.

5) "Is Miko a good literary character?"
She made for a great plot device.

6) "Did Rich ever really intend for Miko to be a romantic interest for Roy?"
This must be directed at Rich.

7) "Will Miko return?"
But she never turned undead to begin with!

8) "Will Roy ever trust his trouser titan's judgement again?"
Roy's trouser titan rotted away several dozen strips ago, I'm assuming as punishment.

[TheCoolThatguy]

I'm kinda surprised that there's no Legitmate complaint against Shojo et all.

Consider, Miko was inducted to the Paladins at a young age, after the loss of her parents. Shojo himself assured her that the Gods had a role for her to play, and she looked to him like a father. We saw that she got him a gift while she was in the Dwarf homelands.

But these same people exploited her, and never contradicted Miko when they should. Instead of trying to temper her harsh judgemental nature, they sent her away on long term missions for their benefit. They had trouble tolerating Miko's attitude, so they sent her away but they never seemed to have trouble exploiting her power.

They created her dangerous self righteous behavior and to a degree, condoned it. They sure as hell didn't try to fix it. So IMO, just like a child can have legitmate complaints about a neglectful parent, so to does Miko against the Saphire Guard and Shojo, who exploited her zealous nature for their own goals but never considered her emotional stability.

[Dacia Brabant]

No amount of unpleasant thinking/ideas/beliefs will make you Evil unless you ACT on them. Cripes!

Eh I don't know, what about those who are just too cowardly and afraid of what might happen to them to actually act upon their twisted lusts and ambitions? That's not particularly strong or noteworthy Evil but it is Evil intent, and it would be Evil action if they felt they could get away with it.


I think the Azurite 'paladins'- and I use the term very loosely- were more at fault for slaughtering defenceless children and geriatrics with, as far as we could tell, no specific evidence for Evil alignment. Heck- they weren't even Smiting the head honcho!

And that's my point, they're the "Good Guys" and they still continue to be Paladins even after what they did because they're killing "Evil monsters", but it's all very much presented in a condemning way and it ends up biting them hard in the end. By RAW a Paladin can behave this way, but it's never a good idea and will most likely end in tears.


What 'lesson'? That bizarre, byzantine, phenomenally unlikely circumstances can lead to mistaken conclusions? Ooh- there's a profound philosophical insight! Or, maybe the lesson is, 'bend over backwards to be accommodating toward your enemies, and you can expect to have it spat back in your face'- I dunno, maybe she did learn from that lesson.

:smallsigh: Redemption really isn't for everyone.

[The Minx]

See, this is what people don't like about how a lot of people play Paladins. Evil thoughts, evil ideas, evil beliefs do not necessarily equate to evil actions; and attacking and killing someone for what they are, what they think or believe, not for what they do, is arguably evil itself and certainly prejudicial. Say what you will about the guy, but Redcloak has a very good argument against this exact behavior by the Azurite Paladins.

This really depends on how "evil" status is attained, and what precisely is detected by the Detect Evil ability. It is entirely possible that alignment is Karma driven. The definition of the alignments does not specify whether people rated as such are simply inclined to do such things, or whether they are defined that way on account of having done them.

[Samurai Jill]

I think this is one point on which the descriptions don't give much ground for the 'thinking Evil thoughts' interpretation. The descriptions says 'implies hurting, killing and oppressing'- not 'mildly inclined toward such acts if given the opportunity'. Similarly, good aligned characters make personal sacrifices to help others- not 'think about doing it most of the time and would probably do so if it weren't too inconvenient, maybe.' Law and chaos, similarly, talk about specific actions or behaviours, not unobserved-and-unobservable 'inclinations'. There is nothing in the descriptions to support the idea that alignment can shift without genuine, bona-fide acts that fit the descriptor. Now, you can argue that internal motivation may be neccesary, but it certainly isn't sufficient.

The whole issue is nonsense regardless- outside of a police state, people who genuinely want to commit evil acts will find ways to do it eventually, even when it isn't in their best long-term interests- that, and/or will find ways to game the system to suit their underlying tastes. Exceptions to this rule are sufficiently rare that they can be dismissed as strawmen.

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/media.canada.com/b2fd399c-8611-4580-92ea-44f66ab1b1a2/hobbes.jpg

[kpenguin]

How about inherently evil creatures (undead, fiends, chromatic dragons) who are too young or too isolated or too restricted to have committed any evil acts?

In any case, I agree with the idea that evil thought does not make evil alignment, though evil thought usually leads to evil act which does make evil alignment.

Degree of evil act required to be evil, however, is ambiguous. Murder is not a vague term, but hurting is. Is the man who applies corporeal punishment to his children a bit more than necessary evil?

[Jural]

...Invalid on technical and major grounds.
Xykon is not living. He is unliving...

OK, you got me there!


She did not allow him to live. She was doing her best to stop him. That these actions in fact allowed him to survive does not make a matter she allowed, or one she can be complained against. She made a reasonable, but wrong, decision.

I fully agree, Miko thought she was doing the right thing. And it was reasonable, although certain character flaws didn't allow her to notice that the most powerful of her Order was telling her to stop.

But I think she can still be complained against! Her direct action led to a situation which allowed Xykon to escape. That's complaint worthy! I can complain that it makes my life more difficult, that there is more evil in the world because of it, etc. I'm making a Utilitarian judgement, but it's still a valid ground to make a judgement.

Now that alone would be a horrible reason for her to lose her paladinhood, or be arrested, or be hated or hunted down by the OOTS. It was not an evil act by any stretch of the imagination. But worthy of complaint? I personally feel it was.

[Kish]

And that's my point, they're the "Good Guys" and they still continue to be Paladins even after what they did because they're killing "Evil monsters", but it's all very much presented in a condemning way and it ends up biting them hard in the end. By RAW a Paladin can behave this way, but it's never a good idea and will most likely end in tears.
By RAW a paladin cannot behave that way. Killing noncombatants who haven't done anything evil that you know of, especially but not limited to children, is an evil act and thus an instant Fall.

[Optimystik]

By RAW a paladin cannot behave that way. Killing noncombatants who haven't done anything evil that you know of, especially but not limited to children, is an evil act and thus an instant Fall.

The problem lies not with the paladins, but D&D's unfortunate and arbitrary assignment of one alignment to an entire race or even subrace of creatures. This forms a major plot point in SoD, and OotS lampshades this in the mainstream comic as well during this strip. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0207.html)

[Wootles]

As for point 1: I believe that Miko is still LG, even after the murder of Shojo. In my opinion, alignment is based on the player's motives. Impulsively murdering your good aligned lord is normally considered chaotic evil by me. However, Miko was misguided and truly believed Shojo has became an evil lord equal to Xykon, and should be directly executed in the name of righteousness to save the city. Her deed may be evil, but her intentions were still good.

If she did shift alignment, it should be towards choatic due to the direct execution of a supect, instead of locking him up and wait for his trial.

[hamishspence]

Would come under "committing an evil act while erroneously believing it to be not evil" Fall-worthy but clerics don't have to spend XP to cast atonement on you.

Motives are relevant, but as per BoVD, BoED, Champions of Ruin, they can't excuse evil acts fully. However, since Miko even after falling wasn't Consistantly doing evil, I'd put her as no worse than Neutral.

given the long essay in War and XPs, I would put it as Lawful neutral, perhaps bordering on true neutral- she'd been pushing at the edge of her alignment for a long time, and that pushing was described in Good Vs Evil terms.

[MickJay]

This arbitrary assignment Optimystik mentioned makes D&D style adventuring possible, without that players would be spending more time making sure they can kill a few goblins than killing them ;) Plus, the "evil" is considered from the point of view of good races. Something regularly attacks and kills our people, it has to be evil. So we have to do the good thing and attack and kill them :smalltongue:

"Detect evil" probably recognizes certain behaviour/racial patterns and interprets them according to pre-defined criteria (fluff-wise this would explain why it can "malfunction" if the conditions are unusual).

[hamishspence]

BoVD points out that if something is very, very clearly just about to attack and kill many people, it could be good, Neutral, deluded, doesn't matter, stopping mass-murder is Good no matter how non-evil the mass murderer, or would-be mass murderer, is.

which is what the main priority of adventurers should be- not "they are evil" but "they are attacking villages/towns"

BoED points out that Evil non-combatants are still non-combatants- you don't massacre orc/goblin women/children. "They will grow up to be bad guys" isn't sufficient justification, especially since they are at worst Usually X Evil rather than Always X Evil.

(While some claim vast majority of the remainder must be other variants of Evil, that isn't supported by evidence, at least for orcs- MMIV points out most of the exceptions are CN, not LE or NE)

[The Minx]

By RAW a paladin cannot behave that way. Killing noncombatants who haven't done anything evil that you know of, especially but not limited to children, is an evil act and thus an instant Fall.

Unless they do know that they have done evil. That is what the supernatural "Detect Evil" ability is for. If evil is Karma-driven, and Detect Evil detects evil, then by implication, Detect Evil detects evil Karma. Sort of like a supernatural version of those anti-theft devices which spray burglars with a chemical which glows with a characteristic band of colors under ultraviolet light or something.

If they did not have that ability, then you would be correct. :smallwink:


The problem lies not with the paladins, but D&D's unfortunate and arbitrary assignment of one alignment to an entire race or even subrace of creatures. This forms a major plot point in SoD, and OotS lampshades this in the mainstream comic as well during this strip. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0207.html)

True, though to be fair, they nowadays say "usually evil" of humanoid races, as opposed to "always evil" as for evil outsiders (who can be viewed basically as alignment-elementals).

[hamishspence]

tricky part is in a "normal society" with "evil people" in it whose evil acts might not be outside the law. An executioner who likes his job way to much to be healthy.

Detect Evil isn't the same as Detect Wrongdoing or Detect Criminal Activity- paladin who Smites On Sight should, given the way evil is described in the many sources, expect the law to come down heavily on him.

[The Minx]

tricky part is in a "normal society" with "evil people" in it whose evil acts might not be outside the law. An executioner who likes his job way to much to be healthy.

Detect Evil isn't the same as Detect Wrongdoing or Detect Criminal Activity- paladin who Smites On Sight should, given the way evil is described in the many sources, expect the law to come down heavily on him.

Evil =/= illegal. It pertains to universal codes of morality. Just as "I was just going along" is not a valid excuse for wrongdoing, neither is "it's not illegal here". A paladin who fears the local law enforcement when going into territories where evil is not punishable should find another line of work. :smallwink:


As for point 1: I believe that Miko is still LG, even after the murder of Shojo. In my opinion, alignment is based on the player's motives. Impulsively murdering your good aligned lord is normally considered chaotic evil by me. However, Miko was misguided and truly believed Shojo has became an evil lord equal to Xykon, and should be directly executed in the name of righteousness to save the city. Her deed may be evil, but her intentions were still good.

Action can change alignment, at least eventually. It's not certain whether one act can change things, though the Astral Deva threatened to shift Roy into the true neutral afterlife (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html) for abandoning Elan. Killing your liege lord is somewhat more spectacular than that, you know. :smallsmile:


If she did shift alignment, it should be towards choatic due to the direct execution of a supect, instead of locking him up and wait for his trial.

The chaos-Law axis does not refer to local laws and more than the evil-good axis does. :smallsmile:

[hamishspence]

Problem being that sometimes, even in a Good society, the Universal Laws of Morality aren't followed perfectly.

Added to which, evil often doesn't mean "has done things that a Good society would execute him for" or even "would imprison him for" in some cases.

A paladin's job is to protect first and foremost, in BoED. Punishment is very secondary.

then there is Internal Evil- a society which is very internally corrupt, but has not attacked any of its neighbours. If the paladin is sent on a mission there, is he obliged to smite anyone detecting as evil on sight?

[The Minx]

Problem being that sometimes, even in a Good society, the Universal Laws of Morality aren't followed perfectly.

So? That does not mean that the laws of morality are not valid, only that the "good" society is not perfectly such.


Added to which, evil often doesn't mean "has done things that a Good society would execute him for" or even "would imprison him for" in some cases.

Again, this depends on what is detected by the detect evil.


A paladin's job is to protect first and foremost, in BoED. Punishment is very secondary.

BoED has a number of problems, which I won't get into here, though this is a fair point. Of course, how does one protect from evil without either imprisoning it or smiting it? Is it not the innocent who are to be protected as opposed to the wrongdoer?


then there is Internal Evil- a society which is very internally corrupt, but has not attacked any of its neighbours. If the paladin is sent on a mission there, is he obliged to smite anyone detecting as evil on sight?

Does "internal evil" mean that they are only evil to one another? Then each of them who detect as evil are still being evil to other sapient creatures, right? The paladin detects evil in individuals not societies, after all.

[hamishspence]

Depends on situation. Having detected evil, you know person has done unpleasant things in past, but you have no evidence as to the specific nature of those things, whether is society follows "Pay Evil to Evil" or not.

Luskan: Prisoner's Carnival- wrongdoers are executed via a vicious regime of tortures. The torturer who does this all day will detect as evil. Does that mean paladin who bumps into him on the street can chop him down without knowing who he is or what he's done?

Or Kubota- Evil, but a member of a society that grants all wrongdoers a trial, and is capable of prosecuting even its ruler. When he's Surrendered, is paladin allowed to just kill him?

Most of the non-Miko paladins seem to favour imprisonment, and seem quite good about offering evil people opportunities to "work off their debt to society"

[The Minx]

Depends on situation. Having detected evil, you know person has done unpleasant things in past, but you have no evidence as to the specific nature of those things, whether is society follows "Pay Evil to Evil" or not.

Does the scope of the evil that is detected by the detect evil is such that morally it requires retribution? If you know that, you have answered your own question.

You may, of course, question whether such universal laws exist, but the existence of paladins in a campaign world rather implies that as far as that world is concerned they do.


Luskan: Prisoner's Carnival- wrongdoers are executed via a vicious regime of tortures. The torturer who does this all day will detect as evil. Does that mean paladin who bumps into him on the street can chop him down without knowing who he is or what he's done?

You seem to be implying that "just bumping into someone" somehow invalidates your right to act. If a cop bumps into a criminal in the act of perpetrating a crime, he absolutely has the right to arrest him. If he bumps into the criminal and has the supernatural ability to tell whether he has perpetrated a crime he absolutely has the right to arrest him. If he bumps into a vile criminal and has the supernatural ability to tell whether he has perpetrated crimes that warrant execution AND is empowered to execute people, then that would indeed be what he could do. The paladin is empowered to execute people, as seen by the fact that he is granted another specific ability to do just that: Smite Evil.

Again: it all depends on what is detected by the detect evil ability.

If it is just general evil acts that are detected, then the paladin does NOT have the right to execute on sight. If he detects evil that warrants smiting then it is his right/duty to do so.


Or Kubota- Evil, but a member of a society that grants all wrongdoers a trial, and is capable of prosecuting even its ruler. When he's Surrendered, is paladin allowed to just kill him?

Now you are adding a further condition into the mix: the situation where the evildoer has surrendered. The paladin going forth to bring justice is one thing; killing a prisoner is something else.

Mentioning Kubota raises another issue, since you're referring to the Sapphire Guard, presumably. They presumably had a further duty to uphold the law of Azure City which complicates matters. A non-SG paladin who encountered Kubota might have more freedom to act.

[hamishspence]

my general interpretation is Smite Evil is a helpful boost, not evidence that paladin is a divinely appointed (or civilly appointed) executioner, just a appointed Defender of Good, not Punisher of Evil.

and, going by the way its written, it detects general evil acts- sometimes it can warrant smiting, sometimes it can't.

(by rules, power of aura is scaled to power of person, not evilness of act, a 1st level serial killer will generate weaker aura than 20th level mercenary who has Crossed The Line)

Novels can help in this- Artemis Enteri isn't a citizen of Damara, but, despite knowing he's evil Gareth Dragonsbane points out to his court, who are all "Kill him already" that he doesn't have the right to do that.

As Hinjo said "We have rule of law, and rule of law says you don't get to kill people because they have done something wrong"

which is not to say execution is not an option, but its not open to individual heroes, only tribunals. Unless execution has already been ordered and paladin is sent to mete it out. Self defence, defence of others from direct threat, only.

[The Minx]

my general interpretation is Smite Evil is a helpful boost, not evidence that paladin is a divinely appointed (or civilly appointed) executioner, just a appointed Defender of Good, not Punisher of Evil.

Granting a power that specifically smites evil is not evidence that the paladin is empowered to strike down evil? :smallconfused:

Of course he is not civilly appointed to do much, at least beyond his homeland.


and, going by the way its written, it detects general evil acts- sometimes it can warrant smiting, sometimes it can't.

(by rules, power of aura is scaled to power of person, not evilness of act, a 1st level serial killer will generate weaker aura than 20th level mercenary who has Crossed The Line)

Unfortunately, the writing is not that specific, really. Going by the rules, a person who hurts, opresses and kills others is evil. Therefore, to detect as evil at all you need to have done these things. Naturally, the paladin is not evil, despite that he has presumably killed at some point. Therefore, the context must be included in the detection.


Novels can help in this- Artemis Enteri isn't a citizen of Damara, but, despite knowing he's evil Gareth Dragonsbane points out to his court, who are all "Kill him already" that he doesn't have the right to do that.

Different settings provide differing interpretations, certainly.

[hamishspence]

Strike down evil, yes, when that striking is needed, rather than whenever paladin sees someone who detects as evil.

when all's said and done, it may be a case of what makes sense.

Obi-wan trying to talk down the bad guy in the cantina, and only drawing when he has no alternative (and the guy was vaderishly evil to boot) makes more sense than a paladin rampaging through the streets of, say, Greysky City hacking at everything in sight.

[The Minx]

Strike down evil, yes, when that striking is needed, rather than whenever paladin sees someone who detects as evil.

Once again, we are back to the crux of the issue. :smallsmile: If the detect evil ability requires the detectee to have murdered and opressed, then it's pretty clear what needs to be done. If the evil-dar can be pinged by lesser evils, then that's more complicated.

I must say that the gods must be bastards if they were to give a guy the ability to always see evil in others and the power to punish it, but then to punish that guy if he uses the latter ability... singe he cannot use his power to see the extent of evil in others... but then ALSO expect him to be pro-active. :smallbiggrin:


when all's said and done, it may be a case of what makes sense.

Obi-wan trying to talk down the bad guy in the cantina, and only drawing when he has no alternative (and the guy was vaderishly evil to boot) makes more sense than a paladin rampaging through the streets of, say, Greysky City hacking at everything in sight.

Probably true. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

How's this for a solution:

FIRST
All paladins should invest in a Phylactery of Faithfulness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness):

Phylactery of Faithfulness

This item is a small box containing religious scripture affixed to a leather cord and tied around the forehead. There is no mundane way to determine what function this religious item performs until it is worn. The wearer of a phylactery of faithfulness is aware of any action or item that could adversely affect his alignment and his standing with his deity, including magical effects. He acquires this information prior to performing such an action or becoming associated with such an item if he takes a moment to contemplate the act.

Faint divination; CL 1st; Craft Wondrous Item, detect chaos, detect evil, detect good, detect law; Price 1,000 gp.

This should be purchased even before fancy magic armor or weapons. It should be the absolutely first magic item ever taken by the paladin and he should always have one.

SECOND
A paladin should always ask "would it hurt my standing if I were to strike down this evildoer" once he has established that someone is evil. If the prospective target is sufficiently evil that he should be executed, then the answer would inevitably be "no". In such a case, allowing the evildoer to escape would mean that the paladin has failed in his duty to protect the innocent. If the answer is "yes", then it is a lesser evil that does not warrant smiting (though he still cannot associate with the evildoer).

THIRD
If in doubt, do the Batman thing: strike for non-lethal damage. It's OK, since you have Cleric spells you can buff yourself to compensate. And after all, some handicap is called for to balance the super-powers. There is nothing to my knowledge that prohibits Smite Evil to be used with an attack for non-lethal damage.


How does that sound?

[hamishspence]

Given Murder is explicitly called out as evil the question is- is it defined solely by Universal Laws, or by legal principles which reflect these laws, or what?

Given that many Evil characters in D&D fiction and campaign settings, haven't done anything that would warrant a death sentence, and given that "punishment" generally isn't enough of a reason to make a killing by an individual Not Murder, I see "Detect Evil", in the general context of D&D, as not enough evidence to act, on it's own.

Sometimes even killing the deserving may "count as murder" Dexter, for example, is pretty clearly a murderer, not an executioner, no matter how evil his victims.

Would tend to agree with the Batman thing- judge by actions and context. if person is actively trying to kill others, you can use full lethal force with a clear conscience, but if the would-be killer surrenders as you get close, you are required to hand them over to a non-evil law enforcement. Sometimes, a city may be evil but very law abiding, and if they respect certain conventions (no torture) it may be ok to hand person over to evil law enforcement as well. a CE criminal in an LE city.

[The Minx]

Given Murder is explicitly called out as evil the question is- is it defined solely by Universal Laws, or by legal principles which reflect these laws, or what?

Since the paladin is divinely empowered, it is the former as far as the paladin is concerned.


Given that many Evil characters in D&D fiction and campaign settings, haven't done anything that would warrant a death sentence, and given that "punishment" generally isn't enough of a reason to make a killing by an individual Not Murder, I see "Detect Evil", in the general context of D&D, as not enough evidence to act, on it's own.

Haven't they? Why are they classified as Evil, then? What have they done to deserve that label? Just the player choosing "lol, I want to be evil, so I write it on my character sheet", but that implies that the character represented by the sheet has skeletons in the closet, regardless of what comes up during game-play.


Sometimes even killing the deserving may "count as murder" Dexter, for example, is pretty clearly a murderer, not an executioner, no matter how evil his victims.

Who?


Would tend to agree with the Batman thing- judge by actions and context. if person is actively trying to kill others, you can use full lethal force with a clear conscience, but if the would-be killer surrenders as you get close, you are required to hand them over to a non-evil law enforcement. Sometimes, a city may be evil but very law abiding, and if they respect certain conventions (no torture) it may be ok to hand person over to evil law enforcement as well. a CE criminal in an LE city.

A paladin may not associate with evil characters. It's one of the rules. Therefore, he may not collaborate with evil law enforcement.

[hamishspence]

Association is tricky to define, by BoED an Exalted character is allowed to work with evil people against a common foe- if they don't let them do anything evil.

BoVD: The Bully, The Naive Fool, the Conman, examples of evil but not out-and-out monstrous characters.

I'd say Association means actually having unrepentant evil person in party, not under some kind of restriction- Hinjo doesn't fall for working with Belkar.

[The Minx]

Association is tricky to define, by BoED an Exalted character is allowed to work with evil people against a common foe- if they don't let them do anything evil.

BoVD: The Bully, The Naive Fool, the Conman, examples of evil but not out-and-out monstrous characters.

I'd say Association means actually having unrepentant evil person in party, not under some kind of restriction- Hinjo doesn't fall for working with Belkar.

It is rather difficult to define, indeed. Just tying the criminals up and leaving them for the cops, Batman style probably does not qualify. Having an insider like Gordon certainly does (good thing that Gordon is not evil, then :smallsmile:).

Still, I wonder... why is it OK to leave wrongdoers to the mercy of an obviously evil system (especially if it is not OK to deal with them yourself)? If the system is evil, then by definition it must dole out inappropriate punishments, right? Of course, this doesn't mean that they always execute people, but is it acceptable to leave someone for, say torture by an evil authority and then wash you hands and say "well I didn't do it myself, I just left him for the cops to deal with". If it is an issue whether the paladin is doling out inappropriate punishments, then surely it would not be acceptable of him to enable others to do so.

[hamishspence]

A place can be evil without a corrupted Legal system- a lord who's obsessed with destroying states around him, a populace which is deeply bigoted. Yet it could still have only Hard Labour for thieves and execution rather than torture for murderers or suspects.

[The Minx]

A place can be evil without a corrupted Legal system- a lord who's obsessed with destroying states around him, a populace which is deeply bigoted. Yet it could still have only Hard Labour for thieves and execution rather than torture for murderers or suspects.

Whoops, sorry. I just saw your qualifier there in the post I was quoting. Yes, if they observe certain conventions, it is possible. Again, if the use of said legal system is beneath the threshold of "association".

On Belkar and Hinjo, that was more a case of the latter offering the other a chance at redemption. I'm not sure whether that's comparable.

[hamishspence]

And Tsusiko, and others, though that.....didn't turn out well.

in War & XPs bonus strip, Roy points out to Belkar that he's going to get 20-30 year sentence (for 2nd degree murder) So killing him, despite his evil nature, might be wrong from Hinjo's point of view.

[MickJay]

If your DM wants to make your paladin fall, he'll make sure you either won't get a phylactery, or it won't be working as advertised. Or he'll will find a way to swap the real thing with a fake after you got it and tested it. Besides, that thing kind of makes life of a paladin too easy, since he never has to make any really difficult decisions anymore. Excellent choice for people who just want to play a good guy and not spend most of their time on thinking how to not fall, though. :smallwink:

On a side note, what are the options (mechanics and fluff) for a fallen paladin who wants to "stand up" again?

[hamishspence]

in 3.0, it was utterly impossible unless he genuinely didn't do it wilfully, or was magically compelled. In 3.5, its normally easy (atonement spell)

I do think DMs should try not to bully paladin players. Make the "good option" difficult, but don't close it off entirely.

Fiendish codex 2 introduces Corruption- atonement isn't just the spell, its actions too. a Risen Paladin whose never actually apologized to victims or put effort into fixing the damage, might die with a corruption rating and go to Nine Hells.

it also showed how Lawful Evil society turns children evil: by designing it so they have to hurt and humiliate other children- a bit like victorian schools in that respect :smallamused:

[The Minx]

If your DM wants to make your paladin fall, he'll make sure you either won't get a phylactery, or it won't be working as advertised. Or he'll will find a way to swap the real thing with a fake after you got it and tested it.

If your DM wants to make your paladin fall, you need a better DM. DMs generally don't go out of their way to make Wizards lose their spellcasting ability, for example.


Besides, that thing kind of makes life of a paladin too easy, since he never has to make any really difficult decisions anymore. Excellent choice for people who just want to play a good guy and not spend most of their time on thinking how to not fall, though. :smallwink:

Too easy? I don't think so. Avoiding a fall is not the only thing a paladin should be worried about, especially if it is going to simply strike him from out of the blue. A reasonable and competent DM will find ways of making the paladin's quest a challenge despite his knowing which things will cause a Fall and which won't.

In fact, the classic theme is that the paladin has an easy evil option and a hard good one, and chooses the latter, even though it makes things worse for himself. He goes down heroically, and does NOT fall. Somehow this trope regarding the main challenge is avoiding random things that cause you to fall unexpectedly has been Flanderized out of all proportion.


On a side note, what are the options (mechanics and fluff) for a fallen paladin who wants to "stand up" again?

As of 3rd edition: the Atonement spell.


EDIT: Ninja'd. Because this crappy server has been timing out for the past ten minutes. :smallannoyed:

[hamishspence]

Could be lots of people looking at new strip.

Intentionally rigging everything is, I agree, not kosher (Magic Jarred child, Planar Motes used for false auras, so paladin cuts down the long-standing villain who is really a Good Child in the villains body- very unfair)

The cliffport police department way shows how Cop-ish paladin really ought to be- villain has committed multiple murder and looks like they are about to commit human sacrifice- they still take him down non-lethally. And Thog, despite losing some of their number in the process.

Might be expecting a bit too much.

[The Minx]

The cliffport police department way shows how Cop-ish paladin really ought to be- villain has committed multiple murder and looks like they are about to commit human sacrifice- they still take him down non-lethally. And Thog, despite losing some of their number in the process.

Might be expecting a bit too much.

It is, especially when you are adventuring far from civilization. :smallsmile:

I'm not sure that those cops were paladins, though. Probably warriors for the most part.


PS: I think I'll have to log out for a while now. These time-outs are driving me slightly crazy. :smallsmile:

[hamishspence]

Context can be important. in war, in cities, etc, when your Evil Enemy has surrendered, promptly lopping his head off is very questionable. But if enemy is attacking you/someone else, and risk of a death is unacceptably high by switching to non-lethal, lethal is OK.

Roy's comment on unnecessary killing in Origin is a pretty fair rebuke to the paladin in that- sometimes OoTS paladins don't live up to the rules of some D&D sourcebooks.

Hopefully site will settle down again after a while.

[Yeril]

1) Miko lived a very lawful good life, constantly trying to help people and her only irk was getting stressed at a bunch of uncocoperative adventurers who she had been ordered to take into captivity for crimes against reality, dispite her being as leniant as possible (No handcuffs, paying for them at the inn ect.) up until they pysically went from pass-agressive taunting to full out rebelling against her. Dispite her falling she still tried to do the right thing, atleast what was the right thing in her eyes, so in my opinion I think she is still Lawful good (not quite as lawful good as before, but still LG) or even possibly LN. As for the afterlife, I like to think even if she was LN she still got into the LG afterlife, a life-time of strict LG'oodness with one screw up with good intentions shouldn't affect that. That said, I highly doubt she got onto the level reserved for LG heros and paladins, but maybe the level reserved got LG Farmers and blacksmiths. Many people say she can't go to the LG afterlife since it was said windstriker will "visit" her, meaning she won't end up in the same place, but all animals, including celestial animals end up in the NG beastlands afterlife, so its still posible for her to go to LG afterlife and be visited by windstriker.
2a) As I mentioned before, she was fairly leniant with possible evil-doers who were under arrest for crimes against reality, but still they passive-agressivly abused her half way to azure city, and then actually-agressivly rebelled against her after the Inn incident (However it should be said that Miko took the first swing in this fight)
2b) In all honesty, no, she was just doing her job dispite doing it with an attitude that revealed the massive stick up her rear.
3) Yup.
4) Not really, I liked her.
5) Yes, Yes, a dozen times yes, she played the LG antagonist perfectly and created so much controversy, so many people argued for and against her actions, she had to be a good literary character to get this much attention.
6) Not sure, I wouldn't of thought so, aside from Roy thinking with his trouser titan there really wasn't too much Miko-Roy romance. Yet.
7) Her death was a very moving and definitive strip, If she came back now it would be kind of a "rip off" and taking alot of the value from that piece. However if Rich did it well, she could come back, after all there are many ways he could pull it off, especially with Roy still sitting around in the afterlife and it being already established that LG azurites and LG northeners go to the same LG afterlife, if Miko is there she could bump into Roy. Perhaps she could be summoned as some sort of archon/angel/celestial warrior (Community service was part of her requirements to get into the LG afterlife?) or even somone else giving her a true res. Let the speculation continue.

Incase you didn't notice, I like Miko :smallsmile:

[MickJay]

The decision might be hard to make, but it's simple; at least in most cases, player can guess if the DM wants really to make him either die or fall or not. I think most players would expect DM to reward their hard decision with 1. not falling 2. something else. If they die, they'll expect to be resurrected as the bare minimum, unless they've been told "if you die, you'll stay dead, permanently". Most paladin players when put in situation where they know they'll fall if they do something will always pick a different course of action; the decision is simple because the "falling" options are treated as if they weren't there (unless players can avoid metagaming completly). DM can still put his paladin in a situation where every choice carries some risk of falling, but that would make phylactery pretty useless (unless DM actually expects paladin to come up with some alternative on his own, and THAT kind of situation I'd want to roleplay; but then, the phylactery would be again of little use, except maybe as means to make sure the new plan is good).

I just convinced myself the phylactery is most useful if your DM is somewhat mediocre; with a good one it's not necessary, with a bad one it won't help anyway. :smallbiggrin:

[David Argall]

(While some claim vast majority of the remainder must be other variants of Evil, that isn't supported by evidence, at least for orcs- MMIV points out most of the exceptions are CN, not LE or NE)
MM4 says CN is the most common exception, not that most of the exceptions are CN. [This should likely be deemed an error as CN and NE should be at least equal in size. The history of the orc in the game has been of evil foe, not chaotic.] When there are 8 exceptions, the most common one can be 13%, not 51%.
When we start with a race that is "usually" X, that means the majority are not, which in turn means that reading "the most common exception" as "majority" comes close to making the most common exception more common than the officially labeled most common. Thus at 40%, there would be 60% of other alignments, and a majority of the exception is 30%, and can easily be higher, making the two alignments pretty much equal. A more likely split is closer to 15% each CN and NE.



The chaos-Law axis does not refer to local laws and more than the evil-good axis does
This is mistaking the exception for the rule. The local laws may not be Lawful, but that is the way to bet. The chaotic considers the local law only to the point he can't get to the border faster than the cops. The lawful obeys until he finds a valid lawful reason not to, and he does not hunt for that reason.
Our evil-good access is effectively neutral about the local laws, obeying when convenient and violating when there is serious reason. Our chaotic doesn't need a reason. And our lawful obeys unless there is major reason not to.

[hamishspence]

most common exception then. And the game designers didn't consider it an error. Maybe they decided Orcs were Chaotic Evil rather than Chaotic Evil.

Most likely split- unless the designers choose to state otherwise. As they did.

This would fit their role in various R.A. Salavtore novels.

[The Minx]

Context can be important. in war, in cities, etc, when your Evil Enemy has surrendered, promptly lopping his head off is very questionable. But if enemy is attacking you/someone else, and risk of a death is unacceptably high by switching to non-lethal, lethal is OK.

Roy's comment on unnecessary killing in Origin is a pretty fair rebuke to the paladin in that- sometimes OoTS paladins don't live up to the rules of some D&D sourcebooks.

The example you cite wasn't really "far from civilization".

Though the paladin in Origin was a jerk, and the Orks were victims of racial profiling and not invading, that was the reason attacking them was wrong, not that a genuine threat shouldn't have been attacked. Also, if a genuine threat happened to be looking into a musical concert, wouldn't you still act? Bin Laden going to a U2 live performance wouldn't get off scot free simply because he wasn't threatening anyone at that particular point in time, for instance. :smallsmile:



This is mistaking the exception for the rule. The local laws may not be Lawful, but that is the way to bet. The chaotic considers the local law only to the point he can't get to the border faster than the cops. The lawful obeys until he finds a valid lawful reason not to, and he does not hunt for that reason.
Our evil-good access is effectively neutral about the local laws, obeying when convenient and violating when there is serious reason. Our chaotic doesn't need a reason. And our lawful obeys unless there is major reason not to.

Um no, not necessarily. Lawful does not mean legalistic. The definition is:


Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

The closest thing to "obeys laws" would be "respects authority", but that doesn't mean local laws, necessarily. Especially if the local ruler rules by arbitrary whim.

[David Argall]

Um no, not necessarily. Lawful does not mean legalistic.

that doesn't mean local laws, necessarily. Especially if the local ruler rules by arbitrary whim.

Notice how you keep saying "necessarily". It's the term you use when you want to mention the rare exception. So effectively you are saying "Lawful does mean legalistic and obeying local laws, but not quite 100% of the time."

[OOTS_Supporter]

Notice how you keep saying "necessarily". It's the term you use when you want to mention the rare exception. So effectively you are saying "Lawful does mean legalistic and obeying local laws, but not quite 100% of the time."

It actually means not always. Not rarely.

[The Minx]

Notice how you keep saying "necessarily". It's the term you use when you want to mention the rare exception. So effectively you are saying "Lawful does mean legalistic and obeying local laws, but not quite 100% of the time."

No, it is not.

[David Argall]

It actually means not always. Not rarely.
So you are saying that "not necessarily" does not necessarily mean rarely.

That's something I can agree with, tho it works out to an average of rarely.

[Shatteredtower]

So you are saying that "not necessarily" does not necessarily mean rarely.

That's something I can agree with, tho it works out to an average of rarely.

No, it doesn't. The percentage of lawful people that adhere to a higher law than the local one has never been indicated.

[Warren Dew]

Miko is the Giant's unintended masterpiece....

Even after the plot finally still followed through, and Miko was disgraced and killed, I clearly remember her as the only character in this comic which is
a) Good
b) Principled (Roy is cutting to many corners, see Belkar)
c) and has a spine/shows initiative and powerful Determination (Durkon's single weakness)
The reason why she is a tragic hero is that she's a hero, in a story that has been lacking one for long stretches of it's plot.

Yes, exactly. The words "unintended masterpiece" are perfect for describing her.

I think this is partly because she was created based on a mistaken premise: that strict paladins are hated by roleplaying gamers because the strict paladins are a problem.

The truth is rather the opposite: roleplaying gamers enjoy playing in parties that are much more diverse than are contemplated by the game background, and require unrealistic flexibility on the part of all the party members. Strict paladins don't have that degree of flexibility.

Strict paladins would not be a problem at all in solo adventuring, and Miko is essentially a solo adventurer. She's only a problem when viewed as a party member of the Order of the Stick, and that's not a logical way of viewing her.


One hopes that flame wars are created not by the topic at hand but by those who throw the flames.

I think a lot of flamewars are started by trolls. The only way a discussion on this topic will avoid flames is if the people with well reasoned opinions refrain from voicing them.

Still, if you're interested in my answers, here they are:

Lawful good. Lots/few. Yes. No. Yes. Mildly. No.

[whitelaughter]

I must say that the gods must be bastards if they were to give a guy the ability to always see evil in others and the power to punish it, but then to punish that guy if he uses the latter ability... singe he cannot use his power to see the extent of evil in others... but then ALSO expect him to be pro-active. :smallbiggrin:

Not really relevant to Miko. She had the power of Detect Evil, but didn't use it on Shinjo. Foolish.
Now, there are ways to block Detect Evil; she'd learned that with Belkar's sheet of lead. And she will have heard about, or even memorised, Undetectable Alignment.

However, Paladin's have a seond way to detect evil that isn't usually considered - the "Backslap of Smite Evil". "Hail fellow adventurer!"[slap on back and Smite]. With a non-evil character, nothing happens, continue talking. With an evil character, Miko would be doing more damage than her katana would normally do - that will have to be obvious!
The Backslap of Detect Evil should always be used before allowing another character access to anything plot relevant. And you don't even need to tell the other PCs what you are doing. And be sure to cultivate the affable personality who'll 'josh' with other PCs, so that the cases when Smite Evil is used don't stand out.

[kpenguin]

Not really relevant to Miko. She had the power of Detect Evil, but didn't use it on Shinjo. Foolish.
Now, there are ways to block Detect Evil; she'd learned that with Belkar's sheet of lead. And she will have heard about, or even memorised, Undetectable Alignment.

Wait, why should she have used Detect Evil on Shinjo? He's Neutral Good, it wouldn't have picked up anything.

Shojo's Chaotic Good. Hinjo's Lawful Good. Shinjo must therefore be Neutral Good.

[Kaytara]

Wait, why should she have used Detect Evil on Shinjo? He's Neutral Good, it wouldn't have picked up anything.

Shojo's Chaotic Good. Hinjo's Lawful Good. Shinjo must therefore be Neutral Good.

Not to mention that Miko easily got around THAT little hurdle. "Everyone in this room but you and I are agents of evil, whether or not their alignment registers as such." When it became necessary, she rationalized that the alignment was irrelevant.

[hamishspence]

Under certain extreme circumstances (manipulated or mind-controlled non-evil enemy) paladins are in fact allowed to take that tack (BoVD)

However, it does stipulate lives must be directly threatened by the non-evil character (typically, a lot of lives, in the Poison The Water Supply example given)

In other words- Sometimes (very rarely) its OK to kill the non evil.

Most of the time, given the fact that you can be evil without being an immediate threat to other people's lives, its not ok to "Just Kill" the evil.

[The Minx]

Not really relevant to Miko. She had the power of Detect Evil, but didn't use it on Shinjo. Foolish.
Now, there are ways to block Detect Evil; she'd learned that with Belkar's sheet of lead. And she will have heard about, or even memorised, Undetectable Alignment.

I didn't claim it was relevant to Miko specifically or even to the twelve gods in general. It was a generic statement in response to hamishspence's post. :smallsmile: EDIT: Is it not Shojo you're talking about? She had lost her confidence in her Detect Evil ability at that stage, hence her confusion (as she had relied on it overmuch in the past).


However, Paladin's have a seond way to detect evil that isn't usually considered - the "Backslap of Smite Evil". "Hail fellow adventurer!"[slap on back and Smite]. With a non-evil character, nothing happens, continue talking. With an evil character, Miko would be doing more damage than her katana would normally do - that will have to be obvious!
The Backslap of Detect Evil should always be used before allowing another character access to anything plot relevant. And you don't even need to tell the other PCs what you are doing. And be sure to cultivate the affable personality who'll 'josh' with other PCs, so that the cases when Smite Evil is used don't stand out.

Nice 'sploitable mechanic call, there. Don't know how popular you'd be (and you could only do it so often per day), but It would certainly work. :smallbiggrin:


Most of the time, given the fact that you can be evil without being an immediate threat to other people's lives, its not ok to "Just Kill" the evil.

Immediate threat, as opposed to long-term threat? When is evil not a threat?

[hamishspence]

Given the number of times "Smite makes Right" has been parodied, the assumption that knowing a creature is evil is all thats needed for you to kill it with no alignment repercussions whatsoever should be questioned.

Zogonia parody example: the paladin who sneaks into a cleric's house, smothers her with a pillow, then takes all her money. Under the strip in the book:

"Most nights, this paladin lurks in an alleyway covertly detecting evil on passers-by. If one pings as evil, he throws a poisoned knife in their back and runs away"

Perhaps not the best approach to Detect Evil.

There are many ways of dealing with the threat- investigating it. Heroes of Horror points out that Detect Evil does not mix well with cities and touchy police force.

[The Minx]

Given the number of times "Smite makes Right" has been parodied, the assumption that knowing a creature is evil is all thats needed for you to kill it with no alignment repercussions whatsoever should be questioned.

Zogonia parody example: the paladin who sneaks into a cleric's house, smothers her with a pillow, then takes all her money. Under the strip in the book:

"Most nights, this paladin lurks in an alleyway covertly detecting evil on passers-by. If one pings as evil, he throws a poisoned knife in their back and runs away"

Perhaps not the best approach to Detect Evil.

There are many ways of dealing with the threat- investigating it. Heroes of Horror points out that Detect Evil does not mix well with cities and touchy police force.

Again this touches on, but skirts around, the crux of the matter. It seems to me that you really don't believe that "Detect Evil" does in fact, you know, actually Detect Evil. Suppose that after your lengthy investigations, you come to the conclusion that the person is indeed evil. During which time, the suspect in question has murdered some more. What exactly did you accomplish? Not tick off the local cops? How do you know that the investigation is more fair and more reliable than a divinely-granted power, anyway?

I think that you are using the mores and standards of our universe to judge the conduct of those in another. In our universe, just deciding that someone is bad and smiting them at a glance is utterly reprehensible. But that is due to the simple fact that we can NOT "detect evil" supernaturally. Add a new capability like that and the situation changes fundamentally.

The silly parody in question fails on account of the lack of chivalric conduct by the paladin, which is a presumed part of the paladin theme. Smiting a known evil does NOT violate that code, whereas sneaking in and using poison does.

[hamishspence]

main reason for citiing it is D&D settings, within cities, tend to use the same mores and standards, with Evil crime lords and paladins encountering each other, and the paldins knowing that unless they have evidence, they will be in big trouble for just cutting people down on the street.

Which setting varies, but Faerun, Greyhawk, Eberron, none of these combine Detect Evil with Kill On Sight.

Evil is not synonymous with Multiple-murderer in most 3.0-3.5 D&D settings.

Which is the main reason I've been saying that- since I've read numerous D&D sourcebooks and novels, which make Evil rather common, certainly not a tiny fraction of the population, and paladins in these novels don't kill the evil people they meet, unless it's self-defence or defence of another.

And "defending the world from future evil acts" generally doesn't count, nor does "punishment for past acts I have no knowledge of"

[The Minx]

main reason for citiing it is D&D settings, within cities, tend to use the same mores and standards, with Evil crime lords and paladins encountering each other, and the paldins knowing that unless they have evidence, they will be in big trouble for just cutting people down on the street.

Naturally. Then it is a matter of pragmatism, rather than anything else.

Still, given that the ability to supernaturally detect evil exists in a setting, does it make any sense that it should not be employed by the authorities as well? I guess this is another example of how it is impossible to base a campaign world on a historical setting with magic simply being thrown in: if the entire context of what is and is not possible changes so radically, then the society would change with it. For instance, medieval castles becoming obsolete in the real world with cannons appearing, but somehow making it in a world with Disintegrate and Fly spells, or phalanxes of guys with archaic weapons in a world with Fireball, just as two out of many, many examples. Detect Evil would alter the fundamentals of justice just as surely as blaster magic would alter the battle scene.


Which setting varies, but Faerun, Greyhawk, Eberron, none of these combine Detect Evil with Kill On Sight.

Evil is not synonymous with Multiple-murderer in most 3.0-3.5 D&D settings.

Hence, the phylactery requirement cited above.

[hamishspence]

If that was the case, why was Belkar sure that Miko would Fall when she killed him when he was unarmed? After all, by Origin info, he was a multiple murderer.

Similarly, why does Hinjo specifically state Belkar, having committed 2nd degree murder, still gets a trial? Or Therkla?

The way I see it, for general circumstances, murder, called out as Evil in Fiendish Codex 2, is defined using the same general definitions that the real world uses. If a person were to witness someone carry out a murder, and then attacked him without warning, while he was unarmed, they'd be guilty of murder.

Detect Evil is a good way of knowing if a person is someone you really don't want to be associated with (hence the non-association clause) but as proof of specific wrongdoing its not so good.

From what I've heard, in Dragonlance, the Kingpriest instituted a campaign to kill everyone evil, no matter what they'd done. It did not end well.

The phylactery of Faithfulness idea is interesting, but most low-level paladins won't be able to afford one.

[The Minx]

If that was the case, why was Belkar sure that Miko would Fall when she killed him when he was unarmed? After all, by Origin info, he was a multiple murderer.

Because Belkar is a tool. He didn't even realize that Durkon wouldn't be able to raise him on account of lacking the diamonds to do so. I think he can be pretty safely discounted as an expert on paladin codes.


Similarly, why does Hinjo specifically state Belkar, having committed 2nd degree murder, still gets a trial? Or Therkla?

Because he is still lord of the city. And perhaps, because like I pointed out above, inserting real-world protocols into a world with magic, or magic into a historic setting and expecting things to work doesn't really make sense. It's OK with the OOTS, because it is meant to be a parody. In more "serious" settings, it stretches credibility.


Detect Evil is a good way of knowing if a person is someone you really don't want to be associated with (hence the non-association clause) but as proof of specific wrongdoing its not so good.

It is certainly good for the non-association rule, if nothing else. But while you don't know the specific crime, you do know that one exists.


The way I see it, for general circumstances, murder, called out as Evil in Fiendish Codex 2, is defined using the same general definitions that the real world uses. If a person were to witness someone carry out a murder, and then attacked him without warning, while he was unarmed, they'd be guilty of murder.

Not if they were actually empowered to mete out justice. :smallsmile:


From what I've heard, in Dragonlance, the Kingpriest instituted a campaign to kill everyone evil, no matter what they'd done. It did not end well.

Writer prejudice does not make proof, you know. :smallsmile: The Kingpriest was deliberately written as a lunatic, and "evil vs good" in Dragonlance is very dubiously executed in general, IMHO.


The phylactery of Faithfulness idea is interesting, but most low-level paladins won't be able to afford one.

This is true. You'll need to start out at 3rd level to get the money (you start with 2700 gp at that point, 900 if you start at 2nd level). It's still pretty early, though.

[Kish]

Again this touches on, but skirts around, the crux of the matter. It seems to me that you really don't believe that "Detect Evil" does in fact, you know, actually Detect Evil. Suppose that after your lengthy investigations, you come to the conclusion that the person is indeed evil. During which time, the suspect in question has murdered some more. What exactly did you accomplish? Not tick off the local cops? How do you know that the investigation is more fair and more reliable than a divinely-granted power, anyway?
Because Detect Evil, like most magical detection methods, is fairly easy to fool in either direction. And a paladin who thinks, "It's one of my class abilities, so it's divinely granted and must be right" may or may not be heading for a Fall, but is definitely an arrogant idiot.

[The Minx]

Because Detect Evil, like most magical detection methods, is fairly easy to fool in either direction. And a paladin who thinks, "It's one of my class abilities, so it's divinely granted and must be right" may or may not be heading for a Fall, but is definitely an arrogant idiot.

There are those who claim that of paladins in general, you know. :smallbiggrin:

Look, you are judging the paladin based on mores and philosophy of today. However, the whole concept of the paladin class is based on medieval legends of spiritual knights. If you look through these legends you will find they NEVER approached their challenges in a modern, analytical manner. The whole philosophy on which they are based is one of faith. You may not know it, but in the middle ages, application of reason was frowned upon by many thinkers, because it was thought that mere mortals were not wise enough to sift through the ins and outs of what was right and wrong in the world. In fact, it was those people who did so were looked upon as arrogant idiots. Those who operated on faith in divine guidance were NOT. To the people who penned these legends, it made sense that if there was an omniscient benevolent being out there who guided those who truly believed, then not relying on it and thinking instead that they could and should muddle through it by their fallible selves was the road to disaster. Hence my remark regarding the gods being bastards if they granted a detect evil ability which was not reliable to detect evil.

Nowadays, this is not regarded as the way to go. Amongst other things, we are expected to grant everyone the right to a fair investigation and trial. This is not because we think the evil should be protected, but to distinguish the guilty from the innocent. Our mode of thought is radically different from that of the time when the legends which spawned the paladin originated.

Now, to be quite honest, I am absolutely NOT a person who relies on inspiration alone, I am very much a rationalist. More so than most, I suspect. However, I recognize that the mode of thought which, to us, is wholly alien, makes sense within the context of its underlying assumptions. To include the paladin class in a campaign is to acknowledge these underlying assumptions as valid within the context of the campaign. If not, then you REALLY need to think very hard about what the paladin is supposed to represent, and whether you want it in there at all.


PS: you're right about the point that detections can be foiled. That's once again the reason for the phylactery.

[MickJay]

Very good point on the medieval mentality, but as you observerd, unfortunately D&D doesn't really support it, absolute faith in the god-given Detect Evil tends to make Paladins fall... only reasonable interpretation I can think of is that the gods are forcing their believers to think. Weird.

How much people in D&D world, on average, are evil? Even assuming it would be no more than 10% for Human race (with much higher percentage for "evil" races), then detect evil-slash, slash approach would still cause constant massacres, and ultimately physical elimination of evil people. Such solution could be appealing from certain perspective, but since apparently there still are evil people around, then it's not a valid option paladins can take...

[hamishspence]

thing is though- most people are more comfortable with modern real-world morals- torture + slavery + discrimination = evil, everyone gets a trial, etc. Which is why BoED took that tack in the first place.

Given that most D&D players won't be sticking perfectly to medieval morals, the system reflects this.

Hence with, when you have dtected evil, doing some poking around to find out why, whether the evil person is merely a self-centred bully who takes advantage of everyone around them, or a Well Intentioned Extremist willing to resort to evil acts to help others, and so on- there is a great deal of variety in types of evil.

Quintessenial Paladin 2 gave 3 types of evil- Evil Everywhere, Rare Evil, Evil as Supernatural taint. Only the third allowed Smite On Sight.

And, for comparison, in the third, a serial killer wouldn't detect as evil, but a serial killer whose killings were sacrifices to demons, devils, dark gods, would.

[Kish]

There are those who claim that of paladins in general, you know. :smallbiggrin:

Look, you are judging the paladin based on mores and philosophy of today.


Yes.

To include the paladin class in a campaign is to acknowledge these underlying assumptions as valid within the context of the campaign.

But those assumptions are conspicuously lacking from the description of the paladin class in the 3.x edition Player's Handbooks, and that doesn't mean nothing is there. A great deal is there, including the statement that a paladin must be a champion of Good--real good--not what his/her "faith" claims to be good. The paladin class isn't even linked to the worship of any god. Socially speaking, D&D worlds are very much not analogues to real-world medieval periods. Imparting real-world medieval spiritual knights into D&D is changing the D&D paladin class, even if you don't add gender requirements or remove nonhumans.

[The Minx]

Yes.

But those assumptions are conspicuously lacking from the description of the paladin class in the 3.x edition Player's Handbooks, and that doesn't mean nothing is there. A great deal is there, including the statement that a paladin must be a champion of Good--real good--not what his/her "faith" claims to be good. The paladin class isn't even linked to the worship of any god. Socially speaking, D&D worlds are very much not analogues to real-world medieval periods.

I suspect that this is because the people who write and play the D&D games are not always comfortable with entering modes of thought so radically alien. Galahad and Lancelot are often expressly cited as examples of the paladin class in earlier editions of the game, and it is quite obvious what the original designers were gunning for. (EDIT: I see hamishspence has come to this conclusion too.)

But, what is "real" good? We are not talking about faith in inverted commas, we are talking about actual divine inspiration. Not my worldview mind you. But: if the divine really is active in the world, desires its agent to do good, knows what is going on enough to make the paladin fall if he steps out of line, and grants the ability to detect evil amongst other things, it makes little sense to assert that it is impossible or wrong to count on inspiration directly granted by that divinity as being a guide.

That the current edition fails to adequately acknowledge the philosophical paradigm of the class it sought to include is, to me, simply an example of poor writing rather than the idea that the paladin works as merely a glorified 21st century cop with some healing powers and a medieval sword in his hand. The class concept simply does not make any sense that way. If the paladin is only that and still claims to be a holy warrior with divinely granted power, something's very much amiss.

[Rotipher]

While it's possible to try to extrapolate how a genuine medieval mindset would interpret a positive "Detect Evil" result, it's not necessarily a good idea to follow that too closely. First, because it's an invitation to futile argument -- how can you ever prove you're interpreting it "right"? -- and second, because too much historical accuracy leaves the modern gamer feeling, deep down, that their "heroic" paladin just isn't heroic. No matter how deep one's role-playing, you can't entirely leave your own beliefs and moral values behind, and I doubt the rewards of feeling that you're "accurate" are worth feeling that your PC is actually doing wrong, in the name of a medieval view of right.

In medieval times, being clinically depressed was commonly considered sinful, and being anorexic was often considered tantamount to holiness. How many of us can honestly emulate a moral code that sees the world in that way? How many of us, if we're DMs, can justify asking our players to behave as if that mindset is more accurate -- worse, more moral -- than one that recognizes these things as tragic medical problems? Just because the technology and props of a D&D campaign are medieval doesn't mean we have to forfeit our real (modern) perspective on what's right, to "fit in" with the melieu. Unless you're playing a campaign set in the historical Middle Ages, it's far more comfortable, IME, to construct a fictional in-game morality that's compatible with the players' own ethics. Few people play RPGs so they can feel like judgemental, intolerant, self-righteous fanatics; why force paladins to act like them?


FWIW, I recall a scene from one of those "generic D&D" novels -- the ones that feature the iconic 3E characters -- that might offer an example of how the designers meant for paladins to behave. (If those books were good for anything, it was to show newbies the way various classes and races can best be portrayed.) In that scene, Krusk has been captured by villagers, who assume [wrongly] that he was a member of the orc raiding party that just attacked their community. Alhandra is passing through town, and as a paladin, she steps in to avert a lynching, and offers to properly determine the half-orc's guilt or innocence. She questions the prisoner and a few local witnesses, discovers that Krusk had entered the village from the opposite direction and had been seen elsewhere during the raid, and thus, finds him innocent of raiding.

After the half-orc's release, another iconic PC asks Alhandra why she hadn't used her Detect Evil power to investigate the accusation against Krusk. She replies -- in a vivid demonstration of proper 3E paladin behavior -- that she didn't need to, because whether or not Krusk was Evil would not have changed the trial's outcome in the slightest. If he'd been Evil-aligned yet innocent of the crime, she would've let him go in the name of justice, and if he'd been non-Evil but still a part of the raiding party, she would have let his death-sentence be carried out.

[The Minx]

While it's possible to try to extrapolate how a genuine medieval mindset would interpret a positive "Detect Evil" result, it's not necessarily a good idea to follow that too closely. First, because it's an invitation to futile argument -- how can you ever prove you're interpreting it "right"? -- and second, because too much historical accuracy leaves the modern gamer feeling, deep down, that their "heroic" paladin just isn't heroic. No matter how deep one's role-playing, you can't entirely leave your own beliefs and moral values behind, and I doubt the rewards of feeling that you're "accurate" are worth feeling that your PC is actually doing wrong, in the name of a medieval view of right.

You "prove" you are interpreting it "right" by it telling you so. Inspiration, all that. :smallwink: I agree you cannot leave your own feelings entirely behind, but that's where Role Playing comes in. I can roleplay a Chaotic Evil monster, without having to embrace its ideals.


In medieval times, being clinically depressed was commonly considered sinful, and being anorexic was often considered tantamount to holiness. How many of us can honestly emulate a moral code that sees the world in that way? How many of us, if we're DMs, can justify asking our players to behave as if that mindset is more accurate -- worse, more moral -- than one that recognizes these things as tragic medical problems? Just because the technology and props of a D&D campaign are medieval doesn't mean we have to forfeit our real (modern) perspective on what's right, to "fit in" with the melieu. Unless you're playing a campaign set in the historical Middle Ages, it's far more comfortable, IME, to construct a fictional in-game morality that's compatible with the players' own ethics. Few people play RPGs so they can feel like judgemental, intolerant, self-righteous fanatics; why force paladins to act like them?

In medieval times, people believed a lot of silly things. You don't have to embrace all of them in order to effectively play a character who relies on inspiration and faith. Firstly, "use the force" more, and second, perhaps, you can give the phylactery as a paladin power rather than an item. The spiritual warrior of legend possessed, through faith, the ability to tell right from wrong and the moral obligation to act on it. So, the DM should TELL the paladin player in advance whether something is out of line or not, IF he stops to think about it. The player can then choose whether to do right or wrong. EDIT: and, if that gives away too much, don't include the class.


FWIW, I recall a scene from one of those "generic D&D" novels -- the ones that feature the iconic 3E characters -- that might offer an example of how the designers meant for paladins to behave. (If those books were good for anything, it was to show newbies the way various classes and races can best be portrayed.) In that scene, Krusk has been captured by villagers, who assume [wrongly] that he was a member of the orc raiding party that just attacked their community. Alhandra is passing through town, and as a paladin, she steps in to avert a lynching, and offers to properly determine the half-orc's guilt or innocence. She questions the prisoner and a few local witnesses, discovers that Krusk had entered the village from the opposite direction and had been seen elsewhere during the raid, and thus, finds him innocent of raiding.

After the half-orc's release, another iconic PC asks Alhandra why she hadn't used her Detect Evil power to investigate the accusation against Krusk. She replies -- in a vivid demonstration of proper 3E paladin behavior -- that she didn't need to, because whether or not Krusk was Evil would not have changed the trial's outcome in the slightest. If he'd been Evil-aligned yet innocent of the crime, she would've let him go in the name of justice, and if he'd been non-Evil but still a part of the raiding party, she would have let his death-sentence be carried out.

Modern ideals. These concepts are morally laudable, and obviously something to be emulated - in real life. If you accept this, and reject the use of faith and inspiration as a moral guide, then you DO NOT BELIEVE in the ideals of the faith-warrior, and then the presence of the paladin in a campaign is out of place.

[hamishspence]

thats a pretty fair summary. Justice mean punishment for specific crime, not for "assumed crimes" and is based on guilt only: a non-evil, or even Good, person who has committed a crime gets punished according to the crime, not their alignment.

and D&D uses a fascimile of modern morals- becauyse we're modern players and a sufficiently big Moral Dissonance will break the game.

Yes, the fit between the paladin as described, and the paladin as written in the books and the campaign settings, isn't perfect, but it does show, that D&D paladin doesn't mean person who believes his cause/god is infallible to the extent of killing without more justification that a Detect spell.

Tymora's Luck- the paladin actually goes against her deity because she knows that what her deity is doing (merging a Good and an Evil deity to recreate a Neutral one, against their express wishes), is wrong.

[Kish]

But, what is "real" good? We are not talking about faith in inverted commas, we are talking about actual divine inspiration. Not my worldview mind you. But: if the divine really is active in the world, desires its agent to do good,

See, that's the problem. Deities in D&D have never been omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent. Whatever the source paladins get their powers from, it's clearly not unique to good either, or there wouldn't be any such thing as blackguards. Paladins have a number of abilities that resemble, duplicate, or (in some cases) simply are spells granted to clerics by those fallible deities. One of those abilities is to cast Detect Evil, exactly as the cleric spell, once per day. In OotS, it appeared from Miko's Fall that the source of her powers was the Twelve Gods directly, and in OotS, the gods are established as not merely fallible but downright childish.


That the current edition fails to adequately acknowledge the philosophical paradigm of the class it sought to include

But your phrasing is biased. As biased, I would say, as speaking similarly of the D&D writers' strange and inexplicable failure to make being a wizard punishable by burning at the stake, or restrict player roles to male characters.

[hamishspence]

Yes: this is Fantasy, not Medieval setting. And fantasy with a big collection of differences from a medieval world, indeed, a Fantasy setting with some differences from many other Fantasy settings for that matter.

[The Minx]

See, that's the problem. Deities in D&D have never been omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent. Whatever the source paladins get their powers from, it's clearly not unique to good either, or there wouldn't be any such thing as blackguards. Paladins have a number of abilities that resemble, duplicate, or (in some cases) simply are spells granted to clerics by those fallible deities. One of those abilities is to cast Detect Evil, exactly as the cleric spell, once per day. In OotS, it appeared from Miko's Fall that the source of her powers was the Twelve Gods directly, and in OotS, the gods are established as not merely fallible but downright childish.

The gods are certainly depicted as childish in the OOTS-universe, though even in most D&D settings, the gods are, while not perfect, certainly less so than the mortals who serve them (how much higher is their wisdom bonus, do you think?). I would also like to point out the distinction between a regular believer and a specific agent. As for blackguards, they rely on infernal powers, and certainly dark knights can be found in fiction too, who replace the divine with the infernal.


But your phrasing is biased. As biased, I would say, as speaking similarly of the D&D writers' strange and inexplicable failure to make being a wizard punishable by burning at the stake, or restrict player roles to male characters.

Not all legends had users of magic burned at the stake (you're right about the the gender rights issues, though :smallsmile:).

EDIT: I'm not gunning for a historically accurate medieval setting, but do expect some of the ideas of the legendary setting which spawned the class in question.

[hamishspence]

Depends on situation. Paladins used to get massively penalized for any sneaky method. (in Pools of Darkness, one got condemned to become a skeletal-looking ghost for sneaking into the uber-evil villain's camp, and killing him, and only got a chance to redeem himself hundreds of years later)

But in 3.5, Sneak attack is not evil and there are prestige classes designed to advance both Sneak and Smite.

D&D draws from a great many "legendary settings" some of which have Good and Evil people working together against something which is a much greater evil.

For an example, Celestia, epitome of a LG plane, is willing to allow a CE wizard to reside there, after he showed them he wanted to atone, and had others vouch for him.

[Rotipher]

The spiritual warrior of legend possessed, through faith, the ability to tell right from wrong and the moral obligation to act on it.

And if the divine power in question is one that happens to endorse reason, rather than denigrate it? There are a lot of gods with wisdom, knowledge, or the like in their portfolios, and paladins who serve those gods might consider a criminal trial to be a priceless opportunity to showcase how clear thought can serve higher justice.




So, the DM should TELL the paladin player in advance whether something is out of line or not, IF he stops to think about it. The player can then choose whether to do right or wrong.

Keeping a PC's player -- particularly a newbie player, or one who's just joined the campaign in question -- informed about the in-game moral impact of particular actions is something a DM ought to be willing to do, without any need for a phylactery. Otherwise it's not fair to the players of paladins, or of clerics for that matter.

In-character, those hints could come from pure faith and divine insight, if that's what you prefer for your games. In a modern-mindset campaign, in which paladins don't necessarily have a direct hotline to a god and/or those gods' moral fallability is acknowledged, such metagame guidance may instead be ascribed to the paladin's training, anecdotal knowledge of famed paladins' deeds, hypothetical questions posed by the paladin's mentor, etc.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Let me make one thing clear before I answer. I LOTHE Miko as a character. Still let me see if this list helps me work out how.
1) What was Miko's alignment post-fall up to her death? Did she actually go through an alignment shift or was she still LG, despite committing an evil and/or chaotic act.I think she did. One evil act (and it was that, the killing of a defenceless individual) does not an evil aligmnet make but as far as I am concerned Miko had been in thin ice for a long time. She died LN, she was not evil however. At the time I felt the fall was long overdue, however in hindsight I feel that whilst she may have been on dodgy ground for a long time she would not have fallen before that.

2) What legitimate complaints, if any, does Miko have against the Order of the Stick? Conversely, what legitimate complaints, if any, does the Order of the Stick have against Miko?None and few. The point is that Miko attacked them because of a mistake but then she arrested them. They did nothing malicious and all of her behaviour was in line with what they agreed to, albeit rather too strictly.

3) Did you, at any point in the story, feel sympathy for Miko, especially the strip in which she died?No. Not at all. If she had not been the same character then maybe, but my irritation for her was so high her death was simply a relief.

4) Did you, at any point in the story, feel frustrated or angry with Miko. Has Miko inspired any real hatred?Oh yes. It grew slowly, in the first few strips her detect+smite attitude grated a little as it emerged and over time, as the character developed and evolved, it got worse. Every new facet of her character grated more and more.

5) Is Miko a good literary character? Was her role in the story a significant one and would her removal improve or harm the strip?No but the thing that irritates me so is that if the Lawful Moronic was softened and the character made just that tiniest bit more sane then she might have been. Her role was significant and what was tried might have been wonderful if it had been done slightly differently. Remove? No. Change? Yes.

6) Did Rich ever really intend for Miko to be a romantic interest for Roy?No. It is alien to her entire character.

7) Will Miko return?No. The story is done.

All in all I am glad that she is gone, but the hatred has simmered down to a mild irritation.

[The Minx]

Depends on situation. Paladins used to get massively penalized for any sneaky method. (in Pools of Darkness, one got condemned to become a skeletal-looking ghost for sneaking into the uber-evil villain's camp, and killing him, and only got a chance to redeem himself hundreds of years later)

But in 3.5, Sneak attack is not evil and there are prestige classes designed to advance both Sneak and Smite.

3.5 has a lot of ... odd prestige classes. Not all of them are intended to work together.


D&D draws from a great many "legendary settings" some of which have Good and Evil people working together against something which is a much greater evil.

For an example, Celestia, epitome of a LG plane, is willing to allow a CE wizard to reside there, after he showed them he wanted to atone, and had others vouch for him.

Redemption is also a trope of the spiritual warrior of classical legend. :smallsmile:



And if the divine power in question is one that happens to endorse reason, rather than denigrate it? There are a lot of gods with wisdom, knowledge, or the like in their portfolios, and paladins who serve those gods might consider a criminal trial to be a priceless opportunity to showcase how clear thought can serve higher justice

Then you are transplanting the paladin trope into a scenario radically different from the one which originated it. Is the paladin class really appropriate for such a campaign?

And what if he is NOT allied with such deities? How does a deity logically work with application of reason by the individual mortal, in any case? Does the deity not know better than the mortal, and if not, how is s/he a deity in the first place?



Keeping a PC's player -- particularly a newbie player, or one who's just joined the campaign in question -- informed about the in-game moral impact of particular actions is something a DM ought to be willing to do, without any need for a phylactery. Otherwise it's not fair to the players of paladins, or of clerics for that matter.

Agreed absolutely. Unfortunately, not all DMs are as willing to be fair, unless there is an actual game mechanic that says they must be.


In-character, those hints could come from pure faith and divine insight, if that's what you prefer for your games. In a modern-mindset campaign, in which paladins don't necessarily have a direct hotline to a god and/or those gods' moral fallability is acknowledged, such metagame guidance may instead be ascribed to the paladin's training, anecdotal knowledge of famed paladins' deeds, hypothetical questions posed by the paladin's mentor, etc.

Perhaps. But what is a paladin if NOT a "guardian of the faith"? If the gods are as fallible as morals, why call them gods?

[Kish]

Then you are transplanting the paladin trope into a scenario radically different from the one which originated it. Is the paladin class really appropriate for such a campaign?

I would say the paladin class, as it is presented in D&D, is far more appropriate for that sort of campaign than the one you appear to want to use it in.


And what if he is NOT allied with such deities? How does a deity logically work with application of reason by the individual mortal, in any case? Does the deity not know better than the mortal, and if not, how is s/he a deity in the first place?

The exact qualifiers for being a god in D&D are addressed in books I've read but don't have with me--but I think hamishspence probably does. Legends and Lore? Deities and Demigods? In any case...

Omniscience, omnipotence, and especially omnibenevolence are very much no part of being a deity in D&D. Some gods have extremely high wisdom, but not all, and some of those who do are still evil. "Infernal" points to devils, not to gods. "Divine" points to gods--all gods, good, evil, and neutral alike.

[MickJay]

What happens if paladins serve different gods, and their respective deities disagree slightly on what is the best course of action? If the case was borderline, could one paladin fall for something that another would not, if both paladins had the same motivations and views on the matter?

Or more generally, does the choice of deity influence what a paladin can do and what he can't?

[The Minx]

I would say the paladin class, as it is presented in D&D, is far more appropriate for that sort of campaign than the one you appear to want to use it in.

No, I really quite disagree. It all depends on what the paladin represents. How can he both be an agent of divine will, and yet not be, such that he needs to rely on his own reason?

This is all part and parcel of whether the campaign setting follows logically from the postulates that underpin it. In a world where the divine is remote and not proactive, then you would be right, but the paladin abilities reflect that this is NOT the case in settings where the paladin is present. Consider again: the paladin is under constant scrutiny by his god. The moment he slips and commits an evil act, BAM! he has fallen. Now: does it make sense that the god scrutinizes the actions of the paladin to this extent, and the paladin does not rely on the judgement of the deity in question to determine what is good? If the god is that pro-active in its judgements, then why should it apply to the paladin alone? If the paladin submits to such judgement of character, that means that the god is able and willing to scrutinize the actions of mortals and pass judgement on mortals and the paladin trusts him to do so. Why should it be that the god is only competent to judge the paladin and no-one else?


The exact qualifiers for being a god in D&D are addressed in books I've read but don't have with me--but I think hamishspence probably does. Legends and Lore? Deities and Demigods? In any case...

Omniscience, omnipotence, and especially omnibenevolence are very much no part of being a deity in D&D. Some gods have extremely high wisdom, but not all, and some of those who do are still evil. "Infernal" points to devils, not to gods. "Divine" points to gods--all gods, good, evil, and neutral alike.

I think I covered this angle already. :smallsmile: In any case, evil gods are hardly relevant in this particular discussion.

EDIT:


What happens if paladins serve different gods, and their respective deities disagree slightly on what is the best course of action? If the case was borderline, could one paladin fall for something that another would not, if both paladins had the same motivations and views on the matter?

Or more generally, does the choice of deity influence what a paladin can do and what he can't?

I honestly don't know. Perhaps they take a vote? :smallconfused:

Depends on the pantheon I guess. For instance, ancient Greeks had it rough: they couldn't serve the one god without offending the other, see Ulysses. (Though arguably the paladin trope doesn't quite fit that kind of setting).

[Kish]

In D&D 3.x edition (though evidently not in OotS so this is of limited relevance here), paladins don't get their powers from deities anyway.

[MickJay]

For Greeks, it wasn't always that bad; sure, in many myths favoring one god over another could ultimately lead to disaster (Trojan war), outright disrespecting of a god always led to a disaster, but the mentality tended to favor "give and get [in return]" approach. I make a sacrifice, god grants fertility, good luck, victory or whatever he's responsible for. Legend says that when Athenians were to pick their patron deity, Athena and Poseidon who were competing offered gifts, olive tree and a fresh water spring at Acropolis, respectively. Athena's gift was deemed more valueble, so she won.

Paladins wouldn't really fit in such world, especially since deities weren't either good or evil, they were simply gods; they could show mercy, be downright cruel, act in a way that would get a human severly punished, but they could do it because human rules didn't apply to them.

I hope that ^ doesn't fall under discussing RW religion, what with it being dead for fifteen centuries and technically not even being, in modern sense of the word, a religion in the first place. :smallwink:

Edit: so technically an atheistic paladin is possible? :smallconfused:

[The Minx]

In D&D 3.x edition (though evidently not in OotS so this is of limited relevance here), paladins don't get their powers from deities anyway.

Well, in that case the mysterious force that does grant them their powers, presumably that of the Ultimate Good for which they strive, should be just as competent judging other mortals as it is judging the paladin, no? Same principle holds as before, only without the fallibility of D&D gods to complicate things. :smallwink:


For Greeks, it wasn't always that bad; sure, in many myths favoring one god over another could ultimately lead to disaster (Trojan war), outright disrespecting of a god always led to a disaster, but the mentality tended to favor "give and get [in return]" approach. I make a sacrifice, god grants fertility, good luck, victory or whatever he's responsible for. Legend says that when Athenians were to pick their patron deity, Athena and Poseidon who were competing offered gifts, olive tree and a fresh water spring at Acropolis, respectively. Athena's gift was deemed more valueble, so she won.

Indeed. Though I seem to remember Poseidon giving the horse. Alas for the sea god, the Greeks preferred cultivation to animal husbandry.


Paladins wouldn't really fit in such world, especially since deities weren't either good or evil, they were simply gods; they could show mercy, be downright cruel, act in a way that would get a human severly punished, but they could do it because human rules didn't apply to them.

I hope that ^ doesn't fall under discussing RW religion, what with it being dead for fifteen centuries and technically not even being, in modern sense of the word, a religion in the first place. :smallwink:

I suspect ancient beliefs are A-OK, especially since we have Thor et.al. in the comic. :smallbiggrin:


Edit: so technically an atheistic paladin is possible? :smallconfused:

Well, at least he believes in a higher (supernatural) force for good. :smallconfused:

[Kish]

Edit: so technically an atheistic paladin is possible? :smallconfused:
I would venture that being an atheistic anything in a D&D world is fairly unlikely. The existence of gods is easily proven, after all.

Now, being atheistic as in not worshiping them, easily, yes.

[Warren Dew]

Under certain extreme circumstances (manipulated or mind-controlled non-evil enemy) paladins are in fact allowed to take that tack (BoVD)

However, it does stipulate lives must be directly threatened by the non-evil character (typically, a lot of lives, in the Poison The Water Supply example given)

If Miko's suppositions were true, a lot of people - likely much of the population of Azure City - were directly threatened by "Shinjo" being in cahoots with Xykon.

As it turns out, she was mistaken, but that was an error in logic, not an error in morals.


No matter how deep one's role-playing, you can't entirely leave your own beliefs and moral values behind, and I doubt the rewards of feeling that you're "accurate" are worth feeling that your PC is actually doing wrong, in the name of a medieval view of right.

You make an assumption that everyone's beliefs and morals are closer to what you view as "modern" than to something more medieval. I doubt that's true. Many deeply religious people still feel that faith is a better guide to morals than reason.


Unless you're playing a campaign set in the historical Middle Ages, it's far more comfortable, IME, to construct a fictional in-game morality that's compatible with the players' own ethics.

It's far more interesting, in my experience, to construct a game setting that isn't completely comfortable to the players.


Few people play RPGs so they can feel like judgemental, intolerant, self-righteous fanatics

True; modern morality facilitates that just fine, so no need for a roleplaying game.

We're getting away from paladins, though.


She replies -- in a vivid demonstration of proper 3E paladin behavior -- that she didn't need to, because whether or not Krusk was Evil would not have changed the trial's outcome in the slightest.

Excellent example of a campaign where paladins are expected to emphasize law over good. I don't think the rules require all campaigns to use the same interpretations, though.

[LuisDantas]

1) What was Miko's alignment post-fall up to her death? Did she actually go through an alignment shift or was she still LG, despite committing an evil and/or chaotic act.

True Neutral, as in "Neutral Insane".

That is best shown by her discussion with Hinjo and her rationale for escaping her cell. Miko had a very serious challenge at handling frustrations (as apparent from very early on, before her face showed even) and losing her pride as a Weapon of the Gods was the last straw for her. After that she just didn't have much of a grip on reality anymore.

As others noted, it was not that sudden a shift either; she had been on thin ice for quite some time, probably years before the strip began even. She had obviously been retreating into a self-styled interpretation of "Lawful" for a while already, and was only in the most technical sense "Good" for about the same time.


2) What legitimate complaints, if any, does Miko have against the Order of the Stick?

As I remember the situation, she has legitimate complaints about Belkar, who after all _did_ kill a guard and resist prison. Of course, the whole Order (except Durkon) resisted prison in #250-251 as well, but that was old story by the time we met Hinjo.

A good case can be made that she had many legitimate complaints agains Shojo, however. I happen to think so, anyway.


Conversely, what legitimate complaints, if any, does the Order of the Stick have against Miko?

For one thing, she did forcefully bring them to Azure City, at a time when they were by no means its subjects.

Later on she became an insane murderer.


3) Did you, at any point in the story, feel sympathy for Miko, especially the strip in which she died?

At that moment? Not really. Miko lost any sympathy I could have spared for her in the exact instant when she murdered Shojo. A Paladin, even a failed one, ought to know better. And her shameless self-justification after that only worsened her moral stand.

Before that, however, it would not be too hard to give her some sympathy, especially early on, when she had the unenviable task of bringing an Order of do-gooders to her City against their will. It all began to change when she showed a rather opportunistic tactical style when fighting alongside the Order. It was the first hint that she was in it for pride more than honor.


4) Did you, at any point in the story, feel frustrated or angry with Miko. Has Miko inspired any real hatred?

You betcha.

Even allowing for her frustrations due to Shojo's orders and Belkar's behavior, Miko is quite simply of a rather weak moral fiber and even weaker judgement.

A pitiful, deeply self-deluded character who just happens to also be skilled in battle, really.

I would feel sorry for her if she didn't show such complete lack of remorse ever since #251.


5) Is Miko a good literary character? Was her role in the story a significant one and would her removal improve or harm the strip?

She is a superb literary character, a fine specimen of the fallen would-be hero who couldn't defend from her own hubris and loneliness.

I'm glad we had her in the strip. I just don't understand why there is any controversy about her; she was anything but subtle, after all.


6) Did Rich ever really intend for Miko to be a romantic interest for Roy?

Prior to #250, it is quite possible. But it would be a failed one from the get-go; no way Roy would truly accept a mate who killed so casually as Miko did in those early strips when she was hooded.


7) Will Miko return?

I certainly hope not. Her story is told, albeit apparently misunderstood by many. Her ressurrection would be quite pointless, and her afterlife would be a visit to the hell of proud fools.

[Assassin89]

1) What was Miko's alignment post-fall up to her death? Did she actually go through an alignment shift or was she still LG, despite committing an evil and/or chaotic act.

Miko was still Lawful Good, but borders Lawful Neutral

2) What legitimate complaints, if any, does Miko have against the Order of the Stick? Conversely, what legitimate complaints, if any, does the Order of the Stick have against Miko?
One complaint against Miko is that she assumed that Roy wanted to fight, rather than talk things out until Miko attempted to smite Roy.

3) Did you, at any point in the story, feel sympathy for Miko, especially the strip in which she died?
I would have felt sympathy for Miko if she actually came peacefully with Hinjo, after realizing her mistake.

4) Did you, at any point in the story, feel frustrated or angry with Miko. Has Miko inspired any real hatred?
I have no emotions towards Miko, but I dislike her delusions of being the gods' vessel.

5) Is Miko a good literary character? Was her role in the story a significant one and would her removal improve or harm the strip?
Miko is a good representation of one whose believes her own morals are greater than that of others, meaning that she is a source of conflict, which is necessary in a story, but her removal does not impact the story.

6) Did Rich ever really intend for Miko to be a romantic interest for Roy?Yes, at first, but Miko's personality would have made it impossible for such a relationship to occur.

7) Will Miko return?
I doubt it, but if we do see her again, I would want her to have a different outlook on the definition of being a paladin, maybe learning from a cat.

[Doomcat]

heres what i think about a few questions..

1: i think that near the end there she was still acting LG but had a near shift to TN

2: miko: none really, i can understand that she had possibly misunderstood what was going on but she never took the time to find out OOTS: multiple things but one major one includeing: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0251.html i dont think more needs to be said..

6: i dont pretend to understand the giant but i highly doubt it

7: possibly but highly doubtful...the only way she will return is if the giant thinks its really neccisary (i think)

[Jural]

If that was the case, why was Belkar sure that Miko would Fall when she killed him when he was unarmed? After all, by Origin info, he was a multiple murderer.


1) Belkar may simply be wrong :)

2) Killing an unarmed man instead of arresting him and letting him stand trial for his actions is not lawful good. Paladins are held to ridiculously high standards, and they really can't kill someone who isn't a threat when they are able to make them stand trial for their crimes, no matter how evil they believe the person to be.

Now the exact situation with Belkar may have been different... He was fighting her, not simply an unarmed, non-threat who she happened across and knew he had committed crimes!

But if a wandering hobgoblin had disabled Belkar, then Miko had wandered into the room and given him a coup d' etat (spelling, anyone?) then she would have reason to worry, in my mind.

[kpenguin]

But if a wandering hobgoblin had disabled Belkar, then Miko had wandered into the room and given him a coup d' etat (spelling, anyone?) then she would have reason to worry, in my mind.

Coup de grace is what you're looking for, unless you're implying that Miko would have no reason to worry about overthrowing a government leada by Belkar.

[MReav]

Coup de grace is what you're looking for, unless you're implying that Miko would have no reason to worry about overthrowing a government leada by Belkar.

A government led by Belkar? What would that be like? I'd think something modeled after a chaotic evil version of Valhalla.

[Jural]

Coup de grace is what you're looking for, unless you're implying that Miko would have no reason to worry about overthrowing a government leada by Belkar.

While I don't think Miko would have hesitated to overthrow a Belkar led govenrment, I did of course mean coup de grace.

Thanks!

[Rotipher]

Consider again: the paladin is under constant scrutiny by his god. The moment he slips and commits an evil act, BAM! he has fallen. Now: does it make sense that the god scrutinizes the actions of the paladin to this extent, and the paladin does not rely on the judgement of the deity in question to determine what is good? If the god is that pro-active in its judgements, then why should it apply to the paladin alone? If the paladin submits to such judgement of character, that means that the god is able and willing to scrutinize the actions of mortals and pass judgement on mortals and the paladin trusts him to do so. Why should it be that the god is only competent to judge the paladin and no-one else?


The god is entitled to scrutinize and police the paladin's conduct because the paladin invites the deity to exert such oversight over his or her daily actions. Paladins' relationship with their patrons (assuming they have one) is such that they voluntarily accept the deity's judgement re. their worthiness, as a necessary prerequisite to receive divine favor. But that submission has to be voluntary: it doesn't apply to anyone except the paladin.

Remember that in a polytheistic system, each god's authority over his or her personal followers is significantly greater than over folk who serve other (or no) gods. Depending on the mythos, this may be because gods pay more direct attention to their followers, because they're in a stalemate with their rivals, or simply because they're not omniscient and can't discern the motives of people who don't pray to them. A god in a polytheistic system has no right to personally stomp on the worshippers of a rival deity -- not if it doesn't want said rival to retaliate in kind, or worse -- but is obligated to entrust the task of battling such opposition to mortal agents.

By extension, a deity can't be constantly telling his or her followers "Kill this one, kill that one", either, because too much micromanaging of mortals would inevitably escalate into direct god-vs-god warfare. If battles over belief are to be entrusted to mortals -- something even the OotS gods, however childish, have agreed to -- then that means mortals' judgement must also be trusted. If gods were telling paladins exactly which people to attack, why would their Smite Evil ability be voluntary? Wouldn't it go off when the god wanted it to, making the PHB's description of what happens if it's used on a non-Evil target unnecessary? If gods were really as attentive and hands-on as you suggest, they couldn't make such mistakes.

A paladin's response to a positive (or negative for that matter) Detect Evil may be guided by scripture or anecdote or mentors' direction. Certainly, a god can use paladins' training to coax them into making the right choices, including the decision as to which creatures deserve to be slain, and which spared. But the deity's influence shouldn't be so pervasive as to make the paladin a mere remote-control weapon, without any need for judgement or prudence! A paladin PC is still a player character, not an NPC or a robot. Playing one should involve moral choices, not moral fiat. Otherwise, it's just the deity -- i.e. the DM -- pointing the paladin at one target after another, while player does nothing more than roll the dice on command.

[Optimystik]

To expand on Rotipher's point, the average mortal in a polytheistic system worships *several* gods at different times. For example, a sailor in Faerun might make offerings to both Valkur and Umberlee before setting out on a voyage. Pretty much everyone makes offerings to Tymora, while at the same time they fear and honor Beshaba to try and avert her ill-will.

In other words, while each mortal may have a primary or patron deity, only divinely inspired characters like clerics and paladins are required to have the level of scrutiny that Minx is describing. Druids and Rangers are watched over by nature itself, which no one of the nature gods (even Silvanus) has total dominion over. Thus they are allowed to violate a deity's edicts if it serves the greater cause of balance, though this would obviously be an extremely rare occurrence.

While making an offering to Loviatar might be a sufficient act to make a paladin of Ilmater fall, it's not likely to do more than show up as a black mark or blip on a regular ilmateri worshipper's record (e.g. a beggar.)

[The Minx]

The god is entitled to scrutinize and police the paladin's conduct because the paladin invites the deity to exert such oversight over his or her daily actions. Paladins' relationship with their patrons (assuming they have one) is such that they voluntarily accept the deity's judgement re. their worthiness, as a necessary prerequisite to receive divine favor. But that submission has to be voluntary: it doesn't apply to anyone except the paladin.

Why? The paladin is SENT ON QUESTS for his deity. His whole career revolves around doing the god's will. And regardless, it is absurd to think that the deity is unable and/or unwilling to scrutinize others, and requires the paladin to rely on his own, vastly inferior, capabilities to make value judgements.

See, the deity is regarding the paladin's every move, and the paladin is expected to make judgements on whether to use lethal force or not constantly. The deity is smart enough to judge the paladin, and therefore is smart enough to judge the prospective target. If he withholds that judgement, he is making the target worse off than otherwise, since then the paladin has to rely on his inferior mortal wisdom. There is no logical reason to do this and still maintain the paladin as an agent.

Finally, if the paladin does not ultimately receive his power from a god, but from a higher force for good (as Kish suggested), then it becomes a moot point anyway.



Remember that in a polytheistic system, each god's authority over his or her personal followers is significantly greater than over folk who serve other (or no) gods. Depending on the mythos, this may be because gods pay more direct attention to their followers, because they're in a stalemate with their rivals, or simply because they're not omniscient and can't discern the motives of people who don't pray to them. A god in a polytheistic system has no right to personally stomp on the worshippers of a rival deity -- not if it doesn't want said rival to retaliate in kind, or worse -- but is obligated to entrust the task of battling such opposition to mortal agents.

Unfortunately, this does not make sense, for a similar reason as above. If the god has no right to personally stomp someone, he has no right to send his personal agent to do so either. For instance, if ruler of nation X cannot go about attacking someone who is not his subject, how can he have the right to send his knights to do so? Or if the knights go and do so of their own accord, how is it ethical to reap the benefits? But if he always punishes his knights for doing this, when can the knight act?

Besides, I'm not suggesting that the god arrive in person to do anything, merely that he tell his paladin whether or not it is OK to use lethal force against so and so in advance. As opposed to merely granting him a Detect Evil ability of questionable reliability and expect him to figure things out, while simultaneously using his ineffable wisdom to judge the paladin himself when he screws up:

- "Wait, you were watching me all the effing time and knew that this would be a bad move, yet you only informed me of this AFTER the fact? By stripping me of my class abilities? No hints even?" :smalleek:

- "Yup." :smallbiggrin:

- "Oh, swell. Well, one less agent for you then, smart guy." :smallannoyed:



By extension, a deity can't be constantly telling his or her followers "Kill this one, kill that one", either, because too much micromanaging of mortals would inevitably escalate into direct god-vs-god warfare.

Um, no, not really. Besides, in some settings the gods ARE at war with one another.



If battles over belief are to be entrusted to mortals -- something even the OotS gods, however childish, have agreed to -- then that means mortals' judgement must also be trusted. If gods were telling paladins exactly which people to attack, why would their Smite Evil ability be voluntary? Wouldn't it go off when the god wanted it to, making the PHB's description of what happens if it's used on a non-Evil target unnecessary? If gods were really as attentive and hands-on as you suggest, they couldn't make such mistakes.

Because even though the mortal knows the will of his god, this does not compel him to follow it. He can know what the god wants, but can choose to do something else. Of course, then he suffers the consequences for that choice.

- "You receive these powers to serve as my agent. That means that as long as you choose to remain my agent you get to keep these powers. You will know what is required of you as my agent, for without such knowledge, your power of choice would be without meaning."



A paladin's response to a positive (or negative for that matter) Detect Evil may be guided by scripture or anecdote or mentors' direction. Certainly, a god can use paladins' training to coax them into making the right choices, including the decision as to which creatures deserve to be slain, and which spared. But the deity's influence shouldn't be so pervasive as to make the paladin a mere remote-control weapon, without any need for judgement or prudence! A paladin PC is still a player character, not an NPC or a robot. Playing one should involve moral choices, not moral fiat. Otherwise, it's just the deity -- i.e. the DM -- pointing the paladin at one target after another, while player does nothing more than roll the dice on command.

This is more of a design question than anything else. That the god commands his paladin does not necessarily lead to DM micromanagement of the player's character if the design is handled properly.



To expand on Rotipher's point, the average mortal in a polytheistic system worships *several* gods at different times. For example, a sailor in Faerun might make offerings to both Valkur and Umberlee before setting out on a voyage. Pretty much everyone makes offerings to Tymora, while at the same time they fear and honor Beshaba to try and avert her ill-will.

In other words, while each mortal may have a primary or patron deity, only divinely inspired characters like clerics and paladins are required to have the level of scrutiny that Minx is describing. Druids and Rangers are watched over by nature itself, which no one of the nature gods (even Silvanus) has total dominion over. Thus they are allowed to violate a deity's edicts if it serves the greater cause of balance, though this would obviously be an extremely rare occurrence.

While making an offering to Loviatar might be a sufficient act to make a paladin of Ilmater fall, it's not likely to do more than show up as a black mark or blip on a regular ilmateri worshipper's record (e.g. a beggar.)

Um, I'm not sure what this has to do with the point I'm making. :smallconfused: I think we may be misunderstanding one another.

[MickJay]

I'm a little stumped, if a paladin's falling (or not) depends on his god's judgement, then
1. where exactly does a paladin not affiliated with any god get his powers from, and
2. who/what and how decides whether he should fall for being "bad"?

I can imagine many ways this could work, but what's the "official" stance on the subject?

[LuisDantas]

I'm a little stumped, if a paladin's falling (or not) depends on his god's judgement, then
1. where exactly does a paladin not affiliated with any god get his powers from, and
2. who/what and how decides whether he should fall for being "bad"?

I can imagine many ways this could work, but what's the "official" stance on the subject?

To the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing as a paladin that is not affiliated to one or more gods.

[Jural]

To the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing as a paladin that is not affiliated to one or more gods.

In D&D 3.0 and 3.5, it is explicitly stated that a paladin does not need to follow any specific God.

I don't recall 2nd Edition well enough, but I believe the possibility was also left open.

In 4.0, Paladins don't even need to be lawful good... so we won't go there!

Imagine a Paladin as one who is called upon to live a just and holy life, and who has an innate sensibility of good and evil, and the standards she must maintain to be a paragon of virtue. While her power is divine, I think it's totally feasible that she wouldn't have a personal relationship with a church or diety at all in fact. It's a calling, not something which is studied.

I find it similar to how a druid or ranger can have a close relationship with nature and not be bound to a nature diety.

[Underground]

But if a wandering hobgoblin had disabled Belkar, then Miko had wandered into the room and given him a coup d' etat (spelling, anyone?) then she would have reason to worry, in my mind.

coup de grace

[kpenguin]

coup de grace

It has nothing to do with etat/money.

We already covered this.

[Underground]

We already covered this.

I already noticed that.

[Underground]

In D&D 3.0 and 3.5, it is explicitly stated that a paladin does not need to follow any specific God. Thats the Core Rulebooks, and doesnt necessary apply to a specific setting. For example, the Forgotten Realms require you to follow a deity to be Paladin/Ranger/..., and people not following a deity at all await a horrible fate after their death (which is the central motive of the Neverwinter Nights 2 Addon "Mask of the Betrayer").

[Kioran]

Okay, this is flattening me. 2 years ago, we had threads about anything degenerating into Miko-threads. Now, we have Miko-thread degenerating into Paladin discussions....a good thing?!?

I don't know. But it's astonishing.

[The Minx]

Okay, this is flattening me. 2 years ago, we had threads about anything degenerating into Miko-threads. Now, we have Miko-thread degenerating into Paladin discussions....a good thing?!?

I don't know. But it's astonishing.

Yes, um... that would me partially my fault, at least for keeping it going for so long. :smallredface:

I'll try responding to the OP now. :smallbiggrin:


1) What was Miko's alignment post-fall up to her death? Did she actually go through an alignment shift or was she still LG, despite committing an evil and/or chaotic act.

She was Lawful Good up to the point where she killed Shojo. After that, I don't know. I doubt she made it to the Lawful Good afterlife. Roy risked being booted into the Neutral Good afterlife for not being Lawful enough, but only made it in because he kept trying. Miko kept trying too... however, Roy also risked being booted to the True Neutral afterlife for abandoning Elan, and was only saved from that due to realizing his error before he died. Miko cannot claim that. Since killing your lord is at least as bad as abandoning your friend, I suspect she is in the TN afterlife about now.


2) What legitimate complaints, if any, does Miko have against the Order of the Stick? Conversely, what legitimate complaints, if any, does the Order of the Stick have against Miko?

Treating her with scorn, especially Roy after the fire at the inn is the only thing I can think they did to her that merits complaint. But she was arresting them and wasn't exactly easy to deal with herself, so I don't think that counts. Which also covers their beef with her. The thing is she didn't have much choice in arresting them or not, since she was ordered to do so by Shojo.

So, blame Shojo. :smallsmile:


3) Did you, at any point in the story, feel sympathy for Miko, especially the strip in which she died?

Yes. She brought it upon herself, but I still feel sympathy (or at least pity). She really wanted and tried to do what was right, but her pride and wrath brought her down.


4) Did you, at any point in the story, feel frustrated or angry with Miko. Has Miko inspired any real hatred?

Frustrated, absolutely. Hatred? Nope.


5) Is Miko a good literary character? Was her role in the story a significant one and would her removal improve or harm the strip?

Oh, yes! Her role was very significant and pretty much set the tone for the Azure City arc. Not only that, but she single-handedly decided its outcome. Her removal would diminish the strip, unless something very clever or good would replace her, and then it would be a wholly different strip.


6) Did Rich ever really intend for Miko to be a romantic interest for Roy?

Probably, but only as an unrequited relationship at any given time. :smallwink:


7) Will Miko return?

Probably not.

[hamishspence]

Roys act was, at worst "betraying a friend or ally for personal gain" (with the gain being, not being annoyed any more) 2 point corrupt act.

Mikos was Murder: 5 point corrupt act.

So, its not just "at least as bad" its "more than twice as bad." if you take rulebooks literally (Fiendish Codex 2, in this case)

and yet, by rules, the act will not condemn Miko, in absence of other Evil acts.

So, I doubt very much that Miko will have dropped all the way to Evil or Evil afterlife.

[Rotipher]

OTOH, judging by what Soon told her as she was dying, it didn't sound like she was headed for the LG afterlife. I'd guess that Miko's earlier intolerance and use of excessive force are also counted against her, where her afterlife-assignment is concerned, and she wound up in a LN or near-LN plane. (Not LE, because Windstriker probably wouldn't be able to visit her there.)

[hamishspence]

while a case could be made that LG afterlife has a separate area: paladins-only, with Windstriker travelling from it, the idea of Miko not getting into Celestia does make more sense.

I doubt she dropped all the way to Chaotic- I suspect she was closer to Neutral than Good and closer to Lawful than Neutral.

If OOTS uses the Great Wheel, then there are Acheron, Mechanus, and Arcadia. Acheron is a bit of an outside shot (may not be mildly Evil Aligned, but its still a Lower Plane. )

So, Mechanus and Arcadia are feasible destinations, unless Miko was a lot more Chaotic in the end than I am giving her credit for.

[Janmorel]

1) What was Miko's alignment post-fall up to her death? Did she actually go through an alignment shift or was she still LG, despite committing an evil and/or chaotic act.
I don't think her Lawful alignment was ever in any question of shifting. Even her more chaotic acts were done in accordance to the law, as she interpreted it. Killing Shojo, in her mind, wasn't murder. It was a legal execution of a criminal. Her Good alignment... that's another story. Especially after her fall, Miko began working the Law aspect of her alignment in order to justify her acts as Good. However, blowing up the Gate was Stupid, but definitely Good.
Final Judgment: I'd put her in Arcadia. Windstriker can visit her there, and she'll have a chance to work out her own issues.

2) What legitimate complaints, if any, does Miko have against the Order of the Stick? Conversely, what legitimate complaints, if any, does the Order of the Stick have against Miko?
Well, each party needlessly brought the world a little closer to unraveling. Most of the rest of the complaints can be traced back to Shojo or to misunderstandings. Although Miko did seem to be a thoroughly unpleasant traveling companion, and Belkar is undeniably Evil.

3) Did you, at any point in the story, feel sympathy for Miko, especially the strip in which she died?
Sure. She wasn't my favorite character, but everything she ever cared about was taken away from her or destroyed, she died unwept, unhonored, and unsung, and Windstriker's probably the only one who cared. Poor kid.

4) Did you, at any point in the story, feel frustrated or angry with Miko. Has Miko inspired any real hatred?
Hatred? No. But the rest? Sure. Miko was the epitome of Lawful Stupid, on top of which, she was arrogant, violent, and increasingly unfunny.

5) Is Miko a good literary character? Was her role in the story a significant one and would her removal improve or harm the strip?
She was a good character with a solid arc, and her role in the story was significant. I can't say how her removal would affect the strip, because it would depend on what it was replaced with.

6) Did Rich ever really intend for Miko to be a romantic interest for Roy?
Not any more than she was.

7) Will Miko return?
Not amongst the living. I wouldn't rule out a brief cameo from the afterlife at some point, but her story is done.

[Simanos]

I doubt she dropped all the way to Chaotic- I suspect she was closer to Neutral than Good and closer to Lawful than Neutral.
Yeah, she was pretty Lawful Neutral and not at all Lawful Good from the beginning. She was definitely Lawful Neutral at the end. Maybe even Lawful Evil cause she twisted the rules to agree with what she wanted. Like when the Gods don't answer her, she takes that as a sign too. It's like Monty Python's the Life of Brian all over again :smallcool: