something that confused me...

[Darius1020]

Way back when Miko was gonna kill Belkar after the trial, why did Belkar think it would cause Miko to lose her paladin powers? She would have been killing an evil person, and isn't the definition of a "paladin's duty" defeating evil, even if destroying the evil is wrong, such as wiping out the goblins?

Anyway, seeing as i don't play D&D, there's probably a good reason for this that i don't know, so can anyone tell me?

[Babale]

Because at the time, Belkar wasn't doing anything evil, and was fighting for the side of good.

[Ron Miel]

He really didn't think it through, did he?

[Sanguine]

It clearly states in the DMG that if you kill someone just for registering as evil it is an evil act. So even though he was evil since he wasn't doing anything wrong it would be evil to kill him. Understand?

Edit: Plus she never actually got a reading on him.

[Darius1020]

yeah, but he did kill the guard, in cold blood for the most part, and was fighting a paladin...

[Sanguine]

But he wasn't doing an evil act at the time. Her Paladin Code would require her to subdue him and for him to have a proper trial.

[Darius1020]

ok, i guess that makes sense...

Edit: but then what about the goblin genociding? Since, as Redcloak has said, the paladins killed goblin women and children, would that be an evil act?

[Sanguine]

No, I see that as part of what Redcloak is trying to change. Some races are just Adventurer-Fodder there is no moral implication to killing them as the gods(that made the world) don't care about them. Just my two copper pieces.

[Darius1020]

ok, i get it now, thanks

also, the gods are jerks...

[Haven]

Belkar killed a dude and painted the walls with his blood. It probably would have been immoral and illegal for Miko to kill him while he was her prisoner (which is why she didn't do that). Belkar only thought killing him after doing all that would make her fall because he has "a wisdom normally reserved for lemmings", and (partially as a consequence) literally no grasp of morality or the worth of other sentient beings.

[JonestheSpy]

But he wasn't doing an evil act at the time. Her Paladin Code would require her to subdue him and for him to have a proper trial.

I don't think that's quite true - we're in a medievalish sword-and sorcery world here, nobody's required to "subdue" the bad guys and hand them to the proper authorities like modern comic book superheroes.

But, Belkar WAS completely helpless at the time - not by design, but that's the way it worked out. Good people don't slaughter foes who are already subdued and defenseless.

[Atcote]

Setting someone on fire I, just personally, count as rather evil.

[Foryn Gilnith]

It's nonmagical fire, it only does 1d6/round. It's no more evil than a standard blade to the gut (which is often evil). Instinctive revulsion to a thing doesn't make it evil.


Good people don't slaughter foes who are already subdued and defenseless.

Citation needed? I'd say refraining in that case would be Lawful, and not necessary for many Lawful characters.

[doodthedud]

It's nonmagical fire, it only does 1d6/round. It's no more evil than a standard blade to the gut (which is often evil). Instinctive revulsion to a thing doesn't make it evil.



Citation needed? I'd say refraining in that case would be Lawful, and not necessary for many Lawful characters.

Paladins MUST be both Lawful AND Good.

[Sanguine]

Paladins MUST be both Lawful AND Good.

True but Chaotic acts don't cause them to fall.

[doodthedud]

True but Chaotic acts don't cause them to fall.

My only experience with DnD is through the game Neverwinter Nights

In this game, shifting outside Lawful Good in ANY way (becoming more chaotic or more evil) means you can not be a paladin anymore.

[Sanguine]

My only experience with DnD is through the game Neverwinter Nights

In this game, shifting outside Lawful Good in ANY way (becoming more chaotic or more evil) means you can not be a paladin anymore.

Yes if you stray from Lawful Good you fall, but a single chaotic act won't cause you to fall unlike a single evil act.

[doodthedud]

Yes if you stray from Lawful Good you fall, but a single chaotic act won't cause you to fall unlike a single evil act.

according to Neverwinter nights, it depends on the significance of the act and if it warrants an alignment shift.

[Sanguine]

according to Neverwinter nights, it depends on the significance of the act and if it warrants an alignment shift.

Well that is not Core DnD. In Core DnD no single act will cause you to switch alignment. It only happens when you are obviously no longer holding onto your alignments ideals. But this is starting to drift off-topic.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Well that is not Core DnD. In Core DnD no single act will cause you to switch alignment. It only happens when you are obviously no longer holding onto your alignments ideals. But this is starting to drift off-topic.

There is no single act in Neverwinter Nights large enough to change your alignment if you have strong points in that direction; and I don't even think a whole campaign of acting blatantly Chaotic would change your alignment there.

What core D&D says or does not say is largely up to GM fiat, and you allude to it by describing the sort of massive rejection that such a change would consist of.

[doodthedud]

There is no single act in Neverwinter Nights large enough to change your alignment if you have strong points in that direction; and I don't even think a whole campaign of acting blatantly Chaotic would change your alignment there.

What core D&D says or does not say is largely up to GM fiat, and you allude to it by describing the sort of massive rejection that such a change would consist of.

Depends if it's Bioware's Programming or a DM in charge.

[Foryn Gilnith]

If you have a DM, you're pretty much 2/3 of the way to real D&D, especially in many roleplaying aspects.

[doodthedud]

If you have a DM, you're pretty much 2/3 of the way to real D&D, especially in many roleplaying aspects.

On my server, DMs have been known to change someone from good to evil or lawful to chaotic for a single action. Though it is NOT common.

[Drakevarg]

Instinctive revulsion to a thing doesn't make it evil.

Just because you're instinctively revolted by brutal slaughter doesn't make it evil! D:

[factotum]

I don't think that's quite true - we're in a medievalish sword-and sorcery world here, nobody's required to "subdue" the bad guys and hand them to the proper authorities like modern comic book superheroes.


Paladins are held to a higher code than pretty much anyone else, regardless of the setting. I'm not convinced killing Belkar would have caused Miko to fall myself, though--they were involved in a fair fight, and he had unquestionably done plenty of evil by killing the guard when he escaped. It's not like she was slaughtering a helpless prisoner, is it?

I think Belkar thinking Miko would fall for killing him goes into the same category as believing Durkon could Raise him despite not having the requisite diamonds.

[PId6]

Just because you're instinctively revolted by brutal slaughter doesn't make it evil! D:
Absolutely true. Brutal slaughter is evil independent of whether or not we are instinctively revolted by it. Having a gut reaction to something doesn't justify that thing as either good or evil.

[David Argall]

As others have said, Belkar has an intelligence rivaling a table, and we can not take his judgment here as at all reliable.

Now the matter of trial is heavily a lawful matter, not a good matter. It is good that Belkar gets what he deserves, whether or not the legal forms are followed. In the real world, we insist strongly on trials because we know we are wrong so often. In our magical world, we can know the facts much more easily and thus have less need for a trial.

We might note 228 here. Miko says she has killed a large number of creatures who have tested as evil, and she remains a paladin. Now we have a very limited amount of facts about these cases, but rather obviously, there was virtually no trial in most or even any of them.
Presumably then, Miko acted as judge, jury, and executioner. And did not fall. So we can not assume she would fall for acting as the same for Belkar. [We can argue that pragmatically, a trial was impossible in most of those earlier killings by Miko, while a trial was entirely possible in the case of Belkar, but this is rather clearly a legal quibble. Her action may be illegal, but it is not immoral.]

Now looking at the moral points, we are talking of a violent world where the death penalty is routine, and often enough the only practical punishment. We see that Belkar is slime who has done a vast number of crimes deserving of the final punishment. Those arguing against Miko want to insist that Miko did not know of most these, and to quibble about those he did do. But Belkar is known to be guilty of murder, and in fact of worse than murder. He easily qualifies as deserving death, which makes Miko no sinner in giving him what he deserves.

[doodthedud]

.
Presumably then, Miko acted as judge, jury, and executioner. And did not fall.

Perhaps this has been whittling her down towards Chaotic or Evil.

[Fish]

Let's just throw it on the table: the reason Belkar was talking about making Miko fall from grace as a paladin was for purposes of exposition. Rich knew that not everybody was a D&D player, not everybody knew that a paladin could Fall, not everybody knew what would constitute a breach of the paladin's code.

That doesn't necessarily mean that Miko would have fallen for killing Belkar; it was only Belkar's hope (and somewhat lame-brained plan) that she might.

[Azura]

As others have said, Belkar has an intelligence rivaling a table

Hey! :smallmad:

You owe the tables of the world an apology. :smallbiggrin:

[doodthedud]

Let's just throw it on the table: the reason Belkar was talking about making Miko fall from grace as a paladin was for purposes of exposition. Rich knew that not everybody was a D&D player, not everybody knew that a paladin could Fall, not everybody knew what would constitute a breach of the paladin's code.

That doesn't necessarily mean that Miko would have fallen for killing Belkar; it was only Belkar's hope (and somewhat lame-brained plan) that she might.

Well Miko killing a defenseless opponent in a fit of rage sounds pretty bad. After all, that's what she did to Shinjo. Which DID cause her to fall.

[Hurkyl]

But Belkar is known to be guilty of murder, and in fact of worse than murder. He easily qualifies as deserving death, which makes Miko no sinner in giving him what he deserves.
Unless, of course, Miko's faith would make it a sin.

It's plausible -- even likely -- that a paladin's faith would:

(1) distinguish between slaughtering a murderer in the name of justice versus slaughtering a murderer in anger
(2) distinguish between slaughtering a murderer fighting back you versus slaughtering a murderer that is defeated and helpless
(3) distinguish between slaughtering a murderer in the wilderness versus slaughtering a murderer in the middle of a (just) city
and Miko is on the wrong side of all three points.

And, of course, Belkar is not known (to Miko) to be guilty of murder, or even of a killing. Is it pretty darned likely? Of course. But Miko is not in a situation that warrants overlooking that uncertainty.

[Morquard]

Belkar never registered as Evil to her, mainly becuase he prevented her from using it all the time with his lead shield :)

So while she might have been justified to kill those evil creatures for being evil, she can't be 100% sure that belkar is actually evil. Sure its 99.9% likely to her, but not completely.
So she might fall simply because she was not 100% sure.

You can say "Well if Belkar wasn't evil, why doesn't he let her check him out, and since he doesn't he must be evil".
Really? So if a police officer shows up on your door and says "Ok we have no real reason to be here, but we'd like to search your house anyway if you maybe harbor figutive mass murderes, hide tons of drugs, build bombs for taliban terrorists or have a corpse in your fridge. As I said we have no real reason to check, but if you say "no" we assume that all this is true and will shoot you right here". That would be ok then? :)

I'm not defending Belkar here, he's clearly evil for us. And for Miko its clear too, but she's been blindly assuming the entire order is evil anyway from the start. And Lord Shojo too, who by the way is not evil, and that might very well be the reason why she actually fell for killing him

[hamishspence]

At the time, Belkar's act may not have been strictly Murder. It is significant that Hinjo commutes it to manslaughter, on the grounds that Azure City and the Sapphire Guard were not acting as a legitimate authority when they arrested the order, with Miko as the arresting officer.

Even before this, in War & XPs bonus strip, Roy tells Belkar he can stay with the Order, or expect to go down for 20-30 years. No mention of death sentence- suggesting that Azure City may not have the death sentence for a first offense of murder- suggesting that for Miko to impose a death sentence then would have been unjust.

Plus, unlike in classic dungeon situation (And the Order still deliver captured opponents over to justice rather than killing them in one of this situations anyway) it is much easier for the villain to be arrested and tried. Its not like Belkar could have gotten away easily- he was helpless, or as good as.

[Optimystik]

Well Miko killing a defenseless opponent in a fit of rage sounds pretty bad. After all, that's what she did to Shinjo. Which DID cause her to fall.

Who is Shinjo :smallsigh:

[hamishspence]

Citation needed? I'd say refraining in that case would be Lawful, and not necessary for many Lawful characters.

BoED: "Killing unarmed prsioners out of hand is out of the question."

also "Execution for serious crimes is widely accepted and does not qualify as evil"

Conclusion, unless your killing is explicitly an execution (or self defense, or defense of others, or in war against an enemy soldier), its a no-no.

And yes, chaotic characters may have to adhere to this. DMG2 has description of Chaotic as well as Lawful trials.

also, the "no single act will change alignment" thing does have exceptions, as the DMG explicitly states. The example given is from Evil to Good, but Good to Evil is as plausible- often more plausible if anything. in 2nd ed it stated in bioth the DMG and PHB that some acts will cause an instant change to Evil alignment- burning down a village full of people being one. Even if its to contain a plague outbreak.

[batsofchaos]

BoED: "Killing unarmed prsioners out of hand is out of the question."

also "Execution for serious crimes is widely accepted and does not qualify as evil"

Conclusion, unless your killing is explicitly an execution (or self defense, or defense of others, or in war against an enemy soldier), its a no-no.

And yes, chaotic characters may have to adhere to this. DMG2 has description of Chaotic as well as Lawful trials.

also, the "no single act will change alignment" thing does have exceptions, as the DMG explicitly states. The example given is from Evil to Good, but Good to Evil is as plausible- often more plausible if anything. in 2nd ed it stated in bioth the DMG and PHB that some acts will cause an instant change to Evil alignment- burning down a village full of people being one. Even if its to contain a plague outbreak.

There is nothing in the core rulebooks that state fighting an evil creature, whether intelligent or not, to the death is an evil act. The Book of Exalted Deeds is non-core, and this interpretation conflicts with the way the world of Order of the Stick works as presented in Start of Darkness:

The Sapphire Guard attacked the goblin village where Redcloak was living, killing elderly, women, children, and other defenseless Goblins without falling. Clearly, in the OotS-verse this optional rule from BoED is not followed.

[hamishspence]

Its not that its an evil act to fight it, and kill it if it doesn't surrender, its that its evil to kill it once you've rendered it effectively a prisoner. Unless you have the authority to carry out executions.

You could say that the Twelve gods passed sentence of death on the village, and the paladins carried it out. Whether the sentence was fair or not is a different issue, but it would fit.

in War and XPs the Giant says "The 12 gods may have sanctioned the paladins' massacres, but even they can't stop karma kicking them..."

Suggesting that the behaviour, absent the 12 Gods' intervention, is highly dubious.

[Optimystik]

There is nothing in the core rulebooks that state fighting an evil creature, whether intelligent or not, to the death is an evil act.

She wasn't "fighting" Belkar at that point; she was about to execute him, with no better motive than vindication.


The Book of Exalted Deeds is non-core, and this interpretation conflicts with the way the world of Order of the Stick works as presented in Start of Darkness:

The Sapphire Guard attacked the goblin village where Redcloak was living, killing elderly, women, children, and other defenseless Goblins without falling. Clearly, in the OotS-verse this optional rule from BoED is not followed.

You've analyzed the symptom but not the underlying issue. The question is "WHY didn't they fall?" The answer is not that the rules on paladins Falling does not apply (Shojo's murder clearly shows that paladins can fall in OotS.) Rather, they were given a pass because their act of atrocity was carried out against goblins. It is divine racism at work in SoD.

[hamishspence]

There is minor evidence of BoED content being used

(Soon and company- unless you count them as Eberron content- a produce made by one of the Giant's rivals and poked fun at on at least on occasion "At least they don't have magic trains)

and BoVD content (Eye of Fear and Flame)

Its not quite so clear whether their rules on what Good guys can and can't do are being used, but all the Good members of the order ignore all suggestions of killing their prisoners. And Roy goes out of his way to avoid killing when it might be unnecessary- in Origin of PCs.

Since "Murder is one of the most evil acts a sentient being can commit" we have to show evidence that Miko's attempt at killing Belkar wouldn't have been murder, and "He was evil" is not enough- since this is only valid for beings of "consummate, irredeemable evil"