Start of Darkness Spoiler question

[Alex Warlorn]

I have a simple question, what happened to the paladins who wasted smite evil on secondary targets and then just slashed at their -actual- target?

My theory is that they all committed ritual suicide after the mission was complete, because they had to kill innocents to protect the world from the Dark One's inane scheme of thinking once released on the GODLY PLANE that it wouldn't eat him too and not just the previous world like last time.

Seriously, the paladin code I'm pretty sure speaks -against- killing someone just because they have Evil parents, the only logical way they couldn't have fallen was if they had already vowed to execute themselves after the mission to save the planet from the Dark One's righteous utter recklessness.

[SaintRidley]

Their gods can protect them from falling as their status as paladin appears to be gods-given. If the 12 gods can devise an excuse for their behaviour they will use it to their advantage and allow the paladin to retain powers, as paladins are like less-cool clerics. And having more people able to do your will outside your jurisdiction is good in their book.

[Alex Warlorn]

Their gods can protect them from falling as their status as paladin appears to be gods-given. If the 12 gods can devise an excuse for their behaviour they will use it to their advantage and allow the paladin to retain powers, as paladins are like less-cool clerics. And having more people able to do your will outside your jurisdiction is good in their book.

Better question then. Wouldn't have Redcloak have found their graves, dug them up, and used speak with dead just so their spirits could see that he had razed their home like they had his? Assuming they aren't all old men and women by now instead.

[SaintRidley]

Well, on the one hand he'd have to go find the graves and then try and figure out which dead paladins were present at the destruction of his village. No easy task without chatting up every corpse.

Secondly, a lot bigger a waste of time than consolidating control of the city, rounding up whatever stray humans he can find, quashing the three resistance movements he has to deal with, interrogating the bald and bearded paladin, making magical items, prompting Xykon to make magical items, generally being Xykon's lackey and whipping boy, conducting experiments on the rift, etc.

Gloating like that doesn't accomplish much of anything. And he may be able to achieve just as much by shouting to the heavens "See that, you no good round-toothed bastards!" and hoping any paladins who might be scrying on their old home see and become enraged because they can do nothing about it. Even then, it doesn't really accomplish much.

[Shale]

My theory is that they all committed ritual suicide after the mission was complete, because they had to kill innocents to protect the world from the Dark One's inane scheme of thinking once released on the GODLY PLANE that it wouldn't eat him too and not just the previous world like last time.

Isn't the entire scheme to threaten to release the Snarl, not to actually do it? Like Redcloak said, he knows full well that the plan has a good chance ot destroying all creation if the gods call his bluff. He's doing it anyway.

[Haven]

Er, what? Falling is instantaneous, saying "But I'll kill myself later, honest" after doing something evil doesn't change it. Besides, the creatures they were killing were "evil", so that makes it kosher with the paladin code

[Alex Warlorn]

Er, what? Falling is instantaneous, saying "But I'll kill myself later, honest" after doing something evil doesn't change it. Besides, the creatures they were killing were "evil", so that makes it kosher with the paladin code

I think kids are default neutral, and thus not evil.

[SadisticFishing]

I think kids are default neutral, and thus not evil.

I think you're wrong, when it comes to Goblins in Oots. By definition. *shrug*.

It's entirely plausible that for once, the ends justify the means. Also, ironically, by killing their parents, the Paladins practically force the Goblets to become Evil, thus making it okay to kill them.

Fun, eh?

[Daefos]

I think kids are default neutral, and thus not evil.

Except that in the OotS-verse, goblins were created as Evil monsters with the sole purpose of being bundles of XP for Good characters. Thus killing them, children or not, is a Good act by definition and a Neutral act at the very worse. And Paladins don't fall for committing Neutral acts, especially ones that their gods explicitly endorse.

No, it's not right, and it's not fair. That's kinda what's driving Redcloak.

[Alex Warlorn]

And it doesn't make one lick of sense that you would make such creatures SENTIENT! No good aligned entity would crate SENTIENT creatures for the sole purpose of killing them. If they were mindless dangers then I could accept that logic. But the goblins are self aware, and the Good Aligned gods wouldn't be good aligned if they did such a horrible thing.

[SadisticFishing]

And it doesn't make one lick of sense that you would make such creatures SENTIENT! No good aligned entity would crate SENTIENT creatures for the sole purpose of killing them. If they were mindless dangers then I could accept that logic. But the goblins are self aware, and the Good Aligned gods wouldn't be good aligned if they did such a horrible thing.

Interesting thought.

Luckily, as sentient creatures, they CHOOSE to be Evil. Or they would be Neutral.

[Conuly]

Interesting thought.

Luckily, as sentient creatures, they CHOOSE to be Evil. Or they would be Neutral.

But they don't choose to be evil, not really, not if they can be assumed to be evil at birth or a very young age. And if they do choose, it's not a meaningful choice given that they were created to be evil (so they could be slaughtered without alignment penalties) and that even if they're good, nobody stops to check before killing them wholesale. Why be good if the "good" people will kill you one way or another? Why side with your enemies when it's a struggle merely to make ends meet?

[SadisticFishing]

It's still a choice.

It's now an awkward one that is impossible to fix, but that is really the way of the world, isn't it?

[Conuly]

It's still a choice.

It's now an awkward one that is impossible to fix, but that is really the way of the world, isn't it?

There's choices and there's choices. If I put a gun to your back and tell you "You can give me your money, or you can die and I'll take your money anyway", well, there's a choice... but really, what choice do you have? I mean, you have infinite choices - you can give him the money, you can die, you can cluck like a chicken and THEN die, you can try to fight him and probably die... but when the gun is against your back, you'll just hand him the cash.

[hamishspence]

While SoD has the claim that the humanoid races were "created for low level clerics to level up" it doesn't say anything about them being Always Evil.

Indeed, one of these races is the "Usually Neutral" lizardfolk.

There is the "The Twelve Gods have looked into your hearts and found them to be Evil" claim made by the leader of the force- but (at least by 3.5 alignment) killing beings for "being evil" is generally more than a little shaky, especially if they are noncombatants.

Only in AD&D 1st ed was there a general precept that killing orc, or goblin, or kobold children was OK:

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&hilit=prisoners&start=75

And even then, some DMs tended to gloss it over on the grounds that it is not very heroic, and say that it is possible to ensure adventures don't involve the slaughter of humanoid children.

Which still avoids the issue.

and on "choosing to be evil" pressure from the society plays a very big part. In Dungeon Crawling Fools we see young goblins rebelling against this pressure when they become teenagers. It doesn't always last long though.

[Zxo]

There are Neutral goblins - Right-Eye was definitely Neutral.

As for paladins and their code, The Giant made a rather bitter joke about it in OotPC:

In Roy's first party, there is a paladin who doesn't like it when Roy solves the orc quest by talking and helping them - the paladin would prefer to kill them, since they're "listed as Chaotic Evil", so no alignment consequences for him, and same XP without wasting three weeks.

So the system allows to play a paladin who is far from the model of a good and honorable knight and still does not fall. Killing creatures that are "listed as evil" is something that can be done freely without alignment consequences, even if they are peaceful and came just to
see the concert

OoTSverse is a story about how funny the world would be if it worked by DnD rules, but also how awful and unjust it would be.

[Turkish Delight]

The 'Paladins slaughtering the helpless goblin village' thing I've heard about always makes me wonder who exactly determines the moral rules in the OotS universe. Who makes the call when a Paladin falls?

[hamishspence]

That really depends on the DM- and was more a 1st edition thing anyway.

BoED was the first 3.0-3.5 sourcebook to explicitly call out that sort of thing as wrong, and to state that you need more than just evidence of an evil alignment for a killing to be a just execution, rather than murder.

Which gets it a lot of points- and makes some of its less sensible ideas forgivable.

Common justifications given for the SoD events so far:

Alignment: Evil, means that, children or not, they have committed crimes deserving of on-the-spot execution.

The Sapphire Guard were acting on a prophetic instruction about the safety of the world- the slaughter of children in that kind of cause is justified.

The Twelve Gods have more control over paladins falling than gods in a normal D&D setting do.

"Humanoids" and monsters, do not count as people for the definition of murder.

There are probably others.

[Thanatosia]

OoTSverse is a story about how funny the world would be if it worked by DnD rules, but also how awful and unjust it would be.
Well said, the paladins are in no risk of falling because D&D rules define goblins as 'always evil', and so killing them is not evil. The Paladins have a 2nd layer of protection against falling on top of that in that their divination magic (accurately) indicated that one of the goblins in the villiage they razed was a threat to the fabric of existance - so in a very real way the paladins were killing the goblins in an act of self defense for the entire planet.

[hamishspence]

Which D&D rules? 3rd ed and 3.5 say "usually NE" and even 2nd ed had rules in the DMG for playing monster characters.

I think only older editions define goblins as "always evil" and there still is the "is it always non-evil killing, for good aligned beings to kill evil-aligned ones?

And the issue of whether there is such a thing as evil-aligned non-combatants in D&D- according to BoED, most definitely yes, but its not so clear in AD&D.


so in a very real way the paladins were killing the goblins in an act of self defense for the entire planet.

You could say a similar thing about King Arthur's murder of hundreds of children in the kingdom in an attempt to get Mordred, who was predicted to bring down the kingdom of Camelot.

But was it non-evil to kill innocent children in an attempt to "save the kingdom"?

A lot of people would say "no- it was evil".

[Asta Kask]

The 'Paladins slaughtering the helpless goblin village' thing I've heard about always makes me wonder who exactly determines the moral rules in the OotS universe. Who makes the call when a Paladin falls?

The gods. It's simple like that.

[Turkish Delight]

The gods. It's simple like that.

Then the OotS universe almost certainly suffers severely from all the shortcomings of Divine Command theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Command_theory#Criticisms_of_divine_command _theory), while adding into that bargain the problematic fact that they don't even really pretend to be either omniscient or omnibenevolent. Thus, any talk of Paladins being 'always good' is pretty hollow; they are only as Good as the 12 Gods allow them to be at any given time.

God, I love theology.

[hamishspence]

In normal D&D, especially thanks to the fact that you can be a paladin of a deity one step away from your own alignment, it is quite possible for a paladin to end up going directly against the will of his or her patron.

Jeff Grubb & Kate Novak's Tymora's Luck has this as the climax moment of the book- paladin directly intervening in her own deity's scheme, because she feels it is wrong.

[Asta Kask]

Then the OotS universe almost certainly suffers severely from all the shortcomings of Divine Command theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Command_theory#Criticisms_of_divine_command _theory), while adding into that bargain the problematic fact that they don't even really pretend to be either omniscient or omnibenevolent. Thus, any talk of Paladins being 'always good' is pretty hollow; they are only as Good as the 12 Gods allow them to be at any given time.

It's a game world for an RPG that was designed to provide action, not theological-philosophical discussions. You may be overthinking this.

[Turkish Delight]

It's a game world for an RPG that was designed to provide action, not theological-philosophical discussions. You may be overthinking this.

The very act of considering the moral rights of a non-existent monster species may be overthinking. In that as in this, it's all in fun.

[hamishspence]

I wonder if Origin, and SoD, were jabs at player's who tend to underthink the rights of the creatures they come across, and assume that "if its a monster, it deserves to die and it's always OK to kill it?

[Kish]

It's a game world for an RPG that was designed to provide action, not theological-philosophical discussions. You may be overthinking this.
I doubt very much Rich meant to convey, "Any consideration of the morality of the situation here is overthinking."

Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson may, or may not, have had that in mind for D&D.

[Optimystik]

I wonder if Origin, and SoD, were jabs at player's who tend to underthink the rights of the creatures they come across, and assume that "if its a monster, it deserves to die and it's always OK to kill it?

It's certainly more than a "jab" considering that he assigned long-term ramifications to the paladins' actions. Were he just making a point, it would have been an isolated incident I think.


I doubt very much Rich meant to convey, "Any consideration of the morality of the situation here is overthinking."

Hmm, it must have just been my copy of SoD then - the panel after the paladin impaled Redcloak's baby sister on his katana, Fruit Pie the Sorcerer came out with a top-hat and cane singing "Nothing to see here, folks!" :smallamused:

[hamishspence]

true- and the phrasing in War & XPs seems to imply that, whether or not they fell, their behaviour was wrong- so to speak.

Is it because the basic alignment system has a "killing evil beings is by default non-evil" bit at its core?

Or is it because the paladins have an "if the gods demand it, it's OK" bit built into their code?

We'll have to wait and see.

[Optimystik]

I definitely think it's the latter. Haley's phrasing here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0524.html) implies it as well.

"What's the one act we know - through direct empirical evidence - can cause a paladin to be stripped of his powers? Killing their defenseless liege lord!"

"One act" implies that they can't be sure of any other acts that would make a paladin fall. For characters that know D&D rules as thoroughly as they do, this is strange wording... unless paladins fall in OotS due to disobeying the 12, rather than due merely to acting out of alignment in an objective sense.

The 12's rule would thus be "Thou shalt not kill thy liege lord" rather than "Thou shalt not kill the innocent."

[hamishspence]

And there is a philosophical position that "to save the world" or "to save the many" any amount of normally evil acts become justified- murder and torture, of few or many, adults or even the very young, and that:

"failure to do so is putting your own need to feel good about yourself above the needs of the many- which is selfish"

after hearing this argument numerous times, it wouldn't entirely surprise me if the Sapphire Guard actions are part of showing the implications of where this leads.

From "the Operative in Firefly is Good- because he only does what he does because he believes it to be necessary" to various other arguments.

[Shale]

Or they just haven't seen any other paladins fall, so they don't have other first-hand knowledge of what would cause them to do so.

[hamishspence]

It's possible.

Belkar seems to have a rough idea of what will make a paladin fall "if she associates with me, there's a good chance she'll lose all her powers"

He may or may not be wrong about "killing in anger" being a possible way she could fall.

That said, we've seen a paladin in Origin of PCs conniving at trying to get Durkon killed, and that didn't make him fall- maybe OoTS paladins get a bit more leeway?

[Optimystik]

Or they just haven't seen any other paladins fall, so they don't have other first-hand knowledge of what would cause them to do so.

The lengths they had to go to for Thanh to get another saving throw suggest otherwise. They specifically had to dress Belkar up like Shojo, complete with a Disguise check to impersonate him. With a regular D&D paladin, he could have gotten another saving throw simply by anyone in the room being in his path (except Haley or Belkar, of course.)

Granted, we don't know the exact orders Tsukiko gave Thanh, but given that he tried to attack Belkar instead of going around him, they weren't "kill Haley."

[Lecan]

The Giant has frequently used characters and their actions as examples of good or evil that do not necessarily match their alignments. Both O-Chul and Miko were paladins who were of Good alignment, but they were deliberately very different in action, mindset and the response they received.

I think the SoD example of the paladins slaughtering a village is intended to represent Good-aligned paladins acting in a less-than-good manner. It is meant to show that sometimes the alignment system and morality differ. I really doubt that the Giant is trying to say that killing children and non-combatants is sometimes the right thing to do.

[NerfTW]

Oh wonderful, this argument again. At least you've read the book, I assume. Not like the last guy.


The Order of the Stick-verse uses a rule where the god granting the powers determines if the act is good or evil, not some nebulous (or in D&D, concrete) concept of good. Therefore, since it is shown (at least according to Redcloak) that the monster races were created for easy leveling, and the Twelve Gods endorse the Sapphire Guard, they are allowed to kill all monster races of any age. This was also shown in Origins, where the Orcs were not actually harming anyone, but could be killed by a paladin with impunity.

Simply put, Paladins can do whatever the gods wish of the, regardless of whether vanilla D&D would allow it. It's a houserule.

[hamishspence]

Interesting hypothesis- even if the evidence is not exactly conclusive.

I suspect there may be more to it than that.

Still, until more evidence comes to light, it could quite well be the most probable scenario.