On Soon

[kpenguin]

A topic related to the Girard debates that are cropping up everywhere, but with a different focus, let's discuss Soon, shall we?

What were the chances of Soon actually going out and trying to interfere with Girard's Gate? We know that he didn't during his own lifetime and did not give any orders to his paladins to do so. He seems dedicated to his belief that the honor of a paladin is unbreakable, even beyond the grave.

Girard and Serini, who spent a lot of time with Soon, surely should have known him well enough to put the idea of Soon breaking his oath, breaking his paladin honor, aside, even if Girard would construe it as being "Lawful Stupid"

Nevertheless, both Girard and Serini believed, even betted on, Soon breaking the oath he made with the rest of the Scribble.

What aspect of Soon's personality are we missing here?

[Holy_Knight]

Well, first, we don't necessarily know that Serini shares Girard's evaluation of Soon. Girard assumes she wouldn't have given the coordinates to Soon if he had asked, and she may well not have if he had, but he never did, which might have been consistent with her expectations, contra Girard.

As for what we might be missing, the evidence so far is that we're missing Girard's emotionally-charged grudge against Soon. Possibly there's something else, but as far as I can see nothing has been suggested by what we know of him.

[Shadowbane]

I think it's quite possible that, at least during his time with the Order of the Scribble, Soon was much like Miko. I certainly think it's not impossible that death improved the man, and gave him time and the wisdom to look back and understand his mistakes. It's not impossible that through some twisted logic Soon might have broken his oath.

That said, I'm more of the mind that this is more Girard having serious issues. I think our dear illusionist friend has great issues, and I think that its possible that on some level he hates Soon because, as a great cynic, Soon's absolute dedication to honor greatly undermined his worldview and possibly proved him wrong more than once. It's not impossible to say that Girard finally was so blinded by his hatred because of this that he stopped even remembering why he hated Soon, and everything was eclipsed by a cynical worldview.

[Starscream]

Well, Girard bet that Soon would violate his oath in short order. Presumably the person he bet against had a slightly better opinion of him.

Or at least thought it would take more than 12 weeks. But for all we know the rest of the party believed he would never break the oath, Girard was sure he would, and Serini just thought it was worth a 10,000 gp bet, which for an epic level character is pocket change.

Edit:
And for an epic level rogue it doesn't even have to be your pocket.

[Asta Kask]

This is a paladin (from A Few Good Men):


We joined the Marines because we wanted to live our lives by a certain code, and we found it in the Corps. Now you're asking us to sign a piece of paper that says we have no honor. You're asking us to say we're not Marines. If a court decides that what we did was wrong, then I'll accept whatever punishment they give. But I believe I was right sir, I believe I did my job, and I will not dishonor myself, my unit, or the Corps so I can go home in six months... Sir.

[Maximum Zersk]

What's on soon? I hope it's Futarama!

Oh, you meant THAT Soon. Maybe something DID happen between the two during their adventures. Something we don't know about. Yet.

[dps]

Well, Girard bet that Soon would violate his oath in short order. Presumably the person he bet against had a slightly better opinion of him.

Or at least thought it would take more than 12 weeks. But for all we know the rest of the party believed he would never break the oath, Girard was sure he would, and Serini just thought it was worth a 10,000 gp bet, which for an epic level character is pocket change.

Edit:
And for an epic level rogue it doesn't even have to be your pocket.

Well, it was a pool (which implies that more than 2 people are involved); maybe everyone in the pool thought that it would be within 12 weeks, but Girard called dibs on that option, so everyone else had to take another pick.

[comicshorse]

Posted by kpenguin

Nevertheless, both Girard and Serini believed, even betted on, Soon breaking the oath he made with the rest of the Scribble.


It seems fairly obvious form her diary in OOTS 196 that Serini had a crush on Girard. It seems possible that she would go along with his opinion of Soon in order to avoid alienating him. Even taking part in the bet even if she didn't feel Soon was likely to break his word. After all she wasn't going to lose anything

[kpenguin]

So, you guys are saying that this is all a misperception on Girard's part?

I assume the "cowardly" bit as well. Paladins have immunity to fear as a class feature.

[Elfin]

But I wanted it to be on now. (:smalltongue:)

[Shadowbane]

So, you guys are saying that this is all a misperception on Girard's part?

I assume the "cowardly" bit as well. Paladins have immunity to fear as a class feature.

That is, in my opinion, the most likely. He seems to have issues. Like, big huge muscular issues that have tattoos and piercings in scary places.

[comicshorse]

So, you guys are saying that this is all a misperception on Girard's part?

Pretty much. IMHO Girard always had a problem with authority figures and so instantly disliked Soon ( as can be seen by the first thing we see him doing is insulting Soon's class). While the group was successful this was kept in check.
But then Soon risks his and Kraagor's life to defeat the Snarl. Girard must blame someone for this death and to him it is obviously all Soon's fault ( thus justifying the hatred Girard always had of him and proving Girard 'right')


I assume the "cowardly" bit as well. Paladins have immunity to fear as a class feature.

Exactly. Not only that but we clearly see that Soon is risking his own lfe when he orders the rift to be shut. I personally think that Girard has been mulling on the events alone for years and getting steadily more bitter and twisted about what happened. Reinventing the memories to suit his own prejudice about Soon and to assauage any guilt he feels about his part in Kraagor's death. After all, if Soon is the complete villain then all the blame is his and Girard can absolve himself of any responsibility

[TheSummoner]

We've seen little of Soon... most of it was him beating Xykon to dust.

What little we saw that shed light on his character was him comforting a dieing Miko. Its possible that the Soon we saw and the Soon Girard knew are different people... Soon may have changed as he got older, become more accepting and compassionate. Maybe he was showing a softer side merely because he was talking to one of his own paladins instead of an outsider...

From Girard's point of view, Soon had a stick up his ass during their adventuring days. Dorukan also jumped at the chance to battle it out with Soon...

Makes me believe they know a much different Soon than the one we've seen...

[comicshorse]

Dorukan also jumped at the chance to battle it out with Soon...



Hmmm not really. We see Girard insult Soon three times before the fight and Dorukan do nothing. He does seem to be about to attack Soon in the group's last meeting but thats when everybody is het up about Kraagor's death. There really isn't any evidence that Dorukan had any real long-term dislike of Soon or wehther he just lost his temper once in a emotion charged moment

[Kish]

From Girard's point of view, Soon had a stick up his ass during their adventuring days. Paladins have sticks up their asses as class features (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0223.html) in the OotS setting.

[evil-frosty]

I do believe that Girard is mad at soon for the death of Kraagor if you look at OOTS 276 ( http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0276.html ). And in his rant he says it should have been Soon who died in the Rift.

[Shadowbane]

Paladins have sticks up their asses as class features (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0223.html) in the OotS setting.

I was absolutely sure that Miko was deadpan snarking...right?

[TheSummoner]

Hmmm not really. We see Girard insult Soon three times before the fight and Dorukan do nothing. He does seem to be about to attack Soon in the group's last meeting but thats when everybody is het up about Kraagor's death. There really isn't any evidence that Dorukan had any real long-term dislike of Soon or wehther he just lost his temper once in a emotion charged moment

While its true there seemed to be more friction between Soon and Girard, it was Dorukan who brought his wife into it. Maybe it was heat of the moment, but I can't imagine Dorukan (or anyone else for that matter) actually preparing to attack Soon like that without there being some pent up anger.


Paladins have sticks up their asses as class features (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0223.html) in the OotS setting.

Hmm... so they do. Makes you wonder why anyone would want to be a Paladin... sounds unbelievably painful...

[Kish]

I was absolutely sure that Miko was deadpan snarking...right?
That would require Miko to have responded to Roy telling her she has a stick up her ass with a self-deprecating joke. How likely does that sound?

[Raw_fishFood]

I really think people are being too harsh on the Illusion of Girard that's 50-60 years old.

It's pretty clear that Soon "had a stick up his ass" during his years with the Order of the Scribble. This was probably part because he was a Paladin, although mostly I assume it's because of losing his wife. He probably did lighten up years afterwards, and that's the Soon that we saw comfort a dying Miko.

We also don't actually know what the situation that lead to the death of Kraagor, except from Soon's point of view. He may have thought it necessary (it may have even been necessary) but I'm not sure the other Scribbles agreed. We know Girard didn't, and we can also assume that Dorukan didn't (As he said, "And you don't care if your allies fall, as long as you avenge your dead wife!").

Again, I'd like to reiterate that I think people are being too hard on Girard. This is an illusion that's probably 50-60 years old, and if the others had a pool going on when Soon would go for the gate it's mostly likely Soon was also a different person back then.

We haven't even met the real Girard yet. I'm not going to deny it was rather irresponsible of him to leave his trap laying for Soon, but by now he could be a very old man with many regrets, assuming he's still alive.

[MReav]

That would require Miko to have responded to Roy telling her she has a stick up her ass with a self-deprecating joke. How likely does that sound?

"No, it's a class feature"?

[comicshorse]

We haven't even met the real Girard yet. I'm not going to deny it was rather irresponsible of him to leave his trap laying for Soon, but by now he could be a very old man with many regrets, assuming he's still alive.

Then why didn't he deactivate the trap ?

[TheSummoner]

That would require Miko to have responded to Roy telling her she has a stick up her ass with a self-deprecating joke. How likely does that sound?

That would require Miko to make a joke at all.

[Shadowbane]

That would require Miko to have responded to Roy telling her she has a stick up her ass with a self-deprecating joke. How likely does that sound?

This makes me look at O-Chul with so much more respect suddenly.

[HandofShadows]

This makes me look at O-Chul with so much more respect suddenly.

Welcome to the party. :smallbiggrin: I think it's fairly clear that Miko is The Giants way of showing how not to play a Paladin (Lawful Self Rightous) and that O-Chul is how they should be played.

[RebelRogue]

As have been pointed out several times, Girard's grudge seems to stem from the final battle vs. the Snarl and Kraagor's death (but possibly having build up over a long time due to differences in philosophies). Appearantly something happened there, that would lead Girard to think Soon to be unhonorable, even though everything we've seen in the comic so far indicates that he is indeed not. Girard may be an impulsive, chaotic bastard, but I find it hard to believe he has not picked up on Soon's extreme sense of duty and honor (in fact, he mocks him for it). So something really horribly trust-breaking must have happened in that battle!

[SadisticFishing]

... so people would rather assume Miko believes that Paladins have a class feature saying they have a stick up their asses than that she actually had a sense of humor?

No wonder people around here hate her.

Basically, like most of the threads here with questions, the only real answer is: time will tell.

[TheSummoner]

... so people would rather assume Miko believes that Paladins have a class feature saying they have a stick up their asses than that she actually had a sense of humor?

No wonder people around here hate her.

Basically, like most of the threads here with questions, the only real answer is: time will tell.

Point out one time Miko made a joke.

That being said, I actually liked Miko as a character.

[Welf]

Seems quite clear to me: Girard doubted that Soon was a good person. To him, Soon just followed his own interests - avenging his wife - and hide behind his paladin code. Soon even found a way to justify amoral things like sacrificing their friend Kraagor. Girard expected that if he could rationalize such a horrible deed, he would also find a way to rationalizing something minor like breaking a oath.

[Roderick_BR]

What we are missing, is that Girard (and the others betters) don't trust paladins. As it was said. Soon, or any of his commanded, ever went there.
Granted, the Saphire Guard had some system to look into the gates in case something happened to them (like when the Order destroyed the first gate), but for his whole life, AND afterlife, Soon always kept his promise.

In other words: Girard was, and is, absolutely wrong. And is a self-righteous prick, the kind he accused Soon of being.

[Kish]

Point out one time Miko made a joke.

"I'm guessing that 'stupidity' also has a place in that progression." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0371.html)

However, setting aside for the moment the question of her being willing to make jokes that are self-deprecating rather than sniping at Xykon, I find it just a tidge unlikely that she independently made the same joke about herself that Girard made about Soon--as opposed to it being a fact of the OotS setting, known to paladins and people who associate with them, that paladins have sticks up their asses as a class feature.

[Raw_fishFood]

Then why didn't he deactivate the trap ?

Well, the point I'm trying to make is we don't know what Girard is like, or has done since making the trap. He could have forgotten where he put the trap, lost where it is, and then spent some time looking for it. Or observed the Sapphire Guard wasn't going after the gate, let it be because the likely hood of somebody not associated with the Sapphire Guard activating it being very small. Maybe for whatever reason he couldn't go back to deactivate it. Perhaps he died not long after setting the trap. Maybe he is as angry and bitter as everyone assumes he is.

I just think people are getting out of perspective, that's all. The illusion of Girard represents a Girard not too long after the breaking of the OotSrc, obviously still very angry about the death of Kraagor (which we still only have a second hand account of from one person). It may not be whoever Girard is now.

[Kish]

Well, the point I'm trying to make is we don't know what Girard is like, or has done since making the trap. He could have forgotten where he put the trap, lost where it is, and then spent some time looking for it. Or observed the Sapphire Guard wasn't going after the gate, let it be because the likely hood of somebody not associated with the Sapphire Guard activating it being very small.

Either of those would leave the question, "Why didn't he send different coordinates to Soon--either real, or non-trapped fake?"

[Holy_Knight]

That would require Miko to have responded to Roy telling her she has a stick up her ass with a self-deprecating joke. How likely does that sound?
I didn't take this as a self-deprecating joke per se; rather I just thought it was a way of shutting up Roy. It functions as a comeback, either way.



However, setting aside for the moment the question of her being willing to make jokes that are self-deprecating rather than sniping at Xykon, I find it just a tidge unlikely that she independently made the same joke about herself that Girard made about Soon--as opposed to it being a fact of the OotS setting, known to paladins and people who associate with them, that paladins have sticks up their asses as a class feature.
Alternatively, it could be a common enough ascription to have entered general parlance--just like people in our society would make jokes about politicians being untrustworthy, etc.

[magic9mushroom]

As has been said, Serini bet against Soon breaking his oath (and won).

I think the problem might be similar to what happened in Don't Split the Party between V and Durkon, Durkon being in Soon's position and V in Girard's.

[Zevox]

As has been said, Serini bet against Soon breaking his oath (and won).
Evidence please. Because what we know about the bet is only Girard's statement, which reads: "We even have a pool going over how long it will take you to break your word and send someone." Note that he says "how long it will take," not "whether you will."

Zevox

[magic9mushroom]

Evidence please. Because what we know about the bet is only Girard's statement, which reads: "We even have a pool going over how long it will take you to break your word and send someone." Note that he says "how long it will take," not "whether you will."

Zevox

Girard bet that Soon would break it within 12 weeks. Serini bet against that. She didn't specifically bet that he wouldn't break it, but him not breaking it at all would still make her win.

[Zevox]

Girard bet that Soon would break it within 12 weeks. Serini bet against that. She didn't specifically bet that he wouldn't break it, but him not breaking it at all would still make her win.
That depends on the specifics of the bet.

But in any case, I wasn't arguing whether she won or not - we won't know that until we know what she bet, and we may never learn that. I was arguing that your assertion that she bet against him breaking it lacks any evidence and is contrary to what little evidence we do have.

Zevox

[Conuly]

Girard bet that Soon would break it within 12 weeks. Serini bet against that. She didn't specifically bet that he wouldn't break it, but him not breaking it at all would still make her win.

But "pool" implies more than two people. It may be that Girard bet that Soon would break his oath within 3 months, Serini bet he'd break his oath after a year and a half, but before five years were up, and Dorukan bet that he'd break his oath in no less than 7 years - and Lirian bet that he'd never break the oath at all, making Lirian the winner (afawk, naturally, although if Soon broke his oath he did a mighty poor job of it if the message is only JUST NOW being triggered) and everybody else BIG LOSERS... though Girard is in last place.

[Holy_Knight]

But "pool" implies more than two people. It may be that Girard bet that Soon would break his oath within 3 months, Serini bet he'd break his oath after a year and a half, but before five years were up, and Dorukan bet that he'd break his oath in no less than 7 years - and Lirian bet that he'd never break the oath at all, making Lirian the winner (afawk, naturally, although if Soon broke his oath he did a mighty poor job of it if the message is only JUST NOW being triggered) and everybody else BIG LOSERS... though Girard is in last place.

Of course, we don't actually know who else the bet was with; it's possible it was with none or only some of the Scribblers.

As far as Serini specifically, I get the impression (from what little we've seen) that she actually liked Soon, at least through most of their adventures.

[Teral]

It's been quite a while since I last played a game (even then it was mostly CG rogues) and my memory is a little hazy. So question: if a Paladin, during a time of severe emotional stress and after a heated argument, attacked his allies in anger, would that constitute a violation of his code of conduct severe enough to make him fall?

[Shale]

Depends on the DM. As long as the circumstances were enough to genuinely work up a good person that badly, I'd call it a Neutral act at worst. But a real hardass could call it Evil, I suppose.

[TheSummoner]

Would really depend on what his allies did... did he attack first or was he defending himself... how badly did he hurt them... that sort of thing...

[comicshorse]

Considering Soon just drew his sword but didn't actually use it in angetr, it'd be a harsh G.M. who made him Fall for that

[SadisticFishing]

Considering Soon just drew his sword but didn't actually use it in angetr, it'd be a bad G.M. who made him Fall for that

Yeah, attacking allies... depends on the situation. If it's uncalled for enough to be an Evil act, the Paladin falls. If it's not an Evil act, they don't fall. The end.

[Zevox]

It's been quite a while since I last played a game (even then it was mostly CG rogues) and my memory is a little hazy. So question: if a Paladin, during a time of severe emotional stress and after a heated argument, attacked his allies in anger, would that constitute a violation of his code of conduct severe enough to make him fall?
Would depend upon the circumstances, I suspect. If he actually managed to seriously wound or kill someone, that'd be an evil act, which is auto-fall. Depending on the circumstances, it's possible that the attack itself may be qualified by some DMs as an evil act, which again means he falls.

Beyond that, as long as his alignment remains Lawful Good, he doesn't fall, so the only other concern would be if snapping like that came about in such a way or under such circumstances as would mean it signaled an alignment shift. If so, fall. If not, no fall.

Zevox

[Teral]

So simply violating ideals and acting dishonorably would not be enough?

Where I'm a bit uncertain is because the SRD mentioned acting honorably as part of the CoC in the same section as Falling due to an Evil act. I would imagine attacking people that are your allies would be a dishonorable act.

My theory kinda hinges on the idea that simply attacking people who wouldn't expect you to do so, without warning, is enough. Hmmm, back to the drawing board I guess....

Anyway, for curious minds this was what I meant to post before reading the replies. Consider the theory canned. :smallfrown:

(for now anyway) :smalltongue:


Considering Soon just drew his sword but didn't actually use it in angetr, it'd be a harsh G.M. who made him Fall for that

True, then again the flashback during the trial is basically Soon's version of the story, further filtered through Shojo (who might, subconsciously, have smushed a few details), and even then we see Soon with a snarl (pun not intended) on his face. Well basically, it's an idea I've had since strip #464, which gave me a few hints (which I freely admit might just be me seeing things :smallwink: ).

The hints were:

1) Soon's final scene with Miko gave me a vibe he had first-hand experience with how special Redemption is. He knew not only the technical requirements, but also the philosophical (since a better word fails me right now) aspects and the most important; admitting you failed to live by the ideals you swore to uphold.

2) Younger Soon, even in his own version, was prone to anger, impatience, prejudice (against magic and casters) and jumping to conclusions. Spirit-Soon wasn't, he was a wise, benevolent badass, compassionate enough to comfort a fallen paladin in her dying moments, something changed him.

Combine that with how convinced Girard was that Soon couldn't be trusted (at least 1 other Scribble agreed with this), despite how serious Paladins are about keeping oaths, and I got the impression Soon might've Fallen due to disagreements following Kraagor's death that made him violate some ideal of The Twelve Gods.

To put it into a scenario:

While adventuring with his order Soon become more and more frustrated. His primary reason for the quest (protecting the world) is going smoothly, the secondary (revenge for his dead wife) isn't so straightforward. With no tangible target (I mean how can he hurt a God-killing abomination) to take his anger out on, he projects it onto his fellow Scribblers: becoming irritated with their lack of focus and dedication, starting to boss them around, making decisions on behalf of the group without input, etc. Naturally this creates tension with the chaotic members, particular Girard, but for now they humor him considering what is at stake. Then we come to the fateful battle at Kraagor's gate. Soon, for some reason, have no patience and order Lirian and Dorukan to seal the rift ahead of schedule. Soon escapes without a scratch, but Kraagor dies. The rift is sealed, the world is secure, for Soon the loss while heartbreaking and tragic is acceptable given the stakes (he's right). For Girard and Dorukan it isn't. As Dorukan says in the flashback, they only saw Soon force his will on the group and sacrifice Kraagor for shallow revenge. Again it's a matter of POV and personal bias on their part. Probably why Girard mentioned that whole "give a man enough power and he will abuse it thing". Soon, already irritated by the groups lack of dedication and discipline, takes these accusations very badly and, after some shouting, enraged draws his katana (probably imagining he's protecting his honor or something) and charges at Dorukan and Girard, who readies spells and blades. So simply a 180 of Shojo's line in the flashback during the trial. This is where I imagine Soon would Fall (I wouldn't classify this as an Evil act, probably Neutral, but it would be dishonorably).

Now, unlike Miko, Soon is not delusional merely a prisoner of his own grief, and after a heartfelt "what have I done"-moment ask The Twelve Gods for forgiveness and a chance to atone for his mistakes. The Gods grant him his wish. His atonement task is to create The Sapphire Guard, remove all threats to the gates and destroy all knowledge of their existence (really it's the only way I can reconcile a Paladin order carrying out genocide and surpressing information), even his own fall from grace must be kept secret to avoid probing questions. Eventually the Gods forgives him and he evolve into the wise and benevolent badass we saw in strip 462 and 464.

For Girard this only adds insult to injury. Not only have he witnessed a good friend die because a Lawful PC judged it to be in the interest of the Greater Good, but the gods even condoned it? Afterall Soon didn't fall because of his disregard for individual life, but because he violated some arbitrary Lawful code. And even that's reversible, essentially giving Soon a "Get out of jail free"-card (in the eyes of Girard anyway). No wonder he has only contempt and scorn for The Twelve Gods. And why should he trust Soon; he just witnessed Soon violate his own ideals with only minor consequences (loss of Paladin skills for the duration of his atonement), so Soon could easily break his oath to the Scribblers, because the petting zoo would forgive him in a heartbeat.

To reiterate: this is just my personal theory, there's really no concrete evidence supporting it, neither is there anything opposing it. And really that's the problem, we know preciously little about what happened all those years ago, except for what Soon told Shojo's father.

In the end I'm certain Mr Burlew will come up with something far more awesome. :smallwink:

Spoiler-fied due to size of Wall Of Text.

[Zevox]

So simply violating ideals and acting dishonorably would not be enough?

Where I'm a bit uncertain is because the SRD mentioned acting honorably as part of the CoC in the same section as Falling due to an Evil act. I would imagine attacking people that are your allies would be a dishonorable act.
Here's your mistake: simply violating something in the Code of Conduct does not cause an automatic fall. The things which cause a Paladin to fall are an evil act ("dishonorable" acts aren't necessarily evil - hell, it's arguable if they're necessarily chaotic) and ceasing to be Lawful Good. That's it.


My theory kinda hinges on the idea that simply attacking people who wouldn't expect you to do so, without warning, is enough.
Yeah, some Paladins think like that, but it's not something the D&D rules force them to do. It's that kind of thinking, for example, that leads some Paladins to stupidly consider ambushes "dishonorable" and thus announce their presence to enemies before attacking them. In case you haven't noticed, that tends not to be looked upon as one of their better qualities.

Zevox

[Nilan8888]

The thing is that I don't think it WAS particularly likely Soon would have broken his oath. The percentage was probably on the low side to begin with.

But if you're protecting the Gates, I figure you don't really play the percentages. Not that the solution is what Girard came up with in terms of attempted murder.

[Welf]

It's been quite a while since I last played a game (even then it was mostly CG rogues) and my memory is a little hazy. So question: if a Paladin, during a time of severe emotional stress and after a heated argument, attacked his allies in anger, would that constitute a violation of his code of conduct severe enough to make him fall?

This is just a personal opinion, but I'd give a paladin a little bit latitude. He is, after all, a human being. A black eye, some bruises and minor cuts should be okay, but only if it was really a emotional moment.

And on a side note: Soon might be forced to attack them without warning because it's the honourable thing to do. I don't know about your fake Japanese samurai, but in my campaign worlds its a serious thing if somebody accuses a noble of second degree murder and insults his code of honour. And since neither Durokan nor Girard were nobles they were probably not worth a duel.

[Kieran Cage]

I think it's not so much of missing something, as adding the unnecessary: The assumption that Girard's rant is at all what it seems to be.

It's been said before, though vastly overshadowed by the Pro-vs.-Anti Girard comments, that since the entire premise is predicated on a spell cast by an epic-level illusionist, that perhaps the real truth of Girard's feelings towards Soon may not have been revealed.

Indeed, it seems a bit strange for Girard to assume Soon would break his oath. That and other inconsistencies lead one to believe that his speech could just be Girard's way of saying hello: with an illusion, both in mechanics and in content.

I would have expected Roy to give a briefing like this while still riding towards the gate's presumed location:

"Ok guys, we are headed for Girard's Gate. We know is that he was an epic level illusionist, capable of some of the most powerful illusions ever devised, and that he used a cunning serious of illusions to hide his gate.

So be ready for anything. And accept NOTHING at face value. Anything you see, hear, feel, any of it could be part of an elaborate deception. Take it all with a grain of salt."

EDIT: Ok, after reading that, I can see why he specifically WOULDN'T have said that to the OOTS.

Durkon would have been virtually paralyzed with paranoia at every turn.

Belkar would have used it as an excuse to, well, to be Belkar ("How was I supposed to know that those traveling merchants WEREN'T just an illusion before I stabbed them all?")

And as for Elan...Twelve Gods, there is literally no telling what he would have come up with.


But my point remains: at this point, everything is suspect.

For all we know, Girard and Soon may have been as close friends as a Chaotic and Lawful pair could be. A facade of mutual, or even one-sided loathing that lent itself well to a gambit designed to mislead would be Gate-crashers (pun intended) would be well in character for both of them: Girard for his love of deception as a tactic, and Soon's honor recognizing that he must sacrifice his friendship for the good of protecting the gates.

There may well yet be more to this than meets the eye.

[Warren Dew]

So, you guys are saying that this is all a misperception on Girard's part?

Yes.

Note that we've only see the message prepared for Soon, since the triggers involved the words "Soon" and "Sapphire Guard". Quite possibly Girard distrusted others in the party as well, and prepared different messages for them which took different trigger words.

For that matter we don't even know that the coordinates are actually incorrect.

[magic9mushroom]

Here's your mistake: simply violating something in the Code of Conduct does not cause an automatic fall. The things which cause a Paladin to fall are an evil act ("dishonorable" acts aren't necessarily evil - hell, it's arguable if they're necessarily chaotic) and ceasing to be Lawful Good. That's it.

If they grossly violate their code of conduct, they fall as well, or so says the PHB. Key word is "grossly", but still, it is there.

[hamishspence]

The Giant put a bonus strip in Wars & XPs which discusses the issue of gross and non-gross violations.

You are still supposed to atone for a non-gross violation- but you don't actually Fall for it- which is an interesting way of handling it.

The example was two paladins lying to Miko in order to get out of dinner with her.

Then one suggests actually doing what they told Miko they would be doing, so it could be made "not a lie" after the fact.

[Optimystik]

You are still supposed to atone for a non-gross violation- but you don't actually Fall for it- which is an interesting way of handling it.

Interesting; I need to stop holding out and pick up War & XPs already.

Still, I can't help but recall Asmodeus' quote: "There can be no Law without Punishment." What happens if they don't atone? Nothing? Or do they accumulate a chaotic version of obeisance points (dissonance points?) that make them stop being Lawful if they get too many?

[hamishspence]

Quintessenial Paladin 2 (3rd party) had an interesting way of handling things. Really little code breaches might only cause a few nightmares, bigger ones might cause small mechanical penalties- loss of minor paladin powers but not all of them, and so on.

Penalties might be slightly worse for repetition of the same offence. And there were "aggravating factors" and "mitigating factors"

It seemed more nuanced- allowing the DM to show that the paladin is slipping a little without stripping them of everything- clues to suggest they should move back toward the straight and narrow way.

[tribble]

Quintessenial Paladin 2 (3rd party) had an interesting way of handling things. Really little code breaches might only cause a few nightmares, bigger ones might cause small mechanical penalties- loss of minor paladin powers but not all of them, and so on.

Penalties might be slightly worse for repetition of the same offence. And there were "aggravating factors" and "mitigating factors"

It seemed more nuanced- allowing the DM to show that the paladin is slipping a little without stripping them of everything- clues to suggest they should move back toward the straight and narrow way.
I like this idea!
http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs47/f/2009/232/4/0/Paladin_definitely_Approved_by_MaximumOverdrive.jp g

[hamishspence]

It also provided guidelines to writing your own code (the major tenets, the "strength level" of each :

(for example, on Dealing with Prisoners, it can range from "May execute prisoners at the paladin's discretion" to "may only execute evil prisoners without trial" to "may not execute anyone without trial unless its a very very desperate situation")

and a "generic code" for people who don't want to write their own.

The code has a minimum number of points that must be spent though- you cant just take 0-level tenets in all.

And a short story, broken up into snippets through the book, discussions of whether Detect Evil is valid for Smite on Sight:

(depends on how evil something needs to be to detect as evil- basically, only in a setting where evil is supernatural and "ordinary serial-killers" count as Neutral, is it valid)

and a lot of other things.

[Optimystik]

I like the idea of "piecemeal falling."

But that leads to the complexity of deciding which abilities go missing first.

A paladin pursuing a villain by any means necessary may decide that losing Turning is worth it, for instance (especially if there are no undead around), so long as he keeps Detect Evil and Smite.

Or a paladin like Miko might be willing to lose Detect Evil - believing herself to be surrounded by evildoers anyway, or at least the impure.

So the intent of that system - subtle nudges back to the path of righteousness - may be lost. Though a total fall at that point would at least be less of a shock, should the warnings go unheeded.

[hamishspence]

The list was as follows:

Venial Breach: Guilt-wracked dreams. -2 sacred penalty to Charisma when dealing with celestials, or -1 caster level on paladin spells

Minor Breach: Loss of divine grace or aura of courage or -1 caster level on paladin spells. Those trained in such things will notice a minor stain on the paladin's aura of good.

Dangerous Breach: Requires atonement or similar acts of contrition to make up for. Loss of divine grace, divine health, aura of courage, special mount, spellcasting.

Major Breach: Loss of all abilities except one, of the character's choice- from this list- aura of good, aura of courage, divine grace, divine health, remove disease, lay on hands, special mount, smite evil, spellcasting

Utter Breach: Loss of all abilities. An imp or similar creature will be dispatched by the Lower Planes to further tempt the paladin to become a blackguard.

Mortal Breach: If the paladin fails to atone within a year and a day, their alignment moves toward evil. They will be visited three times by evil outsiders, tempting him with levels of blackguard.

Unforgivable Breach: Only direct intervention of a god or its avatar can offer the paladin a chance of redemption and returning to paladinhood. They may trade paladin levels for blackguard levels even if they are below 11th level.

My guess is that in this system, the sillier blackguard skill and feat requirements are waived.

[The_Weirdo]

Hmmm not really. We see Girard insult Soon three times before the fight and Dorukan do nothing. He does seem to be about to attack Soon in the group's last meeting but thats when everybody is het up about Kraagor's death. There really isn't any evidence that Dorukan had any real long-term dislike of Soon or wehther he just lost his temper once in a emotion charged moment

After Soon insulted him pretty much for free, as a person and a professional (Wizard).

[The_Weirdo]

Unforgivable Breach: Only direct intervention of a god or its avatar can offer the paladin a chance of redemption and returning to paladinhood. They may trade paladin levels for blackguard levels even if they are below 11th level.

My guess is that in this system, the sillier blackguard skill and feat requirements are waived.

Such a redemption for an unforgivable breach would make for a GREAT story.

Especially with goddesses... *_*

[Trixie]

What aspect of Soon's personality are we missing here?

The one about him being a subject to whims of beings that can order him any minute to seize the gates for "greater good"? Beings such as Rat? :smallconfused:

Or how about killing his allies only to avenge his wife?

We can add that he was a ruler, too, of a very corrupt city with a lot of strong-arming going on behind the scenes - not the best environment to remain pure, see.

And before the "issues" people congratulate themselves again - half of the quotes you mentioned belonged to Dorukan, not to Girard, and if there were any anti-Soon issues, all members save for Soon had them, so we can safely say they were real and wholly his fault.


Then why didn't he deactivate the trap ?

Why would he? That was something that could have been activated only by people who not bothered to contact him by normal means, but instead showed up personally. Why bother, then, if he even remembered which random spot that was?

The chance was big they would be bad guys, as all members of the OotS had resources to send magical message instantly, instead of trying to sneak in. It's like asking - why the door in the middle of Pentagon will taser anyone trying to input wrong code we give to KGB agents? Not exactly a place full of innocents.


Either of those would leave the question, "Why didn't he send different coordinates to Soon--either real, or non-trapped fake?"

Because the oath was invented on the spot by Serini to save Soon. They agreed to it only because it was containing Soon without bloodshed, as no one besides him was expected to honor it. Let's see:

What if Soon broke his word? Their attitude at the moment was - oh, Girard was right about him going crusade/blackguard/honor-less, let's remind him what was coming to him before Serini interfered, maybe he will snap out of it.

Soon kept his word? Fine, one (or more) magical trap will be forever dormant, and Soon might do some good after all. It's not like it setting it cost them much.

[Herald Alberich]

We can add that he was a ruler, too, of a very corrupt city with a lot of strong-arming going on behind the scenes - not the best environment to remain pure, see.

Not the case. Soon gave over command of the SG to Shojo's father, who was already Lord of the city. Despite Miko referring to him as Lord Soon (equal in rank, perhaps), he was never Lord of Azure City himself.

[MReav]

Not the case. Soon gave over command of the SG to Shojo's father, who was already Lord of the city. Despite Miko referring to him as Lord Soon (equal in rank, perhaps), he was never Lord of Azure City himself.

Soon likely was an aristocrat of some importance (hence Lord), since he was an (if not the) Azure City ambassador to the Elven Lands, but he was not the ruler of the city.

[hamishspence]

Such a redemption for an unforgivable breach would make for a GREAT story.

Especially with goddesses... *_*

I wonder if "The Force" counts as a deity of sorts?

the massacre of the Jedi younglings might qualify as an "unforgivable breach" for Anakin, with his special atonement being giving his life to destroy Palpatine.

Either way, the concept works for settings other than D&D.

I like the notion of a more nuanced system than simply "Fall"/"Not Fall".

[Kish]

The list was as follows:
[...]

Bleh. This codifies the "a blackguard is what a fallen paladin becomes and that is the sole purpose of the blackguard prestige class" assumption, which I despise, and which is not supported by WotC. There's no room in that system to cease to be a paladin without becoming evil.

Fighter/rogue/blackguards who were evil at the start of their adventuring careers make good villains. Fallen paladins who mourn the loss of their blessed former status but don't go any lower than neutral, or who, like Miko, go insane without embracing "I am evil muahahah!" can be interesting characters. Ex-paladin blackguards are usually a string of implausible events wedded to a wangsty backstory.

[hamishspence]

The paladin is Good first, Lawful second. Unforgivable Breaches are there to be acts of great evil.

There is, however, another option in the book for fallen paladins- the Anti-paladin- always Lawful Evil, with a code of their own, who, rather than being tempted by fiends (as is the blackguard's thing) has consciously and wilfully chosen to break the code.


Unlike blackguards,they detect as Good, as if they were a paladin.

There is also the "penitent" PRC which is a fallen guy (blackguard or anti-paladin) who is slowly working their way back to redemption.

Ceasing to become a paladin without becoming evil is not impossible- simply change alignment from Lawful Good to some other alignment. Complete Divine has a PRC that works quite well for paladins who have gone all the way to CG- Holy Liberator.

While not all blackguards are ex-paladins, the DMG does stress that paladins get the most out of the PRC since "those who have tasted the Light and walked away make the foulest villains"

A paladin can fall without becoming a Blackguard- the system is focussed on that since falling that far, is the sort of thing that might justify Good-Evil alignment shifting.

Though some official Fallen Paladins/Blackguards, appear to have got that way while still refusing to accept that they aren't paladins anymore.

Michael Ambrose in Tome of Magic, and Gareth Cormaeril in Waterdeep: City of Splendours, for example.

[Kish]

I am getting the distinct impression I would utterly hate this book. Glad it isn't official.

("If you ever give in to your emotions, you'll warp almost irrevocably into a sadistic, mindlessly destructive monster who destroys whatever your reason for giving in to your emotions was" struck me as a compelling argument that the Force is a terrible curse in Star Wars ever since that idea got introduced there, too.)

[hamishspence]

Giving in isn't so much the problem, as giving in, then refusing to accept that doing so was wrong, and keeping on acting that way.

Having emotions wasn't the problem, but becoming driven by them, was.

"The code" as written in the book, wasn't utterly inflexible- it had aggravating and mitigating factors, and the possibility of slipping a short way without ceasing to be a paladin-

then choosing to go "back up the slippery slope" instead of "jumping off it"

[Belkster11]

The one about him being a subject to whims of beings that can order him any minute to seize the gates for "greater good"? Beings such as Rat? :smallconfused:

Or how about killing his allies only to avenge his wife?

We can add that he was a ruler, too, of a very corrupt city with a lot of strong-arming going on behind the scenes - not the best environment to remain pure, see.

And before the "issues" people congratulate themselves again - half of the quotes you mentioned belonged to Dorukan, not to Girard, and if there were any anti-Soon issues, all members save for Soon had them, so we can safely say they were real and wholly his fault.



Why would he? That was something that could have been activated only by people who not bothered to contact him by normal means, but instead showed up personally. Why bother, then, if he even remembered which random spot that was?

The chance was big they would be bad guys, as all members of the OotS had resources to send magical message instantly, instead of trying to sneak in. It's like asking - why the door in the middle of Pentagon will taser anyone trying to input wrong code we give to KGB agents? Not exactly a place full of innocents.



Because the oath was invented on the spot by Serini to save Soon. They agreed to it only because it was containing Soon without bloodshed, as no one besides him was expected to honor it. Let's see:

What if Soon broke his word? Their attitude at the moment was - oh, Girard was right about him going crusade/blackguard/honor-less, let's remind him what was coming to him before Serini interfered, maybe he will snap out of it.

Soon kept his word? Fine, one (or more) magical trap will be forever dormant, and Soon might do some good after all. It's not like it setting it cost them much.

This.

*applauds*

[hamishspence]

yes- maybe we should leave off the "variant "Falling only a short way" rules" discussion, and go back to Soon and Girard.

[bladesyz]

Soon kept his word? Fine, one (or more) magical trap will be forever dormant, and Soon might do some good after all. It's not like it setting it cost them much.

ROFL...

And what happens when the ones who triggered the trap are adventurers out to save the world?

[Kieran Cage]

yes- maybe we should leave off the "variant "Falling only a short way" rules" discussion, and go back to Soon and Girard.

Seconded. I do like this thread and would prefer to see it not get closed due to going drastically off the rails. Maybe someone could open a new one in the gaming section about the paladin falling thing?

As far as Soon vs. Girard, I don't know that I have anything more to add that I haven't already said. At least not until we see what happens next.

Ok, you caught me, I really just responded to show off my new sig :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

OK- I've put it up as "partial fall" variant in the main gaming section.

On "adventurers out to save the world" so far, most of the gates have been destroyed by the "good guys".

Lirian's- her treants panicking.
Dorukan's- button pressed by Elan.
Soon's- Miko trying to "protect" it from Xykon.

[MReav]

I personally am hoping that the Oath was not just about keeping Soon safe, that there was serious antagonism between the other members (like Lirian hates Girard's guts after doing something really jerky or Serini did something to piss off Dorukan).

[magic9mushroom]

I am getting the distinct impression I would utterly hate this book. Glad it isn't official.

("If you ever give in to your emotions, you'll warp almost irrevocably into a sadistic, mindlessly destructive monster who destroys whatever your reason for giving in to your emotions was" struck me as a compelling argument that the Force is a terrible curse in Star Wars ever since that idea got introduced there, too.)

I hated this in SW too.

By the way, why is everyone talking as if it's set in stone that the Oath was just to contain Soon? Is this in SoD?

[Peregrinus]

No, M9M, it ain't in SoD. They're basing the idea on the one scene from the Crayons of Time and Girard's "Message" to Soon we just saw.

The big thing I notice though is that folks seem to be assuming that all the rest of the OotSc kept in contact, when all we know is that Girard and Senri kept in contact with each other, and Lirian and Dorukan kept in contact. The only evidence to suggest further contact is Girard's line about a "betting pool," but frankly I find any information from Girard suspect due to what we know about him.

[Optimystik]

SoD does give us this line - from Dorukan's letter to Lirian, he is "cursing that rashly-promised oath" because it keeps him from being with her. This implies that the oath wasn't just some lip-service being paid to the paladin, Lirian's undercover romps in the Cloister aside.

(Or is that "undercovers?")

[Solara]

Or how about killing his allies only to avenge his wife?


I know this is an old post, but...what? :smallconfused:

We're taking a hurtful comment blurted out in anger by a guy who is not a mind reader and has no way of knowing anyone else's motivation for anything, as The Complete and Inarguable Objective Truth now?

Wow, that puts a lot of comments made by other characters (Redcloak and Miko, for example) in a whole new light now. We should make a thread about it.

P.S. Grrr! Argh! I am so angry right now and Trixie the only reason you made that post was because you hate parakeets! What? Of course that was your motivation, how can anyone possibly argue with me?

[Shadow_of_Light]

To be fair, most (if not all) of the history the party has on the Snarl was given to them by Shojo -- which was handed down by Soon. There is every chance not all of this information is accurate or honest.

(Personally I think Girard really doesn't like authority. XD)

[factotum]

To be fair, most (if not all) of the history the party has on the Snarl was given to them by Shojo -- which was handed down by Soon. There is every chance not all of this information is accurate or honest.


Except I'm pretty sure that out-and-out dishonesty is another one of those things Paladins can't do without losing their class features, and we have zero evidence that Soon ever lost them. Besides, we now seem to be in the situation of arguing that a couple of pages information we got about Soon are being trumped by a few panels from a later comic, which seems to me to be slightly weird...

[hamishspence]

A certain amount of dishonesty appears to be an option without causing the paladin to go beige.

War & XPs bonus strip shows this.

[Zevox]

Except I'm pretty sure that out-and-out dishonesty is another one of those things Paladins can't do without losing their class features, and we have zero evidence that Soon ever lost them.
No, it isn't. Paladins fall only if their alignment changes from Lawful Good, or they commit an evil act. Unless you think dishonesty is an evil act, Paladins can be dishonest without falling, just so long as they don't make enough of a habit of it that their alignment shifts.

Zevox

[Asta Kask]

Do not try to understand the Soon — that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth: there is no Soon.