Paladin's Advocate (SoD spoilers)

[AceOfFools]

One thing that bothers me on this forum is that the Sapphire Guard is frequently described as regularly slaughtering random, innocent goblin villages.

That isn't really true to their characterization. They destroyed goblin villages containing the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle, who is quite literally a threat to the entire Universe. Attacking the defenders of such a threat, by itself is a very Paladin-appropriate action.

Where they go too far is when they extend the definition of "defender" to "innocent children and nonthreatening bystanders". This is inexcusable, vile, and simply Evil.

If they, instead, had destroyed the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle, the clergy that he likely shared The World-threatening Plan with (who are also guilty of the damning sin of worshiping an evil god), took the artifact of doom without targeting children, they wouldn't have really done anything wrong.

Which brings me to point B. Why do you think they didn't either capture the Crimson Mantle when they killed it's Bearer or at least guard it to make sure that some random goblin child wouldn't pick it up? It seems like the more reasonable alternative to ensure it stopped being threat.

[rainbowjo]

They probably assume it to be naught but a simple of authority, and a rank in the goblin cleric hierarchy. I doubt they know the true nature of it, or that each bearer of the crimson mantle wears the same crimson mantle.

[TriForce]

as for point b: im assuming they didnt know it had powers, and simply saw it as a symbol. they probably tought that if they took the cloak, the goblins would just put another on the new high priest

[Zxo]

If they, instead, had destroyed the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle, the clergy that he likely shared The World-threatening Plan with (who are also guilty of the damning sin of worshiping an evil god), took the artifact of doom without targeting children, they wouldn't have really done anything wrong.

Which brings me to point B. Why do you think they didn't either capture the Crimson Mantle when they killed it's Bearer or at least guard it to make sure that some random goblin child wouldn't pick it up? It seems like the more reasonable alternative to ensure it stopped being threat.

It looks like the information they had was that "the goblin in the red mantle is the threat", not the red mantle itself and they didn't think that another goblin who will pick up the mantle will become a threat.

I do not know if the Azure City ruler (I do not remember if it was Shojo or Soon at that time) gave them vague information to keep as much as possible secret or if he himself didn't know anything more specific. Anyway, they were just following orders and that's really their only excuse.

[Nathander]

It looks like the information they had was that "the goblin in the red mantle is the threat", not the red mantle itself and they didn't think that another goblin who will pick up the mantle will become a threat.

I do not know if the Azure City ruler (I do not remember if it was Shojo or Soon at that time) gave them vague information to keep as much as possible secret or if he himself didn't know anything more specific. Anyway, they were just following orders and that's really their only excuse.

The slaughter took place 34 years before the start of OoTS, and Shojo ruled the city for over forty years, according to a bonus comic in War and XPs. Shojo was the ruler at the time. Though, it's also worth noting that Soon was never the ruler of the city.

[factotum]

The slaughter took place 34 years before the start of OoTS, and Shojo ruled the city for over forty years, according to a bonus comic in War and XPs.

Actually, it says in the online comic that Shojo ruled for 47 years--you don't need to go to bonus strips to get that information. And Shojo most definitely WAS ruler of the city as well as leader of the Sapphire Guard.

Strip #277 says:

"Soon said it was crucial that the defense of the city and the defense of the gate be held in the same capable hands." while handing the Sapphire (symbolically, we assume, since it can't be moved) to Shojo's father, who is already sat on the throne. In addition, Miko mentions that Shojo has introduced many laws during his 47 years on the throne--if he was only leader of the Sapphire Guard how would he do that?

[Zevox]

And Shojo most definitely WAS ruler of the city as well as leader of the Sapphire Guard.
Shojo was, but that's not what Nathander said. He said Soon wasn't, which is true - Soon was only head of the Guard, and chose to pass that position on to the head of the city when he retired.

Zevox

[hamishspence]

Its also worth remembering, going by War & XPs, they don't just target goblins:

Most damning though, is a decades-long history of paladins exterminating entire villages of goblins and other humanoids at the behest of their gods.

[Dr.Epic]

One thing that bothers me on this forum is that the Sapphire Guard is frequently described as regularly slaughtering random, innocent goblin villages.

That isn't really true to their characterization. They destroyed goblin villages containing the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle, who is quite literally a threat to the entire Universe. Attacking the defenders of such a threat, by itself is a very Paladin-appropriate action.

Where they go too far is when they extend the definition of "defender" to "innocent children and nonthreatening bystanders". This is inexcusable, vile, and simply Evil.

If they, instead, had destroyed the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle, the clergy that he likely shared The World-threatening Plan with (who are also guilty of the damning sin of worshiping an evil god), took the artifact of doom without targeting children, they wouldn't have really done anything wrong.

Which brings me to point B. Why do you think they didn't either capture the Crimson Mantle when they killed it's Bearer or at least guard it to make sure that some random goblin child wouldn't pick it up? It seems like the more reasonable alternative to ensure it stopped being threat.

Supreme Leader, I have that lampshade you requested. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0546.html)

[factotum]

Shojo was, but that's not what Nathander said. He said Soon wasn't, which is true

Whoops, looks like I misread his post. Sorry! :smalleek:

[archon_huskie]

They destroyed goblin villages containing the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle, who is quite literally a threat to the entire Universe. Attacking the defenders of such a threat, by itself is a very Paladin-appropriate action.

Where they go too far is when they extend the definition of "defender" to "innocent children and nonthreatening bystanders". This is inexcusable, vile, and simply Evil.

If they, instead, had destroyed the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle, the clergy that he likely shared The World-threatening Plan with (who are also guilty of the damning sin of worshiping an evil god), took the artifact of doom without targeting children, they wouldn't have really done anything wrong.

But your "innocent" children are also guilty of the damning sin of worshiping an evil god.

[Kish]

But your "innocent" children are also guilty of the damning sin of worshiping an evil god.
Can you argue that Redcloak's sister wasn't innocent in Start of Darkness? Sure.

Can you do so without rendering the term "innocent" morally meaningless? No.

[Mystic Muse]

But your "innocent" children are also guilty of the damning sin of worshiping an evil god.

Evil only because the other Evil gods are the ones willing to support him.

If what redcloak says is true (Which it may not be and I fully realize that) The dark one simply wanted Equality for his race. Can you really say that's evil?

[Lvl45DM!]

evil with a lower case in a realistic and moral sense of the word no.
Evil as in the material force that powers demons devils and evil deities etc. (NOT a philosophical ideal) as in D and D evil, yes we can say that the Dark one is Evil

[Conuly]

But your "innocent" children are also guilty of the damning sin of worshiping an evil god.

Bit of a catch-22 there, don't you think? The other gods won't have the goblins - they're the ones that MADE the goblins, lowly status and all conveniently "evil" for the slaughter - but when they have ONE god to speak up for them and help them in a very literal way, hey, that's reason to keep on killing them?

[Mystic Muse]

But your "innocent" children are also guilty of the damning sin of worshiping an evil god.

Things aren't that black and white in OOTS

Heck, I doubt the kids even fully realize everything about the dark one. It's like expecting a six year old to know everything about their parent's religion.

You can't blame Children for the sins of their parents. Heck it's debatable whether the goblins were even "evil". Goblins were condemned from the start as "evil" by the "good" gods so that their clerics could get XP.

[Conuly]

Things aren't that black and white in OOTS

Actually, it seems like it is. I mean, Paladins can't fall for laughing as they hack apart small children, or for explictly thinking and saying and planning on "let's slaughter the partygoers because it's a faster way to gain XP than by talking to them". It's every bit as simple for (at least some of) the people living there to say "Good! Evil!" and let it drop like that.

Except that all this does is show that their entire alignment system - the basis, it seems, of their whole morality - is deeply (and some would say critically) flawed. If two people who live similar lives can fall on opposite ends of the alignment scale (and be treated differently to the point of *murder* because of this) for no other reason than because their species belongs to this team or that team; if some races are given every possible disadvantage and then condemned and criticized when they take the obvious approach of trying to better their situation by any means possible (RedCloak's version of how the Dark One exists, the entire situation of the Western Continent where the elves have all the habitable land and everybody else is stuck with the barely liveable scraps of desert) - where is the justice? Where is the charity, or the mercy, or even the pity?

[AceOfFools]

Its also worth remembering, going by War & XPs, they don't just target goblins:

Most damning though, is a decades-long history of paladins exterminating entire villages of goblins and other humanoids at the behest of their gods.
I saw this earlier but wanted to check it out in context before passing judgement. You're completely correct, Rich explicitly states that the Paladins failed to live up to the standards of justice they should have upheld.

Still, I wonder how "random" these villages were. Paladins are supposed to "fight evil without mercy." It's in the class description.

Regardless, they clearly went overboard in Rich's opinion, and as he's the only one who has any ideas what happened at every village but that one, I must trust his opinion.

[rewinn]

Why do you think they didn't either capture the Crimson Mantle when they killed it's Bearer or at least guard it to make sure that some random goblin child wouldn't pick it up? It seems like the more reasonable alternative to ensure it stopped being threat.

This is an excellent point. The whole matter of good/evil in OOTS and D+D in general is heavily discussed in-forum but does not get to the question of rational tactics such as holding on to the danged mantle!

It may be possible to ascribe the continuing freedom of the Red Mantle as due to the Need of Plot, but it's more satisfying to discover an explanation that is plausible in-story.

The Mantle is a Major Artifact. One of its minor powers may be some sort of probability alteration such that when it is in danger of being captured, an unlikely but not impossible event occurs to prevent the capture. Perhaps the Bearer of the Mantle finds a young goblin and commands him to hide, and the Paladins fail their spot check.

Actually, considering Spot Check is not a Paladin class ability (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0270.html), this might be a very Minor Power indeed!

[TheSummoner]

Paladins are suppose to fight evil without mercy. Goblins are classified by the OotS gods as evil. Thus, Paladins are suppose to fight Goblins without mercy.

Is it right? Well that depends... Are we using logic or are we taking things completly literally. Obviously its unfair and cruel, so its wrong... but if you follow the (flawed) logic that the world operates on, its what they're suppose to do.

Yeah, the Goblins are in a pretty **** position in the world.

[martinkou]

Paladins are suppose to fight evil without mercy. Goblins are classified by the OotS gods as evil. Thus, Paladins are suppose to fight Goblins without mercy.


If you go by that argument, V killing 1/4 of all black dragons in the realm would be a good action too. And because chromatic dragons are commonly much stronger than normal humanoids, it can even be seen as a David vs. Goliath deal - even better.

So... DnD's moral system is just a joke. Taking it seriously is harmful to your mental health.

[Zxo]

Paladins are suppose to fight evil without mercy. Goblins are classified by the OotS gods as evil. Thus, Paladins are suppose to fight Goblins without mercy.

Is it right? Well that depends... Are we using logic or are we taking things completly literally. Obviously its unfair and cruel, so its wrong... but if you follow the (flawed) logic that the world operates on, its what they're suppose to do.

Yeah, the Goblins are in a pretty **** position in the world.

That the alignment system the OoTSverse operates on is flawed is a major theme in OoTS, especially in SoD. Therefore, for me the ultimate Happy End would be not just Xykon dying an awesome death and Roy completing his main quest, but also fixing the mentioned flaws of the OoTSverse. I think we may see it and Snarl will be somehow involved.

[hamishspence]

Some of the books besides the PHB do clarify that "killing evil beings without sufficient justification is evil"

Mostly BoED, though BoVD does mention that "protecting others from future evil acts" is only a justification for "the most irredeemable monsters"

[The Hop Goblin]

To further quote from the BoED:

A paladin who knowingly commits an evil act in pursuit of any end, no matter how good, still jeopardizes her paladinhood.

Good End by way of Good Deeds = Good
Good End by way of Evil Deeds = Evil
Evil End by way of Good Deeds = Evil
Evil End by way of Evil Deeds = Evil

Knowingly or Unknowingly commiting evil acts, despite intention, are marks of evil on a character. Point, Blank, and Period.

[TheSummoner]

If you go by that argument, V killing 1/4 of all black dragons in the realm would be a good action too. And because chromatic dragons are commonly much stronger than normal humanoids, it can even be seen as a David vs. Goliath deal - even better.

So... DnD's moral system is just a joke. Taking it seriously is harmful to your mental health.

Hold up a second, I never said that was a good thing. I was pointing out that the world itself operates on flawed logic. That the paladins were doing what they were suppose to be doing, but what they were suppose to be doing was wrong.

[Optimystik]

Still, I wonder how "random" these villages were. Paladins are supposed to "fight evil without mercy." It's in the class description.

I'd love to know where you read that, especially since "without mercy" is under Lawful EVIL (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#theNineAlignments) in the SRD.

Mercy is a fundamental component of Good - BoED.

For a Paladin who is forced to choose between the two, Good > Law - also BoED.



Evil End by way of Good Deeds = Evil

Remember, however, that mortals like the foresight to see all the possible ends of their actions. Acting in good faith may not count against you if you had no way of reasonably anticipating any Evil ends that would result.

[hamishspence]

I'd love to know where you read that, especially since "without mercy" is under Lawful EVIL (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#theNineAlignments) in the SRD.

It comes from a single line in PHB "Alhandra fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation"

Interestingly, apparently the version of her in the novels actually doesn't act quite that way- as I recall (it's been referred to once or twice) when asked to judge someone accused of a capital, she pointed out that Detect Evil was irrelavent to any kind of judgement, since Evil does not mean Guilty- and didn't use it as part of her investigation.

[Lecan]

Evil only because the other Evil gods are the ones willing to support him.

If what redcloak says is true (Which it may not be and I fully realize that) The dark one simply wanted Equality for his race. Can you really say that's evil?

Well, he rose to godhood due to an overwhelmingly bloodthirsty war in response to his assassination. That doesn't exactly scream 'Good' or 'good', considering most of the people killed were not actually involved in the assassination.

[SaintRidley]

Hold up a second, I never said that was a good thing. I was pointing out that the world itself operates on flawed logic. That the paladins were doing what they were suppose to be doing, but what they were suppose to be doing was wrong.

It operates on the assumption that the gods pick who gets to have the paladin powers and if they do something the gods don't want them to do then they lose their powers. The gods don't care one bit about goblins, so killing them indiscriminately is no bother to the gods.

[Kish]

It operates on the assumption that the gods pick who gets to have the paladin powers and if they do something the gods don't want them to do then they lose their powers. The gods don't care one bit about goblins, so killing them indiscriminately is no bother to the gods.
Which, considering the paladins are supposed to be pure good and the gods are manifestly not pure good, is flawed logic. It works in 4ed, where paladins have no alignment requirements. Not in ostensibly-3.5ed.

[Optimystik]

Exactly - the disconnect in OotS, is that we essentially have 4e paladins in a 3.5e environment - which leads to inconsistencies like we see in SoD.

[Snails]

That the alignment system the OoTSverse operates on is flawed is a major theme in OoTS, especially in SoD. Therefore, for me the ultimate Happy End would be not just Xykon dying an awesome death and Roy completing his main quest, but also fixing the mentioned flaws of the OoTSverse. I think we may see it and Snarl will be somehow involved.

On the head.

The OotSverse is purposely highlighting logical flaws that are common D&D campaigns. Nor did D&D exactly invent such problems out of whole cloth, as the kernel issues are embedded in much source material that inspired D&D.

The Snarl could be nicknamed the Karma Beast. In a universe that gods literally built for war and conflict, the goblins seeded there for little XP snacks, Karma took this to its logical conclusion and took the fight right to the gods. Now that the gods have grown up a bit, we see the Snarl's behavior eventually shifted in turn...

[MReav]

The Snarl could be nicknamed the Karma Beast. In a universe that gods literally built for war and conflict, the goblins seeded there for little XP snacks, Karma took this to its logical conclusion and took the fight right to the gods. Now that the gods have grown up a bit, we see the Snarl's behavior eventually shifted in turn...

That's... wrong.

SoD Spoiler:
The Snarl was created out of the conflict between the pantheons, so in World 2.0, the pantheons agreed not to meddle directly in the lands, but the creation of clerics and other divine classes was a compromise in case something in one land affected the other. The Snarl is partially responsible for the creation of the goblinoids and other EXP races, because the gods needed something to allow their low level divine classes grind EXP from, in case something happened in another territory and they couldn't intervene.

At least, that's how Redcloak told it.

[hamishspence]

Exactly - the disconnect in OotS, is that we essentially have 4e paladins in a 3.5e environment - which leads to inconsistencies like we see in SoD.

Alternatively, it could be 1st ed paladins acting as if the goblins are 1st ed goblins, when they come across as closer to 3.5/4th ed goblins.

Going by some of the essays I've read, slaughtering goblins to the last infant was considered perfectly acceptable by some 1st ed players and DMs.

Things like "Lawful good characters may judge noncombatants of monster races to be "deserving of death" and kill them all"

or "An eye for an eye cannot be anything but Lawful and Good"

[The Hop Goblin]

Remember, however, that mortals like the foresight to see all the possible ends of their actions. Acting in good faith may not count against you if you had no way of reasonably anticipating any Evil ends that would result.

Unfortunately, in D&D (and in most roleplaying games) Intention is not counted, Only actions. It's hinky, I'll admit. I myself don't agree with it - but me not agreeing with it doesn't change the system.

Foresight doesn't matter: An evil action, regardless of intent, is an evil action.

[Optimystik]

Unfortunately, in D&D (and in most roleplaying games) Intention is not counted, Only actions. It's hinky, I'll admit. I myself don't agree with it - but me not agreeing with it doesn't change the system.

Foresight doesn't matter: An evil action, regardless of intent, is an evil action.

It's not quite that black and white, by BoVD. Rather than hash out the debate, I'll post the relevant section and let you see for yourself.



INTENT AND CONTEXT

So, does the objective definition of evil imply that intent plays no part in determining what is good and what isn’t?
Only to a degree.

Consider the paladin Zophas. When climbing to the top of a hill of loose rocks to get away from some owlbears, he triggers a rockslide that buries the owlbears and continues down the hill, crushing a hut full of commoners. Is Zophas an evil murderer who must suddenly lose his lawful good alignment? No, although Zophas might still feel guilt and responsibility. He might attempt to right the inadvertent wrong as best he can.

But what if Zophas’s friend Shurrin said, “Don’t climb up there, Zophas! You might start a rockslide that will crush the hut!” Zophas goes anyway. Now is it evil? Probably. Zophas was either carelessly endangering the commoners or so overconfident of his climbing prowess that he acted out of hubris. At this point, Zophas isn’t exactly a murderer, but he should probably lose his paladin abilities until he receives an atonement spell or otherwise makes amends.

Emphasis mine. Though actions are the most important factor of determining alignment, we do not get to divorce intent from actions entirely, even in D&D.

[veti]

I think we tend to underestimate just how much our own society's moral attitudes have shifted since the 1970s, when 1e appeared. Back then, "they're evil, kill them all!" sounded a lot more reasonable than it does today.

This was partly an attitude shaped in the great wars - the Second World War, and the Cold War that followed, cultivated a very clear division between Them and Us. The idea that "They are people too, shouldn't we treat Them with some rights and respect?" - was quite alien. "They" were "the Enemy"; the greatest good we could aspire to was to neutralise Them for the lowest possible losses to our own side, and if that meant slaughtering every man, woman, child, dog and goat, then that was absolutely the right thing to do.

Look at "Lord of the Rings", the most important fantasy work of the past century. Do we see Aragorn flinching from genocide of orcs? Hell no. Not even the bleeding-hearted hobbits pause to think about that. When 1e appeared, that attitude was still the norm.

Once you get your head around that idea, 70s/early 80s culture - including AD&D - makes a lot more sense.

[hamishspence]

In Tolkien's other writings, which have later been published posthumously, there are some references to the fact that certain behaviour is unacceptable, even toward orcs.

If orcs are captured, they must be treated reasonably- not tortured, not even to find out the location of the next orc attack.

If an agreement is made, say, orcs surrendering on the promise their lives will be spared, it must be kept- treachery is treachery, even toward orcs.

And similar things.

[AceOfFools]

...
The Mantle is a Major Artifact. One of its minor powers may be some sort of probability alteration such that when it is in danger of being captured, an unlikely but not impossible event occurs to prevent the capture. Perhaps the Bearer of the Mantle finds a young goblin and commands him to hide, and the Paladins fail their spot check...
Heh, this reminded me of a custom major artifact that was one of several MacGuffins for a game I ran. It was fashioned from the remains of a CE demigod whose purpose was the destruction of the elven race. It gave two negative levels to any good, lawful or elven character that wielded it, and those negative levels stacked. It was observed that if the fifth level LG elf picked it up, she would be killed by it's malevolent power.

Humans, especially Good-aligned humans, should probably be hesitant about picking up an artifact created by the Dark One.

The idea that the Paladin's didn't know the Crimson Mantle was an artifact rather than a badge of office is interesting, but it seems somewhat odd to have such items in a world so full of magic items as OotS, but is entirely possible.

[Zxo]

I think we tend to underestimate just how much our own society's moral attitudes have shifted since the 1970s, when 1e appeared. Back then, "they're evil, kill them all!" sounded a lot more reasonable than it does today.

I'm not sure. The Geneva Conventions are older than the times you speak of, and killing children, even enemy's, has certainly not been seen as acceptable at that time either.

I suspect that in most campaigns goblins and orcs are "just for xp" and nobody, DM included, cares about the reality of population make-up in the caves or villages. You usually do not get goblin infants in real life campaigns, just hordes of adult, armed goblins attacking you and there isn't any opportunity to even have a problem with killing the kids.

[hamishspence]

Some of the 1st edition era essays do suggest this is the "right" way to run encounters with humanoid monsters.

[Asis]

Unfortunately, in D&D (and in most roleplaying games) Intention is not counted, Only actions.
True. And it sucks. Otherwise, The paladin that asked Roy to let Durkon die 'I'd do it myself, but I need to keep a Lawful Good alignment for the Paladin Class. Damn inconvinient, if you ask me' in oOoPCs wouldn't exist.

Anyway, like most people said, the intention is an escential part of any act, and it should be considered.