LG and goblin villages (SOD spoiler) [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

pendell

2012-02-16, 05:44 AM

If you're reading this, it is assumed that you've read start of darkness or are not averse to being spoiled. You have been warned :).

We've been discussing for ages the fact that, in SOD, the Paladins of Azure City attacked and slaughtered a goblin village -- Wrong-eye's goblin village -- and that this is a major reason for their karma-riffic destruction during the battle of Azure City.

We've argued back and forth about this, but the question I really want to ask is: What IS the better way?

Presumably even the most hateful, over-zealous human could be dissuaded from mass genocide if they knew they were sowing the seeds of their own destruction , to be paid back in their own kind.

If you are living in OOTSverse and you've commissioned an order of paladins to safeguard the fabric of reality from all threats, most especially from the bearer of the Crimson Mantle, who is sworn to tear down that very thing, what orders do you give them? What are their rules of engagement?

My initial thoughts are as follows:

1) When attacking an enemy village, it must be done for a military purpose (destroy armed hostiles, kill or capture the bearer of the crimson mantle).

2) You are authorized to kill any creature of any alignment that attempts to oppose this goal. You are also permitted to kill any armed enemy.

3) "Armed enemy" includes any goblin with a weapon, and any spellcaster.

4) You may not kill an unarmed opponent, or one that surrenders.

5) Spellcasters are exempt from #4, because if they have the still spell or other feats, they cannot be rendered harmless unless you have anti-magic field or other methods, and magic is more dangerous than anything else.

So, presumably now this has been accomplished and we have a bunch of women, children, and surrendered warriors on their hands. What to do with them?

1) Just leave them alone? Quite aside from the fact that leaving a band of orphans and widows alone in the wilderness may very well mean leaving them to their deaths at the hands of other creatures, what's to stop the survivors from doing what wrong-eye did? Taking revenge on you for killing their fathers, uncles, and brothers, regardless of how justified it was?

2) Split them up, and adopt them out to individual families in Azure City, to be raised up as Azurites? This has possibilities, and it even makes it possible that AC will one day be a mixed city of goblins and humans, as goblin "children" become adults and AC citizens.

Even so, there are problems that make the approach less than ideal . First, we've got to assume that the humans of AC are humans, not celestials, which means it may be hard to find adoptive parents. It's very likely that some of the 'adopters' will make their charges into slave labor, or second class citizens. So now you have an angry, restive minority just begging to be exploited by factions within the city or outside enemies. Plus, we've moved from literal genocide to cultural genocide -- you've taken their their customs, their culture and their gods and given them your own in their place. It's better than indiscriminantly butchering them, yes, but still problematic.

3) Put them in guarded villages where, under tutelage, they can learn to be productive citizens? In essence, the strategic hamlet program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Hamlet_Program). It's also what 'reservations' essentially are in American history.

I'm sure anyone who follows the link can see where the idea of strategic hamlets was last implemented, and therefore why it would not be such a good idea. This is not the forum for detailed criticism of American history, but any watcher of "Dances with Wolves" or similar movies can well understand why any approach modeled on American treatment of native Americans might be ... flawed.

4) Use Mindrape or similar to turn them into good little farmers? I'm not convinced that mindraping a person, taking away everything they are on the inside but leaving them their physical body, is really that much of an improvement over simply killing them. Instead of killing the body, you've killed the soul.

Those are all the good options I can think of.

Neutral / Less Evil options I can think of:

1) Slave labor. This is what the ancient Romans did to defeated enemies they could not kill. Why it is not good/not ideal should be obvious.

2) Conscript Janissaries. Take the children and make them into slave soldiers, as the Janissaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janisary) were. No doubt against other goblin tribes. Brainwashing children into good little soldiers who will kill their own family is ... if possible even more repugnant than simply killing them outright. It's a form of mindrape.

Options that would be even worse than massacre:
3) Gladiatorial combat. Again, no different than outright massacre, except their deaths are done for pleasure to the cheering of the masses. In addition to accomplishing their deaths with as little mercy as killing outright, it coursens your entire culture into something that takes delight in watching people die. Seems like a road to evil-street, even if your culture didn't start there.

4) Kill and zombify them into mindless slaves. Do this only if your name is "Xykon".

=============

I'm not trying to strawman any ones ideas or to suggest the paladins were right that they did what they did, because genocide IS bad, mkay? It's horrific to murder innocents. So I'm seriously looking at alternatives that I might do in game myself one day.

The problem I'm having is, I'm not finding any obvious answers that are obviously The Right Thing To Do. Pretty much everything I can come up with sows trouble down the line. So what I'm looking for is an answer that:

1) Causes no unnecessary harm.
2) Is reasonable and practical, able to be carried out by a low-level army in the field without undue risk to themselves or to the mission.

I've got no good answers. If pressed, I'd probably go for the strategic hamlet approach. Are there better options?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

ti'esar

2012-02-16, 05:51 AM

Well, of course it's a difficult situation. That's sort of the point. But while there might not be any good options, it's pretty clear that at least some paladins could have taken better ones.

If you actually want genuine suggestions on how to handle it better... I got nothing. But I'm also really tired, so I'll try again in the morning.

Edit: Although one thing that occurs to me is trying to handle the situation in an entirely different way from a full-scale assault. It might not be very Lawful (though I could see it as Good in the right circumstances), but some kind of covert ops attempt to take out the Crimson Mantle's bearer, seize the mantle, and get out might have been able to semi-permanently solve the problem of the mantle without doing so much to continue the cycle of violence - the goblins might be mad about the death of their high priest, but it wouldn't be quite the same as all-out massacres.

Omergideon

2012-02-16, 06:02 AM

I think in the scenario posited, where the Plan is a reality and can only be stopped by killing the bearer of the mantle, there is no good solution. Surgical strikes and/or assasinations may be the best idea where the rules of engagement are as descibed. however I would be against the idea of surgical strikes to begin with.

In my mind the best option is diplomacy. Remember the justification for the Plan, from the Dark One and Reddy, is the horrific cosmic situation of the Goblins. Assuming this is true then the only way to solve the problem is to address that issue. By always opting for a violent option there is no chance of stopping the problem. The Plan, and the risks inherent in it, are a symptom of the overall cosmic situation. Were I to be magically put in charge of the Paladins then I would make overtures to a diplomatic solution.

Yup, diplomacy.

You see if you were able to have Azure City and it's environs declared a place where Goblins will be allowed to live their lives in peace, subject to normal human laws like the regular citizenry, and have the Paladins dedicated to enforcing this.......the problem is addressed. Not just the symptom that is the plan itself. We have seen Goblins who wish to live in peace. Make it official. Even have as a condition of peace that the mantle is destroyed in order to prevent the plan from being done. Or simply wreck the sorcerer part of the ritual if the artifact is considered too important. In short, become proper allies and treat the Goblins as more than walking XP. If this really is the problem then that may be the solution.

Now this is not an easy option. It may fail. But if it worked it would probably be the best one overall.

Now there are likely flaws here. Pick at them so I can refine this idea more fully. Please. It is just my 1st impression on how one could address the issue.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-16, 06:26 AM

Problem is that Goblins where made to be inherently evil.

Another huge problem.

Conuly

2012-02-16, 06:32 AM

How about option 0 - stop playing around with weapons. Sooner or later, somebody gets hurt.

They targeted the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle because they thought he was a threat to all existence. But goblins are only a threat to existence because life sucks for them. Nobody seriously tries a suicide mission for their whole species unless they feel they've exhausted other options. And even then, it wasn't going anywhere until they left RC with no other ties to hold him back and a whole bunch of teenaged angst.

The SG messed up. Big time.

Problem is that Goblins were made to be inherently evil.

Another huge problem.

Sure, whatever that means. Let's not even get into that now. But even evil creatures can understand their own self-interest, can't they?

pendell

2012-02-16, 07:07 AM

If you actually want genuine suggestions on how to handle it better... I got nothing. But I'm also really tired, so I'll try again in the morning.

Exactly what I want. Thank you.

In my mind the best option is diplomacy. Remember the justification for the Plan, from the Dark One and Reddy, is the horrific cosmic situation of the Goblins. Assuming this is true then the only way to solve the problem is to address that issue. By always opting for a violent option there is no chance of stopping the problem. The Plan, and the risks inherent in it, are a symptom of the overall cosmic situation. Were I to be magically put in charge of the Paladins then I would make overtures to a diplomatic solution.

Yup, diplomacy.

Negotiating in good faith? An excellent idea. I posit this should be the FIRST thing anyone who called themselves good should attempt before resorting to violence.

However, I still think we need to talk about military solutions as a contingency. Humans, after all, have none of the problems goblins have, but they still created Greysky City and the Empire of Blood.

Let's handwave away usually evil and pretend -- for the sake of argument -- that the goblins are actually neutral and so are indistinguishable from humans apart from the skin tone and teeth. That doesn't mean they will be nice, or that they will be good neighbors, or that they won't occasionally go stark raving mad as a tribe or a nation and go on a genocidal rampage.

I contend that peace between nations -- or between species -- is much like a marriage. It takes two people working really hard together to make it work, and only one unreasonable idiot to bring about divorce or a war. It's easier to start a war than to keep a peace. Which is why there's so much war.

At any rate, removing the problem of the goblins being stupidly disadvantaged by the gods removes one reason for conflict but leaves all the other reasons, good and bad, humans have been killing each other for thousands of years.

Which means we're still going to be faced of the problem of what to do with a village used by armed enemies whose civilians can't readily be simply absorbed into the Azure City population.

How about option 0 - stop playing around with weapons. Sooner or later, somebody gets hurt.

Again -- it takes two to make a peace, but only one to make a war. If the other party resorts to weapons regardless of your peaceful efforts, what will you do without weapons of your own? Simply roll over and give them their way ?

They targeted the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle because they thought he was a threat to all existence. But goblins are only a threat to existence because life sucks for them. Nobody seriously tries a suicide mission for their whole species unless they feel they've exhausted other options. And even then, it wasn't going anywhere until they left RC with no other ties to hold him back and a whole bunch of teenaged angst.

The assumption here is that the Dark One is sane and rational and wants only what's best for everyone. I have not seen evidence of this in-comic.

Wrong-eye is doing what he's doing because he's been told by his admittedly evil god that this is the best way to improve the lot of the goblin people. But we see from the example of Right-eye that this is not true, that there ARE better ways, and that the Dark One is, in Right-eye's phrase, a "petty spiteful god".

Wrong-eye is unwilling to face up to this , and is so firmly determined to deny reality , that he kills his innocent brother. Cain killing Abel.

...

I wouldn't expect peace with such people. Not because Goblins Are Evol and They Have Green Skin. No, because the Dark One is a petty ,spiteful, evil bastard regardless of his skin color and Wrong-Eye is Godwin's Willing Executioner.

Which brings up a possible point: The way to peace with the goblins is when they are ruled by people like Right-eye and not by people like Wrong-eye. It therefore follows we should spare and encourage those goblin communities that follow people like Right-eye, while opposing the Dark One wherever we find him.

Hmm ... maybe Right-eye's people would be willing to take in the widows, orphans, the wounded , and the surrendered prisoners taken from our battles?

Would this be a way for goblins and humans to achieve harmony?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Morty

2012-02-16, 07:24 AM

I have another option - find out more about the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle beforehand and figure out what exactly his plans are, then try to find a way to stop him that doesn't rely on slaughtering entire villages.

Math_Mage

2012-02-16, 08:19 AM

The option of diplomacy supposes that the paladins know the backstory and have a reasonable expectation of changing The Dark One's mind on the subject by engaging with the goblin people. Given the premise that the Crimson Mantle represents a threat to the entire world, and you had to safeguard the world from the bearer? I'm not sure how diplomacy accomplishes that exact goal unless you ALREADY KNOW that the only reason the CM is a threat is because goblins got the short end of the stick at creation.

Xapi

2012-02-16, 08:35 AM

The best solution I can find is one that doesn't fit thematically with the SG, although it SHOULD.

Have a group of Paladin/Rogues or Paladin/Rangers, that will scout the nearby (and not so nearby) goblin villages for the Crimson Mantle and/or other indications of activities that are against the fabric of the universe.

Attack only when needed, and only where it matters.

The non-combatant survivors can be placed in a different goblin village.

Yes, you risk retaliation.

Suck it up, you are a paladin.

Xapi

2012-02-16, 08:40 AM

The assumption here is that the Dark One is sane and rational and wants only what's best for everyone. I have not seen evidence of this in-comic.

SOD Spoilers, maybe, I don't recall wich book this is in:

The fact that he had an army capable of killing millions of humans, elves and dwarves, yet got into a room with the leaders of those nations to negotiate before any blood was shed is an indication that he is sane, rational, and is willing to negotiate something that suits every party (Granted, doesn't mean he WANTS the best for EVERYONE, but he seems content to have the rest get the best too, if his people get their share).

Dark Matter

2012-02-16, 09:03 AM

They targeted the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle because they thought he was a threat to all existence.He is.

But goblins are only a threat to existence because life sucks for them.Correct. Whenever goblins start torturing their slaves (or doing other vile acts), those icky Paladins show up and punish them. Life would be much better for goblins if Paladins weren't allowed to do that.

Nobody seriously tries a suicide mission for their whole species unless they feel they've exhausted other options.Or unless they're really, really bored. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0442.html

And even then, it wasn't going anywhere until they left RC with no other ties to hold him back and a whole bunch of teenaged angst.Meaning the previous bearer of the Red Cloak wasn't serious about following his god's orders? Or the one before that?

...even evil creatures can understand their own self-interest, can't they?It's in the Dark One's self-interest to murder some/most/all of the gods of good and rebuild the universe in his own image.

That btw is pretty much a quote from RC.

Dark Matter

2012-02-16, 09:10 AM

Given the thread title says "SOD spoiler" I've unspoiler'ed your quote.
The fact that he had an army capable of killing millions of humans, elves and dwarves, yet got into a room with the leaders of those nations to negotiate before any blood was shed is an indication that he is sane, rational, and is willing to negotiate something that suits every party (Granted, doesn't mean he WANTS the best for EVERYONE, but he seems content to have the rest get the best too, if his people get their share).
IMHO creating an army capable of killing millions doesn't lend itself towards the idea that you're "willing to negotiate something that suits every party".

Putting a gun to someone's head and "asking" for their wallet isn't an act of good faith, nor of rationality, nor of reasonability, nor even of sanity.

Manga Shoggoth

2012-02-16, 09:11 AM

Edit: Although one thing that occurs to me is trying to handle the situation in an entirely different way from a full-scale assault. It might not be very Lawful (though I could see it as Good in the right circumstances), but some kind of covert ops attempt to take out the Crimson Mantle's bearer, seize the mantle, and get out might have been able to semi-permanently solve the problem of the mantle without doing so much to continue the cycle of violence - the goblins might be mad about the death of their high priest, but it wouldn't be quite the same as all-out massacres.

The problem with this is that there is no evidence that the Paladins know that the Crimson Mantle is an artifact and the thing they should be targeting. They may just see it as the equivalent of the High Priest's vestiments: Used to identify the High Priest, may have some minor magic, but has no other specific function.

Thus, they have no reason to target the Mantle itself - just the goblin wearing it. After all, how difficult would it be to make another red cloak?

Xapi

2012-02-16, 09:53 AM

IMHO creating an army capable of killing millions doesn't lend itself towards the idea that you're "willing to negotiate something that suits every party".

Putting a gun to someone's head and "asking" for their wallet isn't an act of good faith, nor of rationality, nor of reasonability, nor even of sanity.

Well, I have to say that without the "gun", there would be no asking.

I disagree with you on mostly everything, creating the army was necesary for there to even be a discussion. And even then, there wasn't one.

He was killed for even bringing the subject into discussion. Can you say he wasn't right to raise the army (in the sense that, without it, there wouldn't ever have been a discussion)?

Omergideon

2012-02-16, 10:10 AM

I wonder at how knowledge of the crimson mantle itself could be present within the Sapphire Guard without at least a basic knowledge of what the mantle means. The existence of a Dark Goblin God who has high priests is hardly a mystery. But surely the God's know about it? Assuming they have Epic+ scrying abilities there is no reason that the God's would not know about what the Plan is, at least in general. We also know they are capable of directly contacting their followers to impart knowledge. The fact that they do not is a massive mark against the God's in general.

I would suggest that it would not be difficult for the Paladins to gain insight from the Gods about what the Mantle is and why they act as they do. Gaining this information would be a good idea.

The problem with the Paladins who attacked the village is a "smite evil first, ask why later" mentality. They do not seem to care why they are attacking the gobbos beyond "we is told they is evil". This may seem off topic but THIS is the greatest barrier to peace in the OoTS world. Unthinking adherence to the kind of alignment mentality that removes any possibility of personal contemplation or deep thinking. What the Paladin's should do is ask "hey, WHY are the Goblins risking the fabric of the universe?" If not the ground level dudes then certainly the leadership of the order should ask the question. And once they start asking questions they should very quickly come across some of the problems that act as a trigger for The Plan (TM).

This understanding then becomes the foundation for a beginning to long term peace. Wars and conflicts may then be inevitable at times. A long history of (possible) oppression and built up resentments will need to be overcome. But in such a condition it falls upon the strong to make the first overtures towards peace. The Azure City people do not even need to do too much. Just an agreement of..........some international laws being established may be enough to begin with. I would suggest the Sapphire guard would form a good group to do this.

And the simplest international law would be "we isn't gonna attack you. Our God's will tell us if you start trying to break the universe. You don't attack us. If someone does we let the other group know and want a public trial. Deal?" Not perfect, but it is the gist of what may work assuming both sides want peace in good faith.

However peace is not too impossible because of the short Goblin generations. Correct me if I am wrong but within 50 years we can expect 2/3 complete Goblin generations, correct? So if an overture to peace was made, and the Sapphire Guard enforced laws evenly on humans and Goblins alike, then between Reddy's donning the cloak and the fall of Azure City we would be seeing Goblins born who's PARENTS had lived all their lives in a relatively peaceful way. This would mean that by the time of the comic defacto peace would be the norm for the people around.

Now what if the villages want war? Well Right-eye is proof positive that peaceful Goblin communities are possible. Encouraging these with economic pressures such as trade, or military protection from the Sapphire Guard might well be the trigger to show other Goblin's why it is good. And again, the faster Goblin generations would inevitably show the benefit of such a way of life more quickly than for humans.

But warlike Goblins are possible. And in such a case I would recommend that they be treated as another independent nation with overtures of peace, and limited just wars if essential. The key is to show the Goblin peoples that peaceful co-existence is for their own benefit as well. I mean imagine if such a treaty as I imagine was in place when Xykon appears at Right Eye's village. If he shows up and a week later the Whole Damn Sapphire guard appears to shove some swords into his face? That is one Goblin village now happy allies with the Sapphire Guard, azure city, and a model for all others as to how things could work. And the Goblins DO have things to offer, from labour and art to simple trade or mercenaries. The trade would enrich both groups.

I know a lot of the onus is on the Sapphire Guard to act in a certain way. And a few bad experiences would likely ruin everything. But as the Guard are the strong in this equation, and they are supposed to beyond ethically beyond reproach, they are the best choice to get going. And in this set up they have to give the Goblins a reason to seek peace as they lose nothing with the status quo (ignoring epic level Lich's showing up)

But, as another fictional counterpoint, look at star trek TNG. The episode with the fate of the Enterprise C and Tasha Yar's return. It shows how a few good acts affacted policy and attitudes between 2 powers with a long history of war into peaceful co-existence and alliance. I propse the Sapphire Guard attempt it here, in part for a promise of "no trying to destroy the universe. Cos if you do, we will know. We will investigate. And if we find out you are trying............we will look long and hard".

Tev

2012-02-16, 10:40 AM

First: so many wrong assumptions.
1) palladins know **** about Crimson Mantle (read Manga Shoggoth's post)
2) goblins are threat to AC (w/o Mantle and it's bearer) - remember, Azure City fell only because it was attacked by Epic level Lich, high level CM bearer, and army that those two managed to gather.
And even then it wasn't really clear "win" for them, remember what crazy chick did?
3) palladins know **** about goblins and what they want (as seen in entire comic) - diplomacy would be best initiated by 3rd party, or maybe by goblins capturing some pally, talking about stuff and releasing him to spark some discussion. Palladins trying to talk with goblins. Ha. Ha. Ha.

Second: solutions.
How about no pre-emptive war? There you go, problem solved.

Seriously HOW is bearer of the Mantle such a big threat and what palladins REALLY know about it? If he starts gathering some massive army, then it has more reasons. If he attacks you, then you have a hell of a reson. But if you are so lawful-good, why the **** attack them in the first place w/o a clear reson?
We can assume there were some attacks / history between the factions, but Rich - in other places so eager to give villains a backstory - didn't mention much (anything?). Pallys were clearly bad here, with little reason and clear pass from their gods (xp fodder race, right?)

IF the crimson mantle / it's bearer starts to be a real problem (attacking with great power, empowering too much followers, w/e), then why not use AC's nobility favourite weapon - assasins. SG might be clearly a palladin order, but why not use something what is obviously present in city and ready to be used?

When you discover that Mantle itself is baddy-bad, you might as well try to capture it / destroy it, but still something that can be done with one precise strike. (even night attack by a bunch of palladins can work if you dislike assasins)
Why slaughter entire village?

Unless goblins are invading in your lands generation after generation while being slaughtered in masses (xp fodd . . . owait, how they manage to be such a long-lasting punchbags without extincting / realizing they have to go somewhere else oh nevermind) you have no reason to massacre every goblin, and if that is the case . . . who didn't see that bloodshed coming.

Dark Matter

2012-02-16, 11:18 AM

Well, I have to say that without the "gun", there would be no asking.And why is that? The goblins have nothing to trade but they've got the resources to create this uber-army?

He was killed for even bringing the subject into discussion. Can you say he wasn't right to raise the army (in the sense that, without it, there wouldn't ever have been a discussion)?The moment you put a gun to my head and "ask" for my wallet, I have the right to kill you.

Whether it's smart for me to try that is a different issue. But the moment you put a gun to my head we're not having a "discussion", and you've given up any claims of being "reasonable".

Xapi

2012-02-16, 11:35 AM

And why is that? The goblins have nothing to trade but they've got the resources to create this uber-army?

Trade? When was this about trade?

The moment you put a gun to my head and "ask" for my wallet, I have the right to kill you.

The moment you use my family as XP fodder I have the right to put a gun in your head.

And, arguably, pull the trigger too.

Whether it's smart for me to try that is a different issue. But the moment you put a gun to my head we're not having a "discussion", and you've given up any claims of being "reasonable".

Then what is the alternative for the Goblins? How where they to have a discussion as equals with the other races, if not by force?

MReav

2012-02-16, 11:48 AM

The moment you use my family as XP fodder I have the right to put a gun in your head.

But most of the population are not PCs, they are commoners. In this scenario, you are not putting a gun to the heads of the people responsible for enforcing this dichotomy (adventurers), you are pointing it at people who are only peripherally involved and giving said enforcers of the dichotomy more reason to go after you.

JSSheridan

2012-02-16, 12:03 PM

So just because I manifested sorcerer abilities as a teenager through no choice of my own means I'm kill-on-sight now? Gee, that's fair.

Xapi

2012-02-16, 12:05 PM

But most of the population are not PCs, they are commoners. In this scenario, you are not putting a gun to the heads of the people responsible for enforcing this dichotomy (adventurers), you are pointing it at people who are only peripherally involved and giving said enforcers of the dichotomy more reason to go after you.

First, it's not just about adventurers, the whole system is set up to screw the goblins.

Second, I'm not saying the Dark One was a lovely princess who did everything right and was always cautios not to hurt anyone that didn't deserve it.

I'm saying he was a reasonable goblin, and while he probably exceeded himself more than once and endangered people that should have been kept out of the matter, in the end he was willing to find a compromise that best suited everyone, and there IS clear evidence of this, in that he didn't hit first and ask questions later when he had an army cappable of killing millons.

That certainly puts him one step above the Sapphire Guard, wich killed first and asked questions never.

The Heads of State of the other races (IE: Not adventurers, but the Heads of State) decided that he wasn't worth a shot to listen to.

Reverent-One

2012-02-16, 12:15 PM

First, it's not just about adventurers, the whole system is set up to screw the goblins.

Second, I'm not saying the Dark One was a lovely princess who did everything right and was always cautios not to hurt anyone that didn't deserve it.

I'm saying he was a reasonable goblin, and while he probably exceeded himself more than once and endangered people that should have been kept out of the matter, in the end he was willing to find a compromise that best suited everyone, and there IS clear evidence of this, in that he didn't hit first and ask questions later when he had an army cappable of killing millons.

That certainly puts him one step above the Sapphire Guard, wich killed first and asked questions never.

The Heads of State of the other races (IE: Not adventurers, but the Heads of State) decided that he wasn't worth a shot to listen to.

I need to point out that you are assuming that the Dark one, a being called a spiteful, petty god by some of his followers, was entirely honest about his backstory and didn't make himself look better at all.

Xapi

2012-02-16, 12:23 PM

Dark Matter

2012-02-16, 12:38 PM

Trade? When was this about trade?The kings had land the goblins wanted. Typically the way that's handled is through purchase, i.e. the goblins could have tried to buy the land. That is what we call "mutually acceptable solution". The threat of genocide shouldn't be the first stick out of the bag.

The moment you use my family as XP fodder I have the right to put a gun in your head.Actually no, you don't.

"XP fodder" means "evil creatures committing evil acts which need to be stopped". *That* is the typical "adventurer scenario", and the moment you help your relative commit vile acts you've left "right" behind.

Xapi

2012-02-16, 12:50 PM

The kings had land the goblins wanted. Typically the way that's handled is through purchase, i.e. the goblins could have tried to buy the land. That is what we call "mutually acceptable solution". The threat of genocide shouldn't be the first stick out of the bag.

And what makes you think anyone was willing to even listen to them? And you're saying that buying a worthy piece of land for millions of goblins to live and strive on is cheaper than getting those goblins to rise as an army?

I think you're wrong.

Actually no, you don't.

"XP fodder" means "evil creatures committing evil acts which need to be stopped". *That* is the typical "adventurer scenario", and the moment you help your relative commit vile acts you've left "right" behind.

Yeah, if you're going to base your argument on the "typical adventurer scenario", I'm done with this argument, maybe you should read a more linear comic. This is not the typical adventure. The typical scenario has another take on it.

You should probably read the "Redcloak's characterization" thread and Rich's comments in ti.

Friv

2012-02-16, 12:53 PM

I need to point out that you are assuming that the Dark one, a being called a spiteful, petty god by some of his followers, was entirely honest about his backstory and didn't make himself look better at all.

This is a possibility.

In addition, and this is kind of a big deal, the Dark One became a god through the bloodlust and hatred of his followers after his death. There is no guarantee that, even if he was reasonable before, he remains so post-divinity.

(As far as purchase goes, the goblins really couldn't buy better land. What would they buy it with, their vast supply of low-quality dirt?)

MReav

2012-02-16, 01:05 PM

(As far as purchase goes, the goblins really couldn't buy better land. What would they buy it with, their vast supply of low-quality dirt?)

Whatever they used to buy/make the armor and weapons and everything else that a huge army would need to travel.

Dark Matter

2012-02-16, 01:06 PM

And what makes you think anyone was willing to even listen to them?Your reasoning just became circular. They needed the army because they needed the army.

And you're saying that buying a worthy piece of land for millions of goblins to live and strive on is cheaper than getting those goblins to rise as an army?I'm saying it should have been tried *before* genocide was put on the table.

I'm also saying you're ignoring the primary problem, which is that the goblins are usually evil.

You should probably read the "Redcloak's characterization" thread and Rich's comments in ti.Let's just review Rich's comments: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8081896&postcount=21

Xapi

2012-02-16, 01:11 PM

I'm also saying you're ignoring the primary problem, which is that the goblins are usually evil.

Well, since we don't agree AT ALL on what the primary problem is, we should call this a day.

King of Nowhere

2012-02-16, 01:42 PM

"XP fodder" means "evil creatures committing evil acts which need to be stopped". *That* is the typical "adventurer scenario", and the moment you help your relative commit vile acts you've left "right" behind.

You're making the mistake many make here, to assume that goblins in oots are evil creatures than need to be stopped regardless of other consideration. I don't understand why so many poeple has troubles seeing that those goblins are not the standard ones depiccted in the manual or in the lord of the rings.
Those goblins are people with hopes and families, and they enslaved humans, but on the other hand humans killed their children, so I wouldn't say they are any worse. The goblins in oots are the kind of guys you can talk to and can find peaceful agreement with, most of them. I don't see any evidence anywhere in the comic that goblins are any worse than humans. Goblins kill humans because of their race, but humans kill goblins for the same reason, so why shoudl humans be rigth? In fact, among the two, goblins were the only ones who ever tried to talk.

Also, every human nation has an army, and much diplomacy among humans has the underlying fundation that said army can be used if the talking goes poorly. I don't see why the goblins cannot have an army themselves, why raising an army for a goblin leader is a crime that justify killing him when he asked parley, while human leaders raise armies all the time.

Back to main topic: of course the paladins don't know much. They don't know what the crimson mantle is, they don't know all the secret lore of the crimson mantle. We don't know for sure what they know, so I feel it's a bit pointless to try to think that way.
But with what WE know, I shall try to find what I would consider a passable solution.
Diplomacy should be the first way any lawful good person would try to solve a problem. Diplomacy should also be the second way, and the third, and the use of violence should be reserved for the most extreme cases. However, the problem with diplomacy is that it would put the goblins in a stronger position, that they could use to firther the plan. So great care must be taken. I don't think asking the goblins to give the crimson manbtle would work. It is a sacred relic coming from their god, they would never give it away and it would be insulting to even ask.
Diplomacy among the gods would be the best way. The other gods could ask the dark one to give up the plan and remove knowledge of the ritual from the crimson mantle, in exchange for some concessions. However, I don't see the gods doing it.
So, back to humans: I think offering all goblins of good will to come and live around azure city, respecting human laws, wpould be a nice idea. It would also be a blow to support for the plan, because many goblins would no more want to join a goblin army. And if the goblin army were to invade the human lands, they would plunder and pillage from other goblins, and that would be a blow to morale and propaganda (admittedly, not much: the warlike goblins can claim the peaceful ones are traitors. but not everyone will be persuaded)

If it came to raiding a village to kill the bearer of the crimson mantle, I say that the only viable option is to let any noncombatant go, after making sure they have food and water enough to rejoin some other goblin group.
Even if that means some of those goblins may seek revenge later.
As a lawful good person, there really are no other options. You can't kill them just for what they migth do in the future, and enslaving/mindraping/convicting would be worse or not much better. You should also give proper burial to their dead, it would be good public relation.
Of course, if you are member of a less good organization, killing them would be the simplest way.
But what would be the point of being good if you hadn't to pay a price for it from time to time? Even Xykon can make good deeds as long as they are the best for him too.

Username_too_lo

2012-02-16, 02:01 PM

Of course, if Goblins only hung around in singles or pairs then they'd be below the CR of most adventurers and they'd get bupkus for killing them.

Kind of like an inverse Seditious Assembly law, where the smaller the group the more THEY'RE protected as a society.

russdm

2012-02-16, 04:39 PM

You are forgottening that the D&D game supports the idea of acting like the paladins did. It supports wiping out races because they are evil and will let paladins do so without them falling. Committing a vile act agaisnt an evil-doer won't count for the paladin, whereas if that paladin hurts some member of a good race it will count.

The fact that you can play a paladin like Miko and are heavily encouraged to do so by the game system itself should already concern people. Did any of those paladins fall after massacring the village? No. There was no indication that the twelve gods didn't like that happening. When Miko kills Shojo, she loses her powers while before that she was doing the same activity she did to Shojo. Miko assumed he was evil or helping evil so she killed him. Before, she would kill creatures that pinged off her detect evil radar.

From what i can recall, Detect Evil was modified with the other Detect (X alignment) spells to only pick up cleric types and outsiders and what not. Maybe it wasn't but the spell does pick up on Evil; it doesn't differentiate between kinds of evil. So you think nasty thoughts about your annoying neighbor, ping goes pally's slaydar.

Doing bad things to bad people is viewed by the game itself as being Good acts. The way the game sets it up, pretty much anyone can be a knight templar and stay on the good alignments. Of course the whole crappy alignment system discussion is for somewhere else than here.

Just my two coppers plus one silver piece...

P.S. I may be completely wrong on some of this. I accept that fact and acknowledge it.

hamishspence

2012-02-16, 04:45 PM

You are forgottening that the D&D game supports the idea of acting like the paladins did. It supports wiping out races because they are evil and will let paladins do so without them falling. Committing a vile act agaisnt an evil-doer won't count for the paladin, whereas if that paladin hurts some member of a good race it will count.

BoVD and BoED make it pretty clear this is not the case.

From what i can recall, Detect Evil was modified with the other Detect (X alignment) spells to only pick up cleric types and outsiders and what not. Maybe it wasn't but the spell does pick up on Evil; it doesn't differentiate between kinds of evil. So you think nasty thoughts about your annoying neighbor, ping goes pally's slaydar.

The present day version generally seems to support a concept of "Evil, but only mildly so" the kind of character who routinely does evil deeds, but very little ones, and has evil attitudes (Lawful Evil alignment description suggests bigotry tends to be associated with this alignment).

Doing bad things to bad people is viewed by the game itself as being Good acts. The way the game sets it up, pretty much anyone can be a knight templar and stay on the good alignments. Of course the whole crappy alignment system discussion is for somewhere else than here.

Just my two coppers plus one silver piece...

P.S. I may be completely wrong on some of this. I accept that fact and acknowledge it.

while "necessary killing of bad people" can be a nonevil act, it generally requires Just Cause, which as a rule means self-defense, and defense of others, from wrongdoers.

But many other "bad things" qualify as Evil acts no matter how vile the victim was.

russdm

2012-02-16, 04:59 PM

A curious instance though since both BoED and BoVD are intended for mature audencies instead of everybody. While I can get the deal with BoVD, it seems odd to apply the same to BoED. Maybe Wizards thought the players playing the game weren't mature enough to handle the subjects covered in both books?

Using Just Cause as an excuse? Very few of the players I have played with ever bothered applying any justification to just whacking evil things and taking their stuff from them. I had one group i played with that paid some attention to it whereas the other just didn't care, stating that if they were evil it was enough cause.

As for things qualifying as evil acts, what happened in your playing group(s) when you were fighting orcs or goblins as compared to demons or devils or even chromatic dragons? Didn't your party just kill them just as equally and loot their stuff as equally and did anyone in the party besides and including the party get marked for performing evil acts? The books, aside from BoED/BoVD which aren't always used, support the idea or implication that it is totally fine to be nasty to evil doers and that killing someone because they had an evil alignment.

If you go by the books and everything we have seen of the OOTS world so far, the paladins were being LG when the slaughtered the goblin village. They stayed LG while slaughtering the goblins in said village. Lastly, they left said massacre and remained LG. Even Soon supported such genocidal campaigns and he didn't fall either.

So then we have to assume (even if this is completely wrong) that being LG means being allowed to kill anyone you want without consequences in regards of alignment change. (this still might be wrong, but its more based on my appraisal on what has happened according to the comics)

Personally, i think the paladins involved should have spent time using the atonement spell to fix things up after what they did. But thats my personal feeling on this.

More copper pieces from me for the pit.

hamishspence

2012-02-16, 05:12 PM

While I can get the deal with BoVD, it seems odd to apply the same to BoED. Maybe Wizards thought the players playing the game weren't mature enough to handle the subjects covered in both books?

I think it's cause they used things like vows and stigmata that people needed to handle with caution in order to avoid upsetting players.

As for things qualifying as evil acts, what happened in your playing group(s) when you were fighting orcs or goblins as compared to demons or devils or even chromatic dragons? Didn't your party just kill them just as equally and loot their stuff as equally and did anyone in the party besides and including the party get marked for performing evil acts?

We tended to go with "if it's attacking us its reasonable to use force, otherwise, if it seems willing to talk, talk".

It even extended to releasing monsters who were prisoners of other monsters- as long as they behaved. I remember rescuing a flameskull and an ettin from a dungeon when we found them- and they formed a monster adventuring party.

If you go by the books and everything we have seen of the OOTS world so far, the paladins were being LG when the slaughtered the goblin village. They stayed LG while slaughtering the goblins in said village. Lastly, they left said massacre and remained LG. Even Soon supported such genocidal campaigns and he didn't fall either.

There's a quote from The Giant on the subject explaining that some of them may have fallen offscreen, and another stating that some of the goblins did not deserve to be killed.

EDIT:
SoD Paladins (http://ow.ly/55Mo9)
Redcloak's Little Sister (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12718923&postcount=148)

russdm

2012-02-16, 05:42 PM

Of course. But we didn't see any signs of the paladins trying any of that. Trying to talk it out. Trying to find other solutions. Heck, the whole Dark One's plan is about making goblins more than XP fodder. Yet we get alot of presentiment about how that plan is wrong or evil. or atleast not good, i guess.

We don't see alot of people trying things like that. Roy, Durkon, Hinjo, and O-Chul try to fix problems without violence being the first option. Their example doesn't spread out much though. We haven't seen any real signs that the paladins would have considered other options then just killing everyone. Much of the kill-happy advenurer's motif is present here "Kill it and take its stuff".

Do people actually think the paladins would take another option than what they did? Would there have been any reason for them to do so? It seemed to me that the whole point of what the paladins did was to remove anyone who could take up the crimson mantle. I mean, i can't see any of them actually trying to do differently. One or two of the paladins actually thanked their deities for blessing them in their killings in that it was so successful.

Personally, i think that things could have or should have gone differently. The problem I am seeing is that aren't very little other options that would work to present different outcomes.

1) Resettle them? The goblins would remember having been driven from their village, having lost loved ones, and then now to have to learn to survive elsewhere. They are going to remember what happened and seek to take revenge for what happened, which means things happen just about as usual.

2) Bring them to Azure City? What for? Would the goblins like being a minority in a human town, knowing that the two sides have had a long history of fighting each other? The goblins would have rather left as soon as possible then to stay there.

3) Slaves, Gladiators, Conscripts. Aside from the moral issues involved, I don't think the sapphire guard could support any of these besides conscripting the goblins and still call themselves an order of paladins. Making the goblins slaves shoves the paladins straight into X Evil end of things. Then of course the goblin slaves would end up revolting to gain their freedom and remember that they had been enslaved. So that won't work. Making the goblins into gladiators puts the sapphire guard into the position of sporting blood games and blood sport. That may not be as bad as the slavery deal, but it is willful employement of sentients into a situation that would result in deaths. If the gladiatorial games less fatal, it still would be bad because it would end up being a small form of enslavement. Conscripting the goblins puts individuals into your military that would have reasons to work agaisnt your goals. Would the goblins support the forces of Azure city when inhabitants from there destroyed a village of theirs then hauled them away to fight wars for that same city? Not bloody likely.

4) Giving them land? The goblins tried this one before already and did so unsuccessfully so the dark one went to try to talk to the human leaders. Did the human leaders talk amicably with the dark one about possible diplomatic solutions? No, they just killed him! They didn't even bother with trying any diplomacy at all. Would Azure City be any more likely to do the same even through a third party? I am not feeling it, guys and girls. If the Azurites did give land to the goblins with negotations too, would the next generation of Azurites continue to support those arrangements? How long would the arrangments last before some of the Azurite nobles decided they wanted the goblin land and took steps to remove them so the nobles could acquire that land?

5) Just wiping them out? sadly this seems to be the only real option that was guaranteed to keep conflict from happening for the time being. yes, its a crappy option but how would the other choices have worked without divine intervention or similiar extensive work? If the gods didn't agree with parts of the Dark One's goals to make them happen, it would mean and means that any real option selected for dealing with the goblins means that they would still end up being the same XP fodder just now living in different places.

More copper pieces from me to the pot. I'm letting a bunch go...

Math_Mage

2012-02-16, 06:48 PM

You are forgottening that the D&D game supports the idea of acting like the paladins did. It supports wiping out races because they are evil and will let paladins do so without them falling. Committing a vile act agaisnt an evil-doer won't count for the paladin, whereas if that paladin hurts some member of a good race it will count.

The fact that you can play a paladin like Miko and are heavily encouraged to do so by the game system itself should already concern people. Did any of those paladins fall after massacring the village? No. There was no indication that the twelve gods didn't like that happening. When Miko kills Shojo, she loses her powers while before that she was doing the same activity she did to Shojo. Miko assumed he was evil or helping evil so she killed him. Before, she would kill creatures that pinged off her detect evil radar.

One of the central themes of NCftPB--indeed, most of the comic--is that this is a bad way to play D&D: that D&D alignment supports complex and nuanced viewpoints, and thus players who RP their characters after simplistic "He's a Usually Neutral Evil type so it's okay to kill him" rules are being incredibly lazy, rather than merely working within the limitations of the alignment system. As such, we can safely assume that detect-smite and race-smite tactics are equally to be scorned in SoD.

(Also, as noted, just because we didn't see paladins falling in SoD doesn't mean it never happened, given Word of God on the subject.)

Tev

2012-02-16, 07:14 PM

If you go by the books and everything we have seen of the OOTS world so far, the paladins were being LG when the slaughtered the goblin village.
While gods are kinda anti-goblin in oots, there is no evidence that massacre of children/women is OK.

They stayed LG while slaughtering the goblins in said village. Lastly, they left said massacre and remained LG.
What? Where was this said?

Even Soon supported such genocidal campaigns and he didn't fall either.

WHAT? I think I missed something, link to comic pls?

We haven't seen any real signs that the paladins would have considered other options then just killing everyone.

Yep, Hinjo and O-Chul aren't paladins, that crazy chick definitely didn't fall and we have seen so many other paladins being portrayed in detail!

Do people actually think the paladins would take another option than what they did? Would there have been any reason for them to do so? It seemed to me that the whole point of what the paladins did was to remove anyone who could take up the crimson mantle. I mean, i can't see any of them actually trying to do differently. One or two of the paladins actually thanked their deities for blessing them in their killings in that it was so successful.
...

You know, there is entire thread on this forum dedicated to that topic . . . seriously, at least trying to read OP doesn't sound as a bad idea, does it?

EDIT: Weird - people seems to recognize palladins weren't really right in their mass violence way, and still fail to see "NO violence" as an option . . .

Dark Matter

2012-02-16, 07:26 PM

...Committing a vile act agaisnt an evil-doer won't count for the paladin, whereas if that paladin hurts some member of a good race it will count.This is true for some DMs, but not for The Giant and the OOTS universe.

The fact that you can play a paladin like Miko...Miko fell and was NOT respected by the other Paladins in the Order. Using her as the worst Paladin example... what specific acts of hers are you against? The monsters she killed on camera were actively committing vile deeds. IMHO she even deserves a pass for trying to kill Roy because Nale's Linear Guild was made up of OOTS evil twin's.

...Miko assumed he was evil or helping evil so she killed him. Before, she would kill creatures that pinged off her detect evil radar.Belkar was so sure she'd fall for killing him that he was willing to die in the process. One assumes he knew he'd show up as evil.

Heck, the whole Dark One's plan is about making goblins more than XP fodder. Yet we get alot of presentiment about how that plan is wrong or evil. or atleast not good, i guess.Now that Goblins aren't XP fodder in Gobblotopia, are the goblins less evil?

We don't see alot of people trying things like that. Roy, Durkon, Hinjo, and O-Chul try to fix problems without violence being the first option.Hinjo and O-Chul are respected members of the Order, Miko was not.

Much of the kill-happy advenurer's motif is present here "Kill it and take its stuff".Belkar isn't an example of how Good PCs are supposed to behave. None of the OOTS agreed with him when he said that.

4) Giving them land? The goblins tried this one before...Right Eye tried it and he was free from the forces of good because he didn't run around doing evil. Right Eye proves the goblins don't need permission from the forces of good to live in peace, all they need to do is not commit evil.

...already and did so unsuccessfully so the dark one went to try to talk to the human leaders. Did the human leaders talk amicably with the dark one about possible diplomatic solutions? No, they just killed him! They didn't even bother with trying any diplomacy at all.Diplomacy? Is that what you call it when one side creates a best in history genocidal army and starts talking about ways they can be convinced to not use it?

The whole situation didn't sound like it was going to end well for the three kings and their people no matter what they did.

Would Azure City be any more likely to do the same even through a third party?You're forgetting all the Hobogoblin legions, living right next to Azure apparently peacefully.

russdm

2012-02-16, 07:56 PM

The subject of their alignment was never brought up either way, so one could make assumptions however in truth how wrong said assumptions are. I didn't ever say that i actually agreed with those points, since i was more trying to point out how they could exist. Still the alignment question there is never raised aside from a word of god (rich) and left for us to determine how it played out if at all in one own's opinion.

Link to comic is here and stated by Lord Shojo: Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html)
It gets mentioned beneath the panel with Soon and the other paladins.

I was only discussing the paladins who showed up in Start of Darkness not the paladins depicted elsewhere. Still, we have not been shown in comic alot that much of the paladins' actions. We have seen O-Chul, Hinjo, Miko, and a few other spots. When discussing Miko, we have This (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0265.html) and This (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html) as well as Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html). In the last one, Hinjo finally calls out Miko, but apparently everything she did up to that point was considered acceptal albeit extreme by the other paladins. When she went off her rocker and killed Shojo, she fell. Not one moment before, mind you. Just pointing out what i have noticed.

As for my critique of the options, that was analyzing them to determine why those methods would not work when applied not suggesting that taking such options were unwise or not to be done. I simply was pointing the problems with other options, critiquing on how much they would have perhaps been considered by either side, but mainly from the goblin side.

If those evaluations somehow means i am stating how using no violence is not an option, i am unsure on how that came up. I was merely pointing issues with the plans that would have affected on how the paladins would consider implementing them. I personally view the violence being the only solution option one that should have happened only after every other concievable method was employed. Sorry for not being clear before, but i can't control how other people view my posts and so i apologize for producing confusion.

Sorry for any confusions. I am not trying to provoke any kind of flame war here, and am trying to point things out with the least of amount of argument inducing ways i can without pushing things overboard.

russdm

2012-02-16, 08:14 PM

Now that Goblins aren't XP fodder in Gobblotopia, are the goblins less evil?
Right Eye tried it and he was free from the forces of good because he didn't run around doing evil. Right Eye proves the goblins don't need permission from the forces of good to live in peace, all they need to do is not commit evil.
You're forgetting all the Hobogoblin legions, living right next to Azure apparently peacefully.

No, the goblins aren't less evil.
Yes, Right-Eye's village was there. It clearly showed that it could work, however we don't see the paladins in start of darkness mentioning any ideas about implementing Right-Eye and his village for more groups of goblins or about encouraging that kind of behavior in goblins.
Yes, but there is no sign that the hobgoblins had attacked Azure City until Xykon and Redcloak had mobilized them for fighting their war. We only have assumptions that they attacked previously. Also since the number of warriors present were high enough to make that many legions, it would have disturbed Azure City anyway. Then were the hobgoblins ignored by the Azurites or had the two groups not really know of each other existence? The rest of the legions besides the ones that Redcloak and Xykon encountered had time to build a city or something. The hobgoblins are depicted as having settled and so far i don't recall any instances where it is stated that the hobgoblins had been fighting Azure city. If there are however, it would be nice to have them pointed out.

More coins for the pot.

t209

2012-02-16, 08:30 PM

No, the goblins aren't less evil.
Yes, Right-Eye's village was there. It clearly showed that it could work, however we don't see the paladins in start of darkness mentioning any ideas about implementing Right-Eye and his village for more groups of goblins or about encouraging that kind of behavior in goblins.
Yes, but there is no sign that the hobgoblins had attacked Azure City until Xykon and Redcloak had mobilized them for fighting their war. We only have assumptions that they attacked previously. Also since the number of warriors present were high enough to make that many legions, it would have disturbed Azure City anyway. Then were the hobgoblins ignored by the Azurites or had the two groups not really know of each other existence? The rest of the legions besides the ones that Redcloak and Xykon encountered had time to build a city or something. The hobgoblins are depicted as having settled and so far i don't recall any instances where it is stated that the hobgoblins had been fighting Azure city. If there are however, it would be nice to have them pointed out.

More coins for the pot.

http://www.giantitp.com/Images/gitpkick/OOTSPDF1_Cover_7in.png
Look at the shadow, the shadow is Hobgoblins (or Dothraki/ caucasian (Caucasus)/ mongolians/ tartars/ turks horsemen if you think it is not Hobgoblin).

martianmister

2012-02-16, 08:37 PM

They looks nothing like Hobgoblins. And don't bring real life into this forum for no reason.

russdm

2012-02-16, 08:39 PM

t209

2012-02-16, 08:50 PM

They looks nothing like Hobgoblins. And don't bring real life into this forum for no reason.

What I meant by Mongols/ Dothraki/ Turkish/ Caucasus thing is the fantasy version of Horse Nomads (Like Azure City is fantasy version of Japan/ Korean/ vietnam/ chinese).
But the shadow have point ears and long swords.

russdm

2012-02-16, 08:54 PM

But the shadow have point ears and long swords.

Wouldn't that make them Elves instead? since elves have pointy ears and usually wield longswords. I would note here that both Elves and hobgoblins have been depicted as having pointy ears. The shadows could also represent drow, you know.

t209

2012-02-16, 09:11 PM

We'll wait for it to come out and confirm if Azurites have fought with Hobgoblins.

martianmister

2012-02-16, 09:14 PM

But the shadow have point ears and long swords.

If that's the case, they all have only one ear. It's look like thay are wearing helmets.

Kish

2012-02-16, 09:49 PM

Yes, but there is no sign that the hobgoblins had attacked Azure City until Xykon and Redcloak had mobilized them for fighting their war.
Actually, Rich made it clear in book commentary that the hobgoblins and Azure City had been sparring for decades, with each blaming the other side for starting the hostilities.

pendell

2012-02-17, 06:57 AM

Hmm...

I may be mis-reading, but most of the answers seem to be along the lines of

"Don't get into that situation in the first place."

or

"Negotiate and don't think about force."

I don't think these are especially helpful sentiments. Of course we try to avoid war if we can but humans have been fighting wars forever. What then? Say "Well, things are messed up anyway so do what you want?"

I think not. Historically, lawful good societies have striven for Jus in Bello (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#Jus_in_bello) (Justice in War) as well as Jus Ad Bellum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_ad_bellum) (Justice of the war itself). That is, a war conducted by a lawful good society must use lawful good means as well as be conducted for a lawful good end.

Another problem is that, historically, people who aren't at the sharp end of the spear tend to make laws for warriors that, when put to the test, are discarded because the battlefield is not a tidy place.

Case in point: Back in the middle ages, there was a law that absolutely forbade the use of Crossbows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow). It was forbidden in 1039 at the Second Lateran Council. This did not stop them being used extensively until they were replaced by muskets.

Paladins sent to make war on a tribal, clan-based enemy need better, more detailed instructions than "you shouldn't be in this position in the first place." Some way of fighting a war practically while still holding on to their lawful good alignment in the hellish, chaotic evil maelstrom that is war.

Perhaps something like David Drake's solution in At Any Price (http://en.risingshadow.net/library?action=book&book_id=2960). The foe in that book is a teleporting enemy armed with weapons bought from offworld traders. They teleport in, kill, and teleport out instantly. There is no way to prevent this teleportation. Conventional armies are destroyed easily by enemies who pop in, kill, and pop out again. There is no "front line". Indeed, the front line can be in the middle of the human HQ, when a warrior suddenly appears, sprays a gun around, and pops out again.

The enemy in the story has a weak point , however. Only the adult males are capable of teleportation. The females and prepuscent children are NOT capable of teleportation. They are sheltered in massive warrens which ARE fixed locations. Unlike the warriors, who appear and disappear instantly.

...

The winning strategy was to storm and capture the warrens and hold them hostage. The humans couldn't fight the warriors directly, so they went and attacked the only target they COULD fix that the warriors cared about. And they chose to hold them hostage rather than engage in wholesale slaughter because, hello, conscience. It's what heroes have and villains don't.

My point is, the sentiments thus far decry what the paladins do but don't give them any reasonable alternative beyond "don't fight at all." And that's not a reasonable thing to ask of soldiers in fiction or in reality.

What I'm looking for is justice in war -- a way to prosecute a war against an enemy effectively and set up the conditions for a lasting peace, while not sliding all the way down the slope of Any Means Necessary to the point they become villains indistinguishable from the foes they're fighting.

It's a difficult question, for soldiers in fiction or soldiers in real-life. And simply telling them they shouldn't be there in the first place isn't exactly helpful. If anything, it makes it worse, because it tells them they're already evil, and that therefore they might as do whatever they have to because the good people are going to condemn them anyway.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Xapi

2012-02-17, 07:06 AM

pendell

2012-02-17, 07:19 AM

************
The best solution I can find is one that doesn't fit thematically with the SG, although it SHOULD.

Have a group of Paladin/Rogues or Paladin/Rangers, that will scout the nearby (and not so nearby) goblin villages for the Crimson Mantle and/or other indications of activities that are against the fabric of the universe.

Attack only when needed, and only where it matters.

The non-combatant survivors can be placed in a different goblin village.

Yes, you risk retaliation.

Suck it up, you are a paladin.

Indeed. And that has the first steps to a plausible solution. If you can find a village run by someone like Right-Eye, then you could offload the survivors. That means having to learn to distinguish between goblins rather than simply killing them because they have green skin and teeth. I agree. That's the sort of thing to do if you want to not be a villain.

What to do if you don't have a nearby village, or know of a friendly goblin tribe? Then I guess you'll have to make one. Take the survivors of your raid, or of several existing raids, give them food, clothing, and shelter. Provide them priests of the twelve gods to give them instruction, soldiers to protect them, and real land to farm on. In two or three generations, they will be auxiliary forces in your army. In five or six generations, you might have goblin paladins in the Sapphire Guard.

Of course, there are problems with making this work, but at least it's a start. It's a concept that could theoretically work.

I have to say, I think you're making a simple mistake in your reasoning. You propose that the SG are soldiers, and must therefore fight.

I believe that to be a half truth.

They are not soldiers, they are Guardians. They guard the threads of the Universe and blah blah blah. And they are Lawful Good.

So they shouldn't act unless the fabric of the Universe is actually being threatened (or something else that is sufficiently evil is being done).

I'm not entirely sure I follow your reasoning. While military operations are not all of the Sapphire Guard's responsibilities, they can indeed act as a military organization, and it is with their conduct when they are acting as a military organization that I am concerned with. Presumably there are also SG scryers, diplomats, research mages. I'm not terribly concerned with that, because as far as I know *that* section of the SG has never destroyed any goblin villages. It wasn't diplomacy that brought karma-riffic ruin on Azure City, but overzealous crusading, a lack of justice in war. That's what I'm interested in correcting, because that seems to be the SG's greatest flaw.

At any rate, we've got at least two good suggestions. Are there others?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Xapi

2012-02-17, 07:31 AM

I'm not entirely sure I follow your reasoning. While military operations are not all of the Sapphire Guard's responsibilities, they can indeed act as a military organization, and it is with their conduct when they are acting as a military organization that I am concerned with. Presumably there are also SG scryers, diplomats, research mages. I'm not terribly concerned with that, because as far as I know *that* section of the SG has never destroyed any goblin villages. It wasn't diplomacy that brought karma-riffic ruin on Azure City, but overzealous crusading, a lack of justice in war. That's what I'm interested in correcting, because that seems to be the SG's greatest flaw.

I'll explain myself further.

The SG, in my view, was NOT in charge of the defense of the city. Yes, they had people who weren't paladins amongst them, but that's not my point. My point is that the soldiers in the outer walls, the ones who defended the city from the attack, were not part of the SG, they were just regular soldiers from the Azure City military. The SG could aid in the defense of the city, mostly because defending the city ment they could still play their role inside of it (guarding the gate). However, when faced between aiding at the walls or staying at the gate, their choice was clear.

So this is not a question of how you do war as a soldier, or how you defend your country, because that was not their task. It is a question of how you defend the gate. It was in that task that they were overzealous, as you put it, and brought war upon Azure City.

Omergideon

2012-02-17, 08:04 AM

Indeed. And that has the first steps to a plausible solution. If you can find a village run by someone like Right-Eye, then you could offload the survivors. That means having to learn to distinguish between goblins rather than simply killing them because they have green skin and teeth. I agree. That's the sort of thing to do if you want to not be a villain.

What to do if you don't have a nearby village, or know of a friendly goblin tribe? Then I guess you'll have to make one. Take the survivors of your raid, or of several existing raids, give them food, clothing, and shelter. Provide them priests of the twelve gods to give them instruction, soldiers to protect them, and real land to farm on. In two or three generations, they will be auxiliary forces in your army. In five or six generations, you might have goblin paladins in the Sapphire Guard.

I agree with this and clumsily tried to suggest something such as this, but with a different focus. I repeat that the single most important thing the Paladins could do is to find out why the fabric of reality is being threatened. Yes the should make it clear that "the universe > any single Goblin or Paladin" but it is their lack of knowledge that is the biggest problem. And a lack of willingness to investigate the motives of the Goblins that leads to the untenable situation.

Whilst I do not myself advise that they necessarily do this, imagine of the Crimson Mantle+owner were incarcerated as opposed to killed. By the use of interrogation, discussion and other general methods (of course excluding torture) they could find out WHY he is willing to risk all of creation in his plan. This knowledge could likely change everything as I am sure that the notion that Goblins (real sentient beings) existing as pure XP fodder would not sit well with real Paladins, or Soon from what we saw of him. The biggest problem seems to be a presumption of "for evilz" as why bad guys do bad things. If the SG had investigated a bit more they would know this is not true and could act accordingly. The root of the SG issue is they do not ask such questions enough.

And I repeat that overtures of peace need to begin with the Sapphire Guard as they have infinitely more power than any given Goblin Village.

And again, picture Xykon waltzing into Right-Eyes village and meeting the Enitre Sapphire Quard, casters, Paladins and depending on time frame Soon Himself. If the SG can promise this and actually keep it then peace is truly possible.

Economic pressures can work much better than military ones at times. For reference I suggest Foundation by Isaac Asimov. He explains how this can work out quite well. So once both Azureites and Goblins are benefitting from trade etc. anything to disturb it becomes untenable.

Edit: To reference the next post, we saw Shojo was more willing to be inventive and clever in his approach. He had more to him than just "go kill the evil if you would". With him in charge diplomacy to avoid war is not inconcievable. Just to suggest how things could have gone differently.

B. Dandelion

2012-02-17, 08:04 AM

Presumably there are also SG scryers, diplomats, research mages. I'm not terribly concerned with that, because as far as I know *that* section of the SG has never destroyed any goblin villages. It wasn't diplomacy that brought karma-riffic ruin on Azure City, but overzealous crusading, a lack of justice in war.

I tend to think the overzealousness happened because of the lack of diplomacy -- Azure City had one, and only one, policy regarding humanoids, which was to send paladins out to kill them whenever they posed a threat. You go through enough cycles of uprising-smackdown, uprising-smackdown, it starts to look like the only way to break out of the loop is to say screw it and kill them all, no more goblins left to rise up.

I get why you'd find it frustrating and unhelpful to get an answer like "they shouldn't be in that situation in the first place" when your question is about how they should have fought better, but I think the point is a Sapphire Guard that truly cared about being as merciful and compassionate as possible would not be in that situation, because it would be a completely different Sapphire Guard than the one that actually existed in the comic. The Sapphire Guard behaved as they did as a result of values that did not assign much (if any) worth to the lives of humanoids, and their brutality in wiping out villages was a symptom of that larger malaise. So the question "what should the kinder, gentler Sapphire Guard have done?" becomes a bogus hypothetical -- like asking what a Lawful Good Shojo should have done to keep Miko from killing him.

Dark Matter

2012-02-17, 09:11 AM

Yeah, the thread derailed big time. But I stand by my proposed solution from page 1:

Have a group of Paladin/Rogues or Paladin/Rangers, that will scout the nearby (and not so nearby) goblin villages for the Crimson Mantle and/or other indications of activities that are against the fabric of the universe.

Attack only when needed, and only where it matters.

The non-combatant survivors can be placed in a different goblin village.

Yes, you risk retaliation.

Suck it up, you are a paladin.There's a lot to be said in that, especially with the last part. Being a paladin isn't supposed to be easy or risk free.

So they shouldn't act unless the fabric of the Universe is actually being threatened... Um... that's probably what the Paladins who attacked RC's home village were doing. Within the limits of their resources anyway.

(or something else that is sufficiently evil is being done).This is going to be the real problem.

Goblins were made to be XP fodder for PCs, including Paladins. Or in other words, they're drawn so much towards evil that as a whole they're "usually evil". It's reasonable to pick a goblin at random, hand him a whip, some slaves, give him a few quick lessons in sadism and expect he's going to enjoy it.

The expectation should be that goblins are going to engage in "evil" behavior often enough that we're back into the whole cycle of violence thing.

Let's look at it a different way and start with and define where we want to end up: Goblins are redeemed.
-Strong cultural institutions deal with their natural inclinations.
-Goblin Paladins enforce the law on their own people.
-They turn away from The Dark One.
-As a people they're no longer "usually evil".

In terms of how we get from where we are to where we want to be, and assuming that The Sapphire Guard has limited resources... I don't know. Start an order of goblin Paladins? Even just having a few within the Sapphire Guard might go a long way.

Xapi

2012-02-17, 09:26 AM

Um... that's probably what the Paladins who attacked RC's home village were doing. Within the limits of their resources anyway.

Really? RCs sister was endangering the fabric of reality?

This is going to be the real problem.

Goblins were made to be XP fodder for PCs, including Paladins. Or in other words, they're drawn so much towards evil that as a whole they're "usually evil". It's reasonable to pick a goblin at random, hand him a whip, some slaves, give him a few quick lessons in sadism and expect he's going to enjoy it.

How does "Goblins were made to be XP fodder for PCs" means "they're drawn so much towards evil as a whole that they're 'usually evil'" in other words?

That's quite a jump you took there, in line with many other assertations I strongly disagree with, some of wich I have pointed out.

The expectation should be that goblins are going to engage in "evil" behavior often enough that we're back into the whole cycle of violence thing.
So, because they'll be evil sometime in the future, we'll be preemptively evil?

Let's look at it a different way and start with and define where we want to end up: Goblins are redeemed.
-Strong cultural institutions deal with their natural inclinations.

Good

-Goblin Paladins enforce the law on their own people.

Why Paladins? The Goblinoid institutions need to take their cultural particularities into account.

-They turn away from The Dark One.

Why? He is their God, why would you force them to leave their religion?

-As a people they're no longer "usually evil".

Good.

In terms of how we get from where we are to where we want to be, and assuming that The Sapphire Guard has limited resources... I don't know. Start an order of goblin Paladins? Even just having a few within the Sapphire Guard might go a long way.

Given the SG track record, I don't think that would be a good idea.

Dark Matter

2012-02-17, 10:15 AM

Really? RCs sister was endangering the fabric of reality?The murder of RCs sister was an evil act and the Paladin which committed that fell then and there.

None of which changes that yes, the head of the conspiracy to destroy the universe was in the village, and presumably was the head of the village. He was a legit target for any Paladin just as Redcloak himself is now.

What should have happened is the Paladins should have given the civilians a chance to remove themselves, and the bearer of the Redcloak a chance to surrender. But realistically the head of the conspiracy and his supporters need to have their heads removed.

How does "Goblins were made to be XP fodder for PCs" means "they're drawn so much towards evil as a whole that they're 'usually evil'" in other words?Them being "usually evil" is cannon (and also mentioned in 511). The whole thing with a "random goblin" being a trainable sadist is from the strip.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html

So, because they'll be evil sometime in the future, we'll be preemptively evil?I'm pointing out that making plans without taking into account the "usually evil" problem is a good way to fail.

What we're trying to do is seriously hard. It's fair to argue that the forces of good have made things worse. It's fair to argue that there should be a better way. But you're not going to succeed by ignoring facts, and "usually evil" is a fact. Goblins were evil right out of the box, long before any "cycle of violence" started.

Why Paladins? The Goblinoid institutions need to take their cultural particularities into account.Because Paladins have to be LG, and they fall if they commit evil acts.

Why? He is their God, why would you force them to leave their religion?Because he's at the root of most of the problems we see. He's evil, trying to destroy the universe, and somehow all of these "good for goblins" plans that he comes up with ALSO end up with himself personally in charge.

Evil is a seriously nasty package, and it's hard to see "redemption" in combination with "worships evil gods who actively reward evil acts".

FatJose

2012-02-17, 12:03 PM

Them being "usually evil" is cannon (and also mentioned in 511). The whole thing with a "random goblin" being a trainable sadist is from the strip.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html

He never came off as someone who enjoyed what he was doing. Just a guy with anew assignment. The other two were being jerks, but he seemed pretty annoyed by the whole thing. We never see that goblin become some sort of deviant. He seemed pretty "meh" about the whole thing.

What we're trying to do is seriously hard. It's fair to argue that the forces of good have made things worse. It's fair to argue that there should be a better way. But you're not going to succeed by ignoring facts, and "usually evil" is a fact. Goblins were evil right out of the box, long before any "cycle of violence" started.

Part of "The Plan" is made specifically to fix that. The problem isn't just the cycle, it's that its inevitable. By rebuilding the world, goblins would no longer be Usually Evil, as I understand the plan. Goblins would be free to be as varied as any PC race. Capable of "choosing" to be heroes or villains with as much variety as humanoids. They were created by the gods and they were created to have minds that trend toward evil-doing and being faceless mooks. The Plan is pretty much "screw this game." We're just going to make a new campaign setting all together.

hamishspence

2012-02-17, 12:18 PM

Goblins were made to be XP fodder for PCs, including Paladins. Or in other words, they're drawn so much towards evil that as a whole they're "usually evil".

We don't know that. "Usually neutral evil" could quite easily owe more to "culture" (including the influence of The Dark One's clerics) than to "being drawn toward evil".

The PHB helpfully points out that even within an alignment class, like "usually lawful evil"- there is considerable variation, and that the "inborn tendency" is much stronger for beholders than it is for kobolds.

Same principle may apply for "usually lawful evil" and hobgoblins, or "usually neutral evil" and goblins.

Juggling Goth

2012-02-17, 12:47 PM

Assuming that the kill-the-bearer option was necessary? Well, for a start, after having killed the guy I was after, who had helpfully identified himself to me, I wouldn't give an order like "exterminate the rest".

I would send people on the raids who actually saw the goblins as people - exterminate is what you do with vermin - and therefore tried to keep the body count down. If you think it's fun, you get kicked out of my army. How you manage to be around "three in a row!" girl and not fall for associating with evil is beyond me, but hey.

I like the option of capturing a CM bearer and actually talking to the guy. Maybe throw in some "well, since we have you, there's no point us threatening anyone else, so we're gonna leave them alone" promises.

pendell

2012-02-17, 01:14 PM

So the question "what should the kinder, gentler Sapphire Guard have done?" becomes a bogus hypothetical -- like asking what a Lawful Good Shojo should have done to keep Miko from killing him.

The past is past. A better hypothetical would be, what should Lord Hinjo do as head of the Sapphire Guard NOW, to prevent this happening again in the future? Assuming he is able to learn what's going on?

What should have happened is the Paladins should have given the civilians a chance to remove themselves, and the bearer of the Redcloak a chance to surrender. But realistically the head of the conspiracy and his supporters need to have their heads removed.

Given that it is highly unlikely that the cloak would surrender, I would consider this false pity. Against a spellcaster, a surprise round may be vital to success. The plan jeapordizes the mission and certainly increases casualties among the paladins for little gain to the civilians. It is possible they wouldn't be allowed to leave even if they want to.

Even though not all goblins are evil, it's certain that the Dark One is evil and cares little for their individual lives, as per SOD. So it is quite reasonable that he would instruct the bearer of the crimson mantle to use the civilians as human -- excuse me, goblin -- shields.

The problem with being decent in war is that indecent people will use it as a weapon against you. Make it illegal to fire on a church, people will set up a machine gun nest in there. Make it illegal to target civilians, ruthless people will locate their headquarters right in the middle of a civilian population.

The end result is that we can't give the Crimson Mantle any warning whatsoever. Strike first, strike fast, strike hard, then sort out the survivors afterwards if, gods willing , there are any.

Whilst I do not myself advise that they necessarily do this, imagine of the Crimson Mantle+owner were incarcerated as opposed to killed. By the use of interrogation, discussion and other general methods (of course excluding torture) they could find out WHY he is willing to risk all of creation in his plan. This knowledge could likely change everything as I am sure that the notion that Goblins (real sentient beings) existing as pure XP fodder would not sit well with real Paladins, or Soon from what we saw of him.

Not really, I know something about lawful good types. You've seen the argument of the prosecutor in the strip above, right? When Roy and company were on trial?

I can see how this would work.

"The goblins are fighting to get a better lot than the gods assign to them."

"This is a feudalism, not a democracy. Our places and stations in life are divinely ordained and not to be questioned by mortals. The gods who made us possess wisdom of far greater magnitude than we could ever hope to possess. Their commands are not to be questioned but obeyed."

Someone with compassion and common sense might soften that a bit, but there is a fundamental, irreconcilable conflict between the Dark One and the Sapphire Guard. The Sapphire Guard is sworn to serve the twelve gods and the divinely inspired order of creation that they made. To challenge this order would be little short of blasphemy, a crime punishable in religious cultures by death.

Which brings up a point.

For any of this to work, the gods themselves are going to have to be brought on board with goblins being equal. Obviously, The Dark One has already failed to persuade them via armed force. Maybe a Martin Luther King or a Gandhi type could succeed in weakness where an evil murderer failed?

And again, picture Xykon waltzing into Right-Eyes village and meeting the Enitre Sapphire Quard, casters, Paladins and depending on time frame Soon Himself. If the SG can promise this and actually keep it then peace is truly possible.

That WOULD be nice. Imagine further that goblin soldiers are fighting alongside the Sapphire Guard, possibly wearing their uniform.

se he's at the root of most of the problems we see. He's evil, trying to destroy the universe, and somehow all of these "good for goblins" plans that he comes up with ALSO end up with himself personally in charge.

Precisely. Also, deities in D&D aren't like real-life religion. D&D deities are made and unmade. Mortals can become gods. The fact that the goblins only have a spiteful, hateful, petty deity is not an indication they should be abandoned to his rule. Possibly the 12 gods could take the willing for their own, or possibly good goblins could raise new goblin gods, possibly a whole goblin pantheon.

Recall that the original religious context of "redeem" is to buy back, to transfer ownership of a soul from the realm of darkness to the realm of light. I suggest that true Exalted D&D Lawful good sees the redemption of a single soul to be of greater worth than the deaths of ten thousand.

So don't think of this as 'abandoning their religion'. Think of it as a bunch of computer users who have been forced to use Microsoft all their lives and have no alternatives. The poor savages need help! :)

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Xapi

2012-02-17, 01:28 PM

So don't think of this as 'abandoning their religion'. Think of it as a bunch of computer users who have been forced to use Microsoft all their lives and have no alternatives. The poor savages need help! :)

Respectfully,

Brian P.

You come to my house and try to force me into Linux, you better get ready to rumble. ;)

suzaliscious

2012-02-17, 01:34 PM

While this is definitely a topic worthy of discussion and it can be discussed with the knowledge we currently have, I'm going to point out that large swaths of arguments and assumptions here will probably be invalidated/clarified/expanded upon following the release of O-Chul's story. Just something to keep in mind - we WILL see the Paladins' side of it soon and won't have to take shots in the dark of what they're actually like. (I'm assuming here that you've participated in the Kickstarter ofc. but if you bought SoD and are participating in this thread, you probably have :D)

On some points that I saw:

1) The Dark One is a petty, spiteful God? Yes. Was he a petty, spiteful mortal? No.

Let's look at just the facts here: The Goblin people were being oppressed and at the same time were divided. The Dark One unified and consolidated his people, inspired them and led them in a revolution against their oppressors. He was revolutionary fighting for his people's rights, not an evil psycho bent on world domination.

When force was necessary, he used it. When he thought he was in a position where diplomacy was an option, he took that option. This much is pretty bare fact from SoD.

2) "The Goblins are inherently evil and deserve to be killed/killing them is not wrong."

If you think this is true, congrats on missing the point of much of the comic.

Remember, OotS isn't D&D. The above may be true in many universes but is definitely not in the context of OotS.

The fact that the Paladins didn't fall does not mean that the killing was righteous - only that their Gods were fine with it. Which, seeing as the Goblins were created by the Gods for the purpose of being slaughtered is very, very consistent. Killing Goblins wouldn't make Thor or Dragon or Dog bat an eyelid. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do - one of the many themes of the comic, one of its central points is that it is not.

3) "The Paladins don't know enough about the Goblins."

Yet they know somehow that the bearer of the Crimson Mantle wants something to do with the Gates/'threated the fabric of the universe.'

I will thus say I don't think this point is something that should be brought up in this thread - since we don't know what the Paladins know, how much they know and how much is accurate. Wait for "How the Paladin Got His Scar."

Dark Matter

2012-02-17, 01:54 PM

Narren

2012-02-17, 02:22 PM

The Sapphire Guard is ill suited for this task. They attacked the goblin village because that's the only way they knew to tackle the problem (though there is no excuse for the wholesale slaughter). Azure City would have been better served using their ninjas, or just hiring an adventuring party if their ninjas were not up to the task. Kill/Capture the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle, and try to make peace with the rest.

Omergideon

2012-02-17, 02:23 PM

The past is past. A better hypothetical would be, what should Lord Hinjo do as head of the Sapphire Guard NOW, to prevent this happening again in the future? Assuming he is able to learn what's going on?

Not really, I know something about lawful good types. You've seen the argument of the prosecutor in the strip above, right? When Roy and company were on trial?

I can see how this would work.

"The goblins are fighting to get a better lot than the gods assign to them."

"This is a feudalism, not a democracy. Our places and stations in life are divinely ordained and not to be questioned by mortals. The gods who made us possess wisdom of far greater magnitude than we could ever hope to possess. Their commands are not to be questioned but obeyed."

Someone with compassion and common sense might soften that a bit, but there is a fundamental, irreconcilable conflict between the Dark One and the Sapphire Guard. The Sapphire Guard is sworn to serve the twelve gods and the divinely inspired order of creation that they made. To challenge this order would be little short of blasphemy, a crime punishable in religious cultures by death.

I see your point, and would wish to offer a counter example to this arguement. Thanth. From everything we see he was a pretty typical, run of the mill, nothing special or significant Paladin. Pretty much the standard Sapphire Guard member. If he was anything but normal then we are not told about it. And to see his attitude I direct us to strip 707. The execution of a Goblin prisoner is something that people seem to think Thanth would not approve of. Even if they are divinely mandated as XP and nothing more we can see that a fairly standard SG paladin would appear to consider a Hobgoblins life worth something. What you describe is certainly a possible scenario I agree. But if Thanth IS a normal SG guy then he would likely be deeply disturbed by what he heard if they found out about the cosmic order of Goblins.

(note, lets not debate the rightness/wrongness of the elves here. It would be a pretty big off topic movement).

So all in all, it depends to what side the SG lean. If they are closer to Miko than Thanth in general then your dialogue would be likely. But I would think that if they lean more towards Thanth or Hinjo in general then things would work out more peaceably. And they may be willing to question if something is right, regardless of the God's orders. It can happen I think.

And to discuss the Dark one, we must remember Strip 704. Jirix's vision of him. He establishes to Redcloak later that it was accurate, and has no real reason to lie. In it The Dark One suggests that trade and diplomacy IS something he can endorse as a thing his followers can do to gain favour. I am not saying he is evil, but the fact that TDO himself seems to think diplomacy is an acceptable, even desirable, thing for his mortal followers..........it makes him more than the petty spiteful being Right Eye called him. Now TDO may be much worse than we know, but Tiamat is evil AFAIK and she is considered a legit part of the pantheons of the OoTSverse. I think this is worth noting. How much it affects our perceptions I cannot say. But it does add a more.............legitimate........or better a more rational side to his nature.

I do agree that this discussion will be more meaningful after the O'Chul story (I suppose). But we can bring up some general thoughts now.

As for Hinjo he will pretty much need to rebuild the order from the ground up. And in doing so he has an object lesson called Miko to affect how he structures his new SG and nation as a whole. Hinjo has seen, very graphically, what happens when a Paladin goes too far and ignores goodness. We have seen him be willing to defend Belkar, a being known to be evil, because murdering him would be wrong. And because of pragmatism true, but mostly the morality. I imagine he will not have to worry too much as the rebuilding of the nation will be top priority. however if I had one piece of advice it would be this.

Do NOT, I reapeat DO NOT attack Gobbotopia. You cannot afford the war. i understand the resentment you may have, and a desire to regain your anscestral homes. But it will be generation before you have the strength to invade and win. On a purely pragmatic level it is a bad idea. Instead make friends around you. Make friends with the orcish tribe as well. begin to instill in your people the idea that "other races are not always the enemy you know". once this is done you will be in a better position. And after 50 years many of your people will have grown up in your new home. Focus on becoming properly at home there. The war is not needed. It is not helpful. Avoid it.

For more I will need to think.

hamishspence

2012-02-17, 02:27 PM

1) The Dark One is a petty, spiteful God? Yes. Was he a petty, spiteful mortal? No.

Let's look at just the facts here: The Goblin people were being oppressed and at the same time were divided. The Dark One unified and consolidated his people, inspired them and led them in a revolution against their oppressors. He was revolutionary fighting for his people's rights, not an evil psycho bent on world domination.

When force was necessary, he used it. When he thought he was in a position where diplomacy was an option, he took that option. This much is pretty bare fact from SoD.
Strictly it's Redcloak's account of events- he may be distorting things, or may himself have been given a distorted account but be relating them honestly. That said, I lean to the view that his account is likely to have at least some degree of truth to it.

The fact that the Paladins didn't fall does not mean that the killing was righteous - only that their Gods were fine with it. Which, seeing as the Goblins were created by the Gods for the purpose of being slaughtered is very, very consistent. Killing Goblins wouldn't make Thor or Dragon or Dog bat an eyelid. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do - one of the many themes of the comic, one of its central points is that it is not.

See post by The Giant on how some of the paladins may in fact have fallen. which also mentions that the Crayon strips come from Redcloak.
SoD Paladins & Miko's Fall (http://ow.ly/55Mo9)

ti'esar

2012-02-17, 03:04 PM

We don't know that the O-Chul story will actually feature goblins at all. It's possible, perhaps probable, but not so guaranteed that any discussion on this should be put off until then.

Naomi Li

2012-02-17, 03:24 PM

If violence is required to end the threat, why must it be lethal violence? Dungeons and Dragons has multiple nonlethal weapons that could be used as standard issue where there is significant opposition that are not targets to be killed.

So, one potential solution, if violence is called for: Send their warriors in with bolas, truncheons, etc and beat everybody that resists unconscious and take the bearer of the crimson mantle prisoner and take him back to Azure City, leaving the rest to wake up on their own. Maybe cast a few spells to keep them safe from others while they're defenseless.

As long as the bearer of the crimson mantle is held prisoner, another can't be called, and he can't do much. Treat him well, figure out what he wants, and grant as much of that as they can. Also make sure the other goblins know that he is being treated well, and possibly allow communication between them if it is not considered too great a risk.

This is not a good first solution, of course; diplomacy should be tried beforehand. But it seems to be no less decisive and far more effective than what they did in canon.

Math_Mage

2012-02-17, 04:09 PM

I stand corrected, but that is still something that is coming out versus what has been present in the comic so far. I accept it though since i happen to really like O-Chul.

As for the point of the thread, i don't think there is an option available that won't result in some kind of harm in some way.

There are degrees and degrees of harm. The paladins in SoD basically skipped straight to the maximum degree of harm (within reason, I'm sure Xykon could have devised additional degrees), and the point of this thread is what options were available that would have resulted in lesser degrees.

Dark Matter

2012-02-17, 04:17 PM

We never see that goblin become some sort of deviant. He seemed pretty "meh" about the whole thing.And yet he's still out there whipping the slaves because it's funny.

Part of "The Plan" is made specifically to fix that. The problem isn't just the cycle, it's that its inevitable. By rebuilding the world, goblins would no longer be Usually Evil, as I understand the plan. Goblins would be free to be as varied as any PC race. Capable of "choosing" to be heroes or villains with as much variety as humanoids. They were created by the gods and they were created to have minds that trend toward evil-doing and being faceless mooks.The Dark One isn't just an Evil God, he's actually a God Of Evil. I see nothing in The Plan, past or present, which lets goblins become good. For that matter he doesn't need the other gods to do that, he could do it himself. It's probably what his people need, but releasing them so they can worship other gods, much less gods of good, wouldn't serve The Dark One personally.

...The problem with being decent in war is that indecent people will use it as a weapon against you. Make it illegal to fire on a church, people will set up a machine gun nest in there. Make it illegal to target civilians, ruthless people will locate their headquarters right in the middle of a civilian population...This would explain so much.

Precisely. Also, deities in D&D aren't like real-life religion. D&D deities are made and unmade. Mortals can become gods. The fact that the goblins only have a spiteful, hateful, petty deity is not an indication they should be abandoned to his rule.Exactly. On a side note, one of the side effects of worshiping The Dark One is you get to go to hell. But in D&D this isn't a punishment.... but if you're "Good", (or even CE), it's going to be a problem.

1) The Dark One is a petty, spiteful God? Yes. Was he a petty, spiteful mortal? No.
Let's look at just the facts here: The Goblin people were being oppressed and at the same time were divided. The Dark One unified and consolidated his people, inspired them and led them in a revolution against their oppressors. He was revolutionary fighting for his people's rights, not an evil psycho bent on world domination.We have no evidence that TDO has changed since he became a god. Just because his people were "oppressed" doesn't mean he wasn't an evil, power hungry LE warlord. There is *no* record of him doing any good at all, and the big glorious deeds we know of also resulted in great things for him personally. I see no reason we're not looking at Tarquin-clone.

hamishspence

2012-02-17, 04:21 PM

The Dark One isn't just an Evil God, he's actually a God Of Evil.
Evidence?

Exactly. On a side note, one of the side effects of worshiping The Dark One is you get to go to hell.

Acheron to be precise, going from Jirix's Iron plane description.

A Lower Plane, but not actually evil aligned enough to qualify for the "mildly evil aligned" trait.

t209

2012-02-17, 04:33 PM

Do NOT, I reapeat DO NOT attack Gobbotopia. You cannot afford the war. i understand the resentment you may have, and a desire to regain your anscestral homes. But it will be generation before you have the strength to invade and win. On a purely pragmatic level it is a bad idea. Instead make friends around you. Make friends with the orcish tribe as well. begin to instill in your people the idea that "other races are not always the enemy you know". once this is done you will be in a better position. And after 50 years many of your people will have grown up in your new home. Focus on becoming properly at home there. The war is not needed. It is not helpful. Avoid it.

For more I will need to think.
or Hinjo could carve a lawful good empire in Western Continent if Order manages to weaken Tarquin. (A long torch of hope in sea of blood).

russdm

2012-02-17, 04:42 PM

There are degrees and degrees of harm. The paladins in SoD basically skipped straight to the maximum degree of harm (within reason, I'm sure Xykon could have devised additional degrees), and the point of this thread is what options were available that would have resulted in lesser degrees.

I did spend some time discussing other options, but i find it curious that no one has pointed out whether or not the paladins would have taken other options. We can discuss other options sure, but we still have to remember that the paladins did what they chose to do. We can look at what happened with hindsight and seriously consider using a different approach, but the paladins chose not to. I am not saying we can discuss this or that it shouldn't be. I am saying that despite what we come up with, it will all fall under the catorgy of things that could have or should have been done but weren't.

The main reason this all upsets us, which i think it does, is because it was way beyond what we would expect of paladins who were protecting the fabric of the universe. I had no problem with the wearer of the crimson mantle dying because it was an acceptal target. He posed a risk to the sapphire guard and the gate. My problem was that they killed everyone else. Not just the crimson mantle wearer and his guards died, but they killed redcloak's sister, his other non-combatant family members, and various other non-combatants. To me, that is completely unacceptal and makes what the paladins did wrong no matter what. Yes they could have acted differently but they chose not to.

Have we seen any sign that the paladins would have considered other options? have we seen any sign that the paladins tried other options in the past? Have we? Can we consider that the paladins would do so? We don't have an answer for that and it disturbs us. It makes us question the actual rightness of paladins because it makes us consider certain aspects of the game or story that make us feel uncomfortable. We want to believe that the paladins would have chosen to act differently because if they wouldn't, how could we actually sympathize with them anymore?

I think we have to consider that maybe the paladins would have taken another option, but we may also have to consider that they would not take another option as well. Since they were acting in accordance with commands given by their superiors and their gods, the paladins might have considered themselves acting completely approaite for the situation they were in.

I think personally the thread is less about what other options were possibly available as much as it also is about whether we think those options would have been taken.

These are all my personal opinions about the matter, so don't worry about disagreeing with me. I expect some people to disagree with my points and i completely welcome that fact. More coins for the pot.

Math_Mage

2012-02-17, 05:13 PM

I did spend some time discussing other options, but i find it curious that no one has pointed out whether or not the paladins would have taken other options. We can discuss other options sure, but we still have to remember that the paladins did what they chose to do. We can look at what happened with hindsight and seriously consider using a different approach, but the paladins chose not to. I am not saying we can discuss this or that it shouldn't be. I am saying that despite what we come up with, it will all fall under the catorgy of things that could have or should have been done but weren't.

Well, of course. So? The entire point of this thread is to discuss what the paladins could have done, but didn't. That's right there in the OP. We know what the paladins did, and why they did it. That's not an interesting discussion. You're coming into a thread whose explicit purpose is to propose hypothetical courses of action and saying, "Well, yeah, but this is all just hypothetical."

russdm

2012-02-17, 05:17 PM

Well, of course. So? The entire point of this thread is to discuss what the paladins could have done, but didn't. That's right there in the OP. We know what the paladins did, and why they did it. That's not an interesting discussion. You're coming into a thread whose explicit purpose is to propose hypothetical courses of action and saying, "Well, yeah, but this is all just hypothetical."

What about discussing the hows and ways of each course of action? Well we are discussing what they could have done, are we discussing also why they made the choices they did too? Spend time analylzing these options from their point of view? We may have done so already.

I am bowing out here though since i think i may have communicated a bunch of stuff poorly. Goodbye.

Dark Matter

2012-02-17, 05:27 PM

Evidence?We've seen a Cleric with the "Evil" domain. Ergo TDO's domains are (at least) Evil, Law, and Destruction... and he is a God Of Evil and not just an evil god.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/unholyBlight.htm
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html

hamishspence

2012-02-17, 05:30 PM

as far as I can tell, all evil aligned gods have the Evil domain. At least, I can't think of any published examples that don't.

Omergideon

2012-02-17, 05:52 PM

or Hinjo could carve a lawful good empire in Western Continent if Order manages to weaken Tarquin. (A long torch of hope in sea of blood).

Perhaps, but they have bigger problems, plus being a few dozen (lets say 48) kilometres from the mainland, with their more primitive sailing tech, means large groups will struggle to project power onto the mainland. Even with a headstart it will take years before they are settled enough to even consider moving on, let alone thinking of going against the Empire of Blood et al.

Besides offensive wars to carve an empire are not really the thing I expect a lawful good leader to try for too often.

FatJose

2012-02-17, 06:02 PM

And yet he's still out there whipping the slaves because it's funny.
Because it's an order.

The Dark One isn't just an Evil God, he's actually a God Of Evil. I see nothing in The Plan, past or present, which lets goblins become good. For that matter he doesn't need the other gods to do that, he could do it himself. It's probably what his people need, but releasing them so they can worship other gods, much less gods of good, wouldn't serve The Dark One personally.
I'm not aware of that piece of info. Where is that stated? I just assumed goblins worship him because it simply makes sense. They had no God previously and Goblins were "Usually" Evil before the Dark One existed. It's completely speculation on my part but I don't think Goblins really have the ability to choose deities to worship...successfully. I would think the Gods would just ignore them.

Math_Mage

2012-02-17, 06:10 PM

Them being "usually evil" is cannon (and also mentioned in 511). The whole thing with a "random goblin" being a trainable sadist is from the strip.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html

Humans are trainable sadists too. Just look at the Stanford prison experiment and (slightly less fitting) the Milgram shock experiment.

My personal interpretation is that "usually evil" is typically evil by environment, where "always evil" is typically evil by nature. This may not be correct, but it's definitely something to take into account: it's possible that the problem of goblins being "usually evil" can be influenced by changing their environment (just look at Right-Eye's village).

pendell

2012-02-17, 07:02 PM

The main reason this all upsets us, which i think it does, is because it was way beyond what we would expect of paladins who were protecting the fabric of the universe. I had no problem with the wearer of the crimson mantle dying because it was an acceptal target. He posed a risk to the sapphire guard and the gate. My problem was that they killed everyone else. Not just the crimson mantle wearer and his guards died, but they killed redcloak's sister, his other non-combatant family members, and various other non-combatants. To me, that is completely unacceptal and makes what the paladins did wrong no matter what. Yes they could have acted differently but they chose not to.

I think I understand why the paladins made the choice they made. But this is only hypothetical.

Imagine, if you will, that the paladins encounter the Crimson Mantle at some point in their history. The bearer gives the usual villainous monologue. The Guard defeats him, because if they'd lost the present OOTS never existed. They think the threat is ended once and for all.

Wrong! It's not over. The mantle is simply passed to another goblin, and they have to face ANOTHER army of goblins led by the crimson mantle. They win again.

And again, and again, and again...

... At some point in this fight, the paladins come to realize that sparing goblins is counterproductive. If you destroy a goblin village and spare three children (say), one of those three would find the Crimson Mantle, get mindraped by the Dark One, and suddenly you're dealing with a high-level cleric and his two level 0 commoner minions. Who will in time grow into yet another goblin horde. The Crimson Mantle will use his (or her) god-given powers to dominate and master other goblin tribes, as Redcloak did to the hobgoblins who conquered Azure City. And the cycle begins again.

So long as the goblin population will continue to be fertile ground for the Crimson Mantle, it will continue to pour forth armies to fulfill the Dark One's will.

That may be why the paladins kill all goblins on sight.

But it's not the right solution. Not just because it's immoral. It's also the wrong solution because it flat doesn't work. No one knows exactly how long the war has been going on, but the Paladins have failed utterly to exterminate the goblins. There is always a survivor or two, the survivor takes the cloak, and the cycle returns in a goblin generation with another mass army. Further, that army is embittered by the needless deaths.

The only way to stop the bearer is to take the goblins away from the dark one, or at least give him competition. That means new goblin gods or for the existing gods to accept goblin worshippers. Which means a new goblin society, one where they are treated as equals by humans rather than as animals to be hunted.

Which, come to think of it, is what Wrong-eye ostensibly wants. I say we give him his wish!

Respectfully,

Brian P.

ti'esar

2012-02-17, 07:08 PM

I definitely agree with the comments on the Dark One being one of the major sources of the problem. (Which, actually, is not that different from older D&D editions saying the reason goblins were "Usually Evil" is because they followed Evil gods.) And I personally suspect that, were he to wind up hoist by his own god-killing abomination by the time OOTS is up, it would go a long way towards getting goblins their "happy ending".

Dark Matter

2012-02-17, 07:41 PM

as far as I can tell, all evil aligned gods have the Evil domain. At least, I can't think of any published examples that don't.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaan

That exception aside, narratively this shows that the bad guys really are bad. Mechanically if you're going to give someone 6-ish domains "evil" is an easy pick.

But in any case TDO clearly is a God Of Evil since he can give Evil as a domain.

I would think the Gods would just ignore them.Technically Clerics and Paladins don't *need* a God. You can worship a concept (like "Good") or whatever. I think Roy mentioned this in strip too.
Humans are trainable sadists too.One hopes it takes more than just handing them a whip and saying "we're evil and it's funny".

My personal interpretation is that "usually evil" is typically evil by environment... it's possible that the problem of goblins being "usually evil" can be influenced by changing their environment (just look at Right-Eye's village).As far as I'm aware, mechanically there's no way to change a racial alignment type (exception: Humans are this big undefined wildcard).

One would hope the DM would house rule something if the matter came up, but mechanically no matter what you do, Goblins are "usually evil" ergo more than half of any generation needs to be converted.

Math_Mage

2012-02-17, 07:55 PM

One hopes it takes more than just handing them a whip and saying "we're evil and it's funny".

Significantly less, actually. I urge you to read about the prison experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment) in particular.

As far as I'm aware, mechanically there's no way to change a racial alignment type (exception: Humans are this big undefined wildcard).

The PHB explicitly points out the nurture effect, noting that an orc raised among humans is less likely to follow his racial alignment type, and a human raised among orcs is more likely to follow the orcs' racial alignment type.

One would hope the DM would house rule something if the matter came up, but mechanically no matter what you do, Goblins are "usually evil" ergo more than half of any generation needs to be converted.

This is exactly the point where my interpretation of 'usually evil' alignments as influenced by environment leads me to disagree with you.

FatJose

2012-02-17, 08:09 PM

pendejochy

2012-02-17, 08:46 PM

In regards to Azure City's past relationship with the Hobbos:

The General in #436 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0436.html) implies that he fought Hobgoblins multiple times, enough to be familiar with their general capacity for good tactics. He might have fought them as an adventurer, but I think it's most likely he fought them on a battle field in a military setting, since he referred to them as good soldiers.

Also, for Right-Eye's village, I think part of the reason it was able to live peacefully was due to it's distance from human and elven settlements. If it was closer to elven lands or Azure City, it might have been attacked "just in case." Heck, I think that's exactly what happened when Xykon forcefully recruited the village folk. Did the adventurers who killed Right-Eye's family even know if the Goblins were up to anything, or that a lich was leading them?

MReav

2012-02-17, 09:23 PM

Did the adventurers who killed Right-Eye's family even know if the Goblins were up to anything, or that a lich was leading them?

In Dungeon Crawling Fools, Roy states that goblins had been raiding the villages in the area for months, so it's not unreasonable to assume that the adventurers were hired to put a stop to that.

Math_Mage

2012-02-17, 09:34 PM

You simply can't be a sadist through training. Unless you were affected at a young age, someone can't turn you into a sadist. Being a sadist and being someone who tortures/hurts people as your job are separate things.

To be a sadist, you need to get some pleasure from it, often "sexual" pleasure. Being forced to shock people because you feel pressured by a higher authority, having a sudden change in what society expects from you or whipping folk because you got transferred to a different duty during wartime doesn't make the label.

A sadist wouldn't ask 20 questions for why he has to whip someone. Why look a gift horse in the mouth? Unless that goblin's only line was "Yippee." He doesn't count as one.

This is somewhat overstating the issue, however. Deriving sexual pleasure from evil acts is not required for the purposes of this discussion. The argument that DM was making was that goblins are predisposed to evil because it only takes a little urging to make them do evil; I was pointing out that it has taken even less urging to create the same behaviors in humans.

teratorn

2012-02-17, 10:19 PM

We don't know the full background to the paladin attack. They could have been to the oracle and learned that a goblin or goblins from that particular village, would attack and conquer AC and their gate in the near future. Paladins would then have a conflict between their vows to protect their gate, meaning leaving no survivors, and their vows not to commit evil acts.

If that were the case I think they might decide, even knowing that all of them would fall, to go for a full massacre (killing an innocent to save other innocents is still a reason to fall). The most lawful of them would probably even kill themselves, or ask others to do it, as punishment for the evil deed they had just committed. Having said that, probably that was not the case since from the Giant's comments it looks like not all paladins fell.

As most people have been assuming, it's most likely that the thing in SOD was a decapitation strike against the bearer of the mantle and his entourage. If that were the case, being lawful good they wouldn't have a lot of options. The paladins should have only attacked and killed the fighters who did not surrender. Survivors would be judged for acts they might have committed against AC, but all the innocent would need to be released unharmed. If that only left goblin children, then the paladins would need to care for them until they were old enough to fend for themselves.

Kish

2012-02-17, 10:32 PM

As most people have been assuming, it's most likely that the thing in SOD was a decapitation strike against the bearer of the mantle and his entourage.

Mm no.

Originally Posted by Rich Burlew
Azure City was a nation dedicated to all that was good and holy...but in many ways failed to live up to its ideals.

...

Most damning, though, is a decades long history of paladins exterminating entire villages of goblins and other humanoids at the behest of their gods.
Decades-long. Entire villages. Nothing about "surgical strikes only against goblins actively participating in evil, except in the one example we're shown, which is an inexplicable anomaly."

t209

2012-02-17, 10:55 PM

Well, there's an azurite who married an orc. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0555.html)
Maybe he married her in secret or Azure City have relations with Orcs.

Dark Matter

2012-02-17, 11:18 PM

Did the adventurers who killed Right-Eye's family even know if the Goblins were up to anything, or that a lich was leading them?In a feel good sort of way we'd like to look at Right-Eye's family and say "we don't know of any evil they did, we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they were being oppressed by those adventurers".

The problem is this is also giving the benefit of the doubt to Xykon. Right-eye was sure his family wouldn't have been attacked by adventurers if they hadn't been drafted by Xykon. I think we can safely assume Xykon's minions were doing something evil.

Decades-long. Entire villages. Nothing about "surgical strikes only against goblins actively participating in evil, except in the one example we're shown, which is an inexplicable anomaly."The key words you're omitting are "at the behest of their gods". The Paladins very clearly were at that village to deal with The Plan, and then we have the whole "Paladins fall when they screw up" part, and the Giant's comments about Right-Eye's kid sister.

ti'esar

2012-02-17, 11:26 PM

Well, there's an azurite who married an orc. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0555.html)
Maybe he married her in secret or Azure City have relations with Orcs.

Species was never an issue when the refugee fleet negotiated with chief grukgruk and his island tribe, so I'd guess that Azure City really didn't have a problem with orcs.

Which, come to think of it, is more evidence that there might be something a bit off with the Dark One's story...

B. Dandelion

2012-02-17, 11:57 PM

In a feel good sort of way we'd like to look at Right-Eye's family and say "we don't know of any evil they did, we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they were being oppressed by those adventurers".

The problem is this is also giving the benefit of the doubt to Xykon. Right-eye was sure his family wouldn't have been attacked by adventurers if they hadn't been drafted by Xykon. I think we can safely assume Xykon's minions were doing something evil.

Assuming we can give adventurers the benefit of the doubt as "roving bands of altruists out to right wrongs" as opposed to "roving bands of XP-hounds who are free to kill usually evil creatures out in the open regardless of what they might actually be doing". I didn't get the sense Roy's old adventuring party was particularly unique in that regard. In that context, Right-Eye's assertion is akin to saying they wouldn't have died if Xykon hadn't put them in the path of a natural disaster.

teratorn

2012-02-17, 11:57 PM

Decades-long. Entire villages. Nothing about "surgical strikes only against goblins actively participating in evil, except in the one example we're shown, which is an inexplicable anomaly."

Doesn't exclude it. Any time the mantle surfaced they wasted the village. And they did it with excess zeal.

skaddix

2012-02-18, 12:44 AM

Species was never an issue when the refugee fleet negotiated with chief grukgruk and his island tribe, so I'd guess that Azure City really didn't have a problem with orcs.

Which, come to think of it, is more evidence that there might be something a bit off with the Dark One's story...

True they negotiated with the Orcs.

t209

2012-02-18, 12:48 AM

True they negotiated with the Orcs.

But the Therkla Parents panel is set 30 or 20 years before the event of OOTS. Do you think the gods allow Orcs not to be xp fodders? (Orcs are Playable Characters in D&D 3.5 e)

Kish

2012-02-18, 06:50 AM

Doesn't exclude it. Any time the mantle surfaced they wasted the village. And they did it with excess zeal.
So "other humanoids" have mantles of their own? Or the Sapphire Guard only goes after goblins when the Mantle surfaces and kills other humanoids freely? This is silly.

hamishspence

2012-02-18, 06:59 AM

The Giant's post earlier, said that the Crimson Mantle had been through about 4 Bearers.

It is not generally known by non-goblins that the physical cloak itself is the source of the power. To the paladins, the title "Bearer of the Crimson Mantle" just means that the guy who wants to destroy reality gets to wear a red cloak. Since they don't know that the cloak is what they are actually seeking, they have never actually "gotten hold of it" at all, not in any meaningful way. It has always been passed down just before being captured. It's only existed for about 60 years, remember, and Redcloak has owned it for half of that. So it's only been passed along 3-4 times. In all of those cases, either the goblins managed to swipe it off of the corpse of the old Bearer before the paladins noticed, or they stole it back before the paladins could identify its significance.

But it's possible that the "decades-long history" includes a great many failed attempts to kill the Bearer. And members of other humanoid groups were involved.

pendejochy

2012-02-18, 07:29 AM

Assuming we can give adventurers the benefit of the doubt as "roving bands of altruists out to right wrongs" as opposed to "roving bands of XP-hounds who are free to kill usually evil creatures out in the open regardless of what they might actually be doing". I didn't get the sense Roy's old adventuring party was particularly unique in that regard. In that context, Right-Eye's assertion is akin to saying they wouldn't have died if Xykon hadn't put them in the path of a natural disaster.

We don't have enough backstory to know either way. It could be Xykon passed them near a human settlement, and the humans assumed that having a roving band of goblins would be up to no good and sent adventurers to get rid of them. Or Xykon might not have let the goblins bring any food or supplies with them, forcing them to try to steal some from other settlements, leading to the same ending. Either way, in the end, it's mainly Xykon's fault, not the humans or the goblins.

Kish

2012-02-18, 07:33 AM

The Giant's post earlier, said that the Crimson Mantle had been through about 4 Bearers.

But it's possible that the "decades-long history" includes a great many failed attempts to kill the Bearer. And members of other humanoid groups were involved.
Is it possible that Rich's quote refers to attacks on the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle...
...unmentioned by Rich...
...with the only "other humanoids" involved being helping the goblins somehow?

Sure. If Rich, for some reason, wanted to say that, he could, and he wouldn't have contradicted himself.

Is that a logical interpretation of his words? No, it requires standing at quite an awkward angle.

Do we have any reason to believe that's the way it was? The only reason I see for arguing the case is wanting to believe that Azure City didn't adopt quasi-genocidal policies toward monstrous humanoids. In other words, a way of running away from what Rich has gone out of his way to tell us, repeatedly, in various ways.

hamishspence

2012-02-18, 07:47 AM

It's more an attempt to combine a continuous history lasting decades, with the Crimson Mantle only being passed 3-4 times.

I think of it as a long-running back-and-forth war between both factions, with villages regularly being destroyed, but the Bearer only very rarely being killed.

Kish

2012-02-18, 08:51 AM

I don't really see any need for the Crimson Mantle to be involved in the decades-long history of the Twelve Gods directing Azure City's paladins to wipe out monstrous humanoids. That is, after all, what they (monstrous humanoids) were created for.

hamishspence

2012-02-18, 09:14 AM

I try to avoid taking everything Redcloak says completely at face value.

From War & XPs

The immediate hatred displayed by Redcloak and Miko toward each other is part of the idea that the two groups- goblins and humans, particularly Southern humans- have been battling back and forth for centuries. At this point, it has become impossible to tell who started the hostilities; each side remembers nothing so much as their last defeat by the other.

And so the cycle of violence continues, generation after generation. Did the humans start it by crusading against the goblins, or did the goblins start it by trying to harness the rifts? Or did the humans start it by putting the goblins in a position where they felt they had no recourse but to harness the rifts? Who can say? Well, I suppose I could, but I find it much more interesting to keep it ambiguous.

Kish

2012-02-18, 09:18 AM

I would venture that since the Crimson Mantle is only 60 years old, that quote takes "the origin of the conflict has something to do with the Crimson Mantle" off the table.

hamishspence

2012-02-18, 09:31 AM

Kish

2012-02-18, 09:42 AM

True.

But remember, it's a "decades-long history of exterminating entire villages...at the behest of their gods", not a "centuries-long history".

That part might be a more recent stage in the ongoing conflict, the stage where Azure City started "not living up to its ideals".

I do not believe "Azure City acted above reproach in their conflict with the goblinoids for centuries, until quite recently after the Crimson Mantle was created," is a logical takeaway from Rich's description of the centuries-long conflict.

In addition, you've got strip 485's description of it as "one of the oldest bastions of Good on the mortal plane".

Eugene's name isn't Strip 485.

He would, presumably, also describe Spliced-Vaarsuvius as "the best chance we've yet seen for good to triumph over evil." And yet, I'd be prepared to bet a great deal that the actual celestials would disagree with him violently.

And commentary for Don't Split The Party (Round 3, The Prisoner) emphasising that "for all their misguided excesses, the Azurites were still the Good Guys"

True. That needs to be reconciled with Rich's other words on the subject--and not by throwing out the parts about a centuries-long cycle of violence on which each side claims the other one started it, and neither has Rich's support for that claim.

That doesn't really strike me as very hard. Hinjo is good. O-Chul is good. There is no one comparable in the leadership of the goblinoids. That makes the Azurites the good guys, whether each side's armies behaved terribly differently when Shojo was in charge or not. If Hinjo wins, there is the possibility of peace and reconciliation. If Redcloak wins (or, to be fair, if Hinjo had died and Azure City had won after Kubota took over), not so much.

and how O-Chul symbolizes everything right about the Sapphire Guard.

That part, on the other hand, is easy. We have no indication that O-Chul ever hurt anyone who didn't attack first in his life.

hamishspence

2012-02-18, 09:52 AM

I wouldn't call them without reproach-

but if "Azure City as a whole" were subjected to a chart, in the same fashion as Belkar was in the Deva's assessment of Roy, I could see there being an "upturn" in "non-LG behaviour" in the last few decades.

Dark Matter

2012-02-18, 10:06 AM

...Or Xykon might not have let the goblins bring any food or supplies with them, forcing them to try to steal some from other settlements, leading to the same ending.A first level Cleric can supply an unlimited amount of water. A relatively low level Cleric can supply food. Redcloak, by himself, could have dealt with any food issues.

Doesn't exclude it. Any time the mantle surfaced they wasted the village. And they did it with excess zeal.One would think they'd learn something from Falling again and again.

The only reason I see for arguing the case is wanting to believe that Azure City didn't adopt quasi-genocidal policies toward monstrous humanoids. In other words, a way of running away from what Rich has gone out of his way to tell us, repeatedly, in various ways.What we have is a contradiction.

Rich wanted to portray the Paladins as partly (mostly?) at fault, so we've got Redcloak's sister. We've also got Redcloak-the-blameless-Cleric-who-takes-up-the-Redcloak. That's Redcloak's story.

But we've also got the rules, which Rich also follows. Paladins fall for evil acts like the murder of Redcloak's sister. This is why Miko's on screen action had to be directed against monsters which were committing vile acts and not humanoids with green skin. She's a bad Paladin but the rules don't let her step over the line.

This is fine if we want call Redcloak's village a one-off screw-up; But it doesn't work well with drop lines indicating decades of the same.

Those drop lines talk about things off camera which can not occur on screen. The heck with OChul, Miko couldn't have killed Redcloak's sister without falling. If the Sapphire Guard did those things for decades, then at the end they're no longer an order of Paladins.

hamishspence

2012-02-18, 10:13 AM

Rich wanted to portray the Paladins as partly (mostly?) at fault, so we've got Redcloak's sister. We've also got Redcloak-the-blameless-Cleric-who-takes-up-the-Redcloak. That's Redcloak's story.

But we've also got the rules, which Rich also follows. Paladins fall for evil acts like the murder of Redcloak's sister. This is why Miko's on screen action had to be directed against monsters which were committing vile acts and not humanoids with green skin. She's a bad Paladin but the rules don't let her step over the line.

This is fine if we want call Redcloak's village a one-off screw-up; But it doesn't work well with drop lines indicating decades of the same.

Those drop lines talk about things off camera which can not occur on screen. The heck with OChul, Miko couldn't have killed Redcloak's sister without falling. If the Sapphire Guard did those things for decades, then at the end they're no longer an order of Paladins.

One solution that's been proposed is that they slowly got more ruthless and overzealous over time.

Kish

2012-02-18, 10:50 AM

Those drop lines talk about things off camera which can not occur on screen. The heck with OChul, Miko couldn't have killed Redcloak's sister without falling. If the Sapphire Guard did those things for decades, then at the end they're no longer an order of Paladins.
Suppose--just for the sake of argument--that they do not learn from Falling, because those who Fall or are in danger of same would rather eat their own swords than acknowledge that there could be any moral issues involved in killing any number of goblinoids, evidence be damned (literally). I have no problem believing this, looking at this here forum and the greater Internet (and, note, we also have Rich's indication that Azure City was not given to imposing any punishment other than the Fall itself on paladins who Fell--depending on how he's handling the Atonement spell, the exact same paladins may have Fallen like a rock whenever a village was wiped out, and been back in the saddle a week later every time).

What percentage of the Sapphire Guard needs to avoid doing anything Fall-worthy for the Guard to exist for the 47 years of Shojo's reign plus the something-under-19 years since Soon founded the Guard? I'd say "one"; O-Chul is likely as old as the Sapphire Guard itself. And I see no reason not to consider all the paladins we've actually seen onstage outside of Start of Darkness both good paladins (yes, including Miko, for years) and much less than half of the Sapphire Guard.

(Just to guard my flank against a potential attack of opportunity: I am not, in the least, backing off my previously stated position on the centuries of conflict. I am noting that all the parts of it prior to 66 years ago were not prosecuted by the Sapphire Guard, because there was no Sapphire Guard then, and were likely prosecuted by a mostly-warriors, mostly-neutral-or-evil Azure City military.)

Dark Matter

2012-02-18, 11:30 AM

Kish

2012-02-18, 11:34 AM

I don't think it's likely that Rich is ruling the Atonement spell as a get-out-of-Falling-free card. Merely possible.

What is likely, is that Fallen paladins were transferred to some other area of the military. And if anyone asked them why they Fell, they said, truthfully, that they couldn't imagine. And the Sapphire Guard continued to recruit new paladins, some who would never have dreamed of harming a creature who wasn't actively involved in trying to hurt someone else at the moment, and some who thought the ideal paladin wore a necklace of goblin skulls.

Reverent-One

2012-02-18, 11:39 AM

What is likely, is that Fallen paladins were transferred to some other area of the military. And if anyone asked them why they Fell, they said, truthfully, that they couldn't imagine. And the Sapphire Guard continued to recruit new paladins, some who would never have dreamed of harming a creature who wasn't actively involved in trying to hurt someone else at the moment, and some who thought the ideal paladin wore a necklace of goblin skulls.

If they killed children (or performed similarly evil acts) and can't image how they Fell, I can't image how they were ever paladins in the first place.

Dark Matter

2012-02-18, 01:11 PM

If they killed children (or performed similarly evil acts) and can't image how they Fell, I can't image how they were ever paladins in the first place.Yeah, that. Or (if someone wants to talk about the Paladin in Origins) how they make it past 1st level.

What percentage of the Sapphire Guard needs to avoid doing anything Fall-worthy for the Guard to exist for the 47 years of Shojo's reign plus the something-under-19 years since Soon founded the Guard? I'd say "one"...It's very difficult to picture Soon, even as a ghost, turning a blind eye to this sort of thing. Paladins are supposed to act to prevent this kind of thing, even by other Paladins.

This is why I think a redeemed-Goblin race needs an order of Paladins as opposed to a cult of LE clerics.

(Just to guard my flank against a potential attack of opportunity: I am not, in the least, backing off my previously stated position on the centuries of conflict. I am noting that all the parts of it prior to 66 years ago were not prosecuted by the Sapphire Guard, because there was no Sapphire Guard then, and were likely prosecuted by a mostly-warriors, mostly-neutral-or-evil Azure City military.)I thought Soon and the Sapphire Guard predate the city of Azure, or at the very least Azure as a city of any size. The word "Azure" means "Sapphire", and the picture of the pre-contained gate Soon was guarding has trees.

hamishspence

2012-02-18, 01:18 PM

They don't. Everything in the general area tends to have blue-related names.

Cerulean River
Robinsegg (port)
Cobalt Bay
Cyan Peninsula
Blue River

All from War & XPs map.

Kish

2012-02-18, 01:18 PM

I thought Soon and the Sapphire Guard predate the city of Azure, or at the very least Azure as a city of any size. The word "Azure" means "Sapphire", and the picture of the pre-contained gate Soon was guarding has trees.
Soon returned to Azure City and founded the Sapphire Guard after the Order of the Scribble disbanded. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html)

He used a word that meant "Blue" for his new Guard as was standard for the city where they and he lived.

The first gate, with the trees, was Lirian's Gate.

Math_Mage

2012-02-18, 04:44 PM

Based on the words of Soon and Hinjo, in order to Atone you've got admit you've screwed up. I don't see how you go out, wipe out a village, atone (meaning you admit it was wrong), and then (knowing it's not wrong) go out and do the same thing again.

Miko was NEVER going to atone. Belkar felt that it was seriously hard for a Paladin to reverse a fall.

If they killed children (or performed similarly evil acts) and can't image how they Fell, I can't image how they were ever paladins in the first place.

Per Word of God, some/many of the paladins that fell may not have realized that they fell until they tried to Lay On Hands the next day. Four such incidents are not enough to depopulate the SG, and depending on the levels of denial and covering up by each paladin who fell, may not have been enough even to alert the SG that their paladins were falling for being overzealous in the course of hunting the Crimson Mantle.

As for how they can be in denial over this, consider what would have happened if the paladins had instead attacked a red dragon, killed it, and then killed its young. If they had fallen, they certainly would not immediately accept that killing the dragon's young was the thing that caused them to fall, that it was wrong, and that they needed to repent for it. That is how the paladins would have viewed their fall after the raid on the goblin village. To US it's an obviously Evil act, but that doesn't mean it is to THEM.

Reverent-One

2012-02-18, 05:13 PM

teratorn

2012-02-18, 06:22 PM

I have no problem with the idea that, like hamishspence mentioned, they gradually grew more overzealous, leading to and perhaps culminating in the event we see in SoD, but that an order of "paladins" goes around repeating such an event for decades while being none the wiser? That is much harder to believe.

We aren't aware of the casualties on either side, friends and family killed and tortured, and revenge and hatred could take over their actions.

Dark Matter

2012-02-18, 08:20 PM

Per Word of God, some/many of the paladins that fell may not have realized that they fell until they tried to Lay On Hands the next day. Four such incidents are not enough to depopulate the SG, and depending on the levels of denial and covering up by each paladin who fell, may not have been enough even to alert the SG that their paladins were falling for being overzealous in the course of hunting the Crimson Mantle.Seriously good point.

...consider what would have happened if the paladins had instead attacked a red dragon, killed it, and then killed its young. If they had fallen, they certainly would not immediately accept that killing the dragon's young was the thing that caused them to fall, that it was wrong, and that they needed to repent for it...Interesting example. A baby dragon is CR4, can fly, destroy villages, and is always CE. If you try to take down it's mother, presumably it will jump into the fight. At that point no, not an evil act to put it down.

But if that's your monster killing experience, you might start thinking killing "monstrous children" is a "good" thing.

We aren't aware of the casualties on either side, friends and family killed and tortured, and revenge and hatred could take over their actions.That part is easy to believe. But you don't go very far down that path before you're not a Paladin. You fall on your first murder. Then you either learn and recover (and get a Cleric to cough up 500xp), or you stay fallen.

I was about to say that you'd probably also fall if you order your Paladin subordinates to go out and destroy a village, or if you even knew that's what would happen (which is why I have a hard time seeing Soon being involved)...

...but then when OOTS got involved, the head of the order wasn't a Paladin, or even LG. Shojo seemed like the kind of guy who might buy into the "Greater Good" argument for this sort of thing.

russdm

2012-02-18, 11:05 PM

I thought you are missing this whole part in the webcomic:"But we do know that Soon sent his men and women on a crusade to wipe out all who would threaten the Azure City gate, no matter how far removed geographically". You can find the reference word for word in this comic Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html). Its located below the picture of Soon and the others.

How do you reconcile this? Soon gave that order. Soon sent his paladins on a crusade. How does that get washed over like its not there? His paladins also purged every record of the gates and the rifts as well. From libraries wherever they found them. We have also this information from Shojo. Do we decide then that Shojo was lying to us about the secret history of the sapphire guard? The Crusade was performed by Soon, and even the history that Rich tells us that it was only decades, not centuries of conflict. Decades? Hmm, if you consider that the number of years from when Soon founded the Guard then it possibly could have been decades before the time of the battle of Azure City. Enough time for Soon to have instutited a conflict, as in start it.

This was all the secret history of the Sapphire Guard according to Shojo. So for nearly 66 years, this story has been the foundation on which the entire Guard lies. 66 years, which is six decades. Six decades to support something that no one shows any sign of suggesting is not a lie in anyway. No one says anything to suggest that the secret history could be untrue or that it is untrue. Why was this history considered secret anyway? Was it because of the gates and rifts that existed, whose history was removed by Soon's paladins? Or was it to protect Soon's reputation and that of the Guard? Has the Guard been keeping a massive lie then? I don't think so.

I think that the Sapphire Guard acted under the idea that "The Ends justify the means" and that they did it with the full support of their deities. Otherwise it is not any kind of karmic kick in the teeth or whatever it was that Rich described it being. If the Guard was acting correctly in all ways, then how could they or Azure City not have been living up to their ideals which Rich says that they weren't? How could there have been "misguided excesses" in Rich's own words? How?

Rich himself said that the Azurites had been doing this "at the behest of their gods". How does this statement get ignored? What, we think that they somehow thought it was wrong even though the gods are saying that it is alright? In cultures strongly connected with their gods or just god, when the gods say to do something it is done. Also if the gods say that what is being commanded to be done is right, then it is right. No one would dispute that. No one would challenge the gods on that. If the gods said that they commanded goblins needed to die, then goblins would die.

Sorry for popping in again, but i feel i had to add some stuff in here.

Reverent-One

2012-02-19, 03:07 AM

We aren't aware of the casualties on either side, friends and family killed and tortured, and revenge and hatred could take over their actions.

That all would likely be what pushes them down the increasing scale of over zealousness. Doesn't make the idea of an order of paladins including evil actions as standard operating procedure for decades make any more sense.

pendell

2012-02-19, 08:35 AM

Another point is that, to my mind, 'atonement' is more than a spell. I could be wrong, but I think it requires, at minimum, acknowledging what the original evil act was. Clerical divination should quickly resolve any dispute about why a paladin fell. Unlike the real world, we don't have to guess -- OOTS people can directly ask the gods why the paladin fell, and the gods can tell us so. I have a hard time believing that gods who would cause a paladin to fall and then simply give her powers back without first making darn sure the paladin knew why she paladin lost those powers in the first place.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Baelzar

2012-02-19, 11:06 AM

Rich himself said that the Azurites had been doing this "at the behest of their gods". How does this statement get ignored? What, we think that they somehow thought it was wrong even though the gods are saying that it is alright? In cultures strongly connected with their gods or just god, when the gods say to do something it is done. Also if the gods say that what is being commanded to be done is right, then it is right. No one would dispute that. No one would challenge the gods on that. If the gods said that they commanded goblins needed to die, then goblins would die.This. right. effin. here.

Our morals do not apply.

Terah

2012-02-19, 11:34 AM

I thought you are missing this whole part in the webcomic:"But we do know that Soon sent his men and women on a crusade to wipe out all who would threaten the Azure City gate, no matter how far removed geographically".

"crusade to wipe out all who would threaten the Azure City gate" could well mean just the bearers of the Crimson Mantle (and their immediate supporters) and maybe some other evil cults which are working towards controlling the gate. It says protecting the gate is the SG's mission, not genocide.

suzaliscious

2012-02-19, 11:52 AM

Why are we arguing about falling Paladins, again?

Did anybody miss the whole part where the Gods created the Goblins solely to serve as XP fodder for their followers? The Gods don't give two wooden pennies about Goblins dying: this is an established point of Start of Darkness. Kind of the whole reason for RedCloak's motivation. If Paladins Fell every time they killed a Goblin village and their young, don't you think it wouldn't keep happening?

Again, our morals don't apply. Paladins view the Goblins as Evil monsters and a Goblin child killed is another threat neutralized. Their own Gods do not object, because the Goblins are part of the 'lesser races' whose purpose is to die for the favored ones' benefit.

hamishspence

2012-02-19, 11:53 AM

Our morals do not apply.

"Respect life", "act altruistically", "respect the dignity of others", are all parts of Good.

"Obey your deity's commands" is not.

So if the behaviour of the paladins indicates that they are showing an unacceptable level of "lack of respect for life" they will fall.

Even if they are "obeying their deities".

Kish

2012-02-19, 11:58 AM

Why are we arguing about falling Paladins, again?
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8081896&postcount=21

pendell

2012-02-19, 12:27 PM

"Respect life", "act altruistically", "respect the dignity of others", are all parts of Good.

"Obey your deity's commands" is not.

So if the behaviour of the paladins indicates that they are showing an unacceptable level of "lack of respect for life" they will fall.

Even if they are "obeying their deities".

One would assume that a lawful good god gives lawful good commands. It is possible for people obeying a lawful command to fall into neutral or evil from misguided zeal or bluntly screwing up, but I would expect that as a rule a lawful good servant of a lawful good god could obey said god without constantly having to question whether the command was lawful good or not. Do humans know better than gods?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Baelzar

2012-02-19, 12:39 PM

Kish

2012-02-19, 12:44 PM

Do humans know better than gods?
In D&D, usually, yes.

One Forgotten Realms novel posits that the gods are insane by human standards because they see everything through the lens of their portfolio. Talos is literally incapable of understanding why anyone would view anything in terms other than, "If this leads to destruction, it is good." He opposes various good deities not because he understands their philosophies and recognizes their opposition to his, but because thousands of years have demonstrated to him that they often try to prevent destruction, which clearly means they're utterly irrational, cannot be reasoned with, and have no moral sense.

In OotS, the deities have consistently (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0273.html) been presented (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0040.html) as squabbling, staggeringly immature (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0201.html) children (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0275.html), who follow rules when forced (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0453.html) to and bend (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0274.html) or break (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0353.html) them whenever they can.

Where does a Paladin receive their divine abilities? And who decides if they lose them? The same god that granted them in the first place? The same that made the command?

How can you justify this reasoning?
D&D says, "A paladin who commits an evil act falls."

D&D describes what constitutes evil acts.

You look at "a paladin who commits an evil act falls" with more specific words and go, "How can you justify this reasoning?" The irony is staggering. Paladins are not clerics of Hextor.

Dark Matter

2012-02-19, 05:52 PM

Ditto Kish.

Where does a Paladin receive their divine abilities? And who decides if they lose them?Paladin's don't need to get their divine abilities from a god. You certainly don't need to be focused on a specific god.You can be a Paladin for a concept or cause or whatever.

Oddly this is true even for clerics.

hamishspence

2012-02-19, 06:07 PM

One Forgotten Realms novel posits that the gods are insane by human standards because they see everything through the lens of their portfolio. Talos is literally incapable of understanding why anyone would view anything in terms other than, "If this leads to destruction, it is good." He opposes various good deities not because he understands their philosophies and recognizes their opposition to his, but because thousands of years have demonstrated to him that they often try to prevent destruction, which clearly means they're utterly irrational, cannot be reasoned with, and have no moral sense.

Specifically, Prince of Lies, by James Lowder, part IV in the Avatar series, set about 10 years after the first three.

pendell

2012-02-21, 09:22 AM

In D&D, usually, yes.

One Forgotten Realms novel posits that the gods are insane by human standards because they see everything through the lens of their portfolio. Talos is literally incapable of understanding why anyone would view anything in terms other than, "If this leads to destruction, it is good." He opposes various good deities not because he understands their philosophies and recognizes their opposition to his, but because thousands of years have demonstrated to him that they often try to prevent destruction, which clearly means they're utterly irrational, cannot be reasoned with, and have no moral sense.

1) That may be true in the Forgotten Realms, but we don't know if that's necessarily true in OOTSverse. The gods have demonstrated fallibility and vulnerability, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are either insane or squabbling children. Thor's done right by Durkon, at any rate.

2) Even if it is categorically true in OOTSverse, is it reasonable to expect lawful good paladins to arrive at that conclusion? I suggest that the idea is blasphemy from their perspective -- properly trained paladins probably can't even think in those terms. Any paladin who suggested the gods were less than the epitome of honor, loyalty, to be followed and obeyed at whatever cost, would probably be kicked out of the order.

...

Of course, if that is true, it explains why the sapphire guard had a chaotic good aristocrat who wasn't blinkered by their axioms to run the show.

It occurs to me, that if the universe was truly run by insane children and they made the laws, then no truly good creature could be "lawful good." It'd be like adults agreed to be bound by the rules drawn up by a sixth grade children's class. In such a universe, any lawful good creature should at some point reach the breaking point where they could be lawful or good but not both.

To my mind "Lawful good" makes more sense if "lawful good" is represented by someone like Paladine from Dragonlance rather than , say, Helm or Mystra.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Dark Matter

2012-02-21, 01:53 PM

In such a universe, any lawful good creature should at some point reach the breaking point where they could be lawful or good but not both. The code says Paladins can commit non-lawful and/or non-good acts. Their overall alignment has to be LG but that's a different issue.

Similarly, Paladins don't fall for committing chaotic acts. They fall for committing evil acts. If they have to choose between evil and chaos, then they're bound to choose chaos.

hamishspence

2012-02-21, 02:00 PM

To my mind "Lawful good" makes more sense if "lawful good" is represented by someone like Paladine from Dragonlance rather than , say, Helm or Mystra.

Given that Helm was Lawful Neutral, pre-Time of Troubles Mystra was Lawful Neutral, and post-Time of Troubles Mystra (originally the mortal mage Midnight) was Neutral Good, it does indeed make more sense.

veti

2012-02-21, 08:28 PM

In D&D, usually, yes.

Then why do clerics have - and use - spells whose purpose is to get information from the gods?

D&D says, "A paladin who commits an evil act falls."

D&D describes what constitutes evil acts.

What the Players Handbook says is open to interpretation. What it says about paladins is couched in particularly weaselly language, which means that it requires a lot of interpretation: that they derive their powers from "a divine source". Is that source singular or plural? Is it constant or variable? Is it a god, or pantheon, or something else entirely? Does it actually make decisions based on judgment, or is it a purely mechanical process, some sort of natural law of the universe?

The answers to these questions may vary from campaign to campaign, and even between different paladins (or orders of paladins) within a campaign.

So the question of what happens when a paladin commits an act that is "evil" as defined elsewhere in the rules isn't quite as clear-cut as you're making it out to be. Does the divine power automatically withdraw itself from her, or does some deity somewhere make a decision to withdraw it? If the latter, then it's possible that they might decide not to do so in some cases.

Or perhaps it's the paladin's own "conscience" that cuts it off, perhaps she suddenly knows on some level that she's no longer worthy of the honour, and that knowledge makes her unable to access her powers until she atones. But that would depend on her knowing that an act was evil.

In the Sapphire Guard's case, the information we have suggests that they draw their powers from the Twelve Gods. And it's entirely possible that their consensus definition of "good" varies somewhat from that given in the PHB.