Belkar & Miko

[Vinyadan]

There is something which I never understood. Belkar thought that killing him would have caused Miko to fall. Why? He killed a guard, he set Miko on fire and would have killed a lot more, if Miko had not got him. Why should a paladin fall, in this case?

[cloudland]

Perhaps for being non-lawful? Miko get the order to bring Belkar to the trial alive, not dead, and if Miko kill him it's a violation of the order, so it's no longer lawful.

[hamishspence]

For the same reason Palpatine thinks that if Luke strikes him or Vader down "with all of his hatred" he'll Fall to the Dark Side.

Belkar has (intentionally) driven Miko into such a state that killing him will be murder. Especially since he's unarmed and "helpless" at that point.

[rbetieh]

most obvious response is Belkar is not very intelligent or wise...

[Mutant Sheep]

Well, it is uhh, kinda unlawful execution of a prisoner. That her lord explicitly implied said he wanted alive. Also, unarmed prisoner. That too. :smalltongue: Though considering Belkar is Belkar, he might just be midsdirected about rules about Falling/Belkar is dumb. But whatever, didn't happen. Belkar's gonna be alive and well for 100 strips, give or take 99. :smallbiggrin:

[FujinAkari]

Because Belkar's stupid.

At that point, Belkar has escaped prison, killed a guard, attacked a paladin, and was in the process of escaping. It is very unlikely killing him would have caused her to fall. It isn't the ideal solution, but it is definately lawful and I don't think would count as an intentionally evil act.

[King of Nowhere]

well, at that point, miko had no need of kill belkar, and would have done so out of hatred. however, given what belkar just did, i don't think she would have fallen.
I mean, we're talking about a woman who went around randomly killing creatures whose only ascertained fault was registering evil on her detect evil ability. if she hadn't fall before, she probably would not have fallen for killing belkar.

Probably belkar didn't took this into account.
plus, he was confident durkon would have resurrected him, and none of his pals would have robbed his body. he felt he wasn't risking much (probably didn't knew he would lose a level upon resurrection, too)

[Morquard]

I think HIS reasoning was that he brought her to a point where she simply doesn't care anymore. Where she WANTS him dead, no matter if its the right thing to do. She wants him dead because she wants it and not because she has no choice or anything.

If that would actually cause her to fall though is a different question. Belkar seems to think so, but we really have no way to know for sure.

I don't think "she was ordered to bring him alive, so not doing that would cause her to fail" works really, as Belkar changed the circumstances by breaking out, and using lethal force is a possibility for law enforcement.
Or do you think prison guards are fired/imprisoned if they get the order to transfer a prisoner (alive being implied), and then have to shoot him during an escape where said prisoner already killed someone?

[hamishspence]

At that point, Belkar has escaped prison, killed a guard, attacked a paladin, and was in the process of escaping. It is very unlikely killing him would have caused her to fall.

He wasn't exactly "in the process of escaping" at that moment though- he was lying on the ground, with no weapon in hand, making no hostile moves.

I seem to recall you being much harsher on Roy, when he attacked Miko, after Miko killed Shojo then rearmed herself.

[Gift Jeraff]

Perhaps for being non-lawful? Miko get the order to bring Belkar to the trial alive, not dead, and if Miko kill him it's a violation of the order, so it's no longer lawful.You don't fall for a single Chaotic act, unless it's Chaotic enough to alignment shift you to Neutral Good. Though Belkar might not know that.

I'm going to go with either the "he provoked her into making it angry murder, as opposed to righteous execution" or "defenseless prisoner she was supposed to capture" explanations. Or Belkar just doesn't understand how paladins work.

[hamishspence]

The last time I recall the "would Miko have fallen for killing Belkar" topic being brought up, I apparently gave similar answers:


I haven't spotted those precise words n the discussion threads for strips 285 and 286.

What I have spotted, is The Giant's comment about Miko "bordering on a complete psychotic break" at the top of this page:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6106&page=6

So- even if a paladin acting dispassionately might be able to "execute" someone as evil as Belkar without the express permission of the law, and not fall, Miko may have been so consumed with anger and hate at the time, that she would have fallen anyway.

It's like Luke and Palpatine "Strike me down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards the Dark Side will be complete" - so, while killing a very evil being might not always be evil, if it is done out of anger and hate, it becomes evil.

and found a reference to The Giant saying Miko was bordering on a psychotic break at that point.

[Vinyadan]

Right now, there are 2 versions with which I could agree:

1. Belkar is dumber than a table and did not get how things work.

However, his objective probably was since the beginning to make Miko fall, not to run away. That's why he left the message and why she toyed with her and spared her instead of slitting her throath while she was unconscious. He probably is more intelligent than Miko (in his own brain-damaged way).

2. Miko would have killed a disabled opponent when she was in a situation where this was no more needed. The room was full of people who could have immobilized Belkar. This means that she would have killed for the taste of it, and nothing else.

I think that she would not have fallen, had she killed him in the garden.

[cloudland]

You don't fall for a single Chaotic act, unless it's Chaotic enough to alignment shift you to Neutral Good. Though Belkar might not know that.

I'm going to go with either the "he provoked her into making it angry murder, as opposed to righteous execution" or "defenseless prisoner she was supposed to capture" explanations. Or Belkar just doesn't understand how paladins work.

I was under the impression that Miko have been acting for a chaotic end for a long while (considering she serve Shojo who might have send her on mission to achieve chaotic end). Even she might not know it that does push her alignment, and all it take is just one willing chaotic act to shift to neutral. Beside, it kinda the same thing with good vs evil: one evil act and you at least end up being non-good; so it reasonable to think that being lawful is pretty strict.

[FujinAkari]

I was under the impression that Miko have been acting for a chaotic end for a long while (considering she serve Shojo who might have send her on mission to achieve chaotic end). Even she might not know it that does push her alignment, and all it take is just one willing chaotic act to shift to neutral. Beside, it kinda the same thing with good vs evil: one evil act and you at least end up being non-good; so it reasonable to think that being lawful is pretty strict.

Uh... no. Miko had been tiptoeing the Good -/- Neutral edge of the LG alignment for some time, but she was OVERLY lawful. Her Lawful alignment was never in question.

And no, following a Lawful Order from a Chaotic Ruler is not a Chaotic act.

[cloudland]

Uh... no. Miko had been tiptoeing the Good -/- Neutral edge of the LG alignment for some time, but she was OVERLY lawful. Her Lawful alignment was never in question.

And no, following a Lawful Order from a Chaotic Ruler is not a Chaotic act.

Miko abandoned her mission (not even trying to retrieve what she thought as diplomatic letter) to warn about the danger to Azure city. She ignored Shojo's order to capture OOTS and tried to kill them because she thought them as evil. She used less-than-honorable method to exterminate the orc. She definitely haven't been a strong lawful, but strong good. She didn't know her action was evil, that doesn't stop her from falling. So she doesn't need to know her action serve a chaotic end to have it affect her alignment.

[zimmerwald1915]

You don't fall for a single Chaotic act, unless it's Chaotic enough to alignment shift you to Neutral Good. Though Belkar might not know that.
Actually, a paladin can fall for a single non-Lawful or non-Good act, and that act doesn't need to be massive enough to cause an alignment shift.

[Fish]

3. The Giant was explaining to all the non-D&D readers that paladins can lose their powers. Belkar's provocations were just a way to bring up the matter in-story.

[Valyrian]

Another reason was that Belkar simply thought his own stakes weren't very high. After all, he considered it easy for the Order to resurrect him, and it would be others who'd have to make the effort of gathering diamond dust etc.

So he might have thought it's worth a shot. Even if Miko didn't fall, she would've faced some repercussions for her actions, while Belkar didn't think he would. Of course his assumptions were wrong, though.

[Gift Jeraff]

Actually, a paladin can fall for a single non-Lawful or non-Good act, and that act doesn't need to be massive enough to cause an alignment shift.From my understanding, only if it "grossly violates the code of conduct." Other than that, I always felt paladins are supposed to be Lawful exemplars of Good, not exemplars of Law and Good.

[Gnome Alone]

Also of note, the Azurites never had any real right to apprehend the Order in the first place, so when Belkar killed that guard, he was escaping from false imprisonment. Killing him when she wanted to would be murdering someone not only unarmed but trying to free themself. I don't know if the twelve gods care about freedom but as far as the paladin code goes, seems pretty unlawful.

[Rorrik]

I don't think him being wrongfully imprisoned figures into it much, Miko doesn't know yet his imprisonment was wrong. I agree with the argument that the reason she may have fallen was that she was not killing for the greater good or for stability or for rule of law, but rather out of rage from Belkar's annoyance. Killing out of hate is definitely an evil act, and qualifies as murder, killing out of frustration is largely chaotic, and probably murder as well, though not agrevated like the first may be. Can't say she would have fallen, but I would consider Belkar's assessment less stupid than discerning and clever.

[Gurgeh]

The code of conduct is inconsistent on that front.

On the one hand, it emphasises that "A paladin must be of lawful good alignment", and later on puts equal weight on evil and chaos being frowned upon when referring to the paladin helping others.

Conversely, the only explicitly mentioned scenario for "paladin loses all class abilities" is for the paladin to willingly commit an evil act, with no mention of chaos.

The way I'd read it is that while Paladins are supposed to care more about Good than about Law, the Lawful aspect of their code of conduct is not some second-string thing tacked on to the primary objective of Good; they're supposed to be committed to both.

As far as the topic goes, Miko would have fallen if she'd killed Belkar in the throne room, and for the exact same reasons she eventually did fall: she would have murdered an unarmed and helpless adversary out of personal pique instead of allowing them to be arrested and lawfully punished for their crimes.

[FujinAkari]

Miko abandoned her mission (not even trying to retrieve what she thought as diplomatic letter) to warn about the danger to Azure city.

... what? Are you honestly critisizing the woman for choosing to warn her homeland about an approaching army rather than delivering a letter? Seriously?

I would frankly be -astounded- if her Paladin's oath didn't REQUIRE her to do exactly what she did.


She ignored Shojo's order to capture OOTS and tried to kill them because she thought them as evil.

What are you talking about? She asked them to surrender, Roy refused.


She used less-than-honorable method to exterminate the orc.

This would be relevant if Lawfulness had ANYTHING to do with Honor. That would be Goodness


She didn't know her action was evil, that doesn't stop her from falling.

Yeah... sure wish that someone would let people know that blatent murder of unarmed octogenarians is evil. Please, she KNEW the action was evil, she just didn't care. Hinjo even tells her to arrest him and she refuses.


So she doesn't need to know her action serve a chaotic end to have it affect her alignment.

Yeah... no. Sorry :P Following orders is an earmark of lawful behavior. Now, if Shojo had ordered her to go out and kill anyone wearing green and she did it, you might have a point, but there was nothing about the orders that was even vaguely chaotic.

[Morthis]

Miko abandoned her mission (not even trying to retrieve what she thought as diplomatic letter) to warn about the danger to Azure city.

I'm sorry, what is the argument here? That a lawful good person would say "Eh who cares about the city being slaughtered anyway, I have a letter to deliver?"



She ignored Shojo's order to capture OOTS and tried to kill them because she thought them as evil.

She asked them to surrender, and the attempt at executing them was because that was the penalty for their crimes, not just because they were evil. I'll grant you she was overzealous with this one, although she did give them (multiple chances) to surrender and did take them back eventually, despite the fights.


She used less-than-honorable method to exterminate the orc.

This has nothing to do with lawful at all. If she's said go back to sleep, we can fight tomorrow, and then killed them all while they slept, you might have a point, but for this, no.


So she doesn't need to know her action serve a chaotic end to have it affect her alignment.

That's just an outright absurd claim. The order came from her Lord, after he consulted with a being of law and good (which ended up being Eugene). There was zero reason for Miko to question it, and following it was a lawful act.

[Winter]

The key to the question is intent.

Belkar had very well understood that Miko killed him now, she'd do it out of rage, out of the lust to kill him. That is murder.
If Miko would have been rational, she might get away with an "execution", but that is a bit doubtful as that was not the wilderness but a place where all the courts are in place and ready to deal with it.

So it really comes down: Striking unarmed and undefending people down because you hate them, because you are angry, because you are not willing to hold and think for a minute, it's murder. As such, it's evil and as such, Miko would have fallen as Paladins are not supposed to do stuff like that.

Rage and Hatred are the Dark Side and if those lead to you killing someone, you have screwed yourself. To stay on the example: Imagine how Luke defeats Vader with a lot of hatred and rage, but then stops and does not kill him when Vader is down? Yes, Luke is very far on the Dark Side in that fight but when the important part part is reached, he stops and shows he's a true Jedi. Miko did not stop, Miko wanted to go on.
Palaptine knows he has lost Luke and his temptation of the Dark has failed, so he does not bother anymore and right goes on to killing him.

[with an e]

The key to the question is intent.

Belkar had very well understood that Miko killed him now, she'd do it out of rage, out of the lust to kill him. That is murder.
If Miko would have been rational, she might get away with an "execution", but that is a bit doubtful as that was not the wilderness but a place where all the courts are in place and ready to deal with it.

So it really comes down: Striking unarmed and undefending people down because you hate them, because you are angry, because you are not willing to hold and think for a minute, it's murder. As such, it's evil and as such, Miko would have fallen as Paladins are not supposed to do stuff like that.
Since you brought up intent...

Perhaps you'd like to identify which jurisdiction you mean? In the American legal system, killing someone out of blind rage from an immediate provocation is actually a mitigating circumstance--one that would lower murder to manslaughter or some equivalent in many of the states if it is indisputably established. Thus, killing Belkar out of rage because he has done everything to provoke her would be less serious than if she had paused, deliberated, and decided to summarily execute him because he's an evil danger to society as opposed to capturing him as the law demands.

[Winter]

Since you brought up intent...

Perhaps you'd like to identify which jurisdiction you mean? In the American legal system

I do not care for the american justice system and it's actually illegal around here to talk about RL examples.

We are talking about the justice system of Azure City, of course (I mean... d'uh?). Which else would be relevant here?

Belkar was down and the magistrates were probably less than 500 meter away. She had won and he was before her on the floor. She was enraged and full of hatred. That is a bad reason to kill someone especially if you are a Paladin who is held by standards far above those for normal people.
Paladins get powers by the gods to be a proxy of Law and Good, they cannot "just be angry and whack someone". If they do, they lose their powers (which is what Belkar intended for her and what would have happened if Vaarsuvius had not stopped her).

[Killer Angel]

In the American legal system, killing someone out of blind rage from an immediate provocation is actually a mitigating circumstance--one that would lower murder to manslaughter or some equivalent in many of the states if it is indisputably established.

I wouldn't go down this route, 'cause real life politics / laws is a Bad idea, and it's also stepping too close on the "morally justifiable" territory.

That said, I doubt it applies. A guards that shoots to death a prisoner 'cause was merely angered by the inmate's behavior, is going to suffer hard consequences. And Miko was a high level officier, so the thing is even worse.

Anyway, as already stated, we're talking a paladin killing a (at that point) helpless fugitive out of rage and anger, driven by personal hate for the subject and the joy of killing it. It's Fallsville.

[Kish]

There is something which I never understood. Belkar thought that killing him would have caused Miko to fall. Why? He killed a guard, he set Miko on fire and would have killed a lot more, if Miko had not got him. Why should a paladin fall, in this case?
Because Belkar is the center of the universe, and killing him is the only killing that would be an evil act. That is, that's what he believes.

I don't understand why so many posts in this thread assume that Belkar's judgment that "this would make a paladin Fall" has to be related to reality.

[Winter]

I don't understand why so many posts in this thread assume that Belkar's judgment that "this would make a paladin Fall" has to be related to reality.

At least my explanation:
It does not have to be related to reality. Belkar saying it does not have to be a reason for it being right.
But how I see Paladins I do think he is correct in this case (if for the right or wrong reaons is a different and in my opinion unimportant matter).

No matter what Belkar thinks, I agree to the estimate that Miko finally snapping here and simply executing him (for the wrong reasons!) would have made her fall.

[Belril Duskwalk]

I do not care for the american justice system and it's actually illegal around here to talk about RL examples.

We are talking about the justice system of Azure City, of course (I mean... d'uh?). Which else would be relevant here?

Actually it is somewhat relevant, because it seems the laws of Azure City may have been borrowed from somewhat similar laws found in the modern world. Specifically, Belkar was plea-bargained down to Manslaughter instead of Murder so that he would take the deal to help with the defense of the city. At a later point, Belkar complained that having a Manslaughter on his record would ruin his street cred because "I totally premeditated that ****." Premeditation of course being the primary difference between Murder and Manslaughter in several legal systems.


Thus, killing Belkar out of rage because he has done everything to provoke her would be less serious than if she had paused, deliberated, and decided to summarily execute him because he's an evil danger to society as opposed to capturing him as the law demands.

Regardless of which law Miko breaks by killing Belkar, it's going to be a serious violation of the law. Miko would almost certainly fall whether she committed manslaughter OR murder. So really, either is acceptable to Belkar's purpose.

[Vinyadan]

A question: can a PC talk while he is at negative hp? Because, if Belkar was not in the negatives, it would mean that he still could defend himself, and just didn't (unless he was stunned by something). Which means that the whole thing only had the meaning of making Miko fall. In a really brain-damaged way.

I think that Miko waiting before killing Belkar means that the actions would not have been out of rage or immediate reaction. I think it means that she would have done it out of lust for blood. Which I consider to be a good reason to fall.

It's as if you were running after a slaughterer and finally rendered him inconscious, brought him into the police office and planted a knife in his neck.

[veti]

The key to the question is intent.

I agree with this. But I want to add, "loyalty". Look at what Miko says (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html) when Shojo calls her to heel:

As you command, Master. You are my rightful liege, I obey your wishes. For I am a paladin...

Clearly, according to Miko herself, a paladin is by definition one who obeys her rightful liege.

Above all, a paladin needs to be trusted. Their divine sponsor has to have absolute, unshakable faith that they will follow their duty at all times, never letting personal feelings get in the way. To lose that trust is to Fall - that's why paladins fall.

Killing Belkar would have been letting her personal feelings override her explicit orders, setting her judgment above her lord's. Proving, basically, that she couldn't be trusted. The scene foreshadows the murder of Shojo, where that's exactly what she did.

[Winter]

Actually it is somewhat relevant, because it seems the laws of Azure City may have been borrowed from somewhat similar laws found in the modern world.

For me the story works perfectly without caring about the american justice system and do not basing the one of Azure City on any RL system (and Miko's transgression goes even beyond any specific justice system, it goes against her Code as Paladin).
So let's not hang ourselves on the justice system as that has no relevancy for this case beyond "there is one that works and that Miko has to use if possible".

And, as a sidenote, of course you'll find terms of the american justice system in the comic simply because that is the author's cultural background and as such he uses the words and terms from it.

[hamishspence]

I don't understand why so many posts in this thread assume that Belkar's judgment that "this would make a paladin Fall" has to be related to reality.


Belkar seems to know some things about paladins- like that associating with him would be problematic since he is Evil.

And we see him say that Miko has committed her first evil act, after she woke up in jail.

Maybe he's not as "far off reality" as all that?

[Winter]

You mean he's some sort of authority in regards to "evil"? I guess that's the only knowledge skill he has. "Knowledge(Evil)". Sounds fitting. ;)

[Kish]

Belkar seems to know some things about paladins- like that associating with him would be problematic since he is Evil.

And we see him say that Miko has committed her first evil act, after she woke up in jail.

Maybe he's not as "far off reality" as all that?
One of those is basic knowledge of the Player's Handbook. The other is begging the question--the evidence for Belkar's knowledge is that he makes another claim later--and, I would say, would more properly work as evidence against Belkar's knowledge of paladins: He doesn't realize that a Fallen Paladin hasn't necessarily committed an evil act.

(Except that, actually, I think he's only interested in taunting Miko, and would claim that she'd committed an evil act even if he had a notarized statement from the Twelve Gods that she Fell due to drifting over to Neutral Good alignment. Either way, it's certainly not evidence for Belkar's knowledge.)

[hamishspence]

The other is begging the question--the evidence for Belkar's knowledge is that he makes another claim later--and, I would say, would more properly work as evidence against Belkar's knowledge of paladins: He doesn't realize that a Fallen Paladin hasn't necessarily committed an evil act.

Perhaps. He's rather shocked by Miko's action "You killed the wacky old guy with the cat??" - so it doesn't seem all that implausible that he honestly concluded that act was evil.

My guess was that he understands what's Good and Evil, and doesn't care that he's evil- but it's possible that this guess overestimates his understanding somewhat.

[Jiggs]

We don't know if Miko would have fallen had she killed Belka in the throne room, though I suppose´she would have.
Belkar was not trialed and not found guilty of charges by then.
Hell Miko didin't even succed in proving he was/is evil.
He was disabled, not being able to fight anymore and had not posed a threat at that point to anyone anymore.
Killing him them would have been an act of rage and anger, not justified in my eyes by the paladin code.
When Miko attempted to kill Lord Shojo, Hinjo stepped in, pointing out, that his uncle would have to be trialed to get a proper sentence.
Killing him regardless, thinking she'd know better she was proven wrong by the gods.
Maybe if she had been right (and Lord Shojo would have been an evil charakter conspiering to make the city fall) she would not have lost her paladin powers.
Anyway Belkar (rightly) suspected that bringing Miko to the point of psychological breakdown when she would act soley on her anger/rage/hate would end in her losing her grip and thus her Paladin status.

[MReav]

Hell Miko didin't even succed in proving he was/is evil.

She did. In the second Miko vs Order fight, Rich tells us she Smote Evil Belkar successfully, and therefore confirmed his evil. The reason she used Detect Evil in her second encounter was likely because the last time she didn't confirm it, it turned out to be a bag of flour, which would have registered as "Not Evil".

Also, it's one thing to kill a guard to escape unlawful capture. It's another to desecrate his corpse in order to taunt someone, especially when half your taunt is up three times your own height.

[masterman3]

I'm slightly surprised there's even debate about this - as I see it, it's obvious that Miko would have fallen if she had killed Belkar.

Look back at the comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html) - at the moment where she tries to strike, Belkar is lying on the ground, injured, unarmed, and posing no immediate threat to anyone. There are also several other people around who could have helped Miko take him into custody, had she needed help.

In any legal system that isn't entirely psychotic (which presumably includes that of Azure City), an enraged officer of the law intentionally killing an unarmed person who poses no immediate threat to anyone at that moment is murder. This is true regardless of that person's previous crimes.

(In a real-world Western legal system it'd likely be second-degree murder - she's acting out of rage, not premeditation - but still murder)

This is especially true given that, as mentioned, there are numerous people around that she could have asked to assist her in capturing Belkar so that he could stand trial for his crimes, as required under Azure City law (judging from Shojo's statement a few panels later).

But instead, she decides to make matters into her own hands, to not even try to follow her own city's laws, and to commit murder out of rage. If that doesn't lead a paladin to fall, I don't know what does.

So, had V not intervened, it would have been extremely surprising to me had she not fallen.

(Indeed, I think there's a strong argument to be made that she should have fallen anyway, even though V intervened. Based on what we know, it looks that she clearly intended to kill Belkar, and was only stopped by an exogenous factor - V. In real-world Western legal terms, Miko's had likely "crossed the rubicon" and her actions would almost certainly have constituted attempted murder. That said, this is definitely more speculative - different legal systems have different ways of handling intent and attempted crimes, and we don't know how Azure City does it.)

[martianmister]

Do we really know that she'll kill him if not for V's interference?

[ti'esar]

Based on later events, it seems likely, but you are correct in that V intervened before the actual "moment of truth".

[Fish]

Miko attacked the Order and didn't fall. She helped kill ogres and didn't fall. She killed two bandits and didn't fall. Paladins don't lose their powers by killing someone prior to a trial or, indeed, for breaking a law.

Belkar was wrong for many reasons. Rich was simply introducing the idea that Miko could lose her powers by being unpaladin-like, and that she was prone to doing so; also that Shojo had her respect. It was setup for that later moment.

[Mr. Pants]

She certainly lost her paladinhood by killing Lord Shojo...

:miko:, what were you thinking? You killed Lord Shojo and blew up a gate which led to :xykon: and :redcloak:'s victory! :smallmad: I guess you're only half the woman I thought you were...

[hamishspence]

Miko attacked the Order and didn't fall. She helped kill ogres and didn't fall. She killed two bandits and didn't fall. Paladins don't lose their powers by killing someone prior to a trial or, indeed, for breaking a law.

Belkar was wrong for many reasons.

Defence of self, and defence of others, come into it. Possibly also the "right to make an arrest" Self defence applies to the case of the bandits. Defence of others applies to the ogres- who have kidnapped a farmer, who Miko is rescuing.

[Fish]

Defense of self? Belkar set her on fire, stabbed her, and knocked her unconscious.

Defense of others? Belkar killed a guard and escaped a prison.

[raymundo]

Defense of self? Belkar set her on fire, stabbed her, and knocked her unconscious.

Defense of others? Belkar killed a guard and escaped a prison.

Yes, so she was definiately right to fight and incapacitate him.. but then proceeding to slay him right in her master's throne room, while he was no more threat, could have been too much. That is the point of those who assume she would have fallen.

[Fish]

The bandit leader and daughter were chopped into pieces for merely threatening to attack her; they cast one (failed) spell and the leader was trying to get revenge for Miko's murder of his family member. If that didn't make her fall, where she had far less reason, I'm not sure why Belkar's murder would.

[Carry2]

The bandit leader and daughter were chopped into pieces for merely threatening to attack her; they cast one (failed) spell and the leader was trying to get revenge for Miko's murder of his family member. If that didn't make her fall, where she had far less reason, I'm not sure why Belkar's murder would.

'Hold Person' is the arcane equivalent of a full-body, game-over, paralysing agent, and thus a strong general sign that the caster is (A) not friendly and (B) not ****ing around.

"What the hell are you shooting at me for!?"
"Don't get bent out of shape. I mean, I missed, right?" *takes aim again*

[MReav]

'Hold Person' is the arcane equivalent of a full-body, game-over, paralysing agent, and thus a strong general sign that the caster is (A) not friendly and (B) not ****ing around.

"What the hell are you shooting at me for!?"
"Don't get bent out of shape. I mean, I missed, right?" *takes aim again*

Seriously, self-defense isn't murder. Especially when you get attacked by the people you just helped (Miko freed them and offered an alliance).

[Mr. Pants]

Seriously, self-defense isn't murder. Especially when you get attacked by the people you just helped (Miko freed them and offered an alliance).

Right, because slicing through an old man who did little more than sit on his throne wasn't the best way to uphold the law. :smallmad:

[MReav]

Right, because slicing through an old man who did little more than sit on his throne wasn't the best way to uphold the law. :smallmad:

I was agreeing with Carry2's commentary about the bandit leader and Samantha, not Shojo. They are two different examples with two entirely different contexts. With Samantha, Miko was well within her rights to use lethal force. The bandit leader is a bit more ambiguous, but he still attacked her first (it's a tragic case of a distraught father trying to avenge his daughter, but you need to remember the daughter also attacked first and is murderous in general).

[martianmister]

Real point is: Where we should put "killing Belkar" in this case?

[Kish]

Not as bad as killing Shojo, but worse than killing the bandits.

[martianmister]

Real point is: Where we should put killing Belkar in "Paladin falling border"?

[Durlan]

Killing Belkar wouldn't have made her fall but put her on the path but then again killing Shojo may have made her fall so all things considered she had probably fallen with that act of evil (or what she thought was evil) and the only thing Belkar did was instigate

[Fish]

'Hold Person' is the arcane equivalent of a full-body, game-over, paralysing agent, and thus a strong general sign that the caster is (A) not friendly and (B) not ****ing around.
You mean the arcane equivalent of escaping prison, murdering a guard, and painting personal threats to Miko on the wall in the guard's blood?

[Winter]

You mean the arcane equivalent of escaping prison, murdering a guard, and painting personal threats to Miko on the wall in the guard's blood?

The problem here is that at the point we are discussing about that threat was over.
Killing someone who once posed a threat but does not now because he is incapacitated is usually considered murder. Just not by some in this thread, it seems.

[MReav]

You mean the arcane equivalent of escaping prison, murdering a guard, and painting personal threats to Miko on the wall in the guard's blood?

Dude, you used the term "murder" which has very specific connotations, which did not apply when dealing with the bandits. They did not just threaten her. They attacked her with lethal or potentially lethal attacks, and simply failed to connect. Miko replied in kind, except she did connect.

Me, I think Belkar's logic was flawed. It wouldn't have been any different than when Roy executed those sleeping goblins. Belkar is an unrepentant threat who attacks her and kills others and unlike claims of just trying to escape unjust imprisonment, proceeds to desecrate the corpse in a manner which would severely delay escape and increase the chance of discovery. However, it likely would have been a morally ambiguous action and a dangerous first step for Miko.

[FujinAkari]

The problem here is that at the point we are discussing about that threat was over.

Not in D&D. Belkar was prone and it was Miko's initiative, but that in no way means the threat was over. Belkar was quite capable of acting on his initiative, so if Miko used her action to attack back it would not have been murder by any definition of the term.

[hamishspence]

Belkar was quite capable of acting on his initiative, so if Miko used her action to attack back it would not have been murder by any definition of the term.

I got the impression he did act- to do nothing except whisper "come on, do it"

Perhaps the legal sense? If Miko was a cop, with a baton- and that cop knocked an armed criminal to the ground (possibly disarming him? Are his knives now out of his hands?) striking a blow to the head, to kill, when the criminal is on the ground not resisting, could certainly qualify as second degree murder.

[Kish]

Real point is: Where we should put killing Belkar in "Paladin falling border"?
As Haley said, we know, through direct empirical evidence, one action that will cause a paladin to Fall: Killing his/her defenseless liege lord.

Would killing a helpless-at-least-for-the-nonce but utterly evil prisoner cause a paladin to Fall in Rich's writing? Unknown. Currently unknowable unless you happen to be named Rich Burlew (and no, changing your name will not grant insight here). Belkar bet on "yes" with a high degree of confidence; that means very little.

[hamishspence]

True.

The OP's question does seem to boil down to "would it have been morally justified for Miko to kill Belkar at that point", it must be said.

[Vinyadan]

True.

The OP's question does seem to boil down to "would it have been morally justified for Miko to kill Belkar at that point", it must be said.

Not really, I was actually asking about D&D rules.

[hamishspence]

Replacing "morally justified in D&D" with "a nonevil act in D&D" is not a very big difference.

[Winter]

Not in D&D. Belkar was prone and it was Miko's initiative, but that in no way means the threat was over. Belkar was quite capable of acting on his initiative, so if Miko used her action to attack back it would not have been murder by any definition of the term.

I do not want to speak for others, but I think the author of this strip who does not follow rules to the letter would disagree.

At least I know for sure I disagree. The rules tell you how to do certains things, not if they are evil or good. So yes, it was Miko's turn but to use it for attacking was as wrong (or even outright evil) if there were other or no rules at all.

Do not confuse "it is allowed by the rules of the game" with "it is the right thing to do".

[Silver Swift]

Replacing "morally justified in D&D" with "a nonevil act in D&D" is not a very big difference.

But it is specifically the difference between topics that we are allowed to discuss and topics that we aren't.

[FujinAkari]

I got the impression he did act- to do nothing except whisper "come on, do it".

Talking is a free action :P

It is really hard to say... we really don't know whose initiative came up first, so it may have been that Belkar was not resisting, or it could have just as easily been that Miko found her feet first.


I do not want to speak for others, but I think the author of this strip who does not follow rules to the letter would disagree.


Then don't, implying that Rich agrees with your position is an appeal to authority, but it requires actual evidence of that authority actually agreeing :P


At least I know for sure I disagree. The rules tell you how to do certains things, not if they are evil or good. So yes, it was Miko's turn but to use it for attacking was as wrong (or even outright evil) if there were other or no rules at all.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.


Do not confuse "it is allowed by the rules of the game" with "it is the right thing to do".

Whoa! Now -that- is Morally Justified ground. Don't get into right or wrong, stay on the topic of evil or not evil (as neutral acts are unlikely to cause Miko to fall right then and there, unless that just happened to be the act that changed her alignment... something of a long shot :P)

[Winter]

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

It basically translates to "You are very, very wrong". More elaborate: Just because it was her turn does not mean it was ok for her do to what she wanted to do.


Whoa! Now -that- is Morally Justified ground. Don't get into right or wrong, stay on the topic of evil or not evil (as neutral acts are unlikely to cause Miko to fall right then and there, unless that just happened to be the act that changed her alignment... something of a long shot :P)

No, it's not. You say it is ok for her to murder Belkar because it was her turn. I say it's not ok for her to murder Belkar just because the rules say she can act now. What sort of act she does on her turn has nothing to do with the rules saying it is her turn (in a fight where Belkar is prone/incapacitated). The rules on who can act in what order of the fight have nothing to do with the act itself, which is evil (as it's murder).

Where is that morally justified? Miko was about to murder Belkar, which is evil, and your argument "It is not evil because it was her turn" does not hold any water.

[FujinAkari]

No, it's not. You say it is ok for her to murder BelkarBegging the question logical fallacy.

because it was her turn.No, what I said was that it wasn't an evil act to kill a murderer in the act of escaping. The difference is you are positing that Belkar had surrendered and was helpless, whereas I see the two of them falling through the window, Miko making her acrobatics check and thus not falling prone, giving her a free action. (or several other scenarioes, see below) As Belkar had not surrendered, it is certainly not an evil act to continue to combat someone you have no reason to suspect isn't still going to try and kill you as soon as he gets a chance to act.

I say it's not ok for her to murder Belkar just because the rules say she can act now. What sort of act she does on her turn has nothing to do with the rules saying it is her turn (in a fight where Belkar is prone/incapacitated). The rules on who can act in what order of the fight have nothing to do with the act itself, which is evil (as it's murder).
More logical fallacies. You have to establish that it is murder, you can't just declare it to be so.

Where is that morally justified?
What makes you think I am making a prohibited argument? As I -just said- this is about whether the act is evil.

Miko was about to murder Belkar, which is evil, and your argument "It is not evil because it was her turn" does not hold any water.
We can note that this is, in no way, my argument.

My argument is simple: Belkar didn't surrender, he just got put into a disadvantageous position. Miko appears to have bullrushed Belkar, but still has another attack as part of her full-attack action. Alternatively, as stated above, Belkar may have failed his acrobatics check, giving Miko a free attack when she passed hers. Or it could have even been a case where the DM deturmined both of them got slightly disoriented and called for new initiatives to see who recovered faster and could continue the combat.

Fact is, it is entirely plausible that Miko just had an advantage and is under no requirement to take Belkar alive when he's in the process of escaping. If Belkar had attempted to surrender and she had tried to kill him anyway, you would have a point calling it evil, but he in no way does that.

[Gurgeh]

falling prone
falling prone
falling prone
I'm going to be generous and assume that both of you meant to say "supine". Let's leave it there for now.

As far as the "murder" issue goes well obviously it is going to be subjective - it's a comic, and it's very difficult to establish the passing of time in absolute numeric quantities without the dialogue or narration explicitly throwing them out there, but I'd say that the three aspect transitions within the scene (from Belkar and Miko to Miko's face, to Belkar's, to Miko's again) imply that time has passed - it's not all going by in an instant. In that time, Belkar made no attempt to resist or escape, all he did was taunt Miko. That, at least as far as I am concerned, qualifies him as a defeated, unresisting opponent.

Yes I know he could have been playing possum, but unless Miko was psychic there was no way she could have justifiably known the truth of that matter, and the whole point of being Lawful Good is that you give people the benefit of the doubt in situations like that, even when they're horrible murderous jackasses who have just spent the last half hour stabbing, bludgeoning, and taunting you.

At the end of the day I can't see this discussion going anywhere productive because it's always possible for somebody to go on about how it's okay to kill evil people because they're evil or that there was a second archer behind the azure knoll or whatever - people will interpret this situation in ways that conform with their preconceptions about good and evil, the D&D game, and the characters involved.

[Bastian]

Miko is clearly shown lifting her katana over her head preparing for the killing blow. The blue glow indicates she is indeed using Smite Evil. (And not, for example, a stunning blow). Lethal force. She says out loud she wants him dead, regardless of the fact that Belkar is now incapacitated/knocked down.
Most importantly, while Belkar is whispering 'Do it...' she is shown pausing for a moment and giving in to her rage. No combat mechanics can explain that.

And even more importantly, what does a Official Incense Aroma Specialist do?

[FujinAkari]

As far as the "murder" issue goes well obviously it is going to be subjective - it's a comic, and it's very difficult to establish the passing of time in absolute numeric quantities without the dialogue or narration explicitly throwing them out there, but I'd say that the three aspect transitions within the scene (from Belkar and Miko to Miko's face, to Belkar's, to Miko's again) imply that time has passed

Well, that can be your read of it, but that isn't how D&D works. Either Miko took her initiative and attacked him, or she was intentionally holding her action to strike him down if he made any hostile action. Neither of those is an evil act.


Miko is clearly shown lifting her katana over her head preparing for the killing blow. The blue glow indicates she is indeed using Smite Evil. (And not, for example, a stunning blow). Lethal force. She says out loud she wants him dead, regardless of the fact that Belkar is now incapacitated/knocked down.
Most importantly, while Belkar is whispering 'Do it...' she is shown pausing for a moment and giving in to her rage. No combat mechanics can explain that.

Not really sure what you're getting at here...


And even more importantly, what does a Official Incense Aroma Specialist do?

I make sure the scented oils and fragrant candles merge into a blissful experience to everyone within the parlor.

[Gurgeh]

Given that this whole argument is supposedly about what would have happened if Miko had killed Belkar, I'm not quite sure why you're being so obtuse. It's a story, not a rules-perfect d20 simulation. If he'd just sat there and she'd followed through on her strike, it would have been murder. Can't spell it out much simpler than that.

[FujinAkari]

Given that this whole argument is supposedly about what would have happened if Miko had killed Belkar, I'm not quite sure why you're being so obtuse. It's a story, not a rules-perfect d20 simulation. If he'd just sat there and she'd followed through on her strike, it would have been murder. Can't spell it out much simpler than that.

And you're still assuming rather than proving.

If you shoot me in the shoulder, and I grunt and tackle you, and we go through the window, and I leap forward as soon as I land, grab the gun, and shoot you before you can get back to your feet, is it murder?

The one aspect which cannot be known, but makes all the difference, is whether Belkar had visibly surrendered. He certainly didn't audibly surrender, and from a rules perspective there isn't any indication of a surrender either. The -only- thing the murder angle has going for it is that Miko was unsure of whether she should kill him or not... but that could just as easily be the line between good and neutral, and you -need- it to be the line between good and evil.

[Gurgeh]

Argument by analogy is no argument at all. Don't equivocate.

As far as the actual issue goes, it seems that we have once again come up against the limitations of the medium. I maintain that Belkar was effectively helpless; he was stationary, on his back, and given his later response to Roy's monologue, partly delirious - but that's my interpretation of the situation. If you want to dispute my reading, and say that he was ready and able to spring up and cut Miko's throat, then I certainly can't offer you irrefutable proof to the contrary.

Consequently, I see little point in continuing the debate, given that we're arguing over premises that can't be reliably tested. I hope you can at least agree that if Belkar had been utterly helpless, his slaying would have caused Miko to fall for all the reasons already listed in the thread.

[FujinAkari]

Argument by analogy is no argument at all. Don't equivocate.

No, argument by analogy is a perfectly valid form of debate, particularly because it allows us to expose the core concepts at work.


Consequently, I see little point in continuing the debate, given that we're arguing over premises that can't be reliably tested. I hope you can at least agree that if Belkar had been utterly helpless, his slaying would have caused Miko to fall for all the reasons already listed in the thread.

I would say that if Belkar had surrendered, then killing him would have caused Miko to fall. Where I think the breakdown is is that I consider it a neutral act to kill a fleeing character where capture is a valid option. Belkar had, at this point, killed a guard, attacked Miko, and was actively resisting arrest. While the Good act is, unquestionably, to capture him using whatever means are necessary, I don't think killing him is necessarily Evil.

Again, if Belkar had surrendered, then I think we're in agreement, I just don't see Belkar as having surrendered.

[Vinyadan]

Replacing "morally justified in D&D" with "a nonevil act in D&D" is not a very big difference.

I am not "replacing". The question is if Miko would have fallen, had she killed Belkar. If you like it better, would killing Belkar make Miko cease to be lawful good, willfully commit an evil act, or grossly violate the code of conduct?

Not everyone seems to agree on the subject, so I think the question is worth asking.

Right now, my opinion is that Miko would have fallen for killing without actual need. Yes, the code also says that paladins must punish those who arm or threaten innocents, but this seems to have more to do with the knight on a quest in the wilderness, where no one else can act, than with the inhabitant of a populated, well-administered city-state with its own justice system, which the paladin is supposed to serve.

I also wonder if this would have saved Shojo, but here I go into wild speculation.

[hamishspence]

If you like it better, would killing Belkar make Miko cease to be lawful good, willfully commit an evil act, or grossly violate the code of conduct?

Not everyone seems to agree on the subject, so I think the question is worth asking.

Agreed.


Right now, my opinion is that Miko would have fallen for killing without actual need. Yes, the code also says that paladins must punish those who arm or threaten innocents, but this seems to have more to do with the knight on a quest in the wilderness, where no one else can act, than with the inhabitant of a populated, well-administered city-state with its own justice system, which the paladin is supposed to serve.

I also wonder if this would have saved Shojo, but here I go into wild speculation.

I tend to agree with this. While there might be circumstances where the paladin "has the right to judge, sentence and execute people" - this case doesn't really seem to fit them.

"Belkar is still in the act of escaping" does not seem very convincing at the moment.

[Bastian]

Not really sure what you're getting at here...


That a full round had passed in which (apparently) nor Belkar nor Miko took any action. Miko's hesitation and her subsequent giving in to her anger (that is how I interpret the change in her expression and the movements of her arms) indicate intentionality.

I was also pointing out that a warrior with Miko's impressive array of skills (including Stunning Kicks) could have easily captured Belkar at that point in their fight, which would have been the lawful (and good) thing to do - as Shojo urges her to do. But she goes for her most lethal blow.

In your 'shoot me in the shoulder' example, you are not taking into consideration that round (moment?) of hesitation. You are not shooting me while I am getting up to to try to kill you, you are shooting me while I lay supine (don't want that guy to scream again, he sounded scary) on the floor, not making any move. You then wait for a second while you take aim, and instead of screaming 'Freeze, you [insert derogative term here] Halfling!" you scream 'Time to die!".




I make sure the scented oils and fragrant candles merge into a blissful experience to everyone within the parlor.

Wow, you guys are really organized in there!

[Rorrik]

Okay, upon reviewing the story, I'm not sure Belkar is really down for the count, but he is unarmed and apparently groggy. However, even if he still a threat, at this point Miko's killing him would have been far from justice, but rather rage and hurt pride for Belkar having made a fool of her. If not for the hurt pride, she would have realized that Belkar could have easily coup de gras-ed her while she was down in gardens and didn't. Had she been even this aware, she would have seen Belkar had no real intention of killing her.

I think that while killing him in that moment may not have been murder, though I feel most courts would have ruled it as such, it was certainly not an act motivated by justice or good, but by rage and hatred, and so would have caused a fall. Even after it's over (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html), she has a malicious desire to feel his blood with her own hand, hardly paladinic.

[FujinAkari]

That a full round had passed in which (apparently) nor Belkar nor Miko took any action. Miko's hesitation and her subsequent giving in to her anger (that is how I interpret the change in her expression and the movements of her arms) indicate intentionality.

And this is exacty the point where our opinions differ. I don't see a full round passing, I see a bullrush through a window and then Miko goes in for her second attack, she hesitates a second to give Belkar an opportunity to surrender, and then is about to finish him off.

Not the good path, admittedly, but I won't call it evil either. The inclusion of an actual action for Belkar which he does not take could easily cross the line over to evil, but I simply don't see that as having happened, and with the limitations of stick-art I don't think it can be proved which scenario actually occured :)

[hamishspence]

Thing is- that's not her choice to make- she's not judge and jury. She has the right to defend herself from attack. She has the right to defend others from attack. She does not have the right to "judge and execute".

IMO of course.

[FujinAkari]

Thing is- that's not her choice to make- she's not judge and jury. She has the right to defend herself from attack. She has the right to defend others from attack. She does not have the right to "judge and execute".

IMO of course.

Neither does the cop who shoots a fleeing criminal.

Again, your entire argument hinges on the idea that Miko stopped attacking, Belkar did nothing on his turn, and then Miko decided to kill him anyway, rather than Miko killing him on her turn without giving him the chance to continue fighting.

[hamishspence]

The fact that several panels take place between her "die, evildoer" and V shooting her- in which Belkar does nothing, does seem to support it.

And "cop shooting fleeing criminal" doesn't apply here- Belkar is not fleeing at the moment.

[Tricia]

I'm going to be generous and assume that both of you meant to say "supine". Let's leave it there for now.No, they didn't. "Prone", in D&D terms, means "The character is on the ground." (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Prone) There is no "supine" in D&D terms, because there is no difference between facing up or down in how they're treated. Like it or not, that's how the term works. Take it up with WotC.

As for the topic at hand, I tend to think of it as more something that would be up to DM digression. It's rather in the middle of things, or at least so I find.

[FujinAkari]

The fact that several panels take place between her "die, evildoer" and V shooting her does seem to support it.

Either Miko is attacking or she isn't. The entire premise of the argument would be "If Miko attacked" not "If Miko stood around for a long time and then V shot her."

Or are you arbitrarily deciding that the moment you want to argue is not when Miko went to attack, but several rounds after Miko went to attack?


And "cop shooting fleeing criminal" doesn't apply here- Belkar is not fleeing at the moment.

Only if you assume that Miko stood around for a long time which -isn't- the premise this thread is about, as I've mentioned at least three times now.

[hamishspence]

Or are you arbitrarily deciding that the moment you want to argue is not when Miko went to attack, but several rounds after Miko went to attack?


If V had not shot Miko- but events had proceeded exactly as Belkar planned- which means she, after several panels, would have chosen to strike him down- would she have fallen?

That seems to me the premise of the OP- is Belkar's claim to V, that V's interference prevented Miko from falling and she would have fallen if V hadn't intervened, correct?

[Bastian]

And this is exacty the point where our opinions differ. I don't see a full round passing, I see a bullrush through a window and then Miko goes in for her second attack, she hesitates a second to give Belkar an opportunity to surrender, and then is about to finish him off.

Not the good path, admittedly, but I won't call it evil either. The inclusion of an actual action for Belkar which he does not take could easily cross the line over to evil, but I simply don't see that as having happened, and with the limitations of stick-art I don't think it can be proved which scenario actually occured :)

Let's agree to disagree then and light a fragrant candle to celebrate your being wrong the inconclusive evidence.

[Bastian]

If V had not shot Miko- but events had proceeded exactly as Belkar planned- which means she, after several panels, would have chosen to strike him down- would she have fallen?

That seems to me the premise of the OP- is Belkar's claim to V, that V's interference prevented Miko from falling and she would have fallen if V hadn't intervened, correct?

That is how I understood it.

[FujinAkari]

If V had not shot Miko- but events had proceeded exactly as Belkar planned- which means she, after several panels, would have chosen to strike him down- would she have fallen?

I'm really not sure how that could have been Belkar's plan, but if that is how you are interpretting the question then we aren't arguing about anything.

My reading of the question was "If Miko had killed Belkar [instead of hesitating and beign subsequently shot by V] would she have fallen?" There was nothing in the OP about V acting any differently, so I presumed that the change was in how Miko responded to the situation.

[hamishspence]

I'm really not sure how that could have been Belkar's plan

He states here:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0286.html

that he'd gone to a great deal of effort to "push her over the edge" - so that when she killed him she'd "lose her paladinhood through her own wilful actions" - and that V's interference spoiled it.

[Bastian]

So you thought she was going to kill him. too?

No one pays you to think, Pence.

[FujinAkari]

He states here:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0286.html

that he'd gone to a great deal of effort to "push her over the edge" - so that when she killed him she'd "lose her paladinhood through her own wilful actions" - and that V's interference spoiled it.

I was referring to


exactly as Belkar planned- which means she, after several panels, would have chosen to strike him down-

I don't think Belkar could have planned on her hesitation, and the hesitation is crucial for his plan to work.

[hamishspence]

I figure he knows enough about her to predict that when she has the upper hand, she will announce her intent to kill before actually doing so.

Just like with Roy when she announced that she was "executing him for crimes against existence".

If he'd been wrong, and rather than doing that she'd simply struck, no warnings- because she believed she was still in the middle of a life-and-death fight with him about to attack from the prone position- perhaps "good intentions" (self-defence) would have been present.

[Bastian]

I figure he knows enough about her to predict that when she has the upper hand, she will announce her intent to kill before actually doing so.

Just like with Roy when she announced that she was "executing him for crimes against existence".

If he'd been wrong, and rather than doing that she'd simply struck, no warnings- because she believed she was still in the middle of a life-and-death fight with him about to attack from the prone position- perhaps "good intentions" (self-defence) would have been present.

This.

I might owe the tables of the board an apology.

[FujinAkari]

I figure he knows enough about her to predict that when she has the upper hand, she will announce her intent to kill before actually doing so.

Just like with Roy when she announced that she was "executing him for crimes against existence".

Talking is still a free action :P

But whatever, since we apparently agree then I suppose there isn't anything worth arguing about.

[Bastian]

Tsk. I guess we could always start over, but so much work wasted.

[hamishspence]

But whatever, since we apparently agree then I suppose there isn't anything worth arguing about.

The only thing we agree on is that if Miko had killed Belkar at the right moment- i.e. the moment when they hit the floor, then she probably wouldn't have fallen, since self-defence is still a viable interpretation.

If she'd killed him at the moment he'd predicted she would- i.e. after several moments of being consumed by hatred, and with him making no offensive moves- then it seems far more likely that she would have fallen.

Is his claim to V- that V prevented Miko from making a Fall-worthy decision- accurate?

I think it is.

[FujinAkari]

The only thing we agree on is that if Miko had killed Belkar at the right moment- i.e. the moment when they hit the floor, then she probably wouldn't have fallen, since self-defence is still a viable interpretation.

If she'd killed him at the moment he'd predicted she would- i.e. after several moments of being consumed by hatred, and with him making no offensive moves- then it seems far more likely that she would have fallen.

Is his claim to V- that V prevented Miko from making a Fall-worthy decision- accurate?

I think it is.

That is an awful big definition of "only" but yeah, we agree on all of that :smallconfused:

[Rorrik]

I don't think Belkar could have planned on her hesitation, and the hesitation is crucial for his plan to work.

The hesitation wasn't crucial to Belkar's plan, the emotions that the hesitation is evidence of was crucial to Belkar's plan.

[FujinAkari]

The hesitation wasn't crucial to Belkar's plan, the emotions that the hesitation is evidence of was crucial to Belkar's plan.

I really don't understand what you're talking about, but so far everyone agrees that if Miko had immediately struck Belkar down as soon as she regained her feet because she still felt she was in the midst of combat, it would have still counted as self-defense.

The hesitation is required for it to be murder, since that is what would demonstrate that Belkar was no longer a threat.

[Rorrik]

But it doesn't have to be murder to make the paladin fall. The 12 gods would have judged what was in her heart as rage in the kill and she would have fallen. The hesitation is what shows us as an audience, or a judge in the court case, that it was in fact murder, but even if that evidence had not be present, it would have been murder in the eyes of the gods.

[Kish]

See, now, that's an assertion. It is not proof. I can assert, with equal validity (that is, none at all), "the Twelve Gods would have noted that she killed a Chaotic Evil halfling who had decapitated a guard to taunt her and seen absolutely nothing that merited them even thinking of intervening in any way."

[Winter]

That is an awful big definition of "only" but yeah, we agree on all of that :smallconfused:

It is big, but it is the one that is necessary here.

Miko's move would not have been a swift action within a fight, it was total "strike me down with all your hatred"-territory (with all the "Fall to the Dark Side" implications that comes with).

[FujinAkari]

It is big, but it is the one that is necessary here.

Miko's move would not have been a swift action within a fight, it was total "strike me down with all your hatred"-territory (with all the "Fall to the Dark Side" implications that comes with).

What are you talking about? Miko gets three attacks a round, attack one was a bullrush to knock Belkar through the window, attack 2 and 3 (which is the attack we're talking about if we are assuming Miko had simply finshed off Belkar) are, by definition, -faster- than a swift action.

[zimmerwald1915]

What are you talking about? Miko gets three attacks a round, attack one was a bullrush to knock Belkar through the window, attack 2 and 3 (which is the attack we're talking about if we are assuming Miko had simply finshed off Belkar) are, by definition, -faster- than a swift action.
What are you talking about? A bull rush is a standard action, and cannot be made as part of a full attack. The round-by-round description would have gone something like this:

Rd X(M): Miko bull-rushes Belkar through the window. Rd X(B): Belkar taunts Miko.
Rd X+1(M): Miko brandishes her sword at Belkar. Rd X+1(V): Vaarsuvius blasts Miko.

[Winter]

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about her face. Ignore the rules, just check how she's standing there and just look at her face.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html

If that is not "strike me down with all your hatred" then there has never been one. Should you not look at her face and say "I have been wrong" then discussing this becomes pointless as there's nothing "argueing" can solve.
Also notice how she's trembling with her arms. This is not a swift attack action and it also leaves Vaarsuvius to see the situation, decide, and cast a spell.

I think the art of the comic makes it very obvious what the author wants to tell us there. If you want the rules to stand in the way of an awesome story... feel free to do so, I just do not follow this philosophy.

[MReav]

Miko didn't have to strike a killing blow. She's a monk. She can deliver non-fatal blows if she needs to without penalty due to Improved Unarmed Strike.

However, I'm of the camp that Belkar's idea of Miko killing Belkar making Miko Fall was presumptuous. Good aligned characters have killed helpless enemy combatants (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html) without anyone calling their alignment into question (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html). Belkar has done far more to antagonize Miko than those goblins have Roy, and is probably responsible for more evil than those goblins. It wouldn't be a good action, but we're not exactly getting into evil territory.

[hamishspence]

Context is everything.

A soldier behind enemy lines in a warzone- catching a guard patrol asleep- knowing if he bypasses them they'll probably be coming after him from behind, pragmatically choosing to kill them - doesn't seem especially evil.

A cop smashing a prone, unmoving criminal's skull with one blow, full of rage- the nearest equivalent to what Miko stabbing Belkar would have been- seems iffier.

[Bastian]

Winter and MReav just captured what I was getting at.

[MReav]

Context is everything.

A soldier behind enemy lines in a warzone- catching a guard patrol asleep- knowing if he bypasses them they'll probably be coming after him from behind, pragmatically choosing to kill them - doesn't seem especially evil.

A cop smashing a prone, unmoving criminal's skull with one blow, full of rage- the nearest equivalent to what Miko stabbing Belkar would have been- seems iffier.

One that killed one of the cop's subordinates, desecrated his corpse, stabbed the cop repeatedly, set the cop on fire, is clearly remorseless, and has proven to be cunning and dangerous enough to escape imprisonment. At this point the cop is not really acting as an enforcer of justice, and more someone with a Provocation argument who simply doesn't have time to take off the uniform.

[Kish]

Context is everything.

A soldier behind enemy lines in a warzone- catching a guard patrol asleep- knowing if he bypasses them they'll probably be coming after him from behind, pragmatically choosing to kill them - doesn't seem especially evil.

A cop smashing a prone, unmoving criminal's skull with one blow, full of rage- the nearest equivalent to what Miko stabbing Belkar would have been- seems iffier.
I hadn't brought up the sleeping-goblin killing because it's so early that I'm sympathetic to arguments that it shouldn't be used as evidence of anything anymore. However, since it's apparently been brought in:

Roy is killing members of a Usually Evil species, without knowledge of their individual alignments, who were completely helpless, in their sleep, without any efforts to talk to them first. Chop-chop-chop like he's running a goblin-head assembly line. And (Start of Darkness spoiler)we now know that they were in fact draftees, who worked for Xykon because he literally threatened to kill them all if they didn't. Miko is trying to kill a character she knows to be personally evil, who attempted to terrorize her sapient horse, slaughtered a guard and used his innards to taunt her, at the end of a long battle through the whole palace.

And she is no more a cop than Roy is. If you're going to talk about her social position as a samurai, it means she's allowed to kill random peasants because she wants to test how sharp her sword is*--not that she has to make sure every dirty (and morally appalling) foreigner gets due process.

I can understand arguments that both acts would be/are evil. I can understand arguments that neither is. I can understand arguments that what Roy did was evil and what Miko tried to do is not, and, as I said, I can understand arguments that nothing from such an early strip should be considered to mean anything anymore. But I have real trouble grasping how anyone would argue that Roy's killing the sleeping goblins is less evil than Miko's trying to kill Belkar, without bringing protagonist-centered morality into it.

*Yes, this was a thing. Read some Japanese history. Obviously the samurai who are also paladins of the Sapphire Guard cannot indulge such samurai rights without Falling as paladins.

[Gurgeh]

I wouldn't say that it was less evil, but - early strip or not - it was less relevant because Roy is not a paladin. The moral standards he's expected to live up to are considerably lower.

[lio45]

But I have real trouble grasping how anyone would argue that Roy's killing the sleeping goblins is less evil than Miko's trying to kill Belkar, without bringing protagonist-centered morality into it.

Real trouble, really?

The sleeping goblins are monsters in a dungeon that the Order entered to try and defeat Xykon, a confirmed Evil bastard. So, anything in that dungeon that stands between the Order and their goal is fair game. Were those goblins awake, their sole goal would be to kill Roy and his party. The Order would've fought and killed them anyway; casting Sleep on them is just another way to kill them as part of that fight. Same result.

Belkar, on the other hand, is unarmed and vanquished, in the heart of a castle full of armed people, in a city that has laws and infrastructure to handle him and judge him. He's not a threat. Sure, they were dumb enough to put him in a non-anti-magic cell, but there's no reason not to learn from that mistake this time. (Also search him properly.)

Reverse the roles (evil halfling as a dungeon monster barring your way to Xykon, and a helpless, defeated goblin in the middle of the Azure City castle), and everything changes. Killing Belkar's fair game, executing the goblin is not. So, yes, context is everything.



Context is everything.

A soldier behind enemy lines in a warzone- catching a guard patrol asleep- knowing if he bypasses them they'll probably be coming after him from behind, pragmatically choosing to kill them - doesn't seem especially evil.

[MReav]

Belkar, on the other hand, is unarmed and vanquished, in the heart of a castle full of armed people, in a city that has laws and infrastructure to handle him and judge him. He's not a threat. Sure, they were dumb enough to put him in a non-anti-magic cell, but there's no reason not to learn from that mistake this time. (Also search him properly.)

I seriously think you underestimate Belkar's capacity for improvisation and the fact that he was standing within a round of Miko not being directly over him suggests he was not helpless so much as merely momentary disadvantaged.

[Snails]

But it doesn't have to be murder to make the paladin fall. The 12 gods would have judged what was in her heart as rage in the kill and she would have fallen. The hesitation is what shows us as an audience, or a judge in the court case, that it was in fact murder, but even if that evidence had not be present, it would have been murder in the eyes of the gods.

Whether it is murder is not necessarily important. A cold-blooded murder is often evil and/or chaotic, but not always either of those things.

What matters is whether Miko is primarily acting out of a desire to enjoy causing pain on another, or acting egregiously dishonorable.

Rage is a factor Belkar is using to manipulate Miko, but acting out of rage is not itself evil or chaotic.

I think that Belkar's hypothesis about the likely results is not ridiculous at all.
However, if I were the DM adjudicating the execution of Belkar, no, I would not take away Miko's paladin status over this event. That fact that killing Belkar under these circumstances seems quite reasonable within the heroic genre, even if not ideal, would gain Miko the benefit of the doubt.

I would not want to tell a player that I am sure what his character was really thinking, based on merely strongly-motivated suspicions Of course, the Twelve Gods of the OotSverse might have insights that a human DM lacks.

[theNater]

And she is no more a cop than Roy is.
Miko is much more a cop than Roy is, by her position in the Sapphire Guard. That position enables her to make arrests, hold prisoners, and bring those prisoners to trial. Roy does not have such support.

I don't want to take sides on which of these actions was evil or not, but Miko had certain practical options that were not available to Roy. That should be taken into account when making comparisons.

[FujinAkari]

Miko is much more a cop than Roy is, by her position in the Sapphire Guard. That position enables her to make arrests, hold prisoners, and bring those prisoners to trial. Roy does not have such support.

Yeah, Roy has never arrested anyone one held any prisoners. He most certainly never delivered prisoners to the authorities to stand trial (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0072.html)

((And this is the first of three times that Roy captured the LG and had them arrested. The only real difference is that Miko works directly for the city, whereas Roy merely works with the city))

[lio45]

Yeah, Roy has never arrested anyone one held any prisoners. He most certainly never delivered prisoners to the authorities to stand trial (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0072.html)

((And this is the first of three times that Roy captured the LG and had them arrested. The only real difference is that Miko works directly for the city, whereas Roy merely works with the city))

If I, as an ordinary civilian, happen to spot someone committing a felony in front of several witnesses and then go out of my way to try and manage to capture that person somehow (not that I'd advise anyone to attempt that), after which I proceed to deliver him to the authorities...

...that action suddenly grants me cop status?

That "only real difference" of yours is actually THE difference. A real cop works directly for the city, a brave good samaritan merely works with the city (and is no cop).

[lio45]

I seriously think you underestimate Belkar's capacity for improvisation and the fact that he was standing within a round of Miko not being directly over him suggests he was not helpless so much as merely momentary disadvantaged.

Maybe... You'll note though that I never said it'd be THAT bad to execute Belkar then. Mainly because you are right in saying that it's not totally clear how over the combat is at that point.

My point was simply that Roy finishing off the goblins wasn't unilaterally worse than Miko finishing off Belkar then.

[FujinAkari]

If I, as an ordinary civilian, happen to spot someone committing a felony in front of several witnesses and then go out of my way to try and manage to capture that person somehow (not that I'd advise anyone to attempt that), after which I proceed to deliver him to the authorities...

...that action suddenly grants me cop status?


Miko is much more a cop than Roy is, by her position in the Sapphire Guard. That position enables her to make arrests, hold prisoners, and bring those prisoners to trial. Roy does not have such support.

See, context is important.

When the claim is made that Roy does not have the resources necessary to take prisoners, arrest people, or see that people go to trial, then the fact that Roy has done all of those things on multiple occasions is relevant, ne?

Don't try and change the subject :)

[MReav]

Maybe... You'll note though that I never said it'd be THAT bad to execute Belkar then. Mainly because you are right in saying that it's not totally clear how over the combat is at that point.

My point was simply that Roy finishing off the goblins wasn't unilaterally worse than Miko finishing off Belkar then.

So can we agree that the act, if not moral, wasn't exactly immoral? Amoral if you will?

[Rorrik]

However, I'm of the camp that Belkar's idea of Miko killing Belkar making Miko Fall was presumptuous. Good aligned characters have killed helpless enemy combatants (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html) without anyone calling their alignment into question (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html). Belkar has done far more to antagonize Miko than those goblins have Roy, and is probably responsible for more evil than those goblins. It wouldn't be a good action, but we're not exactly getting into evil territory.

Good aligned is not the same as Paladin. I believe that a paladin is held to a higher code of honor than that chosen by Roy as a Lawful Good fighter.

My point is that Miko's action was primary motivated by hate of Belkar, this is not an appropriate motivation for a Paladin. I think Belkar thought this one out very well and hsi plan to bring Miko down was flawless, except the for the losing the level thing.

Also, now that people mention it, the fact that V had time to cast a spell means this did not all happen on Miko's single turn, unless V was consistently declaring the readied action "cast scorching ray on whoever should crash through a window and attempt to kill Belkar." Miko definitely pauses a turn here.

[theNater]

See, context is important.

When the claim is made that Roy does not have the resources necessary to take prisoners, arrest people, or see that people go to trial, then the fact that Roy has done all of those things on multiple occasions is relevant, ne?

Don't try and change the subject :)
Context is indeed important.

When Miko was fighting Belkar, all of her resources were right there. Unless your contention is that Roy could have reasonably delivered those goblins to the authorities for trial, Miko(fighting Belkar) is much more of a cop than Roy(killing goblins).

[Kish]

My point is that Miko's action was primary motivated by hate of Belkar, this is not an appropriate motivation for a Paladin. I think Belkar thought this one out very well and hsi plan to bring Miko down was flawless, except the for the losing the level thing.

You mean "except for the staying dead thing"?

Also, where do you get that killing serial killers who have killed people you knew because you hate them is "not an appropriate motivation for a Paladin"? They're not Jedi. You will not find "you mustn't hate the people you kill" in any D&D book's description of the paladin code.


Also, now that people mention it, the fact that V had time to cast a spell means this did not all happen on Miko's single turn, unless V was consistently declaring the readied action "cast scorching ray on whoever should crash through a window and attempt to kill Belkar." Miko definitely pauses a turn here.
That's not how rounds work.
One round: Miko bull rushes Belkar through the window. Belkar may have already taken an action, or he may forfeit his action to lie on the ground. But bull rushing, as has already been stated, occupies Miko's entire turn that round.
The next round in which an action takes place: Vaarsuvius blasts Miko. There may, or may not, be another round in between in which no one does anything. If so, it had better be a surprise round, or it becomes very odd indeed that everyone is just standing and watching Miko stand over Belkar (instead of just really quite odd, that everyone who would have acted was unable to act in the surprise round).


Unless your contention is that Roy could have reasonably delivered those goblins to the authorities for trial, Miko(fighting Belkar) is much more of a cop than Roy(killing goblins).
That all depends on what you consider "reasonably," doesn't it? However. Roy had already (Dungeon Crawling Fools) captured goblins and just let them go, not to say left uncertain and unspottable (but known, since they stabbed Elan a lot) numbers of goblin ninjas behind him. "Roy didn't want to leave enemy combatants behind where they might come after him when they woke up" doesn't hold water at all. Whatever his reason for chopping those goblins' heads off, that wasn't it.

[FujinAkari]

Good aligned is not the same as Paladin. I believe that a paladin is held to a higher code of honor than that chosen by Roy as a Lawful Good fighter.

While true, this is also irrelevant. The only thing different about Miko from Roy is that she is penalized for doing obviously evil things, which is precisely what is being debated. You are pre-supposing she would fall as evidence that she would fall, which is pretty obvious circular reasoning.


Also, now that people mention it, the fact that V had time to cast a spell means this did not all happen on Miko's single turn, unless V was consistently declaring the readied action "cast scorching ray on whoever should crash through a window and attempt to kill Belkar." Miko definitely pauses a turn here.

But, once again, the assumption being discussed is if Miko -hadn't- hesitated and had struck Belkar down. Pointing out that she did hesitate in the strip is pretty obvious, I can also point out that Miko didn't fall in the strip...

[Rorrik]

While true, this is also irrelevant. The only thing different about Miko from Roy is that she is penalized for doing obviously evil things, which is precisely what is being debated. You are pre-supposing she would fall as evidence that she would fall, which is pretty obvious circular reasoning.

I'm saying that while someone might not question a lawful good person stabbing someone in the back, for a paladin that is a highly taboo action. Being a paladin has a more strict code than simply being lawful good, and so even acts that are not generally considered evil can be considered inappropriate for a paladin. I don't think, like some have said, that a change of alignment is even necessary for Miko to fall.


But, once again, the assumption being discussed is if Miko -hadn't- hesitated and had struck Belkar down. Pointing out that she did hesitate in the strip is pretty obvious, I can also point out that Miko didn't fall in the strip...

I was speaking to those who still seemed to believe Miko had more actions after her bullrush, yourself included if I am not mistaken.

I have already argued to the point that the hesitation is merely evidence given us by the author and not the reason for the fall.

[theNater]

That all depends on what you consider "reasonably," doesn't it? However. Roy had already (Dungeon Crawling Fools) captured goblins and just let them go, not to say left uncertain and unspottable (but known, since they stabbed Elan a lot) numbers of goblin ninjas behind him. "Roy didn't want to leave enemy combatants behind where they might come after him when they woke up" doesn't hold water at all. Whatever his reason for chopping those goblins' heads off, that wasn't it.
I'm not sure why you're talking about letting goblins go, when what I said was that Roy can't reasonably deliver them to authorities for trial.

Roy has two basic options: let them go, or kill them.
Miko has three: let Belkar go, kill him, or arrest him for trial.

The presence of that third option is something that needs to be considered when comparing these two events. Furthermore, because of Miko's position in the Sapphire Guard, she frequently has that option and has been trained to take advantage of it. Roy, on the other hand, rarely has that option and may or may not have been trained in taking advantage of it. That's what I mean when I say Miko is much more of a cop than Roy is.

[FujinAkari]

I'm saying that while someone might not question a lawful good person stabbing someone in the back, for a paladin that is a highly taboo action. Being a paladin has a more strict code than simply being lawful good, and so even acts that are not generally considered evil can be considered inappropriate for a paladin. I don't think, like some have said, that a change of alignment is even necessary for Miko to fall.

You are correct, but the PHB is very explicit as to what a paladin is required to do. Which of the following do you feel Miko was doing in this scene?

- Failing to respect Legitimate Authority
- Lying
- Cheating
- Utilizing Poison
- Rendered Assistance to someone who would use it for Evil.
- Failed to Render Assistance to someone who would not act for Evil
- Failed to Punish someone who had done harm to another

Because, other than those, nothing will cause her to fall (well, outside of failing to maintain a Lawful Good alignment) outside of DM intervention.

[Crisis21]

You are correct, but the PHB is very explicit as to what a paladin is required to do. Which of the following do you feel Miko was doing in this scene?

- Failing to respect Legitimate Authority
- Lying
- Cheating
- Utilizing Poison
- Rendered Assistance to someone who would use it for Evil.
- Failed to Render Assistance to someone who would not act for Evil
- Failed to Punish someone who had done harm to another

Because, other than those, nothing will cause her to fall (well, outside of failing to maintain a Lawful Good alignment) outside of DM intervention.

Not even cold-blooded murder of someone she'd already incapacitated and was no longer a threat to anyone around him?

There's a big difference between killing someone in a fight where they're probably trying to kill you and killing someone when they have absolutely no way to defend themselves.

Belkar was in no position to mount any sort of defense against Miko at that point, which would make his death at her hands a significantly more evil act than if she had killed him in combat.

Especially when you consider that killing someone who was defenseless is what caused Miko to fall anyway.

[Bastian]

From the Book of Exhalted Deeds: Chapter 1 - The Nature of Good

[Emphasis mine]


The second consideration is that violence should have good intentions. Launching an incursion into orc territory is not a good act if the primary motivation is profit, whether that means clearing the treasure out of the ruins the orcs inhabit or claiming their land for its natural resources. Violence against evil is acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts from being done.

Miko's primary motivation was exacting revenge.
She has attenuating circumstances for sure: Belkar has killed a guard and is a master of provocation. But again, she is a Paladin. Not simply a lawful good fighter. And I am not sure her reaction was solely caused by Belkar: remember her very first line (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0120.html) - the roots of her downfall are already visible.



Closely tied to mercy, forgiveness is still a separate act. Mercy means respecting the life of an enemy, treating him like a being worthy of kindness. Forgiveness is an act of faith, a willingness to believe that even the vilest evildoer is capable of change.

Compare her behavior to O-Chul's one towards the Monster in the Darkness.

With evil acts on a smaller scale, even the most virtuous characters can find themselves tempted to agree that a very good end justifies a mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to prevent a minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe? A world-shattering catastrophe? In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve. A paladin who knowingly commits an evil act in pursuit of any end no matter how good still jeopardizes her paladinhood

So Belkar might actually have been right, after all. Knowingly is the operative word here.

The principles of good make certain demands about how criminals are treated. The death penalty for serious crimes is commonly practiced and widely accepted and does not qualify as evil, even if many good characters, firm in their belief that redemption is always possible, would rather see even the vilest criminals offered the opportunity to find their way to righteousness
during their imprisonment.

Compare with Hinjo's behavior (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html) when facing the betrayal by Shojo.

Further to that, she was still determined to kill Belkar (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html) after her Fall - a Belkar who posed no threat at all - unless you are suggesting he could have tackled her with his imposing 3'2'' physique.

You don't get to kill people because they happen to do something wrong.

[FujinAkari]

Not even cold-blooded murder

... yeah.

The fact that you are even attempting to label this Cold-Blooded tells me that you are so extremely biased against Miko in this situation that you aren't even bothering to look at the situation with anything approaching a critical eye. Sorry, but once you formerly disassociate yourself from the facts, I really don't see much a reason trying to hold a rational discussion with you.


From the Book of Exhalted Deeds: Chapter 1 - The Nature of Good

Snip

Congratulations, you have successfully proven that attacking Belkar is not a Good act, which is something no one is contesting. Unfortunately, your goal is to prove that it is Evil, since that is necessary to cause her to fall.


And I am not sure her reaction was solely caused by Belkar: remember her very first line (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0120.html) - the roots of her downfall are already visible.

Because she wanted to kill those who had destroyed a gate? Yeah, nothing says "non-Paladin" like Fulfulling your duty (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html). Miko was explicitly and continually trained to wipe out all who threaten the gates, so the fact she presumed she needed to do that isn't a strike against her anymore than a soldier presumes he is supposed to kill the enemy.

[Crisis21]

... yeah.

The fact that you are even attempting to label this Cold-Blooded tells me that you are so extremely biased against Miko in this situation that you aren't even bothering to look at the situation with anything approaching a critical eye. Sorry, but once you formerly disassociate yourself from the facts, I really don't see much a reason trying to hold a rational discussion with you.

Okay, perhaps cold-blooded would not be an accurate term. Miko is clearly so angry she can't even see straight.

However, this fact is not an excuse. Beating on someone when they're already down and incapable of defending themselves is not a virtuous act, or even really a neutral one, no matter how angry you are.

Miko was letting her anger override her rational thinking, the very same thing which led to her striking down Shojo later. A paladin cannot afford to let their anger rule them in the course of executing their duties, because such a state is an open invitation for them to be manipulated by evil forces.

And my final point in why Miko would have fallen is that it was precisely what Rich was building up to in the scene. The entire scene with Belkar about to be killed by Miko directly foreshadows her later fall when she murders Shojo.

The fact that Belkar himself is of Evil alignment would not have made Miko's action any less evil in the state she was in. Attacking Belkar by itself would not be an Evil act. If it was, Miko would have fallen long before she killed Shojo. However, willfully attacking someone who cannot defend themselves is an Evil act no matter what they have done in the past. Especially when the option to arrest and imprison them is readily and easily available.

Slaying a helpless Belkar, in the middle of the throne room (being used as a courtroom) no less, would have been putting her personal dislike of Belkar above her duty as a Paladin. Even Shojo thinks this, as he points out that Miko's potential action of summary execution would not have been lawful given that Belkar had not yet been tried for his crime.

Belkar was not an enemy of the state or a member of a nation Azure City was at war with. He was merely an escaped prisoner. Miko was thus acting in the capacity of law enforcement with the duty of apprehending him and bringing him to trial. It was not her duty to act as judge, jury, or executioner. Killing Belkar in the midst of combat would have been one thing, killing him after he had been defeated and the option to arrest him would have been quite another.

Miko would have fallen had she killed Belkar at that moment.

[Bastian]

Congratulations, you have successfully proven that attacking Belkar is not a Good act, which is something no one is contesting. Unfortunately, your goal is to prove that it is Evil, since that is necessary to cause her to fall.


Intention is a key component in evaluating an evil or good act, as you initially state:



"It isn't the ideal solution, but it is definately lawful and I don't think would count as an intentionally evil act."


I have shown, repeatedly, how Miko's intention is murderous, not righteous.
Murder, according to D&D, is evil.
The evidence (Miko's words before and after the fight, and after her Fall, the fact that 3 different panels were used to portray her, the facial expressions, etc.) is overwhelming. I know you disagree with this reading, despite not offering any other supporting evidence, and I respect that. What further evidence would you like me to provide?

I have also pointed out that is not definitely lawful: that would have been handing Belkar over to the authorities - again, in Hinjo's words, you don't get to kill people because they do something bad.




Because she wanted to kill those who had destroyed a gate? Yeah, nothing says "non-Paladin" like Fulfulling your duty (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html). Miko was explicitly and continually trained to wipe out all who threaten the gates, so the fact she presumed she needed to do that isn't a strike against her anymore than a soldier presumes he is supposed to kill the enemy.

Because she was keen to kill them and disappointed when told she was not meant to.

Here is the complete scene (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0290.html).
Miko sighs.
She is not happy with it. You know, for a Paladin fulfilling your duty without the need of spilling blood should be a reason for elation, not disappointment. I addition, she was trained to be a Paladin of the Sapphire Guarda, like Hinjo, O-Chul and all the others. Not a just a trained killer 'fulfilling your duty'.

[FujinAkari]

Intention is a key component in evaluating an evil or good act

Rich denies this interpretation in the introductory commentary for Start of Darkness.


I have shown, repeatedly, how Miko's intention is murderous, You have certainly asserted it, but unless you're psychic it is impossible to know what her intentions are. Rich describes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=929083&postcount=174) her mindset at this point and we can notice he does not use the term murder. Indeed, he makes it quite clear that the driving force behind Miko's desire to kill is the crimes which Belkar has committed, making murder the absolute wrong term to describe her intent. Justice or Vengeance would both fit, but it is quite clear that she is responding to the wrongs committed, not the desire to stab something.


The evidence (Miko's words before and after the fight, and after her Fall, the fact that 3 different panels were used to portray her, the facial expressions, etc.) is overwhelming.

We have Word of God that Miko's words after the fight should not be taken as a personal threat, and what words before the fight? "I am going to track down the halfling personally"? As for the several panels, we can note that these panels don't even occur in the circumstance which we are discussing, so they hardly seem relevant. Even if we include them, they just show Miko being very obviously conflicted about which path is the proper one, but that certainly doesn't imply that the other path is evil.


I know you disagree with this reading, despite not offering any other supporting evidence, and I respect that. What further evidence would you like me to provide?

The problem is, you keep basing the evidence on what happened in the strip which we are ignoring for the purpose of this debate. I have said frequently that if Belkar had surrendered or stopped fighting then Miko lost her right to attack him, but in the midst of combat she shouldn't be expected to endanger herself to make -sure- she took him alive.


I have also pointed out that is not definitely lawful: that would have been handing Belkar over to the authorities - again, in Hinjo's words, you don't get to kill people because they do something bad.

But you do get to kill people when they are actively resisting arrest and, once again, I find myself reminding you that we are discussing a situation where Miko kills Belkar in the midst of combat, where the hesitation in the throneroom never happens.


You know, for a Paladin fulfilling your duty without the need of spilling blood should be a reason for elation, not disappointment. I addition, she was trained to be a Paladin of the Sapphire Guarda, like Hinjo, O-Chul and all the others. Not a just a trained killer 'fulfilling your duty'.

We can note that a person that enjoys their work is in no way Evil, and claiming that Paladins should be chagrinned at the prospect of fulfilling God-Given tasks seems to greatly misunderstand the core principal of the class.

About the worst that can be said of Miko in this scene is that she is failing to recognize Mr. Scruffy as legitimate commander of the Sapphire Guard.

[Winter]

FujinAkari, did you look at her face and her trembling arms, btw? It seems I missed your comment on that.

[Bastian]

Rich denies this interpretation in the introductory commentary for Start of Darkness.

I never said 'the only discriminating element'. I said 'a key component'. As in 'one key component among many'. I thought that we were all on the same page here in considering intent as a key factor in this discussion.

However, if I read the introduction to SoD correctly, Rich argues that whatever life circumstances have driven someone to evil, an evildoer remains an evildoer, whatever sympathy we might feel for such character as readers.

And really, a position that I wholeheartedly support as a player (well, ex-player) and a reader.



You have certainly asserted it, but unless you're psychic it is impossible to know what her intentions are. Rich describes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=929083&postcount=174) her mindset at this point and we can notice he does not use the term murder. Indeed, he makes it quite clear that the driving force behind Miko's desire to kill is the crimes which Belkar has committed, making murder the absolute wrong term to describe her intent. Justice or Vengeance would both fit, but it is quite clear that she is responding to the wrongs committed, not the desire to stab something.


No, I haven't merely asserted it. I have presented what I consider coherent evidence to support my argument. Evidence that can be accepted, discussed, rejected. I went a bit further than saying 'Because I said so'.

No, I am not psychic, nor (I suppose) is the vast majority of human beings.
But one does not need to be psychic to guess intention and emotional state of other human beings by observing verbal, paraverbal and nonverbal communication, present and past behavior in a context as well as the feedback from other observers.
Which is what I have been doing, as other posters have - with more eloquence.

Rich does not use the word 'murder', true. He said 'killing Good and Neutral characters'. He also described Miko's state as 'bordering on a complete psychotic break (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6106&page=6)' in another post. Which is not really consistent with a Paladin merely following her duty.

Crisis21 has already elaborated on the concept fully, I have nothing to add to it.





We have Word of God that Miko's words after the fight should not be taken as a personal threat, and what words before the fight? "I am going to track down the halfling personally"? As for the several panels, we can note that these panels don't even occur in the circumstance which we are discussing, so they hardly seem relevant. Even if we include them, they just show Miko being very obviously conflicted about which path is the proper one, but that certainly doesn't imply that the other path is evil.


The words 'Die!', in two different occasions, both of them featuring a weaponless Belkar. I was referring to the panels immediately before V's spell.
I - and many others - read those expressions as wrath, as desire to kill.
I don't see an intellectual conflict between the proper course of action, I see anger overwhelming judgement. Or at least, characters portraying that exact expression have always shown anger in the comic. Not conflict.




The problem is, you keep basing the evidence on what happened in the strip which we are ignoring for the purpose of this debate. I have said frequently that if Belkar had surrendered or stopped fighting then Miko lost her right to attack him, but in the midst of combat she shouldn't be expected to endanger herself to make -sure- she took him alive.


Who is this 'we'? Can you direct me to the moment in which 'we' have collectively decided to ignore it for the purpose of this debate?
I have been re-reading the last 5 pages, and I saw discussions centered on intent, combat dynamics and stick art details.

You see Belkar and Miko as still in the middle of a fight. And that's fine. I, and other posters, see a hiatus in the fight.
To us, this cannot be dismissed because it indicates that Miko was neither

a) the midst of combat nor
b) threatened with lethal force.

Most importantly, as already pointed out

c) Miko was in the throne room. Not in a distant desert.
She had all means and backup to take him alive and secured.




But you do get to kill people when they are actively resisting arrest and, once again, I find myself reminding you that we are discussing a situation where Miko kills Belkar in the midst of combat, where the hesitation in the throneroom never happens.


Again, you have been discussing that interpretation of the OP's original question. It looks like that Winter, Hemishpence, Rorrik, Crisis21 and myself have been discussing an interpretation including Miko's hesitation.
It is a bit disappointing discovering that after 6 pages.

However, in your scenario, namely points a), b) and c) above sure, Miko would have not committed an evil act.




We can note that a person that enjoys their work is in no way Evil, and claiming that Paladins should be chagrinned at the prospect of fulfilling God-Given tasks seems to greatly misunderstand the core principal of the class.

About the worst that can be said of Miko in this scene is that she is failing to recognize Mr. Scruffy as legitimate commander of the Sapphire Guard.

I am sure she is just a bit...overzealous, in Shojo's words. I am also sure that the mid-line ellipsis in that balloon by no means indicated the use of an euphemism.

Please note that we know by Word of God that Miko is an example of how a Paladin should not be played - so I am not sure I am misunderstanding the core principle(s) of the class.

[Bastian]

FujinAkari, did you look at her face and her trembling arms, btw? It seems I missed your comment on that.

She has been arguing over a different scenario, one in which Miko shows no hesitation and Belkar is killed in the midst of combat.

For the sake of clarity -

SCENARIO A:
Everything happens as to Strip #285, Panel 3.
V does not intervene, Miko delivers the killing Blow to a supine Belkar.

My reading:
Miko commits an evil act: yes.
There might be extenuating circumstances do to Belkar's provocations, and incomplete information on her part.

Fall, possible but not certain. We have really no way to know.

SCENARIO B:
Belkar is killed in the midst of combat. For the purpose of this discussion, we can assume that Miko's Bull Rush in #284 inflicts lethal damage.

My reading:

Miko commits a neutral act.
Fall: No Fall.

SCENARIO C:
Bastian sits in a corner and cries 'why isn't he Jolly?'

[Winter]

She has been arguing over a different scenario, one in which Miko shows no hesitation and Belkar is killed in the midst of combat.

I was referencing an earlier stage of the discussion.

I think no one doubted that if had Miko killed Belkar in that fight right out of the action, it would have been no problem.
The thing is... she was not doing that, Belkar was counting on this, and he has been right (as the art of the comic is proof for).

We should not base our estimates of what's going on the comic what might have happened but what did happen. And how Miko executed her attempted execution, it would have been fallworthy.
Yes, if she had not done what she did, it would not have been fallworthy but I doubt we have to argue about that.

[Bastian]

We should not base our estimates of what's going on the comic what might have happened but what did happen. And how Miko executed her attempted execution, it would have been fallworthy.
Yes, if she had not done what she did, it would not have been fallworthy but I doubt we have to argue about that.

I know, that was my original assumption.


There can be only one interpretation: you, too, are an agent of Evil.

SLASH! SLASH! SLASH!

[Winter]

There can be only one interpretation: you, too, are an agent of Evil.

SLASH! SLASH! SLASH!

"Bye bye Paladin, welcome Fighter without Bonus Feats". ::smallbiggrin:

[Bastian]

"Bye bye Paladin, welcome Fighter without Bonus Feats". ::smallbiggrin:

Safer that way, especially when you run out of milk

[FujinAkari]

Again, you have been discussing that interpretation of the OP's original question. It looks like that Winter, Hemishpence, Rorrik, Crisis21 and myself have been discussing an interpretation including Miko's hesitation.
It is a bit disappointing discovering that after 6 pages.

Well, admittedly, I am assuming you are arguing my interpretation... but considering I've already said


The one aspect which cannot be known, but makes all the difference, is whether Belkar had visibly surrendered. He certainly didn't audibly surrender, and from a rules perspective there isn't any indication of a surrender either.


Again, if Belkar had surrendered, then I think we're in agreement, I just don't see Belkar as having surrendered.

then I think it is a pretty fair assumption that anyone taking the time to argue with me is NOT going to be arguing the scenario where there is a break in combat and -then- Miko stabs him for no reason, considering we both already agree what would happen in that case, I'd assume anyone arguing with me is arguing the scenario where I think Miko wouldn't fall.

If you were trying to argue that Miko should fall in the first scenario then... you're right. Stop arguing silly, we agree.

[Bastian]

Stop arguing silly, we agree.

I must admit I appreciate the forthrightness of your apology.
Perhaps in the future, if you approached the prospect of a romantic relationship from this more mature perspective, I would not be so dismissive of the possib...what...are you doing with that katana?

[Carry2]

As far as I can tell, most of this debate is centred on the following points.

(A) Whether Miko killing Belkar would have been in violation of her code of conduct,
(B) If not, whether she was doing it out of a sense of anger or an impartial assessment of the need to do so, and
(C) Whether doing something because you're angry counts as an intrinsically bad thing.

I think that killing Belkar would, technically, have been a violation of her code of conduct as regards treatment of defenceless enemies, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a 'gross' violation. It's the sort of thing you can atone for in the morning with a set of rosary beads. (Though Miko is generally accused of adhering more to the letter of her code than it's spirit, killing Belkar to prevent him doing damage is arguably more in-keeping with the spirit of the code than jumping through the hoops of an evidently crooked legal system. Of course, Miko doesn't know, just yet, how crooked it is, but that's another story.)

As for the second and third point- I don't see why 'acting out of anger' is necessarily incompatible with 'acting out of a sense of moral indignation'. People are entitled to be angry in response to cruelty, lies, intimidation and murder, and they are entitled to correct the problem, as it were, at the source.

I think the basic sentiment here is that if Miko had killed Belkar, this First Step Down The Dark Path would have been some kind of slippery slope leading inexorably to... what, exactly? Some scenario where she unceremoniously executes her liege lord on the eve of the city's invasion, perhaps? Oh, wait! That happened anyway.

Was Belkar being alive and in apparent cahoots with Shojo the straw that broke the camel's back? I don't know. But I'm betting it didn't help. I'll be blunt here: I strongly suspect that if Belkar had been struck repeatedly by a bolt of lightning in the opening pages of the strip, the fortunes of Ms. Miyazaki, the Order, possibly Azure City and by extension the entire planet would on the whole have been substantially sunnier. So I'm not gonna find fault with smiting Mr. Bitterleaf.


What I feel this discussion is overlooking is a much larger problem- not that Miko was willing to ice Belkar, but that she was willing to go through the rest of the Order to do it, just before Shojo's intercession. Did Belkar deserve to die? Hell yes. It just seems a stretch to assume that all his (non-Evil, non-directly-threatening) cohorts were equally guilty by association. If you want to take Miko down a peg, that seems a more promising tack.

[Crisis21]

I'm just going to address one point right now.



As for the second and third point- I don't see why 'acting out of anger' is necessarily incompatible with 'acting out of a sense of moral indignation'. People are entitled to be angry in response to cruelty, lies, intimidation and murder, and they are entitled to correct the problem, as it were, at the source.

It isn't. Feeling anger is not incompatible with the way of the Paladin at all. 'Acting out of anger' is not incompatible with 'acting out of a sense of moral indignation'. Those two states are, in fact, ridiculously compatible. Even Paladins are entitled to anger in response to injustices and also entitled to correct the problems at the source, even perhaps, arguably, a bit more so than others.

The issue with Miko's anger is that she ends up letting it override everything else, such as her reason, her common sense, and, yes, her Paladin virtue.

Paladins are held to a higher standard. That's what the Paladin code and the harsh alignment restrictions are all about. They cannot afford to let their anger override all else, ever. If they do, they are no better than a standard fighter, or a barbarian.

And I looked up a portion of the paladin code that applies to this situation.


A Paladin must give fair warning and due quarter to enemies.

Due quarter in this scenario is arresting Belkar and turning him over to the Azure City legal system. He's down, disarmed, and has barely enough hit points to retain consciousness. He's also in the middle of the throne room with all sorts of people who would be happy to help Miko arrest him. Sure, he hasn't surrendered, but since when has that been necessary to arrest someone?

Belkar knows this all on some level and decides to taunt Miko into killing him when she has no real reason to beyond the fact that she hates his guts. He may pose a future threat? He's murdered a comrade of hers? He's an unrepentant little psychopath who has committed an unknown number of Evil acts? That's what the Azure City jail is for. Her killing him right then out of anger would not have been due to a sense of moral indignation, it would have been an act of personal hatred. The act of an Evil person.

[FujinAkari]

He's down, disarmed, and has barely enough hit points to retain consciousness.

I've seen this come up a few times... where exactly are people getting the impression that Belkar doesn't have any weapons from?

[Carry2]

Belkar knows this all on some level and decides to taunt Miko into killing him when she has no real reason to beyond the fact that she hates his guts. He may pose a future threat? He's murdered a comrade of hers? He's an unrepentant little psychopath who has committed an unknown number of Evil acts? That's what the Azure City jail is for.
You mean, the jail he already escaped from, murdering happily as he went? (Incidentally, one of several such occasions, if Origins is to be believed.) She's already given the justice system a chance, and it evidently couldn't contain him. Even the most commodious paladin code doesn't extend mercy to prisoners who try to escape and butcher innocents on the way out.

Again, I agree that killing Belkar would technically be a violation of the letter of her code of conduct. But the basic purpose of her code is arguably better served by skipping the paperwork, as it were. And again, saying she's motivated by hate doesn't alter the facts: Miko hates Belkar's guts because Belkar does evil things.

I just find this line of accusation particularly strange when there is, so to speak, much lower-hanging fruit on her rap sheet.

[Bastian]

As far as I can tell, most of this debate is centred on the following points.

(A) Whether Miko killing Belkar would have been in violation of her code of conduct,
(B) If not, whether she was doing it out of a sense of anger or an impartial assessment of the need to do so, and
(C) Whether doing something because you're angry counts as an intrinsically bad thing.


I think that killing Belkar would, technically, have been a violation of her code of conduct as regards treatment of defenceless enemies, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a 'gross' violation. It's the sort of thing you can atone for in the morning with a set of rosary beads. (Though Miko is generally accused of adhering more to the letter of her code than it's spirit, killing Belkar to prevent him doing damage is arguably more in-keeping with the spirit of the code than jumping through the hoops of an evidently crooked legal system. Of course, Miko doesn't know, just yet, how crooked it is, but that's another story.)

As for the second and third point- I don't see why 'acting out of anger' is necessarily incompatible with 'acting out of a sense of moral indignation'. People are entitled to be angry in response to cruelty, lies, intimidation and murder, and they are entitled to correct the problem, as it were, at the source.

I think the basic sentiment here is that if Miko had killed Belkar, this First Step Down The Dark Path would have been some kind of slippery slope leading inexorably to... what, exactly? Some scenario where she unceremoniously executes her liege lord on the eve of the city's invasion, perhaps? Oh, wait! That happened anyway.

Was Belkar being alive and in apparent cahoots with Shojo the straw that broke the camel's back? I don't know. But I'm betting it didn't help. I'll be blunt here: I strongly suspect that if Belkar had been struck repeatedly by a bolt of lightning in the opening pages of the strip, the fortunes of Ms. Miyazaki, the Order, possibly Azure City and by extension the entire planet would on the whole have been substantially sunnier. So I'm not gonna find fault with smiting Mr. Bitterleaf.


What I feel this discussion is overlooking is a much larger problem- not that Miko was willing to ice Belkar, but that she was willing to go through the rest of the Order to do it, just before Shojo's intercession. Did Belkar deserve to die? Hell yes. It just seems a stretch to assume that all his (non-Evil, non-directly-threatening) cohorts were equally guilty by association. If you want to take Miko down a peg, that seems a more promising tack.

Actually, I don't quite agree with your summary of this thread in those three separate points.

(A) A 'serious'/'gross' violation / an evil act leading to her Fall as a Paladin, specifically, as per the OP's question.
(B) There is no an 'if not': see, it's not Miko killing Belkar the point we have been discussing, is the reason (intent) and the context that we have been discussing.
(C) Not doing something, taking a life out of anger when other options exist.

FujinAkari took in consideration a scenario in which Miko killed Belkar in the midst of combat - and we agreed that in such a scenario Miko wouldn't have committed an evil act.

Some others and I took in consideration instead a scenario in which Miko struck down Belkar after knocking him down, already in the throne room. We agreed that such scenario implied an evil act.

I, for one, I am not interested in taking down Miko a peg nor in gloryfing Belkar. That is not the point of the discussion. As per the 'more promising track', see Rich comment that Fujinkari posted. It is another window on Miko's mental state, showing that her desire to kill Belkar was so strong to override part of her paladin virtues but not the fealty to her Lord.

Belkar has been an enabler of Miko's psychological breakdown - but the paranoia, cognitive inflexibility, and emotional instability was already there.

But what if, following your train of thought, a lightening struck Miko before she entered the throne room? Azure City would be safe, Xykon and Redcloak would be history. But can we know for sure?

A very old Chinese Taoist story describes a farmer in a poor country village. His neighbors considered him very well-to-do. He owned a horse which he used for plowing and for transportation. One day his horse ran away. All his neighbors exclaimed how terrible this way, but the farmer simply said "Maybe."

A few days later the horse returned and brought two wild horses with it. The neighbors all rejoiced at his good fortune, but the farmer just said "Maybe."

The next day the farmer's son tried to ride one of the wild horses. The horse threw him and the son broke his leg. The neighbors all offered their sympathy for his misfortune, but the farmer again said "Maybe."

The next week conscription officers came to the village to take young men for the army. They rejected the farmer's son because of his broken leg. When the neighbors told him how lucky he was, the farmer replied "Maybe."


I find that the Taoist tale above wonderfully conveys the importance of frame and context as well as hindsight.

[Carry2]

Actually, I don't quite agree with your summary of this thread in those three separate points...

FujinAkari took in consideration a scenario in which Miko killed Belkar in the midst of combat - and we agreed that in such a scenario Miko wouldn't have committed an evil act.

Some others and I took in consideration instead a scenario in which Miko struck down Belkar after knocking him down, already in the throne room. We agreed that such scenario implied an evil act.

I, for one, I am not interested in taking down Miko a peg nor in gloryfing Belkar. That is not the point of the discussion. As per the 'more promising track', see Rich comment that Fujinkari posted. It is another window on Miko's mental state, showing that her desire to kill Belkar was so strong to override part of her paladin virtues but not the fealty to her Lord.
Frankly, whether Belkar was unconscious, defenceless, surrendered, etc. doesn't interest me. Neither does whether Miko was angry or not at the time. All that interests me is whether she had good reason to believe that smiting Belkar was justified, based on the threat he posed and would continue to pose. Which I think there was. Was smiting him in technical contravention of her code of conduct and (maybe) the rule of law? Probably, yeah. But breaking the rules, or feeling strong emotion, isn't an evil act, just a chaotic one.

Rich's quote specifically refers to Miko wanting to kill the rest of the Order ('Good and Neutral characters',) not to killing Belkar.

But what if, following your train of thought, a lightening struck Miko before she entered the throne room? Azure City would be safe, Xykon and Redcloak would be history. But can we know for sure?

A very old Chinese Taoist story describes a farmer in a poor country village. His neighbors considered him very well-to-do. He owned a horse which he used for plowing and for transportation. One day his horse ran away. All his neighbors exclaimed how terrible this way, but the farmer simply said "Maybe."

A few days later the horse returned and brought two wild horses with it. The neighbors all rejoiced at his good fortune, but the farmer just said "Maybe."

The next day the farmer's son tried to ride one of the wild horses. The horse threw him and the son broke his leg. The neighbors all offered their sympathy for his misfortune, but the farmer again said "Maybe."

The next week conscription officers came to the village to take young men for the army. They rejected the farmer's son because of his broken leg. When the neighbors told him how lucky he was, the farmer replied "Maybe."


I find that the Taoist tale above wonderfully conveys the importance of frame and context as well as hindsight.
Accordingly to the logic of 'the bizarrely improbable will regularly occur,' sure.

Would Miko being struck by lightning have saved everyone a good deal of stress? At a certain point in the comic, sure... admittedly thanks to just such a chain of bizarrely improbable events as your parable might exemplify. The difference is that Belkar doesn't need to be systematically duped through a series of hundred-to-one coincidences in order to enter a state of murderous berserker rage. He came that way by default.

[Rorrik]

I've seen this come up a few times... where exactly are people getting the impression that Belkar doesn't have any weapons from?

I suspect it's from the fact that we don't see any weapons on or near him in any of the scenes following his crash through the window. While it is possible he has additional weapons about his person, it seems apparent he has lost those he had been using prior to the bull rush.

[Bastian]

Frankly, whether Belkar was unconscious, defenceless, surrendered, etc. doesn't interest me. Neither does whether Miko was angry or not at the time. All that interests me is whether she had good reason to believe that smiting Belkar was justified, based on the threat he posed and would continue to pose. Which I think there was. Was smiting him in technical contravention of her code of conduct and (maybe) the rule of law? Probably, yeah. But breaking the rules, or feeling strong emotion, isn't an evil act, just a chaotic one.

Rich's quote specifically refers to Miko wanting to kill the rest of the Order ('Good and Neutral characters',) not to killing Belkar.

Accordingly to the logic of 'the bizarrely improbable will regularly occur,' sure.

Would Miko being struck by lightning have saved everyone a good deal of stress? At a certain point in the comic, sure... admittedly thanks to just such a chain of bizarrely improbable events as your parable might exemplify. The difference is that Belkar doesn't need to be systematically duped through a series of hundred-to-one coincidences in order to enter a state of murderous berserker rage. He came that way by default.

So your point is Belkar deserved to be terminated a priori because of the potential threat he could pose, am I correct? Irregardless of context, intention, emotional state, threat posed and other alternatives?
Which again, is fine - but you see, that is not the summary of the thread which does not necessarily boil down to what you think it is important.


However, if I understood you correctly - I find myself even in stronger disagreement. A Paladin is not a Judge Dredd-style vigilante embodying jury, judge and executioner.

(Rich's quote: yes, exactly: her desire to kill Belkar is so strong that she was willing to kill Good and Neutral characters in the process. Which again, should show you the state of Miko in that moment).

Would that word be a better place without a psychotic Belkar? Probably, but for me to say. (Yes, Gandalf, I am stealing a page from your book). What if he has a grander role to play? What if he can be redeemed? And most importantly, loathsome as he is, he is a living creature. Respecting whenever is possible the dignity of sentient beings is a working definition of Good, even when the sentient being in question is evil.

Concerning the Taoist parable - it is usually understood as a mean to avoid if-then determinism and to offer new refraiming perspectives.

Here's some commentaries, for those interested:
http://www.pediatricservices.com/prof/prof-47.htm
http://www.cleveland.com/living/index.ssf/2009/02/parable_of_a_chinese_farmer_ho.html

I did not offer it to exemplify that 'the bizarrely improbable will regularly occur'.

I agree that Belkar can pose a higher threat to the world than Miko, under normal circumstances. (Under bizzarrely improbable ones, I have no way to know. S***t happens.)So let's terminate Belkar.
And Miko? Well, my analysts extimated that there's 00.2% chance that she killed her Liege and endager Azure City. Mmmh.
Better err on the side of caution then. Terminate her as well.

What about you and me? What are the chances?

You see what I am getting at?

Edit:
Forgot to add: so, what would be the 'Good' thing to do?
Place Belkar in a cell.
And get both of them some serious therapy (or what passes for therapy in the OotS world.)

[Bastian]

I've seen this come up a few times... where exactly are people getting the impression that Belkar doesn't have any weapons from?

Maybe they are still discussing the other scenario :smallsmile:

[FujinAkari]

I suspect it's from the fact that we don't see any weapons on or near him in any of the scenes following his crash through the window. While it is possible he has additional weapons about his person, it seems apparent he has lost those he had been using prior to the bull rush.

... Belkar can carry a lead sheet bigger than he is (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0281.html) without it being visible. Are you really going to base whether or not he has daggers on if we can see them?

Plus, more importantly, he was very clearly holding one the last time we saw him prior to the bullrush, so it is just wishful thinking to presume he doesn't have one now.

[Carry2]

So your point is Belkar deserved to be terminated a priori because of the potential threat he could pose, am I correct? Irregardless of context, intention, emotional state, threat posed and other alternatives?
Which again, is fine - but you see, that is not the summary of the thread which does not necessarily boil down to what you think it is important.

However, if I understood you correctly - I find myself even in stronger disagreement. A Paladin is not a Judge Dredd-style vigilante embodying jury, judge and executioner.
Well, technically the Judges are a state-sanctioned agency rather than vigilantes, but I suppose that's beside the point... A little more to the point, acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner is exactly what Miko was empowered to do when undertaking dangerous missions in distant lands, and/or when the evil-doers she encounters can't reasonably be brought to stand trial. (e.g, the Ogre bandits.)

Again, if Belkar can't be reliably contained by existing prison facilities, what makes you think this is different? What makes you think the supposed alternative is viable?

(Rich's quote: yes, exactly: her desire to kill Belkar is so strong that she was willing to kill Good and Neutral characters in the process. Which again, should show you the state of Miko in that moment).
Excellent point! That is good evidence for an unhinged state of mind on Miko's part at the time. But you weren't using that as evidence before- you were claiming that just wanting to kill Belkar, in isolation, would be enough to indicate an unhinged state of mind, and/or count as capital-E Evil.

So, if you want to say that being willing to kill the Order shows she's cracking- then yes, absolutely, I agree. But just wanting to kill Belkar would, IMHO, not.

Would that word be a better place without a psychotic Belkar? Probably, but for me to say. (Yes, Gandalf, I am stealing a page from your book). What if he has a grander role to play? What if he can be redeemed? And most importantly, loathsome as he is, he is a living creature. Respecting whenever is possible the dignity of sentient beings is a working definition of Good, even when the sentient being in question is evil.
By what logic does 'respecting the dignity' of a single evil person outweigh 'respecting the dignity' of those they are likely to kill between now and whatever indeterminate future point, if ever, they might be 'redeemed'? I imagine that the number of grieving families in Cliffport would have a different perspective on, for example, the Order's decision to 'respect the dignity' of Nale and Co.
To quote The Dark Knight Returns-

"I'll count the dead, one by one. I'll add them to the list, Joker. The list of all the people I've murdered by letting you live."

And Miko? Well, my analysts extimated that there's 00.2% chance that she killed her Liege and endager Azure City. Mmmh.
Better err on the side of caution then. Terminate her as well.
Weighed against the probability that she'll successfully bring the Order to Azure City in one piece so that Shojo can gainfully employ them? Or the 00.5% chance that she'll, say, kill one or more of Xykon's top lieutenants? I dunno.

Look, I know the Power of Plot is going to completely override statistics here, and that Belkar was preserved through authorial direction chiefly as a source of black comedy. I just feel that trying to condemn Miko on this point smacks of clutching at straws. (Was Miko angry at the time? Then she's being 'blinded by hatred.' Was she not angry at the time? Then it's 'murder in cold blood.' Is she a stickler for the letter of her code? Then she's anal-retentive. Does she bend it when required? Then she should Fall. Which is it, folks?)

[Kish]

... Belkar can carry a lead sheet bigger than he is (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0281.html) without it being visible. Are you really going to base whether or not he has daggers on if we can see them?
More than that, Belkar's weapons--everyone's weapons--blink in and out of visible existence all the time when Rich concludes drawing them wouldn't enhance that particular panel.

[hamishspence]

He throws quite a few at Miko during the various scenes- and since they're not called out as returning daggers, he may have been out of them by the time they crash through the window.

[FujinAkari]

He throws quite a few at Miko during the various scenes- and since they're not called out as returning daggers, he may have been out of them by the time they crash through the window.

Again, I have to call this wishful thinking.

The last time Belkar is shown (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0281.html) prior to being smashed through a window, he still has a dagger in his hand. Barring further evidence, the default assumption should be that he still has that dagger when we see him next.

[hamishspence]

The last time Belkar is shown (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0281.html) prior to being smashed through a window, he still has a dagger in his hand. Barring further evidence, the default assumption should be that he still has that dagger when we see him next.

He has no dagger when they crash through the window here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0284.html

is "the presumption" that he sheathed it rather than threw it? During a chase?

[FujinAkari]

He has no dagger when they crash through the window here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0284.html

is "the presumption" that he sheathed it rather than threw it? During a chase?

No, the presumption is that Rich choose not to draw it. Look

two strips before (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0279.html) He has no dagger in the first several panels, then abruptly has two when he goes to throw one, then is knocked off the ledge and apparently loses the second one... yet immediately afterwards (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0281.html) he still doesn't appear to have any, but they appear again when he goes to attack with them.

If he can manage to retain the daggers (even the one he threw in the other direction!) then the assumption must either be that he has a -lot- of daggers, that they are returning daggers, or that Rich simply assumes he has a dagger available whenever he needs one and isn't really focusing on that aspect of the encounter.

What we cannot assume is that Belkar just happened to run out of daggers at the exact moment where Miko knocked him through a window since that will make the anti-Miko argument stronger. :)

[Crisis21]

Well, technically the Judges are a state-sanctioned agency rather than vigilantes, but I suppose that's beside the point... A little more to the point, acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner is exactly what Miko was empowered to do when undertaking dangerous missions in distant lands, and/or when the evil-doers she encounters can't reasonably be brought to stand trial. (e.g, the Ogre bandits.)

Again, if Belkar can't be reliably contained by existing prison facilities, what makes you think this is different? What makes you think the supposed alternative is viable?

Excellent point! That is good evidence for an unhinged state of mind on Miko's part at the time. But you weren't using that as evidence before- you were claiming that just wanting to kill Belkar, in isolation, would be enough to indicate an unhinged state of mind, and/or count as capital-E Evil.

So, if you want to say that being willing to kill the Order shows she's cracking- then yes, absolutely, I agree. But just wanting to kill Belkar would, IMHO, not.

By what logic does 'respecting the dignity' of a single evil person outweigh 'respecting the dignity' of those they are likely to kill between now and whatever indeterminate future point, if ever, they might be 'redeemed'? I imagine that the number of grieving families in Cliffport would have a different perspective on, for example, the Order's decision to 'respect the dignity' of Nale and Co.
To quote The Dark Knight Returns-

"I'll count the dead, one by one. I'll add them to the list, Joker. The list of all the people I've murdered by letting you live."

Weighed against the probability that she'll successfully bring the Order to Azure City in one piece so that Shojo can gainfully employ them? Or the 00.5% chance that she'll, say, kill one or more of Xykon's top lieutenants? I dunno.

Look, I know the Power of Plot is going to completely override statistics here, and that Belkar was preserved through authorial direction chiefly as a source of black comedy. I just feel that trying to condemn Miko on this point smacks of clutching at straws. (Was Miko angry at the time? Then she's being 'blinded by hatred.' Was she not angry at the time? Then it's 'murder in cold blood.' Is she a stickler for the letter of her code? Then she's anal-retentive. Does she bend it when required? Then she should Fall. Which is it, folks?)

Because Miko's stated class is 'Paladin' not 'Templar' (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Templar_%283.5e_Class%29),

The behavior you're justifying is the kind of behavior that personifies the Templars. They believe that the end justifies the means, no matter how bloody and terrible those means may be. Paladins tend to have a much stricter moral code in how they deal with evildoers.

Can Belkar escape all sorts of prisons? Sure. Does Miko have any way of knowing his prison escaping abilities beyond his one escape from solitary in Azure City? No.

This escape, I should add, was enabled by the fact that the guards did not search him thoroughly enough as well as by Miko herself having him placed outside maximum security just to take a personal dig at him.

Let us not forget that Belkar was also being falsely imprisoned at the time as well. Sure, he had committed many other crimes, but he hadn't been arrested for, or charged with, any of them at that point. Crimes Miko has no way of knowing about beyond her own speculation.

Miko took a paladin's oath to serve the laws of Azure City. While her service to the Twelve Gods may grant her a form of authority outside the walls of Azure City while in their service, inside the walls she is honor-bound to follow laws that apparently do not condone the wanton execution of escaped prisoners.

I reiterate: Paladins are held to a higher standard. They do not have the luxury of losing control of themselves just because they happen to be pissed at someone and ignore their oaths in doing so.

A paladin who tracks a supposed evildoer down to a village on innocents who proceed to defend that person from them will likely back down and reconsider their actions. A templar would possibly proceed to burn the whole village to the ground, children and all and believe they were right to do so.

It's a delicate balance between 'Justice be done' and 'Evil must die'. Paladins are those who must err on the side of the former, while templars often dive head-first into the latter. When the eradication of Evil outweighs the upholding of Justice, then the paladin is in violation of their oaths. This is what caused Miko to ultimately fall in the comic and it is what is happening for all to see in that scene in the throne room. The only saving grace she had then is that the paladin code is forgiving enough that intent alone is not enough to cause a gross violation of the code, it has to be followed through on. Unfortunately, Miko is the kind of paladin who views anything but overt obstruction of her actions by her gods as complete approval of what she is doing.

Being stopped from killing Belkar was her second chance. She blew it.

[FujinAkari]

Because Miko's stated class is 'Paladin' not 'Templar' (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Templar_%283.5e_Class%29),

... you do know that that class is fan made, entirely unofficial, and not located in any WOTC publication... anywhere... right? This argument is the equivalent of me going out and finding some fansite that says Miko is amazing, and then linking to it and calling it proof.

[Carry2]

Let us not forget that Belkar was also being falsely imprisoned at the time as well. Sure, he had committed many other crimes, but he hadn't been arrested for, or charged with, any of them at that point. Crimes Miko has no way of knowing about beyond her own speculation.
Aside from the dead guard outside the cell? The cell that was only accessible through a single hatch in the ceiling, and therefore an arguably safer place to keep a melee-oriented character than in the anti-magic ward? And being set on fire? And having her mount threatened with grievous bodily harm? And his being evil?

As for the Templar comparison- I fully agree that Miko dicing the rest of the Order would be very much out of line. But the bone of contention here was that killing Belkar, by itself, would somehow constitute an evil deed. I can see that it might be a technical violation of her code, and I agree that she was angry, but breaking rules or feeling pissed, in itself, is not evil. I still see no evidence that such an action would do more harm than good, or that less harmful alternatives were reliable.

And frankly, we don't know what the laws of Azure City actually specify here, or whether the Sapphire Guard are actually subject to secular law as opposed to a code of religious edicts. Shojo never actually objected to Miko terminating Belkar, he objected to her attacking the Order. (Which I heartily agree would be a whole 'nother kettle of fish.)


It's a delicate balance between 'Justice be done' and 'Evil must die'. Paladins are those who must err on the side of the former, while templars often dive head-first into the latter...
What you don't seem to get is that this is not a higher standard. Stupid, illogical behaviour that gets innocent bystanders killed is neither noble nor enlightened. This is a D&D-based, class-and-level setting, which means that there are certain people, with certain accumulated BAB scores, that no four walls can be expected to long contain. (Roy even says as much.) And I wouldn't mind that aspect to the story, except that many of the nastier characters do not focus exclusively on level-appropriate encounters, but instead leave heaping helpings of collateral damage among the commoners. We have protagonists trucking in Saturday Morning Cartoon Morality tackling villains that deal Real-World Antagonist damage. There is a fundamental mismatch here.

And for the third time, I am not talking about Miko burning down a village of kobold babies so that she can kill Belkar. (Which would be wrong.) I am not even talking about Miko killing Roy and Co. to do so. (Which would also be wrong.) I am talking about an imaginary scenario where Miko just kills Belkar. No other collateral involved, no other objectors, just her and him and her katana. Now what, exactly, has Belkar done to deserve a particle of mercy?

[hamishspence]

Shojo never actually objected to Miko terminating Belkar, he objected to her attacking the Order. (Which I heartily agree would be a whole 'nother kettle of fish.)

His response to her insisting that Belkar "must be punished" is

"Then he will be taken into custody and tried, lawfully, on those charges"

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html

Seems to me like a hint that she does not have the right to try, sentence, and mete out punishment, in this context.

Belkar may not deserve mercy, but like all accused criminals, he at least deserves a trial.

A case can be made that the victims deserve to know he was tried and punished as well- rather than being told he was "killed while attempting to escape" and not punished for the specific crimes he was guilty of.

In the early bonus strips for War & XPs, Roy says Belkar is looking at 30-odd years imprisonment for his crimes in Azure City- though it's possible that this is the minimum sentence and death the maximum.

[Carry2]

His response to her insisting that Belkar "must be punished" is

"Then he will be taken into custody and tried, lawfully, on those charges"

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html

Seems to me like a hint that she does not have the right to try, sentence, and mete out punishment, in this context.

Belkar may not deserve mercy, but like all accused criminals, he at least deserves a trial.

In the early bonus strips for War & XPs, Roy says Belkar is looking at 30-odd years imprisonment for his crimes in Azure City- though it's possible that this is the minimum sentence and death the maximum.
Hmm. That's a good point. Very well. I withdraw the assertion. It seems this *was* a violation of Azure City law, and she was at least nominally beholden to such authority. (Even though he'd still be likely to escape eventually, and probably kill people in the process.)

I'm still a little skeptical this would count as grounds for a Fall, but the case does seem a little grayer.

[hamishspence]

We'll never know for sure unless The Giant tells us- but we can guess.

"murder" is considered an Evil act in BoVD (and Fiendish Codex 2) though there's still arguments that it couldn't be murder, but manslaughter at worst, given Miko's experience of how dangerous he could be.

Might be interesting to see various DM and player perspectives, like:

"If I was the DM, with just one player, playing a paladin, and the plot went exactly as depicted in OoTS- except I didn't have the mage intervene, and the paladin chose to kill the fugitive- would I make them Fall?"

"If I was the paladin player, and the plot went exactly as OoTS, except I killed the fugitive, and the DM made me fall, would I consider it unfair and biased?"

[Bastian]

Well, technically the Judges are a state-sanctioned agency rather than vigilantes, but I suppose that's beside the point... A little more to the point, acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner is exactly what Miko was empowered to do when undertaking dangerous missions in distant lands, and/or when the evil-doers she encounters can't reasonably be brought to stand trial. (e.g, the Ogre bandits.)

Well, not so beside the point since 'vigilante' has indeed other implications which do not apply to Miko...but you get the gist of what I meant anyway.
But it seems she is definitely not empowered to act as Judge, Jury and Executioner within Azure City's throne room. And we have the reactions of Shojo and Hinjo to support that.



Again, if Belkar can't be reliably contained by existing prison facilities, what makes you think this is different? What makes you think the supposed alternative is viable?

The only reason why Belkar escaped is that
a) he was not confined in an anti-magic cell; and/or
b) he was not subjected to body cavities search for his +20 Ring.

So I think that any existing prison facility can contain Belkar quite effectively. We have already seen that Azure City has also other magical means to avoid potential harm: a Mark of Justice. So a valid containment solution has already been implemented.



Excellent point! That is good evidence for an unhinged state of mind on Miko's part at the time. But you weren't using that as evidence before- you were claiming that just wanting to kill Belkar, in isolation, would be enough to indicate an unhinged state of mind, and/or count as capital-E Evil.

So, if you want to say that being willing to kill the Order shows she's cracking- then yes, absolutely, I agree. But just wanting to kill Belkar would, IMHO, not.


I spent the previous 5 pages arguing Miko's state of mind in a panel-by-panel and wider context - I claimed that her intention, stated verbally, expressed non-verbally, and consistent with her behaviour in the next minutes was to take down Belkar no matter what. The only thing that restrained her was Shojo's direct order.

If she was cracking while attacking the order (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0284.html), [Panel 14] it is reasonable to assume that she was also cracking while preparing to smite Belkar [Panel 3].

Just wanting to kill Belkar, per se, is not a crime. I would go as far as consider it an almost healthy reaction in some context. But the compass of mental stability is the difference between feeling an emotion and acting on emotion. Elan might have felt the desire to harm or even kill Kubota, (notice the similarity with Miko's expression (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0594.html)) and that is completely fine and human: he just witnessed the death of Therkla. What is his reaction? A punch.



By what logic does 'respecting the dignity' of a single evil person outweigh 'respecting the dignity' of those they are likely to kill between now and whatever indeterminate future point, if ever, they might be 'redeemed'? I imagine that the number of grieving families in Cliffport would have a different perspective on, for example, the Order's decision to 'respect the dignity' of Nale and Co.
To quote The Dark Knight Returns-

"I'll count the dead, one by one. I'll add them to the list, Joker. The list of all the people I've murdered by letting you live."

Weighed against the probability that she'll successfully bring the Order to Azure City in one piece so that Shojo can gainfully employ them? Or the 00.5% chance that she'll, say, kill one or more of Xykon's top lieutenants? I dunno.

And that's typical vigilante's thinking. Also, considering himself directly responsible for the dead people is a bit of a delusion of omnipotence. Don't get me wrong, I love Batman and even more so in in The Dark Knight Returns, but he is not a person I would consider entirely healthy. But after all, very few superheroes are. Anyway, I get your point. And love the quote.



Look, I know the Power of Plot is going to completely override statistics here, and that Belkar was preserved through authorial direction chiefly as a source of black comedy. I just feel that trying to condemn Miko on this point smacks of clutching at straws. (Was Miko angry at the time? Then she's being 'blinded by hatred.' Was she not angry at the time? Then it's 'murder in cold blood.' Is she a stickler for the letter of her code? Then she's anal-retentive. Does she bend it when required? Then she should Fall. Which is it, folks?)

Look, really, it's the second time it is implied I want to condemn/stigmatize/belittle Miko. Let me be absolutely clear on the subject: I have no desire to condemn Miko. I couldn't care less. I have offered textual, visual, contextual evidence to answer the OP's question. If somebody here feels the need to defend Miko to the bitter end against real or perceived attacks, it's their problem. That is not the scope of the thread.

As much as I can sympathize with Miko, I guess I am still far from saying:
You are absolutely right, it's totally cool for us to go around killing people. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0596.html)

[Bastian]

Can Belkar escape all sorts of prisons? Sure.


Sure? There is not ground for such a statement. Plus, you seem to contradict yourself in your next paragraph: "
This escape, I should add, was enabled by the fact that the guards did not search him thoroughly enough as well as by Miko herself having him placed outside maximum security just to take a personal dig at him."

Apart from that - we are on the same page.

[Bastian]

We'll never know for sure unless The Giant tells us- but we can guess.

"murder" is considered an Evil act in BoVD (and Fiendish Codex 2) though there's still arguments that it couldn't be murder, but manslaughter at worst, given Miko's experience of how dangerous he could be.

Might be interesting to see various DM and player perspectives, like:

"If I was the DM, with just one player, playing a paladin, and the plot went exactly as depicted in OoTS- except I didn't have the mage intervene, and the paladin chose to kill the fugitive- would I make them Fall?"

"If I was the paladin player, and the plot went exactly as OoTS, except I killed the fugitive, and the DM made me fall, would I consider it unfair and biased?"

Excellent post.The fact that a provocation existed makes me lean for voluntary manslaughter.

[Carry2]

Well, not so beside the point since 'vigilante' has indeed other implications which do not apply to Miko...but you get the gist of what I meant anyway.
But it seems she is definitely not empowered to act as Judge, Jury and Executioner within Azure City's throne room. And we have the reactions of Shojo and Hinjo to support that.
I will agree that Shojo and Hinjo's reactions support that interpretation. But that still makes this a violation of her code of conduct, not an evil act.

The only reason why Belkar escaped is that
a) he was not confined in an anti-magic cell; and/or
b) he was not subjected to body cavities search for his +20 Ring.

So I think that any existing prison facility can contain Belkar quite effectively.
I can't recall the exact quote, but I seem to recall he's boasted about being in and out of a few. And as I mentioned earlier, his cell was arguably better-suited to containing a melee fighter than the anti-magic cells would be.

The Mark of Justice is nice, but going by the apparent severity of the side-effects, this was very much a 'special commission', rather than a standard item in the SG's arsenal. (The typical (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/markOfJustice.htm) version is much milder.)

I spent the previous 5 pages arguing Miko's state of mind in a panel-by-panel and wider context - I claimed that her intention, stated verbally, expressed non-verbally, and consistent with her behaviour in the next minutes was to take down Belkar no matter what. The only thing that restrained her was Shojo's direct order.
If I recall correctly, your example scenario was as follows:

SCENARIO A:
Everything happens as to Strip #285, Panel 3.
V does not intervene, Miko delivers the killing Blow to a supine Belkar.

My reading:
Miko commits an evil act: yes.
There might be extenuating circumstances do to Belkar's provocations, and incomplete information on her part.

Fall, possible but not certain. We have really no way to know.
Now, if Miko *did* commit an Evil act, then she *would* Fall. That's part of the class description. So there must be uncertainty on the point of whether the act *was* evil, or even a gross violation of her code. Which is something I can approximately agree with.

But your scenario doesn't mention anything about her willingness to go through the Order en route to killing Belkar, so I don't see how that's part of the supporting argument. If you made that point before I raised it and I missed it, my apologies.

And that's typical vigilante's thinking. Also, considering himself directly responsible for the dead people is a bit of a delusion of omnipotence.
More a grasp of cause-and-effect, really.

Look, really, it's the second time it is implied I want to condemn/stigmatize/belittle Miko.
The remark was more addressed at posters in the thread at large, though perhaps that was unclear.

As much as I can sympathize with Miko, I guess I am still far from saying:
You are absolutely right, it's totally cool for us to go around killing people. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0596.html)
No... I'm pretty well with V on this one. (Particularly given the double-standard with regards to, e.g, well-connected human nobles vs. sleeping goblin mooks.)

[Bastian]

And for the third time, I am not talking about Miko burning down a village of kobold babies so that she can kill Belkar. (Which would be wrong.) I am not even talking about Miko killing Roy and Co. to do so. (Which would also be wrong.) I am talking about an imaginary scenario where Miko just kills Belkar. No other collateral involved, no other objectors, just her and him and her katana. Now what, exactly, has Belkar done to deserve a particle of mercy?

Please note that many posters are not debating that scenario, which calls for a very different reading. See Post #140 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12994033&postcount=140)

If Mercy were to be earned, granting it would simply be the Lawful thing to do, and not the Good thing to do. A Swedish proverb goes like this “Love me when I least deserve it, because that's when I need it the most." Which is why one of the key characteristic of Good is trying to redeem Evil, not simply wiping it out.

[Bastian]

I will agree that Shojo and Hinjo's reactions support that interpretation. But that still makes this a violation of her code of conduct, not an evil act.

Per se, I would agree with you. But if we factor in her intention we enter in a very gray area.



I can't recall the exact quote, but I seem to recall he's boasted about being in and out of a few. And as I mentioned earlier, his cell was arguably better-suited to containing a melee fighter than the anti-magic cells would be.


I remember he is
shown escaping a cell in OtOoPCs - exploiting a lucky circumstance

but can't recall the quote either.
But a different cell or the absence of a magic item or maybe having him chained to a wall would have prevented his escape indefinitely.





The Mark of Justice is nice, but going by the apparent severity of the side-effects, this was very much a 'special commission', rather than a standard item in the SG's arsenal. (The typical (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/markOfJustice.htm) version is much milder.)


So no green puke and hallucinations? Aaaaaaw. Boring.



But your scenario doesn't mention anything about her willingness to go through the Order en route to killing Belkar, so I don't see how that's part of the supporting argument. If you made that point before I raised it and I missed it, my apologies.


No, I didn't occur to me to include it at the time. I used it to show how Miko's successive behaviour was an indication of her state of mind before V's intervention.



The remark was more addressed at posters in the thread at large, though perhaps that was unclear.

No... I'm pretty well with V on this one. (Particularly given the double-standard with regards to, e.g, well-connected human nobles vs. sleeping goblin mooks.)

No harm done.

The comic was actually less morally complex at the time, I agree.

[veti]

Again, if Belkar can't be reliably contained by existing prison facilities, what makes you think this is different? What makes you think the supposed alternative is viable?

That's not Miko's decision to make. She can make calls like that when she's a hundred miles away on a solo mission, but when she's on home turf - never mind when her lord is actually in the same room - she's supposed to follow procedure, no matter what her personal judgment says.

Forgetting that is what led to her Fall in the end.


By what logic does 'respecting the dignity' of a single evil person outweigh 'respecting the dignity' of those they are likely to kill between now and whatever indeterminate future point, if ever, they might be 'redeemed'?

Try that sentence again without the word "evil", and see how it looks. That's the logic: the same law that applies to "a single evil person" also applies to everyone else, including paladins.


I imagine that the number of grieving families in Cliffport would have a different perspective on, for example, the Order's decision to 'respect the dignity' of Nale and Co.
To quote The Dark Knight Returns-

Again: not Miko's call to make. Lawfuls are supposed to do things by the book (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html). That's precisely why Batman is such a controversial figure, particularly in that story - because he doesn't follow procedures.

And sure, you can argue that the Order "should" have done something different (what, exactly (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html)?) with Nale & co when they captured them the first time. But bear in mind that whatever you prescribe for them, has implications for everyone else they will ever meet. If they "should have" killed the LG out of hand, then they should surely have done the same to the bandits, to Therkla, to Enor & Gannji...