Why did some people think Miko was going to turn Blackguard?

[Geordnet]

(Hopefully six and a half years is long enough that this won't spark a flamewar...)


All right, so I've been skimming though some of the old comic discussion threads and was totally shocked to see that this was actually a thing back in the day. (Especially around the time she Fell.) I mean, Miko may have been many things (a lot of which were neither Lawful nor Good) but she wasn't ever Evil. Let alone that special kind of pure vileness which is worthy of title "anti-paladin".

Throughout my original archive binge, this was always pretty clear to me. So, could anyone help me understand why others thought differently?

[Emperor Ing]

Ah those were the days :smallcool:

I believe the thing was that Miko's Lawful Stupid ways, taken to their logical conclusion, would have resulted in her becoming the very evil she once (and probably would have thought she continued to) fought against. Since the theories of how this could come about are greater in number than the digits of Pi to the power of Graham's Number, I couldn't possibly be more specific if I wanted to.

[HeeJay]

(Hopefully six and a half years is long enough that this won't spark a flamewar...)


All right, so I've been skimming though some of the old comic discussion threads and was totally shocked to see that this was actually a thing back in the day. (Especially around the time she Fell.) I mean, Miko may have been many things (a lot of which were neither Lawful nor Good) but she wasn't ever Evil. Let alone that special kind of pure vileness which is worthy of title "anti-paladin".

Throughout my original archive binge, this was always pretty clear to me. So, could anyone help me understand why others thought differently?

Look, buddy, this is the internet.

There are lots of people nutty enough to think that the moon landing was faked, and having weird ideas about a fictional character's morality and motivations is pretty tame in comparison.

[Cerlis]

Well the fact is she wasn't Evil (as in go to the Evil planes when you die)

But many people agree that she is a definite interpretation of it.

She's an Bigoted murderer who kills people without a trial.

But that's not the point.

The main thing is that she was a Fallen paladin, and...she was also Miko. as Sabine pointed out Champions of Good make the best evil people and also the easiest to convert (sadly those that dont tend to snap your neck).

And it seemed pretty obvious that she lost all reason in her attempt to outs the Order of the Stick.

Sabine did it all wrong, but a more clever fiend could have easily disguised himself as a benefactor who saw the Order's evil ways and gave Miko back "her power" so she could administer justice.

I mean Her story is exactly the most common reason for Good people to go bad. "good" is to Nice, so i have to do all these things FOR THE GREATER GOOD, even if my Gods dont agree with me.

And though most paladin's dont need to be bound by a God, the fact that she basically said she new better than the divine beings who gave her her power....showed that she already crossed SOME event-horizon.

The question was WHICH horizon she crossed. And thats why people thought that.


--------------------

P.S. though i disagree that the "there are people who will say anything" applies here...


...yea , the other day saw someone say that Belkar is just south of neutral.

[Blue1005]

Because a blackguard Miko would kick a@@ that is why they wanted it.

[DaggerPen]

I think some of the prerequisite Blackguard feats were common Monk feats, too? So Miko having levels in Monk raised red flags, especially when she took things way too far, did terrible things for her vision of the greater good/big picture, fell, and was put into a cell next to an Evil Outsider (contact with one being a Blackguard prerequisite). That's what I've seen in old discussion, though - I came on board with Belkar throwing a pineapple at wights.

[Kish]

(Hopefully six and a half years is long enough that this won't spark a flamewar...)


All right, so I've been skimming though some of the old comic discussion threads and was totally shocked to see that this was actually a thing back in the day. (Especially around the time she Fell.) I mean, Miko may have been many things (a lot of which were neither Lawful nor Good) but she wasn't ever Evil. Let alone that special kind of pure vileness which is worthy of title "anti-paladin".

Throughout my original archive binge, this was always pretty clear to me. So, could anyone help me understand why others thought differently?
Because she was a paladin, and to a number of people online, "Paladin" is synonymous with "future blackguard."

There were people saying she was surely going to become a blackguard from the second it was revealed that she was a paladin, so it's not what Cerlis said; it had nothing to do with her being a bigoted murderer, or her hating the Order of the Stick, or...anything but her being a paladin. And I don't think anyone even mentioned, "Hide is a class skill for one of her classes" (which is the limit of what the monk levels might theoretically have contributed to her being able to multiclass to blackguard, and Miko never seemed to have put any points in the Hide skill regardless), or mentioned the monk class in conjunction with her being a potential blackguard at all.

[Morty]

Some people who claimed Miko would become a Blackguard obviously had no idea what being one entails, too. I saw numerous threads predicting Miko becoming one essentially by accident, or claiming that Xykon counts as an Evil outsider for the purposes of qualifying, and accidentally helping him counts as friendly contact. So, yeah.

[Finagle]

Yeah, it was just the obvious, predictable, cliched thing to do. Seriously, how many D&D fallen paladins stay that way? It's 100% certain that all of them go evil. Especially in a story, where the player presumably doesn't have to worry about roleplaying an evil character in a good party.

It would have been totally out of character for Miko to go evil. I really liked that she died as an unrepented fallen paladin. Her reaction to Sabine was exactly as it should have been. She's absolutely on the side of good...although she's not really clear on how the gods expect good people to act.

[Paseo H]

I suppose because it took some while to realize that Miko was less evil villain and more antagonist gone insane (I believe Giant said she had a psychotic break?)

Miko was less bad than all the stuff surrounding her. Like on the forums.

[Steward]

I think a lot of people just saw it as a cool plot development. I mean, theoretically Miko COULD have become a blackguard if her storyline had progressed differently. The Giant himself even teased a similar development when he has Tsukiko find her body and briefly consider turning her into some kind of deadly free-willed undead with black armor or something like that. So it's not completely crazy even though I agree that it doesn't really fit with Miko as she's portrayed.

[Castamir]

The whole concept of evil in D&D is totally unrealistic. It's Rich's portrayal of Miko what's done right.

In RL, you don't have non-freaks calling themselves evil. Look at all wars: it's always "my good tribe vs their bad tribe". Everyone thinks they strive for good. Be it making the "top" race rule as it should, giving the working class justice, saving poor heathens from the errors of their false gods, anything. There's no good, there's only "I'm right, they're wrong", "us vs them".

Miko did what she believed to be good. That she was totally unhinged did not occur to her.

[137beth]

She may well have ended up with an Evil alignment, I can't really say.


What I can say is that she would not, under any circumstance, have admitted she was anything but Lawful Good. Becoming a blackguard requires acknowledging your evilness, so I, too, cannot fathom how people would think she might have become a blackguard.


...
...
But then, it's no more crazy than half the other forum theories:smallamused:

[Nerd-o-rama]

The whole concept of evil in D&D is totally unrealistic. It's Rich's portrayal of Miko what's done right.

In RL, you don't have non-freaks calling themselves evil. Look at all wars: it's always "my good tribe vs their bad tribe". Everyone thinks they strive for good. Be it making the "top" race rule as it should, giving the working class justice, saving poor heathens from the errors of their false gods, anything. There's no good, there's only "I'm right, they're wrong", "us vs them".

Miko did what she believed to be good. That she was totally unhinged did not occur to her.

We also see this in Redcloak, who will easily cop to being "Evil", but only because he recognizes his universe's concepts of "Good" and "Evil" are arbitrary and, from his perspective as a goblin, completely upside-down.

Of course he's also a near-sociopathically ruthless mastermind who will do anything for the sake of his cause simply because he doesn't believe he can do anything worse than what he's already done for it, but the important thing is he still thinks he's fighting for a good cause, even if he knows the universe won't recognize it as a Good cause.

[MReav]

Because I don't think they understood the kind of crazy Miko was. They thought that Miko would go to any length to prove the evilness of the Order and do anything to bring them to justice. That's not Miko. Miko, for all her insanity, fought against the forces of evil. Her insane worldview made it such that anyone who opposed her would count, but if a fiend offered her power to "bring the vile Order of the Stick to justice", Miko would respond by punching it in the face and saying it's obviously in league with the Order and was trying to trick her.

Miko would face down the world in her fight against evil, but would never knowingly side with it, and promptly fight any ally she believed to have been in league with it.

[F.Harr]

(Hopefully six and a half years is long enough that this won't spark a flamewar...)


All right, so I've been skimming though some of the old comic discussion threads and was totally shocked to see that this was actually a thing back in the day. (Especially around the time she Fell.) I mean, Miko may have been many things (a lot of which were neither Lawful nor Good) but she wasn't ever Evil. Let alone that special kind of pure vileness which is worthy of title "anti-paladin".

Throughout my original archive binge, this was always pretty clear to me. So, could anyone help me understand why others thought differently?

Because Miko was an interesting character and we didn't want to see her die. The fact that her death was important to the development of the themes of the story doesn't necessarily effect how people think about her demise.

"Because I don't think they understood the kind of crazy Miko was. They thought that Miko would go to any length to prove the evilness of the Order and do anything to bring them to justice. That's not Miko. Miko, for all her insanity, fought against the forces of evil. Her insane worldview made it such that anyone who opposed her would count, but if a fiend offered her power to "bring the vile Order of the Stick to justice", Miko would respond by punching it in the face and saying it's obviously in league with the Order and was trying to trick her.

"Miko would face down the world in her fight against evil, but would never knowingly side with it, and promptly fight any ally she believed to have been in league with it."

That, too.

By the way, I personally expect that, in the afterlife, Miko gets not a Beauocro-deva but rather a Psycho-analist-deva. That before she can be assigned, etc. she needs to work though what she did and why she did it and what it means and meant.

[jidasfire]

There was also the fact that at one point, Rich made the comment that Miko would be around for "the forseeable future." This was interpreted by many to mean she would remain a player in the story to the end or close to it, rather than the end of book three. Given that assumption, where was her character going to go? With her role as an antagonist and cautionary tale, it wasn't terribly likely that she would end up on a redemption arc, so it seemed the only place she could be taken was to the logical extreme of arch-villain. Someone suggested that she would declare war on the gods themselves, and perhaps even become the vessel through which the Snarl worked in the end. While obviously not what came to pass, I would say that could have been interesting, and not just the typical deconstruction of the self-righteous paladin type.

[hamishspence]

Becoming a blackguard requires acknowledging your evilness, so I, too, cannot fathom how people would think she might have become a blackguard.

Depends on the book. In Tome of Magic- there's a blackguard who thinks he's still a paladin (Michael Ambrose) and believes the loss of his paladin powers is simply a test.

[Silverionmox]

Miko becoming a Blackguard makes sense mechanically, not storywise. They're representing the munchkin side of D&D.

[Chronos]

Yeah, I agree with hamishspence on this. When I think of a fallen-paladin-blackguard, I don't think of someone who twirls his mustache and says "Muahaha, I'm so eeevil!". I think of a paladin who lost sight of what Good really is, and who thinks she's still doing good, and it's just everyone else who's misguided. In other words, someone exactly like Miko.

Yes, Sabine went about it all wrong. Presented with a fiend that admitted she was a fiend, Miko did what she always does: Attack without a second thought. But suppose instead that a more subtle fiend had gotten to her. Suppose a being contacted her and told her that the Twelve Gods had lost sight of what was necessary, but that this entity would give her back the power she needed to take vengeance on the Order of the Stick and their vile masters, power she was born to wield. How do you suppose that Miko would have responded to that one?

[JSSheridan]

Yeah, I agree with hamishspence on this. When I think of a fallen-paladin-blackguard, I don't think of someone who twirls his mustache and says "Muahaha, I'm so eeevil!". I think of a paladin who lost sight of what Good really is, and who thinks she's still doing good, and it's just everyone else who's misguided. In other words, someone exactly like Miko.

Yes, Sabine went about it all wrong. Presented with a fiend that admitted she was a fiend, Miko did what she always does: Attack without a second thought. But suppose instead that a more subtle fiend had gotten to her. Suppose a being contacted her and told her that the Twelve Gods had lost sight of what was necessary, but that this entity would give her back the power she needed to take vengeance on the Order of the Stick and their vile masters, power she was born to wield. How do you suppose that Miko would have responded to that one?

It was good for her that she died when she did then. She was getting desperate for things to make sense. When they get desperate enough, people will latch onto anything.

And best for the story too. Could you imagine her still in the story and Rich having to deal with another B lister.

[MReav]

Yes, Sabine went about it all wrong. Presented with a fiend that admitted she was a fiend, Miko did what she always does: Attack without a second thought. But suppose instead that a more subtle fiend had gotten to her. Suppose a being contacted her and told her that the Twelve Gods had lost sight of what was necessary, but that this entity would give her back the power she needed to take vengeance on the Order of the Stick and their vile masters, power she was born to wield. How do you suppose that Miko would have responded to that one?

Declared this guy in league with the Order for trying to tempt her away from the Twelve Gods and punch him in the face.

[hamishspence]

Introduce themselves as an emissary of Rat, Twelve Gods deity of "By Any Means Necessary".

(Rat is at least said to be one of The Dark One's "few allies" in SoD- so his emissaries offering evil powers might not come as a surprise to Miko).

Which could work until the real Rat finds out.

[MReav]

Introduce themselves as an emissary of Rat, Twelve Gods deity of "By Any Means Necessary".

(Rat is at least said to be one of The Dark One's "few allies" in SoD- so his emissaries offering evil powers might not come as a surprise to Miko).

Which could work until the real Rat finds out.

I don't think Miko would compromise like that. Like I said, for all her bat-boop crazy, she wouldn't knowingly side with evil under any circumstances, even if it meant alienating any and all allies that even looked like they were even remotely in league with evil, which this comes across as.

[littlebum2002]

Because blackguards are awesome.

Also, Helm of Opposite Alignment. It's so cheezy, yet can answer SO many questions.

[strijder20]

Of course he's also a near-sociopathically ruthless mastermind who will do anything for the sake of his cause simply because he doesn't believe he can do anything worse than what he's already done for it, but the important thing is he still thinks he's fighting for a good cause, even if he knows the universe won't recognize it as a Good cause.

Redcloak isn't sociopathic, or even near. There is even an arc consecrated to him realizing that hobgoblins are his fellow goblins too. Hating the race which slaughtered your people for years on end doesn't make you a sociopath.

However, in SoD it's clear he
is willing to sacrifice a lot for his sake, although it didn't matter in the end.

[Reddish Mage]

Miko becoming a Blackguard makes sense mechanically, not storywise. They're representing the munchkin side of D&D.

If you seriously believe that you have no conception of the depths of depravity that is munchkinism. Paladin-to-Blackguard doesn't qualify as power gaming or mechanistic thinking.

[4here4]

I don't know if this is completely ridiculous, but I thought the Giant was intentionally trying to make people think that Miko would become evil (Blackguard of not) but then faked us out by having her die. I think this is a valid theory, given the mostly unexpected nature of previous plot twists in the strip. But maybe it's just me. :smallsmile:

[Sir_Leorik]

By the way, I personally expect that, in the afterlife, Miko gets not a Beauocro-deva but rather a Psycho-analist-deva. That before she can be assigned, etc. she needs to work though what she did and why she did it and what it means and meant.

Miko would not get a Deva at all. She'd get a visit from the Harmonium's recruiting board, giving her a pamphlet and asking her to join (or else). Then she'll start slashing through them, until the Hardheads decide they'd be safer from this crazy petitioner if they make a tactical retreat to Ortho. :smalltongue:

[Sir_Leorik]

Because blackguards are awesome.

Also, Helm of Opposite Alignment. It's so cheezy, yet can answer SO many questions.

Most of those questions are raised by a certain cursed archway in the Tomb of Horrors. (If you've played or run the module, you know which one I'm talking about. :smallwink:) Between that cursed archway and the Drow, I'm beginning to wonder if Gary had issues with women...

[Draz74]

Honestly, back that early, I think there might have been an assumption (even if people didn't realize it) that one of the purposes of OotS was to explore the breadth and depth of 3e D&D, as a higher priority than telling an original story. It just seemed like the comic would have to explore the process of becoming a Blackguard at some point, and what better chance would there be?

But that's just a guess, from someone who was always skeptical of Miko becoming a Blackguard.


In RL, you don't have non-freaks calling themselves evil. Look at all wars: it's always "my good tribe vs their bad tribe". Everyone thinks they strive for good. Be it making the "top" race rule as it should, giving the working class justice, saving poor heathens from the errors of their false gods, anything. There's no good, there's only "I'm right, they're wrong", "us vs them".

Well, the Tarquin method is also quite realistic. (Evil says "good and evil don't really have any meanings, they're just labels; being on the smarter, more successful side is what matters.")

[King of Nowhere]

I always assumed that those people were seeing a clichè. a paladin falling and becoming evil and then redeeming has been played so often, I want to puke just thinking about it. Anyway, some people were following the clichè to its logical conclusion, even if it was totally out of character for miko.
As other have said, miko would never knowingly side with evil. she did plenty of evil, but only by being misguided. Now, a smart fiend presenting her with the "your gods betrayed you" speech MAY or may not have gained her trust, but ONLY as long as miko was convinced that fiend was good. so, the moment the fiend was revealed as such, miko would have attacked it. that's miko.

@ evil in the real world: the most horrible crimes (wars, genocides, mass murders) are generally done by people who believe they are doing right, because even an evil person would generally not go to such depth. most petty crimes instead (tefth, scam, drug dealing, tax evasion...) are instead done by people who believe that other people would be equally jerkasses to them if the position was reverted, or by people who think they are smarter and can get away with it, or by people who think that "everyone does it, so it's not really wrong".
Anyway yes, most people are evil only as long as they can justify it to their consciencies. the "worship demons" thing is limited to a few madmen. The "i am a jerkass and I just don't care about the suffering I cause to others" exist, but is quite limited.

[Ramien]

Because she fell so hard, I'm surprised she didn't leave cracks in the floor.

Because she would've looked hot in black leather.

[F.Harr]

Miko would not get a Deva at all. She'd get a visit from the Harmonium's recruiting board, giving her a pamphlet and asking her to join (or else). Then she'll start slashing through them, until the Hardheads decide they'd be safer from this crazy petitioner if they make a tactical retreat to Ortho. :smalltongue:

. . . Nah, the psycho-analist is funnier. Also, picture it. At the end of a long and personally tortuous session of confrontation and self self-discovery, a set of stairs leading own through the clouds as if through the floor. The walls are red. Miko is looking down at them is with a small frown. And then Miko steps down on her journey to where she already took herself.

MAN I wish I could draw.



Well, the Tarquin method is also quite realistic. (Evil says "good and evil don't really have any meanings, they're just labels; being on the smarter, more successful side is what matters.")

And



@ evil in the real world: the most horrible crimes (wars, genocides, mass murders) are generally done by people who believe they are doing right, because even an evil person would generally not go to such depth. most petty crimes instead (tefth, scam, drug dealing, tax evasion...) are instead done by people who believe that other people would be equally jerkasses to them if the position was reverted, or by people who think they are smarter and can get away with it, or by people who think that "everyone does it, so it's not really wrong".
Anyway yes, most people are evil only as long as they can justify it to their consciencies. the "worship demons" thing is limited to a few madmen. The "i am a jerkass and I just don't care about the suffering I cause to others" exist, but is quite limited.

Yeah, people are so judgemental about that sort of thing.

[Scow2]

She's an Bigoted murderer who kills people without a trial.
Deluded, not Bigoted. And a Trial isn't necessary for any force other than Law, which a Paladin can forsake in a moment if Good is being threatened (Such as a pint-sized homicidal psychopath on the loose, who had already killed one innocent person and was likely going to kill more) Unfortunately, said pint-sized psychopath was a Protagonist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProtagonistCenteredMorality).

[hamishspence]

Deluded, not Bigoted.

She's specifically bigoted against chromatic dragons, presuming that the destruction of the one the OoTS met was "just and necessary" based purely on colour.

But then, a lot of characters in D&D worlds tend to be.

[F.Harr]

She's specifically bigoted against chromatic dragons, presuming that the destruction of the one the OoTS met was "just and necessary" based purely on colour.

But then, a lot of characters in D&D worlds tend to be.

I'd thought it was more based on the fact that it hadn't used any conditioner during his last shower.

that and it tried to kill the OotSers without so much as a "how do you do".

[hamishspence]

Sure- but Roy didn't tell Miko that- all he told her was that they killed the dragon:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0207.html

[F.Harr]

And that it's scales weren't all shiny. Hence the conditioner gag. I threw in the other because there WAS a reason to kill him. But yeah, you're right.

[SaintRidley]

I would hazard that in some minds it was as simple as "Rich put a paladin in the story. Well, she's going to become a blackguard. What else is there to do with a paladin anyway?"

[NihhusHuotAliro]

I always thought that Miko, on some level, defined her identity by her paladin class. Judging from the prelude to S.O.D., it is at the very least a major source of pride for her; and the thing she thinks makes her better than you (the reader).

Personally, I thought that since she had lost quite a lot of her power and ability when she fell; she would want to gain new power and ability to replace what she'd lost.

Being brought down to just a normal fighter, nothing special; was probably humiliating.

"I don't... I don't understand"

"How could this happen? It all made sense, for the first time in years. The gods showed me his treachery... how?"

"No. This isn't fair. I have to think. I need time to figure out what the gods want me to do next"

"I'm so confused"

What I gathered from these lines of dialogue just after murdering Shojo was that Miko is not used to thinking for herself.

She wants to "figure out what the gods want me to do next"; the gods "Wouldn't do this to ME without a reason".

"The gods have a plan for me, I know it, I am special; the most powerful paladin in the sapphire guild".

Her sense of self-worth hinges on doing what (she thinks) the gods want her to do. It is the only way she knows how to live.

My interpretation of Miko was a person who has self-worth problems and who feels like she can only have worth if she is "The best", the most powerful paladin. Her self-worth comes not by being powerful, but by being MORE powerful than others. She thinks that she's the worst so she always acts like she's the best; in order to prove it to herself.

My interpretation of Miko was a person who needed gods to follow (or at least to provide some "justification" for her actions); who needed the gods to have a special plan for her.

And now, she is no longer the most powerful paladin.

How can she gain power and become "the best" again? .

If Sabine, Nale, and Co. had pretended to be good and wanting to bring the order to "justice"; and had Sabine not admitted that she was a demon; it might have worked. Also, allying with the Linear Guild gains her allies to help her destroy the Order. Had Miko not been aware that sabine was evil and that joining the LG wold turn her into a blackguard; she might have turned into a blackguard.

[Irenaeus]

As soon as Blackguard/anti-paladins were introduced, paladins were reduced to a Chekov's class for a lot of people.

[Sir_Leorik]

I would hazard that in some minds it was as simple as "Rich put a paladin in the story. Well, she's going to become a blackguard. What else is there to do with a paladin anyway?"

Sadly, that speaks volumes about those individuals. They either view Lawful Good heroes as boring, Dudley Do-Right types, or they are incredibly cynical about the inevitability of a Paladin not only falling from Paladin status, but falling into depravity. I hope that O-Chul and Lien can convince these people that Good Is Not Boring, and that there are Paladins who can handle the job requirements. What else is there to do with a Paladin? How about this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0542.html)? Or this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0651.html)? What else, indeed!

[LuisDantas]

The way I see it, Miko was never more than barely Lawful or Good, if even that.

Ever since we met her she was best described as True Neutral Self-Serving, Proud subcategory. She just expressed that pride in ways that could pay lip service to the idea of serving Good.

Then she learned of Shinjo's betrayal, after having her defenses weakened by Belkar. And she lost it completely. She became fully delusional and driven by fantasies of grandeur alone. She just could not afford not to be important anymore.

I don't know if that would lead into becoming a Blackguard necessarily. But she certainly seemed to have all the needed elements, except the time to fully realize her own corruption.

[ChaosArchon]

By the way, I personally expect that, in the afterlife, Miko gets not a Beauocro-deva but rather a Psycho-analist-deva. That before she can be assigned, etc. she needs to work though what she did and why she did it and what it means and meant.

Wasn't it implied she wasn't going to the LG afterlife? When she asked if she would see her horse didn't Soon say no?

[Sir_Leorik]

Wasn't it implied she wasn't going to the LG afterlife? When she asked if she would see her horse didn't Soon say no?

There are two possible afterlives she could have ended up in: Mount Celestia, which is purely Lawful Good, and Arcadia, which borders between Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral. Frankly, Miko would fit right in on Arcadia.

[hamishspence]

I once tentatively hypothesised that each of the 12 Gods occupies a different Outer Plane (the 12 non-Evil Outer Planes, including the "not quite evil enough to gain a planar alignment" ones), and that their servants (including paladin mounts) can travel freely between these planes when not on duty.

And thus, that Miko could be in Mechanus or even Acheron and still be regularly visited by Windstriker.

However, I haven't seen any in-comic evidence that actually supports this- Arcadia does seem like the most likely candidate.

[Kish]

Wasn't it implied she wasn't going to the LG afterlife? When she asked if she would see her horse didn't Soon say no?
...no, Soon said "Of course."

She's not in the same place as Windstriker, but she wouldn't be in any case, since he's not dead, and is probably another paladin's mount now. If she was still Lawful Good, she's somewhere in Celestia, just not as high on the mountain as she would be if she'd died a true paladin. If she was any other alignment then...etc. People will say that "she was obviously X alignment and therefore she is in Y." People will say that what Soon said about Windstriker visiting her as much as he is able proves she's in an upper plane (because Windstriker couldn't visit her in the Nine Hells) and that it proves that she's not in an upper plane (because there would be no limits on Windstriker visiting her in Celestia). (And, occasionally, someone who really, really hates Miko will say that Soon was obviously twisting the truth and his "Of course" is as good as a "No.") At the end of the day, the information the comic's given us is simply not sufficient for anyone to know where she is.

[Cerlis]

Deluded, not Bigoted. And a Trial isn't necessary for any force other than Law, which a Paladin can forsake in a moment if Good is being threatened (Such as a pint-sized homicidal psychopath on the loose, who had already killed one innocent person and was likely going to kill more) Unfortunately, said pint-sized psychopath was a Protagonist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProtagonistCenteredMorality).

well the point is she believes she is Judge Dredd.

But i was being intentionally general to illustrate a point.

That many people view her as basically one of the most destructive evil characters in the story....

without that pesky Aura to go with it.

So basically her becoming a blackguard would have been akin to getting a new job , doing the exact same thing, just with a different company.

In the eyes of many.

(not sure if I am one of those. *shrug* I can empathize though)


------------------

P.S. Also i think there is avery very strong case for "bigoted".

Its fairly obvious from scenes such as that one where she questions the treasure that either one is a repentant loyal do-gooding religious person (possibly removing one of those descriptors per case) or you are just one betrayal away from being on the side of evil.

Basically the case would be that "She believes anyone that is not Good to be pre-Evil, unless they get some sort of Paladin approved repentance" and possibly "Paladin's (read: Miko Miyazaki) are the ultimate judge of righteousness and all others are too corrupt or blinded by sin in order to make proper decisions."

The only "problem" with this notion is possibly that would mean she is bigoted to herself , cus i'm not sure if its basic Prejudice if the people you are prejudiced against is...Everyone.


P.P.S. My assumption that is in no way based on any additional evidence that might prove it, was that perhaps Paladin's had a special spot (or got an auto pass to the higher parts of the mountain) . Thus as a "normal" person who is only LG because she was to Deluded to think she was anything but, she is going to be nowhere near her paladin buddies and will probably have to be visited, the same way Mr. Greenhilt visited Roy.

[hamishspence]

She's not in the same place as Windstriker, but she wouldn't be in any case, since he's not dead, and is probably another paladin's mount now. If she was still Lawful Good, she's somewhere in Celestia, just not as high on the mountain as she would be if she'd died a true paladin.

Arcadia does accept both Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral souls.

[LuisDantas]

well the point is she believes she is Judge Dredd.


Little-known fact: Judge Dredd was created as a satire. He was never meant to be taken seriously.

Miko and Dredd do have a lot in common, in that both think highly of themselves and fall way, way short.


(...)

So basically her becoming a blackguard would have been akin to getting a new job , doing the exact same thing, just with a different company.

In the eyes of many.


Myself definitely included. I blame Shojo for that, incidentally.

Miko is despicable as heck (and at the time of her death, hardly Lawful or Good at all), but Shojo saw that coming and did not care to do anything to avoid it.

I can't bring myself to understand how people even consider Arcadia as a possible residence for her. The place would not even exist far as her mindset goes. Shades of Silent Hill and all that.

[hamishspence]

Arcadia's the plane that's "one step down" from Celestia- Mechanus is one step below that- and the plane of Lawful Neutrality.

Interestingly, the Outlands (True Neutral) would be a very good plane for someone to receive visitors from anywhere- since it has permanent gates to all the other Outer Planes- with a town surrounding each gate.

Thus, an Outlands-dwelling Miko, who lived in Celestia's gate-town, could easily receive Celestial visitors who pop through now and again from Celestia.

[F.Harr]

Wasn't it implied she wasn't going to the LG afterlife? When she asked if she would see her horse didn't Soon say no?

This was after my "phycho-analyst-deva" thing. Well, yeah, but this is the pre-afterlife phase. After her inner problems are drawn out and dealt with, THEN she can be sent to a more perminant place.


There are two possible afterlives she could have ended up in: Mount Celestia, which is purely Lawful Good, and Arcadia, which borders between Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral. Frankly, Miko would fit right in on Arcadia.

Well that would just totally ruin my image of Miko looking down the stairs. But likely, I suppose.


------------------

P.S. Also i think there is avery very strong case for "bigoted".

Well, the way she casually dismissed that restaurant based only on the recreations of the staff was pretty bigoted.



Little-known fact: Judge Dredd was created as a satire. He was never meant to be taken seriously.


Really? I never knew. Not that I ever followed the guy.



Interestingly, the Outlands (True Neutral) would be a very good plane for someone to receive visitors from anywhere- since it has permanent gates to all the other Outer Planes- with a town surrounding each gate.

Thus, an Outlands-dwelling Miko, who lived in Celestia's gate-town, could easily receive Celestial visitors who pop through now and again from Celestia.

So, the center of the alignment system on OotS-world actually surrounds the other alignments in the afterlife. Cool, that's almost (but not quite) philosophical.

[Rogar Demonblud]

No, it just has towns around the rail stations that take you to the other places.

[hamishspence]

So, the center of the alignment system on OotS-world actually surrounds the other alignments in the afterlife. Cool, that's almost (but not quite) philosophical.

It's the other way round- they all surround the Outlands- at least, in the 3.5 DMG cosmology, which the OoTS one seems to resemble.

Hence: "Great Wheel" with the Outlands as the hub, and gates on it leading to the 16 other Outer Planes.

[The Kind Knido]

Ok, I'm sure I posted in this thread. Did anyone notice a post written by me in this particular thread? :smallfrown:

[Nerd-o-rama]

Redcloak isn't sociopathic, or even near. There is even an arc consecrated to him realizing that hobgoblins are his fellow goblins too. Hating the race which slaughtered your people for years on end doesn't make you a sociopath.

However, in SoD it's clear he
is willing to sacrifice a lot for his sake, although it didn't matter in the end.

I put in the "near-" qualified because he is not in fact sociopathic. We can see from SoD especially that he's a very empathetic person who intentionally suppresses his empathy most of the time because The Plan overrides everything else, including his own conscience. It was more a comment about his affect as a ruthless idealist than his inner psychological makeup.

[F.Harr]

It's the other way round- they all surround the Outlands- at least, in the 3.5 DMG cosmology, which the OoTS one seems to resemble.

Hence: "Great Wheel" with the Outlands as the hub, and gates on it leading to the 16 other Outer Planes.

That doesn't sound very "out-y" to me. But whatever.

[sengmeng]

The people who thought that did so because that wast the only thing Miko could do to remain "interesting" to them. See, there is still a large segment on the forums who don't understand what Rich is doing here. He aims to entertain first, not pay lip service to the rules, and he is deconstructing a lot of D&D, both the culture and players' ideas, and the rules. Rather than finding Miko's fall interesting and understanding that she has many personality traits that are NOT related to alignment, they saw "Miko the fighter without bonus feats" uninteresting because they viewed her through the lens of utility and power in the game rules. Therefore, the only "interesting" character growth for her would be to become a blackguard, no matter how contrary it would be to the parts of her personality that weren't governed by alignment. In short, they thought that she would become a blackguard because blackguards exist and she was a fallen paladin, which in the rules is all you need, despite the narrative not supporting it at all.

[Kish]

In short, they thought that she would become a blackguard because blackguards exist and she was a fallen paladin,
People were saying she would obviously become a blackguard well before there was even a whiff of her falling.

(Although there was at least one person who announced condescendingly, when she fell, that anyone who STILL thought she wasn't going to become a blackguard was obviously a MORON.)

[sengmeng]

Fine, add another step to it then.

People thought she would become a blackguard because blackguards exist, and she was a paladin, and paladin's fall and become blackguards.

Glad I got my dose of pedantry today. I skipped class earlier, so I was worried.

[Chronos]

No, people thought that she would become a blackguard because her behavior and personality were exactly like that of the sort of character who becomes a blackguard. You'll notice that nobody has ever suggested that Hinjo, O-Chul, Lien, or Thanh would become blackguards, even though the mechanics work the same way for them as they do for Miko, because none of them act like blackguards-in-training.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Fine, add another step to it then.

People thought she would become a blackguard because blackguards exist, and she was a paladin, and paladin's fall and become blackguards.

Glad I got my dose of pedantry today. I skipped class earlier, so I was worried.

Paladins should be in the plural, not the possessive.

There, now you have gotten tomorrow's dose of pedantry out of the way.:smallwink:

[Kish]

No, people thought that she would become a blackguard because her behavior and personality were exactly like that of the sort of character who becomes a blackguard. You'll notice that nobody has ever suggested that Hinjo, O-Chul, Lien, or Thanh would become blackguards, even though the mechanics work the same way for them as they do for Miko, because none of them act like blackguards-in-training.
I am afraid that, considering that the predictions of Miko becoming a blackguard started the second it was revealed that she was a paladin, with very little knowledge of her behavior or personality, I am inclined to reject your theory on why no similar predictions have been made for Hinjo et al, and substitute my own, which is a combination of, "Most of the dedicated paladin-haters simply quit in disgust, either before Hinjo appeared on panel or in response to a critical mass of paladins, i.e. more than one" and, "Hinjo made it clear in his very first appearance that his thesis statement was A Nice Tolerant Paladin Who Isn't Like Miko."

For all the people who see a paladin and go, "Look, a future blackguard!"...I've actually never encountered anyone dedicated enough to see a paladin order and go, "Look, a future blackguard order!"

[sengmeng]

No, people thought that she would become a blackguard because her behavior and personality were exactly like that of the sort of character who becomes a blackguard. You'll notice that nobody has ever suggested that Hinjo, O-Chul, Lien, or Thanh would become blackguards, even though the mechanics work the same way for them as they do for Miko, because none of them act like blackguards-in-training.

O-chul, Lien, Hinjo, and Thanh are also fairly nice, likable people. Miko was a jerk, not evil, not sadistic, not power hungry. She also has a huge ego and a short temper, neither of which lends itself to a calculated bargain with demons, daemons, or devils. Her fatal flaws were to never think she could be wrong, and an unwavering belief in her own unique position.

The sort of character who becomes a blackguard is Nale or Kubota, who have had "friendly contact with an evil outsider." Miko only looks like a blackguard-in-training if you look at all paladins as potential blackguards because of the way the fallen paladin/blackguard rules interact. Which was my original point.

[hamishspence]

Before we ever learned her name was Miko- we had scenes that suggested that she was fixated on killing the Order:

"My blades will be bathed in the blood of those responsible." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0120.html)

"My master has decreed it: The Order of the Stick must die!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0174.html)

As a result (going by rereads of those discussion threads) the most common theory seemed to be that she was some kind of assassin.

When she was revealed as a paladin- my guess is that people were trying to reconcile these hints of bloodthirstiness with paladinhood, and came to the conclusion that bloodthirstiness would eventually lead to her Fall.

However- this was long before I joined the forums- so I can only go by what I read in the threads that were indexed.

[Ceiling_Squid]

Little-known fact: Judge Dredd was created as a satire. He was never meant to be taken seriously.

Miko and Dredd do have a lot in common, in that both think highly of themselves and fall way, way short.



Having just delved into a lot of the early Dredd comics, I don't find myself agreeing with that estimation of the character. It's a cornball comic at first, but with some surprisingly serious plotlines after the early comedic strips.

Far as I can tell, Miko is only like Dredd in the sense that they both represent interpretations of the Lawful Neutral alignment. Comparing her to Dredd actually does Dredd a disservice. He's a more humble character than Miko ever was. He does not think particularly highly of himself. He believes himself a servant of the law (and by extension, the citizenry).

"Judge Dredd" is a satire (especially in the way the world is portrayed), and the character himself varies from writer-to-writer, but he has been painted with a sympathetic brush over the years. Dredd is very consistently portrayed as a hard-nosed servant of the law. He's an unapologetic fascist, but he does apply the letter of law fairly to maintain order. The trouble is, the law itself in Mega City 1 is often too cruel, too arbitrary, and too one-size-fits-all. Dredd's fault as a character is that he does not question the law-as-written (and even then, some writers will give him a minor soft spot in how he chooses to apply it).

Miko believes herself above the law, able to interpret and apply it better than others. Dredd serves the law, and is portrayed as incorruptible (not in the sense of goodness, but in that he also subjects himself to same stringent standards of the law in his personal and professional conduct).

I think that's an important distinction to make. Dredd/Miko comparisons are actually pretty enlightening, but more because of the finer distinctions between them, rather than similarities. They are both valid (and interesting) interpretations of the LN alignment.

Keep in mind, neither Dredd nor Miko are Good characters. They are Lawful Neutral at best, but they have very different temperaments in how they choose to enforce order.

[F.Harr]

I really like the preceding Dredd/Miko comparison. And I'm not even familiar with Dredd.

"Fine, add another step to it then.

"People thought she would become a blackguard because blackguards exist, and she was a paladin, and paladin's fall and become blackguards.

"Glad I got my dose of pedantry today. I skipped class earlier, so I was worried."


Paladins should be in the plural, not the possessive.

There, now you have gotten tomorrow's dose of pedantry out of the way.:smallwink:

It's an underappreciated micro-nutrient.

[Hague]

Don't forget the strip where Tsukiko decides not to animate Miko's corpse that lampoons the cliche that all tragically-dead fallen paladins need to rise as Death Knights.

[King of Nowhere]

We have plenty of people speculating on why some figured miko was going to become a blackguard.
We don't have ANYONE who admitted to having had the idea and explaining his reasons. I'm sure they would make more sense if we could get some of them to talk. This thread lacks primary sources.

[Domino Quartz]

We have plenty of people speculating on why some figured miko was going to become a blackguard.
We don't have ANYONE who admitted to having had the idea and explaining his reasons. I'm sure they would make more sense if we could get some of them to talk. This thread lacks primary sources.

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33757), for one.
Then there's this one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32969) from someone who was hoping it would happen.

[Finagle]

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33757), for one.
Then there's this one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32969) from someone who was hoping it would happen.
Those are actually really good links that make a lot of the same arguments against Miko becoming a blackguard. The arguments are much more convincing as they were made by people with current ongoing knowledge of the comic, untainted by what would happen later.

[LuisDantas]

Arcadia's the plane that's "one step down" from Celestia- Mechanus is one step below that- and the plane of Lawful Neutrality.

Interestingly, the Outlands (True Neutral) would be a very good plane for someone to receive visitors from anywhere- since it has permanent gates to all the other Outer Planes- with a town surrounding each gate.

Thus, an Outlands-dwelling Miko, who lived in Celestia's gate-town, could easily receive Celestial visitors who pop through now and again from Celestia.

Now we are arriving somewhere.

[tomandtish]

As has been commented on, there were undoubtedly some who wanted Miko to become a Blackguard "just because". I wasn't one of them. I wasn't posting in the forums then, but I do remember wondering if Rich was going to take it in that direction.


I would find it cheesy as heck if she went blackguard immediately. If she does I hope it is a detailed, deep transition that keeps her an interesting character. I am not a big Miko fan but I respect her enough, and like the gameplay example she represents even more. A major area forgotten by players and sometimes GMs is that making one mistake does not equal a sudden life reversal. If a normally good person, in a fit of rage, killed a man unjustly and lost his job and life, would he suddenly become an assassin and take lives without a care? It just doesn't make sense; no more for a paladin than it would for anyone else. Less, I would say: having devoted their lives to true goodness, almost any fallen paladin should seek redemption, not spiral further into a complete reversal. While that is possible, it should be very rare and very complex. Few people with that kind of weakness of moral willpower should have made it far in the paladin profession in the first place.

Thus, if Miko does fall from grace instead of realising her error and seeking redemption, I hope we see a long and bitter battle between her self-delusions about her purpose gradually corrupting her into something twisted, someone who still believes she is doing right even as she turns to more and more vile ends. In the process Rich should (and if he follows this narrative path, probably will) keep her actions justifiable not just from her own perspective (although especially there) but even from an outside view, if one gives one's viewpoint just a slight tilt. She is not just going to disappear and be a blackguard next time she encounters the OotS.

I would rather she sought redemption. The constant references to fallen paladins in the game books make it seem like the path of evil is a standard route for them, and I think that sells paladins short. It implies that a single misdeed turns a champion of good into a twisted shadow of her former self. Less attention is given to redemption, but it seems to me anyone who would have chosen the paladin life in the first place would seek redemption as part of their basic character.

The bolded part is the part to pay attention to, as Erk sums it up nicely here. When Miko was first introduced I saw her as the annoying paladin. Rich even verified that she was the classic example of how to NOT play a paladin. However, after her chase with Belkar I began wondering if he (Belkar) would actually be able to make her fall. She was very obviously already stuck in the "my way is the right and just way" mindset and it didn't seem like it would take much to push her over the edge.

Killing Shojo caught me off guard but was well-done. And her reaction to the loss of her abilities strengthened the thought in my mind. She can't admit she's wrong. Which means in her mind everything she does is right. I was actually expecting her to kill Hinjo when she escaped from her cell, using some rationale that he was as guilty as Shojo.

And that's how she would have become a Blackguard (and I assume that if Rich decided to go in that direction that he can waive the contact with a friendly outsider if he really wants to). She'll never knowingly side with evil. She'll simply keep redefining evil as anything that opposes her worldview. She'd be slaughtering other paladins, clerics, eventually even children because they've done something that trips her new definitions of evil. All the while she never realizes she's become what she hates the most. She's gone so far over the line that the line no longer exists, and she'll never be able to cross back over because she can't realize that she stepped over in the first place. She's one of the worst types of evil, that which believes it is doing good.

There was plenty of believable room for her to become a Blackguard, and it would have been interesting to see Rich's take on how that developed. But this isn't her story so we get the shorter fall and lack of redemption.

[Procyonpi]

Because she was a paladin, and to a number of people online, "Paladin" is synonymous with "future blackguard."

There were people saying she was surely going to become a blackguard from the second it was revealed that she was a paladin, so it's not what Cerlis said; it had nothing to do with her being a bigoted murderer, or her hating the Order of the Stick, or...anything but her being a paladin. And I don't think anyone even mentioned, "Hide is a class skill for one of her classes" (which is the limit of what the monk levels might theoretically have contributed to her being able to multiclass to blackguard, and Miko never seemed to have put any points in the Hide skill regardless), or mentioned the monk class in conjunction with her being a potential blackguard at all.

I don't think anyone ever speculated that, say, Hinjo would become a blackgaurd.

[sengmeng]

I don't think anyone ever speculated that, say, Hinjo would become a blackgaurd.

I also don't think I ever heard anyone say "What you've said isn't ridiculous because something more ridiculous exists." But, in a way you're right. Miko being a jerk is a huge contributor to the blackguard speculation phenomenon. It's still ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as Hinjo becoming a blackguard

[Procyonpi]

I also don't think I ever heard anyone say "What you've said isn't ridiculous because something more ridiculous exists." But, in a way you're right. Miko being a jerk is a huge contributor to the blackguard speculation phenomenon. It's still ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as Hinjo becoming a blackguard

Read Kish's quote that I was responding to. I was objecting to the idea that people were speculating that Miko might become a blackgaurd SOLELY because she was a Paladin.

[King of Nowhere]

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33757), for one.
Then there's this one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32969) from someone who was hoping it would happen.

I see. So we weren't making things up, those guys used the same arguments.
I still think no one who understand how miko thinks could believe she would ever become a blackguard - at least not officially. While she was misguided and a jerk, she believed in serving the cause of good above all else, and would have never made deals with fiends.
On the other hand, such could be justified by "character development". How is it called when it goes backwards? character undevelopment?

[Kish]

Read Kish's quote that I was responding to. I was objecting to the idea that people were speculating that Miko might become a blackgaurd SOLELY because she was a Paladin.
Object all you want, it's still the case. (At least one person outright said, as soon as she was introduced--well before there was even a whiff of Hinjo--that she would hopefully soon become a blackguard "as every paladin should.")

[hamishspence]

(At least one person outright said, as soon as she was introduced--well before there was even a whiff of Hinjo--that she would hopefully soon become a blackguard "as every paladin should.")

I've been looking through the discussion threads (strip 200-210) and so far I haven't spotted anything like that- though I may have missed it.

Alternatively- were these speculations in threads of their own, rather than the main strip discussion threads?

[Nordom]

I still think no one who understand how miko thinks could believe she would ever become a blackguard - at least not officially. While she was misguided and a jerk, she believed in serving the cause of good above all else, and would have never made deals with fiends.

Well an important question would be why she was so dedicated to serving good above all else? Normally people are Good (in the alignment sense) at least in large part out of some level of empathy and concern for others, which isn't something Miko displayed a terrible lot of. In practice, Miko held herself to a paladin alignment in part out of a desperate need for clear structure and in part because it gave her an opportunity to feel special and look down on people. Stripped of that by Shojo's "betrayal" and her own fall it wouldn't have been inconcievable for her to latch onto whatever other thing might fill that void. Instead she broke a different way, went kind of nuts, and blew herself up. I think her final grace note with Soon suggests she had a core of genuine heartfelt decency that propbably would have prevented her from going full on evil monster, but up until that point, I don't think said core was ever really visible. She just seemed like an angry jerk who used the paladin code to justify her angry jerkiness, and might have found some new and exciting way to be an angry jerk if paladinhood was no longer an option.


On the other hand, such could be justified by "character development". How is it called when it goes backwards? character undevelopment?

Character development doesn't neccessary mean becoming a better person. It just means developing additional facets to the character's personality that gives the audience a better understanding of who that character really is. Becoming a BG would have qualified.

[luna the cat]

I think all the people talking about Judge Dredd are off the mark a bit...

I think of Miko as having been closer to Javert...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urxk4mveLCw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFr6nk4ry4Y

You can totally just hear Miko singing these songs!

[Domino Quartz]

I've been looking through the discussion threads (strip 200-210) and so far I haven't spotted anything like that- though I may have missed it.

Alternatively- were these speculations in threads of their own, rather than the main strip discussion threads?

What year was that?

[The Giant]

OK, no Miko-to-Javert comparisons, please. I just locked a thread that had gone that way and I don't want to have to do so again. Thank you.

[Kish]

I've been looking through the discussion threads (strip 200-210) and so far I haven't spotted anything like that- though I may have missed it.

Alternatively- were these speculations in threads of their own, rather than the main strip discussion threads?
I don't remember that, I'm afraid.

[luna the cat]

sorry, had not seen that thread

[Nachoman_Randy]

I always assumed that those people were seeing a clichè. a paladin falling and becoming evil and then redeeming has been played so often, I want to puke just thinking about it. Anyway, some people were following the clichè to its logical conclusion, even if it was totally out of character for miko.
As other have said, miko would never knowingly side with evil. she did plenty of evil, but only by being misguided. Now, a smart fiend presenting her with the "your gods betrayed you" speech MAY or may not have gained her trust, but ONLY as long as miko was convinced that fiend was good. so, the moment the fiend was revealed as such, miko would have attacked it. that's miko.

@ evil in the real world: the most horrible crimes (wars, genocides, mass murders) are generally done by people who believe they are doing right, because even an evil person would generally not go to such depth. most petty crimes instead (tefth, scam, drug dealing, tax evasion...) are instead done by people who believe that other people would be equally jerkasses to them if the position was reverted, or by people who think they are smarter and can get away with it, or by people who think that "everyone does it, so it's not really wrong".
Anyway yes, most people are evil only as long as they can justify it to their consciencies. the "worship demons" thing is limited to a few madmen. The "i am a jerkass and I just don't care about the suffering I cause to others" exist, but is quite limited.

Heh, want to try living in a third world or even fith world country?

[MReav]

Well an important question would be why she was so dedicated to serving good above all else? Normally people are Good (in the alignment sense) at least in large part out of some level of empathy and concern for others, which isn't something Miko displayed a terrible lot of. In practice, Miko held herself to a paladin alignment in part out of a desperate need for clear structure and in part because it gave her an opportunity to feel special and look down on people.

I feel like that's a overstatement owing mostly to her being antagonistic towards the POV characters and people who get along with them. With the nameless NPCs, she often could.

She listens to the various stories given to her by the townsfolk (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0174.html), she frees two people who have been tied up and seemingly left for dead (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0189.html) (sure she kills them but the first made an unprovoked attack on her and the second attacked her too, notice the woosh), she doesn't act like the dirt farmers are a distraction (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0211.html), she goes into a burning building to rescue helpless civilians, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0243.html) while extremely judgemental she does actually seem to give a crap about the innkeeper who lost his business (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0250.html), offers to help the Azure City watch tower guards as best she could while under the impression she was delivering an important message (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0368.html), shows immediate concern for Windstriker despite getting her ass whupped (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0374.html), and is saddened by Azure City's conquest. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0460.html)

Meanwhile, Roy of all people can be pretty dismissive (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0211.html) and snippy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0329.html) toward the background characters. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0340.html)

[Paseo H]

O-chul, Lien, Hinjo, and Thanh are also fairly nice, likable people.

I take issue with the last one.

Thanh was kind of humorless, honestly. He just wasn't "Inspector Javert with boobs" like Miko was.

[Nordom]

She listens to the various stories given to her by the townsfolk (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0174.html), she frees two people who have been tied up and seemingly left for dead (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0189.html) (sure she kills them but the first made an unprovoked attack on her and the second attacked her too, notice the woosh), she doesn't act like the dirt farmers are a distraction (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0211.html), she goes into a burning building to rescue helpless civilians, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0243.html) while extremely judgemental she does actually seem to give a crap about the innkeeper who lost his business (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0250.html), offers to help the Azure City watch tower guards as best she could while under the impression she was delivering an important message (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0368.html), shows immediate concern for Windstriker despite getting her ass whupped (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0374.html), and is saddened by Azure City's conquest. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0460.html)

Well, everything's open for interpretation to some degree, but I feel like you are interpreting a lot of those very generously. In the first couple links, she's conducting an investigation, and her interactions with the people around her last exactly as long as it takes her to get the information she's interested in.

As far as I can see from the examples you cited, the only time she really goes out her way to help someone (not just punish an evildoer but actually make another person's life better) is in the burning building strip. And the only time she expresses any clear emotional concern for anyone is when she thinks her horse is in danger.

On the other side of the equation we have stuff like the inkeeper strip. Notic how, for all her theatrics, she's not offering to help the inkeeper in any way, or even checking to make sure he's okay. She's just using his tragedy as a moral bludgeon to beat the order with.

[LuisDantas]

I see. So we weren't making things up, those guys used the same arguments.
I still think no one who understand how miko thinks could believe she would ever become a blackguard - at least not officially. While she was misguided and a jerk, she believed in serving the cause of good above all else, and would have never made deals with fiends.

I don't know how becoming a blackguard works in D&D, but in real life those like Miko who make a point of stating aloud and often that they are "serving the cause of good above all else" are usually the most easily and most deeply corrupted.

[rodneyAnonymous]

...greater in number than the digits of Pi to the power of Graham's Number...

Very nitpicky and nerdy of me, but pi is an irrational number: it has infinite digits already. Multiplying it by anything weakens the simile; that would risk making it rational and thus finite. (Large-but-finite is smaller than infinite.) For example, the square root of 2 is an irrational number, but raising it to the power of 2 makes it rational. The More You Know. That still could mean "really big number" but it's a mathematical turn of phrase that is likely to annoy mathematicians; better to leave it simply as "the digits of pi" or something completely different, like "stars in the sky".


I don't know how becoming a blackguard works in D&D, but in real life those like Miko who make a point of stating aloud and often that they are "serving the cause of good above all else" are usually the most easily and most deeply corrupted.

Blackguards are champions of explicit evil, not well-intentioned extremists. Knights of darkness, not misguided servants of a good cause. One of the prerequisites is friendly contact with an evil outsider, like doing a favor for a demon. Though Miko had many faults, knowingly and deliberately committing evil acts was not among them. Even if you consider her actions evil, she didn't, which is kind of important. Sabine tried pitching the idea to Miko, but it was firmly rejected.


Miko was a jerk, not evil, not sadistic, not power hungry. [...] The sort of character who becomes a blackguard is Nale or Kubota... Miko only looks like a blackguard-in-training if you look at all paladins as potential blackguards...

[MReav]

Well, everything's open for interpretation to some degree, but I feel like you are interpreting a lot of those very generously. In the first couple links, she's conducting an investigation, and her interactions with the people around her last exactly as long as it takes her to get the information she's interested in.

Fair enough in terms of personal interpretation, but she's hardly brushing off or ignoring the plights mentioned.


As far as I can see from the examples you cited, the only time she really goes out her way to help someone (not just punish an evildoer but actually make another person's life better) is in the burning building strip. And the only time she expresses any clear emotional concern for anyone is when she thinks her horse is in danger.

Eh, I feel that's just as much a stretch, considering fighting the ogres and going out of her way to help someone was handled at the same time, and her offer to the watchtower guards seemed both pragmatic and helpful (searching for the lost suppliers could take as much time as going back to Azure City, and no one expected an enemy army to be this deep into Azure City territory).


On the other side of the equation we have stuff like the inkeeper strip. Notic how, for all her theatrics, she's not offering to help the inkeeper in any way, or even checking to make sure he's okay. She's just using his tragedy as a moral bludgeon to beat the order with.

The King of Somewhere had agreed to foot the bill for them, and her statement of "which apparently was quite steep, even before the inn was destroyed" suggested, at least to me, that the Order was being charged for covering the cost of the inn. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0246.html) So, he's being taken care of, but at the same time he was screwed over.


Blackguards are champions of explicit evil, not well-intentioned extremists. Knights of darkness, not misguided servants of a good cause.

Dubious canonicity (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0475.html), but:

"Domination can be broken if the subject is forced to do something against their inherent nature."

"Yes, yes, like forcing a paladin to eat babies, or forcing a blackguard to eat babies without mustard."

[rodneyAnonymous]

I love babies. But I can't eat a whole one.

[LuisDantas]

Blackguards are champions of explicit evil, not well-intentioned extremists. Knights of darkness, not misguided servants of a good cause. One of the prerequisites is friendly contact with an evil outsider, like doing a favor for a demon. Though Miko had many faults, knowingly and deliberately committing evil acts was not among them. Even if you consider her actions evil, she didn't, which is kind of important. Sabine tried pitching the idea to Miko, but it was firmly rejected.

I see. A bit too mustache-evil for my taste, but whatever.

So it comes down to betting whether she would remain faithful to at least the letter of her ideals?

I will take that bet. Miko would not, had she only lived a bit more. Her descent into utter psychopathy was already irreversible from the moment she escaped her cell at the very least.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Yes, blackguards are card-carrying, moustache-twirling villains, who wear skulls and spikes. I agree that sort of evil is less realistic than the Miko sort of evil; but Miko was not like that. Of course, anyone might change dramatically, but I don't think anything she did or said suggested that was likely. Many flavors of villainous, sure, but a black knight? I don't think so.

Besides, that probably wouldn't make narrative sense. An important aspect of her character was being a good-aligned antagonist. Many philosophically interesting considerations disappear if she becomes evil.

[hamishspence]

Blackguards are champions of explicit evil, not well-intentioned extremists. Knights of darkness, not misguided servants of a good cause. One of the prerequisites is friendly contact with an evil outsider, like doing a favor for a demon.

It doesn't say that they have to know that the outsider is an outsider though.

In the 3.5 splatbook Tome of Magic, the LE ex-paladin blackguard Michael Ambrose at least sees himself as well intentioned:

page 69

Michael Ambrose, a former paladin who is now garrison commander at the Seropaenean Tower of Woe (see page 100) once served on the council of a witch slayer coterie known as the White Swords. During his tenure with the coterie, Ambrose and his allies single-handedly captured or killed nearly fifty binders. The White Swords served the Church of St. Cuthbert and became famous throughout the civilized world for their effectiveness and righteous zeal.

However, the glory of this near-legendary group did not last. Perhaps because of his overly zealous efforts at exterminating binders, Michael eventually lost his paladin abilities. Still he pressed on, believing that his god was merely testing his faith. Slowly, Michael became less and less able to distinguish between the heretic and the innocent, and the atrocities he committed in the name of righteousness became infamous. At last, the White Swords cast him out of their coterie lest he tarnish their name further.

Appalled, Michael joined the Order of Seropaenes so that he could continue his mission for his god directly instead of through intermediaries who had obviously been blinded by evil. On occasion, the fact that he cannot communicate with his god disturbs him. He remains convinced, however, that this difficulty is merely a test, and that one day St. Cuthbert will shower him with blessings.
(Binders wield a form of magic considered heretical and dangerous by all the priesthoods of the Greyhawk setting- the Order of Seropaenes was formed to hunt them down and was founded by clerics of Evil, Neutral and Good deities.)

And in City of Splendours: Waterdeep (page 49) Gareth Cormaeril is a CE ex-paladin blackguard who has never admitted it even to himself:


Unbeknownst to his fellow knights, or indeed anyone other than Malchior and Dag Zoreth of Darkhold, Sir Gareth fell away from the faith of Tyr decades ago after saving the life of Hronrulf Caradoon at the cost of his arm. It was Gareth who sold the location of Hronrulf's children to the Zhentarium in the Year of the Spur (1348 DR) and it was Gareth who nearkly engineered the assembage of the rings of Samular and Kezefbane in the hands of Dag Zoreth, a priest of Cyric.

Sir Gareth has never admitted even to himself that he no longer follows the teachings of Tyr, constructing elaborate rationalizations and falling back on willful ignorance to justify his actions to himself and others. Nevertheless, he continues to follow the lead of Malchior of Darkhold and fund his activities, claiming to Dag Zoreth, for example, that "Whatever else he may be, Malchior's a scholar and most knowledgable in the history of the order. Therefore, it is right and fitting that some of the order's monies support his work. I have no firsthand knowledge that these funds were used in any other manner." The fallen paladin never explicitly lies, but often omits inconvenient truths or misleads others.

(Darkhold is the local Zhentarium (powerful evil overlord faction) stronghold, and Malchior and Dag Zoreth were senior officers there. Kezefbane was a powerful magical siege weapon and the rings were used to control it. Cyric is a CE deity).

[Kish]

In the 3.5 splatbook Tome of Magic, the LE ex-paladin blackguard Michael Ambrose at least sees himself as well intentioned:

And in City of Splendours: Waterdeep (page 49) Gareth Cormaeril is a CE ex-paladin blackguard who has never admitted it even to himself:

I don't take those examples as illustrating anything but that an author didn't understand the concept of a blackguard, or wanted it to be something other than it is, myself.

That is, there's the description of the blackguard, a quintessential dark knight, nothing short of a mortal fiend, who "some call anti-paladins...because of their completely evil nature." And there's one passage that talks about ex-paladin blackguards, because "those who tasted true virtue and turned away make the foulest villains" or something like that.

A lot of people online think that a blackguard is an ex-paladin by default, or even that the blackguard class exists for ex-paladins. But if you pay attention to the actual class description? Most blackguards are likely to be fighter/rogues, and even more to the point, most blackguards are likely to have been quite thoroughly evil throughout their adventuring careers, thank you. So we have two (actually a lot more) authors who wrote blackguards based on the bizarre online concept as a blackguard as a "fallen paladin class" rather than the actual text of the class in the DMG; annoying but not surprising.

[hamishspence]

True - but it's at least a valid interpretation to have self-deluding blackguards.

The PRC, unlike the Paladin of Slaughter and Paladin of Tyranny variant classes, is not prevented from committing Good acts- both of those, by contrast, Fall (rise?) if they ever commit a Good act.

[LuisDantas]

Yes, blackguards are card-carrying, moustache-twirling villains, who wear skulls and spikes. I agree that sort of evil is less realistic than the Miko sort of evil;

I did not say that, not at all!

The concept of blackguard is apparently defined in an unconvincing way.

Miko, however, is as close as one could expect to realistically find to a Blackguard natural.



but Miko was not like that. Of course, anyone might change dramatically, but I don't think anything she did or said suggested that was likely. Many flavors of villainous, sure, but a black knight? I don't think so.

Really?

I can entirely see it, given her utter collapse and the depths of shameful self-delusion that she was diving in ever since she learned that Shinjo betrayed her trust.



Besides, that probably wouldn't make narrative sense. An important aspect of her character was being a good-aligned antagonist. Many philosophically interesting considerations disappear if she becomes evil.

I just don't see how anyone could think of Miko as good-aligned after #405 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0405.html). She was not only no longer good-aligned, she was actually quite incapable of good acts ever since.

#406 had her fragile grasp of good and her even more fragile grasp of law snap for good, all of a sudden. She became permanently insane and (quite violently) became the True Neutral that was her true vocation up until that point.

And then we had #460 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0460.html) when she surrendered to her base desires. At that point her corruption was firmly established, and she would easily become a Blackguard given just a bit of encouragement and enough time to fully accept her own moral collapse. #461-#464 could not make it any more clear that she is just too broken to ever repent from her mistakes, and too proud not to see herself as anything but a flaming sword to fulfill a grandious purpose.

[Geordnet]

So after reading all these answers, I can see how Miko could have become a twisted mockery of paladinhood, regardless of what her actual class would be at that point. I still don't really 'get' the minds of those who thought it was particularly probable before her Fall, however.

(And I definitely wouldn't have thought Fallen paladins were a "cliche"...)



I just don't see how anyone could think of Miko as good-aligned after #405 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0405.html).
I don't understand how you can't see that. :smalltongue:


She was not only no longer good-aligned, she was actually quite incapable of good acts ever since.
There's not exactly much evidence for this, since she didn't have many chances for significant action after that, good or otherwise. She simply died too soon to know for sure.


And then we had #460 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0460.html) when she surrendered to her base desires.
Um, you must have linked me to the wrong comic.


#461-#464 could not make it any more clear that she is just too broken to ever repent from her mistakes, and too proud not to see herself as anything but a flaming sword to fulfill a grandious purpose.
Au contraire.

#464 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html) demonstrated that there was at least one (semi)mortal whom Miko still respected, and might hear reason from: Soon Kim. If she had arrived just a few seconds later, Soon would have stopped her from destroying the gate -at which point he could have given her a serious lecture on what it means to be a paladin. Not that Miko's redemption would be guaranteed at that point, but it's at least plausible that Soon could have redeemed her.

[AstralFire]

I don't take those examples as illustrating anything but that an author didn't understand the concept of a blackguard, or wanted it to be something other than it is, myself.

That is, there's the description of the blackguard, a quintessential dark knight, nothing short of a mortal fiend, who "some call anti-paladins...because of their completely evil nature." And there's one passage that talks about ex-paladin blackguards, because "those who tasted true virtue and turned away make the foulest villains" or something like that.

A lot of people online think that a blackguard is an ex-paladin by default, or even that the blackguard class exists for ex-paladins. But if you pay attention to the actual class description? Most blackguards are likely to be fighter/rogues, and even more to the point, most blackguards are likely to have been quite thoroughly evil throughout their adventuring careers, thank you. So we have two (actually a lot more) authors who wrote blackguards based on the bizarre online concept as a blackguard as a "fallen paladin class" rather than the actual text of the class in the DMG; annoying but not surprising.

And this strip has always been more based in D&D culture than in D&D RAW, so I don't see how this is an effective rebuttal of hamish's well-supported point. The notion of a blackguard as a well-intentioned extremist is not new to these circles.

[Cerlis]

Very nitpicky and nerdy of me, but pi is an irrational number: it has infinite digits already. Multiplying it by anything weakens the simile; that would risk making it rational and thus finite. (Large-but-finite is smaller than infinite.) For example, the square root of 2 is an irrational number, but raising it to the power of 2 makes it rational. The More You Know. That still could mean "really big number" but it's a mathematical turn of phrase that is likely to annoy mathematicians; better to leave it simply as "the digits of pi" or something completely different, like "stars in the sky".



Blackguards are champions of explicit evil, not well-intentioned extremists. Knights of darkness, not misguided servants of a good cause. One of the prerequisites is friendly contact with an evil outsider, like doing a favor for a demon. Though Miko had many faults, knowingly and deliberately committing evil acts was not among them. Even if you consider her actions evil, she didn't, which is kind of important. Sabine tried pitching the idea to Miko, but it was firmly rejected.

I'll admit in Miko's particular case she is so PARANOID and INSANE she'd never ever turn into a blackguard so long as she kept what level of sanity she had*. And we see that a bit with her casual reaction with Sabine. But i'd like to point out that you described the epitome of a Blackguard.
And if you where to describe the Epitome of a Paladin, then Miko would not fit that either. Roy is 10 times the Paladin she is, and he'd still be constantly on the verge of breaking his code of honor day and night.
So the fact that Miko wouldnt fit the ideals of that class aren't proof she couldnt be, since she has been championing the ideals of a class unfitting for her since she was a child.

* I wasnt sure whether or not she might go down that path, but even now i could easily see a different story where she lost more and more of her sanity(look at all those jumps and breaks of logic she made in that one conversation/arugment) till she went down that path. All you'd need is a shapechanging evil outsider saying he was going to give her more "pure" powers and he not bothering to Detect evil on him or her powers (since in this deluded state she'd probably think she cant trust her class given Detect evil which has obviously been corrupted by Shojo his team of evil)

[rodneyAnonymous]

True - but it's at least a valid interpretation to have self-deluding blackguards..

No it's not. Kish explained why not. That author made a mistake.

Blackguards are not defined in an unconvincing way, they are defined how they are defined and you find that to be an unconvincing representation of evil. Fine. But she was not a "realistic blackguard", she was not really blackguard-like at all.

[King of Nowhere]

Actually, in a world where demons and evil deities are real and bestow favors upon their followers, the idea of people devoted to evil as an idea is perfectly realistic. So there's nothing wrong with balckguards. In fact, I never understood why paladin is a base class and balcguard is a prestige class, with some pretty strange requirements. I mean, for example, why would a demon refuse to give you power if you didn't take improved sunder? "
I am a fallen paladin, I'm tired of protecting dumb people who could fix their problems by themselves if they were less lazy and won't even be grateful afterwards, now it's payback time, I want to serve the demons!"
"Sorry, you don't have improved sunder, cannot be done"

I always houseruled that "blackguard" was a base class, with exactly the same powers of a paladin, except with all good/evil labels inverted. Possibly a different spell selection, I never had to make one into such detail.

Anyway, the idea of a "deluded" blackguard is also pretty bad to me. In my mind a blackguard is a card-carrying villain, not a misguided extremist.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Actually, in a world where demons and evil deities are real and bestow favors upon their followers, the idea of people devoted to evil as an idea is perfectly realistic...

Yes, fine, but I meant "realistic" as in "fits the real world". Not the D&D world.


I always houseruled that "blackguard" was a base class, with exactly the same powers of a paladin, except with all good/evil labels inverted. Possibly a different spell selection, I never had to make one into such detail.

That is exactly like 2e anti-paladins. Also Harm Touch instead of Lay on Hands, Inflict instead of Cure spells, Rebuke instead of Turn, and so on. Good house rule IMO, though we almost never let players play evil characters anyway, the intra-party fighting is nearly always more trouble than it's worth. ;)


Roy is 10 times the Paladin she is..

No, Roy is a Fighter. Miko was (mostly) a Paladin. Talking about classes and canon, not some hypothetical ideal.

----

Also, ex-paladin blackguards get extra powers based on how many levels of paladin they had, but the PrC is open to any class. Nale was like 100x more likely to become a blackguard than Miko was.

[LuisDantas]

Um, you must have linked me to the wrong comic.

Why would you say that? #460 is red-hot proof of Miko's moral ruin.



Au contraire.

#464 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html) demonstrated that there was at least one (semi)mortal whom Miko still respected, and might hear reason from: Soon Kim. If she had arrived just a few seconds later, Soon would have stopped her from destroying the gate -at which point he could have given her a serious lecture on what it means to be a paladin. Not that Miko's redemption would be guaranteed at that point, but it's at least plausible that Soon could have redeemed her.

Let's just say that I am not nearly as inclined to be so generous with Miko as you are. There was no point at which she had fallen lower than at #460-#464.

[MReav]

Why would you say that? #460 is red-hot proof of Miko's moral ruin.

I'm guessing because despite her delusions, she was willing to put her quest for vengeance on hold for the sake of protecting the Gate, so claiming she "surrendered to her base desires" seems like a claim that doesn't hold up.

[MReav]

I'd think her attack on Belkar and Hinjo were better examples of her surrendering to her base desires.

Edit: there was a post here between my last one just a moment ago.

[Geordnet]

I'm guessing because despite her delusions, she was willing to put her quest for vengeance on hold for the sake of protecting the Gate, so claiming she "surrendered to her base desires" seems like a claim that doesn't hold up.
Yeah, more or less that.



Let's just say that I am not nearly as inclined to be so generous with Miko as you are.
And that's a fair call to make. I guess it's down to a difference in belief in the "natural goodness" (or lack thereof) in people.



There was no point at which she had fallen lower than at #460-#464.
Except perhaps her battle with Hinjo. I don't know, it's hard to tell.



I'd think her attack on Belkar and Hinjo were better examples of her surrendering to her base desires.
I concur.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Even if it is true that Miko became irredeemably evil at some point before she died, and would have gone on to become whatever definition of blackguard you want (though for this I prefer the core DMG definition), that didn't happen. She spent many hundreds of strips, something like 98% of her screen time, being a lawful good paladin. During that time, I don't think it made sense to predict Miko would become a black knight.


The blackguard epitomizes evil. He is nothing short of a mortal fiend. The quintessential black knight, this villain carries a reputation of the foulest sort that is very well deserved. [...] As NPCs, blackguards usually lead legions of undead, evil outsiders, or other monsters to conquer their own doomed demense or expand their existing territory. Sometimes they serve more powerful evil characters as dark lieutenants. On occasion they work alone as hired killers or wandering purveyors of ill, destruction, and chaos.

[hamishspence]

No it's not. Kish explained why not. That author made a mistake.

In the case of the Forgotten Realms character- I believe they slightly predate 3rd ed. So, they were a Fallen Paladin before the Blackguard prestige class existed- and the author decided it was the best choice for them to be able to still have divine powers, while being corrupt.

While it diverges a bit from the "mortal fiend" interpretation- a case could be made that DMG stuff is there to be reinterpreted as best fits whatever campaign's using it.

The key factors to becoming a blackguard are Evil alignment- and striking a bargain with Evil Outsiders for dark powers. It's not too hard to imagine an "ends justify means" character, who believes they can use those dark powers toward a perceived Good end.

Or someone who struck a bargain with an entity that they were unaware was an Evil Outsider.

[Cerlis]

Yes, fine, but I meant "realistic" as in "fits the real world". Not the D&D world.



That is exactly like 2e anti-paladins. Also Harm Touch instead of Lay on Hands, Inflict instead of Cure spells, Rebuke instead of Turn, and so on. Good house rule IMO, though we almost never let players play evil characters anyway, the intra-party fighting is nearly always more trouble than it's worth. ;)



No, Roy is a Fighter. Miko was (mostly) a Paladin. Talking about classes and canon, not some hypothetical ideal.

----

Also, ex-paladin blackguards get extra powers based on how many levels of paladin they had, but the PrC is open to any class. Nale was like 100x more likely to become a blackguard than Miko was.

Missed the point.

Argument that Miko couldnt be a blackguard because she isnt a willing champion of Evil who is just as the book -suggests-

Because Miko didnt even live up to the ideals of her own class. Perhaps in OotS world he managed to not fall by "sticking to the letter , of the class" as Roy said, and that's, knowing the Giants stance on how his Parody is a voice for opposition to moronic thinking, probably the intent: showing that the way those rules are misinterpreted or misused, you can have a horribly wretched person who is still "a paragon of good". But for all his faults Roy has stuck to the SPIRIT of LG far more than She has (since she hasnt, at all), which is the base of Paladin-ness.

Compared to Miko, Roy was a fantastic paladin. Just like compared to Xykon, Leaky windstaff is a peace loving hippie.




----------------------------

No it's not. Kish explained why not. That author made a mistake.
If its approved by WoTC its canon. Just because a tiny prestige class entry that is about half the size of almost all prestige class entries (complete with Background, society, viewed by the public roleplaying suggestions) fails to talk about alternate Blackguards who see themselves as the last hope of Good....doesn't mean a lick.


----------------------
She spent many hundreds of strips, something like 98% of her screen time, failing to be a lawful good paladin. During that time, I don't think it made sense to predict Miko would become a black knight.


Fixed that for you:smalltongue: which is the entire point. She is an extremist , murderous divine warrior of death.

And as we saw in that scene claimed to be "her giving in to her base desires"
She decides that the God's made a mistake or are "just testing her" (which are the iconic words of every fallen paladin). And by fallen paladin , i dont mean a paladin who lost his powers. I'm talking "Fallen angel" fallen. She right there decided despite ALL the resounding evidence..by her lord, by her leader, by her own very Gods....despite ever possible sign against her, that she was STILL right and the ONLY one who saw the truth.

If anything the fact that she was called away from her duty is what SAVED her from sneaking around and stabbing our Good heroes (sans belkar) in the backs.

If anything she is LUCKY that fate guided her away so that she could die doing her duty at least.




--------------------------------
That might be the last i have to say on the subject, as that particular conversation wouldnt have happened if a single sentence was added to the text of the DMG (which has nothing important to do with the story), or if it was possible in OOtS world to have classes from older editions (it is).

[rodneyAnonymous]

She didn't fail to be lawful good, she was blue and had paladin powers and stuff. She was lawful good.

I didn't miss the point. I understand, I mean I don't think that's relevant.

[King of Nowhere]

Miko didn't fail to be lawful and good most of her life. It's her adventure with the order that brought her over the edge. It is even stated in commentaries that the scene with her at the watchtower was meant to show that she did an ok job of being a paladin for most of her life. as long as the right path was clear in front of her eyes, she was fine.

EDIT: some poeple think differently because she was a bad paladin for most of her screen time. We saw her mostly being a bad paladin. But that's not representative of her life as a whole. She was fanatic and all, but before the order she always did her duty.

[Cerlis]

Miko didn't fail to be lawful and good most of her life. It's her adventure with the order that brought her over the edge. It is even stated in commentaries that the scene with her at the watchtower was meant to show that she did an ok job of being a paladin for most of her life. as long as the right path was clear in front of her eyes, she was fine.

EDIT: some poeple think differently because she was a bad paladin for most of her screen time. We saw her mostly being a bad paladin. But that's not representative of her life as a whole. She was fanatic and all, but before the order she always did her duty.

The only evidence we have of Miko before the order was Shojo saying he knew she was a bit off. That she is so intense that he sends her on solo missions just to get rid of her, and that when Shojo gave her a mission to capture someone , her first thought was to bathe the earth in their blood.

And forgoing any crazy conspiracies, its there is no reason to think she treated anyone else differently than she did before the OotS. Her "Change" started after Roy and V stepped into stop her from killing Belkar (Causing her to try to kill "innocent" people just because they where protecting a Prisoner).

Yes, The Twelve Gods didnt slap her in the face until she killed an innocent helpless man in cold blood for all the wrong reasons. That doesn't mean that if she was introduced as a Paladin of Tyranny would anything have been different up until the point when she murdered that man. The alignment she supposedly is and her class are irrelevant to her actions. And that the thing that Rich is telling with this story. That its not "Good enough" to just follow a set of rules and be "good". That someone who TECHNICALLY only hurts people who deserves it and does "good" things to people who deserve it can still be an evil murdering *itch. She failed to uphold the ideals that the bi-laws of LG where meant to protect. She might have been blue the whole time, she might have technically been a Paladin. But the fact that she never stopped being blue until then does not absolve her. She represents everything that is wrong with the alignment system. So of course you can use the Alignment system to absolve her. She is a storytelling tool used to deconstruct it.

There is another paladin, not in the comic who "let" a Good Cleric almost get himself killed because if he did it himself then the Paladin would lose his class abilities. I mean this story couldn't get further away from "the fact that Miko is LG, doesnt mean she isnt an evil *itch" if he took a big red marker and circled it around her every action and self justification of hers and wrote "THIS IS WRONG".

But all the Nuances of words used in this DMG or that one that arent even relevant to this comic, or HOW evil or wicked or just "mean" Miko was is really beside the point.

The point is the OP wanted to know why people thought it.

and the reason is, with optional word changes, basically : "Miko is a horrible selfish, self centered, sociopathic Murderer who wouldn't change her philosophy if the Gods themselves smacked her with a giant Nerf Bat that said "Ghostcrawler was here" and it seems likely that such a person would become a Dark Knight type character."

I mean Tsusiko has an entire rant that lampshades the whole thing. Miko becoming a blackguard wouldnt even have to be her CHOICE.

[Sir_Leorik]

I see. A bit too mustache-evil for my taste, but whatever.

The most famous Blackguard in D&D history, the Death Knight Lord Soth, actually lost his mustache when he became a Blackguard:
Before:
http://cache0.bdcdn.net/assets/images/book/medium/9780/7869/9780786905195.jpg
After:
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/8/84998/2400180-soth.jpg

[LuisDantas]

I'm guessing because despite her delusions, she was willing to put her quest for vengeance on hold for the sake of protecting the Gate, so claiming she "surrendered to her base desires" seems like a claim that doesn't hold up.

See, I don't think that is a valid reading of #460 at all.

She was not acting "despite her delusions"; she was riding atop them. I don't think those strips could have been any clearer on this particular point without becoming satire.

Her base desires are for self-importance and delusions of grandeur. And in that moment of humiliation and uncertainty, she gave in to those desires. "Protecting the gate" was not her motivation, just an excuse.

Tragic? Certainly, quite so. Miko is a very, very tragic figure.

But no less egotistical or delusional for that.

[LuisDantas]

And that's a fair call to make. I guess it's down to a difference in belief in the "natural goodness" (or lack thereof) in people.

How does that figure into the matter? I don't see it.



Except perhaps her battle with Hinjo. I don't know, it's hard to tell.

She had a lot more in the way of attenuating circunstances there, though. She had just learned of Shinjo's manipulation and lost her paladin status. That ought to have hurt, and I assume she was shell-shocked out of her mind.

However, by #460 she had some time to consider the situation and was not acting on impulse or heat of the moment anymore. And yet she descends even further into self-serving interpretations of the events.

Bad, bad call. And one that speaks ill of her character.



I concur.

I do not. She was just angry at those incidents.

Dangerously so, but hardly so shamelessly delusional and self-serving as in #460-#464.

[LuisDantas]

Even if it is true that Miko became irredeemably evil at some point before she died, and would have gone on to become whatever definition of blackguard you want (though for this I prefer the core DMG definition), that didn't happen. She spent many hundreds of strips, something like 98% of her screen time, being a lawful good paladin. During that time, I don't think it made sense to predict Miko would become a black knight.

You are of course free to think whatever you want, but why does her past as a supposed LG character make her insuitable in the present?

I don't think past considerations apply there.

[LuisDantas]

Miko didn't fail to be lawful and good most of her life. It's her adventure with the order that brought her over the edge. It is even stated in commentaries that the scene with her at the watchtower was meant to show that she did an ok job of being a paladin for most of her life. as long as the right path was clear in front of her eyes, she was fine.

EDIT: some poeple think differently because she was a bad paladin for most of her screen time. We saw her mostly being a bad paladin. But that's not representative of her life as a whole. She was fanatic and all, but before the order she always did her duty.

I guess it comes down to whether or not there is a contradiction between "being fanatic" and "being a good paladin who does his or her duty".

A certain reading, which I happen to favor, is that a core part of a paladin's duty is to watch out against his or her own fanaticism.

[Chronos]

Wait, where does it say, in any book at all, that blackguards all know they're evil? Because while that's no doubt the case for some of them, that doesn't at all fit the pattern of the fallen paladin turned blackguard (which is a valid pattern for the class, even though it's certainly not the only one). Are there even any examples in D&D literature of a fallen-paladin-turned-blackguard who don't think they're still doing good?

[rodneyAnonymous]

Someone who has class features called things like Aura of Despair and Dark Blessing might not know they're evil?

Um, ok, sure. It is possible that Roy changes alignments, never gains another level of fighter, and becomes a druid. Why would you predict that though?

Nobody disputes the idea it's possible that Miko would become a blackguard. I think it was improbable, though; and it was only really plausible if you stretch the core-rule definition of that PrC (which unambiguously describes them as champions of evil) really far. It would have made a lot more sense to predict that Nale or Kubota would become a blackguard, and that is already a long-shot. Ex-paladin blackguards just get extra powers (which don't make up for losing base class abilities, imo); the description cited earlier talks about rogue and wizard blackguards.

[ti'esar]

Someone who has class features called things like Aura of Despair and Dark Blessing might not know they're evil?

I agree with your general point, but I have to take objection to this. OOTS aside, most D&D characters aren't going to know the names of their class abilities (or their class, for that matter).

[Sir_Leorik]

I agree with your general point, but I have to take objection to this. OOTS aside, most D&D characters aren't going to know the names of their class abilities (or their class, for that matter).

Yes, but they surely remember making peaceful contact with an Evil Outsider and forging a pact to gain Unholy Powers.

[SaintRidley]

Yes, but they surely remember making peaceful contact with an Evil Outsider and forging a pact to gain Unholy Powers.

As well as the fact that they can't smite Evil creatures anymore and instead smite things that register as Good.

[rodneyAnonymous]

I agree with your general point, but I have to take objection to this. OOTS aside, most D&D characters aren't going to know the names of their class abilities (or their class, for that matter).

My point does not rely on the blackguard knowing what his abilities are named. Just what they do. Not to mention that class's spell list: cause poison, doom, death knell...

Besides, I said "sure". Even assuming that Miko would somehow become an evil knight without knowing it, that is a far-fetched prediction.

[Kish]

Wait, where does it say, in any book at all, that blackguards all know they're evil?
"The quintessential black knight." "Nothing short of a mortal fiend." "Some call [them] anti-paladins due to their completely evil nature."

Setting aside the whole issue of "got there by making a pact with an actual fiend," which Sir_Leorik brought up:

How many non-mortal fiends would you say believe they're actually celestials? Particularly if you weren't looking for a way fallen paladins could be a blackguard class standard rather than a tiny, insignificant minority, comparable to the tiny number of characters who could reasonably be expected to go from pure-hearted champion of good to thoroughly vile over the course of a lifetime if class names weren't involved?

[MReav]

See, I don't think that is a valid reading of #460 at all.

She was not acting "despite her delusions"; she was riding atop them. I don't think those strips could have been any clearer on this particular point without becoming satire.

Her base desires are for self-importance and delusions of grandeur. And in that moment of humiliation and uncertainty, she gave in to those desires. "Protecting the gate" was not her motivation, just an excuse.

I guess you and I have different definitions of "base desires" in general. In my head, "base desires" leaves no room for the greater good and is all about petty selfishness. If she had surrendered to her base desires, she would have ignored the fight in the throne room and spun her need for vengeance into something that would have let her go after the Order of the Stick instead of the throne room.

In other words, she retained enough of a sense of proportion to recognize that no, personal vengeance is not more important than the world.

As a counter-example, take Yok Yok. If he really was Lawful Good, he stood by and let Nale massacre his way through Cliffport to satisfy his need for personal vengeance for the sake of a father that, if the description of Yik Yik being Belkar in kobold form was accurate, was a murderous little psychopath. That says to me "base desires" more than what Miko did when she heard the confrontation in the throne room.

[hamishspence]

It might be interesting to ask why Sabine is so eager to offer Miko the chance to become a blackguard:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0419.html

Could it be, that she's using the At Will Detect Good ability that all succubi get- and thus, has concluded that Miko "ought" to be at least a little receptive since she no longer detects as Good?

It's an interesting possibility.

[MReav]

It might be interesting to ask why Sabine is so eager to offer Miko the chance to become a blackguard:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0419.html

Could it be, that she's using the At Will Detect Good ability that all succubi get- and thus, has concluded that Miko "ought" to be at least a little receptive since she no longer detects as Good?

It's an interesting possibility.

No. It's an anti-magic cell. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html) She wouldn't have access to any magic items, spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.

[Kish]

I didn't think there was any real ambiguity there. Sabine doesn't understand why anyone would not want to 1) be evil, and 2) have sex with Sabine, not in that order. Even if she had had access to Detect Good, why would she have used it, any more than she used it on Roy and concluded she should not assume the form of a schoolgirl and try to seduce him based on the results?

[LuisDantas]

Someone who has class features called things like Aura of Despair and Dark Blessing might not know they're evil?

I can entirely see Miko believing herself to exhude an Aura of Despair and even calling it by that name, even before her fall. Can't you?

Miko was never one to particularly avoid being feared. One evidence among many of how poor a grasp of the concepts of good and law she had, even at her prime.

And after #460, sure, I can easily see her reveling in a feeling and/or power that she could well call Dark Blessing even. She has after all been betrayed and convinced herself that the Gods are giving her signs of her True Destiny.

It almost writes itself.


Um, ok, sure. It is possible that Roy changes alignments, never gains another level of fighter, and becomes a druid. Why would you predict that though?

Nobody disputes the idea it's possible that Miko would become a blackguard. I think it was improbable, though; and it was only really plausible if you stretch the core-rule definition of that PrC (which unambiguously describes them as champions of evil) really far. It would have made a lot more sense to predict that Nale or Kubota would become a blackguard, and that is already a long-shot. Ex-paladin blackguards just get extra powers (which don't make up for losing base class abilities, imo); the description cited earlier talks about rogue and wizard blackguards.

Nale and Kubota are not the crusading types IMO.

[LuisDantas]

My point does not rely on the blackguard knowing what his abilities are named. Just what they do. Not to mention that class's spell list: cause poison, doom, death knell...

Besides, I said "sure". Even assuming that Miko would somehow become an evil knight without knowing it, that is a far-fetched prediction.

When has Miko ever shown relutance in destroying those she deems evil? Is it that different if she is no longer resorting to Wakisashi and Katana alone?

[LuisDantas]

I guess you and I have different definitions of "base desires" in general. In my head, "base desires" leaves no room for the greater good and is all about petty selfishness.

I agree. That is what Miko surrendered to in #460.

Sure, she sugar-coated it to herself in pious parlance, but it was what it was. And what it was is a glory hunt.



If she had surrendered to her base desires, she would have ignored the fight in the throne room and spun her need for vengeance into something that would have let her go after the Order of the Stick instead of the throne room.

Then it seems that you think of her as someone more interested in vengeance than in self-importance.

I do not.



In other words, she retained enough of a sense of proportion to recognize that no, personal vengeance is not more important than the world.

See, that is the thing. Miko was always weak far as sense of proportion goes, even at her best. And she was nothing if not adept at self-mortification for her pride's sake.

It just doesn't seem at all natural to think of her motivation at that point as fueled by traits that she never displayed, when it is so much easier to interpret them as yet another, desperate attempt at being at the center of things to feel important and needed.



As a counter-example, take Yok Yok. If he really was Lawful Good, he stood by and let Nale massacre his way through Cliffport to satisfy his need for personal vengeance for the sake of a father that, if the description of Yik Yik being Belkar in kobold form was accurate, was a murderous little psychopath. That says to me "base desires" more than what Miko did when she heard the confrontation in the throne room.

Miko did not think of herself as evil, that much I can agree with.

[F.Harr]

Actually, in a world where demons and evil deities are real and bestow favors upon their followers, the idea of people devoted to evil as an idea is perfectly realistic. So there's nothing wrong with balckguards. In fact, I never understood why paladin is a base class and balcguard is a prestige class, with some pretty strange requirements. I mean, for example, why would a demon refuse to give you power if you didn't take improved sunder? "
I am a fallen paladin, I'm tired of protecting dumb people who could fix their problems by themselves if they were less lazy and won't even be grateful afterwards, now it's payback time, I want to serve the demons!"
"Sorry, you don't have improved sunder, cannot be done"



Return on investment? I mean, if you're going to invest in a mighty fighter for evil, why sink the cost into some fool who hasn't improved his sundering ability?



Question, if a Blackguard associates with lawful people, would they loose their powers and become a fighter without bonus feats?

[Reddish Mage]

I guess you and I have different definitions of "base desires"...[Miko] retained enough of a sense of proportion to recognize that no, personal vengeance is not more important than the world.

As a counter-example, take Yok Yok. If he really was Lawful Good, he stood by and let Nale massacre his way through Cliffport to satisfy his need for personal vengeance for the sake of a father that, if the description of Yik Yik being Belkar in kobold form was accurate, was a murderous little psychopath. That says to me "base desires" more than what Miko did when she heard the confrontation in the throne room.

I find Yok Yok to be very much out of place, but we know very little about him, only that he arrives claiming to be Lawful Good and claiming righteous vengeance upon Belkar. Its probably he was ignorant about several big details.

The term "base desires" is what your arguing about. Its clear Miko had a great sense of self importance as well as blind faith in her own vision and was not willing to admit she was wrong even in the face of divine rebuke.

[hamishspence]

No. It's an anti-magic cell. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html) She wouldn't have access to any magic items, spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.

Good point. It might be overhearing Belkar's account of Miko being a "paladin-turned murderer who's committed her very first evil act" that convinced Sabine that she was a candidate for Blackguard.

[F.Harr]

Good point. It might be overhearing Belkar's account of Miko being a "paladin-turned murderer who's committed her very first evil act" that convinced Sabine that she was a candidate for Blackguard.

That and she was in-line for a bonus.

[King of Nowhere]

while it is possible for those who meant to do good to accidentally do harm, I think that being a blackguard requires something more.
But on another tangent, I find myself thinking, if we assume blackguards who think they are paladins, being champions of evil while assuming they are working for the greater good, can we assume the opposite? Can we assume that some blackguard may become paladins for accidentally doing much good while pursuing what they think of as a greater evil? I'm getting some pretty ridiculous idea here...

"Tharivol smiled thinking on how much of his long life he dedicated to the cause of spreading suffering. Even if his demon lord hadn't talked to him in a while, he *knew* he was the best blackguard ever. Tharivol was an elf. Half a millennia of life expectancy makes you prone to think in the long run. Sure, let those simpleminded fools kill the isolated traveler or poison a food supply. Or even make petty wars. The pure idiocy of marshaling the forces of evil to fight those of good! Don't they realize that a hotter fire only makes for a stronger steel? better to let the sword go rust with inactivity, so that it will grow lazy. For that reason, Tharivol had always used his diplomatic skills to persuade the goblins and orcish hordes to never wage war on the humans. the kingdom had been at peace for over 200 years, and they were growing lazy and complacent for it. All according to the plan. They always thanked him for it, the blind fools. All the better; he would be best able to influence them.
Because he had a vision. He saw an overcrowded world, with more inhabitants than the land could feed. He saw a world were the fires of man would obfuscate and pollute the skyes. Where humankind would run out of natural resources. there would be wars as different nations compete for the resources needed for survival. Wars enhanced by advanced technology, with weapons more destructive than the most powerful magic. Everyone will be at the point of starvation, and everyone will be miserable. That was the future Tharivol wanted. That was what he was working for.
To that goal, he had traveled among the sparse farming communities and taught them better farming techniques. He had been healing their children and teaching them basic medicine. Now those once half-starving communities were quickly growing and spreading around, claiming new land to cultivate. Soon they would occupy all the land, and then they would try to take land from their neighbours. they would chop all the forests, and run out of wood. they would mine all the metal, then go back to the stone age. the beauty of it! Save a life today, condemn ten yet-unborn people to a gruesome death the next generation!
Suddenly, his contemplation was interrupted by screams. the local orphanage was on fire. What a magnificent opportunity. Tharivol enjoyed suffering, and he especially enjoyed the suffering of children. His smile deepened, but was suddenly replaced by a frown. Wait! those children are orphans. Their lives are already screwed over. And now... now they were going to take the easy way out. Not if he had anything to say about it. They would survive, and they would suffer! With grim determination, Tharivol run into the flaming building.

His clothes smoking, his skin blistered, Tharivol made it out of the building with the last of the children, a beautiful small girl. She was badly burned, but she would survive, scarred in the body and in the mind. Despite the pain of his own burns, Tharivol was in bliss thinking at how miserable the girl's life would be. He was about to heal his own wounds, when he considered better. That child was beautiful, and could still be if she was healed with magic soon. She would grow into a stunning woman, and men would fall in love with her. She could only take one of them, and all the rest would despair. Maybe they would even fight over her, kill each other to win her hand. Then she would get old, and the "lucky" guy who maried her would discover that he only loved her beauty, and he would hate her, and she him, and they would be miserable, and their children will grow with phsycological issues because of that. Yes, that was the future he wanted. And so Tharivol layed his hands on the girl and healed her.
That was not part of his regular blackguard powers. That was the power of a paladin. He accidentally discovered it a few years ago. It was his greatest triumph: it meant he managed to fool even one of the gods! The more people who believed in his "good" facade, the better he could have herded them on their path to shiny, glorious destruction. And if even the gods were blinded by his acts, nothing could stop him anymore. With the knowledge of another fruitful day spent serving the cause of evil, Tharivol let himself feel the pain of his wounds and finally passed out"

[hamishspence]

Going by BoED, "Good" deeds done for selfish reasons become Neutral.

And it takes at least some personal sacrifice for a deed to be a candidate for Good.

[Kish]

Question, if a Blackguard associates with lawful people, would they loose their powers and become a fighter without bonus feats?
Why would...

What...

Who suggested or implied some kind of connection between blackguards and chaos?

[hamishspence]

Their "antipaladin" nickname might have been what inspired that error.

There's no "blackguard's code" though, to forbid associating with Good characters, or committing Good acts.

And oddly, no "Ex-Blackguards" line for blackguards who have changed alignment from Evil to Neutral.

[Sir_Leorik]

"The quintessential black knight." "Nothing short of a mortal fiend." "Some call [them] anti-paladins due to their completely evil nature."

Setting aside the whole issue of "got there by making a pact with an actual fiend," which Sir_Leorik brought up:

How many non-mortal fiends would you say believe they're actually celestials?

I can name at least two, but they are both Darklords in the "Ravenloft" Campaign Setting (and one is an actual Fallen Paladin, whose powers were replaced by the Dark Powers with ones similar to Blackguard powers).

Lady Elena Faith-Hold (http://www.fraternityofshadows.com/wiki/Elena_Faith-hold) was once a very powerful and devoted Paladin of Belenus (the Celtic sun god), and a member of a fraternity of Paladins called The Order of the Circle (http://www.fraternityofshadows.com/wiki/The_Circle_(Society)), in the province of Nidala. After winning renown battling demons, she embarked on a holy war, joined by thousands of fanatics devoted to Belenus. After they wiped out major strongholds of Evil, they decided to wipe out the worshipers of the other Celtic gods, and proclaim Belenus' church the one true Faith in Nidala. At this point Belenus revoked her Paladin status, and her Paladin mount, a unicorn, abandoned her in disgust. Just like Miko, Lady Elena took this as a sign that Belenus was testing her devotion to him, and she became even more fanatical in her pursuit of imagined heretics and traitors.

Unable to understand why she had not regained Belenus' favor, she spent days in prayer, demanding he answer her. Belenus didn't, but the Dark Powers (http://www.fraternityofshadows.com/wiki/Dark_powers) heard her prayers, and turned Nidala (http://www.fraternityofshadows.com/wiki/Nidala) into an Island of Terror. (It later joined other Islands of Terror from Lady Elena's homeland to form the Shadowlands Cluster.) Currently Lady Elena believes she is a Paladin, but she is in fact a Blackguard. Instead of Detecting Evil, she Detects Strong Emotion, so anyone who is too happy, sad, angry, jealous, depressed, or in love will ping her "Evil Radar" and be treated as a heretic, traitor or other ne'er do well. In addition she spreads a lie that there is a Dragon terrorizing the countryside to cover up her own atrocities.

Diamabel (http://www.fraternityofshadows.com/wiki/Diamabel) was born to a tribe of desert nomads on some Prime Material world. He grew very interested in religion as a young man, claiming to have had visions of a new religious creed. After succeeding his father as sheik, Diamabel launched a series of holy wars against other tribes and against oases and cities. Anyone who would not convert to Diamabel's new faith was slaughtered. Diamabel was cut down by an arrow during one such raid, and when he awoke he discovered he now had the body of a golden, winged humanoid by day, and a corrupt, undead form at night. The transformation between the forms is agonizing, and Diamabel finds himself cut off from the deity he worshiped before becoming Darklord of Pharazia (http://www.fraternityofshadows.com/wiki/Pharazia). Nevertheless, Diamabel keeps trying to spiritually purify himself and the people of Phiraz, Pharazia's capital, in the hopes that they will be reunited with his god and transformed into true Angels.

Like I said before, Lady Kateri and Diamabel are convinced of the righteousness of their cause. By contrast, other Darklords who were Clerics worshiped evil deities (e.g. Yagno Petrovna (http://www.fraternityofshadows.com/wiki/Yagno_Petrovna) worshipped Zhakata), or they are quite cognizant of their fallen status. Lord Soth (http://www.fraternityofshadows.com/wiki/Lord_Soth), the Death Knight, was quite aware that he was no longer a Solamnic Knight in good standing with Paladine.


Particularly if you weren't looking for a way fallen paladins could be a blackguard class standard rather than a tiny, insignificant minority, comparable to the tiny number of characters who could reasonably be expected to go from pure-hearted champion of good to thoroughly vile over the course of a lifetime if class names weren't involved?

I think that the confusion over the Blackguard Prestige Class is slightly understandable, but I don't know why it persists when someone who has read the class description tries to dispel the confusion. Not all Blackguards are Ex-Paladins. Not all Ex-Paladins become Blackguards. It is as simple as that. Ex-Paladins who become Blackguards get a special benefit, but they need to qualify for the class just like any Fighter or Rogue would.


I didn't think there was any real ambiguity there. Sabine doesn't understand why anyone would not want to 1) be evil, and 2) have sex with Sabine, not in that order. Even if she had had access to Detect Good, why would she have used it, any more than she used it on Roy and concluded she should not assume the form of a schoolgirl and try to seduce him based on the results?

Sabine wasn't that familiar with Roy, otherwise she would have changed into a shape with butterfly wings. :smallwink:

On a more serious note, Sabine isn't stupid. She has shown a willingness to use force when necessary and seduction when possible. When she's "off the clock" she can be very civil. From Sabine's point of view, she was giving Miko a very good shot at gaining powers that she would otherwise never get, and a chance to embrace a new philosophy. If Sabine had done a bit more research (by listening to someone other than Belkar about Miko's personality) Sabine would have known not to press the issue.


Question, if a Blackguard associates with lawful people, would they loose their powers and become a fighter without bonus feats?

F. Harr, do you mean Lawful or Good? Either way, the answer is no. There are plenty of Lawful Evil Blackguards, and there is nothing in the class description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/blackguard.htm) barring a Blackguard from associating with Good characters. After all, what better way for a Blackguard to corrupt the innocent, than to insinuate himself into their ranks?


Good point. It might be overhearing Belkar's account of Miko being a "paladin-turned murderer who's committed her very first evil act" that convinced Sabine that she was a candidate for Blackguard.

And that was Sabine's problem. Who listens to advice from Belkar? She should have known better! (On the other hand, Sabine was probably distracted by the thought of Miko wearing black leather armor. :smalltongue:)


That and she was in-line for a bonus.

Given what we now know about the IFCC, that spa on the Astral Plane must be to die for. (Or to kill for. :smallamused:)

[Scurvy Cur]

Return on investment? I mean, if you're going to invest in a mighty fighter for evil, why sink the cost into some fool who hasn't improved his sundering ability?



Question, if a Blackguard associates with lawful people, would they loose their powers and become a fighter without bonus feats?

Short answer: no.

Medium answer:

First off, Blackguards can be of any evil alignment (LE, NE, CE), and thus could not logically be expected to lose class powers due to law-chaos incompatibility.

Second, the SRD contains no "ex-Blackguards" entry. While this may be an oversight, it also may imply that the code of conduct for a blackguard is entirely more permissive; it is easier to be evil than good, in other words. Given that, as far as D&D morality is concerned, becoming a blackguard is a concrete act of evil, because it strengthens the powers of evil on the whole, this may be taken to mean that the powers responsible for creating that blackguard consider their job done.

Third, and again based on the SRD's lack of a description on the sorts of behavior that can cause a blackguard to lose their evil superpowers, we can assume fairly safely that a blackguard that interacts with, subverts, and corrupts otherwise good people and institutions, even while appearing cordial to them, is perfectly acceptable blackguard behavior. Not every champion of evil needs to be a mustache twirler. Some of the most effective deliberate evil you can do involves destroying stable pillars of a good society.

Lengthier Aside:

I'm largely not going to go into an explanation here, because it can't help but be a long one, but the basic premise is founded on "paladins fall for associating with evil people, do their antitheses do the reverse?". It's a faulty operating premise simply because the rule for paladin associations is terrible, destructive, and poorly worded. Where do we draw the line on an association? Should a paladin fall for talking with a petty thief turned informant in the course of tracking down the head of a major slaving ring? I'd argue no, even though there is an "association" with evil.

Really, the rule should have been written such that a paladin falls for willfully violating their code, committing evil acts, or knowingly and freely assisting the causes of evil institutions or individuals. It's a lot clearer on what sorts of associations a paladin ought to be wary of.

[Sir_Leorik]

Their "antipaladin" nickname might have been what inspired that error.

There's no "blackguard's code" though, to forbid associating with Good characters, or committing Good acts.

And oddly, no "Ex-Blackguards" line for blackguards who have changed alignment from Evil to Neutral.

The forces of Evil hold their minions to a lower standard (no pun intended).

[Sir_Leorik]

Lengthier Aside:

I'm largely not going to go into an explanation here, because it can't help but be a long one, but the basic premise is founded on "paladins fall for associating with evil people, do their antitheses do the reverse?". It's a faulty operating premise simply because the rule for paladin associations is terrible, destructive, and poorly worded. Where do we draw the line on an association? Should a paladin fall for talking with a petty thief turned informant in the course of tracking down the head of a major slaving ring? I'd argue no, even though there is an "association" with evil.

Really, the rule should have been written such that a paladin falls for willfully violating their code, committing evil acts, or knowingly and freely assisting the causes of evil institutions or individuals. It's a lot clearer on what sorts of associations a paladin ought to be wary of.

I would say that at the very least, the "association" is meant to be "members of the same adventuring party with PCs or NPCs that the Paladin knows to be of Evil Alignment". It doesn't include a Paladin who has a Lawful Evil brother-in-law, a Paladin who bumps into a Neutral Evil assassin in a tavern (and not recognizing the latter as an assassin thanks to her Ring of Mind Shielding and successful Disguise check) nor a Paladin who is waiting in line to pay for groceries behind a Chaotic Evil Bugbear at a Whole Foods. Any DM who does cause a Paladin to suffer an Alignment infraction for these sorts of encounters is a real jerk.

[Kish]

Their "antipaladin" nickname might have been what inspired that error.
That wouldn't even make any sense. Paladins do not fall for associating with Chaotic people.

[hamishspence]

In 2nd ed, they were discouraged a bit from associating with them, as far as I know (maybe less so than for associating with Evil ones).

They certainly Fell for committing Chaotic acts (but could atone- it was impossible for a 2nd ed paladin who willingly committed an Evil act to regain their powers by contrast).

[Sir_Leorik]

That wouldn't even make any sense. Paladins do not fall for associating with Chaotic people.

I think they used to be a little more restricted in their dealings with Chaotic characters. In AD&D they could only hire Lawful Good henchmen and retainers. However they could freely adventure with Neutral Good or Chaotic Good characters, and they could join forces with Chaotic Neutral characters for a single adventure, provided it was for a Good purpose and the Chaotic Neutral character behaved himself. The latter held true for Lawful Neutral or True Neutral characters. In this regard 3.X gave the Paladin more leeway to adventure with PCs of non-Evil Alignment.

[Sir_Leorik]

They certainly Fell for committing Chaotic acts (but could atone- it was impossible for a 2nd ed paladin who willingly committed an Evil act to regain their powers by contrast).

An AD&D Paladin didn't fall for knowingly committing a Chaotic act; he would have to seek out a Lawful Good Cleric of 7th level or higher, confess their sin and perform a penance prescribed by the Cleric. They only lost their powers if they knowingly performed an Evil act. 2E clarifies that if a Paladin commits an Evil act while under the effects of an enchantment or other magic, the Paladin temporarily loses his Paladin status until he can atone by undergoing a quest.

[hamishspence]

I thought that the fact that he "would have to seek out a Lawful Good Cleric of 7th level or higher, confess their sin and perform a penance prescribed by the Cleric" for willingly committing a Chaotic act, was because he'd lost his powers and needed to atone for it?

Though it's been a few years since I read the 2e PHB.

[Chronos]

I don't remember all of the 2e rules, but in 3e, a paladin can violate her code of conduct and commit chaotic acts without falling. A paladin only falls for committing an evil act, for changing alignment, or for an egregious violation of her code. Too many chaotic acts, or too extreme ones, and the paladin will either become Neutral Good, or "egregiously" violate her code, and fall, but it's still possible occasionally.

Of course, the precise details of this depend on the DM.

[Scurvy Cur]

I would say that at the very least, the "association" is meant to be "members of the same adventuring party with PCs or NPCs that the Paladin knows to be of Evil Alignment". It doesn't include a Paladin who has a Lawful Evil brother-in-law, a Paladin who bumps into a Neutral Evil assassin in a tavern (and not recognizing the latter as an assassin thanks to her Ring of Mind Shielding and successful Disguise check) nor a Paladin who is waiting in line to pay for groceries behind a Chaotic Evil Bugbear at a Whole Foods. Any DM who does cause a Paladin to suffer an Alignment infraction for these sorts of encounters is a real jerk.

Completely agree. I was mostly just getting at the fact that the vague wording of the restriction enables the real jerk of a DM to tell you your paladin has fallen for participating in negotiations to end a war in which one of the participants was a diplomatic functionary your paladin knew was really a rotten piece of work, and thereby had "associated" with evil.

I am reasonably sure that restriction is there to prevent a paladin from "outsourcing" all of the evil deeds that might be convenient, but are cause for immediate fall if the paladin does them his or herself, to a party member whose moral code is much looser: "It would be simpler if we just murdered the magistrate, but I have no reason to believe the tenets of good and law can be upheld no other way. Eh. Guess I'll just ask Bob the Rogue to pick him off next time he goes shopping".

I know it's personal preference, but when I DM, I don't usually forbid a paladin from being in a party with evil individuals, I just expect that the paladin will do everything they can to ensure that evil party members are prevented from doing horrible things, and that the party's actions as a whole remain decidedly weighted towards good. That is to say a paladin in such a situation should never be tolerant or condoning towards the evil actions of his or her fellow party members, but so long as they are making a respectable effort towards keeping the party's aims and deeds Good, I am disinclined to punish them. Then again, my main concern when I DM is party RP and making sure people are having fun, so if that means not enforcing rules to the letter to give people more space to bring out good RP, so be it.

[hamishspence]

Completely agree. I was mostly just getting at the fact that the vague wording of the restriction enables the real jerk of a DM to tell you your paladin has fallen for participating in negotiations to end a war in which one of the participants was a diplomatic functionary your paladin knew was really a rotten piece of work, and thereby had "associated" with evil.

I am reasonably sure that restriction is there to prevent a paladin from "outsourcing" all of the evil deeds that might be convenient, but are cause for immediate fall if the paladin does them his or herself, to a party member whose moral code is much looser: "It would be simpler if we just murdered the magistrate, but I have no reason to believe the tenets of good and law can be upheld no other way. Eh. Guess I'll just ask Bob the Rogue to pick him off next time he goes shopping".
That makes a lot of sense.


I know it's personal preference, but when I DM, I don't usually forbid a paladin from being in a party with evil individuals, I just expect that the paladin will do everything they can to ensure that evil party members are prevented from doing horrible things, and that the party's actions as a whole remain decidedly weighted towards good. That is to say a paladin in such a situation should never be tolerant or condoning towards the evil actions of his or her fellow party members, but so long as they are making a respectable effort towards keeping the party's aims and deeds Good, I am disinclined to punish them.
Defenders of the Faith suggests that paladins should at least consider that there are times when this is the appropriate course of action.

And BoED takes a similar approach with strongly Good characters in general- never condone evil acts- but if you need help and the situation is grave, accepting it from the Evil is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Kish]

Completely agree. I was mostly just getting at the fact that the vague wording of the restriction enables the real jerk of a DM to tell you your paladin has fallen for participating in negotiations to end a war in which one of the participants was a diplomatic functionary your paladin knew was really a rotten piece of work, and thereby had "associated" with evil.

That's one of the many reasons the computer game Temple of Elemental Evil was panned when it came out.

(ToEE--which, incidentally, doesn't include the Detect Evil ability for paladins--had a lot of what appeared to be completely random paladin "Gotchas," such as, "That shopkeeper is evil, you fall!*" and, "You participated in a drinking contest, which goes against the teachings of one particular Lawful Neutral deity, you fall!")

*Which took some detective work for the game's first players to even find out that it was in fact that, not "You stepped on an evil tile in the floor there, you fall!" or an actual unintended bug that was just randomly causing their paladins to fall with no explanation.

[Sir_Leorik]

Completely agree. I was mostly just getting at the fact that the vague wording of the restriction enables the real jerk of a DM to tell you your paladin has fallen for participating in negotiations to end a war in which one of the participants was a diplomatic functionary your paladin knew was really a rotten piece of work, and thereby had "associated" with evil.

I am reasonably sure that restriction is there to prevent a paladin from "outsourcing" all of the evil deeds that might be convenient, but are cause for immediate fall if the paladin does them his or herself, to a party member whose moral code is much looser: "It would be simpler if we just murdered the magistrate, but I have no reason to believe the tenets of good and law can be upheld no other way. Eh. Guess I'll just ask Bob the Rogue to pick him off next time he goes shopping".

I know it's personal preference, but when I DM, I don't usually forbid a paladin from being in a party with evil individuals, I just expect that the paladin will do everything they can to ensure that evil party members are prevented from doing horrible things, and that the party's actions as a whole remain decidedly weighted towards good. That is to say a paladin in such a situation should never be tolerant or condoning towards the evil actions of his or her fellow party members, but so long as they are making a respectable effort towards keeping the party's aims and deeds Good, I am disinclined to punish them. Then again, my main concern when I DM is party RP and making sure people are having fun, so if that means not enforcing rules to the letter to give people more space to bring out good RP, so be it.

One of the reasons this rule was probably there in AD&D had to do with the nature of Alignment in AD&D. In AD&D 1E (but not 2E), Alignments resembled the cosmic battle between Law and Chaos in Michael Moorcock's "Elric" stories, more than a system of personal or religious morals and ethics. A Paladin was the exemplar of the Lawful Good "team", and by associating with Evil PCs and NPCs in an adventuring party was demonstrating a lack of fidelity to the cause of Law and Good. This rule carried over into 2E and 3.X, despite the massive shifts in how Alignment worked between 1977 and 1989 or 2000. Personally, I think that the authors of 3.X kept the rule because it was "legacy software", something that Paladins had always done, even if it didn't make that much sense. At the very least the term "associate" needed better definition in 3.X. (The 2E definition was practically copied word for word from the 1E PHB.)

The idea that a Paladin should be restricted from associating with those who commit Evil acts is a good one, but that's not what the rule says. It prevents a case where a Paladin tries to redeem or convert an Evil ally (or even foe) to the side of Good. Using this rule as written, Sturm Brightblade would have been violating the Oath and the Measure (the equivalent of the Paladin Code for Knights of Solamnia) by traveling with Kitiara Uth-Matar (not to mention fathering a child with her). While Sturm was never technically knighted, he was a Knight of Solamnia in all but name. Likewise, Dragonbait would have fallen for associating with Coral while trying to cleanse her of Moander's taint. That's not what the rule was meant to restrict. It was meant to ensure that Paladins were played as heroes, knights in shining armor who did not join bands of assassins, thieves or murderers to pillage a dungeon.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Question, if a Blackguard associates with lawful people, would they loose their powers and become a fighter without bonus feats?

Do you mean "associates with good people"? Blackguard alignment is "any evil", law/chaos doesn't matter.

Anyway, no. Blackguards are not mirror paladins. They share some "evil opposite" traits with paladins, and there are special rules for ex-paladin blackguards, but that's it. Rangers have more in common with paladins than blackguards do.

[Wardog]

I am reasonably sure that restriction is there to prevent a paladin from "outsourcing" all of the evil deeds that might be convenient, but are cause for immediate fall if the paladin does them his or herself, to a party member whose moral code is much looser: "It would be simpler if we just murdered the magistrate, but I have no reason to believe the tenets of good and law can be upheld no other way. Eh. Guess I'll just ask Bob the Rogue to pick him off next time he goes shopping".


An interesting counterpart to that that I've thought of would be a situation where a party finds itself in a situation where performing an evil act is the only viable option, and the paladin volunteers to do it - knowing they will fall as a result - because they consider it would be hipocritical to let someone else do it inorder to avoid falling.

They might also take the philosophical view that it is important that they do so, and fall as a result, because if other people do all the necessary evil acts, then people could gradually become desensitised to them and start to think they are okay afterall. But if the paladin does them and falls as a resut, it makes it clearlydemonstrates to the world that a necessary evil is still Evil.

[Sir_Leorik]

An interesting counterpart to that that I've thought of would be a situation where a party finds itself in a situation where performing an evil act is the only viable option, and the paladin volunteers to do it - knowing they will fall as a result - because they consider it would be hipocritical to let someone else do it inorder to avoid falling.

They might also take the philosophical view that it is important that they do so, and fall as a result, because if other people do all the necessary evil acts, then people could gradually become desensitised to them and start to think they are okay afterall. But if the paladin does them and falls as a resut, it makes it clearlydemonstrates to the world that a necessary evil is still Evil.

I'd like to think that the player of a Paladin who's been playing D&D for a while will find a way to avoid the lesser of two Evils (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakeAThirdOption), especially one the DM did not see coming in a million years (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OffTheRails).

[Scurvy Cur]

An interesting counterpart to that that I've thought of would be a situation where a party finds itself in a situation where performing an evil act is the only viable option, and the paladin volunteers to do it - knowing they will fall as a result - because they consider it would be hipocritical to let someone else do it inorder to avoid falling.

They might also take the philosophical view that it is important that they do so, and fall as a result, because if other people do all the necessary evil acts, then people could gradually become desensitised to them and start to think they are okay afterall. But if the paladin does them and falls as a resut, it makes it clearlydemonstrates to the world that a necessary evil is still Evil.

It is an interesting hypothetical, though that said, as a DM, I try to avoid setting up situations in which the only options are "do something evil, even if to prevent a greater evil" and "do nothing, let evil proceed unchecked". In the rare event where the plot truly demands it, I also err a little towards leniency towards the paladin's choice. It can be something like allowing the paladin to go down fighting (and thus opening not-evil option C for the rest of the party), or opening an atonement path even if one would normally not being available.

In that sort of situation, you really start veering into the (admittedly interesting) moral territory wherein questions can be raised as to how culpable an individual can be for their actions while being coerced. In a situation where the options available are limited to "Evil" and "Lots of Evil", there can be a case made for it to be a paladin's duty to prevent the greatest amount of evil possible. That said, it is interesting specifically because there should be consequences, even then (for the record, I consider "temporary but reversible loss of powers" a reasonable consequence for a PC paladin whose player is really trying to make the most consistently good call he can). It should also be noted that there is a vast gulf between "making the best of two horrid choices" and "picking the an evil solution for the greater good out of expediency".

This to me is the key difference between an O-Chul-like situation, wherein the paladin realizes that, regrettably, he cannot prevent evil from occurring, but will do his best to try and a avoid it anyhow, which we saw in his interrogation scene, and a paladin who sees minor evil as an acceptable choice if it strikes a greater blow against evil. The former has exhausted all options up to and including what under normal circumstances he might consider minor infractions against his honor to try and prevent evil, but in the end has no choice open to him that prevents evil from taking place. The latter is on the fast track to a fall, and perhaps blackguard status, because they are willing to embrace evil simply because it makes them more effective at eradicating other forms of evil.

Aside: my apologies for rambling a bit; the post came together piecemeal, but I feel that paladins often get an unfair shake from DMs and in storytelling, and I come from a standpoint of trying to do my best, when I DM, to accommodate players who are trying to play the class as heroically as intended, because I feel it is a valuable roleplaying experience when done right, and a well-played heroic character can bring a lot to the table.

[F.Harr]

Good point. It might be overhearing Belkar's account of Miko being a "paladin-turned murderer who's committed her very first evil act" that convinced Sabine that she was a candidate for Blackguard.


Return on investment? I mean, if you're going to invest in a mighty fighter for evil, why sink the cost into some fool who hasn't improved his sundering ability?



Question, if a Blackguard associates with lawful people, would they loose their powers and become a fighter without bonus feats?


Why would...

What...

Who suggested or implied some kind of connection between blackguards and chaos?

Sorry, I'd meant, "good".



There's no "blackguard's code" though, to forbid associating with Good characters, or committing Good acts.

And oddly, no "Ex-Blackguards" line for blackguards who have changed alignment from Evil to Neutral.

And following.

Awww, maaaan, that could have been interesting.


Short answer: no.


Really, the rule should have been written such that a paladin falls for willfully violating their code, committing evil acts, or knowingly and freely assisting the causes of evil institutions or individuals. It's a lot clearer on what sorts of associations a paladin ought to be wary of.

That's a point. And if a Balckguard dows something comparable well, evil, as someone here said, sets a lower bar. Possibly if your negative performance reviews don't change your behavior, the next step is to terminate you. Literally. So there are no ex-blackguards because they don't tend to leave corpses.

[King of Nowhere]

An interesting counterpart to that that I've thought of would be a situation where a party finds itself in a situation where performing an evil act is the only viable option, and the paladin volunteers to do it - knowing they will fall as a result - because they consider it would be hipocritical to let someone else do it inorder to avoid falling.

They might also take the philosophical view that it is important that they do so, and fall as a result, because if other people do all the necessary evil acts, then people could gradually become desensitised to them and start to think they are okay afterall. But if the paladin does them and falls as a resut, it makes it clearlydemonstrates to the world that a necessary evil is still Evil.

in my campaign world I homebrewed an order of chaotic good paladins that were devoted to fight dirty when the situation required it and making morally ambiguous choices when the good option clearly weren't working*. They'd still fall for willingly commit a clearly evil deed, however. Their code had much more leeway than that of regular paladins, but on the other hand, they fell much more often because they often had to take difficult choices while paladins mostly have a clear honorable path in front of them and will follow it even if it is more difficult. They were also encouraged, if they felt the situation really required it, to do a necessary evil action themselves, then take responsability for it and accept the consequences.

I also introduced a feature called "sacred paladin's oath"; not doing anything in your power to fulfill it, or even cheating on the conditions with exact words or such, causes a paladin to immediately fall, without any possibility of atonement, ever. It is to be used if there is a negotiation that needs a part being able to trust the other. A common use is "if you surrender, I give my sacred paladin's oath that you will not be harmed"; then, if the rest of your party, without your prior knowledge, decides to kill that guy, you are expected to defend him, to the point of even attacking your teammates with nonlethal techniques or shielding him with your body **.
To a lawful paladin, breaking his sacred oath would be unthinkable. Chaotic paladins, on the other hand, called it "the ultimate sacrifice". Although they were warned that a palading breaking such oath too often would undermine its effectiveness, so in practice it didn't happen more than once or twice per generation.


* For example, I introduced a place inspired by the western continent, but even crappier, with anarchy ruling, banditry unchecked, and some evil overlord who would carve an empire for them every once in a while. in this place, both regular and chaotic paladins tried to set on a nation to fix things. However, the paladins had problems when they faced enemy armies, and they captured prisoners. by the war conventions, they were expected to feed them like they fed themselves, which meant much better than the regular local population ate. so enemy armies came in great numbers to surrender and be fed, and crime skyroketed in their country because people wanted to be put in prison, which in order to be conform to human rights, were actually nicer than most people homes. Other paladins tried to eat like the regular population for a perceived fairness, but they were then too weak to fight. Eventually, for those and other similar problems, they were forced to abandon the place.
While chaotic paladins felt human right needed to be adjusted for the corcumstances, and put all the prisoners to forced labor. No deliberate cruelty, but they made sure those worked harder than the regular people and ate no better, even if that meant that a few prisoners would die by exaustion. Still they never just let those deaths happen, that would be deliberately evil; also no beatings, no torture, trials were as fair as could be arranged in the circumstances, and they gave what medical care they could. But normal people died by exaustion and malnutrition all the time, and they just could not afford to make their prisons look inviting in comparison.
They also put around their borders bodies disemboweled and hanged from their intestines, as a warning to warlords and bandits. They never actually hanged people by their bowels, they just took random corpses and arranged them that way - a few of those paladins even asked to be treated like that after death, to keep protecting their people - but they let it be thought they did it. Regular paladins would see this as desecration of bodies, while they saw it as a phsycological weapon.
By those strategies they were eventually succesful in bringing a modicum of order.

** In this situation, a smart strategy for the paladin would be "I gave my oath to him that he will not be harmed, but you are intentioned in kiling him anyway. So I give you my sacred paladin's oath to you that as long as he is a good prisoner, if you hurt him, I will do my best to kill you. And you know I'm not bluffing".

[LuisDantas]

An interesting counterpart to that that I've thought of would be a situation where a party finds itself in a situation where performing an evil act is the only viable option, and the paladin volunteers to do it - knowing they will fall as a result - because they consider it would be hipocritical to let someone else do it inorder to avoid falling.

They might also take the philosophical view that it is important that they do so, and fall as a result, because if other people do all the necessary evil acts, then people could gradually become desensitised to them and start to think they are okay afterall. But if the paladin does them and falls as a resut, it makes it clearly demonstrates to the world that a necessary evil is still Evil.

That is a very interesting situation indeed. Although I suppose it works best with parties and DMs who are willing to deal with such questions.

Personally, I think this could be one of the best uses of the kind of randomness that dice allow for in a RPG: have the Paladin be at peace with Doing What Is Needed, knowing full well that he will fall as a result.

And then have some roleplaying around that and the matter of whether he can do penance, and how effective (if at all) that will be. Roll the dice and make it so that he can in fact be fallen for good, irreversibly, so that his sacrifice is at least potentially true as opposed to a formality.

[ti'esar]

(ToEE--which, incidentally, doesn't include the Detect Evil ability for paladins--had a lot of what appeared to be completely random paladin "Gotchas," such as, "That shopkeeper is evil, you fall!*" and, "You participated in a drinking contest, which goes against the teachings of one particular Lawful Neutral deity, you fall!")

Wow. In about a decade of roleplaying experience - including reading various horror stories online about DMs that actively tried to make their paladin PCs fall - I can honestly say that those are the worst reasons for falling I've ever seen.

[The MunchKING]

"You participated in a drinking contest, which goes against the teachings of one particular Lawful Neutral deity, you fall!")


Unless you are a Paladin of that deity why would it matter?

[DaggerPen]

while it is possible for those who meant to do good to accidentally do harm, I think that being a blackguard requires something more.
But on another tangent, I find myself thinking, if we assume blackguards who think they are paladins, being champions of evil while assuming they are working for the greater good, can we assume the opposite? Can we assume that some blackguard may become paladins for accidentally doing much good while pursuing what they think of as a greater evil? I'm getting some pretty ridiculous idea here...

"Tharivol smiled thinking on how much of his long life he dedicated to the cause of spreading suffering. Even if his demon lord hadn't talked to him in a while, he *knew* he was the best blackguard ever. Tharivol was an elf. Half a millennia of life expectancy makes you prone to think in the long run. Sure, let those simpleminded fools kill the isolated traveler or poison a food supply. Or even make petty wars. The pure idiocy of marshaling the forces of evil to fight those of good! Don't they realize that a hotter fire only makes for a stronger steel? better to let the sword go rust with inactivity, so that it will grow lazy. For that reason, Tharivol had always used his diplomatic skills to persuade the goblins and orcish hordes to never wage war on the humans. the kingdom had been at peace for over 200 years, and they were growing lazy and complacent for it. All according to the plan. They always thanked him for it, the blind fools. All the better; he would be best able to influence them.
Because he had a vision. He saw an overcrowded world, with more inhabitants than the land could feed. He saw a world were the fires of man would obfuscate and pollute the skyes. Where humankind would run out of natural resources. there would be wars as different nations compete for the resources needed for survival. Wars enhanced by advanced technology, with weapons more destructive than the most powerful magic. Everyone will be at the point of starvation, and everyone will be miserable. That was the future Tharivol wanted. That was what he was working for.
To that goal, he had traveled among the sparse farming communities and taught them better farming techniques. He had been healing their children and teaching them basic medicine. Now those once half-starving communities were quickly growing and spreading around, claiming new land to cultivate. Soon they would occupy all the land, and then they would try to take land from their neighbours. they would chop all the forests, and run out of wood. they would mine all the metal, then go back to the stone age. the beauty of it! Save a life today, condemn ten yet-unborn people to a gruesome death the next generation!
Suddenly, his contemplation was interrupted by screams. the local orphanage was on fire. What a magnificent opportunity. Tharivol enjoyed suffering, and he especially enjoyed the suffering of children. His smile deepened, but was suddenly replaced by a frown. Wait! those children are orphans. Their lives are already screwed over. And now... now they were going to take the easy way out. Not if he had anything to say about it. They would survive, and they would suffer! With grim determination, Tharivol run into the flaming building.

His clothes smoking, his skin blistered, Tharivol made it out of the building with the last of the children, a beautiful small girl. She was badly burned, but she would survive, scarred in the body and in the mind. Despite the pain of his own burns, Tharivol was in bliss thinking at how miserable the girl's life would be. He was about to heal his own wounds, when he considered better. That child was beautiful, and could still be if she was healed with magic soon. She would grow into a stunning woman, and men would fall in love with her. She could only take one of them, and all the rest would despair. Maybe they would even fight over her, kill each other to win her hand. Then she would get old, and the "lucky" guy who maried her would discover that he only loved her beauty, and he would hate her, and she him, and they would be miserable, and their children will grow with phsycological issues because of that. Yes, that was the future he wanted. And so Tharivol layed his hands on the girl and healed her.
That was not part of his regular blackguard powers. That was the power of a paladin. He accidentally discovered it a few years ago. It was his greatest triumph: it meant he managed to fool even one of the gods! The more people who believed in his "good" facade, the better he could have herded them on their path to shiny, glorious destruction. And if even the gods were blinded by his acts, nothing could stop him anymore. With the knowledge of another fruitful day spent serving the cause of evil, Tharivol let himself feel the pain of his wounds and finally passed out"

I love you a little bit.

[Cerlis]

That is a very interesting situation indeed. Although I suppose it works best with parties and DMs who are willing to deal with such questions.

Personally, I think this could be one of the best uses of the kind of randomness that dice allow for in a RPG: have the Paladin be at peace with Doing What Is Needed, knowing full well that he will fall as a result.

And then have some roleplaying around that and the matter of whether he can do penance, and how effective (if at all) that will be. Roll the dice and make it so that he can in fact be fallen for good, irreversibly, so that his sacrifice is at least potentially true as opposed to a formality.

after all, atonement spells wouldnt exist if you wheren't expected to use them.

[The_Weirdo]

Deluded, not Bigoted. And a Trial isn't necessary for any force other than Law, which a Paladin can forsake in a moment if Good is being threatened (Such as a pint-sized homicidal psychopath on the loose, who had already killed one innocent person and was likely going to kill more) Unfortunately, said pint-sized psychopath was a Protagonist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProtagonistCenteredMorality).

Point of order, here: Belkar is a Chaotic Evil psychopath, yes, but if they didn't want to lose people to an adventurer - even a non-Evil one, maybe, just maybe, they shouldn't have "arrested" them for an unknown "crime" well outside any reasonable jurisdiction of theirs?

Neutral people - even Good people - WILL kill to get out of prison if they don't reasonably think they deserve to be there, and the fact of the matter is Belkar didn't. Yes, he killed guards for FUN, not because they had jailed him, but anyone else Neutral might well see the lives of the guards as forfeit then and there.

[hamishspence]

Can we assume that some blackguard may become paladins for accidentally doing much good while pursuing what they think of as a greater evil?
The story posted seemed to be a combination of a Card Carrying Villain character with Bad is Good and Good is Bad morality:

"I save orphans- 'cause that's Evil! Mwahaha!"

A closer approximation to "For The Greater Evil" was Belkar's quasi-Good act here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html

he knows it's quasi-Good, he hates doing it- but his shoulder devil tells him that "You have a duty to serve the Greater You" and he thinks that in this case it's justifiable.

[F.Harr]

* For example, I introduced a place inspired by the western continent, but even crappier, with anarchy ruling, banditry unchecked, and some evil overlord who would carve an empire for them every once in a while. in this place, both regular and chaotic paladins tried to set on a nation to fix things. However, the paladins had problems when they faced enemy armies, and they captured prisoners. by the war conventions, they were expected to feed them like they fed themselves, which meant much better than the regular local population ate. so enemy armies came in great numbers to surrender and be fed, and crime skyroketed in their country because people wanted to be put in prison, which in order to be conform to human rights, were actually nicer than most people homes. Other paladins tried to eat like the regular population for a perceived fairness, but they were then too weak to fight. Eventually, for those and other similar problems, they were forced to abandon the place.
While chaotic paladins felt human right needed to be adjusted for the corcumstances, and put all the prisoners to forced labor. No deliberate cruelty, but they made sure those worked harder than the regular people and ate no better, even if that meant that a few prisoners would die by exaustion. Still they never just let those deaths happen, that would be deliberately evil; also no beatings, no torture, trials were as fair as could be arranged in the circumstances, and they gave what medical care they could. But normal people died by exaustion and malnutrition all the time, and they just could not afford to make their prisons look inviting in comparison.
They also put around their borders bodies disemboweled and hanged from their intestines, as a warning to warlords and bandits. They never actually hanged people by their bowels, they just took random corpses and arranged them that way - a few of those paladins even asked to be treated like that after death, to keep protecting their people - but they let it be thought they did it. Regular paladins would see this as desecration of bodies, while they saw it as a phsycological weapon.
By those strategies they were eventually succesful in bringing a modicum of order.

** In this situation, a smart strategy for the paladin would be "I gave my oath to him that he will not be harmed, but you are intentioned in kiling him anyway. So I give you my sacred paladin's oath to you that as long as he is a good prisoner, if you hurt him, I will do my best to kill you. And you know I'm not bluffing".

I LIKE it!

[King of Nowhere]

That is a very interesting situation indeed. Although I suppose it works best with parties and DMs who are willing to deal with such questions.

Personally, I think this could be one of the best uses of the kind of randomness that dice allow for in a RPG: have the Paladin be at peace with Doing What Is Needed, knowing full well that he will fall as a result.

And then have some roleplaying around that and the matter of whether he can do penance, and how effective (if at all) that will be. Roll the dice and make it so that he can in fact be fallen for good, irreversibly, so that his sacrifice is at least potentially true as opposed to a formality.

I wouldn't roll a dice for something like that; I would judge by the kind of infraction. For example "we absolutely need that scroll to pull our plan for stopping the war, but the merchant is charging more than we have and we can't get a loan or anything. Let's steal it" Is something for which atonement should be easy enough.
Instead "we will cause a landslide to bury the evil tyrant under it. We will also kill several of his palace retinue and slaves, but we have little chance of defeating him in fair combat, and his regime has been killing thousands every month. It has to be done" is something that should probably not allow atonement, but still a paladin may feel he has to do personally.

As a DM I would not try to put a paladin in such a situation, but the situation may arise. In that case, if I were roleplaying a paladin, I may decide that the paladin makes the deed, knowing he won't atone, and then roll a new character, declaring it a fit and satisfying closure for the paladin. End his story with something like "stripped of his powers, burdened by guilt, but safe in the knowledge he did the right thing under those terrible circumstances, he decided to sell his gear and with the money set up an hospital for the poors, where he worked all his life as a partial form of atonement." Seems a good end for a paladin to me.

[Sir_Leorik]

I wouldn't roll a dice for something like that; I would judge by the kind of infraction. For example "we absolutely need that scroll to pull our plan for stopping the war, but the merchant is charging more than we have and we can't get a loan or anything. Let's steal it" Is something for which atonement should be easy enough.

Fair enough, since this is a Chaotic act, not an Evil one.


Instead "we will cause a landslide to bury the evil tyrant under it. We will also kill several of his palace retinue and slaves, but we have little chance of defeating him in fair combat, and his regime has been killing thousands every month. It has to be done" is something that should probably not allow atonement, but still a paladin may feel he has to do personally.

I don't think a Paladin should consent to that sort of plan, period. Unless the evil tyrant is on his way to perform a ritual that will suck the souls out of everyone in the kingdom, turning them into Wights under his control, wouldn't it be wiser to not confront the tyrant in a way that will cause collateral damage? If the tyrant is so powerful that he can't be killed in honorable combat, then why not use a Chaotic (but not Evil) way to defeat him? This isn't similar to Ned Stark taking responsibility for personally executing convicted criminals, rather than using a headsman. This is a case of a Paladin abdicating their responsibility to protect innocent lives. Shouldn't the Paladin be arguing that the PCs should find another way?

[hamishspence]

This isn't similar to Ned Stark taking responsibility for personally executing convicted criminals, rather than using a headsman. This is a case of a Paladin abdicating their responsibility to protect innocent lives. Shouldn't the Paladin be arguing that the PCs should find another way?

This does seem to be the most common way in which Lawful Good members of the Church of the Silver Flame in Eberron become corrupted:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041122a
The most common form of corruption is when zealous devotion causes a priest to set aside mercy and compassion. Such a priest may be a pillar of his community and an admirable man who has absolute dedication to the Church. But if he must sacrifice the innocent in pursuit of the greater good, he will. He will torture and kill without remorse. He will not glorify these actions, and will not torture needlessly -- but he will not shirk from using dark methods to win the battle against evil.

And the Order of Illumination in Complete Adventurer (also paladin-centric, especially their Shadowbane Inquisitor PRC) have a similar credo:

p68:
Their relentless zeal and their overwhelming belief in their own righteousness allow shadow bane inquisitors to root out evil cleanly, even if it costs the lives of a few good creatures, without the moral doubt that other knights might feel. The Order of Illumination expounds that it is better to sacrifice a village that hides a powerful demon than it is to risk letting the demon escape or the evil spread.

So- while it may be a violation of the code, which says that a paladin must "punish those that harm or threaten innocents" these sorts of paladins or ex-paladins will probably harm first, and maybe punish themselves later.

[King of Nowhere]

I don't think a Paladin should consent to that sort of plan, period. Unless the evil tyrant is on his way to perform a ritual that will suck the souls out of everyone in the kingdom, turning them into Wights under his control, wouldn't it be wiser to not confront the tyrant in a way that will cause collateral damage? If the tyrant is so powerful that he can't be killed in honorable combat, then why not use a Chaotic (but not Evil) way to defeat him? This isn't similar to Ned Stark taking responsibility for personally executing convicted criminals, rather than using a headsman. This is a case of a Paladin abdicating their responsibility to protect innocent lives. Shouldn't the Paladin be arguing that the PCs should find another way?

You know, I was just trying to set up a couple of quick examples. Without writing another text wall, possibly; I'm sure if I really wanted I could concoct a situation where a paladin feel he must do something really bad, at lenght, but it wasn't my intention. I just wanted to set two radically different examples of actions done in desperate needs that may cause a paladin to fall, and different ways to deal with that. I didn't want to turn the discussion towards what is an irredamable act and what is not.

By the way, I count stealing as a definitely evil act, not a merely chaotic one, unless under extreme circumstances. because stealing is going to have a pretty negative impact on the guy who's being stolen to. I've had my bike and my wallet stolen in two different occcasions, and it's not a nice experience, even if economically the damage was negligible. for the bike, someone used a motorbike rear-view mirror as a lever to break the lock, which means that he damaged someone's motorbike and forced me to go through the hassle of finding a new bike, all to gain maybe 50 euros by selling it. for the wallet, I had to redo all the documents and credit cards. I almost spent more in remaking the documents than I lost in the wallet, and I had to lose several mornings wandering in offices.
All this to say, stealing deals a lot more collateral damage than apparent. I certainly would rather get punched than getting my wallet stolen, so I see no reason why punching me would be evil, but stealing my wallet would not.

[hamishspence]

By the way, I count stealing as a definitely evil act, not a merely chaotic one, unless under extreme circumstances. because stealing is going to have a pretty negative impact on the guy who's being stolen to.

BoVD does list it among the Evil acts, though for at least some (lying, in particular) it allows the possibility of exceptions.

Fiendish Codex 2 calls out a specific kind of stealing (Stealing From The Needy) as a Corrupt act, on a par with betraying a friend or ally for personal gain.

[Sir_Leorik]

This does seem to be the most common way in which Lawful Good members of the Church of the Silver Flame in Eberron become corrupted:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041122a
The most common form of corruption is when zealous devotion causes a priest to set aside mercy and compassion. Such a priest may be a pillar of his community and an admirable man who has absolute dedication to the Church. But if he must sacrifice the innocent in pursuit of the greater good, he will. He will torture and kill without remorse. He will not glorify these actions, and will not torture needlessly -- but he will not shirk from using dark methods to win the battle against evil.

And the Order of Illumination in Complete Adventurer (also paladin-centric, especially their Shadowbane Inquisitor PRC) have a similar credo:

p68:
Their relentless zeal and their overwhelming belief in their own righteousness allow shadow bane inquisitors to root out evil cleanly, even if it costs the lives of a few good creatures, without the moral doubt that other knights might feel. The Order of Illumination expounds that it is better to sacrifice a village that hides a powerful demon than it is to risk letting the demon escape or the evil spread.

So- while it may be a violation of the code, which says that a paladin must "punish those that harm or threaten innocents" these sorts of paladins or ex-paladins will probably harm first, and maybe punish themselves later.

I'm not familiar with the Church of the Silver Flame, but the Shadowbane Inquisitor PrC is designed to operate under a looser version of the Paladin Code than regular Paladins. And even then, there are restrictions on their actions, which can lead to loss of Paladin status if they go too far.


You know, I was just trying to set up a couple of quick examples. Without writing another text wall, possibly; I'm sure if I really wanted I could concoct a situation where a paladin feel he must do something really bad, at lenght, but it wasn't my intention. I just wanted to set two radically different examples of actions done in desperate needs that may cause a paladin to fall, and different ways to deal with that. I didn't want to turn the discussion towards what is an irredamable act and what is not.

Any Evil act, if performed willingly, causes a Paladin to permanently fall. Performing a large number of Chaotic acts without atoning, violating the Paladin code, or unwilling Evil act (such as while Charmed or Dominated) causes the Paladin to lose their powers until they receive an Atonement spell. The intentions of the Paladin don't matter, only that he performed an Evil act willingly.


By the way, I count stealing as a definitely evil act, not a merely chaotic one, unless under extreme circumstances. because stealing is going to have a pretty negative impact on the guy who's being stolen to. I've had my bike and my wallet stolen in two different occcasions, and it's not a nice experience, even if economically the damage was negligible. for the bike, someone used a motorbike rear-view mirror as a lever to break the lock, which means that he damaged someone's motorbike and forced me to go through the hassle of finding a new bike, all to gain maybe 50 euros by selling it. for the wallet, I had to redo all the documents and credit cards. I almost spent more in remaking the documents than I lost in the wallet, and I had to lose several mornings wandering in offices.
All this to say, stealing deals a lot more collateral damage than apparent. I certainly would rather get punched than getting my wallet stolen, so I see no reason why punching me would be evil, but stealing my wallet would not.


BoVD does list it among the Evil acts, though for at least some (lying, in particular) it allows the possibility of exceptions.

Fiendish Codex 2 calls out a specific kind of stealing (Stealing From The Needy) as a Corrupt act, on a par with betraying a friend or ally for personal gain.

So what about Chaotic Good Robin Hood-style Rogues, who steal from the rich and perform acts of charity with the loot? Are they committing an Evil act everytime they stick up Sir Guy of Gisbourne and shoot his coin-purse from his belt (and causing his pants to fall down at the same time)?

[hamishspence]

So what about Chaotic Good Robin Hood-style Rogues, who steal from the rich and perform acts of charity with the loot? Are they committing an Evil act everytime they stick up Sir Guy of Gisbourne and shoot his coin-purse from his belt (and causing his pants to fall down at the same time)?

I'm guessing that, just as lying isn't always an Evil act, so stealing purely for a Good Cause, from people whose wealth was ill-gotten anyway- is the same.


I'm not familiar with the Church of the Silver Flame, but the Shadowbane Inquisitor PrC is designed to operate under a looser version of the Paladin Code than regular Paladins. And even then, there are restrictions on their actions, which can lead to loss of Paladin status if they go too far.

The Paladin-connected PRC which "loosens the rules" is Grey Guard (Complete Scoundrel), and even then, they can only commit Evil acts ("in a just cause") and not Fall, with 10 levels in the class.

Taking levels in Shadowbane Inquisitor doesn't actually change the rules for the character's Paladin levels- but Falling from paladin status, doesn't lose such a character any of their Shadowbane Inquisitor powers- they just can't advance the PRC any more.

[Sir_Leorik]

I'm guessing that, just as lying isn't always an Evil act, so stealing purely for a Good Cause, from people whose wealth was ill-gotten anyway- is the same.

That's my point: Lying and stealing are always unlawful acts, but they are not always Evil acts.


The Paladin-connected PRC which "loosens the rules" is Grey Guard (Complete Scoundrel), and even then, they can only commit Evil acts ("in a just cause") and not Fall, with 10 levels in the class.

Taking levels in Shadowbane Inquisitor doesn't actually change the rules for the character's Paladin levels- but Falling from paladin status, doesn't lose such a character any of their Shadowbane Inquisitor powers- they just can't advance the PRC any more.

Okay, I was confusing Greyguard with Shadowbane Inquisitor.

[hamishspence]

"Nothing short of a mortal fiend."

It really depends what kind of fiend.

Lawful Good characters in general (paladins in particular) and Devils, have one thing very much in common.

They both punish the wicked (admittedly in different contexts and for different reasons).

A devil who appealed to that desire in a paladin or ex-paladin, I could easily see corrupting them- without ever touching their altruism and compassion toward the innocent.

Just as a paladin doesn't necessarily have a "completely good nature" - so a blackguard doesn't necessarily have to be completely Evil- just Evil enough to have that alignment and strike that pact.

[Kish]

Except that the words "completely evil nature" actually appear in the blackguard class description. And...honestly, getting "punishes the wicked like a devil" out of "nothing short of a mortal fiend" looks like a spectacular example of twisting words. What kind of a fiend? Well, look at the rest of the description: it seems apparent to me that that line of the blackguard description is not meant to imply "Nothing short of a mortal succubus paladin."

[hamishspence]

Except that the words "completely evil nature" actually appear in the blackguard class description. And...honestly, getting "punishes the wicked like a devil" out of "nothing short of a mortal fiend" looks like a spectacular example of twisting words.

The point to be made is- if a devil wants a paladin to turn into a blackguard- appealing to what they both have in common looks like it might be the easiest way of doing so.

Given that WoTC writers have occasionally given us deluded blackguards, who got there though overzealousness- can't see why the "completely evil nature" part of the PRC description should be so sacrosanct.

[LuisDantas]

The point to be made is- if a devil wants a paladin to turn into a blackguard- appealing to what they both have in common looks like it might be the easiest way of doing so.

Given that WoTC writers have occasionally given us deluded blackguards, who got there though overzealousness- can't see why the "completely evil nature" part of the PRC description should be so sacrosanct.

It is not even a matter of whether it is sacrosanct at all.

If ex-palladin blackguards are possible at all (and we know that they must be from the very description of blackguards) then this "completely evil" thing is simply not that unsurmountable a barrier in the first place, alignment meaning discussions not withstanding.

[hamishspence]

I think the theory is that either taking that first level of Blackguard turns the character (ex-paladin or otherwise) into a completely evil being, or, only "completely evil" ex-paladins and other characters, are ever offered that power by fiends.


I prefer the notion that they are not nearly so picky- being aware that an Evil character with many virtues, may actually have a huge advantage over one with no virtues at all.

[Kish]

Given that WoTC writers have occasionally given us deluded blackguards, who got there though overzealousness- can't see why the "completely evil nature" part of the PRC description should be so sacrosanct.
I do not see why WotC's writeups should be sacrosanct. You do not, after all, have to go anywhere near as far as an official sourcebook to find someone who thinks of blackguards as "the fallen paladin class," even variant rules in some third-party sourcebook I remember--I think it was you--mentioning once that specified immediate blackguarding for any paladin who fell, and--Miko completely aside--this annoys me greatly because it strikes me as really awful verisimilitude, not unlike the way certain really awful movies that may or may not actually exist depict Anakin Skywalker going from zero to "mass slaughter of children" in less than an hour.

Back to Miko again, she's an excellent example of a fallen paladin who does not act as though being a paladin, like being a Jedi, comes with a "May suddenly and abruptly turn into complete monster for no real reason" clause. She was as overzealous as you could hope for, and as deluded as you could hope for; she could, and did, do a great deal of damage while still being someone whose response to an overture from a fiend involved immediate violent rejection. To say she is far better written than any Ex-Paladin/Blackguard character writeup I've ever seen would be damning Rich with faint praise.

[hamishspence]

You do not, after all, have to go anywhere near as far as an official sourcebook to find someone who thinks of blackguards as "the fallen paladin class," even variant rules in some third-party sourcebook I remember--I think it was you--mentioning once that specified immediate blackguarding for any paladin who fell

Quintessential Paladin II, if that's what you're thinking of, specified that if a paladin falls a long way at once, the forces of Evil will usually send a servant to tempt them with offers of Blackguard, and if their Fall was sufficiently dire, they may immediately trade in paladin levels for blackguard levels even if they don't meet the prerequisites.

It also, however, allows a great deal of latitude when it comes to Falling- a very minor Evil act won't lose a paladin all their powers in this variant- just a little bit of them.

[King of Nowhere]

Quintessential Paladin II, if that's what you're thinking of, specified that if a paladin falls a long way at once, the forces of Evil will usually send a servant to tempt them with offers of Blackguard, and if their Fall was sufficiently dire, they may immediately trade in paladin levels for blackguard levels even if they don't meet the prerequisites.

It also, however, allows a great deal of latitude when it comes to Falling- a very minor Evil act won't lose a paladin all their powers in this variant- just a little bit of them.

Emphasis on "tempt" and "offers".
Just cause a paladin fell, it don't mean that he should become a blackguard instead. If the paladin fell cause he said "screw up, I don't want to spend my life to help ungrateful people, I will become evil instead", then the paladin may accept the offer. Assuming he cares enough about the new power he's offered to become shackled to some underworld entity.
But if the paladin fell due to overzealousness, or for a mistake, or he don't want to be a paladin anymore but he just want from now on to go ahead doing his business... offer rejected. It would be EXTREMELY rare for a paladin to become a blackguard. and it bothers me that it's such a clichè.
I've only seen 2 instances myself (the aformentioned anakin, and lady aribeth from neverwinter nights 1) and I found both of them poorly written and scarcely believable. I always got the impression that they became evil because the plot wanted them that way more than for any real change of heart.

[Sir_Leorik]

I do not see why WotC's writeups should be sacrosanct. You do not, after all, have to go anywhere near as far as an official sourcebook to find someone who thinks of blackguards as "the fallen paladin class," even variant rules in some third-party sourcebook I remember--I think it was you--mentioning once that specified immediate blackguarding for any paladin who fell, and--Miko completely aside--this annoys me greatly because it strikes me as really awful verisimilitude, not unlike the way certain really awful movies that may or may not actually exist depict Anakin Skywalker going from zero to "mass slaughter of children" in less than an hour.

Except he didn't go from zero to "mass slaughter of children" in less than an hour. He went from petulant, to disturbed by a vision of death, to racing off to Tatooine to discover his mother was a prisoner of Tuskin Raiders, to having his mother die in his arms. At that point, he got to "mass slaughter of children (and all other Tusken Raiders in the vicinity)", then he cooled down abit to ranting about how justified the mass slaughter he engaged in was. If Lucas had a better script doctor working on Episodes II and III, Anakin's slaughter of the Tuskin tribe would have been the true catalyst for his turn to the Dark Side. The incident gets a single mention by Palpatine in Episode III, and that's it. Instead, he and Padme dash off to Geonosis with Artoo and Threepio, like nothing happened. Given that he'd already given in to murderous hatred once, doing it a second time wasn't that surprising, but it was too rushed, like the rest of Episode III.

IMO there's a ton of great material in Episodes II and III, enough for three movies, but because Lucas wasted time in Episode I to pod-racing, Jar-Jar Binks and trade negotiations, the actual corruption of Darth Vader gets the short end of the stick.


Quintessential Paladin II, if that's what you're thinking of, specified that if a paladin falls a long way at once, the forces of Evil will usually send a servant to tempt them with offers of Blackguard, and if their Fall was sufficiently dire, they may immediately trade in paladin levels for blackguard levels even if they don't meet the prerequisites.

It also, however, allows a great deal of latitude when it comes to Falling- a very minor Evil act won't lose a paladin all their powers in this variant- just a little bit of them.

I have problems with Quintessential Paladin II's variant rule (as I do with many other variant rules in Mongoose d20 system products). According to the DMG rules, an Ex-Paladin may only swap Ex-Paladin levels for Blackguard levels if she has 11 or more levels of Ex-Paladin (which Miko may or may not have had). And that's not to mention the BAB, Skill or Feat requirements. The only requirement I'd be willing to overlook for an Ex-Paladin would be the 5 ranks in Hide, which are near impossible for an Ex-Paladin to have acquired, but the BAB, Knowledge (religion) and Feat requirements are not that onerous, especially with the Retraining rules from PHB II.

[hamishspence]

Unearthed Arcana at least provides a possible in-universe reason for those prerequisites- as what's needed to pass a test would-be blackguards take (Break The Weapon, Bind the Contract)

Character must get past a guard golem into the underground complex that holds a bearded devil (maybe Hide & Disguise?)

Character must convince the devil to agree to a nonlethal duel, with this particular devil being fascinated by mortal religion- a Knowledge (religion) check helps convince them

Bearded devil has a glaive- if you break it (Improved Sunder helps here) you have "earned the right to call yourself a blackguard".

[King of Nowhere]

[...]

IMO there's a ton of great material in Episodes II and III, enough for three movies, but because Lucas wasted time in Episode I to pod-racing, Jar-Jar Binks and trade negotiations, the actual corruption of Darth Vader gets the short end of the stick.





The problem with movies here is that there's never enough time to make a decent character development that is gradual enough to feel genuine. Plus, what little time is there is generally sacrificed to big battles.
I practically stopped watching movies because of that issue. I'm more a character-drive reader.
Videogames, on the other hand, tend to dilute any significant plot with endless mowing down of mooks and wandering around the map.

[martianmister]

When has Miko ever shown relutance in destroying those she deems evil?

Belkar? hvfvbvgfgcvfdc

[Domino Quartz]

Belkar?

Uhh...no. She showed no hesitation in trying to kill Belkar two times, and both times was stopped by someone else.

[F.Harr]

Except he didn't go from zero to "mass slaughter of children" in less than an hour. He went from petulant, to disturbed by a vision of death, to racing off to Tatooine to discover his mother was a prisoner of Tuskin Raiders, to having his mother die in his arms. At that point, he got to "mass slaughter of children (and all other Tusken Raiders in the vicinity)", then he cooled down abit to ranting about how justified the mass slaughter he engaged in was. If Lucas had a better script doctor working on Episodes II and III, Anakin's slaughter of the Tuskin tribe would have been the true catalyst for his turn to the Dark Side. The incident gets a single mention by Palpatine in Episode III, and that's it. Instead, he and Padme dash off to Geonosis with Artoo and Threepio, like nothing happened. Given that he'd already given in to murderous hatred once, doing it a second time wasn't that surprising, but it was too rushed, like the rest of Episode III.

IMO there's a ton of great material in Episodes II and III, enough for three movies, but because Lucas wasted time in Episode I to pod-racing, Jar-Jar Binks and trade negotiations, the actual corruption of Darth Vader gets the short end of the stick.




If he'd had a better script doctor, it wouldn't have happened on Tatooine at all. I mean, seriously, who hides a person in the same house the indevidual looking for the person grew up in!

Sorry, I know it has nothing to do with anything. But it really BUGS me.

[martianmister]

Uhh...no. She showed no hesitation in trying to kill Belkar two times, and both times was stopped by someone else.

She didn't destroy him before, even when she get chance.

[SaintRidley]

She didn't destroy him before, even when she get chance.

Pretty sure her failure was not for lack of trying or desire to actually do it.

[hamishspence]

If he'd had a better script doctor, it wouldn't have happened on Tatooine at all. I mean, seriously, who hides a person in the same house the indevidual looking for the person grew up in!

Sorry, I know it has nothing to do with anything. But it really BUGS me.

Strictly, Anakin did not grow up in Owen's home- he grew up in Shmi's home. Shmi's husband lived way out in the desert, and she moved there from her town home in Mos Espa after she was freed.

But it does bug a lot of people that it was one of Shmi's homes at all.

Now- focusing on Miko- she does hesitate in Shojo's throne room before V intervenes, it is true.

[Liliet]

Awww, I now want to sketch a character who was once a paladin, then fell all the way to blackguard, and is now back to Good but with blackguard powers because forces of Evil did not care to take them back and forces of Good are still reluctant to take him/her back because of this...


Speaking about Miko, Good deluded to be Evil is quite possible. She never really "got" what being Good meant, never had any real empathy. She just knew what the rules were and followed them the best she could, and ended up breaking these rules anyway. Let's imagine that she managed to survive castle blowing up, or it wasn't even her that blew it up.

What do we have?

We have a half-crazy fallen paladin convinced of her great destiny who has already convinced herself that everyone around her who tells her she is wrong is just Evil or deluded. And that her gods are just testing her faith that way.

Now imagine that she meets an outsider - blonde, with fair skin and beautiful features, maybe even shining a bit, and said outsider tells her that she has passed her test and must now serve her gods in a new way. Not having Detect Evil anymore, Miko has no reason to distrust said creature. The outsider tells her that from now on her powers will be different, and that her mission is now to strike fear in the hearts of her gods' enemies, and protect innocents by making sure Evil is punished in time... and basically scaring them into submission. With proper amount of mentioning the greater good and Miko's unique destiny (but not so much as to get suspicious), I bet Miko would jump right up at the suggestion. After all, alternative is declining her gods' offer.

Of course, it will take some time before Miko gets used to the idea that anyone who has ever done any Evil in their life is guilty and worthy of punishment (let's hope that Eastern Gods don't have an idea of inborn sin, or it gets even uglier) and only those who are useful to her gods (represented by the same outsider) can be spared. And it will be even more time before she is ready to accept that these useful individuals are sometimes not exactly virtuous. Although if she is only ever guided to associate with those who are willing to play along, she might not even notice.

I think this route is plausible. Of course she could instead realise the error of her ways and atone, find better spiritual guidance and somesuch, but this could happen as well...


Of course, that's only if we accept that blackguards don't have to be Card-Carrying Villains (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CardCarryingVillain) to qualify for the prestige class :smallyuk:

[hamishspence]

4E (being 4E, and thus prone to expand access to a lot of traditionally Villain Only things so that PCs can get them) gave us non-evil Blackguards in Heroes of Shadow.

They are a paladin variant class, dedicated to certain vices rather than certain virtues (Fury or Domination, instead of Sacrifice or Valor) and they trade a bit of their soul for shadow essence that grants them their powers.

In that context, it looks like WoTC has gone off the idea of Card Carrying Villains for at least some character concepts.

[F.Harr]

Strictly, Anakin did not grow up in Owen's home- he grew up in Shmi's home. Shmi's husband lived way out in the desert, and she moved there from her town home in Mos Espa after she was freed.

But it does bug a lot of people that it was one of Shmi's homes at all.



As it should! Now, if I were trying to hide someone, different planet, different social class, with people who'd never HEARD of me, the kid or the kid's parent's. Through a series of intermediaries.

There, I feel better, now.


Awww, I now want to sketch a character who was once a paladin, then fell all the way to blackguard, and is now back to Good but with blackguard powers because forces of Evil did not care to take them back and forces of Good are still reluctant to take him/her back because of this...


Speaking about Miko, Good deluded to be Evil is quite possible. She never really "got" what being Good meant, never had any real empathy. She just knew what the rules were and followed them the best she could, and ended up breaking these rules anyway. Let's imagine that she managed to survive castle blowing up, or it wasn't even her that blew it up.

What do we have?

We have a half-crazy fallen paladin convinced of her great destiny who has already convinced herself that everyone around her who tells her she is wrong is just Evil or deluded. And that her gods are just testing her faith that way.

Now imagine that she meets an outsider - blonde, with fair skin and beautiful features, maybe even shining a bit, and said outsider tells her that she has passed her test and must now serve her gods in a new way. Not having Detect Evil anymore, Miko has no reason to distrust said creature. The outsider tells her that from now on her powers will be different, and that her mission is now to strike fear in the hearts of her gods' enemies, and protect innocents by making sure Evil is punished in time... and basically scaring them into submission. With proper amount of mentioning the greater good and Miko's unique destiny (but not so much as to get suspicious), I bet Miko would jump right up at the suggestion. After all, alternative is declining her gods' offer.

Of course, it will take some time before Miko gets used to the idea that anyone who has ever done any Evil in their life is guilty and worthy of punishment (let's hope that Eastern Gods don't have an idea of inborn sin, or it gets even uglier) and only those who are useful to her gods (represented by the same outsider) can be spared. And it will be even more time before she is ready to accept that these useful individuals are sometimes not exactly virtuous. Although if she is only ever guided to associate with those who are willing to play along, she might not even notice.

I think this route is plausible. Of course she could instead realise the error of her ways and atone, find better spiritual guidance and somesuch, but this could happen as well...


Of course, that's only if we accept that blackguards don't have to be Card-Carrying Villains (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CardCarryingVillain) to qualify for the prestige class :smallyuk:

Well, that's interesting. But I doubt the person approaching her would be blond. That would be a foreigner and thus suspect.


4E (being 4E, and thus prone to expand access to a lot of traditionally Villain Only things so that PCs can get them) gave us non-evil Blackguards in Heroes of Shadow.

They are a paladin variant class, dedicated to certain vices rather than certain virtues (Fury or Domination, instead of Sacrifice or Valor) and they trade a bit of their soul for shadow essence that grants them their powers.

In that context, it looks like WoTC has gone off the idea of Card Carrying Villains for at least some character concepts.

But, but, but, how do we know if we can gratuitously kill them?

Still, it's an advance in story-telling.

[karkus]

Because a blackguard Miko would kick a@@ that is why they wanted it.

OP's question was already answered; why are people still commenting in this thread? :smallbiggrin:

[Kish]

4E (being 4E, and thus prone to expand access to a lot of traditionally Villain Only things so that PCs can get them) gave us non-evil Blackguards in Heroes of Shadow.
I'd think it's more a matter of, "4E, being 4E, and thus not having alignment restrictions for classes anymore, has good blackguards as well as evil paladins."

(4ed may well have alignment restrictions for classes that weren't introduced right away; I never got past the three core books for it. But "a blackguard is like a paladin only evil" would still run into an obvious problem.)

[hamishspence]

The cavalier (D&D Essentials variant of the paladin - and mirror of the Blackguard) has alignment restrictions, but minor ones- and no penalty mentioned for changing alignment.

Cavalier of Valor: Any except Evil and Chaotic Evil
Cavalier of Sacrifice: Lawful Good

Blackguard of Fury: Any except Lawful Good
Blackguard of Domination: Evil or Unaligned

It does ignore that 3.0 and 3.5 blackguards could have nonpaladin backgrounds, true. But I was under the impression that the blackguard derived originally from a 2nd ed "antipaladin" variant of the paladin anyway.

[Kish]

Clarify, please. Does 4ed indicate in some way that a blackguard should have been good at some previous point? Or...?

Considering the lack of alignment restrictions for paladins in 4ed, I mainly don't really see the point of a blackguard class because the niche blackguards had in 3.xed is already filled by Evil and Chaotic Evil paladins (and Unaligned paladins who act like they are Evil or Chaotic Evil). It's totally different from 3.xed, where the description of the blackguard class suits a champion of evil--who may at some previous point have been a champion of good, if the DM can make that believable or can't but is willing to accept her/his campaign *ahem* mirroring the quality of the Star Wars prequel movies or the Neverwinter Nights OC, but it's not a prerequisute.

The first anti-paladin class was, I believe, in Dragon #39. I do not know if its background specified "should be a fallen paladin" or if it was, like the blackguard, "this class is a dark mirror of the paladin." My knowledge of 1ed and 2ed books is far from exhaustive but I believe the first fully-official class of that nature was the blackguard, in the 3.0ed DMG.

[Sir_Leorik]

Clarify, please. Does 4ed indicate in some way that a blackguard should have been good at some previous point? Or...?

No. A 4E Blackguard is just a Paladin with a tie to the Shadow Power Source. The Shadow Power Source is not inherently Evil; it merely comes from the Shadowfell, a darker reflection of the Natural World. The Alignment restrictions for Blackguards reflect that they tap into Vices, rather than Virtues (which Cavaliers do).

In 4E Paladins are not constrained by Alignment, with the exception of Cavaliers and Blackguards.



Considering the lack of alignment restrictions for paladins in 4ed, I mainly don't really see the point of a blackguard class because the niche blackguards had in 3.xed is already filled by Evil and Chaotic Evil paladins (and Unaligned paladins who act like they are Evil or Chaotic Evil). It's totally different from 3.xed, where the description of the blackguard class suits a champion of evil--who may at some previous point have been a champion of good, if the DM can make that believable or can't but is willing to accept her/his campaign *ahem* mirroring the quality of the Star Wars prequel movies or the Neverwinter Nights OC, but it's not a prerequisute.

4E Blackguards aren't Anti-Paladins. They're a specific breed of holy warriors who tap into vices and draw upon the Power of Shadow. They wear heavy armor like a Paladin, but they fight in an underhanded manner like a Rogue.


The first anti-paladin class was, I believe, in Dragon #39. I do not know if its background specified "should be a fallen paladin" or if it was, like the blackguard, "this class is a dark mirror of the paladin." My knowledge of 1ed and 2ed books is far from exhaustive but I believe the first fully-official class of that nature was the blackguard, in the 3.0ed DMG.

The AD&D Anti-Paladin was just that: the antithesis of a Paladin. The 3.X Blackguard was an attempt to update the Anti-Paladin, while at the same time making them less "over the top". The 4E Blackguard is not an Anti-Paladin; it is a holy warrior, same as a Paladin, Cavalier or Avenger.

[Arcas Corricol]

As we all now know she is not evil but just incredibly lawful stupid, lawful mentally retarded, lawful brain dead thank the twelve gods that she wasn't ressurected as a zombie by the necropiliac chick

[The MunchKING]

As it should! Now, if I were trying to hide someone, different planet, different social class, with people who'd never HEARD of me, the kid or the kid's parent's. Through a series of intermediaries.

They DID that...


with Leia.

[hamishspence]

The 4E Blackguard is not an Anti-Paladin; it is a holy warrior, same as a Paladin, Cavalier or Avenger.

True- although the description in Heroes of Shadow does say that some blackguards are paladins who have "failed" in their paladin training- and the cavalier description mentions that orders of blackguards and orders of paladins have been at war with each other for a long time.

So, in a sense, they are painted as an antithesis of the paladin in general- while still not overwhelmingly Evil.

[Sir_Leorik]

True- although the description in Heroes of Shadow does say that some blackguards are paladins who have "failed" in their paladin training- and the cavalier description mentions that orders of blackguards and orders of paladins have been at war with each other for a long time.

So, in a sense, they are painted as an antithesis of the paladin in general- while still not overwhelmingly Evil.

The difference between 3.X Blackguards and 4E Blackguards is as follows:

In 3.X, a Fighter/Rogue seeking power, or an Ex-Paladin consumed by Evil, would make a pact with a Fiend, gain spells and a Smite power, and ride through the countryside causing mayhem.

In 4E, candidates for a religion's Paladin program who fail to make the grade, will be called into their guidance counselor's office. The guidance counselor will hand them brochures titled: "Avengers: Ninjas of the Gods!", "Vice can be a Virtue!", or "The Mount Clangeddin Technical School for Runepriests and Air Conditioner Repair".

The ethos of the Paladin is in 4E. All religions have Paladins, including Evil and Chaotic Evil ones. The only requirement for a 4E PHB Paladin is that their Alignment must be identical to their deity's. Moradin's Paladin's must be Lawful Good, Pelor's must be Good, the Raven Queen's must be Unaligned, Bane's must be Evil and Lolth's must be Chaotic Evil. Templar Clerics (from the PHB) and Avengers (PHB2) have more leeway; they must have an Alignment identical to their Deity's, or be Unaligned. Invokers (PHB2) have the same restrictions as Paladins; their Alignment must be identical to their deity's.

Among the Essentials classes (think 4E for beginners; not a separate edition), the Warpriest has no Alignment restrictions. A Cavalier who chooses the Virtue of Sacrifice must be Lawful Good, but a Cavalier with the Virtue of Valor can be Lawful Good, Good or Unaligned. As noted before Blackguards are also restricted based on their Vices.

Most other classes have no Alignment restrictions. Oddly enough, this includes the Vampire class from Heroes of Shadow. (Go figure. :smallamused:)

4E Barbarians, Bards, Druids and Monks have no Alignment restrictions.

[hamishspence]

The difference between 3.X Blackguards and 4E Blackguards is as follows:

In 3.X, a Fighter/Rogue seeking power, or an Ex-Paladin consumed by Evil, would make a pact with a Fiend, gain spells and a Smite power, and ride through the countryside causing mayhem.

In 4E, candidates for a religion's Paladin program who fail to make the grade, will be called into their guidance counselor's office. The guidance counselor will hand them brochures titled: "Avengers: Ninjas of the Gods!", "Vice can be a Virtue!", or "The Mount Clangeddin Technical School for Runepriests and Air Conditioner Repair".

Sounds about right based on my reading of my 4E collection.

I like the move away from alignment restrictions in general. LG Bards? Druids? Barbarians? Yes please! (or, for that matter, as adversaries, CE druids and CE Monks).

[Sir_Leorik]

Sounds about right based on my reading of my 4E collection.

I like the move away from alignment restrictions in general. LG Bards? Druids? Barbarians? Yes please! (or, for that matter, as adversaries, CE druids and CE Monks).

4E Barbarians were a really diverse lot. There was the Thane Barbarian, who represented a Barbarian who might have led his tribe, or was seeking to become a king (like a certain fictional character written by Robert E. Howard); the Whirling Barbarian, who fought with twin weapons in a whirl of death; the Berserker (from Heroes of the Feywild), who normally operated in a Defender role... until they tapped into a Primal Power, at which point they Hulk out and ignore strategy or defense in favor of being a Striker.

You could create a Lawful Good Dragonborn Thane Barbarian, who comes from a wild region, where Dragonborn need to commune with Primal Dragon spirits to survive, but who never give in to the temptation to act without honor; an Unaligned Warforged Thundering Barbarian, whose creator tried to infuse a Lightning elemental into his creation, leaving a construct able to generate thunderclaps with the swing of a hammer; or an Evil Human Whirling Barbarian, who was inducted into his desert tribe's society of Efreet worshipping Dervishes, and seeks to steal the scimitars wielded by the Wind Dukes themselves.

All of these examples are based on 4E's RAW; I didn't change the Power sources from Primal, nor did I need to. The Warforged Barbarian would still follow all the rules in PHB2 and The Eberron Campaign Setting book, but I would be choosing to roleplay my PC how I wanted to.

By contrast, in 3.X I can't play a Lawful Good Barbarian, a Chaotic Good Druid, a True Neutral Monk, a Lawful Neutral Bard or a Neutral Evil Paladin, without changing the rules of the game.

[hamishspence]

in 3.X I can't play a Lawful Good Barbarian, a Chaotic Good Druid, a True Neutral Monk, a Lawful Neutral Bard or a Neutral Evil Paladin, without changing the rules of the game.Or at least, can't play them properly, levelling up when there's enough experience (a few of those retain their powers when changing to a forbidden alignment though).

Going back to the original topic- there were probably lots of people with different reasons to hypothesise that Miko would become a blackguard, at different times.

Ultimately though, we'll never know just how corruptible she could have been.

[Kish]

You can't play a Lawful Neutral or Neutral Evil anything in 4ed.

[hamishspence]

4E BoVD discusses players playing Evil and Chaotic Evil characters- if the DM agrees, they can do it.

[Sir_Leorik]

You can't play a Lawful Neutral or Neutral Evil anything in 4ed.

Mere semantics! Besides, Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral were lumped into "Unaligned", and Neutral Evil is part of Evil. And my point about 3.X does still stand.

[rodneyAnonymous]

4E BoVD discusses players playing Evil and Chaotic Evil characters- if the DM agrees, they can do it.

His point was that there are no such things as LE or NE in 4e.

[Sir_Leorik]

His point was that there are no such things as LE or NE in 4e.

First, Kish was referring to Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Evil.

Secondly, my point is that those Alignments do exist in 4E, but they got forced into a long term time-share with other Alignments, while Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil retain sole title to their Alignment names.

[B.I.T.T.]

My opinion is that it was people who loved the character as a quasi-villain and just didn't want to see the character end.

[ti'esar]

Mere semantics! Besides, Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral were lumped into "Unaligned", and Neutral Evil is part of Evil. And my point about 3.X does still stand.

I don't think it's just a matter of semantics.

...And probably best to leave it at that, since I don't want this to turn into an edition-wars thread.

[halfeye]

I really hate the name, but it seems to me that Miko falls fair and square into the character type that TV Tropes calls a "Knight Templar". Since Mr. Berlew apparently doesn't read TV Tropes, he presumably wouldn't know that, and maybe her slide was gradual, but I really think this is where she ended up:


Sometimes, the Forces of Light and Goodness get too hardcore. In a deadly combination of Well-Intentioned Extremist, The Fundamentalist, Moral Guardians and sometimes He Who Fights Monsters, they get blinded by themselves and their ideals, and this extreme becomes tyrannical sociopathy. It's not the Forces of Darkness' fault, but they are laughing their asses off and taking a great deal of satisfaction that they were right. It's basically The Mole version of Hero Antagonist.

Usually, the Knight Templar's primary step (or objective) to his perceived "utopia" is to get rid of that pesky "free will" thing that is the cause of crime and evil. Many Knight Templar types are utterly merciless in dealing with those whom they consider evil, and are prone to consider all crimes to be equal. The lightest offences, such as jaywalking or Thought Crime, are met with Draconian punishments such as full imprisonment, death, brainwashing, or eternal torture. If you're in a story like this, don't jaywalk.

It's important to note that despite being villains/villainous within the context of the story, Knights Templar believe fully that they are on the side of righteousness and draw strength from that, and that their opponents are not. Trying to reason with one isn't much good either, because many Knight Templar types believe that if you're not with them, you're against them. Invoking actual goodness and decency will have no effect, save for making Knights Templar demonize your cause as the work of the Devil.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar

Freewill and Jaywalking don't fit, but it seems to me most of the rest does.

[hamishspence]

One doesn't have to read it to know of a vast array of tropes- the site merely codifies for readers what a great many writers will know already.

[Reddish Mage]

First, Kish was referring to Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Evil.

Secondly, my point is that those Alignments do exist in 4E, but they got forced into a long term time-share with other Alignments, while Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil retain sole title to their Alignment names.

Reading the 4e descriptions, it appears that LN/NG/NE/CN gets pushed out of the descriptions of Good/Evil/Unaligned rather than smooshed into them. They are truly fence-sitting alignments. Lawful-neutral, for example, seems to violate unaligned without actually moving into either the Lawful Good or the Evil camp. Maybe Neutral Good/Neutral Evil is more like the plain Good/Evil then they are in between alignments, but I think there is some uncomfortable detritus of orphaned moral philosophies.

[Sir_Leorik]

Reading the 4e descriptions, it appears that LN/NG/NE/CN gets pushed out of the descriptions of Good/Evil/Unaligned rather than smooshed into them. They are truly fence-sitting alignments. Lawful-neutral, for example, seems to violate unaligned without actually moving into either the Lawful Good or the Evil camp. Maybe Neutral Good/Neutral Evil is more like the plain Good/Evil then they are in between alignments, but I think there is some uncomfortable detritus of orphaned moral philosophies.

4E Marut, for example, are Unaligned. In 2E and 3.X, Marut are Lawful Neutral.

Most Chaotic Neutral or Neutral Evil monsters, like Slaad or Yugoloths became Chaotic Evil, not Unaligned or Evil. But Neutral Good and Chaotic Good monsters became Good.

[hamishspence]

Most- but not all. Fang Dragons and Brown Dragons (CN) became Evil rather than CE in 4e Draconomicon Book 1.

[Reddish Mage]

I was referring to personality types, not creatures in the Monster Manual. I think a variety of philosophies no longer fit comfortably in the descriptions of the remaining alignments.