*spoilers* Why did Miko fall *after* killing Shojo?

[Kruploy]

This has been bugging me for a while:

Why did the big twelve wait until Miko killed Shojo to strip her? Shouldn't they have taken her paladinhood the moment she decided to kill Shojo instead of after doing the deed?

What this means is that for a few moments Miko kept her paladinhood with the intent of doing an evil deed.

Can't gods read minds? Or was it the paperwork?

[Shale]

Intent is not action, and your alignment doesn't change just from wanting to do something bad. You have to actually do it.

[littlebum2002]

They're gods. They knew Miko was going to try and kill Shojo, but they also knew she almost certainly would have killed him without her powers (he wasn't evil, after all, so she hit him with pure strength, and no Paladin bonuses).

And, as you know, gods are very big into dramatics. So they probably figured

Paladin killing leader then getting struck down

was a lot more dramatic than

Paladin thinks about killing leader, gets struck down, but then anticlimactically kills him anyway.

[Kruploy]

Intent is not action, and your alignment doesn't change just from wanting to do something bad. You have to actually do it.

But Miko did not just want to do it. She had decided to do it. It wasn't a momentary slip of control, she misjudged Shojo as evil and decided to murder him. She had already done it in her mind, she just needed time to impose it on reality.

The gods should have known that it was gonna happen. Why not retract their blessing at the moment the decision was made, potentially leading to interference by Hinjo and saving Shojo's life instead of waiting?

After all Shojo was working to save their world and potentially their behinds.

@littlebum2002

When Miko fell she was confused and incapacitated for a few rounds, Shojo would most certainly have escaped in that brief moment of time.

[Peelee]

But Miko did not just want to do it. She had decided to do it. It wasn't a momentary slip of control, she misjudged Shojo as evil and decided to murder him. She had already done it in her mind, she just needed time to impose it on reality.

The gods should have known that it was gonna happen. Why not retract their blessing at the moment the decision was made, potentially leading to interference by Hinjo and saving Shojo's life instead of waiting?

After all Shojo was working to save their world and potentially their behinds.


Until it's done, she can change her mind. The twelve gods don't punish you for acts you will do in the future, only for acts you have done.

[Kruploy]

Until it's done, she can change her mind. The twelve gods don't punish you for acts you will do in the future, only for acts you have done.

Yet the gods know that she does not change her mind. Why continue providing juice for someone when you know they are going to fall anyway?
In fact, why make them a paladin at all? Surely the gods can single out the fall-proof paladin candidates.

[Kish]

Paladins fall for committing an evil act or a gross violation of the paladin code. Not for planning to commit an evil act or a gross violation of the paladin code. "She had already done it in her mind, she just needed time to impose it on reality" lacks a certain respect for the concept of actions.

[Sir_Leorik]

This has been bugging me for a while:

Why did the big twelve wait until Miko killed Shojo to strip her? Shouldn't they have taken her paladinhood the moment she decided to kill Shojo instead of after doing the deed?

What this means is that for a few moments Miko kept her paladinhood with the intent of doing an evil deed.

Can't gods read minds? Or was it the paperwork?

It's a little something called Free Will. Miko was free to make her own decisions. Given that her mental state had been deteriorating ever since the end of the trial scene, one might ask why Shojo decided to send her to the Dwarven Homelands, rather than put her on disability leave.

[theNater]

Yet the gods know that she does not change her mind. Why continue providing juice for someone when you know they are going to fall anyway?
In fact, why make them a paladin at all? Surely the gods can single out the fall-proof paladin candidates.
D&D gods are not omniscient. Notice that Thor barely knows what's going on right now (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0806.html). Why would you expect the southern gods to be able to reliably predict the future?

[Composer99]

The in-comic evidence suggests the deities are not omniscient (recall Thor's confusion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0806.html) over what, exactly, "Mass Death Ward" was), nor omnipotent, nor do they receive up-to-the-microsecond status updates on their followers (recall Thor and Loki having to take a moment (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0079.html) to figure out what was up with Durkon and Hilgya).

As such, in addition to the philosophical points about punishing action, not intent, and will (however free or circumscribed by physiology it may be), the very real possibility is that the decision to murder Shojo and the carrying out of the deed occurred too rapidly for an intervention by the Twelve Gods beforehand.

Another point to note is that it is quite common in Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings for deities, should they exist, to be fairly hands-off in their day-to-day interaction with the mortal world, meaning the Twelve Gods may not generally concern themselves with who becomes a paladin of the Sapphire Guard, up until they personally have to intervene.

As a final note, while I do not have a link to a quote, my understanding is that The Giant has confirmed that paladins who participated in massacres of goblins also fell, without a big sound-and-light show by the Twelve Gods. So normally they wouldn't even bother to personally show up to strip a paladin of his or her powers.

[SavageWombat]

{{scrubbed}}

[AKA_Bait]

Personally, I think the more interesting question is whether Miko fell because she intentionally committed an evil act or whether it was because her act of murdering her lawful ruler based only on her own authority moved her an alignment step away from lawful.

[Keltest]

Personally, I think the more interesting question is whether Miko fell because she intentionally committed an evil act or whether it was because her act of murdering her lawful ruler based only on her own authority moved her an alignment step away from lawful.

It was the evil act. He had more or less confessed to treason right in front of her. He would definitely have been found guilty of treason, or at the very least a violation of the paladin code (which he technically had to follow as leader of the Sapphire Guard). Technically she was acting lawful, just not Lawful good.

[Copperdragon]

Personally, I think the more interesting question is whether Miko fell because she intentionally committed an evil act

Yes. This.


or whether it was because her act of murdering her lawful ruler based only on her own authority moved her an alignment step away from lawful.

I do not think this. Miko was very, very Lawful and while she committed a non-lawful act she did it out of Lawful motives. It probably did not shift her Alignment away from from Lawful. The question "Law or not before a background of a very Lawful character" is dwarfed by the evil act she committed.

[AKA_Bait]

I tend to agree that it was the evil act, mostly because of Miko's conversation with Soon.

[Snails]

D&D gods are no omniscient. By the letter of the law, intention does not cause a Fall. There was always the remote possibility that Miko would fail to kill Shojo, even as she was about to make the attempt.

If otherwise, we would get into all kinds of unfun quandries: My paladin just fell because the DM thought I was going to attempt an Evil act. But because I did Fall, I chose to not do any evil. How do I atone? What if the DM (gods) guessed wrong?

While it is an interesting question, my personal opinion is that the act was not Chaotic, merely Not Lawful. So an alignment shift or a Fall would not be in the cards.

[Trisk]

But Miko did not just want to do it. She had decided to do it. It wasn't a momentary slip of control, she misjudged Shojo as evil and decided to murder him. She had already done it in her mind, she just needed time to impose it on reality.

The gods should have known that it was gonna happen. Why not retract their blessing at the moment the decision was made, potentially leading to interference by Hinjo and saving Shojo's life instead of waiting?

After all Shojo was working to save their world and potentially their behinds.

@littlebum2002

When Miko fell she was confused and incapacitated for a few rounds, Shojo would most certainly have escaped in that brief moment of time.

It's because this isn't Forgotten Realms, gods don't seem to either be able or want to intervene directly.

Also Paladin's don't fall until the act

[Throknor]

It was the evil act. He had more or less confessed to treason right in front of her. He would definitely have been found guilty of treason, or at the very least a violation of the paladin code (which he technically had to follow as leader of the Sapphire Guard). Technically she was acting lawful, just not Lawful good.

I doubt he'd have been found guilty of treason, or even confessed to that. His only actual crime was not upholding the oath to keep knowledge of the gate secret and not interfere with other gates. Whether he overstepped his authority to use Miko to retrieve the Order and then staged a fake trial would also have been looked into but probably fall under the 'violation of the oath'; possibly just more counts. Miko accused him of treason for conspiring with the Order to turn the city over to Xykon. A trial would easily have cleared that up. At most he would probably have been stripped of leadership of the paladins but kept on as lord of the city; the titles would have been separated again. But even that might have not happened if he could successfully argue that this was the very reason Soon wanted the leadership to not be paladin - to give him/her flexibility the paladin's code wouldn't allow.

And really, if she hadn't been crazy his plan would have worked a lot better. Even if they lost the city he probably there wouldn't have been the 'did this guy kill his Lord?' question hanging over him as he negotiated with allies.

But to focus on Miko: her action was neither good nor lawful. She murdered an unarmed man without confirmation that he had committed any evil act whatsoever.

And gods do not monitor thoughts. Life under that system would be worse than pointless. However becoming a paladin involves a pledge that will be monitored and acted on in real time. In the book the Giant points out there are no rules for the 'flashiness' of her fall, but in a visual medium he needed to drive the point home and make it clear that she fell and it was this specific act that was why.

[Keltest]

I doubt he'd have been found guilty of treason, or even confessed to that. His only actual crime was not upholding the oath to keep knowledge of the gate secret and not interfere with other gates. Whether he overstepped his authority to use Miko to retrieve the Order and then staged a fake trial would also have been looked into but probably fall under the 'violation of the oath'; possibly just more counts. Miko accused him of treason for conspiring with the Order to turn the city over to Xykon. A trial would easily have cleared that up. At most he would probably have been stripped of leadership of the paladins but kept on as lord of the city; the titles would have been separated again. But even that might have not happened if he could successfully argue that this was the very reason Soon wanted the leadership to not be paladin - to give him/her flexibility the paladin's code wouldn't allow.

And really, if she hadn't been crazy his plan would have worked a lot better. Even if they lost the city he probably there wouldn't have been the 'did this guy kill his Lord?' question hanging over him as he negotiated with allies.

But to focus on Miko: her action was neither good nor lawful. She murdered an unarmed man without confirmation that he had committed any evil act whatsoever.

And gods do not monitor thoughts. Life under that system would be worse than pointless. However becoming a paladin involves a pledge that will be monitored and acted on in real time. In the book the Giant points out there are no rules for the 'flashiness' of her fall, but in a visual medium he needed to drive the point home and make it clear that she fell and it was this specific act that was why.
A lawful alignment does not mean the character must care about justice. That comes from the other alignment. A lawful character simply cares whether the laws are being upheld. While what Miko did was absolutely not a good act, and is defintaly a case of disproportionate retribution, it was "lawful" in the sense that she (thought she) was attempting to uphold the laws. Especially when you consider she also did not trust the courts, because they did not know how far his corruption went.

[hamishspence]

I doubt he'd have been found guilty of treason, or even confessed to that. His only actual crime was not upholding the oath to keep knowledge of the gate secret and not interfere with other gates. Whether he overstepped his authority to use Miko to retrieve the Order and then staged a fake trial would also have been looked into but probably fall under the 'violation of the oath'; possibly just more counts. Miko accused him of treason for conspiring with the Order to turn the city over to Xykon. A trial would easily have cleared that up. At most he would probably have been stripped of leadership of the paladins but kept on as lord of the city; the titles would have been separated again. But even that might have not happened if he could successfully argue that this was the very reason Soon wanted the leadership to not be paladin - to give him/her flexibility the paladin's code wouldn't allow.

A case could be made that he's violated the law of Azure City by imposing things "not part of its legal system", on prisoners:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html

And it wasn't just Belkar:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0602.html

[Peelee]

Yet the gods know that she does not change her mind. Why continue providing juice for someone when you know they are going to fall anyway?

No. Free will exists in this universe. No matter how much you know that Miko did not change her mind, she could if she wanted.

Once free will enters the equation, future crimes are not punishable.

[colanderman]

Why did the big twelve wait until Miko killed Shojo to strip her? Shouldn't they have taken her paladinhood the moment she decided to kill Shojo instead of after doing the deed?

No, because it wouldn't be an effective deterrent to others. Work through it:

Miko thinks a thought. Gods zap Miko. People say: "Hey look at Miko, she lost her paladinhood for no apparent reason! Those gods sure are arbitrary… I'm not so sure about them now!"

As opposed to:

Miko kills Shojo. Gods zap Miko. "Hey look at Miko! She killed Shojo and now lost her paladinhood! Boy, I better not murder anybody!"

[BaronOfHell]

I was promised spoilers!

Where are my spoilers?

OT: Playing DA, it's not unheard of to be found guilty for planning, but I've no clue how it works in D&D. I imagine gods are like programmers in the way they created beings and gave them free will, like you let a program run. Of course the Gods could have, and probably still can, intervene whenever it suits them, but it's my impression they like to let things play out in stead of playing out things by themselves. As such, they're more a source of divine power than anything, from my current perspective.

[multilis]

Short answer:

MikoLust

Long answer:

Miko was OOTS equivalent of Marilyn Monroe or Cleopatra, males desired her for her charm and physical beauty and graceful movements, but knowing she was out of their league, they suffered from sexual frustration and tended to get angry.

But one god decided to do something about it rather than just get angry. He distracted the others until it was too late... so that Miko would fall further towards his alignment (extra demerit points for killing rather than just bad thoughts), so that she might end up being "in his league".

This god goes by many names, Orcs call him "the Other", dwarves "Cross Eyes", humans: "Banjo the Clown".

[AKA_Bait]

humans: "Banjo the Clown".

That sounds more like the work of Giggles (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0561.html)to me.

[Killer Angel]

Because "preventive fall" doesn't exist.

[Heksefatter]

As already pointed out, the gods are not omniscient in the Stickverse. Also, it is entirely possible that they could not arrive at a decision fast enough. Apparently, it was the twelve gods that collectively "fired" her. Maybe they couldn't reach an agreement quickly enough before the saw what Miko did.

Maybe the standard procedure for letting a paladin fall is decided by some celestial committee. Eg. a few deavas sit down and discuss whether the matter was big enough to fire the paladin. These cases are usually less dramatic than Miko's case, where she murdered a defenseless old man who was also her ruler. I believe that the Giant once said something to the effect of Miko's fall being the equivalent of screwing up so much that the CEO of your company shows up to fire you personally. Normally, it is just decided by some mid-managers and is a far more sluggish process.

It also fits with the pseudo-Asian theme - celestial bureaucracies and all that.

[Anarion]

Paladins fall for committing an evil act or a gross violation of the paladin code. Not for planning to commit an evil act or a gross violation of the paladin code. "She had already done it in her mind, she just needed time to impose it on reality" lacks a certain respect for the concept of actions.

Frankly, I think this nails it spot on and all the talk about omniscience, or lack thereof, is beside the point.

Plus, do any of you honestly think that The Giant would want to condone the idea of punishing people before they've done something bad because they have evil thoughts?

[Throknor]

A lawful alignment does not mean the character must care about justice. That comes from the other alignment. A lawful character simply cares whether the laws are being upheld. While what Miko did was absolutely not a good act, and is defintaly a case of disproportionate retribution, it was "lawful" in the sense that she (thought she) was attempting to uphold the laws. Especially when you consider she also did not trust the courts, because they did not know how far his corruption went.
"Remember: Don't take the law into you own hands. You take them to court."

Her going around her own governing body of laws is exactly what she and Hinjo were accusing Shojo of doing. While he was clearly aware he was acting in a chaotic manner to uphold the spirit of the laws paladins do not have that luxury. She made an oath to the laws of Azure city.

While I'm sure there's a way for a paladin to rescind an oath she finds is to an unlawful body, I'm guessing there's a process more involved than simply declaring "The laws have no meaning!".


A case could be made that he's violated the law of Azure City by imposing things "not part of its legal system", on prisoners:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html

And it wasn't just Belkar:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0602.html
It may have been outside their normal system, but it had nothing to do with the reason Miko accused him of treason. And again it wouldn't be a treason charge; merely an 'abuse of authority' charge.

I'm in no way saying Shojo didn't violate laws. I'm saying treason has goals that none of his violations reach. His chaotic views on how to keep the city safe did not fully align with their lawful views, but safety still the goal.

[hamishspence]

And again it wouldn't be a treason charge; merely an 'abuse of authority' charge.

I'm in no way saying Shojo didn't violate laws. I'm saying treason has goals that none of his violations reach. His chaotic views on how to keep the city safe did not fully align with their lawful views, but safety still the goal.

That sounds about right to me.

[Ridureyu]

Miko did not fall because of semantics, rules-lawyering, or the nuances of legal phraseology.

Shojo had ruled dishonestly, but he was not treasonous - if anything, he had strengthened both Azure City and the survival of the gates in the only way that he could without being summarily stabbinated by hordes of nobility-led ninjas. Shady, yes. Evil, no. Miko misinterpreted what she had heard, and then her ego took over and allowed her to jump to conclusions that filled a narrative in which she was the only enlightened perfect individual, and all those who disagreed with her deserved death. She made the decision to murder Shojo while declaring it a just and righteous act. Now, why did she not fall until she had already killed him?

Because until that sword cleaved stick-figure flesh, there was still the possibility that she could have stopped herself. Redemption may be a rare and special thing, but it is a possibility. And Miko could have come to her senses at any time. She instead actively made the choice to do what she did, and then she did it rather than backing down or second-guessing herself. If she had stood over him with her sword raised only to realize her folly and back down, she would not have fallen. She would have, in fact, rescued herself from the brink. But instead, she chose to slaughter a defenseless old man while screaming that she is perfect.

And then she fell. And she deserved it.

Also, keep in mind that she was going to murder Hinjo for disagreeing with her and "being deluded." Not knock him out or incapacitate him or push him to the side, but explicitly murder him. Miko's psychotic break was so complete that, if she had escaped, she might very well have slaughtered each and every member of the Sapphire Guard to "punish" them.

[veti]

I do not think this. Miko was very, very Lawful and while she committed a non-lawful act she did it out of Lawful motives.

Not only did Miko ignore her own (very basic) protocol "Detect before you Smite", she also attacked her own superior, overriding the objections of her fellow paladin (who probably, though I think this is left a bit vague, outranked her in the hierarchy). She actively and explicitly rejected the Lawful solution (which Hinjo proposed).

That's not my idea of Lawful motives.

My interpretation of Miko's Fall was that the Twelve Gods were willing to indulge her as long as she was willing to follow the rules, even when she privately didn't believe in them. In killing Shojo, she showed conclusively that she wasn't willing to hold up her end of that bargain any more. (If you're willing to murder your own direct superior in cold blood, then there's really no chance that you're going to regard any rule as really binding.)

So yes, it was a deliberate evil act, but also - and I think more importantly - it was wilful disobedience.

[Ridureyu]

Either that, or the gods were just testing her by temporarily removing her powers. A test which she passed, of course.

[Sir_Leorik]

Also, keep in mind that she was going to murder Hinjo for disagreeing with her and "being deluded." Not knock him out or incapacitate him or push him to the side, but explicitly murder him. Miko's psychotic break was so complete that, if she had escaped, she might very well have slaughtered each and every member of the Sapphire Guard to "punish" them.

She would have been welcome to try. In a battle between Ex-Paladin Miko vs. Paladin O-Chul, I know I'm betting on O-Chul. He could fight her in his tighty-whities, and he'd still defeat her and drag her to prison. All the while lamenting how she fell from grace.

[oonker]

Miko did not fall because of semantics, rules-lawyering, or the nuances of legal phraseology.

Shojo had ruled dishonestly, but he was not treasonous - if anything, he had strengthened both Azure City and the survival of the gates in the only way that he could without being summarily stabbinated by hordes of nobility-led ninjas. Shady, yes. Evil, no. Miko misinterpreted what she had heard, and then her ego took over and allowed her to jump to conclusions that filled a narrative in which she was the only enlightened perfect individual, and all those who disagreed with her deserved death. She made the decision to murder Shojo while declaring it a just and righteous act. Now, why did she not fall until she had already killed him?

Because until that sword cleaved stick-figure flesh, there was still the possibility that she could have stopped herself. Redemption may be a rare and special thing, but it is a possibility. And Miko could have come to her senses at any time. She instead actively made the choice to do what she did, and then she did it rather than backing down or second-guessing herself. If she had stood over him with her sword raised only to realize her folly and back down, she would not have fallen. She would have, in fact, rescued herself from the brink. But instead, she chose to slaughter a defenseless old man while screaming that she is perfect.

And then she fell. And she deserved it.

Also, keep in mind that she was going to murder Hinjo for disagreeing with her and "being deluded." Not knock him out or incapacitate him or push him to the side, but explicitly murder him. Miko's psychotic break was so complete that, if she had escaped, she might very well have slaughtered each and every member of the Sapphire Guard to "punish" them.

This. Without adding or taking any single word.

[Xelbiuj]

Miko's psychotic break was so complete that, if she had escaped, she might very well have slaughtered each and every member of the Sapphire Guard to "punish" them.

Well I think that's going a bit far. She only fought with Hinjo because he stood between her and Belkar. I see no reason to think that she'd think the rest of the Guard were in on it with Shojo.

{{scrubbed}}

[Ridureyu]

The rest of the guard would have opposed her, though. And that's all it takes. She would have declared, "Clearly, you have all fallen victim to Shojo's corruption! I shall cleanse you!"

And yeah, O-Chul as he is now would probably mop the floor with Miko. However, he has recently gained a lot of levels fro Xykon's torture. O-Chul as he was back in the day even admitted that Miko was the strongest paladin (and Hinjo second, right?).

See, the Giant developed a character based on one of the many ways that "good" can go "bad" - pride and arrogance can twist and corrupt even the purest of hearts, and it was the real source of Miko's downfall. "I am right! Everybody else must be delusional! My opinions are the will of the gods, and not even the gods themselves could convince me otherwise."

[hamishspence]

Not only did Miko ignore her own (very basic) protocol "Detect before you Smite", she also attacked her own superior, overriding the objections of her fellow paladin (who probably, though I think this is left a bit vague, outranked her in the hierarchy).

As Heir to the Lordship of Azure City- I could see him outranking her in political-type situations (especially when the actual Lord has just been accused of serious crimes)- but he does act like she outranks him within the Sapphire Guard at least- she issues orders to him, and he obeys:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0265.html

[Sir_Leorik]

See, the Giant developed a character based on one of the many ways that "good" can go "bad" - pride and arrogance can twist and corrupt even the purest of hearts, and it was the real source of Miko's downfall. "I am right! Everybody else must be delusional! My opinions are the will of the gods, and not even the gods themselves could convince me otherwise."

Excellent analysis. That's also why O-Chul is her direct counterpart, a Paladin who is humble, kind and caring. He may be defiant when faced with Evil, but when trapped next to the MitD, he listened to the creature and spoke to him gently. That's what a Paladin was always meant to be, ever since EGG described them as pinacles of Law and Good in the 1E PHB: an inspiration to others to do the right thing. Miko's sin was viewing herself as special, chosen by the Twelve gods for a special purpose. O-Chul viewed himself first and foremost as a soldier and a servant, a vassal to Lord Shojo and the Twelve gods, and a vassal is expected to supplicate himself before his superior. Arrogance vs. humility. I know which one I prefer in a Paladin.

[Composer99]

Frankly, I think this nails it spot on and all the talk about omniscience, or lack thereof, is beside the point.

Plus, do any of you honestly think that The Giant would want to condone the idea of punishing people before they've done something bad because they have evil thoughts?

Actually, any answer other than "The Giant wanted it the way it happened in the comic" is beside the point. You don't see that stopping any of the other speculation, do you? :smalltongue:

[Anarion]

Actually, any answer other than "The Giant wanted it the way it happened in the comic" is beside the point. You don't see that stopping any of the other speculation, do you? :smalltongue:

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not just saying "The Giant wanted it that way." I'm suggesting that based off everything I have read from Rich Burlew, if he were to write a situation that appeared to endorse punishing a person before that person had done anything wrong, I would look for news of Mr. Burlew's severe head injury.

[Ramien]

The rest of the guard would have opposed her, though. And that's all it takes. She would have declared, "Clearly, you have all fallen victim to Shojo's corruption! I shall cleanse you!"

And yeah, O-Chul as he is now would probably mop the floor with Miko. However, he has recently gained a lot of levels fro Xykon's torture. O-Chul as he was back in the day even admitted that Miko was the strongest paladin (and Hinjo second, right?).


Miko may have been more powerful, but O-Chul is the toughest, and likely was even before falling into Xykon's clutches or he wouldn't have survived even with Redcloak healing. That's why Hinjo gave him the orders to destroy the Gate as the last resort: O-Chul would have been the only one likely to survive long enough. A fight between the two would have involved O-Chul soaking up a lot of punishment before finally beating Miko. Miko was the strongest because she likely had a closer to traditional paladin build (including at least some charisma bonus), not because she was superior in all respects.

[Ridureyu]

O-Chul gained his awesome toughness through... well hey, Xykon beating it into him. Again, Niko was constantly and unequivocally stated to be the most powerfil paladin again and again and again. There was no, "But O-Chul could beat her" clause. SHe was the highest-level, had the best stats, and the most min-maxed build. They treated her as such a big deal that not having her stats around in the battle was treated as a HUGE loss for the heroes of Azure City, not "Well, O-Chul is tough enough to make up for it."

The comic said she was the toughest. Anybody claiming that the other paladins could kick her ass one-on-one need to actually furnish some direct proof. Show me where the comic directly said that pre-torture O-Chul was tougher than Miko, just as directly as it said "Miko is the most powerful paladin."

[Keltest]

O-Chul gained his awesome toughness through... well hey, Xykon beating it into him. Again, Niko was constantly and unequivocally stated to be the most powerfil paladin again and again and again. There was no, "But O-Chul could beat her" clause. SHe was the highest-level, had the best stats, and the most min-maxed build. They treated her as such a big deal that not having her stats around in the battle was treated as a HUGE loss for the heroes of Azure City, not "Well, O-Chul is tough enough to make up for it."

The comic said she was the toughest. Anybody claiming that the other paladins could kick her ass one-on-one need to actually furnish some direct proof.

But then she got ripped in half, while O-chul survived not only the explosion, but being shot out of the city into the surrounding wastelands. Unless there was an invisible saving throw that he made due to being a paladin that she didn't, I think that O-chul could at least give her a reasonable fight, enough that it would come down to how the dice rolled.

[ORione]

Falling would have weakened her, though, and even if she could still beat any given SG paladin, I find it unlikely that she could beat every SG paladin at once.

[Ridureyu]

But then she got ripped in half, while O-chul survived not only the explosion, but being shot out of the city into the surrounding wastelands. Unless there was an invisible saving throw that he made due to being a paladin that she didn't, I think that O-chul could at least give her a reasonable fight, enough that it would come down to how the dice rolled.

She got bisected by debris (probably the throne), while he got catapulted. You could chalk it up to differing damage rolls, saves vs. massive damage, where they were standing in the room, or the plot.... AND she had fallen and lost her Paladinny abilities by then. I'm still waiting for a quote from the comic with, "Well, O-Chul is tougher than Miko," or "O-Chul could take her," or "Miko is the strongest unless you count O-Chul." It has to be a direct statement with as much strength as "Miko is the strongest Paladin." You don't got that, you can't prove your assertion.


But yeah, if they dogpiled her as a group she would have gone down eventually. But one-on-one? No, not really. That's part of how much of a threat she posed - Miko was powerful enough that she could exercise Might Makes Right if she really felt the need. And having that much superior power mixed with a gigantic ego is the easiest way for well-meaning people to dip into the dark side.

[hamishspence]

From War & XPs commentary- last section:


If I had to do it over again, I would have included more references to O-Chul being the toughest member of the Sapphire Guard before the castle exploded; a lot of people didn't understand how O-Chul, an at-the-time minor NPC, could survive an explosion Miko couldn't. (Answer: O-Chul has a Constitution score in the mid-20s.)

"Toughest" in this context seems to be "Has the most hit points."

[Ridureyu]

Oh, cool! Well, you have certainly proved that O-Chul had more HP.

Now, find me the quote that says he would win in any one-on-one fight between them.

[hamishspence]

I can think of none. Personally, if both had had full paladin powers, and were able to fight full force without either Falling (sparring matches with magical precautions?) I think Miko would win most matches.

[Ridureyu]

Ah-ha! SEE? SEE!!! I'm right! I am always right because the Twelve Gods have chosen me for a spec... oh, crap.

[Rakoa]

"Well, O-Chul is tougher than Miko," or "O-Chul could take her," or "Miko is the strongest unless you count O-Chul." It has to be a direct statement with as much strength as "Miko is the strongest Paladin." You don't got that, you can't prove your assertion.


Who is it that states Miko is the strongest Paladin?

[BaronOfHell]

Yeah, typically hit points by itself doesn't count for that much, in my experience with other games. E.g. in Doom 2 high hit point creatures can lose to creatures with down to 50% of that health pool, because a battle can be so much more than who can endure the most punishment.

My impression is that Miko could Stun, she could attack multiple times, she had great dexterity in battle, and probably more than that, whereas I'm not sure O-Chul stood out from other Paladins in any other way than his high hit point.

But when it came to the situation O-Chul got into, I suppose hit points suddenly became the most important stat.

[Ridureyu]

Who is it that states Miko is the strongest Paladin?

Shojo and Hinjo both, IIRC. You know, the people in charge of the Sapphire Guild.

[CombatOwl]

The in-comic evidence suggests the deities are not omniscient (recall Thor's confusion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0806.html) over what, exactly, "Mass Death Ward" was), nor omnipotent, nor do they receive up-to-the-microsecond status updates on their followers (recall Thor and Loki having to take a moment (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0079.html) to figure out what was up with Durkon and Hilgya).

As such, in addition to the philosophical points about punishing action, not intent, and will (however free or circumscribed by physiology it may be), the very real possibility is that the decision to murder Shojo and the carrying out of the deed occurred too rapidly for an intervention by the Twelve Gods beforehand.

Another point to note is that it is quite common in Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings for deities, should they exist, to be fairly hands-off in their day-to-day interaction with the mortal world, meaning the Twelve Gods may not generally concern themselves with who becomes a paladin of the Sapphire Guard, up until they personally have to intervene.

As a final note, while I do not have a link to a quote, my understanding is that The Giant has confirmed that paladins who participated in massacres of goblins also fell, without a big sound-and-light show by the Twelve Gods. So normally they wouldn't even bother to personally show up to strip a paladin of his or her powers.

Also possible: the Twelve Gods wanted to reward Shojo by getting him out of legal trouble and rewarding him for his years of dedicated service. So, let Miko kill him.

This;
1) Rewards someone who was one of the few people actually trying to solve the world-threatening problem.
2) Gets Miko off their books, so to speak.
3) Makes for a much more entertaining show.

[BaronOfHell]

Wouldn't that be evil? It's my impression the southern pantheon has all alignment hence no single alignment should stand out when they're acting in unison.

[Bulldog Psion]

Q: Why did Miko fall after killing Shojo?

A: Because someone generally isn't considered to have committed murder before they killed anyone.

[hamishspence]

Shojo and Hinjo both, IIRC. You know, the people in charge of the Sapphire Guild.
Yup- Shojo says it here:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0290.html

Within the ranks of Sapphire Guard paladins, Miko was higher ranking than Hinjo:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html

and she considers Hinjo to be the "second most powerful paladin" (she hasn't admitted she's no longer a paladin).

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html

On the power scale, I suspect O-Chul would have been about third - even if a few might have had more paladin levels, due to O-Chul being a multiclass paladin/fighter. (Miko, as a multiclass paladin/monk, might have the same issue).

[Fish]

The same reason you don't spray the cat with a water bottle for thinking about scratching the sofa. It conveys the proper lesson. And it serves as a warning to other cats who witness it.

What would be the point of their zoological light show if there had been no visible act?

[NerdyKris]

The same reason you don't spray the cat with a water bottle for thinking about scratching the sofa. It conveys the proper lesson. And it serves as a warning to other cats who witness it.

What would be the point of their zoological light show if there had been no visible act?

Also, by OP's logic, if they are able to see the future without a shadow of a doubt from free will, why did Miko ever become a paladin? Why didn't she fall the second she took the class? Why does any paladin ever fall?

Why was Xykon ever even allowed to live long enough to meet Redcloak if they're so omnipotent? Why was V ever allowed to cast familicide? Shouldn't Bahamut have said "no" and stopped it?

The gods in OOTS aren't omniscient. Free will is clearly a thing in this universe.

[Thrillhouse]

The same reason you don't spray the cat with a water bottle for thinking about scratching the sofa. It conveys the proper lesson. And it serves as a warning to other cats who witness it.

What would be the point of their zoological light show if there had been no visible act?

Clearly you don't know how to raise cats. They're ALWAYS thinking about scratching the sofa, which is why you drench them 24/7.

[Ridureyu]

My cat has never scratched the sofa even once.

Now, my face, on the other hand...

PHOTO: http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y185/Ridureyu/290D0EA0-B8B5-411D-86BF-977F9C1C3CF5.jpg

[Jay R]

Paladins don't fall for being tempted. They fall for giving in to temptation.

[Keltest]

My cat has never scratched the sofa even once.

Now, my face, on the other hand...

PHOTO: http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y185/Ridureyu/290D0EA0-B8B5-411D-86BF-977F9C1C3CF5.jpg

You can see murder in its eyes.

[Sir_Leorik]

My cat has never scratched the sofa even once.

Now, my face, on the other hand...

PHOTO: http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y185/Ridureyu/290D0EA0-B8B5-411D-86BF-977F9C1C3CF5.jpg

My gosh! That thing is hanging around that guy's neck! (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/Ridureyu/media/5B82CF4F-48EF-4BF5-8FA1-4EAFC46BCA65.jpg.html)

Oh wait, no, I think that's a beard. Whew! :smallwink:

[FlawedParadigm]

Y'know, it strikes me that if Tarquin had an item to conceal his alignment, he and Miko would be great for each other. They'd be too busy deluding themselves to ever come to terms with each other in reality.

[veti]

My cat has never scratched the sofa even once.

Now, my face, on the other hand...

If your face is scratching your sofa, I respectfully suggest it might be time to consider shaving more often.

[Ridureyu]

My gosh! That thing is hanging around that guy's neck! (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/Ridureyu/media/5B82CF4F-48EF-4BF5-8FA1-4EAFC46BCA65.jpg.html)

Oh wait, no, I think that's a beard. Whew! :smallwink:

That's my brother-in-law. He believes that the beard raises his AC.

[Sir_Leorik]

That's my brother-in-law. He believes that the beard raises his AC.

I should hope he at least gets partial cover from that thing!

[MesiDoomstalker]

That's my brother-in-law. He believes that the beard raises his AC.

He obviously has levels in a certain Beard-Based Prestige Class.

[Ridureyu]

I'd say he's half-dwarf, but as you can see, he is gigantic.

[Sir_Leorik]

I'd say he's half-dwarf, but as you can see, he is gigantic.

And Half-Dwarves are usually clean shaven. :smalltongue:

[Dark Matter]

A lawful alignment does not mean the character must care about justice. That comes from the other alignment. A lawful character simply cares whether the laws are being upheld. While what Miko did was absolutely not a good act, and is defintaly a case of disproportionate retribution, it was "lawful" in the sense that she (thought she) was attempting to uphold the laws. Especially when you consider she also did not trust the courts, because they did not know how far his corruption went.Yeah, a Paladin in Hell (or even Goblotopia(sp)) doesn't enforce Evil Laws, they work to overthrow the government and then put a Good gov in place. Which was basically what Miko thought she was doing.

However there is a larger question, Miko has been described (even self described) as doing lots of fall worthy stuff, i.e. using Detect Evil as a detect-next-victim tool. Now, on screen, she never actually stepped over the line before the fall.

So how did she manage to avoid falling before this point? My guess would be lots of luck and plot. But that sums up the whole problem with Paladins-as-bad-guys the-evil-goblins-have-it-so-hard issue.

[Sir_Leorik]

Yeah, a Paladin in Hell (or even Goblotopia(sp)) doesn't enforce Evil Laws, they work to overthrow the government and then put a Good gov in place. Which was basically what Miko thought she was doing.

However there is a larger question, Miko has been described (even self described) as doing lots of fall worthy stuff, i.e. using Detect Evil as a detect-next-victim tool. Now, on screen, she never actually stepped over the line before the fall.

So how did she manage to avoid falling before this point? My guess would be lots of luck and plot. But that sums up the whole problem with Paladins-as-bad-guys the-evil-goblins-have-it-so-hard issue.

This is discussed at length in the Giant's author commentary in W&XPs; suffice to say that Miko managed to fulfill the letter of the Lawful Good Alignment, while violating its spirit. When she murdered Shojo, she crossed a line she'd been dancing close to for a long time.

[NerdyKris]

This is discussed at length in the Giant's author commentary in W&XPs; suffice to say that Miko managed to fulfill the letter of the Lawful Good Alignment, while violating its spirit. When she murdered Shojo, she crossed a line she'd been dancing close to for a long time.

Exactly. She wasn't shown using detect evil on the streets of Azure City to murder civilians who pinged evil. The only time we saw her use it was when going after the Order, who she believed to be criminals to begin with, going after Ogres who had already kidnapped a man, and a creature under the employ of Xykon.

She was dancing close to the line, yes, but I'd love it if people who say she committed evil acts could point to those actual evil acts.

[Ridureyu]

Man, I remember the days when people tried to justify everything she did, not the reverse...

[Amphiox]

So how did she manage to avoid falling before this point? My guess would be lots of luck and plot. But that sums up the whole problem with Paladins-as-bad-guys the-evil-goblins-have-it-so-hard issue.

Shojo sort of kept a leash on her, IIRC. He selected her missions, so he probably put some thought into not sending her into situations where she's likely to go crazy, and he could also countermand directly anything she voiced intention to do that was beyond the pale, and she would obey.

It was only after she lost her loyalty to Shojo and his orders that she went off the rails.

[rodneyAnonymous]

No. Free will exists in this universe. No matter how much you know that Miko did not change her mind, she could if she wanted.[/I]

Even if she can't, deciding to do something and doing something are not the same thing. You might fail, or be stopped, or something.

[BaronOfHell]

Why was V ever allowed to cast familicide? Shouldn't Bahamut have said "no" and stopped it?

Back when I first read the familicide comics effect, and wondered why only 25% of the black dragon population was wiped out. I imagined it could be because eventually the effect reached the Gods, e.g. Tiamat, who, in stead of falling victim to familicide, simply stopped the it, but when it reached her, 25% of her followers had already fallen victim to the effect. I imagine since the Gods do not intervene directly, all Tiamat could do was to use her powers to find the source and punish those responsible, hence the phone call to the arch fiends.

Though it's probably more likely that Tiamat sensed the huge loss of followers than the spell ever having sufficient power for any of the Gods to even notice it, had it traveled into their own realm.

[Michaeler]

If Miko had fallen before executing Shojo, she'd have claimed it was proof that his continued existence was tainting the pureness of those in the Sapphire guard and killed him in the belief that it would get her paladinhood back.

[The Grim Author]

Back when I first read the familicide comics effect, and wondered why only 25% of the black dragon population was wiped out. I imagined it could be because eventually the effect reached the Gods, e.g. Tiamat, who, in stead of falling victim to familicide, simply stopped the it, but when it reached her, 25% of her followers had already fallen victim to the effect.

See, I figured it was because eventually you reach a point where the dragon doesn't have a living blood connection (in other words, eventually the Nx-Great-grandfather/mother is dead at the casting of the spell, and so the spawn of that particular dragon that aren't the N-1x-Great-grandfather/mother (and their offspring, etc., etc.) don't get whacked by the spell.

Eventually you get to the point where "I can't actually go up to their latest shared connection because the join point backwards are dead dragons." Or dead humans, or dead humanoids, or dead non-humanoids.

Also, I imagine that there were some other Chromatic Dragons (and possibly a few Metallic Dragons) who got offed by that spell, given Mama Dragon's comments about wanting to set her son up with the daughter of those Green Dragons over across the way (relatively speaking).

[factotum]

O-Chul gained his awesome toughness through... well hey, Xykon beating it into him.

You have that backwards. Xykon said that O-Chul "got every one of those hit points I burned off of him the hard way: he earned them". He never implied that O-Chul earned the hit points while he was burning them off him, he had them before that ever started.

[Ridureyu]

And Hinjo said that O-Chul gained levels while he was incarcerated.

[WindStruck]

Here's a somewhat related tangent though...

If the gods aren't omniscient... then why is it the instant Miko kills (edit: mortally wounds) her master that they know?

I mean he wasn't even dead yet when he gasped his last, smug taunt, so it couldn't have been his soul arriving to the afterlife that even tipped them off. So how did they know?

[Jaxzan Proditor]

For the familicide thing, the reason why not every single black Dragon died is because they were not all related. See: here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12856280#post12856280)
So, the gods did not directly intervene or anything like that.

[BeerMug Paladin]

Here's a somewhat related tangent though...

If the gods aren't omniscient... then why is it the instant Miko kills (edit: mortally wounds) her master that they know?

I mean he wasn't even dead yet when he gasped his last, smug taunt, so it couldn't have been his soul arriving to the afterlife that even tipped them off. So how did they know?
I can't answer for the author, but in my own mind, I imagine it works like this. Each paladin in the world has their own few celestial agents, monitoring their actions via scrying and personally ensuring that they don't abuse their powers enough to warrant taking those powers away.

Miko's meltdown was inevitable, and as that scene transpired, it was potentially the moment she was going to have it. I imagine that the celestials watching her, as it was going on, called over their buddies to take a look at it.

If I'm a deity, and a good portion of my office staff is all watching one person in amazement, that's probably a good time to take a look as well.

Of course, I have no idea how it works in the comic, but that's largely unimportant. They're gods, they could just be aware of what each of their paladins are doing at all times. They could be great multi-taskers. Like how Loki felt something 'weird' when he was fighting Thor that one time.

[Keltest]

I can't answer for the author, but in my own mind, I imagine it works like this. Each paladin in the world has their own few celestial agents, monitoring their actions via scrying and personally ensuring that they don't abuse their powers enough to warrant taking those powers away.

Miko's meltdown was inevitable, and as that scene transpired, it was potentially the moment she was going to have it. I imagine that the celestials watching her, as it was going on, called over their buddies to take a look at it.

If I'm a deity, and a good portion of my office staff is all watching one person in amazement, that's probably a good time to take a look as well.

Of course, I have no idea how it works in the comic, but that's largely unimportant. They're gods, they could just be aware of what each of their paladins are doing at all times. They could be great multi-taskers. Like how Loki felt something 'weird' when he was fighting Thor that one time.


Im inclined to believe its the last one. They may be all-seeing, but not all-caring.

[ChristianSt]

I can't answer for the author, but in my own mind, I imagine it works like this. Each paladin in the world has their own few celestial agents, monitoring their actions via scrying and personally ensuring that they don't abuse their powers enough to warrant taking those powers away.

Miko's meltdown was inevitable, and as that scene transpired, it was potentially the moment she was going to have it. I imagine that the celestials watching her, as it was going on, called over their buddies to take a look at it.

If I'm a deity, and a good portion of my office staff is all watching one person in amazement, that's probably a good time to take a look as well.

Of course, I have no idea how it works in the comic, but that's largely unimportant. They're gods, they could just be aware of what each of their paladins are doing at all times. They could be great multi-taskers. Like how Loki felt something 'weird' when he was fighting Thor that one time.

I don't think any mortal is monitored permanently. I think that certain action just gets forwarded to special instances more or less directly. So if a Paladin makes something they shouldn't make some kind of alarm goes of in heaven (or in a small office there), saying that something did gone wrong and someone responds to that. So executing Shojo triggered a fire alarm and a few moments later someone said: "Yeah, that's it, Miko doesn't wear blue any longer."

[BaronOfHell]

Could it also be that the power link they grant goes two ways, so they can feel if their divine power is used for evil?

[Kish]

That wouldn't explain it; Miko didn't kill Shojo with a spell or any form of paladin class ability.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

It could be that important people (like the rulers of countries) are monitored, or the 12 gods keep an eye on the gates and their immediate environs.

[Sir_Leorik]

It was only after she lost her loyalty to Shojo and his orders that she went off the rails.

She was beginning to go off the rails at the end of the trial scene in NCftPB; overhearing Shojo and Roy's discussion and seeing Belkar free, caused her to completely jump off the track and smash into several buildings, before ending up in a lake.


Here's a somewhat related tangent though...

If the gods aren't omniscient... then why is it the instant Miko kills (edit: mortally wounds) her master that they know?

I mean he wasn't even dead yet when he gasped his last, smug taunt, so it couldn't have been his soul arriving to the afterlife that even tipped them off. So how did they know?

They're not omniscient, but they do have Divine Portfolio senses. They are able to sense an event that is connected to their Portfolio, in this case the murder of the ruler of Azure City. Shojo was the leader of a country that venerated the Southern gods, and he was protecting one of the Gates. Therefore his murder immediately got the attention of all Twelve gods, and they unanimously decided to remove her Paladin status in a very public and visible manner.

It should be noted that the 3.5 D&D rules for Divine Portfolio senses are probably not being used in OotS. According to the rules in the SRD a Divine being can sense an event a number of weeks in advance (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineRanksAndPowers.htm#portfolioSense) equal to their Divine rank (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineRanksAndPowers.htm#divineRanks). Rather than use these specific rules, the Giant has the gods immediately learn of an event as it transpires (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0079.html), unless they have some ability to grant prophecy, such as Odin or Tiamat.

[Michaeler]

If the gods aren't omniscient... then why is it the instant Miko kills (edit: mortally wounds) her master that they know?

Because they are supernaturally aware. We don't know the limits of their supernatural awareness but there are some (thus not omniscient, which is unlimited by definition) because there were things they didn't see.

Or alternatively, every Paladin has an effect like a Mark of Judgement on them that triggers if they violate the terms and instantly pages the higher ups.

[hamishspence]

Or alternatively, every Paladin has an effect like a Mark of Judgement on them that triggers if they violate the terms and instantly pages the higher ups.

Even if that was true- it wouldn't mean that the higher-ups produce that dramatic manifestation:

(quotes link to Start of Darkness discussion- do not follow them to the original thread, if you don't want to be "spoiled" on the book)


Suffice to say that the Twelve Gods are not beholden to put on the same visual display they did for Miko for every paladin who transgresses, and that all transgressions are not created equal.


A paladin who slips up in the execution of their god-given orders does not warrant the same level of personal attention by the gods as one who executes the legal ruler of their nation on a glorified hunch. Think of Miko's Fall as being the equivalent of the CEO of your multinational company showing up in your cubicle to fire you, because you screwed up THAT much.

[Ridureyu]

I can't seem to quote the Giant quote about the CEO firing you...

...But if it were a complete parallel, after the CEO fires you, you say, "No you didn't! I'm not fired at all! In fact, you just gave me a raise!"

And then you set the lunchroom on fire.

[hamishspence]

I can't seem to quote the Giant quote about the CEO firing you...

Its from another thread. A Start of Darkness Redcloak one. I quoted only the bits directly relevant to this one- so as not to reveal Start of Darkness spoilers.

[cheesecake]

Intent is not action, and your alignment doesn't change just from wanting to do something bad. You have to actually do it.

Exactly. I can sit here all day and think about robbing a bank. Unless I actually do it I can't be arrested.

They gave her the chance to redeem herself and not commit the act. God's don't control people. There is such a thing as free will.

[Amphiox]

Is there any canonical example in D&D lore of a paladin falling for a thought crime alone, without any accompanying action?

Trying to debate the ethical implications of culpability for thoughts vs actions strays dangerously close to real world religion and moral systems.

[Ridureyu]

No, not in canonical lore. Only with bad DMs.

"You fell because that shopkeeper you bought from cheats on his taxes, so you were consorting with evil!"

"You fell because of lustful thoughts!"

"You fell because I was really upset at last night's Downtown Abbey."

[Amphiox]

If the 12 Gods were really omniscient the question really isn't why didn't they make Miko fall for thinking about killing Shojo, but why didn't they intervene and actually stop her from going through with it. Of course maybe they just don't roll that way vis-a-vis intervening, but I think the theological implications are simpler and less distracting to the overall plot for them simply not to be omniscient and just not have known.

[WindStruck]

Mmm, right, intervention. I guess it's a predicament.

On one hand, the gods are not allowed to directly intervene in any way. But on the other hand, they aren't the thought police and can't go punishing paladins for evil thoughts until the deed is actually done.

[Keltest]

If the 12 Gods were really omniscient the question really isn't why didn't they make Miko fall for thinking about killing Shojo, but why didn't they intervene and actually stop her from going through with it. Of course maybe they just don't roll that way vis-a-vis intervening, but I think the theological implications are simpler and less distracting to the overall plot for them simply not to be omniscient and just not have known.

Its that whole pesky "free will" thing that keeps getting mentioned. Miko making the choice to kill Shojo is totally undermined if she cant actually go through with it because the gods didn't want her personally doing it.

[Sir_Leorik]

Is there any canonical example in D&D lore of a paladin falling for a thought crime alone, without any accompanying action?

No. Lord Soth only fell after he ordered Caradoc to murder Soth's wife (so that Soth could claim her inheritance, and still marry Isolde, the Elf-maid he'd fallen in love with); nevertheless Paladine gave Soth a chance to redeem himself by confronting the Kingpriest (and preventing the Cataclysm). Rather than seek redemption, Soth, tricked by agents of Takhisis, returned to Dargaard Keep and accused Isolde of infidelity to him. Isolde cursed Soth as she lay dying, and Soth then died in the Cataclysm, rising afterwards as a Death Knight. So his sins included adultery, murder, and disobeying a command from Paladine that could have saved the lives of millions.

Lady Elena Faithhold, Paladin of Belenus, fell after she launched a series of religious crusades aimed at stamping out Evil. Not content to punish those who committed Evil acts, she also set up an Inquisition to punish thought crimes. At some point she attracted the attention of the Dark Powers of Ravenloft, who made her Darklord of the Domain of Nidala (later part of the Shadowborn Cluster).

Anyone have any other examples?

[Keltest]

No. Lord Soth only fell after he ordered Caradoc to murder Soth's wife (so that Soth could claim her inheritance, and still marry Isolde, the Elf-maid he'd fallen in love with); nevertheless Paladine gave Soth a chance to redeem himself by confronting the Kingpriest (and preventing the Cataclysm). Rather than seek redemption, Soth, tricked by agents of Takhisis, returned to Dargaard Keep and accused Isolde of infidelity to him. Isolde cursed Soth as she lay dying, and Soth then died in the Cataclysm, rising afterwards as a Death Knight. So his sins included adultery, murder, and disobeying a command from Paladine that could have saved the lives of millions.

Lady Elena Faithhold, Paladin of Belenus, fell after she launched a series of religious crusades aimed at stamping out Evil. Not content to punish those who committed Evil acts, she also set up an Inquisition to punish thought crimes. At some point she attracted the attention of the Dark Powers of Ravenloft, who made her Darklord of the Domain of Nidala (later part of the Shadowborn Cluster).

Anyone have any other examples?

Id like to point out that Lord Soth was not a paladin in the normal sense of the word. While its been said (inconsistently) that some knights can cast clerical prayers, none of them have things like immunity to disease or lay hands that paladins get in traditional D&D campaigns. Dragonlance is a rebel like that.

[Sir_Leorik]

Id like to point out that Lord Soth was not a paladin in the normal sense of the word. While its been said (inconsistently) that some knights can cast clerical prayers, none of them have things like immunity to disease or lay hands that paladins get in traditional D&D campaigns. Dragonlance is a rebel like that.

He was a Knight of the Rose, which meant he would have had certain abilities that mirrored those of a Paladin. Knights of the Crown have no magical powers, while Knights of the Sword had minor Cleric powers.

In any event, all Solamnic Knights lost their abilities immediately after the Cataclysm struck, along with every Cleric on Krynn.

[SoC175]

Exactly. I can sit here all day and think about robbing a bank. Unless I actually do it I can't be arrested.

They gave her the chance to redeem herself and not commit the act. God's don't control people. There is such a thing as free will.Yet seriously considering it as a totally valid action is an indicator that you already changed alignment. As a LG person robbing a bank simply isn't an option for you.

[Keltest]

He was a Knight of the Rose, which meant he would have had certain abilities that mirrored those of a Paladin. Knights of the Crown have no magical powers, while Knights of the Sword had minor Cleric powers.

In any event, all Solamnic Knights lost their abilities immediately after the Cataclysm struck, along with every Cleric on Krynn.

Like I said, theyre actually really inconsistent about that. I remember one trilogy (admittedly not written by the main authors) where the Solamnic leader went out of his way to create a new order of knights who were basically battle clerics. Kingfisher Knights.


Yet seriously considering it as a totally valid action is an indicator that you already changed alignment. As a LG person robbing a bank simply isn't an option for you.

What makes a person Lawful Good is that they would decide NOT to do that, even when it is a legitimate option. Not that they would never contemplate it in the first place.

[Sir_Leorik]

Like I said, theyre actually really inconsistent about that. I remember one trilogy (admittedly not written by the main authors) where the Solamnic leader went out of his way to create a new order of knights who were basically battle clerics. Kingfisher Knights.

There are 1E and 2E products (as well as 3.X products from Sovereign Stone) detailing what powers and abilities each order of Solamnic Knights receives. The original "Dragonlance" modules and sourcebooks were generally consistant in this regard. The novels, not so much. :smallsigh:

[SoC175]

Is there any canonical example in D&D lore of a paladin falling for a thought crime alone, without any accompanying action? Dahl, a paladin of Oghma fell apparently for becoming "too arrogant / assumming he knew everything / etc." so that he violated Oghma's dogma of seeking knowledge

[Sir_Leorik]

Yet seriously considering it as a totally valid action is an indicator that you already changed alignment. As a LG person robbing a bank simply isn't an option for you.


What makes a person Lawful Good is that they would decide NOT to do that, even when it is a legitimate option. Not that they would never contemplate it in the first place.

They might be tempted, but have the option of resisting that temptation.

Characters also have the option of repenting. Just because Jean Valjean was a thief when he was younger, doesn't mean he is inherently going to be a thief forever. (Unless you subscribe to the extreme Lawful Neutral philosophy of Inspector Javert.)

[Sir_Leorik]

Dahl, a paladin of Oghma fell apparently for becoming "too arrogant / assumming he knew everything / etc." so that he violated Oghma's dogma of seeking knowledge

But that's also a case of an action: violating one of Oghma's tenets. He stopped learning, and the moment he did that...

[BaronOfHell]

Exactly. I can sit here all day and think about robbing a bank. Unless I actually do it I can't be arrested.

But if you make the plans, buy the necessary equipment (all of which may be legal), you can indeed be arrested and depending on country even imprisoned for planning to commit the act/to be likely to commit the act, despite you were never going to do so.

Also I don't think it should be "can't be arrested", but rather "shouldn't be arrested", since one can always be arrested.


If the 12 Gods were really omniscient the question really isn't why didn't they make Miko fall for thinking about killing Shojo, but why didn't they intervene and actually stop her from going through with it.

Wasn't there something about the Gods decided not to directly intervene or some such?

[Dark Matter]

RE: The 12 Gods, monitoring, and falling.

Paladins (and Clerics) don't *have* to have Gods. You can be a Paladin for a cause. No where in the entire Paladin listing does it even mention the word "god".

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm

A Godless Paladin (not trying for irony) could still Fall.

[Scow2]

"You fell because of lustful thoughts!"Hey, there are perfectly valid times for a DM to say "You fall just for thinking that."... I'm tempted to go find the quote and situation in the RPG subforum. (But yes, the paladin's thoughtcrime was that horrific)

[theNater]

Yet seriously considering it as a totally valid action is an indicator that you already changed alignment. As a LG person robbing a bank simply isn't an option for you.
A LG character absolutely can rob a bank. Alignment isn't a straight-jacket; it doesn't stop you from doing anything, and it doesn't change the first time you do something outside of your current alignment. If a character spends almost their whole life as the ultimate Lawful Good character, the one time they got desperate enough that they robbed a bank doesn't suddenly make them some other alignment.

A Lawful Good character will usually try to avoid robbing banks. A character for whom bank robbery is part of their standard operating procedure is almost certainly not Lawful Good. Barring further details, alignment tells us no more than that.

[Amphiox]

Wasn't there something about the Gods decided not to directly intervene or some such?

I thought that pertained to the lands of other gods, or territories the gods agreed to share. Within their own domains, each god is free to do as they please, and be as interventionist, or not, as they please.

[WindStruck]

Yes, a LG person can rob a bank... but if they don't end up coming to their senses and turning themselves in, it would be foolish to think they are still mostly in that alignment category.

I think paladins are even stricter than this, though. Because even if they slip up and rob a bank but turn themselves in later, they'll have fallen anyway. Turning yourself in for your crimes is just a baby step in atonement.

[Keltest]

Yes, a LG person can rob a bank... but if they don't end up coming to their senses and turning themselves in, it would be foolish to think they are still mostly in that alignment category.

I think paladins are even stricter than this, though. Because even if they slip up and rob a bank but turn themselves in later, they'll have fallen anyway. Turning yourself in for your crimes is just a baby step in atonement.

Circumstances are a thing. If someone kidnapped your family, and forced you to rob the bank, it wouldn't make the act any less chaotic, but it wouldn't make you less lawful, because you don't WANT to do it.

[WindStruck]

Circumstances are a thing. If someone kidnapped your family, and forced you to rob the bank, it wouldn't make the act any less chaotic, but it wouldn't make you less lawful, because you don't WANT to do it.

Well you never mentioned anyone actually being forced into doing that until now. In which case, the forcing is the "straight-jacket". When you get into that realm, any argument of what action fits into what alignment is trivial.

[Snails]

Circumstances are a thing. If someone kidnapped your family, and forced you to rob the bank, it wouldn't make the act any less chaotic, but it wouldn't make you less lawful, because you don't WANT to do it.

It may not "make" you less lawful, it would not make you not lawful, but it would indicate you are less lawful. The alignment is a shorthand indication of personal values and world view. What you are willing to sacrifice to uphold your values and worldview in the abstract is highly relevant evidence.

As for a Paladin being "forced" to rob a bank, that is a huge factor in considering the atonement.

[WindStruck]

Well what's the other option? Letting your family die?

At the end of the day, it's just money in the bank. It can be recovered, and the bad guys can be tracked down.

[theNater]

Yes, a LG person can rob a bank... but if they don't end up coming to their senses and turning themselves in, it would be foolish to think they are still mostly in that alignment category.
Coming to their senses is necessary, but turning themselves in isn't; especially for a D&D adventurer, turning themselves in may be impractical or impossible.

I think paladins are even stricter than this, though. Because even if they slip up and rob a bank but turn themselves in later, they'll have fallen anyway. Turning yourself in for your crimes is just a baby step in atonement.
Paladins have stricter requirements than just being LG, but robbing a bank is not autofall. There are three things that make a paladin fall: an alignment change, an Evil act, or a gross violation of the paladin code. Robbing a bank doesn't cause an alignment change, isn't Evil(as you note later, it's only money), and isn't a gross violation of the standard code. A paladin with an additional or unusual code may fall automatically, but that's about it.

[WindStruck]

Coming to their senses is necessary, but turning themselves in isn't; especially for a D&D adventurer, turning themselves in may be impractical or impossible.
Ok, now we're talking about adventure games? Oh well, too bad if it's "bad for the adventure". If I was DM and they decided to rob a bank without said extreme reasons, and they did nothing to fix it, I would revoke the LG standing. If players want their characters to truly remain LG while still playing the game, they should avoid robbing a bank.


Paladins have stricter requirements than just being LG, but robbing a bank is not autofall. There are three things that make a paladin fall: an alignment change, an Evil act, or a gross violation of the paladin code. Robbing a bank doesn't cause an alignment change, isn't Evil(as you note later, it's only money), and isn't a gross violation of the standard code. A paladin with an additional or unusual code may fall automatically, but that's about it.
Actually, robbing a bank should be a gross violation of paladin code. And it's technically an evil act if done for selfish reasons. Because stealing is wrong and doing so hurts those that work hard for their livelihood.

This isn't rocket science. Intent and extenuating circumstances clearly matter here. But again, if I was DMing and a paladin decides to rob a bank just because, byebye holy powers.

[Ridureyu]

Robbing a bank...isn't Evil

I'm just gonna leave that up here.




...while I go get my mask and swag sack.

[Thrythlind]

{{scrubbed}}

[EnglishKitsune]

My Two cents on the OP and not as part of the Alignment debate. Also slighly playing Orcus' advocate here.

Maybe the Twelve wanted the gate destroyed? And were attempting to use Miko to that end?

Knowing what we do now, with the world beyond the gates, and that the story told to Shojo (And then The OotS) may need liberal salt applied, it goes without saying that the Gods know more than we do. And that all we know may be lies and smoke to avoid the truth.

What we do know is that Miko believed she was acting under the will of the gods, and that all of the Twelve were present for that critical moment. We also know they only acted after she struck.

Redcloak is acting on behalf of The Dark One to destroy the world and have it remade with Goblins in a better position, what if the other gods maybe want the same thing? From what we've seen with Thor's appearances, gods can easily get bored especially with the comparatively fleeting lives of mortals beneath them.

So, picture this: The Twelve want the world remade, to maybe carve a bigger portion for themselves, but can't openly do it, the other Pantheons would team up and take them down. But Mortal affairs are mortal affairs, they can't be held responsible for free will. At first maybe they wanted to use Shojo, but he never became a Paladin and they were unable to influence him enough. So they pick a child, an unassuming child called Miko, to become part of the greater plan to unmake the world. They, watch, prod, and poke her through little influences, maybe make her a little unhinged, make her more receptive to their divine influence. Then this guy Xykon shows up, along with the OotS and they suddenly have a problem. They have to rush things and the plan becomes a little bungled. Hence having to "scrap" Miko.

It's only a theory, a wild one, but let's be honest. We're dealing the gods here. Who knows what they think or want. But it's food for thought.

[Amphiox]

And if the Paladin's sword King and liege ordered him to rob the bank? Because it's the Bank of Evil and its owned and operated by an evil overlord said Paladin's nation is currently at war with? Then what?

[NerdyKris]

Why don't we remove "robbing the bank" from the equation here? Let's just say stealing.

At this point, we're just going to be arguing back and forth all the various times that stealing is ever morally acceptable. Which is pretty much the personal opinion of each poster. A hypothetical this vague is always going to keep going back and forth as each side adds a new reason why it would or wouldn't be morally right.

[theNater]

Ok, now we're talking about adventure games? Oh well, too bad if it's "bad for the adventure". If I was DM and they decided to rob a bank without said extreme reasons, and they did nothing to fix it, I would revoke the LG standing. If players want their characters to truly remain LG while still playing the game, they should avoid robbing a bank.
You added the bolded part. That was never something I suggested.

I do want to ask, though, what if the town the bank was in was entirely destroyed as a result of unrelated circumstance before the character in question could get back to surrender to the authorities? Would you still revoke the LG standing?

Actually, robbing a bank should be a gross violation of paladin code. And it's technically an evil act if done for selfish reasons. Because stealing is wrong and doing so hurts those that work hard for their livelihood.
Stealing is not Evil by the D&D rules. Most forms of stealing go into Evil, because they involve terrorizing or injuring others. But absent those methods or leaving someone sufficiently destitute to starve, stealing is only Chaotic.

But again, if I was DMing and a paladin decides to rob a bank just because, byebye holy powers.
Robbing a bank is not something anybody does just because. If a player tells you their character is going to rob a bank and can't give a reason why, that's a failure of characterization at the player level. That should be resolved before the bank actually gets robbed(if it does at all). At that point you have motive and method on which to base your determination whether a fall is appropriate.

I'm just gonna leave that up here.




...while I go get my mask and swag sack.
I didn't think that the whole "in D&D" part was necessary, what with discussions of real-world morality being against the rules of the board and all. Do keep in mind, however, that even by D&D rules, if you hurt or terrorize people in the process of your robbery, that is Evil.

[WindStruck]

As I've already said, intent and circumstances count a lot. If the character made a good faith effort to return the money but the town's destroyed, well gee, no hard feelings then. If the character's family is ransomed by ninjas, and they have no reasonable way to fight back (reasonable being very little risk the family or other innocents get hurt in the process) well, can't blame him.

But if the reasons for stealing amount to nothing more than petty gain, laziness, munchkinning, greed, the easy way out rather than the hard way out, then too bad. I'm being very general here, but the point is: use common sense.

Arguing for arguments sake about a bunch of what-if scenarios is pretty trite because anyone can use common sense and determine the motives and events leading up to it. If it turns out the character is simply stuck between a rock and a hard place and truly doing their best, it's ok. If there are less nobler intentions, be ready to revise that character sheet.

[Rodin]

As I've already said, intent and circumstances count a lot. If the character made a good faith effort to return the money but the town's destroyed, well gee, no hard feelings then. If the character's family is ransomed by ninjas, and they have no reasonable way to fight back (reasonable being very little risk the family or other innocents get hurt in the process) well, can't blame him.

But if the reasons for stealing amount to nothing more than petty gain, laziness, munchkinning, greed, the easy way out rather than the hard way out, then too bad. I'm being very general here, but the point is: use common sense.

Arguing for arguments sake about a bunch of what-if scenarios is pretty trite because anyone can use common sense and determine the motives and events leading up to it. If it turns out the character is simply stuck between a rock and a hard place and truly doing their best, it's ok. If there are less nobler intentions, be ready to revise that character sheet.

I agree generally, but would probably add the caveat of previous actions. Roy "Lawful Good but in a Chaotic way" Greenhilt would be slammed out of Lawful Good unless the action was really well justified. Durkon, on the other hand, could probably get away with it. Once.

On the other hand, though, if a Durkon-level Lawful Good character is robbing a bank for lulz, that's a failure of epic proportions on the roleplaying front, and there would be serious discussions about whether that character would go along with it at all.

[Ridureyu]

Why don't we remove "robbing the bank" from the equation here? Let's just say stealing.



But I've already got my mask and swag sack!

[WindStruck]

Yeah, in order to get "legitimate" LG characters to even rob a bank on those terms, you would already begin seeing a slide before that. Maybe something made that person snap. Circumstances of life wearing down on them, they become jaded, disgruntled, and one day get fed up and had enough. But then even after that, there'd still be the chance to realize what they've done is a mistake and turn themselves in. But if they keep going down that path...


But I've already got my mask and swag sack!
That is so 2000's. Real bank robbers do it from their computers nowadays!

[theNater]

As I've already said, intent and circumstances count a lot. If the character made a good faith effort to return the money but the town's destroyed, well gee, no hard feelings then. If the character's family is ransomed by ninjas, and they have no reasonable way to fight back (reasonable being very little risk the family or other innocents get hurt in the process) well, can't blame him.

But if the reasons for stealing amount to nothing more than petty gain, laziness, munchkinning, greed, the easy way out rather than the hard way out, then too bad. I'm being very general here, but the point is: use common sense.

Arguing for arguments sake about a bunch of what-if scenarios is pretty trite because anyone can use common sense and determine the motives and events leading up to it. If it turns out the character is simply stuck between a rock and a hard place and truly doing their best, it's ok. If there are less nobler intentions, be ready to revise that character sheet.
Based on this, I'm convinced that we pretty much agree, and are just bringing different assumptions to the very vague "character robs a bank" scenario.

[RedMage125]

First off, I heartily agree with everyone here who's said that the gods don't punish people for actions they are GOING to commit.

If you read the 3.5e PHB, paladins lose their class abilities if they
A) Become no longer Lawful Good
B) Intentionally commit an Evil act
C) Grossly violate their CoC

Miko striking down Shojo was both B and C.

But for her to lose her power just for PLANNING on killing Shojo would be a gross violation of the rules of 3.5e D&D, which is what the webcomic adheres to.

Personally, I think the more interesting question is whether Miko fell because she intentionally committed an evil act or whether it was because her act of murdering her lawful ruler based only on her own authority moved her an alignment step away from lawful.

Why would her alignment change? Her outlooks, perceptions and beliefs did not change, why should her alignment? She committed an Evil act, yes. But one act does NOT alter one's alignment. You should re-familiarize yourself with the 3.5e rules regarding changing one's alignment (DMG page 134). It is not instantaneous, it is gradual, takes time, and requires more than just one act.

If Miko had allowed her fall to make her bitter and angry and resentful of the ideals she had served, her alignment COULD have gradually shifted. But that's not what happened. While she never admitted she was wrong or sought forgiveness, she continued to seek guidance from the 12 gods and sought to continue the struggle against Evil. When she destroyed the Gate, she was likewise mistaken, but her outlooks and beliefs never waivered. In fact, as she lay dying, she asked Soon if she got to be a paladin again (which would require her to be Lawful Good). And while she had not properly atoned, he told her that she would get to see Windstriker again, which is a STRONG indication that she went to the afterlife for Lawful Good people.

[hamishspence]

There are three afterlives for Lawful Good people- one for plain LG, one for those more Lawful than Good, and one for those more Good than Lawful.

That's leaving aside the possibility that the Lower Planes might have a claim on the souls of LG people who had not yet completed atonement for extremely serious evil deeds when they died.

[LuisDantas]

My take on the OP's questions is that Miko was entitled the opportunity to reflect on what she was doing and realize that she should not.

It was only after it was no longer a possibility that she earned her fall.

[SowZ]

Yet the gods know that she does not change her mind. Why continue providing juice for someone when you know they are going to fall anyway?
In fact, why make them a paladin at all? Surely the gods can single out the fall-proof paladin candidates.

Why let people live their lives at all? Why not create the soul, look into the future, and place them in one of the afterlives accordingly? It defeats the whole point.

[Loreweaver15]

That's pretty much it. People with no free will aren't people anymore, they're fleshy sock puppets.

[Ridureyu]

And so, from this thread, Minority Report was born.

[Rakoa]

That's pretty much it. People with no free will aren't people anymore, they're fleshy sock puppets.

Free will is a facade created by the human mind.

Runs off to hide.

[Amphiox]

Free will is a facade created by the human mind.


If it is an illusion, it is a remarkably persistent one.

And sometimes, just sometimes, there is cause to consider the blue pill.

[LuisDantas]

Free will is a facade created by the human mind.

Runs off to hide.


It is certainly a curious concept, in that it is never clearly defined. Many definitions exist, but most are hopelessly vague and quite a few more self-contradictory or just plain fantasy.

I find it funny that "free will" is nearly never supposed to be free, and not all that often is it even will of some kind.

To the best of my understanding the concept is only really useful as an attempt to explain some contradictions of a specific religious concept.

[WindStruck]

Free will is often mistakenly assumed to be the opposite of causality. A divine being with the gift of prophecy should, theoretically, be able to look into the future, determine what beings end up doing with their free will, and then be able to take preemptive actions. The lack of intervening is always seen as sticking to the "free will" concept, but by not intervening, that being is essentially choosing evil: choosing one particularly perverse being's freedom over, say, one or multiple more who get maimed, killed, or otherwise adversely affected by that one.

So how this relates to Miko? In theory, the gods probably could have been in their right to at least take away her paladin powers before the deed was done. It could have been a warning and prevented Shojo's death. But that's never been how any gods in scripture or fiction have ever worked.

[Jay R]

Free will is a facade created by the human mind.

Created whenever it chooses to do so.

[Rodin]

I always assumed it's a standard non-interference clause.

If God A is allowed to come down and bonk their Paladins on the head and say "Don't do that", then Devil B is fully capable of coming down and posessing said Paladin into committing evil acts.

It's why Qarr has a job instead of having V get directly tempted, or even having V get directly soul-spliced with no warning. It's why Thor doesn't try to end the threat to the world by delivering a lightning bolt directly to Xykon's skull, and then remember that Liches are immune to Electricity and bring down a giant hammer instead.

The gods and demons get to have agents in the world, but they don't get to directly influence them at that level. That way, things don't escalate to continent-destroying stompy wars between divine beings.

[factotum]

Free will is often mistakenly assumed to be the opposite of causality. A divine being with the gift of prophecy should, theoretically, be able to look into the future, determine what beings end up doing with their free will, and then be able to take preemptive actions.

I don't think "causality" means what you think it means--it has nothing to do with any sort of predestination.

Has to be said, this is a slightly contradictory part of the OotS universe--as far as we're aware, the characters in the story have free will, yet the Oracle is able to perfectly foretell the future (even to knowing the exact date and time of his next death), which would only be possible if everyone is on a predestined path which they cannot stray from. Not really sure how those two things can be resolved, myself.

[Cerlis]

also gods dont just go around saving mortals willy nilly. abuse of power 101. If the 12 gods wanted followers who only did what hey approved of they woulda just made robotswarforgedGolems.

Free will is where its at.

and all the good and evil that comes with it.

[Cerlis]

I don't think "causality" means what you think it means--it has nothing to do with any sort of predestination.

Has to be said, this is a slightly contradictory part of the OotS universe--as far as we're aware, the characters in the story have free will, yet the Oracle is able to perfectly foretell the future (even to knowing the exact date and time of his next death), which would only be possible if everyone is on a predestined path which they cannot stray from. Not really sure how those two things can be resolved, myself.

Usually when it comes to true prophecies i believe the prophecies take into account that people who know them indeed know them.

See the various plays and epic poems about people trying to avoid getting killed by their sons who go on to screw your wife/his mother.

anything else usually falls into what COULD happen (Simon's second power in Misfits) or what did happen. in the past. in the future. I.e. Hiro from Heros. In the time wimey ball Peter Patrelli DID explode and kill all those people. Then AFTER that happened Hiro went to the past and change the future-past.
Point being Hiro wasnt coming back and saying what would happen. He said what DID happen and said that he HOPES he can prevent it in this universe/time-stream.

At least that is my overall observation with timetravel over all media i've witnessed. True prophecies take into account that people find out about them. So anything you do to try to stop a true prophecy because you found out about it, is just you fulfilling it. Everything else falls into the realm of "it could happen"

[SowZ]

Free will is a facade created by the human mind.

Runs off to hide.

Ehh, I don't think free will is opposed to a deterministic universe. I believe in a cause-effect based world where there is only really one potential outcome to a given scenario and if we knew all the variables, we could predict it with certainty. But that isn't against my idea of free will. It would be opposed to lots of definitions, though.

Anyway, when you really come down to it, you could argue that almost any abstract concept is just in our heads. That doesn't make the words meaningless.

[Sir_Leorik]

I always assumed it's a standard non-interference clause.

If God A is allowed to come down and bonk their Paladins on the head and say "Don't do that", then Devil B is fully capable of coming down and posessing said Paladin into committing evil acts.

It's why Qarr has a job instead of having V get directly tempted, or even having V get directly soul-spliced with no warning. It's why Thor doesn't try to end the threat to the world by delivering a lightning bolt directly to Xykon's skull, and then remember that Liches are immune to Electricity and bring down a giant hammer instead.

The gods and demons get to have agents in the world, but they don't get to directly influence them at that level. That way, things don't escalate to continent-destroying stompy wars between divine beings.

I've always assumed Qarr has a job because Asmodeus lowered his hiring standards, and the IFCC have a fiendpower shortage. Otherwise he'd be begging for jink in the Styx Oarsman alongside the other dregs of Sigil's Lower Ward.

Seriously, Qarr is awful at his job.

[Shale]

My read is that Qarr has a job because somebody has to be stuck wringing out what returns there are to get from people like Kubota, who are inclined to evil in general but not the sort of Evil-evil that aligns with the goals of the gentlemen downstairs. And then the IFCC took him on because he was in the right place at the right time to see a corner of their plans and they're secretive enough that they want anybody who knows their agenda working for them, rather than spilling the beans to whatever Tiamat, Demogorgon or Hades comes along.

[wyrmhole]

Usually when it comes to true prophecies i believe the prophecies take into account that people who know them indeed know them.

See the various plays and epic poems about people trying to avoid getting killed by their sons who go on to screw your wife/his mother.

It's true. The very question raised by such classics as Oedipus, Macbeth, and The Matrix is whether the Oracle* is really predicting the future, or rather directing the course of event simply by making the prophecy. They aren't just predictors of the future, they are participants.

For indeed had it not been for the disclosure of the prophecy to relevant parties, it's hard to see how Oedipus sleeps with his mother, Macbeth is killed by Macduff, or how Neo breaks that vase.


* Or witches, as the case may be, but really... who believes witches aren't going to have their own agendas and will tell you something that sounds like what you want to hear but leaves big loopholes? Slightly mad power-hungry generals it turns out. Tarquin wouldn't have fallen for that.

[Keltest]

I've always assumed Qarr has a job because Asmodeus lowered his hiring standards, and the IFCC have a fiendpower shortage. Otherwise he'd be begging for jink in the Styx Oarsman alongside the other dregs of Sigil's Lower Ward.

Seriously, Qarr is awful at his job.

I think he simply suffers from his chosen targets simply being over genre-savvy. If he were to try to fool, say... um... hmm. Actually, I cant think of any characters besides V who are neutral on the good/evil spectrum that aren't background characters.

[SowZ]

I think he simply suffers from his chosen targets simply being over genre-savvy. If he were to try to fool, say... um... hmm. Actually, I cant think of any characters besides V who are neutral on the good/evil spectrum that aren't background characters.

Arguably, Haley started out as CN with Good leanings. Enor and Ganji, while side characters, are neutral. Therkla was neutral despite being in Qarr's circle.

[Sir_Leorik]

I think he simply suffers from his chosen targets simply being over genre-savvy. If he were to try to fool, say... um... hmm. Actually, I cant think of any characters besides V who are neutral on the good/evil spectrum that aren't background characters.

Qarr never actually succeeded in tempting V; V knew Qarr was there for days, until his bumbling attempts to be sneaky pissed the Elf off. She then dispelled his invisibility and kicked him off her island. V only became desperate enough to demand that Qarr help her after the ABD revealed her scheme to murder V's family and abscond with the children's souls. It's the IFCC who tricked V. All they had to do was tell V the truth, while leaving enough loopholes to entrap her.

[Keltest]

Qarr never actually succeeded in tempting V; V knew Qarr was there for days, until his bumbling attempts to be sneaky pissed the Elf off. She then dispelled his invisibility and kicked him off her island. V only became desperate enough to demand that Qarr help her after the ABD revealed her scheme to murder V's family and abscond with the children's souls. It's the IFCC who tricked V. All they had to do was tell V the truth, while leaving enough loopholes to entrap her.

Yeah, but after that V and/or Blackwing manage to interpret Qarr's every more (or lackthereof) to determine his motive. Accurately, I might add.

[Sir_Leorik]

Yeah, but after that V and/or Blackwing manage to interpret Qarr's every more (or lackthereof) to determine his motive. Accurately, I might add.

Which begs the question: why isn't Qarr filing for unemployment insurance in Jangling Hiter already?

EDIT: Just to make it clear, I find Qarr the most annoying and least entertaining character in the strip. Every other character, from Tarquin to Mr. Jones, from the Flumphs to the Heavily Templated Snail, from the Dirt Farmers to Bloodfeast the Extreme-inator, are enjoyable, some on more levels than others. But Qarr? His original role in the story was to act as Kubota's toady and as a foil to Therkla. But after they died he flies off to pester V, as if he could match wits with a Wizard of V's caliber. He couldn't, and if it weren't for the ABD, V would have sent Qarr to his well deserved end.

I guess he's got something in common with Tarquin in that regard: Qarr stayed in the story long past the time when he was entertaining. The difference being that Tarquin has an army and several allies that could launch large scale battles and chase the OotS. Qarr can only Teleport away and slink back, and V managed to ground him before Qarr could even do that.

[Keltest]

Which begs the question: why isn't Qarr filing for unemployment insurance in Jangling Hiter already?

EDIT: Just to make it clear, I find Qarr the most annoying and least entertaining character in the strip. Every other character, from Tarquin to Mr. Jones, from the Flumphs to the Heavily Templated Snail, from the Dirt Farmers to Bloodfeast the Extreme-inator, are enjoyable, some on more levels than others. But Qarr? His original role in the story was to act as Kubota's toady and as a foil to Therkla. But after they died he flies off to pester V, as if he could match wits with a Wizard of V's caliber. He couldn't, and if it weren't for the ABD, V would have sent Qarr to his well deserved end.

I guess he's got something in common with Tarquin in that regard: Qarr stayed in the story long past the time when he was entertaining. The difference being that Tarquin has an army and several allies that could launch large scale battles and chase the OotS. Qarr can only Teleport away and slink back, and V managed to ground him before Qarr could even do that.

I find Qarr entertaining as a medium for other's comedy. Without him we would never have gotten such a gem as super-advanced flying stealth dinosaur!

[Shale]

Yeah, Qarr seems to be hanging around specifically because Blackwing needs somebody his own size to banter with and Mr. Scruffy can't talk.

[WindStruck]

If God A is allowed to come down and bonk their Paladins on the head and say "Don't do that", then Devil B is fully capable of coming down and posessing said Paladin into committing evil acts.

But the point is, the 12 Gods CAN come in and bonk their paladins on the hand. Namely, by taking away their powers when they fall. So the question would be, if they're in their right to do that, why do they have to wait till after the fact?

[The Grim Author]

But the point is, the 12 Gods CAN come in and bonk their paladins on the hand. Namely, by taking away their powers when they fall. So the question would be, if they're in their right to do that, why do they have to wait till after the fact?

Because, as others have said earlier in the thread, there's always the chance that, at the last minute, the paladin won't commit the evil act. Look at Tanh. He had raised his sword to strike "Shojo", killing whom (even while Dominated), had it been the real Shojo —*or the real Hinjo, for that matter*— would have caused Tanh to fall, but at the last moment he turned away from it and broke the Dominate effect.

But if he hadn't been able to break it, and it had been the real Shojo/Hinjo? At that point, Tanh would have Fallen, and once he'd been un-Dominated, he would have to undergo an Atonement spell.

[WindStruck]

No. No there isn't, when things like the ability to see the future are involved.

[Sir_Leorik]

I find Qarr entertaining as a medium for other's comedy. Without him we would never have gotten such a gem as super-advanced flying stealth dinosaur!


Yeah, Qarr seems to be hanging around specifically because Blackwing needs somebody his own size to banter with and Mr. Scruffy can't talk.

Okay, I'll concede that Qarr makes a good foil for Blackwing. He's the Crystal to Blackwing's Haley, considering that Blackwing has a full 3 points of Intelligence on Qarr. :smallbiggrin:

[Snails]

But the point is, the 12 Gods CAN come in and bonk their paladins on the hand. Namely, by taking away their powers when they fall. So the question would be, if they're in their right to do that, why do they have to wait till after the fact?

Whether they lack the means is unknowable, unless the World Author cares to step forward.

But, as pointed out already, it would be a little incoherent from the "worm's eye" perspective of the moral universe for judgement to come before the completion of the act. So, maybe they can, but they know the mortal bipeds will be confused and not learn any useful moral lesson if they chose to do so?

[Shale]

Also it's clear that even the deities with oracular powers aren't constantly looking into the future, or Tiamat wouldn't have been caught off-guard by Familicide.

[Jay R]

No. No there isn't, when things like the ability to see the future are involved.

What future do they see, if they take away her paladinhood early?

Either she kills Shojo anyway, in which case her early fall didn't serve any purpose, or she doesn't, in which case there is no murder in the future to see.

Do not confusion the temptation with the crime. A paladin might be tempted many times in her career, and successfully fight off the temptation repeatedly. She did not violate her oath until she actually violated it.

[snikrept]

Azure City Holy Department of Pre-Crime sounds pretty dystopian. Miko the Terminator!

"Die, evildoer!"

"But I haven't done anything evil! I'm just a little kid!"

"The gods have informed me that you will."

[theNater]

No. No there isn't, when things like the ability to see the future are involved.
There is no indication that the southern gods have such an ability.

[WindStruck]

What future do they see, if they take away her paladinhood early?

Either she kills Shojo anyway, in which case her early fall didn't serve any purpose, or she doesn't, in which case there is no murder in the future to see.

Do not confusion the temptation with the crime. A paladin might be tempted many times in her career, and successfully fight off the temptation repeatedly. She did not violate her oath until she actually violated it.It's simple. Suppose as a deity, you can peer into the mortal future and see what they will do without intervention. Then you intervene. It wouldn't change the fact that said murder or whatnot wouldn't have happened without intervention.

However, once you do intervene, you'd have to look into the future again, as many things could have changed.


Azure City Holy Department of Pre-Crime sounds pretty dystopian. Miko the Terminator!

"Die, evildoer!"

"But I haven't done anything evil! I'm just a little kid!"

"The gods have informed me that you will."Actually, all you'd really have to do is simply prevent the crime from happening. There's a lot of ways to go about this without killing babies. Like, I don't know. Talk to them just before it happens and convince them not to.


There is no indication that the southern gods have such an ability.Best argument here to make me want to not care about this any more. :smalltongue:

[snikrept]

Actually, all you'd really have to do is simply prevent the crime from happening. There's a lot of ways to go about this without killing babies. Like, I don't know. Talk to them just before it happens and convince them not to.
Quite right. But this is the Sapphire Guard. With precise knowledge of the future you know they'd be pre-emptively rounding up the future criminals, the future criminals' families, the future criminals' acquaintances, and anyone the future criminals owed money to, and executing them all:smalltongue:

[Rodin]

But the point is, the 12 Gods CAN come in and bonk their paladins on the hand. Namely, by taking away their powers when they fall. So the question would be, if they're in their right to do that, why do they have to wait till after the fact?

Because there are rules. A God is within it's rights to withdraw powers from someone who is no longer fit, but cannot interfere to prevent it from happening in the first place, because that then means that they struck the powers for no reason at all.

To put it another way, there's two choices:

1) The universe is deterministic. Therefore, the Gods strike the powers from someone who went against their code because that is the point at which they do so. They don't because they already have not done so.

2) The universe is non-deterministic...in which case, the person making the choice will have the opportunity to change that choice right up until they actually commit the act.

If the Gods truly know exactly what is going to happen, and act pre-emptively to change it...then they're changing it, and thus the foresight that let them change it becomes no longer true, which makes the original reason for the action to be false, which means that they don't do the action, which changes their foresight back to being correct again...

It's Timey-Wimey Ball stuff at its finest. The best way to deal with it is to not think about it too much.

[warrl]

IOT: Playing DA, it's not unheard of to be found guilty for planning, but I've no clue how it works in D&D. I imagine gods are like programmers in the way they created beings and gave them free will, like you let a program run. Of course the Gods could have, and probably still can, intervene whenever it suits them, but it's my impression they like to let things play out in stead of playing out things by themselves. As such, they're more a source of divine power than anything, from my current perspective.

My understanding is that in the real world (or at least in the mostly-real part of it known as the US) the standards for convicting someone of conspiracy to commit a crime require that there be at least one illegal act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

There are actually quite a few people who, sometimes working in small groups, plan crimes as part of their work. They are known as "writers".

[Peelee]

No. No there isn't, when things like the ability to see the future are involved.

What's to say the soothsayer isn't the one without free will, only when soothsaying? Let's say V was planning on walking a path which forked into the Mire of Mystery and the Path of Puzzlement. V goes to the Oracle to find out which path she will take. The Oracle says V will go to the Mire of Mystery.

Does this mean that because the Oracle predicted it, V must go down that path regardless of his own wishes to do so? Does V lack free will in this case? Or, rather, does the Oracle have no choice but to say that V will pick the Mire of Mystery because V through conscious choice in the future decides to do so?

If you want to be really exact about it, predicting the future by necessity implies a knowledge source that exists outside of time. The subjects that still live within the constraints of time do still have free will, and can choose whatever they wish; the knowledge source, however, knows what they will choose, since it is not constrained by time. Having that knowledge source feed some of that information to an intermediary - say, Tiamat, who then resells to the Oracle - does not negate that the original subject - V - still has free will.

Solely for my own enjoyment purposes, I much prefer the simpler, "don't think too much about prophecies or time travel in stories" school of thought.

[WindStruck]

Let's say V was planning on walking a path which forked into the Mire of Mystery and the Path of Puzzlement. V goes to the Oracle to find out which path she will take. The Oracle says V will go to the Mire of Mystery.

Does this mean that because the Oracle predicted it, V must go down that path regardless of his own wishes to do so?

V asks which path he will take, and the Oracle goes into his trance. He sees V go into the Mire of Mystery and says so. Later, V gets to the fork and just to be a smug ass, goes to the Path of Puzzlement instead. V visits the Oracle again and demands a refund saying the prediction was wrong.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/redxiv/oracle.gif "Too bad, once I gave you my answer, the future changed."

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/VaarsuviusNew.png "But your prediction should have taken that into account."

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/redxiv/oracle.gif "Well I could have just said 'the opposite of what I tell you', but then you wouldn't have paid me."

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/VaarsuviusDecline.png "..."

[factotum]

Later, V gets to the fork and just to be a smug ass, goes to the Path of Puzzlement instead. V visits the Oracle again and demands a refund saying the prediction was wrong.


Ah, but what would actually happen in that case (judging from the Oracle's other predictions) is that V would be happily travelling down the Path of Puzzlement when he hears cries for help in the woods to his left. He goes off the path to investigate, trips over a fallen branch and goes tumbling down a long slope. When he dusts himself off and stands up, he finds that his left foot has sunk into the boggy ground at the edge of the Mire of Mystery, thus fulfilling the prophecy even though he never intended to go there!

[Loreweaver15]

If we're back on the idea that the gods should prevent every bad thing from happening, then we're back on the idea that there aren't any people in existence, only fleshy sock puppets.

[Peelee]

Ah, but what would actually happen in that case (judging from the Oracle's other predictions) is that V would be happily travelling down the Path of Puzzlement when he hears cries for help in the woods to his left. He goes off the path to investigate, trips over a fallen branch and goes tumbling down a long slope. When he dusts himself off and stands up, he finds that his left foot has sunk into the boggy ground at the edge of the Mire of Mystery, thus fulfilling the prophecy even though he never intended to go there!

This, basically. Remember, the idea of telling the future relies on a knowledge source that exists outside of time. Such a source could see all of history like reading a book, for lack of a better analogy. That does not negate Free Will. If the Oracle predicted V would go to the Mire of Mystery and V, to be contrary, chose to go down the Path of Puzzlement, V would still eventually wind up in the Mire of Mystery for some reason. The cries for help wouldn't have been made solely because he chose against the prediction, and the universe wanted to force V down that way. The cries would have happened regardless, because an ogre had already captured the maiden, who had gone into the Mire to sulk over the prince, who had left her for the princess in another castle.

Everyone had free will and made their own choices. The Oracle simply said which path V would go down, not the reasons V would go down that road. V could freely and happily choose the other path, hear the cries for help, and freely choose to go investigate.

If you really want to get me going, just try starting me on Back to the Future. I could probably write a dissertation on that mess.

[Jay R]

It's simple. Suppose as a deity, you can peer into the mortal future and see what they will do without intervention.

That's an interesting and incredibly powerful ability. Why call it "seeing the future" when it's not, and why assume anybody has this ability not described in any D&D book (that I've read), and inconsistent with all myths of prophecy?


Then you intervene. It wouldn't change the fact that said murder or whatnot wouldn't have happened without intervention.

However, once you do intervene, you'd have to look into the future again, as many things could have changed.

So you can see what every other entity will do, change your actions based on that, and no other entity can do the same back to you? The single entity that can do this is far more powerful than any other gods combined.

If one god can change that future after you've looked, then so can any other god.

And it still boils down to punishing somebody for what she has not done. If that power exists, it's also punishing her for an action she might not ever do, since some other god might intervene in some other way.

The easiest solution is to say that a paladin falls when she willfully commits an evil act, not when the gods decide that she is going to willfully commit an evil act. [This is, in fact, what the rules say.]

(On a philosophical level, I also suspect that the person who has given in to temptation and committed the crime is in a very different moral position from the person who is being tempted and will give in in a few moments, but I'm not prepared to argue that, which is not about D&D rules and powers.)

[Snails]

By the letter of the Rules As Written, intending to commit a heinous Evil act in the immediate future is not grounds for Falling. Actually committing an evil act is grounds for Falling.

So the OP is not actually asking why Miko fell as she did -- Miko has the letter of the rules with which to hold on to her paladinhood until after her murder. The OP is really asking why the gods did not write the Paladin Code to be entirely different, to take into account a nebulous hypothesized ability to see into the future.

There are multiple answers:
(1) It would suck as game rules.
(2) It would conflict with most classic tales involving prophecy.
(3) It would conflict with the tone of most classic tales of moral failure and atonement.
(4) It makes assumptions about the gods and how hands on they would choose to be that conflicts with most styles of mythic/fantasy metaphysics.

[cheesecake]

Yet seriously considering it as a totally valid action is an indicator that you already changed alignment. As a LG person robbing a bank simply isn't an option for you.

Alignments never made a whole lot of sense to me.

I am generally a lawful person. I haven't killed anyone, robbed a bank, or done anything that would end up in jail.

I have cheated on a significant other, I might fib a little here and there. Does that make me not lawful? Does the sum of small things equal enough that I am no longer lawful? I am Chaotic?

Thoughts are lesser than action. I might think of robbing a bank, but because I am generally a lawful person I wouldn't actually do it.

[Liliet]

My favorite version of "seeing the future" (which, unfortunately, doesn't appear to be so in case of OotS) is when there is no time travel wacky stuff (I love Doctor Who, but time travel there just doesn't make any damn sense and rules change from episode to episode) but the oracle "extrapolates" from what things are like in the present. Of course, it needs supernatural cognitive abilities that gather information from all accessible multiverse and then parse it into something human-like mind can understand, and all this happens in subconscious. What the oracle actually sees can vary; single pictures of future, some verbal puzzle, or my personal favorite, a "tree" of possibilities with nodes being the significant free-willed decisions. How accurate and detailed the vision is, depends on the powers and mind capabilities of the oracle. And of course, the oracle can't see the possible outcomes of their own decisions after seeing this, because these decisions change each moment of this "oracular trance", so the supernatural cognitive abilities just sort of break on this and show future as it would be without the oracle's intervention.

And the prophecies that the oracle voices are just what they want to make known. This opens up endless possibilities for manipulating events, except that the supernatural abilities don't show the oracle the outcome of their own actions, so changing things in a desirable way still requires personal competence.

It leaves free will intact and opens up all narrative and in-universe possibilities for all sorts of self-fulfilling of self-defeating prophecies.


I really don't get how this works in OotS, because if Tiamat could know what would happen to the black dragons beforehand, why not tell the Oracle to lie or refuse to answer or somehow influence the behavior of Mama Black Dragon?...

Actually, I just hate determinism.

[Kish]

Alignments never made a whole lot of sense to me.

I am generally a lawful person. I haven't killed anyone, robbed a bank, or done anything that would end up in jail.

Lawful means "ordered," not "obeys the law."

[hamishspence]

Lawful means "ordered," not "obeys the law."

Yup. That said, characters who are focused far more on their own personal code than on societal definitions, may need to be really strongly committed to it, in the OoTS-verse, to "wear the Lawful Hat":


In my personal interpretation of Lawfulness in D&D, I believe that yes, it is possible to be Lawful using a personal code rather than the societal definitions of law and order. However, I believe that the burden of upholding that code has to be much stricter than that of the average person in order to actually qualify as Lawful. You must be willing to suffer personal detriment through adhesion to your code, without wavering, if you want to wear the Lawful hat.

Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good. The reason his code doesn't rise to the level of Lawful is that he would be willing to bend it in a pinch. And since he's already bucking all the societal traditions of his civilization, there are no additional penalties or punishments for him breaking his own code. He's unlikely to beat himself up if he needs to violate his own principles for the Greater Good; he'll justify it to himself as doing what needed to be done, maybe sigh wistfully once, and then get on with his next adventure.

Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.

[Snails]

I would note that both Lawful and Chaotic imply the character holds certain ideas/habits as positive virtues, which they are willing to make sacrifices to adhere to. In other words, "I follow my own personal code of what seems appropriate" is not Lawful and not Chaotic, but Neutral.

For example, Belkar getting so excited about trying get Miko to trip over her own uptight rules, that he comes up with a half-baked plan to get murdered. Or Elan pushing a dungeon self-destruct button because it seemed like the thing to do.

[Aasimar]

Because she has free will and until she does it she has the option of not doing it.

[warrl]

V asks which path he will take, and the Oracle goes into his trance. He sees V go into the Mire of Mystery and says so. Later, V gets to the fork and just to be a smug ass, goes to the Path of Puzzlement instead. V visits the Oracle again and demands a refund saying the prediction was wrong.

And don't forget, the trope of the prophecy that comes true only because of efforts to prevent it goes at least as far back as Oedipus Rex (who, contrary to the common conception and modern usage, neither hated his father nor lusted after his mother) circa 429 BC.

[Sir_Leorik]

And don't forget, the trope of the prophecy that comes true only because of efforts to prevent it goes at least as far back as Oedipus Rex (who, contrary to the common conception and modern usage, neither hated his father nor lusted after his mother) circa 429 BC.

Oedipus was a dutiful son, who honored his parents, and was horrified when the Oracle told him he would murder his father and marry his mother. So he ran away from home, gets into a road rage incident with King Laius of Thebes, kills Laius and heads to Thebes. There Oedipus solves the riddle of the Sphinx, so she gets depressed and kills herself. Once the Thebans learn that this stranger has rid them of the Sphinx, and that King Laius' body has been found by the roadside, ask Oedipus to become their king and marry the widow, Queen Jocasta. Twenty years later, the Greek gods bother to let Oedipus know that Laius and Jocasta are his real parents, not the shepherds who found him abandoned miles from Thebes.

The moral of the story? If Laius and Jocasta hadn't decided to abandon their infant after the Oracle gave them the same prophecy given to Oedipus, this would never have happened. (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x54fyv_bunco-busters_creation)

[WindStruck]

Hell, if they didn't bother visiting the oracle at all, it wouldn't have happened. Or was he the annoying type that just kind of walks up to you like a door-to-door salesman and unloads his bad news? My memory is kind of foggy.

[Keltest]

Hell, if they didn't bother visiting the oracle at all, it wouldn't have happened. Or was he the annoying type that just kind of walks up to you like a door-to-door salesman and unloads his bad news? My memory is kind of foggy.

Nah, you had to go to the oracle. She was incapable of making predictions while traveling without access to the... *ahem*... power of the gods... that her dwelling had.

[thatSeniorGuy]

My favorite version of "seeing the future" (which, unfortunately, doesn't appear to be so in case of OotS) is when there is no time travel wacky stuff (I love Doctor Who, but time travel there just doesn't make any damn sense and rules change from episode to episode) but the oracle "extrapolates" from what things are like in the present. Of course, it needs supernatural cognitive abilities that gather information from all accessible multiverse and then parse it into something human-like mind can understand, and all this happens in subconscious. What the oracle actually sees can vary; single pictures of future, some verbal puzzle, or my personal favorite, a "tree" of possibilities with nodes being the significant free-willed decisions.
.
A bit OT, but anyway ...

Have you read Mindstar Rising by Peter F Hamilton? The future-seeing psychic in the book operates pretty much like that; she see a multitude of "tau lines", each representing a future, which branch into the future and converge into one the closer you get to the present. She predicts the future by looking at the tau lines and seeing what events are the most common among them.

I have to get around to re-reading those someday ...

[Liliet]

A bit OT, but anyway ...

Have you read Mindstar Rising by Peter F Hamilton? The future-seeing psychic in the book operates pretty much like that; she see a multitude of "tau lines", each representing a future, which branch into the future and converge into one the closer you get to the present. She predicts the future by looking at the tau lines and seeing what events are the most common among them.

I have to get around to re-reading those someday ...
No, actually. All sources of inspiration for this description are in Russian. Now, where did those authors get their ideas... Anyway, do you recommend it?

And I get a feeling that nothing here is on-topic anyway, the OP's question has been answered like 100500+ times and we are just generally discussing prophecies and alignments.

[Jay R]

Actually, I just hate determinism.

As Gandalf didn't quite say, “So do all who live to see such fates. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the fate that is given us.”

And without determinism in some form, seeing the future is impossible. Which makes prophecy a horrible basis for decisions.

Galadriel: "Remember that the Mirror shows many things . . . Some never come to be, unless those that behold the visions turn aside from their path to prevent them. The Mirror is dangerous as a guide to deeds"

[Liliet]

As Gandalf didn't quite say, “So do all who live to see such fates. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the fate that is given us.”

And without determinism in some form, seeing the future is impossible. Which makes prophecy a horrible basis for decisions.

Galadriel: "Remember that the Mirror shows many things . . . Some never come to be, unless those that behold the visions turn aside from their path to prevent them. The Mirror is dangerous as a guide to deeds"
Prophecies are possible without determinism. If you see a vase falling from the table to cold, hard floor, can you predict its future? Yep, it's going to be broken.

As I said, prophecies as magically-powered extrapolation from the present, with the assumption that the prediction itself won't change anything (which is most certainly not true), are perfectly legit. At least one book series I like has a plot all but fully based on using prophecies to change the future into what the characters would like more (the rest is silly but awesome interplanar soap opera). You know what's going to happen, and then you change the future so it doesn't happen. And not in a stupid way like Oedipus' parents, you actually figure out WHY and HOW it's going to happen and change that before it's too late. So no self-fulfilling prophecies unless the oracle lied on purpose with the intent of changing future.

[Snails]

Prophecies are possible without determinism. If you see a vase falling from the table to cold, hard floor, can you predict its future? Yep, it's going to be broken.

A vase can be saved to put the future on a different tack. A snow globe can never be. Just how it works.

[Liliet]

A vase can be saved to put the future on a different tack. A snow globe can never be. Just how it works.
Yep, it can, which is the sweet thing about prophecies. Or rather, what the sweet thing about prophecies is SUPPOSED to be.

(hey, a lot of my favorite books are about using prophecies to avert what's in them! and succeeding, too)

[WindStruck]

Prophecies are possible without determinism. If you see a vase falling from the table to cold, hard floor, can you predict its future? Yep, it's going to be broken.

It's not a prophecy in this case. It's only a well-educated prediction. What if that vase bumped into your leg, slowing its fall slightly and then it it the floor at a more shallow angle and didn't break? What if that vase turned out to be a cheap imitation of, say, plastic?

The one thing that is certain in life is that nothing is absolutely certain. There could always be a curve ball thrown at you which makes events deviate from how you expect. Actual prophecies, on the other hand, are fueled by divine power and actually see - and know- that event will happen. Well, the catch is these prophecies can still alter the future. But if it doesn't? Then the prediction is a sure thing.

[Amphiox]

It's not a prophecy in this case. It's only a well-educated prediction. What if that vase bumped into your leg, slowing its fall slightly and then it it the floor at a more shallow angle and didn't break? What if that vase turned out to be a cheap imitation of, say, plastic?

The one thing that is certain in life is that nothing is absolutely certain. There could always be a curve ball thrown at you which makes events deviate from how you expect. Actual prophecies, on the other hand, are fueled by divine power and actually see - and know- that event will happen. Well, the catch is these prophecies can still alter the future. But if it doesn't? Then the prediction is a sure thing.

Except that prophecies can sometimes be subverted too. There's a whole subgenre of fiction based on getting out of prophecies, or making prophecies fail. In the Belgariad, for instance, prophecies are certainly not sure things, particularly since there are two of them, each predicting the opposite things....

There's no real functional difference between a correct prophecy and an educated prediction that turns out to be true.

(And this is doubly so in any fictional universe, like D&D, where the divine is not uniform or omnipotent....)

[thatSeniorGuy]

No, actually. All sources of inspiration for this description are in Russian. Now, where did those authors get their ideas... Anyway, do you recommend it?

And I get a feeling that nothing here is on-topic anyway, the OP's question has been answered like 100500+ times and we are just generally discussing prophecies and alignments.

Absolutely, along with pretty much anything else written by that author. Yes, I'm a fanboy :smallbiggrin:

[Liliet]

Absolutely, along with pretty much anything else written by that author. Yes, I'm a fanboy :smallbiggrin:
Heh. And now I'm downloading a new browser, a kindle reader for pc, and thinking of the way to learn to use web money just for that book (well, mostly because I had to do this someday anyway). Thanks for the recommendation. I like what the reviews promise:smallcool:



Except that prophecies can sometimes be subverted too. There's a whole subgenre of fiction based on getting out of prophecies, or making prophecies fail. In the Belgariad, for instance, prophecies are certainly not sure things, particularly since there are two of them, each predicting the opposite things....

There's no real functional difference between a correct prophecy and an educated prediction that turns out to be true.

(And this is doubly so in any fictional universe, like D&D, where the divine is not uniform or omnipotent....)
Yep, this. I love this subgenre. Especially the kind where the prophet him/herself is among those who work to subvert the prophecy. Awww... my favorite books :love:

It's funny how people argue what the "correct" prophecy is when there's no data on correct prophecies in our world and writers just invent rules for them for each book anew. I can argue that my prophecies are more correct than your prophecies too. If only because all instances of true prophecies can be chalked up to "coincidence" and "dramatic irony", while even one instance of a subverted prophecy proves something. There's a scientific term for the situation when only the negative result can be taken as a proof, but I don't remember what it is.

[WindStruck]

[SPOILER="offtopic"]It's funny how people argue what the "correct" prophecy is when there's no data on correct prophecies in our world and writers just invent rules for them for each book anew. I can argue that my prophecies are more correct than your prophecies too. If only because all instances of true prophecies can be chalked up to "coincidence" and "dramatic irony", while even one instance of a subverted prophecy proves something. There's a scientific term for the situation when only the negative result can be taken as a proof, but I don't remember what it is.

A think the term you may be referring to is simply "science".

[Liliet]

A think the term you may be referring to is simply "science".
There definitely was something more specific than that, but generally, yeah.

[Scow2]

Falsifiability.

[Liliet]

Falsifiability.
Yet more specific. Something about negative proof...

You know, the reverse is possible too. When science claims something (for example, blow up a blackhole) is possible, and if 100 times people fail to do it, it proves nothing, only success will be a proof.


Anyway, the argument about prophecies reminded me about everyone's "favorite" prophet: Dominic Deegan. Say what you want, the start was pretty good, and the prophecy of doom (or whatever) storyline was specifically about Dominic seeing bad stuff and taking steps to prevent it. That's how you make a prophetic protagonist, and that's awesome. If only Mookie could keep it up...

[Keltest]

Yet more specific. Something about negative proof...

You know, the reverse is possible too. When science claims something (for example, blow up a blackhole) is possible, and if 100 times people fail to do it, it proves nothing, only success will be a proof.


Anyway, the argument about prophecies reminded me about everyone's "favorite" prophet: Dominic Deegan. Say what you want, the start was pretty good, and the prophecy of doom (or whatever) storyline was specifically about Dominic seeing bad stuff and taking steps to prevent it. That's how you make a prophetic protagonist, and that's awesome. If only Mookie could keep it up...

I don't think it has a word. "You cant prove a negative" is as compact as it gets.

[Sir_Leorik]

As I said, prophecies as magically-powered extrapolation from the present, with the assumption that the prediction itself won't change anything (which is most certainly not true), are perfectly legit. At least one book series I like has a plot all but fully based on using prophecies to change the future into what the characters would like more (the rest is silly but awesome interplanar soap opera). You know what's going to happen, and then you change the future so it doesn't happen. And not in a stupid way like Oedipus' parents, you actually figure out WHY and HOW it's going to happen and change that before it's too late. So no self-fulfilling prophecies unless the oracle lied on purpose with the intent of changing future.

When Laius and Jocasta were given the Oracle's vision of Oedipus' future, they decided to subvert it by resorting to the time honored tradition of exposing children to the elements. And like Dr. Evil, who seals off his death traps and walks away, assuming that Austin Powers will die horribly (despite Scott Evil's suggestion that they just shoot Austin), Laius and Jocasta didn't leave anyone to guard the infant, or to witness the death. So a childless shepherd comes by and rescues the infant Oedipus. Oedipus grows up in a loving and well adjusted (if non-royal) family, and one day he visits the Oracle and she gives him the same prophecy she gave to Laius and Jocasta. But she doesn't tell him that he'll murder King Laius of Thebes and marry Queen Jocasta, she says he'll murder his father and marry his mother. At this point Oedipus freaks out, runs away from home, and runs into some old guy who should have had his chariot license revoked years ago. And so the prophecy comes true.

But the Oracle is to blame for giving Oedipus a vague prophecy. She told Laius and Jocasta a very clear prophecy, and their decision to try and avert it was hubris on their part. But Oedipus? All he was guilty of was loving his adopted parents too much to hurt them. (And not knowing he was adopted.)



Except that prophecies can sometimes be subverted too. There's a whole subgenre of fiction based on getting out of prophecies, or making prophecies fail. In the Belgariad, for instance, prophecies are certainly not sure things, particularly since there are two of them, each predicting the opposite things....

There's no real functional difference between a correct prophecy and an educated prediction that turns out to be true.

There are other types of prophecy: the If-Then prophecy, the Vaguely Worded Prophecy, the Schrodinger's Prophecy. All of these always come true, either because there was an If-Then clause ("If you repent, then the Catoblepus will not eat this year's cumquat harvest; but if not he shall devour every last cumquat, and the rutabegas as well!"), the prophecy used a play on words ("If the Hogsfather does not complete his run the Sun shall not rise tomorrow"... instead a ball of hydrogen and helium will light and heat the Disc), the prophecy was translated from another language (usually in a Blind Idiot fashion) and in the original language it was clear what would happen ("The Vampire with a soul will Shanshu"), the prophecy uses metaphorical language ("No man of woman born"), or the prophecy seems like it's going to not be fulfilled... until Rod Serling pops by and delivers a Twilight Zone ending. All of these have functional differences from an educated guess.


(And this is doubly so in any fictional universe, like D&D, where the divine is not uniform or omnipotent....)

It's not the Powers you need to worry about, it's the Vistani, with their Tarroka Decks, Crystal Balls, palm readers, and of course the Raunie making chicken soup. The Vistani, not the gods of D&D, are the ones making the really horrific prophecies in D&D. And the worst part is that once they've provided you with a prophecy, and sold you the antidote to the Choking Fog, they immediately send a rider to Castle Ravenloft and tell Strahd what you asked them about and what they told you. And the worst part is that their prophecies always come true... so remember to tip the Raunie beforehand. :smallwink:


It's funny how people argue what the "correct" prophecy is when there's no data on correct prophecies in our world and writers just invent rules for them for each book anew. I can argue that my prophecies are more correct than your prophecies too. If only because all instances of true prophecies can be chalked up to "coincidence" and "dramatic irony", while even one instance of a subverted prophecy proves something. There's a scientific term for the situation when only the negative result can be taken as a proof, but I don't remember what it is.

Why is a scientist going to a Fortune Teller, Oracle or Prophet in the first place? Is this an anthropological thing? :smallconfused:

[Liliet]

Sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science, and vice versa.

There's also another type of prophecy, the type I was speaking about, it has unspoken clause "unless you get your butt off and do something" attached to it. The prophecy itself is worded "this and this will happen" (if it's even worded and not, say, a weird paining of apocalypse. I'm looking at you, Erasti Cerna) but everyone knows that it's a warning, not definite knowledge. Unless they don't, and that's one possible source of conflict.

For example, the prophecy says "in 600 years, unspeakable evil will come and flood the lands". And the heroes start figuring out where that evil might come from and how to keep it there. It totally is there, and it's totally getting ready to start flooding in around 600 years (just a little bit of preparation for an eldritch horror), but if the heroes figure it out in time and shut the hole it's going to come through, or just prepare something/someone appropriately backside-kicking by when time runs out, there might be no flood after all. The prophecy's totally legitimate, and yet it does not come true. Because the whole point of making the prophecy was to stop the flood.

[Sir_Leorik]

Sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science, and vice versa.

There's also another type of prophecy, the type I was speaking about, it has unspoken clause "unless you get your butt off and do something" attached to it. The prophecy itself is worded "this and this will happen" (if it's even worded and not, say, a weird paining of apocalypse. I'm looking at you, Erasti Cerna) but everyone knows that it's a warning, not definite knowledge. Unless they don't, and that's one possible source of conflict.

For example, the prophecy says "in 600 years, unspeakable evil will come and flood the lands". And the heroes start figuring out where that evil might come from and how to keep it there. It totally is there, and it's totally getting ready to start flooding in around 600 years (just a little bit of preparation for an eldritch horror), but if the heroes figure it out in time and shut the hole it's going to come through, or just prepare something/someone appropriately backside-kicking by when time runs out, there might be no flood after all. The prophecy's totally legitimate, and yet it does not come true. Because the whole point of making the prophecy was to stop the flood.

Oy vey. That's an incredibly vague prophecy, even as vague prophecies go. It doesn't define the "unspeakable evil", the term "flood" can be literal (as in actual floods caused by this unspeakable evil causing a tsunami) or metaphorical (as in "flooding the land with soldiers"). The only specific thing is the date, and even that could be off; is it a solar year? A lunar year?

On "Angel" there were multiple prophecies that were open to wide interpretation (assuming that the correct text could be translated, and that they team wasn't dealing with a forgery). Wolfram & Hart had a whole division of mystics, antiquarians, demonologists and lawyers devoted to translating and deciphering prophecies related to Angel. Whole prophecies stated that Angel would play a leading role in the Apocalypse... but not what role, which side he would fight for, or which Apocalypse he would partake in. (Technically, Angel could be said to have participated in no less than a dozen Apolyptic events on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Angel", several of which he tried to bring about as Angelus.)

When dealing with prophecies you want a mix of specificity and generality, and as little vagueness as possible. For example, "In every generation there will come a Slayer; she alone will fight the Vampires, Demons and Forces of Darkness" is general (the Slayer is not identified by name, only as a woman), specific (the Slayer will fight Vampires), and not that vague (the prophecy states that the Slayer will fight the Forces of Darkness; it never promises she will win that fight, and it is implied that every Slayer will ultimately be defeated in battle with a Vampire or other monster).

A prophecy that's very specific doesn't have to negate the concept of Free Will, or imply predestination. For example, a fortune cookie whose fortune reads "You will find true love on Flag Day", is specific and vague at the same time. Just because you find your true love on Flag Day, doesn't mean that you will pursue him/her. You might grow cold feet, and not follow up.

I still think the best prophecies are If/Then prophecies. "If the statue of Blibdoolpoolp is not destroyed before the thirteenth year of King Foril's rule, then the Kuo-Toa will lodge a class action law suit to have it returned so that they may wage war on the Svirfneblin." You get to provide an incredibly specific prophecy, but with a clause averting a terrible disaster or allowing divine help in time of need.

[warrl]

There's a scientific term for the situation when only the negative result can be taken as a proof, but I don't remember what it is.

"Scientific method".

We think that gravity acts on everything. There is no amount of evidence that is sufficient to definitively prove that this is the case. Let there be just one ordinary rock that, when tossed into the air in an ordinary fashion, stays there, and the theory is disproven (unless we can find a good explanation of what force is counteracting gravity).

[Throknor]

Yup. That said, characters who are focused far more on their own personal code than on societal definitions, may need to be really strongly committed to it, in the OoTS-verse, to "wear the Lawful Hat":

The best personal-code character I remember reading is Sturm from Dragonlance. As Raistlin described it later:
"In his heart, Sturm was a knight. He has better claim to that false title than many who held it for truth. Sturm Brightblade obeyed laws that no one enforced. He lived by a noble code in which no one else believed. He swore an oath that no one heard. Only himself...and his god. No one would have held him to that oath, to the Measure. He did that himself. He knew himself."

[factotum]

I still think the best prophecies are If/Then prophecies. "If the statue of Blibdoolpoolp is not destroyed before the thirteenth year of King Foril's rule, then the Kuo-Toa will lodge a class action law suit to have it returned so that they may wage war on the Svirfneblin." You get to provide an incredibly specific prophecy, but with a clause averting a terrible disaster or allowing divine help in time of need.

I always liked the Celtic idea of the geas, being a thing that you must do at all times or lose your powers--of course, these were always ultimately prophecies of what would bring the hero down. Example: Cuchulainn had a geas that he must always take food that was offered him by the roadside, and another that he must not eat the flesh of a dog. Of course, on his way to his final battle an old woman cooking a dog by the roadside offered him some of the meat, so he had no choice but to break one of his geas and thus weaken himself before the battle!

[Amphiox]

There are other types of prophecy: the If-Then prophecy, the Vaguely Worded Prophecy, the Schrodinger's Prophecy. All of these always come true, either because there was an If-Then clause ("If you repent, then the Catoblepus will not eat this year's cumquat harvest; but if not he shall devour every last cumquat, and the rutabegas as well!"), the prophecy used a play on words ("If the Hogsfather does not complete his run the Sun shall not rise tomorrow"... instead a ball of hydrogen and helium will light and heat the Disc), the prophecy was translated from another language (usually in a Blind Idiot fashion) and in the original language it was clear what would happen ("The Vampire with a soul will Shanshu"), the prophecy uses metaphorical language ("No man of woman born"), or the prophecy seems like it's going to not be fulfilled... until Rod Serling pops by and delivers a Twilight Zone ending. All of these have functional differences from an educated

On the contrary, if you think about it carefully, every one of these prophecies has a variant of educated guess/scientific hypothesis/data-based projection that correlates with it.

[Liliet]

Oy vey. That's an incredibly vague prophecy, even as vague prophecies go. It doesn't define the "unspeakable evil", the term "flood" can be literal (as in actual floods caused by this unspeakable evil causing a tsunami) or metaphorical (as in "flooding the land with soldiers"). The only specific thing is the date, and even that could be off; is it a solar year? A lunar year?
Oh god, you've taken the one part of my message that was a parody/joke and attacked it like it was a weak point. Fine, let's rephrase it. "In 600 SOLAR years Estel Oskora, the Dark Star, will give birth a child who will bring doom and destruction to the whole world." Specific enough for you?

(and then the heroes come, find out who the hell Estel Oskora is, fail to prevent her pregnancy from a monster (poor girl), and then, um, forcefully abort the child before it's even born, which proves to be a lot more difficult than killing an unborn child should be, thus proving that it was indeed an abomination and not an innocent infant, and then readers with especially good reading comprehension skills attack a book for PROMOTING KILLING BABIES - that's actually a thing that happened. So no child is born on the prophecied day, and there's no doom and destruction brought about.)



On "Angel" there were multiple prophecies that were open to wide interpretation (assuming that the correct text could be translated, and that they team wasn't dealing with a forgery). Wolfram & Hart had a whole division of mystics, antiquarians, demonologists and lawyers devoted to translating and deciphering prophecies related to Angel. Whole prophecies stated that Angel would play a leading role in the Apocalypse... but not what role, which side he would fight for, or which Apocalypse he would partake in. (Technically, Angel could be said to have participated in no less than a dozen Apolyptic events on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Angel", several of which he tried to bring about as Angelus.)

When dealing with prophecies you want a mix of specificity and generality, and as little vagueness as possible. For example, "In every generation there will come a Slayer; she alone will fight the Vampires, Demons and Forces of Darkness" is general (the Slayer is not identified by name, only as a woman), specific (the Slayer will fight Vampires), and not that vague (the prophecy states that the Slayer will fight the Forces of Darkness; it never promises she will win that fight, and it is implied that every Slayer will ultimately be defeated in battle with a Vampire or other monster).

A prophecy that's very specific doesn't have to negate the concept of Free Will, or imply predestination. For example, a fortune cookie whose fortune reads "You will find true love on Flag Day", is specific and vague at the same time. Just because you find your true love on Flag Day, doesn't mean that you will pursue him/her. You might grow cold feet, and not follow up.

I still think the best prophecies are If/Then prophecies. "If the statue of Blibdoolpoolp is not destroyed before the thirteenth year of King Foril's rule, then the Kuo-Toa will lodge a class action law suit to have it returned so that they may wage war on the Svirfneblin." You get to provide an incredibly specific prophecy, but with a clause averting a terrible disaster or allowing divine help in time of need.
I fully agree with you on how prophecies should be phrased if they are _destined_ to come true and there's no way it can be averted.

I still think that the best prophecies are prophecies that can be just prevented from ever coming true. A man is seen in a vision commiting suicide in a white suit; he is told about that and figures that the only way for him to ever do that is if he loses someone he loves, and he'll only ever wear a white suit if it's required officially for some reason, he takes all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of his loved ones, and then he finds out he has to wear white suit for his wedding with a woman he loves, he tries his best to foolproof the wedding so it's safe, fails, but manages to take the proverbial bullet for her in the last moment when the assassination attempt is made. He still dies; never commits suicide, much less wearing a white suit (he bravely went against the tradition and wore black, his favorite color, if only to spite the prophecy).

[Sir_Leorik]

I always liked the Celtic idea of the geas, being a thing that you must do at all times or lose your powers--of course, these were always ultimately prophecies of what would bring the hero down. Example: Cuchulainn had a geas that he must always take food that was offered him by the roadside, and another that he must not eat the flesh of a dog. Of course, on his way to his final battle an old woman cooking a dog by the roadside offered him some of the meat, so he had no choice but to break one of his geas and thus weaken himself before the battle!

So Cuchalainn was the first Min/Maxer in history? :smalltongue:


On the contrary, if you think about it carefully, every one of these prophecies has a variant of educated guess/scientific hypothesis/data-based projection that correlates with it.

Okay, explain how a scientific hypothesis could explain the prophecy about Angel (or possibly Spike) bringing about (or preventing) the Apocalypse, and then being rewarded by dying and living again, as a mortal? Or how DEATH's comments to Susan in Hogfather were "educated guesses". And what "data-based projections" can protect you if you're in the Twilight Zone? Or in Ravenloft? If a fictional work includes a prophecy, the prophecy needs to be specific enough that the characters can identify the subject of the prophecy, but vague enough that the resolution of the prophecy either can't be prevented, or the way to prevent the prophecy is already included in the prophecy.

Several good examples of prophecies that definitely came true, but were misinterpreted by the person they were given to, are in Macbeth. Shakespeare has the Three Witches couch their prophecies in metaphors, while Macbeth, increasingly deranged because of paranoia and guilt, clings to the literal interpretation of their prophecies.

Finally, in Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman's book Good Omens, there are a series of prophecies recorded in the Middle Ages all regarding the 20th century. The woman receiving the prophecies had no context for firearms, cars, airplanes, cell phones, or computers, so her prophecies are almost always interpreted after the fact. In addition she could only foresee events happening to her direct descendants, so she missed a few major events, like the Kennedy assassination, in favor of recording that her descendants were gardening and drinking tea.

[hamishspence]

The woman receiving the prophecies had no context for firearms, cars, airplanes, cell phones, or computers, so her prophecies are almost always interpreted after the fact.

"Do notte buye betamax" was one of those. :smallbiggrin:

It's a good take on prophesy.

[Liliet]

Finally, in Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman's book Good Omens, there are a series of prophecies recorded in the Middle Ages all regarding the 20th century. The woman receiving the prophecies had no context for firearms, cars, airplanes, cell phones, or computers, so her prophecies are almost always interpreted after the fact. In addition she could only foresee events happening to her direct descendants, so she missed a few major events, like the Kennedy assassination, in favor of recording that her descendants were gardening and drinking tea.

See: THE reason why Good Omens is my least favorite Pratchett's book.

[Sir_Leorik]

See: THE reason why Good Omens is my least favorite Pratchett's book.

But her prophecies were all 100% accurate!


"Do notte buye betamax" was one of those. :smallbiggrin:


Sounds like good advice to me. :smallwink:

[Amphiox]

So Cuchalainn was the first Min/Maxer in history? :smalltongue:



Okay, explain how a scientific hypothesis could explain the prophecy about Angel (or possibly Spike) bringing about (or preventing) the Apocalypse, and then being rewarded by dying and living again, as a mortal? Or how DEATH's comments to Susan in Hogfather were "educated guesses". And what "data-based projections" can protect you if you're in the Twilight Zone? Or in Ravenloft? If a fictional work includes a prophecy, the prophecy needs to be specific enough that the characters can identify the subject of the prophecy, but vague enough that the resolution of the prophecy either can't be prevented, or the way to prevent the prophecy is already included in the prophecy.

Several good examples of prophecies that definitely came true, but were misinterpreted by the person they were given to, are in Macbeth. Shakespeare has the Three Witches couch their prophecies in metaphors, while Macbeth, increasingly deranged because of paranoia and guilt, clings to the literal interpretation of their prophecies.

Finally, in Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman's book Good Omens, there are a series of prophecies recorded in the Middle Ages all regarding the 20th century. The woman receiving the prophecies had no context for firearms, cars, airplanes, cell phones, or computers, so her prophecies are almost always interpreted after the fact. In addition she could only foresee events happening to her direct descendants, so she missed a few major events, like the Kennedy assassination, in favor of recording that her descendants were gardening and drinking tea.

The best explanation comes from Stephen Baxter's scifi work. In his short story Planck Zero, he postulated the creation of a computer with processing power as close to infinite as the laws of physics can allow. That computer was fed data (all the data) it's creators had about the past and present, and from that it calculated a projection of a likely future out to 10 million years detailed enough to include the love lives of individuals. The calculations are produced in the same way Actuarial Tables are used to predict birth rates, death rates, population growth and migration, which modern nations today use all the time to plan policy, but in much finer detail, because processing speed and capacity was near infinite. Every one of your examples could be generated in a similar way by a similar computer of sufficient power (doesn't have to be infinite, just enough for that prophecy) if fed the appropriate data, which in those examples would include all the data on how the supernatural elements in those universes actually worked. And they would be the result of scientific hypotheses - ie, models of how the universe runs based on mathematics that therefore allow the calculation of where objects in the universe will be and how they'll be acting at a given point in time. It would not be a hypothesis comprehensible to humans -the math would be orders of magnitude too complex, but it is still a scientific hypothesis. And it will work in any universe that runs on set rules, including supernatural rules.

[Amphiox]

By the way, the Hogsfather "prophecy" is not a prophecy at all. It's a play on words.

[factotum]

That computer was fed data (all the data) it's creators had about the past and present, and from that it calculated a projection of a likely future out to 10 million years detailed enough to include the love lives of individuals.

Problem is, that simply wouldn't work due to chaos theory. Even if we ignore the chaotic behaviour evident in humanity as a whole, the stuff those humans are doing will be affected by the weather to some degree, and that is most definitely a chaotic system.

Note that the issue with a chaotic system isn't that it's unpredictable--it's that "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" (commonly known as the Butterfly Effect) mean that you have to know the starting conditions 100% accurately to predict it, and that simply isn't possible. If you could somehow take a temperature, pressure and velocity reading from points spaced evenly 1m apart throughout the Earth's atmosphere, then fed that data into a computer capable of perfectly modelling the atmosphere, the resulting predictions of the weather would *still* cease to be accurate after less than a month. Ten million years? Not a chance.

[Sir_Leorik]

By the way, the Hogsfather "prophecy" is not a prophecy at all. It's a play on words.

No, it's still a prophecy. DEATH still dressed up like the Hogsfather, delivered toys and other fun stuff, while a group of assassins were simultaneously using the Tooth Fairy to destroy belief in the Hogsfather. As DEATH explained to Susan, the stakes weren't that the Disc would cease to exist, but that the nature of life on the Disc would become less magical. So yeah, still a prophecy, even if it uses a "play on words".

[Liliet]

But her prophecies were all 100% accurate!
Which is exactly the problem. It was BORING. And I'm really surprised that her descendant, knowing all the script, didn't deviate from it on purpose even once. I know I'd do that.

The same determinism is my only problem with Homestuck, but it's so crazy there that it doesn't make things boring in any way. Anything but boring.

[Rodin]

No, it's still a prophecy. DEATH still dressed up like the Hogsfather, delivered toys and other fun stuff, while a group of assassins were simultaneously using the Tooth Fairy to destroy belief in the Hogsfather. As DEATH explained to Susan, the stakes weren't that the Disc would cease to exist, but that the nature of life on the Disc would become less magical. So yeah, still a prophecy, even if it uses a "play on words".

I dunno, I still wouldn't call it a prophecy. It's just a logical extrapolation of events as Death knows them. If people stop believing in the Hogfather, the magic will go out of the world. Event A directly causes Event B, and Event B isn't taking place far into the future - it is happening the next day.

Now, Death did know when and where the Hogsfather would die - that's his job. That meant that he could initiate counter-measures by getting help and preventing the attempt as it was in progress. However, he did not peer into the future and relay back the details of how it would happen. Everything he learned he learned through direct sleuthing, or by siccing Susan on it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Which is exactly the problem. It was BORING. And I'm really surprised that her descendant, knowing all the script, didn't deviate from it on purpose even once. I know I'd do that.

Read the book again. There are three stories of people who did indeed attempt to not heed the directions of Agnes (with, as usual in a Pratchett book, humorous results). You also seem to not quite understand what the problem with nice and accurate prophecies is. You quite literally cannot deviate from the script, since the script was written by someone that watched your actions - you are not following Agnes' directions, she is describing what you do.

Grey Wolf

[Liliet]

Read the book again. There are three stories of people who did indeed attempt to not heed the directions of Agnes (with, as usual in a Pratchett book, humorous results). You also seem to not quite understand what the problem with nice and accurate prophecies is. You quite literally cannot deviate from the script, since the script was written by someone that watched your actions - you are not following Agnes' directions, she is describing what you do.

Grey Wolf
Yeah, that is the problem with the absurdly accurate freewill-less undeviatable prophecies.

The nice accurate prophecies are those that are helpful and actually provide you with means to make future better by changing it, rendering the prophecy void (but still accurate because it doesn't work retroactively, it was accurate at the time of saying it and that's all that means).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The nice accurate prophecies are those that are helpful and actually provide you with means to make future better by changing it, rendering the prophecy void (but still accurate because it doesn't work retroactively, it was accurate at the time of saying it and that's all that means).

In your opinion, anyway. In my opinion, those are not prophecies at all. And Good Omen prophecies do not remove free will at all, just like a history book does not remove the free will of the people described within. At best, Agnes' prophecies removed some of the surprises from the Devices' lives.

No, the only attack on free will in Good Omens is the point the book makes (the solitaire comment), but that is ground that this board definitely does not allow us to talk about, so I won't discuss it.

GW

[Liliet]

In your opinion, anyway. In my opinion, those are not prophecies at all. And Good Omen prophecies do not remove free will at all, just like a history book does not remove the free will of the people described within. At best, Agnes' prophecies removed some of the surprises from the Devices' lives.

No, the only attack on free will in Good Omens is the point the book makes (the solitaire comment), but that is ground that this board definitely does not allow us to talk about, so I won't discuss it.

GW
Well that's precisely what I've been talking about since I entered the thread, given that the answer to the OP question is absolutely obvious and this thread has gone so far off track we might as well discuss Oracle's prophecies.

They seem to be of the kind that always comes true, but not in the expected form.

I don't think the Giant will be pulling a meta-twist here, this is not homestuck, but I'm pretty sure there will be a twist and Durkon's death and destruction brought to his homeland will have nothing to do with him being a vampire with apparently Evil alignment now.

Or I guess that's what I want to happen?... So far my only accurate prediction was Malack's death, and that was a wish rather than a prediction, so maybe it makes sense to discuss my wishes as predictions.


Anyway, what do you think about that prophecy? (given that it's a thread about prophecies now)


PS and if it's a vision of future that comes from magic I say it's a prophecy

[Sir_Leorik]

I dunno, I still wouldn't call it a prophecy. It's just a logical extrapolation of events as Death knows them. If people stop believing in the Hogfather, the magic will go out of the world. Event A directly causes Event B, and Event B isn't taking place far into the future - it is happening the next day.

Now, Death did know when and where the Hogsfather would die - that's his job. That meant that he could initiate counter-measures by getting help and preventing the attempt as it was in progress. However, he did not peer into the future and relay back the details of how it would happen. Everything he learned he learned through direct sleuthing, or by siccing Susan on it.

So what? A prophecy that's related to an event tomorrow morning is no less a prophecy than one related to an event 3,000 years in the future!

[Kish]

Yeah, that is the problem with the absurdly accurate freewill-less undeviatable prophecies.

The nice accurate prophecies are those that are helpful and actually provide you with means to make future better by changing it, rendering the prophecy void (but still accurate because it doesn't work retroactively, it was accurate at the time of saying it and that's all that means).
You realize (it was spelled out in Good Omens) that the prophecies were nice in the original sense of the word meaning "extremely precise," not in the modern sense of the word meaning "pleasant"?

[Loreweaver15]

Which is exactly the problem. It was BORING. And I'm really surprised that her descendant, knowing all the script, didn't deviate from it on purpose even once. I know I'd do that.

The same determinism is my only problem with Homestuck, but it's so crazy there that it doesn't make things boring in any way. Anything but boring.

Homestuck's determinism and the breaking away from that determinism is actually a major theme of the work, that's being built up and up; from my observations, it seems that these things are Time players' fault--traveling though a section of the Timey Wimey Ball solidifies it and removes any chance of changing how things go, so Dave's current refusal to time travel is actually important, methinks.

[Liliet]

You realize (it was spelled out in Good Omens) that the prophecies were nice in the original sense of the word meaning "extremely precise," not in the modern sense of the word meaning "pleasant"?Sorry, I read this one book in Russian so the details of wordplay have eluded me )=

Anyway, I'm using the present meaning and not caring about that, Pratchett is awesome regardless of any of this stuff.



Homestuck's determinism and the breaking away from that determinism is actually a major theme of the work, that's being built up and up; from my observations, it seems that these things are Time players' fault--traveling though a section of the Timey Wimey Ball solidifies it and removes any chance of changing how things go, so Dave's current refusal to time travel is actually important, methinks.
I've been rereading it so it makes more sense (it really does upon second reading) and I haven't gotten to the part where Dave refuses to time travel, but yeah, I like that in homestuck determinism status quo is one of the things that are challenged by the characters and the narrative*. It exists there, but it's regarded as something unpleasant in-universe, and that makes me OK with it.

What exactly are major themes of the work, apart from "arguing with your past and future selves is as pointless as it is hilarious to observe", I can't tell yet. I guess you are right, except they have failed to break away from it so far, or maybe not, I don't know what's the deal with the last developments and whether it was "supposed" to go that way.

* unlike in OotS where even the Oracle can't change unpleasant things about his fate and just plans for them in advance wait how does that work** oh well whatever
** another thing I like about homestuck - it actually has explicit comprehensive rules*** of time travel and how knowing the future influences the past, unlike any other time travel work I have ever seen/read/whatever, even Doctor Who, grrrrrrrr how I wish it made sense there )=
*** which basically amount to "wanna exercise your free will? sure, you are welcome, welcome to the doomed timeline, jackass"

[Sir_Leorik]

Sometimes there's a reason for an Oracle or Prophet to not provide too accurate a prophecy.

http://comic.nodwick.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2002-09-19.png