Paladin hatred

[Lorde]

I think the Giant doesn't likes Paladins and have a hard time writting about then.

There is no charisma, there is no grandeur and there is NO direct divine intervention outside a punitive one.

People forget a very important thing which is: Paladins are religious. If John McStab doesn't want to help, he knows the Gods are watching and, on due time, there will be judgment for all. You may offer the choice but I don't think you need to force it with down your wits all the time.

It may be "corny" or "cheesy" but I think Paladins live and die by a ideal.They don't need to be -naive- but they don't need to be little smartasses with a holy symbol.

Of course, you may have a preachy Paladin but won't someone wise find it constant whinning annoying and little effective? Shouldn't he soon find it better act then talk, and lead by example?

But more important, Giant Paladins are hardly likeable. Just look Durkon, which is constrained by almost all the problems of the class but have this quiet and noble behavior.

[AK-00]

Well, this being a humour strip, there has to be a certain amount of wise-arsery, or it's not going to be funny. It's hard to be funny and kind, I'm afraid.

[Snake-Aes]

I felt you called Durkon a paladin, he's a pure Cleric.

Paladins from rich are not the paragon of paladinhood, but they are paladins, i'm afraid. And if there's one that live only for the glory of their gods, it's Miko. She has a blind faith and believes she's got a goal in life. If she's doing it the wrong way is another matter.
How many paladins did you see besides Hinjo and Miko? Any with enough participation for you to say something, I mean.

[ArchiviesTheQua]

Watch what you say, unless you want to be eaten by the Giant himself. Not that he'd eat you. But he may torture you good and proper, in a nonviolent like.

[theKOT]

Yeah, the Giant himself has admitted in No Cure to disliking Paladins. He finds them flawed because he thinks the code forces them to police their party members or anyone they come in contact with.

[Talya]

If Miko were the only paladin in the comic, I might be inclined to agree with you.

Hinjo flies in the face of your assertion, however.

[Lorde]

I felt you called Durkon a paladin, he's a pure Cleric.

Paladins from rich are not the paragon of paladinhood, but they are paladins, i'm afraid. And if there's one that live only for the glory of their gods, it's Miko. She has a blind faith and believes she's got a goal in life. If she's doing it the wrong way is another matter.
How many paladins did you see besides Hinjo and Miko? Any with enough participation for you to say something, I mean.


Of course Durkon is a Cleric (of Thor). If he was a Paladin, he would be annoying. The 2 others Paladins which had spotlight fail at holy-life thou.

I think the author doesn't like Paladins for reasons unknown to me, which reflects on the way the class is treated. Note there is nothing wrong on disliking Paladins outside a biased story now and then.

For the fanboys, the rest of the story is fine and I enjoy it.

[Snake-Aes]

Rich dislikes the paladin code, destroying a lot of freedom in the parties.

[Grey Watcher]

Well, just because a Paladin lives and dies by an ideal (which is definitely correct), I don't think that means they're going to be constantly falling over themselves in religious ecstasy. That's hardly productive and would probably read as insincere after a while. Hinjo, to me, seems to be a great example of a Paladin. He's a leader that people can actually trust and believe in. He's helpful and forgiving (he even tried to give MIKO a second chance, and he doesn't like her any more than anyone else does). He's straightforward and efficient about his work, he doesn't seem to be seeking undue grandeur, and, unlike Miko, understands the need for compromise. In what way is Hinjo badly written?

As for Miko, well, based on what I've read (which includes the bonus material in the printed books), she was originally intended as a satire of the poorly-played, over-zealous Paladin (sometimes known as "Lawful Stupid"). Of course, people reacted more strongly than anticipated, but still, she's not the rule or the standard for Paladin behavior. Hinjo himself said the other Paladins can't even stand her.

And really, besides Miko and Hinjo, who else have we seen? O-chul? He's... grim, that's about all you can say about him. Or...... Sir Francois? He seemed like an excellent Paladin, if frustrated by Elan's incompetence. That unnnamed Paladin Roy used to work for? Well, again, to me he reads as the exception rather than the rule.

In summary, some Giant Paladins are likeable. I like both Sir Francois and Hinjo, even if the latter is getting an undue amount of flak for his court decision (which, really, he's well with his rights to do, and Belkar really SHOULDN'T get off scott-free for murdering someone and using their vital fluids in a mural, should he?

[Talya]

In the Forgotten Realms, the Chaotic Good goddess of Beauty, Love and Passion, Sune, has an order of lawful good paladins (the only exception to the one step rule for paladins.)

Obviously, they handle their lawfulness and honor a bit differently than paladins of Tyr. Not all paladins are the same...

[chibibar]

the thing is that Rich's comic usually reflect "general" players that plays paladins. If you think about it, sometimes you have people who make characters and act all weird or out of ordinary.

Most people think fighters are usually stupid - Roy's personality is a comic version of that... not all fighters are stupid.

Belkar is a ranger - but doesn't seem to have some skills needed to be a ranger - this can be interpret that some players may not pick some skills cause well.. they are new ;)

Miko has a stick up her butt - as a GM, I have encounter soooo many paladins players that really act like Miko.... I take great pride in knocking them off their high horses.

[Lorde]

The author had Paladins cleaning cat ****.

[BardicLasher]

Hinjo flies in the face of your assertion, however.

Quoted for Truthery. Hinjo's a GREAT guy, and a Paladin, and I don't see how you can say that all the paladins in the comic are bad when Hinjo's all over the place now. He's AWESOME and GOOD and NICE and he's got the COOLEST BEARD.

[Xiander]

I really don't understand your point. Mostly because i think you are making judgement upon paladins in the comic, based on what you know of individuals in the comic.
The problem with that is, that if Hinjo, Miko and O-Chul had not had the flaws they have, they would have been rather boring characters, that does not mean that every paladin is as problematic as thay are (even though i don't see why people have problems with Hinjo and O-Chul, which is a completely other discussion.).

[Swordguy]

Obviously the Giant hates paladins. Look how he portrays them. Because, goodness knows, Hinjo is just an insult to paladins everywhere. With his mercy, and tolerance, and sense of humor.

/just trying to get the (in training) taken off my sig.

[Alfryd]

...poorly-played, over-zealous Paladin (sometimes known as "Lawful Stupid").
Except that Miko *isn't* Lawful Stupid. In fact, she has the opposite problem. A Lawful Stupid character follows their code even when doing so is so obviously and vastly disadvantageous to their general mission that bending the rules would be completely legitimate.
Miko, on the other hand, frequently skirts the borders of her code of conduct in an effort to maximise her efficiency in fulfilling her overall mission.
Take her speech to the Ogres. Sure, technically she didn't lie, and technically gave them full warning, but it can only be said that she was adhering more to the letter of her honour code than to it's spirit. What she *was* doing was ensuring she won the battle with a minimum of overall risk.
Or take the fact that she attacked the OotS after the Inn's explosion once Roy said they were only coming if dragged in chains and Belkar quipped he'd 'like to see her try.' Yes, technically they'd had their warning before, had already closed all other options for her and were literally asking for it, and she only attacked Belkar initially. But again, she is adhering more to the letter of her code of conduct than to it's spirit, while maximising the chances that she will prevail in the event. Much the same could be said of her first encounter with the Order.
Heck, she did the same thing with Sabine- Miko never actually said she wasn't going to snap her neck, and perhaps she might have known better than to permit a free grapple check- but Miko knew perfectly well what Sabine was expecting, and saw no reason to inform her otherwise when she could take full advantage of the lapse instead.
That's not Lawful Stupid. It's dangerously Lawful Smart. Dangerous because she's since stopped skirting the borders of her code of conduct and overstepped them entirely.

[Roderick_BR]

I'd say that Hinjo, Miko, and that general guy (can't remember his name), show good extremes of paladinhood.
Miko is a fanatical zealot, to the extreme she lost her powers.
Hinjo started out like a cool guy, and when he had to take over, he had start acting more "boss" like, but he still has some charisma to his actions.
The general guy is more like sargent-like type. Very militar minded, no much space for charisma or patience with people he thinks don't take things too seriously.

[choryukami]

It's dangerously Lawful Smart. Dangerous because she's since stopped skirting the borders of her code of conduct and overstepped them entirely.

If Lawful Stupid is someone who is Lawful Good taking their code too far..

Then Lawful Smart is using the laws to your advantage by skirting the code, following the letter of the law when it suits you, etc. a.k.a. Lawful Evil. Perhaps Miko will begin to slide... to the dark side. Though Sabine won't be the one to do it probably. Perhaps her want for vengeance against the OOTS and Hinjo will drive her to seek some way to restore her powers. Maybe she will be required to commit an act of evil to get power, she sees what she can gain. The ways of the paladin are weak, and there must be justice for even those paladins.

I like where this is going in my mind. Of course, it could just be that she gets a revelation from the good gods at the right time to bring her back from the brink. Maybe she'll be sitting between evil and good and have to choose.

[SPoD]

I don't think Rich hates paladins, even with that stuff he wrote in Paladin Blues. I think he hates the effect that the mechanically-enforced Code of Conduct has on roleplaying in a group that allows characters with wildly opposed idealogies (which is what he says here (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)).

If anything, the fact that he's taking the time to show Hinjo as a competent leader with no shortage of mercy (willing to discuss redemption with Miko after she bisected his uncle!) says to me that he has no hatred for the ideal of the paladin. Just for the reality of how the paladin exists in the rules.

[Swordguy]

I don't think Rich hates paladins, even with that stuff he wrote in Paladin Blues. I think he hates the effect that the mechanically-enforced Code of Conduct has on roleplaying in a group that allows characters with wildly opposed idealogies (which is what he says here (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)).

If anything, the fact that he's taking the time to show Hinjo as a competent leader with no shortage of mercy (willing to discuss redemption with Miko after she bisected his uncle!) says to me that he has no hatred for the ideal of the paladin. Just for the reality of how the paladin exists in the rules.

Indeed. Isn't the disconnect between the game mechanics and "reality" supposed to be the primary source of this comic's humor?

[Alfryd]

Then Lawful Smart is using the laws to your advantage by skirting the code, following the letter of the law when it suits you, etc...
Not exactly. Lawful Stupid means being unaware of the situations where your code isn't really suited to the situation. Miko is keenly aware of the drawbacks of her code of conduct, and the fact that she once managed to adhere even to the letter of her code was a testiment to her powers of ivnention and quick thinking- ie, not being Stupid. To take an example, her tactical approach to the Ogres may not have been very Lawful in spirit, but was still a distinctly Good act- she minimised the risk to the party as a whole while increasing the risks she took herself, all toward the aim of wiping out a clan of evil bandits.
Rich is on-record as saying that Miko is extremely Lawful and borderline Good. Going by the SRD definitions, he's right. But I think, at least initially, it would be truer to the spirit of the alignments to say she was, at first, moderately Lawful and moderately Good.
Her Chaotic aspects are that she is inventive, adaptable, acts on impulse and is prone to rationalisation, tends to lie-by-omission and isn't terribly predictable. She went to considerable lengths to accomodate the party even if she did rub them the wrong way with a vengeance, and while she may have lectured the party extensively on moral failings, her bark was worse than her bite (Up until 251, that is.)
At present, of course, I don't think you can make a strong argument for Lawful or Good alignment at all. She's attacked without warning or consideration for the larger consequences of her acts, and disregarded the authority of the courts, the Laws, and her superiors. She's lost any shred of real consistency in her beliefs or conduct and seems ruled by emotional impetus. I don't know if that trend will continue, but it sounds Chaotic to me. And if she honestly still thinks her treatment of Hinjo was kosher, Evil to boot.

[Justinian]

Yeah, the Giant himself has admitted in No Cure to disliking Paladins. He finds them flawed because he thinks the code forces them to police their party members or anyone they come in contact with.

Which, incidentally, is utterly wrong.

Leading by example is all you need unless you've got a "Belkar" in the party, which incidentally, railroads the party in the opposite way.

[Duke of URL]

Except that Miko *isn't* Lawful Stupid.
No. She's Lawful Psychotic.

[atteSmythe]

Which, incidentally, is utterly wrong.

Leading by example is all you need unless you've got a "Belkar" in the party, which incidentally, railroads the party in the opposite way.
I think I disagree with you. If the party does evil things, even in the name of expediency, the Paladin has an obligation to either stop them or disassociate with them. Leading by example only works until the party doesn't follow the example. Then it's code conflict time.

Paladins make great NPCs. They can come and go without hard feelings.

In any case, I completely disagree that every paladin we've seen is unlikeable. They have 'holier than thou' attitudes because by and large they are the examples to be followed. They have an obligation to say, "That's not the right thing to do in this situation, and you know it. Don't take the wrong path just because it's easier."

[Morty]

They have an obligation to say, "That's not the right thing to do in this situation, and you know it. Don't take the wrong path just because it's easier."
But they do not have the right to smite you if you do that anyway.

[atteSmythe]

I never said they did. They still have a choice to make, though: Remain in the party, and be part of something evil (lose power, atonement, and - if truly roleplaying - vow not to make the same mistake again), or leave the party and, knowing that they're doing the wrong thing, try to stop them in some way. (Preferably by doing the right thing on their own, making the party's action moot, not by smiting or fighting them)

The party, meanwhile, has the option of ditching the plan in favor of the paladin's wishes, or going along with what the paladin wants to do. It effectively gives the same person veto power over every plan. Other characters can make the choice to compromise their morals occasionally, and go along with a plan for the sake of party unity. Paladin's don't really have that option.

[Justinian]

Yes, but we're talking about something evil in a game with objective morality. Generally, I don't care whether I'm playing a Paladin or a CG rogue, I won't go along with say, killing an innocent just because it's the quickest way through a situation. Whereas an evil character would think nothing of it, indeed, might do it just for fun if they're chaotic as well.

If I did go along with such a person that would, in fact reflect on me. Not getting my own hands dirty does not mean I am not tacitly condoning their actions.

When playing a paladin you don't put your foot down on every little thing if you don't get your way, that's just being a brat or an attention whore.

You do put your foot down when someone wants to do something that is objectively, without a shadow of a doubt, morally wrong. It's not "How dare you jaywalk?! I cannot accompany a party of jaywalkers! Good day!" or "Clearly my plan to assault the castle is the best way, did I not explain it loudly enough?" It's "I'm sorry, but I can't let you kill that woman just to shut her up - if I did we'd be just as bad as *insert BBEG name here.*"

The wiggle room is a lot wider than people think. You just have to decide upfront during character creation if your party is going to have a Paladin, or an evil character, one or the other. It's generally constant in most RPGs, honestly. Most settings have characters that represent moral absolutes, and they are very incompatico. Your average fantasy story / RPG has your plucky band of heroes trying to stop an absolute evil. The opposite type can be fun, sometimes (Drow campaign!), as can the nitty-gritty anti-hero type of campaign, but in your average game of D&D, there's no reason why a Paladin shouldn't fit in just like anyone else.

[atteSmythe]

Scenario (this is from the first encounter, first level, of the last campaign I played):
The party is mostly neutral. No paladin, but one LG fighter (also an N druid and CN sorcerer). We're tromping through woods far removed from civilization (no legal authority). Perched at the top of a ravine is a small settlement of 3-4 houses. A generation or two ago, an explorer found small veins of gold in a cave in the ravine face, and moved his family out here. Since, the lord of the first house we found returned to his family's homeland to fulfill his duty to the crown, serving as a knight. He's several hundred miles away.

We're informed by the lady of the house that she's become afraid, of late, as two of the neighbors' houses have burned down in the last couple months, killing the families inside. She's seen goblins in the area, and suspects that they want to settle in the cliff-face caves, and are removing the human presence. Her handyman, the only other person who believes her sightings, has been unable to do anything about the goblin menace.

Long story short, the only house aside from hers burns down during the course of the next couple days, and the party spots the handyman fleeing the scene. We investigated further, he got suspicious, and accelerated his plan - he's the one behind the fires; the goblins had nothing to do with it, and just wanted to be left alone. During the climactic battle to protect the last homestead, he proves to be a difficult opponent. At last, he's beaten, but in 3e, defeated foes aren't dead. He stabilized on his own before he hit -10.

Now what? He's stronger than any given character in the party. No one has rope use, and if he makes an escape attempt during the night, he'll most likely kill whomever was on watch. There's no authority to hand him to within several days' journey. He didn't have the decency to just die, and now he's helpless. What do we do with him?

It took a huge amount of debate, but let's just say that we ended up burying that guy. I don't think a paladin could've made that decision, but I also don't think it's a grossly evil act on the part of the party. Not one of us was willing to risk death to protect the sanctity of this firestarter's life, but that's exactly the sort of thing a paladin has sworn to do. And this was the first adventure! As the campaign progressed, we ended up having at least one of these 'no "good" way out' situations per major arc. The party, though ultimately trying to do the right thing, earned the reputation of "The Dark Trio" in that region, simply because of the destruction that seemed to follow them. Over the years, I've thought a lot about that campaign, and how I would've tried to play through it as a paladin...and I haven't really come up with anything that wouldn't have split the party apart.
I'd love to play a paladin one day, though it seems that if I catch the RP bug again any time soon, I may end up having to try my hand at the DMing side...

[Alfryd]

Not one of us was willing to risk death to protect the sanctity of this firestarter's life, but that's exactly the sort of thing a paladin has sworn to do...
No... paladins are completely entitled to perform a coup-de-grace when practical alternatives have been exhausted, and the target in question is almost unquestionably evil. There's even a little spell-like-ability they can apply to resolve the matter.

No. She's Lawful Psychotic.
How enlightening! Please! Blind me further with your radiant beams of searing wisdom! I only wish to learn!

[Justinian]

You don't need much use rope skill to keep an unconscious man tied up.

Also, manacles are fairly cheap. If you knew you were going after an arsonist, it might be a good idea to get some. If you're a Paladin going after criminals - you need to make sure your rogue buddy has some Use Rope skill, or you need to bring a set of manacles. So some simple foresight could have solved this little moral dilemma before it even came up.

Okay, so hindsight's 20 / 20, and that doesn't solve the problem once it's already happened, so... what happens in the situation you were in? Well, pretty simple, have the rogue sap him regularly. If the rogue doesn't have a sap, make a sap. One of you has enough Int to make a sap in 8 hours. Tie him up, put him on a horse, take the horse, and if he so much as stirs, whack him on the head.

Sucks, difficult, but frankly as DM I'd have either just a) had the guy die rather than stabilize, or b) run through the ride back to town relatively quickly, maybe rolling some dice to give him a chance to escape if your plan to escort him to the authorities was particularly bad or inept, like not even bothering to tie him up, or monitor him.

If you can't successfully watch an unconscious and injured man in the dead of night, I shudder to think what would happen if wolves were to attack your camp. This guy can't move. At best (worst?) assuming you don't ride him too hard he's going to recover a few hit points a day, and if you do keep him from resting he gets no hit points back at all. So it's several days before he even reaches 0 hp and can wake up.

[Iranon]

I totally understand Rich's frustration. Most campaigns have a sort of unofficial 'players don't screw each other over in a major way' rule that everyone wants respected. However, normal roleplaying of an Evil or darkly Neutral character can amount to screwing over a paladin. And knocking them out, getting them drunk, distracting them by setting an orphanage of fire, roughly fondling a serving wench then claiming it was the pally or using some other small distraction when something shady is in order gets old rather quickly.

The code of conduct is a mess if applied too strictly; it forces more rationalisation from the paladin than the brooding archvillain with the tortured childhood is likely to exhibit. Anyone capable of keeping their paladin powers should by definition fall for being a devious little bugger.
The 'no association with Evil' is particularly rich. There goes the hope of redeeming dubious characters by showing them a living, breathing example of virtue, humility and honour.

The rules don't force one to play paladins as sanctimonious smitebot but they definitely encourage it in the hands of a sub-par roleplayer... or in anyone if the DM doesn't know what they are doing.



Re Miko's alignment: Alignments are always tricky when the extreme alignments are having a passionate roll in the hay and tell neutrality to shut up and get out.

Living by a rigid personal code with no compromise (lawful) even when it goes directly against tradition, duty and legitimacy (chaotic).

Something similar on the good/evil axes could occur when goal and methods diverge - either 'the end justifies the means' or 'I might have no morals, but I find base villainy distasteful'.

These concepts could, in common D&D interpretations, call for frequent alignment changes even when the character doesn't chance their philosophies at all, which is rather dissatisfying.

[Alfryd]

Anyone capable of keeping their paladin powers should by definition fall for being a devious little bugger.
That was sufficiently warped I can assume it's humour, and therefore hilarious.

These concepts could, in common D&D interpretations, call for frequent alignment changes even when the character doesn't chance their philosophies at all, which is rather dissatisfying.
I'm generally of the firm opinion that alignment can't shift if underlying attitudes don't, so screw it.

Re Miko's alignment: Alignments are always tricky when the extreme alignments are having a passionate roll in the hay and tell neutrality to shut up and get out.
There was rolling in the hay? Did I miss something? Was it in Paladin Blues? It was in Paladin Blues, right? Tell me!
YOU HAVE NO CONCEPTION HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS!

[Lady_Orc]

The 'no association with Evil' is particularly rich. There goes the hope of redeeming dubious characters by showing them a living, breathing example of virtue, humility and honour.

I always thought that bit was particularly ridiculous myself. I count myself fortunate that my DM agrees with me.

[KBF]

The author had Paladins cleaning cat ****.

Nobody seems to have seen this. I'll answer this obvious one.

That was a joke, and a show of Shojo's character. The author makes the characters, a story, a drawing style, maybe a few jokes beforehand, and lets the comic move on how it's supposed to. Shojo was the sarcastic-but-not type, and it made for a great joke. It is in no way a personal aggression towards paladins. Ok, I'm done being serious.

THAT PART WAS HILARIOUS!:tongue:

[Nero24200]

I totally understand Rich's frustration. Most campaigns have a sort of unofficial 'players don't screw each other over in a major way' rule that everyone wants respected. However, normal roleplaying of an Evil or darkly Neutral character can amount to screwing over a paladin. And knocking them out, getting them drunk, distracting them by setting an orphanage of fire, roughly fondling a serving wench then claiming it was the pally or using some other small distraction when something shady is in order gets old rather quickly.

I don't see how this is properly played evil.
If you simply run around killing random people left right and center simply because they annoy you, why would anyone be stupid enough to do it to a paladin? They're part of a -knightly order-! Generally, pissing one off will cause more to come after you. Any evil character stupid enough -not- to hide their evil aura's when they beleive they might be working with paladins deserves what they get, and to be frank, I've never seen a badly played paladin, only badly played evil characters who only ever want to murder/rape/pillage. Having a group of paladins turn up and smite them was a convient IC way to tell them to actully rub their two brain cells together to see if they can think of better things to do.
To be honest, I've had to deal with alot of anti-paladin players, particullerly since I have played paladins. More often than not, its simply "Oh, your'e a paladin eh? You self-rightous arrogent b*****d, get the hell out of here before I ram my knife into your gut" "All I said was hello"
I don't even get this just from evil players, I get it from -chaotic- players too, and it can be a right pain.

Hes how to sort the paladin code mess
1. Any evil character who, in terms of RP, would have lived long enough to get away with their evil acts will be smart enough to hide it, and their aura, from paladins, hence why there shouldn't be a problem teaming a paladin with an evil character (in fact, one of the best evil characters I've seen actully got on well with my paladin, and it made for excellent RP when I found out he was evil)
2. If you do evil (or chaotic acts like looting), do it when the paladin isn't looking, its not that hard, really it isn't. And if you're not obviously evil, then what reason does the paladin have to distrust you? If they use detect evil, that means they relay on it, so if you're all clear, until proven otherwise, they shouldn't doubt.
3. If a player doesn't RP their class properly, explain to them what you dislike about it, not simply go on some tirad that all paladins are bad. To be frank, dealing with an argument like that makes me feel like the smartest person in the room, since I'm capable of comming up with the conceapt that one bad paladin doesn't make all paladins bad.

[Alfryd]

That was sufficiently warped I can assume it's humour, and therefore hilarious.
In fact, I'm quoting it in my sig. Watch me quote! You can't stop me!

[Iranon]

1.) That sounds really strange. I have a nagging suspicion that I might be Evil in D&D terms (probably still Neutral, but there's no paladin around to check), and I am strongly opposed to gratuitious violence. In fact, I believe Evil people can be perfectly pleasant as long as you don't get on the wrong side of them...
The slightly garish examples of possible distraction wasn't meant as an example of 'roleplayed Evil', merely meant to showcase how far some players go to keep the thought police off their back. If the players are terrorising the countryside, they should expect someone after their blood in short order and paladins are a natural choice; no complaints there.

The paladin's side got most of the press, there's also the issue of the others - a party member who cares more about their conscience than the lives of their compatriots is likely to come in conflict with more practical PCs. Not a problem, mutual distrust/dislike where both parties have valid reasons can fuel good roleplaying.

2.) What, pray, does a proud paladin parent do when they detect their teenage child has an evil alignment? Or someone whose protection they are charged with? Ending the association, as by the book? Smite away? That would be an interesting interpretation of duty. Or, more humorously:

"Stay close to Evil Earl Evil of Evilborough for me, I fear he might be up for something heinous"
"I'm afraid I can't associate with him, my liege. He is Evil."

All your examples assume that the other characters will bend over backwards to allow for the presence of a paladin. Realistically, many people would respond with 'if my behaviour offends you so, Sir Knight, feel free to bugger off'. Most of the non-adventuring profession should be in awe of paladins by default, but mid- to high-level adventurers are supposed to be larger than life themselves.

3.) I like the concept of an inspiring, righteous warrior. The problem is the implementation. The paladin code tends to encourage a heavy-handed approach rather than winning hearts and minds.
If the choices are 'leave the group', 'browbeat other people's characters' (which often ends up as browbeating players) or 'deal with your inevitable fall', there is no good option. A good DM can channel the conflicts to a gainful end, but that requires a rather lax interpretation of the code of conduct restrictions.

And incidentally... one of my deepest and most enjoyable characters was a paladin.

[Kiero]

Hinjo flies in the face of your assertion, however.

Cha-ching! And there you have it. Hinjo is the anti-Miko. Pretty much a mirror of her flaws, really.

[Iranon]

That was sufficiently warped I can assume it's humour, and therefore hilarious.

I'm generally of the firm opinion that alignment can't shift if underlying attitudes don't, so screw it.

There was rolling in the hay? Did I miss something? Was it in Paladin Blues? It was in Paladin Blues, right? Tell me!
YOU HAVE NO CONCEPTION HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS!


I'm flattered you put that into your signature... had I known this, I'd have refined the wording a little!

I totally agree on the alignment change... some internally consistent philosophies are very hard to place within the framework though and a literal-minded DM might determine the character's alignment anew every day, apparently with a die. Hey, at least that doesn't prevent you from ever gaining a level again these days.

If you read enough into it, there is rolling in the hay everywhere! And yes, it is of vital importance.

p.s.: How do you use those spiffy multi-quotes? I tried and failed miserably.

[TinSoldier]

p.s.: How do you use those spiffy multi-quotes? I tried and failed miserably.I don't know how Alfryd does his other than tedious cut and paste, but you can push this button http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/buttons/multiquote_off.gif on all the posts you are interested in quoting and then the quotes will show up when you either hit Quote or Post Reply. Try it out!

Oh, BTW, I love this thread. I posted some paladin code stuff on another board: http://www.snotling.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1642

I did a lot of research into paladin codes for a paladin character I was making. What's in the PHB is really just a guideline for creating a paladin code, it's not really a code in and of itself.

[Felius]

I see three ways of the code might end screwing up the game, two have already been said:
1. Badly roleplayed paladin.
2. Evil guys (specially the "Evil Insane" alignment)
3. A GM that is too rigid. I mean if the gm does remove the paladin powers because he doesn't leave the party and smite his (former) companion because the companion like did a extremely minor evil act, he can't complain if the paladin starts a thought police on the party to stop all of it.

[Cifer]

Well, the problem with paladins is that their code is vague, but too strict at the same time. To go for a very simple thing: "No lying". Now I'd say this includes "don't let any untruth you know about stay un-uncovere" because everything else would be Lawful Evil: Twisting around the wording. Even if you say that's not the case, we've still got massive amounts of situations where everything would go smoother with a little lie which would have to be told by all characters. Now just about everyone could now swallow their pride and go with the rogue - only that if the paladin does it, he's lost his powers, which is usually respected by the other players so they go along with him.
This is the "party policy" problem - you accept the paladin's views not because you find them sensible, but because you don't want to screw over his player.

[Justinian]

Um well, having played Paladins with craptons of diplomacy and having to wield quite a bit of diplomatic finesse vis-a-vis RP, you really don't have to tell everyone everything all of the time. You just can't lie.

When the enemy stormtroopers come up to you and ask you where the runaway slaves are, you don't have to say "Oh, they went that way! Godspeed!"

You can be silent, you can misdirect, or you can just scream "I will never help you, evildoer!" holding your gleaming holy avenger high and charging with righteous fury!11!! But, um, option 3 there isn't the only option.

[Solara]

Getting back to the OP for a moment, I'm surprised this is coming up now. When it was just Miko, it was possible to think Rich might not like/not know how to write good paladins and still make them funny as such was taking the easy way out by making a hilariously infuriating one, but now we've got Hinjo, who is quite frankly the best example I've seen of a truly Good paladin, anywhere, ever, and who still manages to get some of the greatest lines without stepping out of character in the slightest, so I think that theory's pretty much gone out the window.

If Rich doesn't like paladins in general and Miko started off as an example of the kind he didn't like in specific, I think Hinjo is his attempt to do the opposite and show how you can still be Lawful Good to an extreme and follow your code of conduct without sucking all the fun out of things for your party members.

In fact I'm crossing my fingers hoping Miko still does go the 'join the LG, be a Blackguard route' primarily because that might mean Hinjo might join the OotS and be her opposite. If the Azure City gate is destroyed it's not that far-fetched that he might see personally helping protect the now clearly endangered others as his duty, and temporarily leave O-chul in charge or something...of course as speculation goes this is all pretty wild, but I can dream, can't I? :smalltongue:)

[TinSoldier]

You can dream, Solara. I think I understand what Rich meant in his article about paladins and I don't think Miko was ever that paladin that he described. Especially since she has never been a part of a party.

I like both Hinjo and Miko. (Until Miko killed Shojo) I think they are both valid ways to play paladins.

[Jefepato]

If you can't successfully watch an unconscious and injured man in the dead of night, I shudder to think what would happen if wolves were to attack your camp. This guy can't move. At best (worst?) assuming you don't ride him too hard he's going to recover a few hit points a day, and if you do keep him from resting he gets no hit points back at all. So it's several days before he even reaches 0 hp and can wake up.

All quite true.

And if for some reason you really couldn't do this and it was impossible to keep him down by any reasonable means, then it would not be a violation of the paladin's code to execute him.

[Justinian]

All quite true.

And if for some reason you really couldn't do this and it was impossible to keep him down by any reasonable means, then it would not be a violation of the paladin's code to execute him.

Well, I'd need more information before condoning execution. If all he did was arson and assault on the heroes, which is all the info we were given, I'm not so sure that's grounds for execution. If the heroes killed him in self-defense, so be it - it was in self-defense. But once he's down, that's when it gets hazy.

If he's a mass murderer as well, then yeah, go for it. I'd make certain he wasn't under the influence of sorcery, though, as clearly you shouldn't do anything as rash and permanent as execution without knowing all the facts, especially in a world with enchantment spells and psionics.

[Zel]

Some paladins have CHA as their dump stat.

[Moechi_Vill]

riiiight...

must be like that time I played a Barbarian with all his dump stats in physical

^_^ that was a good time


I think Miko was a fine paladin stabbed in the back by writings/Rich that gave her a mental disorder... ie. paranoia.
She could've softened up 'course but nobody ever taught her. Roy spat in her face.

[Tengu]

http://www.hookahforum.com/uploads/1165808825/gallery_2063_3_17264.jpg

Paranoia and a holier-than-thou attitude were Miko's most prominent, defining personality traits. Belkar would've been a fine fellow if he wasn't a psychotic maniac.

Miko was Giant's example on how not to play a paladin, deal with it. The only person who could change her was herself.

[Querzis]

I don't see how this is properly played evil.
If you simply run around killing random people left right and center simply because they annoy you, why would anyone be stupid enough to do it to a paladin? They're part of a -knightly order-! Generally, pissing one off will cause more to come after you. Any evil character stupid enough -not- to hide their evil aura's when they beleive they might be working with paladins deserves what they get, and to be frank, I've never seen a badly played paladin, only badly played evil characters who only ever want to murder/rape/pillage. Having a group of paladins turn up and smite them was a convient IC way to tell them to actully rub their two brain cells together to see if they can think of better things to do.
1. Any evil character who, in terms of RP, would have lived long enough to get away with their evil acts will be smart enough to hide it, and their aura, from paladins, hence why there shouldn't be a problem teaming a paladin with an evil character (in fact, one of the best evil characters I've seen actully got on well with my paladin, and it made for excellent RP when I found out he was evil)
2. If you do evil (or chaotic acts like looting), do it when the paladin isn't looking, its not that hard, really it isn't. And if you're not obviously evil, then what reason does the paladin have to distrust you? If they use detect evil, that means they relay on it, so if you're all clear, until proven otherwise, they shouldn't doubt.

Exactly, though I really dont see how looting is supposed to be evil or chaotic, sounds like a pretty neutral action to me...I mean they are dead, maybe killing them was evil but otherwise. Anyway, killing people left and right can only work in an evil party! If everyone around you is evil or if you come from an evil organization or society, then you can fight good and do evil openly because you got people to watch your back. But any evil character in a good party who kill people left and right would be either controlled by the rest of the party (like Belkar) or killed by the rest of the party! Evil people who only got 8 wis and/or int should still be smart enough to know they cant do that without getting killed or arrested in good society so they have to do it secretly.

My second favorite character after my barbarian, Olaf, was a NE rogue, Enialis. He was in a party where everyone else were good aligned (though I admit there was no paladin or cleric so nobody to detect my alignement which help a lot). I had lots of rank in bluff, diplomacy, hide and move silently...can you guess the rest? I'll give you one example, I love that one.

So we enter this tavern and in a corner there is an orc merchant with some bodyguards. We start eating and two NPC elves enter the tavern and start shouting at the orc. They said that they didnt want guys like him around here and that he should leave the city or they'll make him leave, I guess they had bad experience with orc before. The orc bodyguards protect him and it look like they are gonna fight. I take my rank in diplomacy and calm things down. I say to the elf that even if orcs are usually evils, this one is just a merchant and as done nothing wrong. Killing him would be beneath them.

It seems to calm them. The orc and his bodyguards thank me and I'm able to have a good look at the 3 purses on the merchant belt. Everyone, the orc, his bodyguards and the elves, sleep in the tavern this night. During the night, I kill the orc and the bodyguards and leave a trail of blood leading to the elves room and...I think you can guess the rest. I got 50 000 golds and some XP from this (I dont remember how much). As I said many times to the other players «Yeah sure, you know my character is evil, but how the hell would your character know?»

Anyway, if an evil character wanna do evil things when there is a paladin around, then the paladin must not know hes evil! A paladin shoudnt smite anyone they detect as evil but they would watch them, control them, try to redeem them or maybe capture them and, of course, if they are about do something evil then they can still smite them. I do think its stupid when a paladin nitpick about chaotic act like lying though, a paladin wont fall for a chaotic act, good should always be above law for a paladin so chaotic act really shoudnt bother them if it doesnt harm anyone.

Miko is a really bad example of paladin and the only reasons she never fell before seems to be because gods in OOTS (the people who determine who can be a paladin or not) arent the nicest folk around either. They created most evil creature for no other purpose then getting killed so I guess it never bothered them that Miko was smiting everyone she detected as evil for no reason.

By the way Tengu, I love that picture!

[Kreistor]

Hey, it's a Miko thread and Kreistor isn't picking a fight. Miko must be dead!

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Hey, it's a Miko thread and Kreistor isn't picking a fight. Miko must be dead!

It's a Necroed thread, and it's early. While it shouldn't be here, it's here, and while there hasn't been any fights, people are probably stretching in the back and getting in a last few minutes with the jumprope.

Give it time, give it time...

In fact here's a piece of flame-bait:

Miko is the greatest! All Paladins should be REQUIRED to act JUST LIKE HER!!!
:smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

Are you ready?!?! Are you ready?!?! Let's Get It On!

[Hopeless]

Which, incidentally, is utterly wrong.
Leading by example is all you need unless you've got a "Belkar" in the party, which incidentally, railroads the party in the opposite way.

I try that every time I run any character, however it doesn't help if the dm than promptly runs a paladin in a greyhawk campaign that makes Miko look reasonable in outlook!

Ignores the rest of the party even if they save his character's life, openly employs torture and will kill in cold blood overruling the others with only the greyhawk dm who is more sued to running chaotic characters perhaps unwilling to point out he's falling from grace even after my character in the group tries desperately to get through to him what he's doing is wrong...

Personally I don't think you've actually seen how badly a paldin has been played until you've run one or in my case ran a game where a player used his code without deliberately stretching the truth and make it a blessing rather than a curse.

Sorry I'm holding out hope they'll send Miko back with Roy so he can help redeeem her, just the thought of what scenes that will bring out in the strip is the source of that insanity!

Well that and Belkar's reaction!

[Green Bean]

Gasp! A rage-filled thread about Miko?

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h87/osiris32/citp.png

[Kreistor]

Heh, it is Necro'ed, and I didn't notice.

I agree, Miko was the greatest, but not for the reasons you state. No reason to get it on at all.

[GrayMatter]

I think the Giant doesn't likes Paladins and have a hard time writting about then.

There is no charisma, there is no grandeur and there is NO direct divine intervention outside a punitive one.

People forget a very important thing which is: Paladins are religious. If John McStab doesn't want to help, he knows the Gods are watching and, on due time, there will be judgment for all. You may offer the choice but I don't think you need to force it with down your wits all the time.

It may be "corny" or "cheesy" but I think Paladins live and die by a ideal.They don't need to be -naive- but they don't need to be little smartasses with a holy symbol.

Of course, you may have a preachy Paladin but won't someone wise find it constant whinning annoying and little effective? Shouldn't he soon find it better act then talk, and lead by example?

But more important, Giant Paladins are hardly likeable. Just look Durkon, which is constrained by almost all the problems of the class but have this quiet and noble behavior.


Please remember that the original purpose of this strip is to mock, satirize and otherwise poke flaming sticks of fun into the parts of the D&D world which are just kinda stupid. "Sneak Attack! Twice, even! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0018.html)" "Evasion! ;D" (URL="http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0018.html)

TG has repeatedly said that even though the strip has gotten more "serious", it will always remember its roots. I liked the char of Miko (in a kind of "opposites attract" way), but she was obviously a "ruled in" paladin type- follow the rules, and no matter what else happens, you're in. So she was intended to show how pally's should NOT be played (that's also from the forward in Paladin Blues, btw).
I was sorry when she died, but even then, TG got in a shot at the misconception that paladins were uber powerful chars "Nah" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0465.html).

But take heart, for Rich has now done the Dark Side of paladins. Therefore, there must be some Light Side action coming up :)

[NikkTheTrick]

Yeah, the Giant himself has admitted in No Cure to disliking Paladins. He finds them flawed because he thinks the code forces them to police their party members or anyone they come in contact with.
Reminds me of that time when I played BG2. When the main character was turned into a demon, that Paladin guy (old guy, named khelben or something like that) made a comment that they need to bring the character to the order and prosecute.

Gees, THANKS! Leader of your party that has been doing good all along now got turned into a demon (for a short while) because an evil guy sucked his soul away. And now you are making a comment that the poor guy is evil? I understand that the demon is threatening, BUT HAVE SOME COMMON DECENCY, PALADIN!

[Rangerdude]

Check out the Gray Guard. It's a new Paladin Prestige that requires I think at least 3 levels in Paladin, and you can be all like "Tell me where the necromancer is or I stick this sword right through your neck punk" or say stuff like that. They will do anything to win.

[Dunamin]

Thread necromancy is against the Rules of Posting, if I've understood correctly. :smallconfused:

[Paladin29]

People usually don´t like paladins because the paladins don´t allow any evil, not honorable or wrong act in their presence. People like to do what they want and get angry when someone remember them that they act wrong. i´m sorry but that is the problem with paladins (i have a large experience, i usually am a paladin in D&D)... and it reflects in the real life and it´s called: moral relativism.

[Fussy]

The problem with paladins is that they do rely a lot on other people to keep their class, and, as such, how to be a paladin is a confusing thing.

Take the 'no association with evil' thing. Miko travelled with Belkar. Does this count as association? Maybe not, but can a paladin infiltrate an evil organisation? This would definitely be association.

Another problem is how paladins interpret evil, and deal with it. Many monsters are born evil, but can change alignment and become forces for good (Drizzt being probably the most cliched example). However, a paladin coming across Drizzt as a child would have just seen an evil drow. Kill it? Imprison it? Would the gods have known what he was to become, and punished the paladin for killing him?

Paladins also have their alignment bestowed upon them by a god - unlike Roy, who is lawful good because of his actions. As such, anything a paladin does that is not explicitly evil/neutral/chaotic is considered to be lawful good, even if there are better ways of dealing with situations - see comic #189.

Miko admits that she could have made a gather information check, but rather she kills them - she took the less 'good' route, but because she is a paladin and they were bandits, it's OK. They were (she might assume) tied up by the OoTS, who she considers herself superior to, and as such she recognises these two as barely challenging. Therefore she could have just knocked them unconscious - but no, she killed them.

Paladins also tend to lack empathy towards anything that is not a paladin - see the same strip, where she does not feel for the father who just saw his daughter murdered. Instead, she ignores it. It was not important to her, she is a paladin, he is a bandit, Miko > bandits and Paladin > bandits, so she again asks for assistance. She does not acknowledge that an apology might be due (the father did warn his daughter against fighting Miko) because he is a bandit. This belief that only good people have emotions worth considering - and then it should really only be paladin's emotions - is what makes people believe paladins really are friendless, soulless w*nkers.

That's what Miko is, and (unfortunately) how a lot of new players like to play a paladin. If you're ever in a group with a paladin played like this, they will automatically assume that they are the leader and moral compass of the group.

It is possible to be a paladin and not act like this, however. This is also because the rules around being a paladin are so vague. It's possible for a paladin to be a nice, good person, who simply puts a lot of their trust in the law.

These are the two extremes of paladin-playing people come across, and are represented in Hinjo and Miko. I wouldn't say that Rich hates paladins, but merely that he acknowledges that they are perhaps among the most complicated classes to play well.

[Paladin29]

Miko is NOT a valid example of a paladin, i admit that a paladin usually have a stick in his ass (my paladins for example) but they are by definition good people who cares for the wellfare of others even evil people. If a paladin view a remote posibility to redeem an evil person he would try... "hate the sin, love the sinner".

[Kreistor]

Miko is NOT a valid example of a paladin, i admit that a paladin usually have a stick in his ass (my paladins for example) but they are by definition good people who cares for the wellfare of others even evil people. If a paladin view a remote posibility to redeem an evil person he would try... "hate the sin, love the sinner".

That is not necessary. Miko's interpretation does not violate the paladin's code, and in fact matches an example given in the Lawful Good alignment section in the PHB. You may choose to play your paladins such that they are merciful at every possible opportunity, but it is not inherent in the class.

[Fussy]

That is not necessary. Miko's interpretation does not violate the paladin's code, and in fact matches an example given in the Lawful Good alignment section in the PHB. You may choose to play your paladins such that they are merciful at every possible opportunity, but it is not inherent in the class.

Exactly. The point I was making is that I think Rich is pointing out that there are different ways of playing a paladin.

(To Paladin29)
You want proof that Miko is a valid way of playing a paladin? Here you go: She's a paladin. If she does anything that seems cruel or 'un-paladin-like', but still keeps her status as a paladin, then what she is doing is in keeping with the paladin code.

[NerfTW]

Thread necromancy is against the Rules of Posting, if I've understood correctly. :smallconfused:

It's been necro'ed twice.

It's double undead! Does that make it alive?

[Fussy]

Let's just leave it at:

- Miko is a paladin, and you can play one like her.

- Not many people will like you if you play like that.

- Not many people like Miko.

- Hinjo is also a valid way a playing a paladin.

- If you play a paladin like Hinjo, you may have friends.

And then stop talking about Miko.

[chrono]

Paladins annoy me because of all the controversy.
DnD has absolutely retarded alignment mechanics that are dysfunctional and reflect reality badly. And the paladin is more dependent on that retarded system than any other class.

So on one side you get people who say it's fine to genocide species and slaughter newborns if you see "evil" in the MM next to the creature's type. On the other side there are people who yell "fallen paladin" every time the paladin uses a harsh voice or something. The paladin code is a horrible ambiguity too - is it passed down by the one god you worship, or is it an absolute measure of good/evil (which isn't defined anywhere) or is it the laws of the paladin order or the inner beliefs of the paladin? All of those can be twisted around and/or abused and people tend to do just that.

I've played with paladins that beat other people to submission instead of talking/reasoning with them and I've played with paladins that didn't deal lethal damage of fear of falling.

Now this is all good if you're an idiot, but when paladins enter the discussion arena people just tend to drop common sense for some reason. So I dislike paladins because they encourage general stupidity (I blame WotC for doing a half-assed job on the class and alignment system).

[SoD]

People forget a very important thing which is: Paladins are religious. If John McStab doesn't want to help, he knows the Gods are watching and, on due time, there will be judgment for all. You may offer the choice but I don't think you need to force it with down your wits all the time.

No offense, but are you sure you know what you're talking about? This was the first thing I picked up on here. Paladins don't have to be religious, and devotion to goodness is enough.


There is no charisma, there is no grandeur and there is NO direct divine intervention outside a punitive one.

I think that Hinjo has a decent charisma, but doesn't respond well to having all the responsibility on his shoulders. He copes well, keeps his tactical decisions, but what happened to the 'rectum? I almost killed 'im!' guy we used to know? He just doesn't think that personable and leadership go well together.


It may be "corny" or "cheesy" but I think Paladins live and die by a ideal.They don't need to be -naive- but they don't need to be little smartasses with a holy symbol.

They don't actually need a holy symbol. That's the cleric. See my about comment.


Of course, you may have a preachy Paladin but won't someone wise find it constant whinning annoying and little effective? Shouldn't he soon find it better act then talk, and lead by example?

Anyone can play a preachy paladin, I guess. But saying what that player should find out and how they should change their actions? Not your decision mate. Plus, usually clerics are considered preachy over paladins, you know, because of the whole religion thing.


But more important, Giant Paladins are hardly likeable. Just look Durkon, which is constrained by almost all the problems of the class but have this quiet and noble behavior.

Hinjo is, see my above comment. Miko is, in her own, strange, scary way. Durkon is...not a paladin. Have you been talking about clerics the whole time?

[chrono]

@SoD: Paladins DO require a holy symbol, because they share some of the clerics' spells which require divine focus (hence a holy symbol).

Anyway, I think the badly articulated point above was that in the OotS comics Durkon is more paladin-like than the other paladins.
He's lawful good and he's really sticking to it (and always trying to do the right thing). You'll never see Durkon being unnecessarily violent, though he doesn't shy away from combat when attacked. He supports and helps his teammates and those in need and doesn't abuse anybody (even Roy who is also LG gives people verbal abuse every now and then, but Durkon never does). He respects authority (when Miko came to arrest them), etc, etc.

[Paladin29]

of course is my opinion, but only because Mr. Burlew says that Miko in HIS story is a paladin I am not obligated to agree. In fact if I was a DM, the "Player" of Miko will have only one warning before falling.

By definition a Lawfull GOOD character can´t be cruel, can´t slaughter children even if are goblins, allways show compassion, etc... no matter the cir****ances. The code of honor of a Paladin is paragon of the highest virtues, he must be better than others of good aligment, he must be compassionate, honorable, corageous and honest.

[Albub]

I hold much hatred for paladins if Miko is any sort of example.

[Nerd-o-rama]

What if she's a bad example?

[David Argall]

Another problem is how paladins interpret evil, and deal with it. Many monsters are born evil, but can change alignment and become forces for good (Drizzt being probably the most cliched example). However, a paladin coming across Drizzt as a child would have just seen an evil drow. Kill it? Imprison it?
Paladins, or other good for that matter, may not kill something merely for being evil. Killing is itself defined as evil. So there must be additional justification before the good can kill. That need not be much. He's evil and will do evil if he gets the chance, so you can automatically assume you are preventing a great deal of evil by killing him. Moreover, you have a strong assumption that whatever evil is happening is not a mistake or accident. But there is still that need to show additional reason before the good can kill the evil.


Paladins also have their alignment bestowed upon them by a god
Incorrect. The call to be a paladin comes from beyond the gods and is neither bestowed nor taken away by act of the gods, tho as we see in the case of Miko, they may well be involved. But of themselves, they can not make or unmake a paladin.


As such, anything a paladin does that is not explicitly evil/neutral/chaotic is considered to be lawful good,
Incorrect. Now we have a number of silly remarks on record saying this or that action of Miko's was evil and the simple fact she remained a paladin says they were not, but we have no such standard for neutral or chaotic acts, and the mere fact a paladin did something does not mean it is LG.


- see comic #189.
Miko admits that she could have made a gather information check, but rather she kills them - she took the less 'good' route, but because she is a paladin and they were bandits, it's OK.
a-Miko never learns they are bandits. She merely knew they were tied up people who attacked her when freed.
b-A gather information check was not the more good route. It merely would have led to a better result here [if Miko had 'rolled' well] because the attack would not have taken place. On moral grounds, her action [untying them] was superior since there was a presumption everyone would be better off. That it turned out wrong does not change that.


They were (she might assume) tied up by the OoTS, who she considers herself superior to, and as such she recognises these two as barely challenging. Therefore she could have just knocked them unconscious - but no, she killed them.
This is an excessive demand. Samantha had shown herself capable of defeating Miko [tho she might have to roll a one] and had threatened death. Assuming she could afford to use less effective tactics is called leading with your chin.


Paladins also tend to lack empathy towards anything that is not a paladin - see the same strip, where she does not feel for the father who just saw his daughter murdered. Instead, she ignores it. It was not important to her, she is a paladin, he is a bandit, Miko > bandits and Paladin > bandits, so she again asks for assistance.
Now Miko had the people skills of a rabid skunk, but a-again, she didn't know him to be a bandit, and b-she had a vital mission to complete. She was in the right in her fight with Samantha, so she merely asks him to carry out his promise.


If you're ever in a group with a paladin played like this, they will automatically assume that they are the leader and moral compass of the group.
Well of course. A paladin should assume he is the leader and moral compass in any group not headed by a higher level paladin.

[chrono]

I agree with most of the reasoning behind the previous post, but there's something about that encounter that still bothers me.

We know that Miko could have just stunned Samantha and beat the hell out of her without killing her. Miko knew that too.

Now a paladin is supposed to protect people (even if they don't appreciate it, which should be irrelevant to a LG person) - fighting Samantha with non-lethal force is at best a little bit more dangerous than using lethal force. A paladin should easily be able to make the following choice "Kill a (confused) person with a little risk to my health" vs "Save a life of a (confused) person with a little more risk to my health".

I'm using "confused" here because Miko has no information about the two. For all she knows, they could have been drugged (or charmed or whatever) and tied and they might not be attacking her out of their own will.

While Samantha was a viable threat, her father wasn't. Even if one could justify killing Samantha because she was a real threat, it's easy to assume that Miko could have at least subdued her father.

There's an example that I will use despite that I'm sure somebody will mis-interpret it. I've trained martial arts for quite a few years and I can break bones and joints and I can kill people with my bare hands if I put my mind to it. Now I'm not a LG person (more like TN), but if somebody comes up to me and tries to punch me with no explanation I will not immediately try to break a person's knee (which is both the easiest way to stop somebody and the most irreparably damaging). Even if we're fighting on equal grounds I'll try not to deal permanent physical damage if I feel that there's another way I can beat the person.
Yes, if there are multiple attackers and/or they're armed I'll use as much violence as I'm capable of, but that's a last resort - only if I'm absolutely sure that I'm fighting against overwhelming odds and/or my life is in danger.
So in a sentence - if Miko can take out her target easily (which she did) she can afford to subdue instead. Not doing so is not lawful, it's not good and it sure as hell isn't exhibiting some higher code of conduct or discipline. In this case her targets are humans, who to her were obviously the victims of something, that's one more reason to reason/subdue instead of one-offing them.

[Kreistor]

of course is my opinion, but only because Mr. Burlew says that Miko in HIS story is a paladin I am not obligated to agree. In fact if I was a DM, the "Player" of Miko will have only one warning before falling.

I give warnings before actions for a fall, but that is because of exactly reasons like this -- differences of opinion of the nature of good and evil.


By definition a Lawfull GOOD character can´t be cruel, can´t slaughter children even if are goblins,

That depends on the DM. It is up to the DM to decide if goblins are actually "sentient life" or just glorified predators.


allways show compassion,

Please provide a quote to prove this. Compassion is part of being good, but being good does not require constant compassion.


etc... no matter the cir****ances.

please crack open your PHB to page 105. First complete sentence on the page. "Allhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good." A paladin is allowed to treat evil beings, including sentient ones, without mercy and therefore without compassion towards them. Circumstances, in this case an evil opponent vs. a neutral one, does change the situation.


The code of honor of a Paladin is paragon of the highest virtues, he must be better than others of good aligment, he must be compassionate, honorable, corageous and honest.

That is opinion. Some feel that the Lawful part of the alignment is not the epitome of good, but in fact Chaotic is the greater good because you are unfettered.

The Code...

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.


Forgive me, but I don't see "compassion" included on that list. And honor is not that set in stone. If telling the truth would result in the death of an innocent, methinks that lying to save that life is not dishonorable. At worst, this would not be a gross violation of the Code, and the paladin would not fall. Merely violating a section of the code in a small way will not cause a fall: it takes a violation of a significant nature to cause that.

So, no, a Paladin can be non-compassionate, since it's not part of the Code. He can also lie, cheat, he can even be cowardly, so long as the violation is not a "gross" violation of the Code.

[Shatteredtower]

Now a paladin is supposed to protect people...Actually, no. Nothing in the paladin's code of conduct requires this. You are expected to help those in need, and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.


A paladin should easily be able to make the following choice "Kill a (confused) person with a little risk to my health" vs "Save a life of a (confused) person with a little more risk to my health".Sam said, "You'll serve me or you'll die!"

That tells her all she needs to know. This person, encountered in lawless lands, is willing to enslave her rescuer for her own purposes, and has announced that the options are enslavement or death. Her execution was mericifully quick.


While Samantha was a viable threat, her father wasn't.You mean the guy who defeated Roy (sans greatsword, admittedly) in single combat? The one with blades drawn and swinging at her? Definitely a threat, and one willing to back up a slaver in purported lands. The last thing she needs is him pursuing her with a vendetta.


Even if we're fighting on equal grounds I'll try not to deal permanent physical damage if I feel that there's another way I can beat the person. Yes, if there are multiple attackers and/or they're armed I'll use as much violence as I'm capable of, but that's a last resort - only if I'm absolutely sure that I'm fighting against overwhelming odds and/or my life is in danger.If you leave out important details, you're certainly going to be misunderstood. From the description you've just given, you've been poorly trained. Your goal should be no fight, not no loss.


Not doing so is not lawful..."If drawn upon, you may respond in kind."

"An eye for an eye."

"I am sorry. I already have a master."

It may offend you, but it's clearly lawful.


...it's not good..."Punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

Definitely good, even if the only innocent (in the sense of undeserving of her attacker's intentions) Miko was protecting was herself, which isn't the case. Miko can't leave Sam behind without leaving the next person to meet her at risk. She also can't turn her over to the authorities for violating the law, because there isn't any authority or law in this place.

And now that place is just a little bit safer.


...and it sure as hell isn't exhibiting some higher code of conduct or discipline.Of course it is. It clearly offends you, but that's of no importance.


In this case her targets are humans...Not relevant.


...who to her were obviously the victims of something...Yes -- of receiving their just desserts.


...that's one more reason to reason/subdue instead of one-offing them.They're a murderous slaver with magical powers and her capably armed father, both of whom have threatened her life -- and she's in pursuit of a band of dangerous criminals. Knocking them out would mean leaving them as someone else's problem, which is simply irresponsible.

[Kreistor]

You mean the guy who defeated Roy (sans greatsword, admittedly) in single combat? The one with blades drawn and swinging at her? Definitely a threat, and one willing to back up a slaver in purported lands. The last thing she needs is him pursuing her with a vendetta.

Now this I grossly disagree with. Pa was, up until Samantha attacked, trying to STOP the fighting. He gave every evidence of being a good man.

And he did not have his weapons drawn when Miko killed Sam. He didn't have them drawn until two panels after that. This woman just killed his daughter. Miko should be expecting him to be emotional and angry: he has every right to be. Unlike Miko, Pa knows that Sam could have gone with the obvious lethal threat of Lightning Bolt instead of the far-less-lethal Hold Person (which she might be using to enact the "Serve me" part of the sentence, not the "or die" part). To him, Miko just killed someone that was not clearly trying to kill her.

Even if Pa had started a vendetta, killing to avoid that result is not inherently good. It is a selfish killing, one to avoid problems down the road. Killing for selfish reasons is not a good thing. It might be a Neutral thing, but that's up to each person's opinion. The alignment section is not clear on whether killing a non-innocent for selfish reasons is Neutral or Evil.

What Miko did not do was attempt to pacify Pa in any way. He was going to be angry, and anyone that thinks you can kill someone's daughter and then demand their aid is just kidding themselves. Miko needed to at least try and calm him; instead, she makes demands with a lot of similarity to Samantha's own demands of Miko. This is simply provocation: she's trying to get Pa to attack her so she can justify to herself his murder. That, in my world, causes a Fall. It's a killing for convenience, and as smart as that is, it's evil in my campaigns.

[David Argall]

We know that Miko could have just stunned Samantha and beat the hell out of her without killing her. Miko knew that too.
We, and Miko, know nothing of the sort. Miko has reason to deem herself highly skilled, but also that there are foes she can't handle. Samantha is unknown to her, and is known to cast spells that might win the fight immediately. Miko likely deemed herself the clear favorite, but she also was aware there was a risk in holding back, and she had a very important mission to complete. Killing is entirely justified.


Now a paladin is supposed to protect people - fighting Samantha with non-lethal force is at best a little bit more dangerous than using lethal force.
A 20% chance is not a bit. And of course, Miko had no reason to assume daddy was going to stay out of the fight. Taking her out before he could get into the fight is clearly a good idea.


I'm using "confused" here because Miko has no information about the two. For all she knows, they could have been drugged (or charmed or whatever) and tied and they might not be attacking her out of their own will.
Miko had no reason to assume anything of the sort. Now, maybe if they had said something like "The Master needs servants like you.", but they act entirely like this is their idea and no such problem exists. This argument would require never attacking with lethal force.


While Samantha was a viable threat, her father wasn't. Even if one could justify killing Samantha because she was a real threat, it's easy to assume that Miko could have at least subdued her father.
It's an assumption that is dangerous to make. She has no real knowledge of his ability. Now she might reason that she is presumed to be able to beat the OOTS and the OOTS beat these two, but she does not know that the OOTS beat these two. All she really knows is that they have hostility to the OOTS, and there are lots of ways that need not limit their combat ability, such as the OOTS organizing a minion revolt, or some knock-out drops in the drinks. And again, she has a sacred mission that she does not want to endanger by giving this lug additional chances.


So in a sentence - if Miko can take out her target easily (which she did) she can afford to subdue instead.
This is doubtful in reality, and simply false under game rules.


Not doing so is not lawful, it's not good and it sure as hell isn't exhibiting some higher code of conduct or discipline.
You have someone attacking with lethal force. In some jurisdictions in reality, you can get in trouble responding the same way. But in game, you are fully justified. The PCs believe in "He started it. I finished it."


In this case her targets are humans, who to her were obviously the victims of something, that's one more reason to reason/subdue instead of one-offing them.
That they might have been victims in some way of an earlier crime gives them no immunity to punishment for more current crimes.


PHB to page 105. First complete sentence on the page. "Allhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good."
See Book of Exalted Deeds, p. 7 "Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times..."
Reconciling two absolutes like these can be work, but is not too difficult here. The key here is the offer. The paladin must fight evil full bore and without letup, but must be able to stop should there be signs that the evil might cease its evil.


Compassion is part of being good, but being good does not require constant compassion.
Webster's "Compassion: sorrow for the suffering ... of another ... with the urge to help". That makes it a pretty central part of being Good.

[Shatteredtower]

Now this I grossly disagree with. Pa was, up until Samantha attacked, trying to STOP the fighting. He gave every evidence of being a good man.Quite possibly. Nevertheless, he attacked her.

He attacked her for having killed his daughter in an act of self-defence -- the daughter who'd stated, "Hey, you'll be our first new minion," and made it abundantly clear that minions didn't get a choice. Pa was part of that "our" and he didn't contradict her on the issue of forcing people into service.


And he did not have his weapons drawn when Miko killed Sam.True. It's not the drawing of the weapons that got him killed. It was the use of them.


He didn't have them drawn until two panels after that. This woman just killed his daughter. Miko should be expecting him to be emotional and angry: he has every right to be.Yes, he had the right to be angry. Likewise, she had every right to cut him down for attacking her.


To him, Miko just killed someone that was not clearly trying to kill her.If a person with a tranquilizer gun was to declare, "Serve me or die!" before opening fire, a reasonable person is not going to assume that paralysis-inducing efforts are intended to put the target into a listening mood.


Even if Pa had started a vendetta, killing to avoid that result is not inherently good.Pa started the vendetta the moment he swung. He was in league with her attacker, yet she made no move against him until he attacked her. Nothing selfish about that at all.


What Miko did not do was attempt to pacify Pa in any way.I don't know; he looked pretty peaceful to me at the end.

But seriously, from what we know of her people skills, why would she try something that was almost certain not to work.


He was going to be angry, and anyone that thinks you can kill someone's daughter and then demand their aid is just kidding themselves.She made no demands. She made a request. She didn't kill him for refusing, nor even for cooperating with an evil person.


Miko needed to at least try and calm him...It is doubtful that this approach ever worked for Miko before, considering what we know of her people skills. Best she sticks to what she knows.


...instead, she makes demands with a lot of similarity to Samantha's own demands of Miko.

"You'll serve me or you'll die! Hold Person!"
"I must again request your assistance in finding the 'Order of the Stick'."

That's similar in the way pears and parakeets are similar for both being green.


This is simply provocation: she's trying to get Pa to attack her so she can justify to herself his murder.Your assertion is not supported by the strip in question.

[Charles Phipps]

While Samantha was a viable threat, her father wasn't. Even if one could justify killing Samantha because she was a real threat, it's easy to assume that Miko could have at least subdued her father.


Ummmm?

What?

EVERY character, I have every played across EVERY alignment would have killed them both. A few of them would have twisted the knife even more slowly on her father because of the abyssmal job of parenting he did.

Both deserved to die and it was justice well served.

They were EVIL.

Maybe not as powerful as Xyrkon but they'll be sharing a place with him in the Abyss.

[pswbr]

Paladins are crap!

They destroy the party. Every party have a less morally "right" character (like rogues), or a I-dont-care morally inclined (like mages). The paladin lead the group to ruin. They make the characters kill each other, or disband because opinion difference. I have a hard hatred against paladins, because every time I saw them in a party, they lead them to ruin.

often, the smartest thing to do (and that which grant more survivality) is not the goodest thing to do. and that choice is what make the difference between the party's life or death.

In a hack and slash campaign, or an easy-choices campaign, paladins are acceptable. But when you play in a campaign strongly roleplay oriented, where there are many more difficult threats than monsters, smart choises make the differece between life and death, And definitly a party have no room to a character that cuts 70% the freedom of the group.

[Kreistor]

See Book of Exalted Deeds, p. 7 "Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times..."
Reconciling two absolutes like these can be work, but is not too difficult here. The key here is the offer. The paladin must fight evil full bore and without letup, but must be able to stop should there be signs that the evil might cease its evil.


David, in past conversations you have manipulated quotes to your own advantage by removing context and entire sentences -- splicing together two sentences to make it appear that what you needed it to say was what was said. I don't trust anything you quote that I cannot verify.

And besides, that quote conflicts with the PHB. The PHB always takes precedence, since it is Core and BoED is not. You're quoting an optional rule.


Pa started the vendetta the moment he swung. He was in league with her attacker, yet she made no move against him until he attacked her. Nothing selfish about that at all.

You stated that she killed him to avoid a vendetta, not just because he attacked first. Are you rescinding your previous statement about the vendetta? That was not in her mind? You don't get both. Either she was provoking him to justify killing him to avoid a vendetta, or she killed him only because he attacked first, and the thought of vendetta was not in her mind.

But on to more...

She has a horse. She can easily flee the situation with Pa and leave him. She can escape easily because at first he's shocked at his daughter's death, so he pauses giving her time to open a gap between them, and once on her mount Pa has only his feet. He's shown evidence of being good (attempting to prevent the fighting, retains weapons in sheaths during the fight, obviously not expecting it to go lethal), and has not shown any evidence of intent to kill her until after Miko stands there holding a sword in his face making a "request". (I tend to take requests from armed killers as demands, myself.)


But seriously, from what we know of her people skills, why would she try something that was almost certain not to work.

If that's her thought pattern, then you can't justify the statement she does make. If she thinks so little of her people skills, then she won't expect her "request" to work, either. The fact is that she does attempt conversation with him, and chooses to make an impossible request from a man looking at his dead daughter. If an attempt to avoid fighting Pa via conversation won't work, then neither will a request of any kind. Which means it wasn't a request -- it was either a kindly-worded and violence-backed demand, or a provocation to grant self-justification for murder.


She made no demands. She made a request. She didn't kill him for refusing, nor even for cooperating with an evil person.

A request from an armed killer is a demand. She is holding a sword up towards a man whose weapons are sheathed. She is making a request for aid, immediately after demonstrating that she a killer, and given her lack of emotion at killing, she can be called pretty danged cold-blooded. The threat is implicit in her actions and her stance -- bloody and presenting her blade.


"I must again request your assistance in finding the 'Order of the Stick'."

While presenting the blade still dripping with the man's daughter's blood and possibly moving towards him, after the man was pleading for a non-violent end to the conversation and while not wielding his weapons. You're ignoring the cntext of the situation. A mob thug can say the same words as Miko and be interpreted as making a demand. The context of the situation includes the previous violent death of the man's daughter. You don't think that fact affects the interpretation of the words she uses?

Let's look at it this way. Does Miko know Sam can cast Lightning Bolt? No. Sam does not use an instantly lethal spell on Miko when she could have, Miko doesn't know that, so people give her the benefit of the doubt that allows her to kill Samantha inside the restrictions of LG.

Does Pa know that Miko is Lawful Good and will not attack him first, despite waving a sword in his face? No. it is the same situation. You're trying to judge Miko's response based solely on Pa's actions, and not Miko's own leading up to the event. Miko has demonstrated that she is a killer. She has provided no evidence that she is a paladin, or that her alignment is Good. To Pa, she can be chaotic evil, and Miko knows that. Pa will attack her, whether he is LG or CE: it's pretty much the same response for every alignment when you watch someone murder your daughter. But Miko does know something about Pa. Pa is not inherently evil: he argues to Sam to avoid confrontation with Miko. Miko did not use Detect Evil, or she would never have offered to travel with them in the first place (breaks her Code). The evidence Miko has states that Pa was in a crappy situation, with a daughter that had gone evil. There is no Good reason for him to die, since he's a reasonable man stuck in an unfortunate situation, and not obviously an evil man.

Except to prevent the man from hunting her down, just like you said. Avoid the vendetta! It's the smart thing to do! Unfortunately, that's a selfish reason to kill someone that was pleading for nonviolence. And, as I said, that act is a Neutral one for some DM's. For me, it's Evil.


Your assertion is not supported by the strip in question.

That's not for you (or I) to judge. Your opinion is still only opinion, whether it's judging the strip or my statements. The jury can judge for themselves.

[Charles Phipps]

I have a hard hatred against paladins, because every time I saw them in a party, they lead them to ruin.

And what about Chaotic Evil characters in a party of Lawful Goods?

[the_tick_rules]

a paladin can be a difficult class. one main problem is way too many think of a miko-like person when they think of a paladin. as said above it's all about the person who plays them.

[The Extinguisher]

The problem I find people have with Paladin's is that they depend on others alignments, and force the party to go with the more good option.

The problem is, you're not supposed to throw a paladin into an evil party or even a mostly neutral parties. Paladin's are GOOD characters. Which means a GOOD party.

A Chaotic Good (sometimes Neutral) person should have no problem with a Paladin in a party. Sure, the two might butt heads over ethical stuff, but in the the end, thier both doing good. And Paladin's don't have to care about chaotics in the the party.

So stop playing Paladins in parties that just may decide to do some evil eventually.

[SoD]

@SoD: Paladins DO require a holy symbol, because they share some of the clerics' spells which require divine focus (hence a holy symbol).

Well, while we're cracking open the PhB about alingment, lets look at that topic. Page 43, right up at the top. It's about paladins a religion.


Religion: A paladin need not devote herself to a single deity--devotion to righteouss is enough.

Please not, I'm not denying the fact that some paladin spells need a divine focus, just the fact that they shouldn't. If they don't follow a paticular god, wouldn't that be a good reason to not carry a holy symbol in the first place? ''Oh, I'm a paladin. Sorry, no, I can't cast some spells because I'm not religious.''

I think that, for non-religious paladins, divine focus, instead of reading as 'holy symbol' should read 'paladin symbol'.

Sorry if this isn't fully coherent, but it's still a tad early for me.

[Paladin29]

wow, so many post since my las posting.. well i only will say that yes.. it was my opinion, but i think that a paladin must guide himself by the spirit of the description of the class and not by the letter (as Roy said to Miko). A paladin is a difficult class because the player have less freedom, he must be an example to the rest of the party of all good virtues, allways doing the best no matter the personal cost. If he is in a imposible situation and must choose between two evils, he must choose the lesser one, and later must ask for forgiveness to his gods and impose himself a penance (for example, if I must to lie to save a live, following the example that was mentioned, I will lie, but later I will get a self punishment... like a vow of silence during a year).

[jamroar]

Well, while we're cracking open the PhB about alingment, lets look at that topic. Page 43, right up at the top. It's about paladins a religion.


That is also what the PHB says about clerics and religion - "some clerics devote themselves no to a god, but a cause", which is clearly politically correct nonsense (and makes classes like the favored soul and ur-priest redundant fluff wise). At that point, you might as well call clerics and paladins White Wizards and be done with it.

[chrono]

I'm not sure why people think Samantha is a Uber-sorcerer who could potentially take out Miko with ease in a round or so. Miko took monk levels, which are important because:
-Samantha is a caster - she has potentially low fortitude saves (stunning fist)
-Samantha is an arcane caster - potentially low hp
-Samantha didn't have time to prepare - so no mage armor (potentially low AC)
-Samantha was obviously hurt (she still has the bleeding arrow wounds) and no evidence of magic items on her - potentially abysmal HP and abysmal AC

So Miko could use non-lethal unarmed attack with no attack penalty and still do enough damage to take out a caster in a round or maximum two. Also, -4 to attack for a character with a high attack bonus vs an unprepared caster is nowhere near 20% more chance of dying? (wow, I have no idea how you came up with that...)

Also, yes, someone pointed out that in DnD you'd kill anybody who draws a weapon against you without a second thought. That's my point... If you go around a world where you farm anything that moves for XP then you're playing WoW. A consistent world with a consistent justice system will not allow that. Even ignoring that, paladins are supposed to stand on the higher moral ground - Miko is a bad example because she just tends to kill things without evidence aka "I'm righteous because it says Paladin in my char sheet and they're obviously attacking me so they're obviously evil and they obviously have to die". Miko is a parody of just those people who find things so obvious.

It's tricky to play a paladin, because it's based on a flawed system that contradicts itself (as pointed out).

@Shatteredtower: just picking things out of thin air doesn't make a valid argument. Or did we ever see that "An eye for an eye" is an Azure City law?
If paladins aren't there to protect the good, what are they there for? To just kill baddies? That's kind of reasoning ensues because people look at the mechanics and throw away RP and common sense.

I agree that Miko had no reason to assume that the two were evil, but she also didn't bother to check and ensure otherwise. Samantha could well be just a teenager with an attitude problem. But they're in Miko's way so off with their heads - who cares about trial or jury. And it matters that they are humans because this excludes the excuse "they were beasts, they deserved to die". Anyway, Samantha's father didn't attack and we're not so sure if he's THAT strong, since in their fight Roy took himself out with a rhino). Miko never gave him a chance to surrender.

I somehow doubt that in Azure City anybody who drew a weapon was one-offed "mercifully" by the nearest standing paladin. Then again, that's just me - I'm sure many will say that perhaps the bastion of law and order did so well because of capital punishment without a trial.

Also, you're being silly and needlessly offensive. If your goal is "no fight" then you might join the debating society and strive to be the next Ghandi. Or failing that, join the athletics team and focus on running. But for the rest of us, there are some situations where you are attacked and there's no avoiding conflict.

@SoD: I assumed "holy symbol" is a symbol of one's faith (whether in a god or in some code) rather than the effigy or seal of a particular god. As such it seems perfectly normal for a paladin without a chosen god to have his sword as his holy symbol, or perhaps a symbol of his/her order.

Edit:
Samantha says: serve me or die. Miko kills her.
Miko says: come be sentenced to death (by laws you are not bound by). OOTS says: who are you and what do you want (they try to reason with her even well after the battle has began).
Do you see the difference there?

[SoD]

Fair enough, am I to understand that our individual misagreement is put under the case of same words/different interpretation? Because I personally have seen a holy symbol to be the symbol of a God, whereas a divine focus for the unreligious (here, the paladin with no patron deity) a paladin symbol. And as for 'clerics of a cause' pff. I dislike them. Strongly.

[Fussy]

It's the problem that anything a paladin does that isn't obviously chaotic/evil/neutral is lawfull because because it was a paladin that did it.

Some paladins use 'I'm a paladin' as a justification for anything they do. That's wrong.

Justification should be 'it was the right thing to do', which can't be applied to Miko's killing of Samantha and her father.

[Kreistor]

wow, so many post since my las posting.. well i only will say that yes.. it was my opinion, but i think that a paladin must guide himself by the spirit of the description of the class and not by the letter (as Roy said to Miko). A paladin is a difficult class because the player have less freedom, he must be an example to the rest of the party of all good virtues, allways doing the best no matter the personal cost. If he is in a imposible situation and must choose between two evils, he must choose the lesser one, and later must ask for forgiveness to his gods and impose himself a penance (for example, if I must to lie to save a live, following the example that was mentioned, I will lie, but later I will get a self punishment... like a vow of silence during a year).

"Spirit" is a matter of opinion. The fact is that they have made the Paladin an easier class to play over the years. The Code has become less restrictive and absolute in 3.0. You may be playing by the spirit of an earlier version, but that doesn't make current players under the current rules wrong in their implementation.

[Paladin29]

Yes, as i said from the beginning it´s an opinion. I am an old rpg player, perhaps i am obsolete, but i like to think about paladins as a paragon of all nobles ideals of humanity, wich means a lot of restrictions in his behaviour. I can´t discuss the rules but i must insist that even by the modern rules Miko would fall sooner, as well as any paladin who kill defendless inocents, even goblins. But it´s Mr. Burlew comic, he can do anything he wants and i have a lot of fun with it :)

[Iranon]

Samantha doesn't have to be an über-powerful sorcerer to be a credible threat. Being one botched roll away from death equals mortal danger, even with Miko's ridiculous saving throws.

Strictly speaking, it could be argued that very few deaths are necessary since by the rules it's ridiculously easy to subdue without causing lasting harm even if one has no training in that.
Same as generally ignoring permanent harm even without magical healing, that is a fact of the game table, not facts of life in the setting (personally, I prefer systems where ordinary 'mortal danger' isn't inconsequential on all but the lowest character levels, but that is not relevant to this).

However, by D&D standards Good != aversion to bloodshed. A pacifist who would rather die than strike a fellow sentient being is as reconcilable with a Good alignment as a fanatical crusader who relishes the violent slaying of evildoers. Of course, there are some contradictions (D&D rulebooks are notorious for making absolute statements that directly contradict one another, sometimes within one paragraph.), but the overwhelming majority of material supports this.

If the killing of Samantha (threat of lethal force or magical enslavement, unprovoked attack, lawless area, possible ally) isn't acceptable for a paladin, they are in need of far-reaching reforms. A good first step would be to turn in those Holy Avengers for Holy Pacifiers; staffs, jittes or something similar - a sword is, after all, a weapon specifically designed to kill sentient beings.
Extensive training in nonlethal combat would be a requirement, up to compulsory levels in a spellcasting class.



Dad is a far more interesting case. He wished to resolve the situation peacefully, but circumstances implied he condoned the magical enslavement practiced by his daughter. Even given her social ineptitude, Miko's conduct seemed an attempt to provoke a reaction. My first reaction was 'Wow, that is cold'. There are several ways to read it:

'Erm... I was just continuing our earlier conversation': Miko might have been naive enough/confused enough about how to proceed that this was the only alternative to an awkward silence.

'Give me a reason to kill you': This is very vey dangerous ground for a paladin. Killing because it is expedient seems unacceptable, but so does leaving dangerous bandits to go free. There was no authority to hand him over to and delaying a mision of utmost importance for a minor bandit lord might be an inexcusable dereliction of duty in the first place.
If that was the implied meaning and I was a DM, she'd be under close scrutinity; there was no acceptable way out but it's evidence for an attitude unbecoming of a paladin.
If we made paladins always fall whenever there's no elegant course of action, the logical conclusion would be 'here's the Atonement the doctor prescribed, and don't make any strenuous moral decisions for the next few days' - BORING.

'Show me whether I need to kill you': That is how it came across to me; I honestly think she expected to have a fight to the death but wanted to give him an option to avoid it. What would she have done if he'd be irresponsive with grief or accosted her in a nonviolent/nonlethal manner? We don't have much in the ways of clues.
Miko demonstrated after the fight with the ogres that she follows a rigid code to the letter and possibly in spirit while interpreting it in a rather harsh way. Both scenes gave evidence that she considers her words/actions her responsibility, not how they are perceived (implication that she would fight alone/possible implied threat). She seemed remarkably at ease with this hard-bitten interpretation of her code.

Given how driven she generally appeared, I wouldn't be surprised if she considered it her duty to be as effective a force of Good as she coud and wilfully operated very close to the constraints of her code. Or maybe she simply enjoyed smiting anything that looked like a deserving target; her attack on Belkar shortly after Shojo's death makes this likely.

Either way, Miko seemed a very harsh paladin, but not necessarily a bad one.

***

Some players seem to reduce anything to the rules... so far as to believe there are only 9 different personalities (the one correct way to play each alignment). Nothing says all paladins must agree on every moral issue. Paladin 1 might accuse paladin 2 of being too quick to use violence in the face of comparatively minor Evil. Paladin 2 might accuse paladin 1 of shirking responsibility and endangering innocents by not acting decisively enough. Even if paladins aren't allowed shades of gray, there's still... erm, glaring brilliant white and soft soothing white.

If there was a Grand Unified Code of Everything, there wouldn't be a reason to roleplay paladins in the first place since there'd be one obvious course of action in any given situation.

[David Argall]

that quote conflicts with the PHB. The PHB always takes precedence, since it is Core and BoED is not. You're quoting an optional rule.
Assuming they are used at all, optional rules rank core rules. Otherwise the optional rule could never be used.
However, the point here is that you are basing your argument on part of a sentence, to cover a subject that people have written entire books on. And the writers of 3rd ed are not ethical experts nor particularly interested in the subject.
Now when we start asking what is good, the idea of mercy is quick to pop up. So the idea that the wording "without mercy" in fact means exactly that is suspect. It sounds not good. BED confirms that the meaning is more general. Even when a good character attacks evil without mercy, one must be merciful.


You don't get both. Either she was provoking him to justify killing him to avoid a vendetta, or she killed him only because he attacked first, and the thought of vendetta was not in her mind.
Does not follow. He attacked and thus was a justifiable target of lethal damage. Attempting to take him alive some way had a variety of drawbacks, one of which was that he might attempt a vendetta.
It is unlikely Miko considered the point that closely at the time, but she was a highly skilled professional, one we would assume has had encounters like this before, and would automatically put into actions standards she didn't bother to consider at the time.


She has a horse. She can easily flee the situation with Pa and leave him.
There are problems. The horse was last seen on the other side of dad, which may mean her escape this way is cut off. And while Miko can likely mount as a free action, as a minimum, that allows an aoo, and probably a charge attack. Since the scene is assuming weapons are much more deadly than D&D rules would say, her ability to escape is suspect.

But we are "playing" D&D here. Our heros are never under a moral duty to flee rather than kill someone. Quite the reverse, when the other guy starts to swing, he is pretty much XP for the harvest from then on.


Miko stands there holding a sword in his face making a "request". (I tend to take requests from armed killers as demands, myself.)
Pa does not treat that request as important. Rather he repeats the justification that Miko killed his daughter.


While presenting the blade still dripping with the man's daughter's blood and possibly moving towards him,
Assuming the artwork is that precise is dangerous, but to the extent we can tell, Pa was moving towards Miko, not Miko towards Pa.


after the man was pleading
A whispered "Ah...I don't think..." is not pleading.

A mob thug can say the same words as Miko and be interpreted as making a demand. [/quote]
Not really. Mob thug or otherwise, both parties had a deal before the death, and a request that the deal be honored is an obvious subject of conversation. That the request needs to be carefully worded is something that Miko found out.


Sam does not use an instantly lethal spell on Miko when she could have,
The spell was effectively save or die. That it might not have killed her even if successful means little here. Hold Person here was the same as kidnapping, and killing the kidnapper is an acceptable defense.


Does Pa know that Miko is Lawful Good and will not attack him first, despite waving a sword in his face? No. it is the same situation. You're trying to judge Miko's response based solely on Pa's actions, and not Miko's own leading up to the event.
Well, of course. What do you think the cop is going to do when he is told "Lady S attacked Lady M with criminal intent. M responded and killed S in self defense. Then Man P objects to the death of S and attacks with lethal weapons. M then killed P."? He fills out some paperwork and lets M go home.


That's not for you (or I) to judge. Your opinion is still only opinion, whether it's judging the strip or my statements. The jury can judge for themselves.
Except it is not going to get to a jury. There would not even be an arrest, and if there was, charges would be dismissed before trial. You are the one offering an opinion, and one without evidence to support it.


I'm not sure why people think Samantha is a Uber-sorcerer who could potentially take out Miko with ease in a round or so.
Because she cast a spell that could do so. Miko had a decent Will save [+8?], but there was at least a 25% chance she would have failed the save [DC17?] and been at the mercy of her foe.


Miko took monk levels,
So Miko could use non-lethal unarmed attack with no attack penalty and still do enough damage to take out a caster in a round or maximum two.
Miko rather obviously does much more damage when using her swords. So we can generalize this as giving Samantha one more chance to force a save or die that Miko might fail. That can easily exceed a 20% chance.


Also, -4 to attack for a character with a high attack bonus vs an unprepared caster is nowhere near 20% more chance of dying?
Take a look at all the trouble players go to for even a +2. When you ask for someone to take a -4 penalty, you are demanding something few players are willing to accept.


yes, someone pointed out that in DnD you'd kill anybody who draws a weapon against you without a second thought. That's my point... If you go around a world where you farm anything that moves for XP then you're playing WoW. A consistent world with a consistent justice system will not allow that.
Incorrect, or rather exaggerated. You don't farm just anything, but you do casually kill the offender, and many societies have found this acceptable.


Even ignoring that, paladins are supposed to stand on the higher moral ground - Miko is a bad example because she just tends to kill things without evidence aka "I'm righteous because it says Paladin in my char sheet and they're obviously attacking me so they're obviously evil and they obviously have to die". Miko is a parody of just those people who find things so obvious.
But Miko is not called to account on it. Rather it is shown she does have that right.


Samantha's father didn't attack
Pop attacked, and missed.


Samantha says: serve me or die. Miko kills her.
Miko says: come be sentenced to death (by laws you are not bound by). OOTS says: who are you and what do you want (they try to reason with her even well after the battle has began).
Do you see the difference there?
I do see the OOTS was willing to kill her, and would not have considered it sinful or any stain on their status if they had done so. See 201 for some of the details.
So if the party can kill Miko for such a demand, Miko can kill Samantha for an even less justified demand.

[MrCustomer]

It shouold be noted that the other Paladins make many negative comments on Miko's behaviour. Clearly other Paladins in OOTS find her to be fanatic, self righteous and preachy b***h, she is even sent on the furthest, longest missions simply to get her out of town. Miko in OOTS is an example of a Paladin going astray, and not as Paladins in general.

Although she is also an example of Paladin PCs who roleplay them as extremely arrogant religeous extremes, and end up dragging the rest of the party around by their noses to fit their definition of "righteous causes" indeed she forces the party to run off on a sidequest and orders them around with a sense of self superiority.

The Paladins in AC may still be self-righteous, but they are also bound by the Laws of the land, which insists on fair trials and the rights of prisoners, they are also lead by a non-paladin ruler and a secular government of the various non-paladin lords of the city. The citizens of the city certainly don't look oppressed, nor do they resent the Paladins, and the festival shows a happy populace with a great deal of freedom.

Miko is doing nothing wrong, other then her attitude. Annoying, arrogant and fanatical, yes. But she clearly is going on the wrong path. Her fanatical ways will eventually bring about her downfall. But this is reflected of her as an individual, not as Paladins in general.

[MrCustomer]

It's the problem that anything a paladin does that isn't obviously chaotic/evil/neutral is lawfull because because it was a paladin that did it.

Some paladins use 'I'm a paladin' as a justification for anything they do. That's wrong.

Justification should be 'it was the right thing to do', which can't be applied to Miko's killing of Samantha and her father.

Miko released them from capture on the express offer from them of being allies against a common, evil foe (well thought to be evil, Roy was showing up as being Evil because of the crown)

Samantha threatened and then attacked Miko. She cast Hold Person on her, with the intent of enslaving Miko as her minion. Samantha also shows herself as being a powerful wizard, very capable of using magic against Miko.

Not only is this self defence to attack the Sorceress, since the next spell could be disintegrate, fireball, or any number of mind enslavement spells, but Samantha clearly made her intent to enslave Miko as her minion and raise a force "You'll be our first new minion" Miko has a duty not to be inslaved and used for the forces of Evil, these two now pose a threat not only to Miko herself but to others as well.

After the Father declares himself an ally, the two emmediately betray Miko and attack her, making declarations of enslaving other minions for intentions that can only be assumed to be evil.

Father "We'll gladly help you..." He is talking about both of them

They are released.

Samantha "You'll be our first new minion" she is talking about both of them

Samantha "you work for us now" again refers to both of them.

Miko can only come to the conclusion that they are both betraying her, as they both use plural references. Despite this Miko attempts to explain ignore their threats and demands and solve the issue diplomatically. She refuses to serve them but still offers them an alliance. She hasn't even drawn her weapons.

Samantha "or you'll die" She then attacks and casts a spell.

Miko is forced to attack at this point, or else face more spells. There really is no other options other then surrender and be enslaved for the purposes of evil.

She then faces the other opponent. Despite their betrayal (Samantha declared "us" and "our" plural and was speaking for both of them) Miko offers the father a chance to stand down and observe his offer of an alliance. He then Draws his weapons and the fight is on, Miko acts, again in self defense.

Did Miko do wrong with what she said to him after killign his daughter? Good question, but:

-She may not be aware of their relationship until he states "you killed my daughter" it is generally the highest word bubble that is said first in a comic, so it seems to me that Miko could have made the offer to continue the alliance and stand down despite their betrayal without knowing their relationship as father and daughter.

-Although she shows no sympathy for the man's daughter, this could be simply a result of a lousy diplomacy skill on Miko's part. She tries to stop further combat but fails her diplomacy roll

-Given that they betrayed her as soon as they were released, Miko may be trying to intimidate him into surrendering. Probably what I would try in this circumstance.

-The Father is clearly enraged, he repeats you killed my girl, and draws his weapons. Most likely in this case nothing that Miko would do or say would prevent him from attacking.

When the fight is finished, Miko calls it a "tragedy" and ponders on how it could have been done better "this could have been avoided if I had just made a Gather Information check instead" Miko realizes it was a mistake to have released them so trustingly.

Also remember that the comic is building her up to appear as a mysterious foe, hunting the party, and this scene is meant to add suspense and danger. Notice how easy she dispatches Samantha and her father, while hardly blinking. The scenes thus far with her are attempting to make her appear as some force of evil, and are avoiding showing that she is actually a Paladin to keep the suspense up. Under that setting, showing her casting detect evil, or debating the morality of the situation, or saying something like "I do not wish to harm you, for lo, I am a holy warrior and come in a mission of peace, I will see that your daughter is raised" would entirely blow the storyline that is being worked.

[Kreistor]

However, the point here is that you are basing your argument on part of a sentence, to cover a subject that people have written entire books on.

Part of a sentence? Not, it is based on a description of a character that meets the description of the entire rule concerning Lawful Good alignment. It is an example of the implementation of the rule, not a part of a rule. That example is a valid lawful good character which provides intent on the part of the authors.


And the writers of 3rd ed are not ethical experts nor particularly interested in the subject.

Then you are using houseruled alignment. The alignment section is a rule, regardless on the ethical standing of the authors. External sources are houserules, and invalid in a debate about what DnD alignment concerns. The only relevant sources for alignment is the alignment sections of the WotC products.


Now when we start asking what is good,

No, when you ask about "good" you use whatever you want. I am not concerned with what you think is good in the real world: considering your gross manipulation of sources and invention of whatever you need to prove a point, I am pretty much going to say you don't have a clue what real good is. You are not qualified to judge what is good, and so I reject your entire suggestion of how to determine what is good.

I know this because we have done this dance before. I reject anything you bring into this argument that is not Core. Period. It is not relevant to a discussion about a game. I will not discuss real life good and evil on this forum, because I do not intend to violate the terms of use and lose my login. If you want to break the forum rules, feel free.


Does not follow.

Yes, it does.

1) Miko killed Sam.
2) Father is shocked.
3) Miko speaks to Pa, requesting his aid.

Since she made th choice to speak to him, she either"
a) expects him to ignore that she killed Sam and reply positively
b) expects him to ignore that she killed Sam and reply negatively
c) is not expecting a reply

If a or b, then she has chosen to not try to calm Pa down, despite knowing that she can't succeed at conversation. She has chosen a verbal option and so she has not rejected calming Pa down based on a self-belief in her own inadequacies, but on some other basis. many of those possibilities reject the concept of her being Lawful Good for any period of time.

If c, then she is speaking as a provocation. She doesn't expect a response, so she expects him to take vengeance, and so her words are designed to get him to attack her first.

That he attacked first after her conversation is irrelevant to her intent at the time of her speaking.


Attempting to take him alive some way had a variety of drawbacks, one of which was that he might attempt a vendetta.

And that's my point. Killing him to avoid a vendetta is selfish -- smart, but selfish. Killing for selfish reasons is never Good. Whether it is Evil or Neutral is up to the DM.


It is unlikely Miko considered the point that closely at the time, but she was a highly skilled professional, one we would assume has had encounters like this before, and would automatically put into actions standards she didn't bother to consider at the time.

Professional is not inherently good. Evil people can be professional, too.


There are problems. The horse was last seen on the other side of dad, which may mean her escape this way is cut off.

She killed Sam in one blow. She knows Pa is no threat: he's already beat up. She can also try things like Trip, Sunder, Disarm, or a variety of other attacks to buy her the time to flee.


Since the scene is assuming weapons are much more deadly than D&D rules would say, her ability to escape is suspect.

Pa and Sam were fresh off a fight with the OotS, which left them damaged and easy kills.


But we are "playing" D&D here. Our heros are never under a moral duty to flee rather than kill someone.

A Dm can create a situation in which fleeing is the moral option if he wishes. No rule prevents it. A horde of dominated children commanded to kill the PC's comes to mind, especially if their families are there pleading wit the PC's not to harm their children. I also suggest you take a look at the "Midnight" campaign setting (third party). The setting is one in which evil rules. If the PC's kill evil in the wrong place at the wrong time, the consequence is an army many times more powerful than the PC's coming down and slaughtering the town for rebellion. It's allowed, just not common.


Pa does not treat that request as important. Rather he repeats the justification that Miko killed his daughter.

Gee, and you think Miko is so stupid as to not be able to predict his response? Miko lacks charisma, not intelligence. I think the fact Pa ignored the request is demonstration that Miko got what she wanted, which was for Pa to attack in order to provide herself with justification to kill him. In fact, that's the foundation of my argument, so you really haven't done much saying that.


Assuming the artwork is that precise is dangerous, but to the extent we can tell, Pa was moving towards Miko, not Miko towards Pa.

I said "possibly": I did not assume anything. But given Pa is stunned by his daughter's death and he is not drawing weapons (allowed during a move action), while Miko is fully cognizant of her situation, it is more likely Miko is moving on Pa, not the other way around.


The spell was effectively save or die. That it might not have killed her even if successful means little here. Hold Person here was the same as kidnapping, and killing the kidnapper is an acceptable defense.

No, actually, it isn't always. Self-defense in many places requires proportional response. If the opponent tries to punch you, you are not allowed to draw a knife to cut him in self-defense. (Cops are different. They can up the ante one step at a time. Criminal punches, the cop can draw a baton but not a gun. Criminal draws a gun, then the Cop can shoot first.) Some places, like Texas, may see things differently, but there are States that side with Canada on this. It is definitely not an absolute that you can kill someone that did not try to kill you. Sam's actual action was not lethal, and so Miko's response cannot be lethal in response, depending on where you are located at the time.

[Paladin29]

woooo guys!!, take it easy. I agree with Kreistor, we are not here to establish what is good or evil in real life. My concept of that things (a catholic occidental european concepts) are not the same than a muslim, an atheist or even a protestant.

Come on boys... let´s admit what all are thinking: Miko=bad paladin, Hinjo=good paladin :smallbiggrin:

[madmotoristmonk]

I have nothing to add, just wanted post # 100

[David Argall]

Part of a sentence? Not, it is based on a description of a character that meets the description of the entire rule concerning Lawful Good alignment. It is an example of the implementation of the rule, not a part of a rule. That example is a valid lawful good character which provides intent on the part of the authors.
And it is still part of a sentence, not a detailed assassment of meaning.


The only relevant sources for alignment is the alignment sections of the WotC products.
Incorrect for any set of rules. The rules must reference a larger set of rules or the total number of rules needed becomes library sized. The printed rules are simply a summary. They are incomplete, and are to be augmented by the DM as needed.
And you are fussy about WotC products too since you are wanting to ignore BED.


You are not qualified to judge what is good, and so I reject your entire suggestion of how to determine what is good.
This is the fallacy arguing the person, not the argument. Apparently you can find no flaw in my logic.


1) Miko killed Sam.
2) Father is shocked.
3) Miko speaks to Pa, requesting his aid.

Since she made th choice to speak to him, she either"
a) expects him to ignore that she killed Sam and reply positively
b) expects him to ignore that she killed Sam and reply negatively
c) is not expecting a reply
Now we immediately see there are d, e, f, .... as well. And we have reason to doubt a, b, & c as well. She hardly expects him to ignore the death of Sam, and by asking, she is expecting a reply. The easy reading of the statement is "This has altered the situation. Do you still want to honor our deal?"


If a or b, then she has chosen to not try to calm Pa down, despite knowing that she can't succeed at conversation.
Now we may know that, but it is highly questionable that Miko does. A major part of a lack of people [or other] skills is the lack of knowledge of one's ignorance. It is doubtful Miko even realizes she lacks such skills and has no understanding of why Pa might react poorly.


She has chosen a verbal option and so she has not rejected calming Pa down based on a self-belief in her own inadequacies, but on some other basis. many of those possibilities reject the concept of her being Lawful Good for any period of time.
That many do is not the same as all do. Indeed, the casual assumption is that many do not, and since she remains a paladin for a long time thereafter, the presumption is that her motivation is one of those that do not.


If c, then she is speaking as a provocation. She doesn't expect a response, so she expects him to take vengeance, and so her words are designed to get him to attack her first.
Getting him to attack first is also a people skill. The goal is different, but the tools are the same. So if she knew she could not succeed at a people skill, she knew she could not succeed at getting him to attack first.

The situation then resolves back to incompetence. Miko did not know how to calm him down, and may not have even realized she needed to. She thus simply asked if he intended to honor his word.



Professional is not inherently good. Evil people can be professional, too.
This would seem irrelevant to the point at hand, which was whether the particular idea had been consciously considered or was dealt with almost by instinct.


She killed Sam in one blow. She knows Pa is no threat: he's already beat up. She can also try things like Trip, Sunder, Disarm, or a variety of other attacks to buy her the time to flee.

Pa and Sam were fresh off a fight with the OotS, which left them damaged and easy kills.
Sam is shown as wounded still. However Pa is not. Indeed, it is entirely possible he is at full hp. Nearly all the damage he took can be deemed nonlethal, and thus easily cured by resting. Even if we assume he is still damaged, it is not apparent that Miko can tell this.



A Dm can create a situation in which fleeing is the moral option if he wishes. It's allowed, just not common.
Which means we can not fault Miko for not retreating in a rather generic situation.


Gee, and you think Miko is so stupid as to not be able to predict his response?
We have posited Miko is without people skills, so this is a given. I certainly see no evidence that Miko is so smart she can figure out the exact wordage needed to provoke a man who was not going to attack otherwise.


I think the fact Pa ignored the request is demonstration that Miko got what she wanted, which was for Pa to attack in order to provide herself with justification to kill him.
"Never blame on cupidity what can be explained by stupidity." People do stupid things all the time, and assuming they have some evil reason is generally just wrong. Our default here has to be that Miko has no such purpose in mind.
We can note too that the argument is trying to assign an evil motive to a paladin, who does not fall as a result. Our writer makes some rather questionable calls on the moral restrictions on paladin behavior, but this is still a strike against the argument. Since we do not have to assume evil here, we should not.



given Pa is stunned by his daughter's death and he is not drawing weapons while Miko is fully cognizant of her situation, it is more likely Miko is moving on Pa, not the other way around.
Any such "more likely" is purely a judgement call. Lots of reasons Pa might have moved forward. For example, even if we assume the actual death is as obvious as the comic makes it, it is a natural reaction, particularly of the parent, to move forward to aid the fallen. And our artwork show Miko still on the far side of Sam, while her father has moved from out of the picture to close to Sam.
Looking back to older threads, I find you have made rather definite conclusions based on artwork [Rather dubious ones I will note, but quite definite]. So by the standards you have used, it is definite that it was paw, not Miko, who moved.



Self-defense in many places requires proportional response. If the opponent tries to punch you, you are not allowed to draw a knife to cut him in self-defense.
This is an incorrect reading of self defense. If the attacker is not threatening lethal damage, you normally can't excalate the confrontation by using such. But if he is threatening permanent major damage, you are not necessarily restricted from using or threatening lethal force.
Even in a routine first fight, you can be allowed to draw and use that knife. The standard depends on which way you are going. If you retreat, pull out the knife and tell the other guy to stay away or..., you are on pretty safe ground. But if you advance, with or without the knife, you are in legal trouble.


It is definitely not an absolute that you can kill someone that did not try to kill you. Sam's actual action was not lethal, and so Miko's response cannot be lethal in response, depending on where you are located at the time.
a-There is a major hole in your logic going from she can't always to never.
b-Calling Sam's action non lethal is correct only in the immediate sense. She was not going to just leave Miko there as a statue for a minute. She had made death threats and could easily be assumed to be carrying them out. This was crediably the last moment that the threat could be stopped. Miko walks.

[Kreistor]

And it is still part of a sentence, not a detailed assassment of meaning.

While I'm actually pretty certain I included the entire sentence, here's the whole thing if you think it actually matters.

"Allhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good." First complete sentence of page 105 in the PHB.

Nothing there damages my position. Have fun with that, if you remember the context of why I introduced it in the first place: maybe you could find a creative way to make whatever you think I didn't quote matter. I do remember why I quoted it, but I don't think you actually do, so have a good read trying to figure out how to use it. You tend to get lost in the argument and forget context, unable to realize when some train of thought has become unable to affect the statement you were trying to counter: this is just another example of you losing track of what you're talking about. That's why your threads never end and always grow in scope: so many of your arguments are irrelevant, tangents that serve no one any purpose. You argue about anything, regardless of relevance. For instance, why argue about whether I used a sentence fragment or not? Either I used one, and you could use the extra bits against me, or the parts I snipped aren't actually relevant, in which case I wasn't faulty in snipping them. Since you haven't used the whole sentence against me, then you're arguing for argument's sake, and there's no point to actually win. And what does that do for you? Diddly squat or you would have used it against me already. Instead, you argue beyond the point of relevance, and you become irrelevant.

So, as I said, feel free to try to use whatever I snipped against my original argument. But if you can't, you've just wasted time and effort arguing about something that doesn't prove I did anything incorrectly.

And, it's further evidence that you don't actually have the PHB. If you don't actually own it, then how could you possibly be able to suggest that you could determine what sources anyone used to develop the Core Rules later in this thread? You need those rules in order to determine what they originally were. As a neophyte, you don't know the history of DnD, and can't know the sources. I actually know who wrote the alignment section, originally. Do you? And, yes, it was one man.


The rules must reference a larger set of rules or the total number of rules needed becomes library sized.

Yeah, why don't you crack open the PHB or SRD and provide those references for us, since the PHB must reference this larger set of rules? Oh, gee, they don't exist. The PHB and SRD provide all the rules necessary to play the game. They are the only source players of the game can use. As with any game, from Yahtzee to Soccer, the rules are encapsulated in a single documented source, published in large quantity for full access by all players. There is no game that provides rules as a reference to an unprinted document, since if it isn't accessible, it can't be used at the actual event it defines. How you think anyone is going to accept the above argument that there are rules I can't have on my shelf is beyond me. It is obviously a complete, self-serving fabrication that no one that actually plays games can agree with.

You didn't even know what "Core" meant until a couple months ago when I pointed out that it is on the title pages of the PHB, DMG, and MM. You don't know the basic Core rules and how to apply them (as if anyone at a DnD table could use rules that aren't published), and it is only because of me that you understand they are considered more important than the others. No, you're inventing things again. Frankly, I'm certain you've never played DnD in your life, given your complete lack of ability to reference even the simplest of rules without prompting.

And you wonder why I don't think you are qualified to judge right from wrong.


This is the fallacy arguing the person, not the argument. Apparently you can find no flaw in my logic.

I am going to assume you meant "This is the fallacy of arguing the person, not the argument."

To reiterate: I will not argue RL good and evil on this forum for the same reason that others have posted above, to whit: good and evil are inherently religious subject matter and a forbidden topic here.

The only relevant source for determining alignment in DnD is the one that players can read, which is the PHB. The rules are printed in the Core rulebooks, and nowhere else, unless the DM chooses to use something else. (Before you respond to that, I prove later in this message that the Giant does not use the BoED for alignment determination. Thankfully, your own quote proved that with your own arguments.) So saith the RPGA. (Do you even know what teh RPGA is? You seem to know squat about DnD, in general). Try the test to join as a DM sometime. It's all Core, baby. every incorrect answer is followed by a chapter and verse explanation of wher the rule is in the Core rulebooks. Or, wait, you thought anyone could DM officially sanctioned WotC events using whatever houserules they felt like? These are the guys that actually wrote those rules you think are hidden somewhere in a vault at WotC unpublished: they have access to what you deamnd must exist but no one has access to.

You clearly don't know marketing at WotC. It's all about the money, and every page they can print is dollars in the bank. There are no hidden rules, David. We can only use what's published. I have no clue how to use a rule that I cannot possess the text of.


Now we immediately see there are d, e, f

And yet you do not provide d, e, f, or even g. Care to enlighten the readers? Oh, wait, those were just rhetoric. There is no d, e, or f, since you're just pretending to be intelligent enough to invent them.

It all resolves down to "she expected an answer" or "she didn't expect an answer" in the end anyway: the details of what the answer is are unimportant. You'll note my argument recombines a and b, dealing with them both as just answers, with the yes and no being irrelevant in the end. So the truth is there is only A & B and C as two options -- she expected a response or she didn't.

And what's with this "we" thing? Who's standing there reading and helping you post? Am I actually debating two people on one login?


, .... as well. And we have reason to doubt a, b, & c as well. She hardly expects him to ignore the death of Sam, and by asking, she is expecting a reply. The easy reading of the statement is "This has altered the situation. Do you still want to honor our deal?"

Instead of providing d, e, and f, you say this, which completely ignores the context of what a, b, and c were in the first place, which were what Miko was expecting when asking the question, not an interpretation to the question itself. Changing the wording of Miko's question does not alter the nature of the responses, since it is still a yes/no question (despite your manipulation, you left it a yes/no question.. so I don't know what you think you actually achieved... surely to achieve the goal of introducing a fourth expectation, you needed to change the question's very nature to a non-yes/no response paradigm, which of course would be a complete re-invention of the question with no actually basis is Miko's words). There are two basic answers to a yes/no question, and the non-answer. Though there may be other words Pa can use besides yes or no, all answers basically fall under these three categories. If Pa says, "Fish," then it is a non-answer since it is irrelevant, for instance. Pa will agree, disagree, or not respond either way.


Now we may know that, but it is highly questionable that Miko does. A major part of a lack of people [or other] skills is the lack of knowledge of one's ignorance. It is doubtful Miko even realizes she lacks such skills and has no understanding of why Pa might react poorly.

And yet, I note, she did not sheath her blades. If she did not expect an attack which did actually come, why is she still holding a blade in between her and what actually did turn out to be a threat?

The suggestion that Miko can't understand that her actions would lead to a man not proven evil to attack her suggests Miko is a sociopath, since you cannot empathize with people you cannot understand. That suggestion also demands that she lacks compassion, and under your own quotations relevant to the BoED she must now Fall for failing to be able to maintain a Good alignment. Meaning the Giant doesn't use the BoED and we can chuck it to the side and ignore whatever you quoted from it. Which gives us back the SRD and Core rules as the only valid source for the strip.


That many do is not the same as all do. Indeed, the casual assumption is that many do not, and since she remains a paladin for a long time thereafter, the presumption is that her motivation is one of those that do not.

Note that the Giant can be wrong: he's a DM and human like any other gamer, and he can misinterpret rules with the best of 'em, so evidence of from his comic is not proof that a rule is intended to be interpreted one way or another. In his opinion, Miko did not perform an Evil deed in provoking Pa. I have clearly stated that is an acceptable decision by a DM based on the alignment section of the PHB, since killing Pa for a selfish reason can be an Neutral deed, if the DM chooses to place it there. the PHB is silent on the issue of selfish killings of non-innocents.


Getting him to attack first is also a people skill. The goal is different, but the tools are the same. So if she knew she could not succeed at a people skill, she knew she could not succeed at getting him to attack first.

If the verbiage was the only relevant act, I might agree with you, but killing a man's daughter followed by holding a bloody sword up to a man that was not aggressive will generally do the job without any reliance on Charisma-based vocal skills. If Miko is smart enough to realize that, then she knows that all she needs do is not try to calm him, and he will attack. Miko is not stupid when it comes to combat and its repercussions.

My argument never relied on her words being the only provocation, David, but yours does. Your conclusion above relies on Miko also being unaware that her actions may cause Pa to attack on their own, and the sole provocation must be her words. And your conclusion is inconsistent with Miko retaining her sword in her hands after killing Sam. If she did not realize a potential repercussion of killing Sam was Pa attacking, then she would have sheathed her blade.


The situation then resolves back to incompetence. Miko did not know how to calm him down, and may not have even realized she needed to. She thus simply asked if he intended to honor his word.

I note an inconsistency in your view of Miko. "and may not have even realized she needed to", specifically. You've now stated both that she's smart for wanting to eliminate a potential vendetta (which presumes that she knew Pa would hunt her down) and incompetent for being unable to determine that Pa might attack her. Can't be both at the same time.


Which means we can not fault Miko for not retreating in a rather generic situation.

There's that "we" again, as if you're speaking for other people. You are not we, since you are singular. You are you, and you speak only for yourself. I can blame Miko for not retreating if I choose to, regardless fo whether you think you've found a doubt in her intent. that's one of the traps of mistakig intent with fact: you can't actually do more than cast doubt, and doubt is fundamentally an opinion issue. That's why we use juries for major crimes: different people measure doubt it different ways, which means you can validly believe something while I can validly believe the opposite. If this weren't so, there would never be a hung jury.


We have posited Miko is without people skills, so this is a given.

I didn't posit that, so where's this "we" coming from? You (singluar) posited that, so I don't know what's with this "we" business. In fact, my argument relies on Miko knowing that Pa will attack, and that this was a killing to avoid a vendetta, making it selfish. So you should have posted "I have posited", not "We have posited". Unless, of course, you've got voices in your head or you're the Queen of England. The "we" works in those contexts.


I certainly see no evidence that Miko is so smart she can figure out the exact wordage needed to provoke a man who was not going to attack otherwise.

The point is that she didn't even try. Not trying demonstrates either a lack of compassion or an intent not to want to prevent the obvious repercussion. I contend the second. The first leads to the dismissal of your BoED quote and possibly a psyche that simply cannot maintain a Good alignment.


"Never blame on cupidity what can be explained by stupidity." People do stupid things all the time, and assuming they have some evil reason is generally just wrong. Our default here has to be that Miko has no such purpose in mind.

Except for one thing. Lay on Hands, which Miko is proven to have done, requires a Charisma of 12 or higher. Class and Level Geekery puts it at minimum 14. She is not inherently ineffective at Charisma-based skills, such as Diplomacy.

Which means she chose to not try.


We can note too that the argument is trying to assign an evil motive to a paladin, who does not fall as a result.

The Giant's interpretation of the rules is irrelevant to this discussion, since we are not talking about his interpretation. This whole argument predicates on Paladin's original foray into trying to demonstrate Miko should have Fallen earlier based on a different rules interpretation. Please note that I have stated that declaring the attack as Neutral is an acceptable interpretation of the rules. He can have her not Fall, if he feels killing for selfish reasons is only a Neutral act, not Evil like I interpret it.


Any such "more likely" is purely a judgement call.

You made a judgment call on that issue first. Thanks for invalidating the train of thought you started.


Looking back to older threads, I find you have made rather definite conclusions based on artwork [Rather dubious ones I will note, but quite definite]. So by the standards you have used, it is definite that it was paw, not Miko, who moved.

I havedrawn such conclusions. And I still do. But not wrt to movement. All you have to see is Hinjo's teleportation from the throne to the right of the room to save Belkar, and you know the Giant does not bother keeping track of exact positioning. I do not hold movement based actions as absolute in this comic. I called the motion in that frame merely possible, not absolute, for that reason. (Besides, it could be camera rotation. You're assuming a fixed frame of reference, so it's possible no one moved.) Please keep up. We went through this subject in a previous thread, so you're retreading old ground. There are several examples of inconsistent imagery related to motion in the comic, so I don't hold it as evidence.

I said possible because I meant possible.


This is an incorrect reading of self defense. If the attacker is not threatening lethal damage, you normally can't excalate the confrontation by using such. But if he is threatening permanent major damage, you are not necessarily restricted from using or threatening lethal force.

There's another part of self-defense wrt grievous harm: you've limited this to only one of two parameters that justify violent response. (Note that non-grievous harm does not require flight in Canada, so if someone threatens you with grievous harm and you could flee, but you take him down without harming him, you're fine. Flight is only necessary to the self-defense justification if you have to perform grievous injury to save yourself.) You must be incapable of solving the problem without violence. (Ie. If you can flee, you must.) Miko had a horse and the time to mount while Pa was shocked. (She couldn't outrun Sam flying, but she sure could Pa on his old feet.) the mount being beyond Pa is irrelevant. So long as she maintains a 4x run speed, Pa cannot attack with melee. (She can even run past while he's shocked without provoking because he's not wielding weapons in his hands.) She can call her mount to herself while running, and with his 50' or 60' move (2x faster than Miko, so no matter where the horse is, he can catch up to Miko), he can easily take the time to avoid Pa and still reach Miko safely. She had the opportunity to try to run, which she must take, or the self-defense justification is legally void.

But this is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Respond if you like, but I'm dropping this legal BS as irrelevant.

[Paladin29]

well, i must admit I am lost... i want only say: don´t judge paladins by Miko standars... paladins are a great class, most of my DnD characters are paladins so don´t hate them because I don´t want to be hated :smallfrown:

[chrono]

Samantha threatened and then attacked Miko. She cast Hold Person on her, with the intent of enslaving Miko as her minion. Samantha also shows herself as being a powerful wizard, very capable of using magic against Miko.

Not only is this self defence to attack the Sorceress, since the next spell could be disintegrate, fireball, or any number of mind enslavement spells, but Samantha clearly made her intent to enslave Miko as her minion and raise a force "You'll be our first new minion" Miko has a duty not to be inslaved and used for the forces of Evil, these two now pose a threat not only to Miko herself but to others as well.


Hold person is a 3rd level spell, which is among other things NOT lethal. So for all Miko knows, Samantha isn't all that dangerous and is not trying to kill her. The next spell would most likely not have been disintegrate (the logic is that if you don't go with your lowers spells against a mysterious dual-wielding foe. If you can cast time stop you don't open with magic missile or hold person). Also Miko was shown to be rather unimpressed with fireballs. Whatever Samantha could have done when rested is irrelevant - Miko sees a hurt, tied up and rather irritated little girl that doesn't seem to pack much punch. For those of you who still don't get it, would Superman kill her on the spot? Would Batman or Spiderman (who are not supposed to be paragons of justice and examples of goodness in the land) cut her in two? You don't have to have superpowers to exercise mercy, even against those who are misguided and attack you. Even if you are somehow allowed to kill anybody after a detect evil check (which was later proven rather unreliable twice), couldn't you at least bother to check before you cut people in two?

I guess no matter how much some people seem to love her, few would disagree that Miko is a bad example of the paladin class. Yet there's more than a few sentences out of various WotC materials that could be taken as justification of her actions. Failing that a ton of fallacious logic and a few individuals that repeat one thing over and over without paying attention to counter arguments make a case that paladins in fact could be validly played like this. Personally I find it silly, because Miko fell and it was fairly obvious that it was going to happen sooner rather than later (I'm surprised it even took that long).

I'm still trying to apply common sense to the situation and not use logic along the lines of "well it's not explicitly said they can't do that or that they fall if they do that". Isn't it a bit irritating that Miko doesn't really exhibit the standard LG qualities, let alone some higher enlightened morality? Every single member of the OOTS seems to be closer to good and quite often closer to lawfulness than Miko except for Belkar (keep in mind that the order isn't entirely made up of LG players, in fact only Roy and Durkon are). Yes, Belkar's the only one that seems to be standing on lower moral ground than Miko. But looking at the comics, if I wasn't 100% sure that Miko was an Azure City paladin, I'd have guessed she was a paladin of slaughter or even tyranny (see variant classes). Very few of her actions show that she's lawful and even fewer even hint at goodness.

Even if this thread is not about Miko, it is about doing things entirely out of context just because they're not explicitly forbidden. I'm sure that if the Azure City laws said that sneezing is punishable by death there'd be a dozen people saying that Miko would be a LG paragon for going around chopping heads for such an offense.
Does the PHB say that there can't be a paladin order that has the goal to exterminate all who are "infidels" (not of this order)? Would such a paladin be OK then? You think it's fine to go around killing anybody who crosses you, to not stray from your mission to help those in need, to disregard the laws of the land for fair trial, to allow your justice to be tainted by your own hatred, etc?

Back to what I said first, there's no point arguing with people who stick to the d6 and disregard common sense. To paraphrase a nice saying, winning this argument is like winning the special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard.

[Kreistor]

well, i must admit I am lost... i want only say: don´t judge paladins by Miko standars... paladins are a great class, most of my DnD characters are paladins so don´t hate them because I don´t want to be hated :smallfrown:

You're new here. None of this is new: the argument has been done before, and it will come out again. It's not your fault this got started, and nothing is happening here that has not happened a dozen times a dozen times before.

And I just want to specify for a few of the people above that there is a certain amount of disrespect toward the paladin class, but it is towards the class design itself, not the players of that class. All of the reasons peopel have mentioned above for disliking the paladin class relate to some of the restrictions placed on playing it by the designers, which has nothing to do with the players that choose to select that class. So don't take it personally.

[Hood]

Kreistor, after reading your posts I think you may want to calm down a bit. I know arguing with David can be frustrating- I remember the 30 page thread- but you still seem to be personally attacking him... a lot. Just trying to help you out here.

And as to the topic, I think the point of the strip, as someone else said, was to raise tensions / expectations as to what Miko was. This may have made Rich change her actions from what they would otherwise be (though her actions in the forest are still in keeping with her character, there are other things I could imagine her doing also).

Hmm. Reading that over, it came out weird. I'm not sure I said it right... ah, forget it.

[Paladin29]

And I just want to specify for a few of the people above that there is a certain amount of disrespect toward the paladin class, but it is towards the class design itself, not the players of that class. All of the reasons peopel have mentioned above for disliking the paladin class relate to some of the restrictions placed on playing it by the designers, which has nothing to do with the players that choose to select that class. So don't take it personally.
Yesterday 10:09 PM

I know, but i don´t like that people think that a paladin must be a self righteous zealot... in my experience a fanatic can´t be a GOOD person.

[Kreistor]

Hmm. Reading that over, it came out weird. I'm not sure I said it right... ah, forget it.

No, that's fine. I don't mind honest criticism. I take it in the spirit it was intended and will keep it in mind.

I don't agree that I am attacking David a lot, but I will admit to attacking his arguing techniques which can be confused with being the same thing. I feel that this is not flaming, since I restrict myself to when I have proof of their faults. For the time being I am willing to wait for Mod intervention. I don't think I've done anything here that I haven't done elsewhere, so I think I'm safe.


I know, but i don´t like that people think that a paladin must be a self righteous zealot... in my experience a fanatic can´t be a GOOD person.

That I am going to disagree with. People don't choose to be fanatics: others characterize them that way. The enemy of someone with righteousness on his side will state that person is a fanatic, but righteousness is inherently good. Sure, there are people that base their beliefs on falseness and that is bad, but everyone has some belief that someone else will claim is false, and thus get labeled a fanatic.

Self-righteousness can be simply having awareness of your own righteousness, by dictionary definition. You're probably limiting the definition to the more common belief that it means "granting oneself righteousness" rather than knowing that oneself is righteous, but the word self-righteous is not inherently negative: it has a positive interpretation as well. A righteous person that knows that they are righteous is not granting oneself righteousness. The mistake is assuming that you're always going to be righteous and stopping doing whatever made you righteous in the first place because you believe you can't stop being righteous. Just don't let it go to your head, in other words.

The problem with your view of Miko is that you think she has granted herself righteousness, but I don't think the comic backs that up. She can't have gotten to be the highest level paladin in AC without having been righteous at some point. We only see her at the end of her journey, where she has taken her righteousness for granted. She is no longer being zealous about ensuring that she is righteous: she has come to believe she can never be unrighteous and isn't contemplating how to be righteous anymore.

[Morty]

The problem with your view of Miko is that you think she has granted herself righteousness, but I don't think the comic backs that up. She can't have gotten to be the highest level paladin in AC without having been righteous at some point. We only see her at the end of her journey, where she has taken her righteousness for granted. She is no longer being zealous about ensuring that she is righteous: she has come to believe she can never be unrighteous and isn't contemplating how to be righteous anymore.

And even before that, she were enforcing her righteousness on people who weren't followers of Twelve Gods and weren't part of Azure City's feudal hierarchy.

[Paladin29]

In my last post ¡ was talking in a more general point of view, not about Miko, it was about how people usually view paladins, specially when they haven´t the same moral values. But I agree with you, be righteous isn´t bad if your values are good. I´m sorry if my english is poor, i´m spanish but i try :smallsmile:

[Hood]

Your english is clear and understandable- more so than many other 1st language english forum users', in fact.

[madmotoristmonk]

I agree, quierro visitar espana para san fermin y corro con el toros, so I'm learning spanish because I don't expect anyone over there to accomodate me--besides I'm sure people are more willing to give you good directions and food when you don't come across as a jackass american tourist. And your english is very good, I mean with all of its contradictions I'm suprised I learned it and I give a thumbs up to anyone who at least attempts to speak or learn another langauge Granted I don't think I'll ever be able to express myself as inteligently in spanish (although you done a very good job of that,not that I agree with what you've said in the least:smallbiggrin: ) as I do in english but that won't stop me from learning and impressing the senioritas with my effort. So don't worry paladin 29 your english is good enough and don't let any other mono-lingual bum tell you different:smallamused:

[Kreistor]

In my last post ¡ was talking in a more general point of view, not about Miko, it was about how people usually view paladins, specially when they haven´t the same moral values. But I agree with you, be righteous isn´t bad if your values are good. I´m sorry if my english is poor, i´m spanish but i try :smallsmile:

You don't give yourself enough credit then. Your English is excellent.

[David Argall]

While I'm actually pretty certain I included the entire sentence, here's the whole thing if you think it actually matters.

"Allhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good." First complete sentence of page 105 in the PHB.
The point is not that it is a misquote, but that it is only a tiny piece of text, a quite insufficient basis for the large argument you wish to base on it. We are taking part of one sentence from a 3 page treatment, which is wildly recognized as highly generalized. Adding in other books, we can bring that total to 20 pages. And we know that this is still a very light treatment of a subject that has been treated for hundreds or thousands of pages.
Saying "This tiny bit supports me, therefore I must be right" is a gross exaggeration. It is just too little evidence.
Oh yes, we should note this is an example, not a rule. The two are much the same since the example is supposed to illustrate the rule, but by the limits of mortal action, the example can only be an imperfect illustration, and thus of less authority than the rule itself.


And, it's further evidence that you don't actually have the PHB.
2 copies actually, as well as a dozen or so other some other D&D books, including at least one you don't seem to own according to your statements.


If you don't actually own it, then how could you possibly...
And again we have an attempt to blacken the opposition, not to actually deal with the argument. Among other ways, since the rules are given in considerable detail online, there are a number of people who post arguments without cracking the PH. Not a safe procedure as there are differences, but it is often correct.


As a neophyte, you
Wildly off. I have been playing for 30 years. [If you are in the market, I have the copyright violating version of Deities and Demigods] This would seem to illustratrate the problem of trying to argue from a small base. You start with the [incorrect] claim I do not have the PH because of an [alleged] error, and then argue from that to the [even more incorrect] claim I have only played recently and a minor amount. This is why we don't like to argue from such tiny bases. You end up spouting nonsense.


Yeah, why don't you crack open the PHB or SRD and provide those references for us, since the PHB must reference this larger set of rules? Oh, gee, they don't exist.
Well, the obvious one is the dictionary. The D&D rules define a number of things, using terms it does not define and a number of its definitions are subject to a whole lot of argument. See Infinite_Monkies for some examples.


The PHB and SRD provide all the rules necessary to play the game. They are the only source players of the game can use.
Now you seem to being making a jump here. The necessary rules are routinely a subset of the rules a player can use.
http://www.d20srd.org/faq.htm contains a confession of not having Core information that is not in PHB.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/srdfaq/20040123c says...
Q: What's missing from the SRD compared to the core D&D rulebooks?

A: Mostly the "flavor" elements. There are no named gods, none of the spells have significant NPC names, there's no mention of Greyhawk, etc. You'll also note that there are no rules for character creation, for advancing characters in level, calculating experience, or anything else related to the topics forbidden by the d20 System Trademark Guide.


As with any game, from Yahtzee to Soccer, the rules are encapsulated in a single documented source, published in large quantity for full access by all players. There is no game that provides rules as a reference to an unprinted document, since if it isn't accessible, it can't be used at the actual event it defines.
Routinely incorrect . One case would be that rules commonly refer to "fair play" and say the judge or DM is to define what that is.


To reiterate: I will not argue RL good and evil on this forum for the same reason that others have posted above, to whit: good and evil are inherently religious subject matter and a forbidden topic here.
Good and evil are common in a religious context, but also in nonreligious. There is nothing inherent about the relationship.


And yet you do not provide d, e, f, or even g. Care to enlighten the readers? Oh, wait, those were just rhetoric. There is no d, e, or f, since you're just pretending to be intelligent enough to invent them.
No, I am just too lazy to provide the obvious. But if you insist... You start with
"Since she made th choice to speak to him, she either"
a) expects him to ignore that she killed Sam and reply positively
b) expects him to ignore that she killed Sam and reply negatively
c) is not expecting a reply"
So we add...
d) does not know what she expects
e) has an idea, but is far from sure
f) has several ideas, and is unsure which idea will happen.
g) expects him to ignore that she killed Sam and reply in a neutral manner
h, i, j) expects him to pay major attention to her having killed Sam and reply positively, negatively, or neutrally.
We have enough other stuff to discuss so I won't worry about K-whatever.


There are two basic answers to a yes/no question, and the non-answer.
There is also the rejection of the very use of the yes/no question, as in "Are you still beating your wife?", which has as reasonable answers like "I never beat her.", "I never had a wife." and probably others.
However, your basic problem is that you are trying to combine several yes or no questions in one. Was she expecting anything? Was she expecting him to ignore the death of Sam? Was she expecting him to react in a certain direction? We can probably find other yes/no questions as well. But those we have make a minimum of 5 categories, and as we can see above, there are a large number of additional ones.


And yet, I note, she did not sheath her blades. If she did not expect an attack which did actually come, why is she still holding a blade in between her and what actually did turn out to be a threat?
There may not have been time. The conversation seems to have happened right after the death. However, unless we want to define "threat" in a very wide manner, there are obviously situations we do not consider a threat, but where it is dangerous to be unarmed. Pa being in an emotional state seems to qualify here. We do not know if he is actually a threat. He may faint in sorrow, or he may attack. It would be unacceptable to attack him on the evidence at hand, but it would be rash to assume he won't attack. So of course you keep the sword out.


The suggestion that Miko can't understand that her actions would lead to a man not proven evil to attack her suggests Miko is a sociopath,
Note for starters that your argument proves that Elan is evil. Unlike Miko, we know that Elan has no idea that his actions lead to a lot of good [not merely not proven evil] people desperately struggling to resist the urge to do major harm to him.


since you cannot empathize with people you cannot understand. That suggestion also demands that she lacks compassion, and under your own quotations relevant to the BoED she must now Fall for failing to be able to maintain a Good alignment. Meaning the Giant doesn't use the BoED and we can chuck it to the side and ignore whatever you quoted from it.
Again you try to make a major argument on the basis of a minor fact, which you misunderstand. For starters, you can indeed empathize with those you don't understand. You merely do a bad job of it. [See Elan again] And you can certainly have compassion on those you don't understand. Again, we can predict a lot of poor results because you don't understand them, but again, it is not a requirement, just a good idea.


Meaning the Giant doesn't use the BoED and we can chuck it to the side and ignore whatever you quoted from it.
But we see a copy of BVD in the comic, and we find it says much the same thing, meaning we can't conclude from this that BED is not used.


the PHB is silent on the issue of selfish killings of non-innocents.
You need to "listen" closer. P. 104 ""Good" implies ...respect for life..."Evil" implies ...killing others." And gives similar comments about selfish.


If the verbiage was the only relevant act, I might agree with you, but killing a man's daughter followed by holding a bloody sword up to a man that was not aggressive will generally do the job without any reliance on Charisma-based vocal skills.
Charisma is not limited to vocal skills. It would also cover all other aspects of the interaction, which would include the holding of the sword. So this point is irrelevant.


My argument never relied on her words being the only provocation, but yours does.
My argument is that there was no intentional provocation at all. You wish to claim the statement was intended to provoke. But we have no evidence that she had such an intention, or that she could have carried it out.


Your conclusion above relies on Miko also being unaware that her actions may cause Pa to attack on their own, and the sole provocation must be her words. And your conclusion is inconsistent with Miko retaining her sword in her hands after killing Sam. If she did not realize a potential repercussion of killing Sam was Pa attacking, then she would have sheathed her blade.
The question is whether Miko interaction with pa would change his action, and it seems entirely reasonable to think he was going to attack no matter what she did. For our purposes, her having killed Sam is irrelevant.


I note an inconsistency in your view of Miko. "and may not have even realized she needed to", specifically. You've now stated both that she's smart for wanting to eliminate a potential vendetta (which presumes that she knew Pa would hunt her down) and incompetent for being unable to determine that Pa might attack her. Can't be both at the same time.
Neither are claimed. Both are possibilities [tho wanting to eliminate the vendetta can only be a secondary motive]. You want to claim her actions were evil, which means it is up to you to prove that, and that the other possibilities are wrong. Whether we deem Miko to have acted from ignorance or incompetence, or from from knowing she would have to kill him some time and it might as well be now, we have her acting from acceptable motives. It is up to you to show some unacceptable motive was in her mind.


There's that "we" again, as if you're speaking for other people. [u]You are not we, since you are singular. You are you, and you speak only for yourself.
See your typical teacher who says "and we see that 2+2=4". The same form applies to any speaker who demonstrates a fact that all should regard as correct.


I can blame Miko for not retreating if I choose to,
I suppose, if you wish to be illogical, and do not care if anybody agrees with you.


The point is that she didn't even try. Not trying demonstrates either a lack of compassion or an intent not to want to prevent the obvious repercussion.
As usual, there are additional alternatives. She may not try due to a failure to realize it could help, or a success at realizing it would not.



Except for one thing. Lay on Hands, which Miko is proven to have done, requires a Charisma of 12 or higher. Class and Level Geekery puts it at minimum 14. She is not inherently ineffective at Charisma-based skills, such as Diplomacy.

[QUOTE=Kreistor;3568373]Which means she chose to not try.
Again see Elan, whose charisma skills are assumed to be very high. He is not effective in knowing when to use those skills.
Also note your argument elsewhere is that she did use her skill, in a negative direction.


I havedrawn such conclusions. And I still do.
There are several examples of inconsistent imagery related to motion in the comic, so I don't hold it as evidence.
Haven taken it as evidence before, you are under the gun to show it is not evidence here. We can accept that it is not absolute evidence, but it remains a point against your claim she moved forward, which remains unsupported by any evidence.


I said possible because I meant possible.
I would say the definition of possible here is “wildly improbable, but not able to be proved absolutely wrong”

f
light in Canada,…. She had the opportunity to try to run, which she must take, or the self-defense justification is legally void.
Given you have just made a claim that RL arguments violate forum rules, such a use of a RL argument at least jars. Particularly when you have to resort to a particular code. And after you have been all about D&D rules are the only source.
However the basic point is that no such definition of self defense is use in D&D. The enemy attacks. We kill him. No requirement that we retreat. In fact, we deem it a convenience that the opponent fight to the death so we don’t have to bother with taking him prisoner. If he flees, we generally chase him down and kill him. Routine behavior that gets no objection as not good behavior. He started the fight, and so we can finish it. That Miko could retreat puts no requirement in D&D for her to do so.


But this is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Respond if you like, but I'm dropping this legal BS as irrelevant.

Well, since you seem to be acknowledging that your argument is invalid, I can’t stop you from conceding that. However, I will note that means Miko had a valid claim of self defense, and so any claim she acted in an evil manner is almost automatically rejected.



Hold person is a 3rd level spell, which is among other things NOT lethal.
Hold Person is entirely able to take Miko out if she blows her save. And since the options offered were "serve or die" and she was not going to serve, the spell thus becomes lethal.
Note for legal purposes, you do not need to wait for a kidnapper to pull a gun before you blow him away. [You might have to flee rather than attack, depending on local law, but the fact the kidnapper is not using direct lethal damage doesn't prevent you from doing so.] The presence of a major threat is the prime factor here.



So for all Miko knows, Samantha isn't all that dangerous and is not trying to kill her.
Unimportant. She has shown herself able to kill Miko if things go wrong, as they do at times. The law does not require a fair fight.



(the logic is that if you don't go with your lowers spells against a mysterious dual-wielding foe.
If the lower level spells will serve the purpose, you do. And Hold Person seems to fit Sam's needs here.



would Superman kill her on the spot?
You are talking entirely different ethos. Superheros have a phobia about killing foes. D&D players do it routinely and frequently.


couldn't you at least bother to check before you cut people in two?
How many times have you seen D&D players check?



Very few of her actions show that she's lawful and even fewer even hint at goodness.
Given that there are so many who consider Miko some sort of LN robot, you had best reconsider that idea. The only way to say she has had few lawful actions is to say she has had few actions.
The case of the orges certainly argues she is good. It was her duty to take the prisoners back for trial, not make a diversion to help out some random non-citizens of her city. Instead she immediately goes to the rescue. What more evidence do we need?

[Charles Phipps]

I maintain that Miko probably was a reasonably capable Paladin for most of her entire life. She's a Zealot that struggled for moral perfection and was a pain in the platemail for even her fellow Paladins but Miko knew her job was to be a Tank.

I, oddly enough, believe Miko's biggest problem was that she was a Paladin and a Monk. Both are required to be incredibly exacting but in different ways. Paladins are required to be the height of Goodness while Monks are required to be the heights of disciplined.

I also believe she had an abyssal charisma score, successful Lay on Hands aside. Miko was constantly focused on keeping herself perfect and perfecting herself further because that's what Monks do.

Then you add in Miko's other two problem. Which is that Miko has a pathological problem with being wrong and that she can't deal with being unliked.

Miko was sent to treat the Order of the Stick as Dangerous Criminals. That was Eugene and Lord Shojo's fault because they specifically said they were dangerous criminals to her. The fact that they refused to accept this label and constantly undercut her was confusing/troubling to Miko because most of her life is built around the image of being a Police officer for The Twelve.

Then, they flat out are the first people to call her problems to her face. Roy, specifically, upfront tells her that she's got a horrible personality and that no one likes her. It's an unhealthy dose of reality for a woman with seeming severe self-esteem issues bubbling underneath.

Then she finds out that all of her assumptions about life ARE wrong and can't seem to deal with. She keeps trying to make the assumptions she made earlier WORK but they get further and further from reality as the storyline progresses.....because all of them are made on the original arguments she was given being right.


Pa does not treat that request as important. Rather he repeats the justification that Miko killed his daughter.

BTW, I repeat my basic distillation of the issue. Samantha is a Bandit and so is Pa. The fact that Samantha tried to enslave Miko resulted in Miko killing her. Then Pa attacked her. It was a clear issue of self-defense on Miko's part and I'm wondering why there's any controversy there. If YOUR character was in that situation then would you want to subdue him?

In most D&D Games I've played, bandits are hung after they're caught anyway.

I do think its silly to think Miko intended to kill them until Samantha made her stupid mistake.

[Paladin29]

Thank you all!! :smallsmile: (however, i must say that my write english is far better than my oral english).

Madmotoristmonk: Si vas a San Fermín, asegurate de beber la cerveza DESPUÉS de correr delante de los toros :smallwink:

Back to the topic, I think that we can see Miko in different ways... a "roleplaying" view or a "Hack and slash" view. I am a roleplaying fanatic, so in the situation of Miko, my paladin would be more empathic, I´ll try to knock down Sam without killing her (remember that reduce to zero HPs don´t kill a character)... but i think that this moment it isn´t the worst action of Miko.

[chrono]

BTW, I repeat my basic distillation of the issue. Samantha is a Bandit and so is Pa.
It's just that Miko had no way of knowing that and didn't bother to check.

The fact that Samantha tried to enslave Miko resulted in Miko killing her.

Samantha tried to enslave the OOTS which resulted in them tying her.


Then Pa attacked her. It was a clear issue of self-defense on Miko's part and I'm wondering why there's any controversy there.

See above.


If YOUR character was in that situation then would you want to subdue him?

Most likely I'd relish the chance to farm some XP and so would you. But I've seen better roleplayers who actually went in-character and played an entire game as a LG who never killed a sentient being, though given the chance and excuse on every random encounter and sub-quest.



In most D&D Games I've played, bandits are hung after they're caught anyway.

It's just that Miko is outside AC jurisdiction and she doesn't represent law, even if she had knowledge or proof of them being bandits trials are there for a reason.



I do think its silly to think Miko intended to kill them until Samantha made her stupid mistake.
Miko intended to use them for her quest, which isn't particularly evil, it's practical. Belkar would also untie them if they said they could give him crucial info to fulfill the oracle's prophecy after he did so.

[David Argall]

It's just that Miko had no way of knowing that and didn't bother to check.
No biggie. When your PC goes out to play with some foe, he does not ask the party cleric to cast detect alignment. He asks for a spell that will let him kill the guy faster.


Samantha tried to enslave the OOTS which resulted in them tying her.
Apples and oranges. The OOTS at the end was faced with already tied up and helpless foes [who could have honorably been killed, but we are often squeemish about such things so the issue was dodged]. Miko was facing free and armed foes.


Most likely I'd relish the chance to farm some XP and so would you. But I've seen better roleplayers who actually went in-character and played an entire game as a LG who never killed a sentient being, though given the chance and excuse on every random encounter and sub-quest.
I have a cleric, Peace, who brags she has never hurt or killed a living person, and annoys much of the rest of the party by not even granting buffs that can be used for greater damage. But I also have more than a half dozen others who brag about the length of their kill record, and even Peace travels with the typical band of killers. Miko's behavior with Sam & Pa is entirely consist with D&D Good PCs.


It's just that Miko is outside AC jurisdiction and she doesn't represent law, even if she had knowledge or proof of them being bandits trials are there for a reason.
As said by Shojo, the paladins of the Guard do not recognize any limit on their jurisdiction. And as the only judge and jury available, she is fully authorized to impose the death penalty.

[Charles Phipps]

Samantha tried to enslave the OOTS which resulted in them tying her.

So, why is that good?

1. They would either starve to death.

2. Get free and destroy other lives.

Miko put a permanent end to their evil. Good for her.


But I've seen better roleplayers who actually went in-character and played an entire game as a LG who never killed a sentient being, though given the chance and excuse on every random encounter and sub-quest.

Batman never kills but I wouldn't say he's a better RPGer than Aragorn.


It's just that Miko is outside AC jurisdiction and she doesn't represent law, even if she had knowledge or proof of them being bandits trials are there for a reason.

As a Paladin, she's a representative of LAW evem if she's got no jurisdiction. She's a Agent of the Gods meant to fight Evil.

Which Samantha and Pa represent.

[VanBuren]

Eh, doesn't quite work, that Batman/Aragon comparison. See, in Tolkien's universe, the primary antagonists aside from Saruman, Sauron and their ilk are the Orcs. Generally speaking, this is what Aragorn kills.

They may be sentient yes, but an Orc in Tolkien's world is as capable of being Good as Elves are of being Evil*, which is to say that they are not. They're akin to Outsiders really. They're even less capable of shifting alignments than Drow.

*With the exception of one of Tolkien's explanations of the origins of Orcs (he had several). One of them was that Orcs were once elves that were tortured and mutilated, but I digress..

[Charles Phipps]

Eh, doesn't quite work, that Batman/Aragon comparison. See, in Tolkien's universe, the primary antagonists aside from Saruman, Sauron and their ilk are the Orcs. Generally speaking, this is what Aragorn kills.

Aragorn also kills human beings as well, because human beings fight in wars and for Sauron. The point is that characters who kill are no less realized nor are they going to be less heroic out of hand.

I think part of the problem is that we have an emotional response to Pretty Young Samantha getting killed and Pa's anger despite the fact they were both destined for the noose.

[VanBuren]

The noose? They really didn't break any laws, since they were in an area that had none.

[Charles Phipps]

The noose? They really didn't break any laws, since they were in an area that had none.

Then killing them is a matter of morality and the church, which Miko has authority over.

They tried to kill the OOTS. I don't see why anyone would doubt them as evil.

[Kreistor]

There may not have been time. The conversation seems to have happened right after the death. However, unless we want to define "threat" in a very wide manner, there are obviously situations we do not consider a threat, but where it is dangerous to be unarmed. Pa being in an emotional state seems to qualify here. We do not know if he is actually a threat. He may faint in sorrow, or he may attack. It would be unacceptable to attack him on the evidence at hand, but it would be rash to assume he won't attack. So of course you keep the sword out.

Okay, so you feel Miko is a reasonable person that understands that Pa might attack her. Great. Game over.

You didn't actually pay attention to my original argument, did you? You got so wrapped up in details, you missed the forest for the trees. For me to be wrong, Miko must not expect Pa to attack her. So long as she expects Pa to attack her, she has performed either a Neutral or Evil act in killing Pa. That's why we say she should have Fallen in that strip (in this case, Paladin and me counts as we). It's what we were trying to prove, originally.

She knows Pa may attack, but ignores that possibility to say the one thing that cannot help the situation. With a bloody sword in hand, she "requests" his aid when she should be trying to avoid fighting a bereaved and overwrought man.

That statement is the crutch of the matter, and by admitting that Miko is keeping out her sword for that reason, she no longer has justification for not attempting to calm the situation. It is paramount to avoid killing non-evil people and she thinks he isn't, or she could not travel with him at all. (A restriction of the Paladin class is not to be associated with evil people: though it doesn't make you fall, she can't do it so if she thought him evil at the time, her proposal was disallowed.) Miko has not been rigorous in her attempts to avoid conflict against a non-evil individual in this case: she didn't even try, despite considering his attack a possibility.

It doesn't actually matter what she thought could or would happen, so long as she knew Pa might attack her: the attack was possible and killing people is to be avoided at all costs. All of those other possibilities (no matter how probable) do not end in death: it is the one that does end in death she should be working against.

She instead ensured his summary execution. No matter how reasonable it may be to want Pa dead to avoid a vendetta, it is a killing for convenience sake. At that point, it comes to a matter of opinion on whether the act is Neutral or Evil, since the rules are silent on the issue. Those of us that call it Evil cause Miko to Fall in that introductory strip.

Nothing else you say is actually relevant. That's all I needed. Thanks for playing.

[Charles Phipps]

. So long as she expects Pa to attack her, she has performed either a Neutral or Evil act in killing Pa.

All Miko knows at this point is she came to two people in the forest, released them, and then one of them assaulted her for no reason. Miko, justifiably, then kills the little psychopath.

For all she knew, the other guy was a causal acquaintance.

Also, what would she fall for? Defending herself or killing an evil Bandit?


killing people is to be avoided at all costs.

Wrong.

A Paladin is an Assassin of the Gods. A paladin should actively seek out and destroy evil. When they are not in a current mission, they should be looking for outstanding Evil Doers and Dragons or whatnot to destroy.

Because they exist to basically be The God's One Man Little Soldiers. They're not cops.

They're warriors and the Righteous Path is leaving a dead Dragon behind you.

[Kreistor]

Then killing them is a matter of morality and the church, which Miko has authority over.

They tried to kill the OOTS. I don't see why anyone would doubt them as evil.

Charles, Miko is unaware of this. If she knew the two were evil, she was violating the "do not associate with evil" part of the paladin class. That they may have committed crimes she was unaware of does not excuse their deaths.


Also, what would she fall for? Defending herself or killing an evil Bandit?

She is neither aware he is a bandit, nor evil. Miko is not allowed to associate with evil characters, and so her proposal to travel with him after killing his daughter means she does not think him evil. (He didn't assist Sam in her attack on Miko.)

The argument, which was made many messages ago, is that Miko provoked Pa into attacking her, in order to provide herself with justification for killing him now, instead of waiting to see if he would hunt her down on a vendetta. By doing so, and not even trying to prevent the father from this coures of action, but instead saying something that would ensure he attacked her, she was trying to perform an end run on the alignment rules. the alignment rules are not clear on whether the killing of a non-evil person is a Neutral or Evil act, so each DM is allowed to interpret it himself. The Giant clearly decided it was Neutral, so Miko did not Fall. Myself and some others disagree, and feel killing for convenience is killing for selfish reasons, which we decide is Evil.

[EvilJames]

no but it does excuse her not falling

[Charles Phipps]

She is neither aware he is a bandit, nor evil. Miko is not allowed to associate with evil characters, and so her proposal to travel with him after killing his daughter means she does not think him evil. (He didn't assist Sam in her attack on Miko.)

She knew that he was her father and clearly had no reservations about killing someone who just defended themselves against a psychopath? So yes, Miko knew that he was evil because he was out for revenge for an evil monster.

It's like "Beowulf would have lost his Paladinhood because he killed Grendel's Mom."

:smallamused:

Not the best amount of evidence but certainly enough that no Paladin of mine would lose any sleep over it. Also, the idea she was trying to provoke him into attacking her is silly.

Why?

Seriously, you're going to argue that Miko has EVEN THE SLIGHTEST bit of guile? She has LESS guile than Elan. If she wanted to kill someone, she'd make up an excuse and do it.

Miko is one of the most simple minded of characters in Order of the Stick. She's just an attack dog. You point her at something and she gnaws on it like a bone until it's dead.

Her motives are always blindingly obvious.

[Kreistor]

She knew that he was her father and clearly had no reservations about killing someone who just defended themselves against a psychopath? So yes, Miko knew that he was evil because he was out for revenge for an evil monster.

Charles, that is the argument of a sociopath. A father, regardless of who or what his daughter was, will feel hatred for her killer: good or evil, she was his little girl and will always be such. It is natural biological imperative, and not an evil desire. Expecting a father to feel anything except grief, anguish, and a desire for vengeance is simply wishful thinking.

That is why we have a difference in our laws to differentiate Manslaughter from Murder. It's wrong, yes, but killing out of emotional distress is not viewed by our society as anywhere near as bad as calculated murder.


It's like "Beowulf would have lost his Paladinhood because he killed Grendel's Mom."

I don't know the Beowulf myth very well, so I can't respond. I only know the basics and haven't seen the movie.

But we do know that the Giant permits paladins to wholesale slaughter goblin villages. Monsters can be inherently evil, and if I remember properly, Grendel and his Mom were trolls, making them inherently evil. Something about eating people, I think it was.

But I also doubt you understand exactly what I was saying. There's a difference between killing someone that attacks you without you provoking them, and killing someone after you do provoke them. It goes to intent. The first is a necessary killing, if you couldn't avoid it. The second might have been avoidable, but you ensured it wasn't avoided. That makes you culpable.

And I will point out that in our laws, they agree that provocation is an issue. You cannot claim self-defense if you provoke your attacker.


Not the best amount of evidence but certainly enough that no Paladin of mine would lose any sleep over it. Also, the idea she was trying to provoke him into attacking her is silly.

Like I said, the rules are unclear on whether a killing for selfish reasons is Neutral or Evil, so you can choose to see it that way if you like. Just understand that your way is not the only one permitted by the rules, just as I have stated myself at least four times in this thread already. To me, killing for selfish reasons is evil, and that's not going to change.


Seriously, you're going to argue that Miko has EVEN THE SLIGHTEST bit of guile? She has LESS guile than Elan. If she wanted to kill someone, she'd make up an excuse and do it.

Would you like to consider her attack on the Ogres? Her ploy to get them gathered for AE spells was complex, risky, and full of manipulation. You are grossly underestimating Miko.

BTW, she provoked him to make an excuse to kill him. it is consistent with your own "she'd make up an excuse and do it". His attack on her was the excuse she was looking for.


Miko is one of the most simple minded of characters in Order of the Stick. She's just an attack dog. You point her at something and she gnaws on it like a bone until it's dead.

And yet she can create some of the most complex conspiracy theories I've ever seen. She plans out complex plans to attack the Ogres. She prepares against every character in the OotS in 200. Miko is entirely capable of complex tactical decisions.

[FujinAkari]

Another one of THESE threads huh?

I really don't feel like another drawn out debate... although claiming Miko acted incorrectly because she wasn't sensitive enough seems like a hard position to defend to me... I don't think Paladins can fall because their Charisma Score is too low :P

[Charles Phipps]

BTW, she provoked him to make an excuse to kill him. it is consistent with your own "she'd make up an excuse and do it". His attack on her was the excuse she was looking for.


Why would she need to provoke him? All she'd have to do is go "Your this woman's father? You're obviously a conspirator of hers! *SLA****Y SLASH*!"

Seriously, I think you're reaching a great deal.


Charles, that is the argument of a sociopath.A father, regardless of who or what his daughter was, will feel hatred for her killer: good or evil, she was his little girl and will always be such. It is natural biological imperative, and not an evil desire. Expecting a father to feel anything except grief, anguish, and a desire for vengeance is simply wishful thinking.

If my daughter was a murderer and was gunned down by the Police, it is NOT a natural reaction to take a gun and kill the police officer. Evil Dad did this because he's a bandit and evil. Do we sympathize with him? Perhaps in his intense grief but his daughter's death is squarely on his shoulders and his death was justice.

Certainly, I notice you're not arguing that if Miko had subdued him that she shouldn't have cut off his head once she had the facts. I mean, Bandit Gang leader and trying to hang innocent adventurers....

Your argument is that Miko should have subdued a man with a clearly psychotic daughter whom she had to kill in self-defense because he attacked her.


But we do know that the Giant permits paladins to wholesale slaughter goblin villages.

Which is utterly inappropriate at my table. I certainly would argue they behaved as Blackguards would in this situation and as complete monsters.

However, if they're walking along and some Orcs attack. The PCs kill an Orc then one of the older orcs goes crazy and attacking them, do they subdue the orc just because he happened to be mad because his son was killed?


But I also doubt you understand exactly what I was saying. There's a difference between killing someone that attacks you without you provoking them, and killing someone after you do provoke them. It goes to intent. The first is a necessary killing, if you couldn't avoid it. The second might have been avoidable, but you ensured it wasn't avoided. That makes you culpable.

Yes, there's a difference. Miko was attacked, unprovoked, twice. You can't argue that protecting yourself against a murderer is provacation.


Like I said, the rules are unclear on whether a killing for selfish reasons is Neutral or Evil, so you can choose to see it that way if you like.

Self-defense is selfish only in the loosest sense.


To me, killing for selfish reasons is evil, and that's not going to change.

Miko killed him because he attacked her. That's Self-Defense. He made a revenge killing for a woman that tried to murder the person she killed. It's not justice nor is it terribly sympathetic in my view anymore than trying to kill the Executioner after a beheading.

[David Argall]

So long as she expects Pa to attack her, she has performed either a Neutral or Evil act in killing Pa. That's why we say she should have Fallen in that strip
Paladins do not fall for performing Neutral acts. Your statement amounts to "She did or did not make an act that should have caused her to fall. Therefore she should have falled."


She knows Pa may attack, but ignores that possibility to say the one thing that cannot help the situation. With a bloody sword in hand, she "requests" his aid when she should be trying to avoid fighting a bereaved and overwrought man.
That was a request, not a "request". She was wanting information she needed to have. As to trying to avoid a confrontation, she could have rolled a 1.


It is paramount to avoid killing non-evil people
You are fond of ""Allhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good." First complete sentence of page 105 in the PHB." It doesn't mention avoiding killing non-evils, does it? We can assume it is an important value, but it is clearly not paramount.


killing people is to be avoided at all costs.
That is simply not the D&D attitude. We play by the Good has to let the evil take the first swing, but the Good takes the last one.


She instead ensured his summary execution. No matter how reasonable it may be to want Pa dead to avoid a vendetta, it is a killing for convenience sake.
You are inventing a chief motive for which there is no evidence. She had a motive for keeping him alive and friendly. Otherwise he can't help her find the OOTS. If she is provoking a fight, she must have concluded he was going to attack her in any case, which means she was not provoking a fight.
But the basic point is that this is just not Miko. She is not devious. A very direct lass.


Nothing else you say is actually relevant.
Such an assertion requires proof. Otherwise, I may dismiss your entire statement as irrelevant.

The scene here is quite routine. PC meets 2 NPC. One attacks her. She kills her. The other attacks her. She kills him. That Miko shows any regret over the incident happened puts her as better that 99% of the PCs out there.


Miko provoked Pa into attacking her, in order to provide herself with justification for killing him now, instead of waiting to see if he would hunt her down on a vendetta. By doing so, and not even trying to prevent the father from this coures of action, but instead saying something that would ensure he attacked her, she was trying to perform an end run on the alignment rules.

Now she is meta-gaming too? You do realize this argument is sounding a lot like Miko in the throne room? Everything is part of the conspiracy, even if it contradicts the rest of the argument. If she was trying to perform this so-called end run, why should we not say she has succeeded?

[Kreistor]

None of it actually threatens my statements, so I'm ignoring it. You've said what I needed, and so we're done.

[Skyserpent]

None of it actually threatens my statements, so I'm ignoring it. You've said what I needed, and so we're done.

sigh... another one of these guys eh? You're not doing yourself any favors by saying that... (Well... you're bailing out of a Miko thread... so there's that...)

You state Miko performed an evil act in killing Pa and should have fallen then and there. The problem is not with HER though, it's with the RULES, you see, killing an evil creature is okay so long as the creature type is listed as "evil" in the MM. It's not RIGHT, it's just the way the D&D rules were written, we've learned time and again that the rules are flawed and the system has several glaring weaknesses, nonetheless, she did NOT fall because the situation allowed her to rationalize a questionable act that could go a lot of ways. Maybe the gods disagreed with how to handle it, so they let it slide for the time being, I mean, he WAS evil... so there's that, she didn't know that for sure, but she probably would have found out. Frankly it appears that bureaucratic inertia exists even in the Celestial realms, so it's reasonable to assume that they simply hadn't gotten around to deciding whether what she did was "fallworthy".

I'm not disagreeing with you, but "So we're done" is equivalent to saying "FINE" as the last line of an argument, no one's really convinced either way. At least not the ones you're arguing with. So you're clearly NOT done, you just WANT to be done with it, which is reasonable I suppose... I'm just clarifying what I'm getting on my end here though...

[FujinAkari]

we've learned time and again that the rules are flawed and the system has several glaring weaknesses, nonetheless, she did NOT fall because the situation allowed her to rationalize a questionable act that could go a lot of ways.

I am coming into this thread a bit late, but it seems to me that far too much time is being spent on a rather obvious and non-controversial instance in the comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0189.html).

Miko freed two NPCs that were tied up, who she learned were enemies of her enemy.
One of the NPCs attacked her, so she attacked back, killing Samantha.
The second NPC attacked her, so she attacked back, killing Pa.

... why is this even being discussed? I fail to see a single even REMOTELY evil action undertaken by Miko. Indeed, while somewhat callous, I would be hard pressed to call her anything but Lawful Good here...

She never attacked first.
She gave her enemies a chance to back away from the fight separately.
She never even made any threatening actions towards either indivudal, and appears to have been attacked unprovoked both times.

Seriously... what are we debating? O.o

[Charles Phipps]

You made a good argument Kreistor.

I'm just saying that Miko wasn't likely trying to trick the guy. I think she lacks the basic human empathy that EVEN IF SHE KNEW HE WAS HER FATHER that she wouldn't immediately know that he'd react that way.

[Kreistor]

Why would she need to provoke him? All she'd have to do is go "Your this woman's father? You're obviously a conspirator of hers! *SLA****Y SLASH*!"

Well, I have explained that in the past in other threads. Suffice it to say that I believe Miko was modeled on Greek Tragic Heroes. Her flaw was hubris like theirs, and as in those tragedies, her flaw begins barely noticed and slowly becomes more evident. She didn't do as you suggest, because her flaw hadn't progressed to the point where she could do it, yet. In short, she changed as the comic progressed, and was not the same person when she killed Shojo as she was when she attacked Sam. It's called character development, it's just that she developed in a negative way, where heroes develop in positive ways.


Seriously, I think you're reaching a great deal.

You're allowed to think that. I don't claim that there is no other interpretation than mine. Since there are differences of opinion on matters like this, as a DM I don't let Paladins Fall without stating to the player, "That action is Evil. You will Fall. Here is why." The player has the choice to do it and Fall, or change the action if the intent was not to Fall. Good and Evil is subject to interpretation, so I can't expect my players to have the same interpretation as me, especially when the alignment section is so small and incomplete.


If my daughter was a murderer and was gunned down by the Police, it is NOT a natural reaction to take a gun and kill the police officer.

First, there was no police in Pa's region: it was described as lawless. Second, Miko did not identify herself as a law enforcement authority to Pa and Sam, or to the OotS. Characterizing this example in such a way as to make it appear that Pa tried to attack someone he knew was respectable is misrepresentation. Pa knew nothing about Miko: she could have been a serial murderer instead of a paladin.


Evil Dad did this because he's a bandit and evil. Do we sympathize with him?

Irrelevant. Miko doesn't know he's evil, and actually, since she didn't use Detect Evil, neither do we. Pa might be evil, but he may not be. We don't have much in the way of evidence as to Pa's alignment. Sure, he's a bandit, but we don't know what kind. We only know Sam's banditry.


Perhaps in his intense grief but his daughter's death is squarely on his shoulders and his death was justice.

Sam's death is on her own shoulders.


Certainly, I notice you're not arguing that if Miko had subdued him that she shouldn't have cut off his head once she had the facts. I mean, Bandit Gang leader and trying to hang innocent adventurers....

Pa did not try to hang them. He only wanted to steal their stuff and leave them tied up, which is ironically close to what the OotS did to him (tied up part anyway). 169.1.4

But the OotS innocent? There are many uses of that word, and I don't know which one you mean, but I think you're talking about general innocence, rather than the specific innocent of a particular crime. I really don't think many in the OotS would qualify as innocent. Belkar's not, clearly. Haley is a thief, even if good at heart, so she isn't. Durkon is world-wise, and though maybe not guilty of a crime, he's a regular combatant: violent people aren't generally referred to as innocent. V does have a callous streak, and enjoys the odd threat here and there. Elan, well, naive, but I'm not certain innocent works for even him, since he draws blood as often as Durkon.


Your argument is that Miko should have subdued a man with a clearly psychotic daughter whom she had to kill in self-defense because he attacked her.

Not entirely. My argument also predicates on Miko wanting him to attack her, and actively provoking him verbally in order to ensure it happened. She did nothing to prevent the attack that she knew was coming, and that is the vital difference between true self-defense and what Miko did. If she had backed away and said, "Look, we don't have to do this," even that would have been enough to demonstrate that she didn't have any desire to kill him. She didn't try, and that casts doubt on her.


Which is utterly inappropriate at my table. I certainly would argue they behaved as Blackguards would in this situation and as complete monsters.

Sam I won't agree or disagree with. I consider her mostly irrelevant to this discussion, except for having died. Pa, though, did nothing but try to avoid conflict in this strip until faced with the death of his daughter. He acted as a father whose daughter had been killed in an area where there was no law to turn to in order to gain justice. I can't fault him for seeking justice, even if Sam didn't deserve it.


However, if they're walking along and some Orcs attack. The PCs kill an Orc then one of the older orcs goes crazy and attacking them, do they subdue the orc just because he happened to be mad because his son was killed?

No, because they never knew each others' motives. the crucial difference between this situation and Pa+Sam is that Miko knows Pa was trying to avoid a fight. If in the situation above, that older orc had come on the scene and been pleading with both sides to stop fighting because there had been a misunderstanding, then yes, absolutely it would be wrong to kill that older orc.


Yes, there's a difference. Miko was attacked, unprovoked, twice. You can't argue that protecting yourself against a murderer is provacation.

She provoked Pa by making an impossible request of the father of the woman she had just killed. She demonstrated that killing this woman meant nothing more than ordering a deli sandwich. It was disrespectful, unsympathetic, and cruel.


Self-defense is selfish only in the loosest sense.

Self-defense is irrelevant in this case anyway. For self-defense to succeed, Miko must be able to demonstrate that she did everything she could to avoid the fight. She could have run. In DnD, when you can run at 4x speed then no one without twice your speed can attack you. With her horse nearby, she only needed to run long enough for him to catch up and her to mount, and then they are moving at somewhere around 2x Pa's speed. Flight was possible, so flight was mandatory.

Additionally, Miko had her weapon drawn on Pa first. Given the nature of the killing that just occurred, that actually provides Pa with a self-defense case. It comes down to whether Pa was justified in thinking that Miko might kill him next, even without him drawing swords. We know that Miko won't, but Pa does not have our knowledge. To him, Miko could be any alignment, including CE. Pa knows he can't flee, since he knows Miko has a horse (189.1.3). He is in the presence of someone that has bloodily killed his daughter and shows no signs of remorse: that is more commonly an evil trait, not a good one, so concluding that Miko is a paladin is not reasonable. Miko has done nothing to demonstrate to Pa that she is at all virtuous. With a reasonable belief that he is about to die and an expectation that flight will not succeed, he can legally attempt the self-defense justification.


Miko killed him because he attacked her. That's Self-Defense.

Only if she did not provoke him, and she could not flee. She did not attempt the latter, and I contend she did the former. But I don't need to prove both, just the flight one is fine.

BTW, here's the relevant section of the Canadian Legal Code:


34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

Extent of justification
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).


36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.


34-37 cover personal defense. 35 is about cases where someone starts a fight without intent to do grievous harm, but it turns lethal. 37 talks about how much force is allowed.

It is interesting that you are only required to run if you must use grievous harm to stop your attacker. If you use lesser force, you aren't required to run. A little detail I wasn't aware of. ya learn something every day.

Self-defense fails for Miko against Pa, at least in Canada. Sorry, but you're just not allowed to stand in front of someone holding a sword after killing their relative, and expect that when the relative attacks you, you're going to get off because they swung first. Miko had to run, or at least try, for self-defense to work. She also had to not be provocative. Holding a (bloody or not) sword at the ready alone is provocation enough for most people to think they're about to die, adding that that person just cut someone else in half is just icing.


You made a good argument Kreistor.

I'm just saying that Miko wasn't likely trying to trick the guy. I think she lacks the basic human empathy that EVEN IF SHE KNEW HE WAS HER FATHER that she wouldn't immediately know that he'd react that way.

In that case, I don't feel she could qualify for the Lawful Good alignment in the first place. How can someone so unsympathetic as to not understand the relationship between father and daughter have the sympathy to help others in need? Paladins are about being the epitome of LG, and here she can't even understand the most basic relationship, despite being the most highly travelled and world-aware paladin in the SG. She started cloistered, which can justify some misunderstandings of basic humanity, but she didn't stay that way, so she no longer has that justification.

[Charles Phipps]

Well, I have explained that in the past in other threads. Suffice it to say that I believe Miko was modeled on Greek Tragic Heroes. Her flaw was hubris like theirs, and as in those tragedies, her flaw begins barely noticed and slowly becomes more evident. She didn't do as you suggest, because her flaw hadn't progressed to the point where she could do it, yet. In short, she changed as the comic progressed, and was not the same person when she killed Shojo as she was when she attacked Sam. It's called character development, it's just that she developed in a negative way, where heroes develop in positive ways.

In my mind, the scene with Pa Bandit and Samantha is meant to demonstrate that Miko is a heartless woman whom is inclined to use lethal force and has very little capacity for self-examination. I have no doubt that my Paladin would slay Pa Bandit, but he'd probably react with confusion and regret.

Miko did none of these.


You're allowed to think that. I don't claim that there is no other interpretation than mine. Since there are differences of opinion on matters like this, as a DM I don't let Paladins Fall without stating to the player, "That action is Evil. You will Fall. Here is why." The player has the choice to do it and Fall, or change the action if the intent was not to Fall. Good and Evil is subject to interpretation, so I can't expect my players to have the same interpretation as me, especially when the alignment section is so small and incomplete.

For me, stripping a Paladin of his status requires the Paladin to have knowingly and wittingly killed someone whom is innocent of wrongdoing and of Good or Neutral Alignment. Furthermore, when under hostile attack even when the other party is good, the Paladin is free to use lethal force to defend themselves. Most Paladins, because they are good, will feel regret about the deaths of good people.

However, Paladins also are free to participate in wars as well so long as they are trying to bring them to a suitably end.


He acted as a father whose daughter had been killed in an area where there was no law to turn to in order to gain justice. I can't fault him for seeking justice, even if Sam didn't deserve it.

Would that make any difference? What would the court sentence be on someone who defended themselves against sudden attack by a person wielding magic?


No, because they never knew each others' motives. the crucial difference between this situation and Pa+Sam is that Miko knows Pa was trying to avoid a fight.

Miko doesn't seem to know much of anything. All she knows is she released a helpless couple in the middle of a forest, one instantly attacked her and then the other shouted about his daughter before attacking.

Really, Miko could be justified in thinking this was an ambush.


She demonstrated that killing this woman meant nothing more than ordering a deli sandwich. It was disrespectful, unsympathetic, and cruel.

It's perhaps a bit unrealistic to have soldiers mourn every death they take in the immediate aftermath. Samantha picked the wrong target and Miko had seconds to process the issue before being attacked again.


For self-defense to succeed, Miko must be able to demonstrate that she did everything she could to avoid the fight.

Actually, this is only in the moral terms where we're dealing with a Lawless situation. In which case, you're judging whether a person is morally obligated to attempt to flee from an attacker when they can dispatch them despite their murderous intent.

Miko's job as a Justicar of the Gods is to find and eliminate evil. As stated, Sam certainly seems to have given ample evidence she deserved it. Which brings the issue, as you've stated, back to Pa.


He is in the presence of someone that has bloodily killed his daughter and shows no signs of remorse: that is more commonly an evil trait

I contest then that Roy is CE then. Because Roy has killed hundreds of Goblins and other characters without remorse (despite in "The Origin of PCs" showing that he considers Goblins to be people too).

With the seconds of battle that passed, it amounts to a combat situation that never ended.


With a reasonable belief that he is about to die and an expectation that flight will not succeed, he can legally attempt the self-defense justification.

By your own argument, he can reasonably expect that since Miko is attempting to communicate with him that she doesn't want to continue the fight. Actually, I'd argue that Pa Bandit was committing suicide in at least one possibility because there's no possible way he could expect to survive a direct attack on an armored and sword wielding soldier who just dispatched his much more powerful daughter.


Only if she did not provoke him, and she could not flee. She did not attempt the latter, and I contend she did the former. But I don't need to prove both, just the flight one is fine.

Miko's role as a Justicar is to bring Law to lawless areas. He attacked an officer of the Law even if he doesn't recognize Azure City authority. If we're applying Self-Defense Rules to this Lawless area, then we must apply the rules of Miko as a Police officer.

Even if Pa Bandit didn't recognize she was one.


Self-defense fails for Miko against Pa, at least in Canada.

Both Lousiana and Florida in the United States do not have the "Duty to Retreat" clauses, which don't apply to either soldiers or Police on-duty which Miko qualifies as.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

[FujinAkari]

Not entirely. My argument also predicates on Miko wanting him to attack her, and actively provoking him verbally in order to ensure it happened.

THIS is your argument? THIS? Are you kidding me?

I was JOKING when I said that a paladin can't fall for having a low charisma score, I didn't think you were ACTUALLY suggesting that rolling poorly should cause a paladin to lose her class...

yeesh.


She did nothing to prevent the attack that she knew was coming,

This seems evidence that she DIDN'T know the attack was coming. You seem very fixed on the idea that Miko has some sort of degree in advanced Psychology, or possibly Psion levels, neither of which are true.


and that is the vital difference between true self-defense and what Miko did. If she had backed away and said, "Look, we don't have to do this," even that would have been enough to demonstrate that she didn't have any desire to kill him. She didn't try, and that casts doubt on her.

She called it a tragedy. How much more evidence do you need that she really didn't want to kill them? Additionally, in D&D, Lawful Good characters are allowed to fight evil without mercy, and enslaving people qualifies as an evil act.


Pa, though, did nothing but try to avoid conflict in this strip until faced with the death of his daughter.

The same can be said of Miko


He acted as a father whose daughter had been killed in an area where there was no law to turn to in order to gain justice. I can't fault him for seeking justice, even if Sam didn't deserve it.

There is no justice within trying to kill someone who defended herself. Vengeance, yes, but not Justice.


No, because they never knew each others' motives. the crucial difference between this situation and Pa+Sam is that Miko knows Pa was trying to avoid a fight.

Funny... drawing two swords and attacking someone is a really weird way of trying to avoid a fight... I would think it would have the opposite effect.


If in the situation above, that older orc had come on the scene and been pleading with both sides to stop fighting because there had been a misunderstanding, then yes, absolutely it would be wrong to kill that older orc.

Pa never pleaded, he told Sam that she might not want to do what she did, but that was not directed at Miko, nor is there any reason to believe that Miko heard it, seeing as it was very clearly a whisper.

Additionally, Pa attacked Miko, not the other way around. This is a D&D game. Miko did nothing to instigate that combat, except for have a lousy cha score, which I still can't believe you want to see her fall for...


She provoked Pa by making an impossible request of the father of the woman she had just killed. She demonstrated that killing this woman meant nothing more than ordering a deli sandwich.

Darn Miko and skipping all those Psychology classes that would have told her precisely how this total stranger was going to react after she killed a woman whom she had no way of knowing was his daugther...


It was disrespectful, unsympathetic, and cruel.

Oh please. You can't fault her for being unsympathetic about a situation she had no way of knowing about...


Self-defense is irrelevant in this case anyway. For self-defense to succeed, Miko must be able to demonstrate that she did everything she could to avoid the fight.

Utterly and irrevocably incorrect.

Self-defense in a D&D world merely means that she did not instigate the fight. Miko was a figure of Law, and she had two individuals who apparently sought to enslave a group of innocents for unspecified purposes, clearly an evil goal. She was required to dispose of them.


Additionally, Miko had her weapon drawn on Pa first.

Stop being intellectually dishonest. She had just defended herself and had not resheathed her sword (because she isn't a moron). There is absolutely no evidence that she advanced on Pa or threatened him in any other way, she merely prepared herself for the possibility of conflict.


BTW, here's the relevant section of the Canadian Legal Code:

I am fairly sure Miko doesn't live in Canada... nor was that code published in 600 A.D., the time period which most closely matches the laws of D&D.

[Charles Phipps]

In that case, I don't feel she could qualify for the Lawful Good alignment in the first place. How can someone so unsympathetic as to not understand the relationship between father and daughter have the sympathy to help others in need? Paladins are about being the epitome of LG, and here she can't even understand the most basic relationship, despite being the most highly travelled and world-aware paladin in the SG. She started cloistered, which can justify some misunderstandings of basic humanity, but she didn't stay that way, so she no longer has that justification.

I'd argue Miko is the most completely cloistered of all the Azure City guards. It's clear from her reaction to the Inn that Miko doesn't actually spend any time socializing with anyone on the trip from Azure City that doesn't involve finding the Order of the Stick. Furthermore, she's been raised in a monastary and doesn't really have an understanding of the importance of Blood Ties. Frankly, Lord Shojo is her father for all intents and purposes and she takes that to its natural extreme that one's parent status is less important than one's Liege's status because they're one in the same to her while her bloodline is only a minor memory.

And I argue Miko qualifies as Lawful good because she's an individual that wants to help other people and build a better future for everyone. Similiarly, Anakin Skywalker was LG and a Paladin in Attack of the Clones despite the fact he's moody and rebellious with an emotionally vindictive streak. He only loses his Star Wars equivalent of a Paladin Status when he murders all the Tusken kids.

(Had he not murdered the Tusken women and Children, instead just slaughtering the warriors of the Tribe in revenge then he'd only need an Atonement as well).

No one questions Miko's Piety, Devotion, Loyalty, or Discipline. Empathy was her weak point but Paladins are not all Superman and Captain America, just the best are.

Edit: Very good argument on your end.

[FujinAkari]

Edit: Very good argument on your end.

There must be something I'm not seeing here... because I keep rereading his argument and seeing it as undiluted rediculousness...

just to make sure... his argument is that Miko should have fallen because she wasn't sympathetic enough about defending herself against Sam's attack within six seconds of it happening due to the fact that she was talking to a man whom she probably wasn't even aware was her father... right?

[Paladin29]

I see valid points in both argumentations, i agree more with Kreistor because i see paladins in a more strict view, they are the paragon of goodness so he always must to be sure before kill a sentient.I don´t agree with the "Gods assasins" stuff, the paladin is a defender, a protector of the inoccent, is not only a tank, he is an example to others, i don´t think Miko is an example to anyone... perhaps she don´t fall in this strip, but i think she can´t be a paladin in the first place.

[FujinAkari]

If your claim is that Miko isn't a very inspiring paladin, no one is arguing with that.

However, if you are arguing that Paladins can't ever use lethal force and have to stand around asking people to quit attacking them... that I disagree with. Miko was attacked by both of them independently, without provocation and with independent attempts to pacify the situation (very poor attempts admittedly, but she can't be blamed for bad rolls.)

While I can certainly see how her handling of the situation might indicate a need for "Sensitivity Training," I cannot see it as "wrong" or "evil."

[Charles Phipps]

I don´t agree with the "Gods assasins" stuff, the paladin is a defender

I disagree.

They're warriors.

They can save lives OR take them.

[Paladin29]

when they take lives, they must have a reason, they are not slaughters. However we can disagree about their reasons.

[Charles Phipps]

when they take lives, they must have a reason, they are not slaughters. However we can disagree about their reasons.

My point is that Paladins need to have options for variants. Paladins are never going to be anything but Lawful Good noble folk. However, you can have significant variation on what their motivation and methodology is.

Acceptable Paladin motivations are...


All: Make the World a Better and More Lawful Place By....[/b]

Variant

* Hunting down every single Fugitive Murderer in the world.
* Wiping out Demonkind.
* Wiping out the Undead.
* Wiping out Evil Witchcraft.
* Wiping out Evil Dragonkind.
* Protecting the Innocent.
* Protecting The Galactic Republic/Gondor from all her enemies.
* Taking treasure from Bad People to give to the poor.

Etc.

Bob the Paladin of Issek the Jug when he meets Steve the Paladin of Sune will have almost nothing in common. Bob wants to protect the victims of Torture and help those suffering.

Steve wants to inspire people to be heroes and better people by being a gallant and romantic hero.

Both recognize there's SOMETHING worthwhile in helping others but frankly, Steve will upfront say that Bob is not doing as much good as he is and vice versa.

[Paladin29]

I agree with you. :smallsmile:

[Kreistor]

I'd argue Miko is the most completely cloistered of all the Azure City guards.

Which, what, gives her an excuse to not be as good as someone that wasn't cloistered? Being good relative to others does not mean you achieve the Good alignment in DnD. Good has a defintion. She meets it or she doesn't. Lacking sympathy goes to intent. If she is only helping others because it is her duty, she doesn't have the correct intent to be LG. Kindness, compassion, sympathy -- they all require empathy, and an understanding of the person being dealt with.


And I argue Miko qualifies as Lawful good because she's an individual that wants to help other people and build a better future for everyone.

Or she merely does her duty to help people, in which case she lacks the correct motives to meet the definition of Good. Lawful people can do things that people take as kind, but without the intent to be kind, they are only doing their duty.


Similiarly, Anakin Skywalker was LG and a Paladin in Attack of the Clones

The Star Wars Clone Wars animated features, which took place between 2 and 3, were canon. (It's where Gen Grievous was introduced and showed Mace Windu crushing his chest.) In those, he turned to the dark side at least twice, attempting to kill people with the force directly. He also developed the Grasping Hand power and used it, which is clearly an evil use as defined by Obewan in Ep 4. He may have been recoverable at the beginning of 3, but he'd already falling, turning to the dark side for power at times of need.


No one questions Miko's Piety, Devotion, Loyalty, or Discipline. Empathy was her weak point but Paladins are not all Superman and Captain America, just the best are.

But lacking mercy, compassion, kindness, and sympathy are more than just limited deviations. Alignments have some flex in them since you can have a trait or two that isn't consistent with the alignment, but too many and you drop into Neutral.


Edit: Very good argument on your end.

Well, okay, thanks.

[chrono]

No biggie. When your PC goes out to play with some foe, he does not ask the party cleric to cast detect alignment. He asks for a spell that will let him kill the guy faster.

Right, but it's not about what your clerics and random PCs do. It's not even about your LG PCs. It's about those PCs who actually fall and lose class features if they do an evil act. And a lot of what Miko does is pretty borderline evil (until it crosses well over that border and she finally falls). Please try and convince me that Miko ever showed signs of superior morality or utter goodness. Delivering swift death was as close as people came to it and it's truly fearsome to imagine a world where all the paragons of good and law have only that "goodness" to show for themselves.

Also, the OOTS is not squeamish about killing. Just turning their back and letting Belkar loose does the job well enough.

And yes, the whole point is that sticking to paladin rules makes people hate you. That's what the thread is about.


As said by Shojo, the paladins of the Guard do not recognize any limit on their jurisdiction. And as the only judge and jury available, she is fully authorized to impose the death penalty.
Or, heavens forbid, she could actually lift a finger and avoid unnecessary killing. Once again that sounds like "I'm a paladin so by definition all I do is ultimately good so I can go and kill people indiscriminately". In the real world that's called corruption and abuse of authority, rather than "exemplary goodness".

edit:

No one questions Miko's Piety, Devotion, Loyalty, or Discipline.
Piety: she grossly violates the will of the gods and refuses to see the ultimate sign that she turned right around and walked over their laws out of selfishness.
Devotion, Loyalty: she offends the gods she serves to the point of falling and kills her lord. Then she attacks the paladin of highest authority. Not very loyal.
Discipline is something she definitely has, except for those parts where she gives in to the dark side and goes around killing people (even after specifically being told not to).

[chrono]

Miko knew that he was evil because he was out for revenge for an evil monster.

It's like "Beowulf would have lost his Paladinhood because he killed Grendel's Mom."


Last time I checked, Beowulf was a barbarian :smalltongue: and they tend to be chaotic, with all the raping of virgins and all.

At any rate, we don't know that Pops was evil - he could have been CN for all we know. Even a LG person would feel threatened if somebody killed a family member 5 seconds ago and was standing with weapons drawn. This was a no brainer and he didn't have much choice.

Pop quiz: how did Miko disable V without killing him and why couldn't she have done the same?

She didn't do the same because Miko has to be specifically ordered to not kill everything she meets and if this order isn't specifically issued there's a trail of blood behind her.

[Deathwisher]

Last time I checked, Beowulf was a barbarian :smalltongue: and they tend to be chaotic, with all the raping of virgins and all.

At any rate, we don't know that Pops was evil - he could have been CN for all we know. Even a LG person would feel threatened if somebody killed a family member 5 seconds ago and was standing with weapons drawn. This was a no brainer and he didn't have much choice.

Pop quiz: how did Miko disable V without killing him and why couldn't she have done the same?

She didn't do the same because Miko has to be specifically ordered to not kill everything she meets and if this order isn't specifically issued there's a trail of blood behind her.


Better reinforce those orders on a regular basis too, otherwise: 'You should try to take them alive' gets translated into 'my master has decreed their deaths' :smallwink:

[David Argall]

None of it actually threatens my statements, so I'm ignoring it. You've said what I needed, and so we're done.

Translation: "A whole lot of this threatens my statements, and I don't want to admit that. I had best try to hide that I am dodging the arguments."



Miko freed two NPCs that were tied up, who she learned were enemies of her enemy.
One of the NPCs attacked her, so she attacked back, killing Samantha.
The second NPC attacked her, so she attacked back, killing Pa.

... why is this even being discussed? I fail to see a single even REMOTELY evil action undertaken by Miko.
My theory is that people "reason" "I hate Miko, therefore Miko is evil, and therefore everything she did was evil."


it's not about what your clerics and random PCs do. It's not even about your LG PCs. It's about those PCs who actually fall and lose class features if they do an evil act.
Same difference. Your PC paladins are out there slaughtering away too. Now there are things our PC paladin won't do, particularly when the DM points them out, but killing a foe who attack him is not one of them.


Please try and convince me that Miko ever showed signs of superior morality or utter goodness.
Well, we hardly see that much of her actions. But see 207 where she suggests the party loot should be given to a good cause and cautions against casual attack of a foe whose alignment is unknown. See also 211 where Roy tries to play up to her by describing his motives to help in pure good terms. See 214 where she adopts a morally superior plan to deal with the ogres. See 238 where she is thinking of how to protect the innocent patrons while the members of the OOTS are thinking of how to avoid her finding out about their attempt to defraud the inn. See 243 where Miko is trying to save the helpless while Haley is trying to save her money.



Delivering swift death was as close as people came to it and it's truly fearsome to imagine a world where all the paragons of good and law have only that "goodness" to show for themselves.
It seems the typical D&D world.


Also, the OOTS is not squeamish about killing.
Which argues that we don't need to worry much about Miko and/or paladin killings.


that sounds like "I'm a paladin so by definition all I do is ultimately good so I can go and kill people indiscriminately".
Not at all. The standards she imposes are imposed on herself [and were in the case of Shojo]. She merely has the authority to impose punishment when it is justified.


we don't know that Pops was evil - he could have been CN for all we know. Even a LG person would feel threatened if somebody killed a family member 5 seconds ago and was standing with weapons drawn. This was a no brainer and he didn't have much choice.
Feeling threatened is a reason for attacking? That makes it rather hard to blame Miko for anything in the incident. However, we are given no evidence that Paw felt threatened, much less that he reacted aggressively to that "threat". His stated motive is independent of Miko's actions after killing Samantha.


Pop quiz: how did Miko disable V without killing him and why couldn't she have done the same?
One reason is that it would not have been as effective.


She didn't do the same because Miko has to be specifically ordered to not kill everything she meets
Obvious nonsense. At best, greatly exaggerated. We see Miko interacting peacefully with a large number of people.
Now we might say she has to be ordered not to kill those that deserve death. But as a paladin in the wilds where no courts exist, she has a duty to kill those who deserve death.

[Charles Phipps]

Last time I checked, Beowulf was a barbarian :smalltongue: and they tend to be chaotic, with all the raping of virgins and all.

That's a rather bizarre pick for Beowulf's class.

[Kreistor]

Translation: "A whole lot of this threatens my statements, and I don't want to admit that. I had best try to hide that I am dodging the arguments."

No take-backsies, David. You lost.

[Charles Phipps]

No take-backsies, David. You lost.

I don't believe you can lose in these arguments.

[Kreistor]

I don't believe you can lose in these arguments.

Heh... you'd be wrong. You can win some things, and lose.

You can win respect. No, not from your opponent, unless that person really is a reasonable guy: so many participants in threads like this are not actually reasonable. They being not reasonable means they cannot respect others. You can win the respect of the forum readers. There is a 10:1 lurker:poster ratio on many forums like this. There are actually a lot more people here than you may think based on participation.

And conversely, by using faulty tactics and annoying other posters with poor choices of verbiage and methodology, you can lose respect. I admit that sometimes I use questionable tactics, but I carefully choose who I target those tactics at: you don't lose much respect if those take down someone the forum readers don't like.

But, you've confused me recently, Charles, and it's taking me a bit to catch up. You normally aren't a reasonable guy: sorry, but it's the truth. You post whacked out, psychedelic theories and treat them seriously. I want to take most of them as intended as humor, but you back them up to the hilt, which spoils the joke, if it was so intended.

But here you are completely changing your spots. You actually complimented me. I want to compliment you back, but I'm having trouble finding something to use as a reasonable basis. It's my nature to treat others the same way they treat me, and now I can't when it comes to you. So, for now I have to give you the benefit of the doubt: for you, the kid gloves are back on. By the way, I count that as a "win" for you. If you can change someone's opinion of yourself to a more positive one, then you've pretty much won. Congrats. (Yes, winning can be as simple as showing you're really a nice guy.)

[Charles Phipps]

I think my main issue is that I take Order of the Stick less than seriously. I also think the Giant doesn't quite necessarilly do the same as well. I also think that it's entirely possible for storylines to go for complete loops.

That seems to annoy people who take OOTS as a serious storyline. Overall, I've changed my view but I still tend to enjoy examining odd views. I've, for example, reluctantly accepted that Roy is meant to be the lead even if I don't care for the character.

:-)

The Giant is writing the comic, not me after all.

[Kreistor]

Well, Charles, we all have our little indulgences. There's nothing wrong with that.

[Angafirith]

I don't believe you can lose in these arguments.
On the contrary: everyone loses. Everyone involved tends to prove that they're stubborn enough to fight to the bitter end, despite the fact that it's clear that no one is changing their mind any time soon.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty stubborn myself.


See 214 where she adopts a morally superior plan to deal with the ogres.
Morally Superior? I'm not sure I'd agree. She uses the pretense of honor to pull the ogres together to be fireballed. I'd call it smart, but I'm not sure I'd call it morally superior.


Not at all. The standards she imposes are imposed on herself [and were in the case of Shojo]. She merely has the authority to impose punishment when it is justified.
Who gave her that authority? The Sapphire Guard? She's way out of her jurisdiction here.


Feeling threatened is a reason for attacking? That makes it rather hard to blame Miko for anything in the incident. However, we are given no evidence that Paw felt threatened, much less that he reacted aggressively to that "threat". His stated motive is independent of Miko's actions after killing Samantha.
Let's say that you and your daughter are out for a walk. Someone walks up and starts talking to your daughter. Suddenly, the stranger pulls out a sword and slices her in half. Then, they look towards you while brandishing their weapons. Do you have any reason at all to believe that they're not about to attack you?

Yes, there's a difference between these two situations: Samantha shot first, so to speak. But the question remains the same: Did her father have any reason at all to believe that Miko wasn't about to attack him?


One reason is that it would not have been as effective.
Using a tanglefoot bag on a melee fighter? I think it would have been reasonably effective.

A tanglefoot bag is used as a ranged touch attack (ignores target AC from armor). If hit, they take a -2 on attack rolls, a -4 to Dexterity, and have to make a DC 15 Reflex save in order to move at half speed. If they fail that save, they cannot move at all. It's possible to break free if you fail the save, by a DC 17 Strength Check or by doing 15 damage to it with a slashing weapon. I assume the weapons he carries are slashing weapons, so I suppose it is possible for him to break free. Either way, he could only move at half speed until the effect wore off in 2d4 rounds. That's an average of 5 rounds.

So basically, Miko would only have to make a ranged touch attack to stop or slow Pops for a little while.

Miko has Windstriker, so she can move rapidly. Assuming Windstriker is a heavy warhorse, it can move 50 ft. per round. If Miko hits Pops with the tanglefoot bag, she could just get on her horse and flee. Even if he makes the save, he has two rounds where he can only move 15 feet per round. There's no way he could keep up.

If he had a bow or something, that might be a different story.


Now we might say she has to be ordered not to kill those that deserve death. But as a paladin in the wilds where no courts exist, she has a duty to kill those who deserve death.
So, she's in the wilds and this gives her the right to kill people? I can understand self defense: Samantha did intend to kill her or enslave her after all.

There's a quote from LotR that I'd like to use here:
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give that to them?"

What exactly did Pops do that made him deserve death, anyway? Steal things in a lawless area?

[Kioran]

No take-backsies, David. You lost.

Let me first state that David, at least to me, can be staggeringly annoying in some discussions. But I don´t think he lost here. For every moral backflip or slieght of hand he performed, there was at least equal reaction on the other side.
As as I am concerned, you´re bending over backwards to see Miko fall, and find arguments for making everything she does evil. It isn´t. I agree she isn´t a Paragon Paladin, and were she a PC at my table, I would have questioned her taking up that class, but she was quite able to toe the line of acceptable behaviour until killing Shojo.
If not being empathic enough is a reason for falling(poor Elite-array Palas.......or PB 25 ones), that is quite some harsh judgement. With Alignment, it´s very much about doing things to the best of your abilities. I think Elan is almost too stupid to have an alignment, yet he is unquestionably CG (unlike Haley, allthough she´s better qualified to make judgements).

Miko reacts, more or less, like most normal PCs would, in some situations even a lot more kind or considerate. Violence is not inherently evil. Should, in your opinion, all LG people observe 20th. Century laws, which were specifically made to suppress/monopolize violence? Here´s a hint: they do not hold up in societies were everyone´s armed(see some of the more seedy areas in the U.S. or Southern America). They work only in mainly lawful societies as is.
Or should they simply sidestep by avoiding the LG alignment? But that would be closet Paladin hate. Instead of banning them, you merely make them unplayable.......

[Paladin29]

I am very rigid with the moral of my paladins, but i assure you that they are playable.. in fact i enjoy my paladin characters because i must make and extra effort of interpretation to think how to react in diverse situations (i always enjoy a challenge). But as Charles said, there is more than one manner to play a paladin, my opinion isn´t the only nor the best.

[David Argall]

Morally Superior? I'm not sure I'd agree. She uses the pretense of honor to pull the ogres together to be fireballed. I'd call it smart, but I'm not sure I'd call it morally superior.
Quite definitely superior.
The OOTS was acting on the word of one woman and the general reputation of ogres. One can hardly condemn them as acting viciously, but for all they knew, hubby had fled to the ogres to escape his nagging wife and the ogres were merely the lowlifes, living an innocent existance that still disgusted the human neighbors. So we see a risk of their killing innocents here by their plan of surprise attack. It wouldn't be the first time some disliked group was accused of some imagined crime as an excuse to beat up on them.
Miko's action gave the ogres full opportunity to protest their innocence, and/or display virtue, even to the limited extent of rejecting the idea of all of them taking her on at once. Instead, we get confirmation that they are evil, and that all of them are evil, as is shown by their eagerness to get close enough to her to bash her. So we avoid a risk of moral sin.
The moral superiority is quite definite.


Who gave her that authority? The Sapphire Guard? She's way out of her jurisdiction here.
Jurisdiction is decided by the biggest army. California does not have Jurisdiction in Arizona because the Federal government says so. A government's jurisdiction is limited only by its own decison to limit itself, or by stronger government imposing such limits. Miko being the best fighter in the area, she creates her own jurisdiction until a sufficiently powerful group is able to match her.
Where else would you expect jurisdiction to come from? How could it be created where it did not previously exist?



Let's say that you and your daughter are out for a walk. Someone walks up and starts talking to your daughter.
But father and daughter were not out for a walk. To make the analogy closer, they had fallen into a pit and the stranger helps them out of the pit.


Suddenly, the stranger pulls out a sword and slices her in half. Then, they look towards you while brandishing their weapons. Do you have any reason at all to believe that they're not about to attack you?

Yes, there's a difference between these two situations: Samantha shot first, so to speak. But the question remains the same: Did her father have any reason at all to believe that Miko wasn't about to attack him?
The very fact that Samantha shot first. That means Miko's act is not any evidence of hostility in general, merely towards the attacking lass. It is not a case of Miko acting without warning or reason. Then there is the point that Miko freed them. That argues strongly that Miko had no hostile intent. Miko also had a stated desire and motive to want Pa alive, to help her deal with the OOTS.

Of course, the more important point is that there is no sign Pa felt threatened. His stated, and quite sufficient, motive is that Miko killed his daughter and he was angry about that, not scared.



Using a tanglefoot bag on a melee fighter? I think it would have been reasonably effective.
So basically, Miko would only have to make a ranged touch attack to stop or slow Pops for a little while.
As a ranged touch attack, it is not as effective in melee, opening you up to Aoos. There are ways around that, but also ways around the ways around [and probably more iterations, but we need not worry about that.]


Miko has Windstriker, so she can move rapidly. Assuming Windstriker is a heavy warhorse, it can move 50 ft. per round. If Miko hits Pops with the tanglefoot bag, she could just get on her horse and flee.
There is no virtue more prized by the fighter than courage. The very concept of retreat is filled with shame. Raping the virgin and stealing her life savings will earn you no brownie points, but running when her brother comes looking for revenge produces scorn.
We civilians are people without honor and can flee from combat when it is sensible. Miko fleeing when she is in the right? It is doubtful she would even consider the idea.


So, she's in the wilds and this gives her the right to kill people? I can understand self defense: Samantha did intend to kill her or enslave her after all.
Who else is going to do it? Someone has committed a crime and deserves a punishment. So why should she not administer it? The normal objections are based on there being a government that can routinely do a better job of it. But we are considering the case where there is no government.

Do you wish to defend the idea that the pirate operating on the high seas can't be punished? That if the criminal lures you out of the city before murdering you, he walks?


What exactly did Pops do that made him deserve death, anyway? Steal things in a lawless area?
That would have likely been enough. Contrary to Roy's opinion, any court that could have caught Paw would not have hesitated to punish him. He is in the same position as a pirate. The fact there is no government around does not protect him from government.
More directly, he was engaged in attempted murder, which morally counts as murder for Miko's purposes.

[Paladin29]

I try to use common sense, and i can see that Miko was legitimate to kill Samantha because she threaten her (an extreme reaction i must say but a valid one in the name of self defense), but Pa is other thing, his death was an evil act in my point of view, he was only a father whose anger is perfectly normal, I ageree with Kreistor, she must fall (and remember that she put all OotS in chains without kill them: a fighter, a ranger, a bard, a cleric, a thief and a wizard more or less of the same level of Sam. So Miko is capable to knock down Sam without kill her).

[turkishproverb]

I try to use common sense, and i can see that Miko was legitimate to kill Samantha because she threaten her (an extreme reaction i must say but a valid one in the name of self defense), but Pa is other thing, his death was an evil act in my point of view, he was only a father whose anger is perfectly normal, I ageree with Kreistor, she must fall (and remember that she put all OotS in chains without kill them: a fighter, a ranger, a bard, a cleric, a thief and a wizard more or less of the same level of Sam. So Miko is capable to knock down Sam without kill her).

I don't know I'd go that far. She had reason to suspect him, but not enough, and reasn to want him dead, but not enough. I'd probably put it as the farthest non good neutral you could get. It was, however, most definitelly non-good.

[Deathwisher]

Quite definitely superior.
The OOTS was acting on the word of one woman and the general reputation of ogres. One can hardly condemn them as acting viciously, but for all they knew, hubby had fled to the ogres to escape his nagging wife and the ogres were merely the lowlifes, living an innocent existance that still disgusted the human neighbors. So we see a risk of their killing innocents here by their plan of surprise attack. It wouldn't be the first time some disliked group was accused of some imagined crime as an excuse to beat up on them.
Miko's action gave the ogres full opportunity to protest their innocence, and/or display virtue, even to the limited extent of rejecting the idea of all of them taking her on at once. Instead, we get confirmation that they are evil, and that all of them are evil, as is shown by their eagerness to get close enough to her to bash her. So we avoid a risk of moral sin.
The moral superiority is quite definite.


From comic 214: "Attention evil ogre bandits, I Miko Miyazaki, paladin of the Sapphire Guard have come to vanquish you this morning"

Miko states from the beginning that she intends to kill the ogres. She does not ask for an explanation of their actions, excuses, repentance or anything other than that they fight her. Instead she makes it clear from the beginning that fight and die are the only two options available to the ogres. The ogres respond to this stated intent by fighting. How does this proof that they are evil? If someone approaches me with a drawn sword in each hand and states that she is going to kill me, I will fight too. It seems a bit much to expect the ogres (or anyone) to think that they are confronted with a person who will listen to anything they have to say.
Miko's plan is tactically sound, but it has nothing to do with moral superiority.

[Kreistor]

Let me first state that David, at least to me, can be staggeringly annoying in some discussions. But I don´t think he lost here. For every moral backflip or slieght of hand he performed, there was at least equal reaction on the other side.

I disagree that I ever lost sight of my original point. Nothing I said ever contradicted another argument I had already made, and I did not try to make Miko into something inconsistent with my view of her. I did cover cases outside my view of Miko in order to demonstrate the result of other beliefs, but my own remained the same.


As as I am concerned, you´re bending over backwards to see Miko fall,

Well, not quite. I disagree that Miko could have been LG in the first place, if she lacks the sympathy required to achieve the intent of being Good. Being dutiful to a Code is a Lawful trait, regardless that the Code happens to request you do Good things.


Miko reacts, more or less, like most normal PCs would, in some situations even a lot more kind or considerate.

I don't disagree that she reacts like a PC, but I do disagree that the reaction fits with LG behavior.


Violence is not inherently evil. Should, in your opinion, all LG people observe 20th. Century laws, which were specifically made to suppress/monopolize violence?

Okay, here's a question: what do you know of 15th century law? Do you know enough to determine what was morally acceptable back then? It would be several more decades before Britain turned to the Roman legal system as the basis for a new legal system, so how did they try and convict criminals?

We use what we know: I don't have the time to study 15th century law, and my players don't either. So what was moral in the 15th century? How do you decide? Most people's beliefs about that age are entirely faulty. It's not enough for just the DM to know what was moral then: the players have to be able to know that when they make their decisions, so they need to know too.

When we step beyond the limits of the alignment's description, which is vagua in relation to far too many things, we turn to what we know as good or evil inherently, and that ultimately comes from whatever source the DM deems fit. If I use modern law, that is my right as a DM, when the alignment description is inadequate. My players understand modern law, so it is a common standard we can all relate to. Using a standard that my players do not understand is simply not playing fair.


Or should they simply sidestep by avoiding the LG alignment? But that would be closet Paladin hate. Instead of banning them, you merely make them unplayable.......

I make them unplayable by ensuring they have the intent to do Good when they perform acts of Goodness? I don't actually believe Miko was unsympathetic: that was a discussion to cover David's argument that she lacked the ability to sympathize with Pa. I believe she was sympathetic, but didn't want him following her on some kind of vendetta. Let's not get my counter-arguments confused mith my actual position on Miko. I have reiterated it several times, but I can again. I believe Miko knew Pa would attack her, so long as she didn't do something to try calm him. With that, she committed an evil act in order to kill someone that was merely a bereaved parent, and it was done for Miko's convenience. Killing for convenience is a selfish excuse, and I do not feel killing for selfish reasons is anything but Evil.

Don't forget that not only must I discuss my own position, but I must also counter other people's arguments. In that I must discuss their beliefs and the repercussions of that belief. That I discuss their point does not mean that I accept their position as true, and I think that is where you've gotten confused here. I do not believe Miko is that unaware of normal human reactions. Class and Level Geekery gives Miko a Cha of 14. That gives her a basic understanding of how to manipulate people, which means the belief that she does not understand people is not justifiable: she does not have a -ve Cha modifier. In fact, my own argument demands that she does understand people, which means that when she does good, she does it for the right reasons, not just duty (although duty is a major factor for her, clearly). Miko can be altruistic. It is those people that deny that she can foresee Pa's reaction that need Miko to be unsympathetic.

What I deny is that anyone can be LG without sympathizing or understanding the needs of people."Good implies altruism", and you can't be altruistic if you are selfishly helping people. To be altruistic, you need to be helping people for the best possible reasons.

[chrono]

I'm still not sure why people try to argue that Miko uses less than the maximum amount of violence that she can get away with and it is somehow right. Shojo says that she's too violent, Miko's own quote is "My blades will bathe in the blood of those responsible". Shojo has to remind her a number of times that AC laws say that a trial is due and not an execution (so Miko is NOT right to apply lethal force without trial, but she is only restrained within AC). Is the fact that Miko can get away with it enough proof that it's the right thing to do?


That's a rather bizarre pick for Beowulf's class.

Well, in the original poem he was a Geat (the Geats are a Germanic barbarian tribe, which lead one of the first massive invasions against the Roman empire).

They travel in a boat or on foot, have low hygene and are most likely illiterate. They don't wear heavy armor but are otherwise very melee-oriented. What class would you say that is?

(if you just watched the 2007 movie by the same name and that's all the info you have you're excused, though you should be ashamed about not even knowing it's a famous old poem)


On the contrary: everyone loses. Everyone involved tends to prove that they're stubborn enough to fight to the bitter end, despite the fact that it's clear that no one is changing their mind any time soon.

Nahh, I take great pleasure at arguing against good and insightful comments and I take even more pleasure in watching stupid people struggle to defend with fallacious and outright moronic arguments a case which is strong enough to defend on its own. I win and feel good no matter how the discussion ends or who gives up first.


I think my main issue is that I take Order of the Stick less than seriously.
And I think my main issue is that people take a character which is meant to show you bad roleplay and go to great lengths to convince others that in fact this satire is how things should be in the first place.

Either way there's no way to win this argument, because both sides win.
1. Miko was a paladin.
(Conclusion? She was LG at least until she killed Shojo no matter what the actions we see in the comic lead us to believe. She must have qualified for the paladin class to begin with and she remained a paladin for quite a while).
2. Miko fell, without way too big changes in her actions or reasoning
(Conclusion? Miko always fell short of being suitable for the class and it was only a matter of time before she slipped low enough to fall. Granted, Belkar was a catalyst, but from what we saw, Miko was getting more deluded as time passed and not more virtuous).

[FujinAkari]

So Miko is capable to knock down Sam without kill her).

I keep seeing statements like this, and they confuse me. Has this -ever- happened in any game you've ever been in? Seriously. Next time you run a game, have the party encounter two NPCs who attack them as soon as they get free and tell me if the party takes special care to capture them rather than kill them.

I don't see lethal force being met with lethal force as an extreme reaction in any way. Miko already knew that the two of them apparently intended to enslave a number of people for an unspecified purpose (but anything you have to magically enslave someone for can't be good), and so she has an obligation to deal with the situation.

Yes, she could have probably captured them... but why? Would a PC ever capture an enemy when not explicitly ordered to?

[Paladin29]

I keep seeing statements like this, and they confuse me. Has this -ever- happened in any game you've ever been in? Seriously. Next time you run a game, have the party encounter two NPCs who attack them as soon as they get free and tell me if the party takes special care to capture them rather than kill them.

I don't see lethal force being met with lethal force as an extreme reaction in any way. Miko already knew that the two of them apparently intended to enslave a number of people for an unspecified purpose (but anything you have to magically enslave someone for can't be good), and so she has an obligation to deal with the situation.

Yes, she could have probably captured them... but why? Would a PC ever capture an enemy when not explicitly ordered to?


Depends of the PC. A paladin, IMO, only have a proof that Sam try to take a hostage, is a hint that she may be a criminal, but isn`t a proof that she deserve death, she deserves a fair trial. And Sam´s dad acts like any father will act (specially those of good aligment who loves his kids and see a bloodthirsty zealot kill them). However, i have a very rigid idea of how a paladin must be, i don´t want to impose anything, a DM is free to interpret the rules, is only my opinion. I accept however, that when my paladin confronts warrior orcs of the Undead Lord of Evil i don´t think in that issues, on the other hand, Sam and Pa are human, and, at least Pa, neutral.

[chrono]

I keep seeing statements like this, and they confuse me. Has this -ever- happened in any game you've ever been in? Seriously. Next time you run a game, have the party encounter two NPCs who attack them as soon as they get free and tell me if the party takes special care to capture them rather than kill them.

You're asking about "ever", so yes. Like I said before, I have played with people who had paladins that only used merciful-enchanted weapons against sentient beings. I have seen clerics save the life of offenders who although misguided didn't deserve to die from that LG person's point of view. Yes, I do agree that in your regular XP farm those kind of players seem out of place and are rare.

I never thought I'd see so many people saying capital punishment is a good first offense (or otherwise) punishment.

[FujinAkari]

YI never thought I'd see so many people saying capital punishment is a good first offense (or otherwise) punishment.

When the first offense is attempted murder, yes, capitol punishment is appropriate. Remember the time period here, "Eye-for-an-eye" was a revolutionary justice system at the time, people tended to die for just about anything prior.

[Paladin29]

"Eye-for-an-eye" is a legal doctrine present, at least, in the second millenium Before Christ (see Hammurabi code, first half of the XVIII B.C.. It´s not a medieval concept, and in fact it´s not in use in the medieval Europe, the medieval legal system is a mix of roman and the canonic legal systems. I accept that medieval justice was harsh in the most cases, but the concept of a trial was there. However, DnD is not a realistic medieval world, it´s an ideal world, where the good people are really good, and evil people are really evil, based in our XX century concepts of Good and Evil (The writers of the DnD rules aren´t medieval people)

[Charles Phipps]

(if you just watched the 2007 movie by the same name and that's all the info you have you're excused, though you should be ashamed about not even knowing it's a famous old poem)

Actually, I was more arguing that Beowulf isn't a Berserker but an enlightened Early Christian monarch (In the rewrite of the poem that's the only version we have). His noble duel Mano-A-Mano Duel with Grendel is a fantastic display of strength but certainly isn't the act of a Berserker.

[FujinAkari]

True enough I suppose, I still say you are being WAY WAY WAY too hard on Paladins.

In this thread I have encountered people who think Miko should politely ask Pa to please stop killing her, and people who think Miko should fall because she failed a Diplomacy Check. It is really rather silly, IMHO.

The bottom line, at least for me, is that Miko was attacked, and that Miko had ample reason to believe that the two had evil intentions. This makes her killing of them legitimate actions as far as Justice is concerned, again, in my eyes.

[Paladin29]

Yes, maybe i am being hard with paladins, but i must, i really love this character class, and i try to give it the best of me.

Only to clear it: i said that i can accept the reasons of self-defense of Miko with Sam, but Pa was attacking her out of anger and sadness, no evil behaviour in Pa.

[David Argall]

From comic 214: "Attention evil ogre bandits, I Miko Miyazaki, paladin of the Sapphire Guard have come to vanquish you this morning"

Miko states from the beginning that she intends to kill the ogres.
Vanquish is not the same as kill. It merely means defeat, and is entirely consistent with their survival.


She does not ask for an explanation of their actions, excuses, repentance or anything other than that they fight her.
But she gives them a chance to offer it, a quite major chance. They are in no sense rushed and have a full chance to insist they are not evil, to surrender, bargain, or whatever.


Instead she makes it clear from the beginning that fight and die are the only two options available to the ogres.
The ogres clearly think she is in no position to dictate options. Their assumption is that she is crazy and easy meat. If they were interested in a third option, they had plenty of time to ask about it. [Or even just avoid fighting. Miko says she is not going to attack before they finish breakfast, on their definition of finish. So they need merely never finish it, and she could not attack. She might change her mind at that point, but the ogres have plenty of time to think of such an option if they were interested. And the very fact they are not condemns them.]


The ogres respond to this stated intent by fighting. How does this proof that they are evil? If someone approaches me with a drawn sword in each hand and states that she is going to kill me, I will fight too.
Immediately and without regard to additional facts? No attempt to avoid the struggle? Now for starters this is saying Miko is not guilty in killing Paw.
But don't you even consider seeing if the dispute can't be settled another way? Particularly when the "attacker" seems to be alone and weak? You're 10th level, and this baby dragon has to be fresh from the egg. You really are going to just kill it? Not try to talk it out of this suicidal action? [If for not other reason than you too may have missed the use of "we", and Mama is just out of sight ready to attack as soon as you attack?]


It seems a bit much to expect the ogres (or anyone) to think that they are confronted with a person who will listen to anything they have to say.

But even if we accept this claim, the ogres do have this option [and don't exercise it.] The OOTS plan would not give them the option at all. So Miko comes out morally superior to the OOTS, our good group.

[FujinAkari]

Only to clear it: i said that i can accept the reasons of self-defense of Miko with Sam, but Pa was attacking her out of anger and sadness, no evil behaviour in Pa.

No argument here, but the problem is, Miko has no way of knowing that.

All Miko knows is she came across two individuals in the woods and freed them. One individual spouted off something about enslaving a large group of people and attacked her. Miko responded by defending herself and killing the sorceress.

The second individual yells at Miko for defending herself (as opposed to what? Willfully being enslaved?) and then also attacks her.

At this point, while we know Pa is just in grief and acting out of frustration and anger... Miko doesn't. She sees someone who is apparently allied with a woman who was trying to enslave a large number of people, and who refuses to talk things out.

Miko -tried- to talk to him, he responded by attacking her. Miko had every reason to fear that he would also enslave/capture/kill anyone he came across, and so simply fleeing was not an option.

I agree that Pa was not evil, but I refuse to acknowledge that Miko acted in any way other than a Paladin should. Yes, she could have been more sympathetic, but she certainly didn't -intend- to fail her diplomacy check... it just happened.

[chibibar]

The thing is that sometimes this is a PERFECT example how some people play Paladin (or should not play Paladin like this) Miko's action toward the bandit family.

In an act of self defense, Miko did the right thing in accordance to the rule, BUT some of us (as seen from post above) feels that Miko being a Paladin of Lawful Good (or stupid by some people) should have done a little extra to prevent more deaths.

Miko is skirting the rule as close as possible to get things done. It is like Paladin killing a bunch of CE stuff without consequences (in OoTS World) because if you are evil, you can kill it (So we see that is Miko's mentality) and guess what? the 12 gods agree with Miko at the time. When she did something TOTALLY cross the line.... powers goes bye bye.

This is where a good GM can "control" the paladin's wanton action such as this via gaming. I can see that some people here who are GM would probably take away Miko's power at the bandit camp (stricter rules) vs some would let her continue her mission at full power (looser rules)

[Kreistor]

Charles, you just misquoted me. Chrono said that, not me.


I keep seeing statements like this, and they confuse me. Has this -ever- happened in any game you've ever been in? Seriously. Next time you run a game, have the party encounter two NPCs who attack them as soon as they get free and tell me if the party takes special care to capture them rather than kill them.

Yes, in my campaign, of course. I run Eberron, and in that setting alignment to monster type is discarded: I can have a Lawful Good vampire if I like, or a paladin bugbear... oooo... I like that one... I might use that. The vampire is Lawful Neutral, BTW.

Killing someone is eliminating a resource. That person you freed that attacked you, well, what if he is the only one that can tell you where you need to go? What if he is an innocent under some kind of compulsion spell? What if he is just confused and scared that you are there to kill him?

My game is a lot more complex than you think DnD should be. My PC's have learned that automatic slaughter costs them in the long run. Eberron is intended for Noir style campaigns, and if you know Film Noir, then attacking blindly is suicidal. You must work with evil in order to achieve your goals, and so killing anything that attacks you is simply ensuring you can't solve the plot. You have to deal with crazies and cruel people: and those might attack you without provocation, but killing them for it only ensures the real bad guy succeeds at his plot.

Recently, my party was wandering in a strange forest (this one inside a civilized realm, but not far from an uncivilized region), following humanoid tracks of unknown type. They spotted some kind of ambush.There's evidence the enemy is going to attack first, and clearly that's evil.

No, that is the action of someone defending the home from invaders. When you're walking in someone else's land, you don't get to pick how they choose to view you. You're the trespasser, and that gives the locals permission to deal with you in their way.

My PC's called out to their potential attackers and declared a desire to talk. Surprise! When faced with an unknown and aggressive enemy, my PC's assumed civilized locals, not uncivilized monsters. All but one did, anyway, but he's new to my game and has yet to learn that you don't know the nature of an enemy based on superficial appearances, and you can wind up killing innocents if you aren't very, very careful. In the end (after everyone else had surrendered as the enemy requested), he required a flight of arrows to get the point that they were serious about complete surrender (he was trying partial surrender), so the PC's even got attacked by the ambushers first. The PC got the point and did as they asked, instead of attacking, since the other party members had no interest in defending his paranoia. (The enemies were Wild elves protecting their territory. The trail was intended to lure the PC's to the ambush spot, where they would have been ordered to surrender as above.) Oh, and BTW, the Wild Elves were so far below the PC's level that they were trivial: the tank that took the flight of arrows watched them bounce ineffectively off his armour. It would have been a bloody slaughter that left a village's children unguarded. I don't pull punches. There are reasons to not kill those that attack you -- including mistaken identity.

Further, my party meets defender creatures frequently. They are very careful about who they attack and who they subdue, because that one monster may be the only guardian for something that is very innocent and very vulnerable. They recently avoided attacking an Oaken Defender that was set to guard a copse of oak trees that would have Dryads once they were big enough. They had no idea what exactly defeated the bear that tried marking his territory on one of the oaks, but they heard from one tree (Speak with Plants) that whatever killed the bear only defended oaks, they decided to not hurt oak trees.

[Paladin29]

if it can help, Pa said that phrases in ear range of Miko:

Sam: Yeah?, well i wasn´t asking. I was telling. You work for us now.

Pa: Pumpkin, i don´t know...

OR

Pa: You.. you killed my daughter!

OR

Pa: You killed my little girl!!.

Miko KNOWS that Sam was his daughter, and that Pa is acting as any of good aligment would act, but the quick way to solve the situation was kill a (right) vengefull father. Miko was selfish and unneccesary cruel, if i was the DM Miko falls no doubt. But this is the Giant story and i enjoy it :)

[FujinAkari]

if it can help, Pa said that phrases in ear range of Miko:

Sam: Yeah?, well i wasn´t asking. I was telling. You work for us now.

Pa: Pumpkin, i don´t know...

"Pumpkin, i don't know..." was -very- clearly marked as a whisper. Listen is a cross-class skill for a Paladin and, as a result, there is absolutely no reason to assume she heard Pa's statement here.


Pa: You.. you killed my daughter!

She did hear this one.


Pa: You killed my little girl!!.

This was made at the same time that Pa attacked, at which point Miko is forced to defend herself, so it can also be discounted to a degree.


Miko KNOWS that Sam was his daughter, and that Pa is acting as any of good aligment would act, but the quick way to solve the situation was kill a (right) vengefull father. Miko was selfish and unneccesary cruel, if i was the DM Miko falls no doubt. But this is the Giant story and i enjoy it :)

How was she selfish? Pa advanced on her, drew steel, and attacked her. All Miko did was defend herself and fail a diplomacy check. The father has no inherent right to vengance. He has a right to be upset, but everyone agrees that Miko had a right to defend herself from Samantha's attack.

As a result, Pa had absolutely no right to attack her.

There is nothing "unnecessarily cruel" about failing a diplomacy check, I am confused why everyone assumes Miko was intentionally cruel to Pa, as that seems entirely beyond the scope of her character. Miko has never shown any enjoyment in causing pain to others.

@Kreistor: I finally understand your argument... I find it a really bizarre point of contention, but it now seems your point of reference is your own campaign world, rather than Order of the Stick. Which, yes, if we took Miko and put her in an entirely separate game world with entirely separate expectations and entirely separate background, maybe her actions are unjustified... but is it even still Miko at that point?

[Kreistor]

@Kreistor: I finally understand your argument... I find it a really bizarre point of contention, but it now seems your point of reference is your own campaign world, rather than Order of the Stick. Which, yes, if we took Miko and put her in an entirely separate game world with entirely separate expectations and entirely separate background, maybe her actions are unjustified... but is it even still Miko at that point?

BREAKTHROUGH! EPIPHANY! ENLIGHTENMENT!

Between you and Charles, you're going to drive me insane! What are you doing being reasonable all of a sudden?

At least I know that I can get through to you, eventually.

Miko can exist in my campaign world, but she will get warnings from me when her player is about to commit what I decide is an evil act. Paladin players in my campaigns never fall by accident. She would know that treating someone like a criminal when he has done nothing to deserve it is evil, even if someone else close to him does something that implies he might be a criminal. She would know that I view the presentation of a weapon that has just been used for violence to an associate of someone you killed is an implied threat, and any requests made at that time is no different from a Mob's leg breaker making a similar request to someone that hasn't paid their weekly protection money. She would know that committing a murder and retaining the murder weapon provides cause to suspect an ongoing crime spree and that she can be attacked without initiating further attacks on others. (If you don't want to be attacked, don't carry a weapon.) She would have the knowledge, provided at the table by me, the DM, at the time of these proposed actions and then choose a different course of action. I am fair in my treatment of paladins, and all characters of all alignments, because there is so much disagreement between people of different backgrounds on what is good and what is evil, that I can't expect any player to inherently obey my view of an alignment without prompting.

[David Argall]

In an act of self defense, Miko did the right thing in accordance to the rule, BUT some of us (as seen from post above) feels that Miko being a Paladin of Lawful Good (or stupid by some people) should have done a little extra to prevent more deaths.
I play Living Greyhawk, 15,000 players by some estimates. That is something over 14,900 votes that Miko's behavior was proper and routine, that they would have done the same thing if they had been playing Miko [better of course. The number of egos in LG is also estimated at 15,000. But the basic actions would have been the same.] Some here seems to mean a tiny minority or an overwhelming majority.



Yes, in my campaign, of course. I run Eberron,
So you are running a variation of the basic game, and varying it with your rules. So Miko would fall under your rules. Don't you see how meaningless that is for our discussion of Miko?
We are wanting to discuss the general rules of D&D, not those of some particular DM [with the exception of our writer]. I can declare in my game that all paladins are CE and they must roll a d20 over their level or they have not done enough bad deeds to keep from unfalling. It simply does not change our judgement of Miko.
We need to consult the rules and the behavior of the great majority of players and DMs. The individual game has no importance here.



Miko KNOWS that Sam was his daughter, and that Pa is acting as any of good aligment would act,
??? A good individual is allowed to attack and kill somebody for doing a morally acceptable act?
Let us go real world here. A murders daughter of B. A cop arrives and finds B about to kill A. He will order B to stop and will kill B to make him stop if necessary, even knowing A is a murderer. [He will try to talk B down and will try less lethal efforts if he can, but if he has to, he kills B.]
And here Miko is acknowledged as in the right in killing Sam. Pa has absolutely no right to attack her.


Miko was selfish and unneccesary cruel.
How? [Other than in ways that can be explained by a bad diplomacy roll]

[VanBuren]

I play Living Greyhawk, 15,000 players by some estimates. That is something over 14,900 votes that Miko's behavior was proper and routine, that they would have done the same thing if they had been playing Miko [better of course. The number of egos in LG is also estimated at 15,000. But the basic actions would have been the same.] Some here seems to mean a tiny minority or an overwhelming majority.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you the one who cried Argumentum ad populum earlier in this thread?



So you are running a variation of the basic game, and varying it with your rules. So Miko would fall under your rules. Don't you see how meaningless that is for our discussion of Miko?

We are wanting to discuss the general rules of D&D, not those of some particular DM [with the exception of our writer]. I can declare in my game that all paladins are CE and they must roll a d20 over their level or they have not done enough bad deeds to keep from unfalling. It simply does not change our judgement of Miko.

We need to consult the rules and the behavior of the great majority of players and DMs. The individual game has no importance here.

Just because a majority plays the rules by a certain definition, that doesn't make it the correct one.


Let us go real world here.

Let's not. DnD is not modern society and never will be.

[Kreistor]

So you are running a variation of the basic game, and varying it with your rules. So Miko would fall under your rules. Don't you see how meaningless that is for our discussion of Miko?

Eberron is a WotC product, as official as FR, Greyhawk, or anything else they ever produced. I play official alignment rules, without modification.

Unlike Fujin and Charles, you have never understood the original point, David. This has always been about Paladin29's point that the alignment rules have the flexibility to allow the interpretation that Miko would not be allowed in some campaigns. The Giant's interpretation allows Miko, but other DM's do not need to interpret the alignment rules that way: this has never been about the Giant being wrong, because I have always stated clearly that he was not. There is no argument that can defeat our stance. That's why I said you couldn't win anything. You are the one that took up the argument against Paladin29's position, so it is not your discussion: it's Paladin29's, if anyone's, and I was defending him. If anything is meaningless, it's your choice to argue about something that is inherently based on opinion in the first place.

[Paladin29]

The thing more similar to a cop in a range o kilometers was... MIKO!! (yes, i know paladin is not a guard, but understand me), so what would you do if was the cop who kills your daughter?... however what i want to say is that Pa´s feelings were right. Miko don´t sympatize with Pa, she only do the easy thing...kill him. She is cruel because she hasn´t compassion, she is selfish because she choose to do the most convenient thing for her.

wow, 15,000 is so many people, in my country however the hack and slash (a valid system) system isn´t so spread.

[Charles Phipps]

She is cruel because she hasn´t compassion, she is selfish because she choose to do the most convenient thing for her.

Cruel?

I don't see cutting him down in short order as cruel. How is it cruel? The man attacked her with lethal force and has an established relationship with an evil woman.

It's possible he was a good guy that just went berserk but I'd definitely judge it a neutral act.

If she'd known more, killing him is a good act.

So he loved his kid. Big Deal. So did Michael Corleone and he's LE.

[Paladin29]

Perhaps you are right, perhaps i empathize too much with Pa. The only thing that i know for sure is that i´ll act in a total different way than Miko. I understand that many people don´t see compassion and kindness as a main characteristics of a Paladin, at least I make clear that I do :)

[Deathwisher]

Vanquish is not the same as kill. It merely means defeat, and is entirely consistent with their survival.


If the person who says it is holding two lethal weapons? the only reasonable assumption is that fighting will mean serious injury or death.



But she gives them a chance to offer it, a quite major chance. They are in no sense rushed and have a full chance to insist they are not evil, to surrender, bargain, or whatever.


Every single line Miko speaks indicates a desire to fight them. If she was willing to give them a chance to explain, argue or justify their actions, why didn't she just ask for it. A statement like: 'you're under arrest' or 'explain your actions', 'release the prisioner' (A prisoner by the way that she hadn't even seen yet, so there was no proof that the ogres were holding him captive) Any of these demands would take only a second and indicate that there is an alternative to fighting.



The ogres clearly think she is in no position to dictate options. Their assumption is that she is crazy and easy meat. If they were interested in a third option, they had plenty of time to ask about it. [Or even just avoid fighting. Miko says she is not going to attack before they finish breakfast, on their definition of finish. So they need merely never finish it, and she could not attack. She might change her mind at that point, but the ogres have plenty of time to think of such an option if they were interested. And the very fact they are not condemns them.]


Why should they be interested in any third option? From their perspective some raving idiot just stated her intention to attack them. Depending on your outlook on life you may find that amusing, pathetic or just plain annoying and will respond accordingly. The ogres take the approach that if she wants a fight, she is going to get it. Your argument works both ways. The ogres respond so slowly that Miko has plenty of time to run away. Does that make the ogres morally superior? No, it just makes them slow. I find it rather interesting that you consider Miko justified in killing Sam and her father, but apparently the ogres are evil because they are willing to fight against an unknown attacker. (I don't particularly blame Miko for killing Sam, or even her father, but by that logic the ogres have the right to use violence as well). If anything, Miko as a paladin should be held to a higher standard.


Immediately and without regard to additional facts? No attempt to avoid the struggle? Now for starters this is saying Miko is not guilty in killing Paw.


And when did I say otherwise? Don't confuse my position with that of other posters. The confrontation between Miko, Sam and Paw was a mess from the beginning.
As far as I am concerned, Sam was guilty for attacking Miko with her spell. Miko defended herself. The next fight (between Paw and Miko) was a natural result of the first one. I can understand Paws desire for vengeance on Miko (she killed his child) but I don't condemn Miko for killing him. To me both killings seem a bit excessive, but not necessarily reprehensible. The ultimate responsibility lies with Sam for starting the fight.



But don't you even consider seeing if the dispute can't be settled another way? Particularly when the "attacker" seems to be alone and weak? You're 10th level, and this baby dragon has to be fresh from the egg. You really are going to just kill it? Not try to talk it out of this suicidal action? [If for not other reason than you too may have missed the use of "we", and Mama is just out of sight ready to attack as soon as you attack?]


If someone brandishes weapons and states a desire to destroy me, I would consider it a bit late for talking. Now, depending on how threatened I felt, I might try to use non-lethal force, but someone who threatens to attack me with a lethal weapon takes his own chances. If they get hurt or killed in the process that is just too bad. They only have themselves to blame. Miko seems alone, but that doesn't mean she is weak. (The fact that she wears armor and carries two swords is an indication that she is far from weak). As to your baby dragon example. If I was strong enough I wouldn't kill it. I would also look around the cave for any adult dragons before I went anywhere near that baby. That has nothing to do with morality. It is basic survival. I would do that anytime I encountered a baby predator, no matter the animal species. Messing with a lion cub is not a smart idea either.


But even if we accept this claim, the ogres do have this option [and don't exercise it.] The OOTS plan would not give them the option at all. So Miko comes out morally superior to the OOTS, our good group.

If at any time she had stated a willingness to bargain, or simply accept surrender I would agree. She does none of these things. Ultimately, she intends to do the same thing as the OOTS: destroy all ogres. The fact that she uses a more complicated plan that involves a lot of talking doesn't signal any moral superiority. It simply indicates a different approach to the same tactical situation.

[Charles Phipps]

Perhaps you are right, perhaps i empathize too much with Pa. The only thing that i know for sure is that i´ll act in a total different way than Miko. I understand that many people don´t see compassion and kindness as a main characteristics of a Paladin, at least I make clear that I do :)

My Paladin is a Paladin of the God of Death, Regret, Loss, and Post-Humous Justice so that would be a bit odd for him.

[chibibar]

Well remember that I state that Miko thus far act accordance to the rule and that is why Miko didn't fall when killing Samantha's father. Miko is clearly superior fighter (we know this later) and Miko could have disarm the Samantha's father and ask for surrender instead of killing him outright, but that is just an act of mercy that some player may do.

It is optional :) so if you follow the rules by the letter, Miko did that.

[Paladin29]

mmm, paladin of the god of Death, it´s not my style but it is a interesting option to play someday :). However i think the twelve gods of the saphire guard values kindness and compassion more than the God of Death.

[Hood]

mmm, paladin of the god of Death, it´s not my style but it is a interesting option to play someday :). However i think the twelve gods of the saphire guard values kindness and compassion more than the God of Death.

And where would you get an idea like that? There you go again, always assuming things. :smallmad:

[FujinAkari]

mmm, paladin of the god of Death, it´s not my style but it is a interesting option to play someday :). However i think the twelve gods of the saphire guard values kindness and compassion more than the God of Death.

Gotta echo Hood here...

SoD Spoiler
A pantheon of gods that creates entire races of people for the explicit purpose of getting slaughtered for experience do not strike me as Gods concerned with kindness or compassion.

While, yes, they likely value it MORE than the God of Death, I don't think they really value it at all...

[David Argall]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you the one who cried Argumentum ad populum earlier in this thread?
Apparently not. I noted the use of arguing against the person instead of agains the argument, but I see no case of my arguing that popularity is a fallacy in this thread.
Now it is often a fallacy, but not here. We are asking if Miko did something evil, and the evidence that 99% of all DMs would not object to her actions is clearly relevant.


Just because a majority plays the rules by a certain definition, that doesn't make it the correct one.
True, and false. Particularly when we start getting very large majorities. It doesn't matter what the rules say if nobody follows them. For example the state of West Virginia does not legally exist. It was an unconstitutional taking of Virginia's territory. But everyone behaves as if it was legal.

The majority vote can also be of use when the rules are simply not clear. And that is a common situation. Quite often the rule is decided by the DM simply because the rule is obscure.

Now for our case, we need super-majorities. A 51-49 vote does not settle the point, except to say there will be table variation. And there is a claim the action is merely marginal, which ups the margin even more. But if we have those margins, we do have an answer.


DnD is not modern society and never will be.
We can't help bringing some parts of modern society to the table, and so it is relevant to understanding the game.



Eberron is a WotC product, as official as FR, Greyhawk, or anything else they ever produced.
Greyhawk was officially labeled the standard. Eberron, etc are simply variants [until next year when FR will be the official standard.]


I play official alignment rules, without modification....the alignment rules have the flexibility to allow the interpretation that Miko would not be allowed in some campaigns.
In other words, you say the official alignment rules are effectively meaningless and you can deem whatever youplay as official alignment rules. But we argue rules around here too much to accept such a position. It simply makes any argument unsettleable.

Originally Posted by David Argall
Vanquish is not the same as kill. It merely means defeat, and is entirely consistent with their survival.


If the person who says it is holding two lethal weapons? the only reasonable assumption is that fighting will mean serious injury or death.
Now you are already acknowledging an additional outcome. And we have not considered surrender, which seems an option under vanquished.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
But she gives them a chance to offer it, a quite major chance. They are in no sense rushed and have a full chance to insist they are not evil, to surrender, bargain, or whatever.


Every single line Miko speaks indicates a desire to fight them. If she was willing to give them a chance to explain, argue or justify their actions, why didn't she just ask for it.
Why should she? She has already given them adequate chance to display any virtue, and she correctly feels they won't be displaying any.
Our question here is whether she display superior morals, not whether she displayed perfect. The alternative was the behavior of the OOTS, which involved a simple attack, giving no chance to correct any error. Her solution was morally, and tactically, superior to that offered by the clearly LG Roy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
The ogres clearly think she is in no position to dictate options. Their assumption is that she is crazy and easy meat. If they were interested in a third option, they had plenty of time to ask about it.


Why should they be interested in any third option? From their perspective some raving idiot just stated her intention to attack them. Depending on your outlook on life you may find that amusing, pathetic or just plain annoying and will respond accordingly.
Which means you get information about their moral outlook and can avoid violence when it is not proper.


I find it rather interesting that you consider Miko justified in killing Sam and her father, but apparently the ogres are evil because they are willing to fight against an unknown attacker.

Now one difference is that Pa was an emergency situation. Miko had time to make one statement before Pa was swinging at her. The ogres have time to finish breakfast, and to have seconds, plus additional time. Now we can agree that Miko did not make best use of her time, but it was limited time, with the limit imposed by Pa, who did not make a formal declaration that he was about to attack. Miko not only warned them, she waited to attack until they declared themselves ready.


If someone brandishes weapons and states a desire to destroy me, I would consider it a bit late for talking.
But it is not entirely too late. Again consider your typical cop. He does not automatically start shooting when the thug pulls his gun and starts threatening to kill someone. He certainly gets ready to, but often he merely tries to talk the lug down, and succeeds often enough too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
But even if we accept this claim, the ogres do have this option [and don't exercise it.] The OOTS plan would not give them the option at all. So Miko comes out morally superior to the OOTS, our good group.


If at any time she had stated a willingness to bargain, or simply accept surrender I would agree.
You are trying to compare the better with the perfect. The challenge is merely to find the superior here, and that challenge is met by her giving them a full chance to talk, a chance Roy was going to deny them.


It simply indicates a different approach to the same tactical situation.
Miko tells us different in 215. "It was merely Also a [tactical plan]" It's moral aspect was uppermost in her mind.

[Deathwisher]

Why should she? She has already given them adequate chance to display any virtue, and she correctly feels they won't be displaying any.
Our question here is whether she display superior morals, not whether she displayed perfect. The alternative was the behavior of the OOTS, which involved a simple attack, giving no chance to correct any error. Her solution was morally, and tactically, superior to that offered by the clearly LG Roy.

We don't know what the outcome of Roys plan would have been, since it was never put into practice, so tactical superiority remains in doubt. And what is this about giving them ample opportunity to display virtue? She says she wants to fight them and then keeps on talking about how she wants to fight. The ogres are doing exactly what she tells them to do: finishing their meal, picking up their weapons etc. One can even make an argument that the ogres are being rather nice to her. They are doing everything she wants them to do. In that sense they are displaying virtue: they are obeying a paladins orders.


Which means you get information about their moral outlook and can avoid violence when it is not proper.

Their moral outlook being that they are willing to respond violently to the threat of violence. Not much of a surprise and hardly proof of evil.



Now one difference is that Pa was an emergency situation. Miko had time to make one statement before Pa was swinging at her. The ogres have time to finish breakfast, and to have seconds, plus additional time. Now we can agree that Miko did not make best use of her time, but it was limited time, with the limit imposed by Pa, who did not make a formal declaration that he was about to attack. Miko not only warned them, she waited to attack until they declared themselves ready.

She could have fought defensively against Pa's attack rather than kill him on the spot, but chose not to do so, but yes the situation was difficult and the options severly limited. Again, I don'r blame her all that much for the result of this particular conforntation, becasue the ultimate responsibility lies with Sam.
Miko warns the ogres, but insists all the time that wants to fight them. If she is willing accept surrender, or even just wants to check the facts of the situation, why not ask for it? She has chosen the approach most likely to end in violence. She never even entertains the notion that the ogres might not be evil, nor that a non-violent solution might be possible. I don't particularly blame her for that, I just find it stange to attribute moral superiority to a person who walks up to a group of total strangers, yelling that she wants to fight with them.



But it is not entirely too late. Again consider your typical cop. He does not automatically start shooting when the thug pulls his gun and starts threatening to kill someone. He certainly gets ready to, but often he merely tries to talk the lug down, and succeeds often enough too.

I wouldn't put that into practice if I were you. Drawing a gun and then walking up to a cop is not good for your health and the cop would be justified in shooting you. You expect the cop to talk the thug down? Interesting. Apparently Miko is morally inferior to the average cop, since she makes no attempt whatsoever to talk the ogres down and they haven't even drawn their weapons yet. They're just sitting next to the fire having a meal.




Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
But even if we accept this claim, the ogres do have this option [and don't exercise it.] The OOTS plan would not give them the option at all. So Miko comes out morally superior to the OOTS, our good group.


You are trying to compare the better with the perfect. The challenge is merely to find the superior here, and that challenge is met by her giving them a full chance to talk, a chance Roy was going to deny them.


Miko tells us different in 215. "It was merely Also a [tactical plan]" It's moral aspect was uppermost in her mind.

She was talking about giving the ogres a fair fight. Not about letting them surrender. Once again, if she wanted to give them that opportunity, why not call for them to surrender? It costs no extra effort and allows for the possibility to diffuse the situation.

[Paladin29]

He, yes, I forget that little detail, however Sam and Pa are not goblins, they are humans as Miko is,they are not (not only at least) an XP bag. I suppose that the twelve gods are Good in general (perhaps some of them have concepts of death or vengance) if not their paladins will not be LG. And kindness and compassion, ALLWAYS in my opinion, are main virtues in the very concept of GOOD aligment.

[David Argall]

We don't know what the outcome of Roys plan would have been, since it was never put into practice, so tactical superiority remains in doubt.
In terms of results, the tactical superiority of Miko's plan is fantastic. At the end of Round 1, the fight is effectively over, just a little mopping up to do. Roy's plan is several steps [each subject to failure] long and far from certain of success. Now to properly measure Miko's plan, we need to consider how likely it is the ogres would squeeze up around her. There would seem to be several ways this could go wrong here.


And what is this about giving them ample opportunity to display virtue? She says she wants to fight them and then keeps on talking about how she wants to fight.
The Chihuahua barking at you is demanding to fight too. Would you take seriously anybody's claim that they killed it in self defense? Now we know Miko was more of a Great Dane, if not a lioness, but the ogres clearly viewed her as that toy dog.
This may be your problem. The threat of violence is not justification for violence. It is merely a part of a check list. No threat of violence, no justification for violence. Threat of violence, now we move to other factors.. One of them being just how much threat there is.


Their moral outlook being that they are willing to respond violently to the threat of violence. Not much of a surprise and hardly proof of evil.
Proof of evil. You bash some drunk at the bar because he was threatening to bash you and you can go to jail if the cops show up. As long as he is just talking, you are to let him talk.
Same applies here. Violence is supposed to be the last resort. Somebody wants to fight you, you are to explore alternatives if you can.


Miko warns the ogres, but insists all the time that wants to fight them. If she is willing accept surrender, or even just wants to check the facts of the situation, why not ask for it? She has chosen the approach most likely to end in violence.
Clearly not. For starters, there doesn't seem to be an approach that won't end in violence, with the merely possible exception of abject surrender. Indeed, if we look at animal behavior, it may be the way least likely to result in violence. She is "warning" them she is dangerous, and they should leave her alone. Very routine for animals that meed in the wild to make as violent of threats as they can. One attacks the weak, not the strong.


She never even entertains the notion that the ogres might not be evil, nor that a non-violent solution might be possible.
Which is sensible of her in one sense. However, yes, that is what she does. She is allowing them the time to show any signs of good they might have.


I just find it stange to attribute moral superiority to a person who walks up to a group of total strangers, yelling that she wants to fight with them.
The alternative was to simply attack them. Now if you wish to argue that action X was even more morally superior, fine, but that is not the point at issue. Miko engaged in an option morally superior to what would have been acceptable LG behavior, as defined by our standard here, Roy.



Drawing a gun and then walking up to a cop is not good for your health and the cop would be justified in shooting you.
On the basis of just these details, the cop and the department can easily get socked with big damages. He is likely aiming at you and demanding you put the gun down, but he needs evidence you are not just holding the gun, but actually intending to shoot in the very near future before he can shoot.


You expect the cop to talk the thug down?
Of course. The simple fact is that the thug does surrender a very large percentage of the time. The cop starts shooting and somebody winds up dead or in the emergency wing of the hospital. And that somebody is often not the thug.


Interesting. Apparently Miko is morally inferior to the average cop, since she makes no attempt whatsoever to talk the ogres down and they haven't even drawn their weapons yet.
She also does not attack until they have their weapons and have gathered around her with the announced intention to attack. Our cop is in no trouble shooting once a gun is aimed at him.



She was talking about giving the ogres a fair fight. Not about letting them surrender. Once again, if she wanted to give them that opportunity, why not call for them to surrender? It costs no extra effort and allows for the possibility to diffuse the situation.
To repeat what I said before "You are trying to compare the better with the perfect. The challenge is merely to find the superior here, and that challenge is met by her giving them a full chance to talk, a chance Roy was going to deny them."

[Hood]

Actually, I was kidding... I thought that it funny to think paladins that worship a god of death would value compassion. I guess I wasn't clear enough there.

[Charles Phipps]

mmm, paladin of the god of Death, it´s not my style but it is a interesting option to play someday :). However i think the twelve gods of the saphire guard values kindness and compassion more than the God of Death.

They might value Justice more than Kindness and Compassion. Goodness in D&D isn't just New Testament/Buddha of Mercy. It's a lot of goods across the spectrum.

In the god's position, smoting Samantha and Dad might be better than letting two evil doers go.

No, Miko didn't KNOW but it was a good act because they turned out to be evil.

[Paladin29]

There is no justice in the death of Pa, and we can´t know if they will continue with their evil ways if we kill them, they can repent their actions and change.

If you reduce the aligment system to: GOOD: "i kill you because you are evil"; EVIL: "I kill you because i want", there is really no sense in that. Good people make the diference, a good character is more difficult to carry (an paladins a lot more) because they must work with restrictions that evil and neutral characters mustn´t.

i´m sorry but I will stand in this, i think that good aligment are based in occidental christian concept because it was design first to american public, however that is an opinion as well as your believe that this rules are not based in that philophical system.

[Kish]

And yet, you think it's valid to draw a significant moral distinction between killing evil humans and killing goblins...? :smallconfused:

[Charles Phipps]

There is no justice in the death of Pa, and we can´t know if they will continue with their evil ways if we kill them, they can repent their actions and change.

They tried to murder the Order of the Stick. They show no sign of wanting to repent. If you define justice as the defense of the innocent rather than retribution for evil, then they certainly show no signs of deserving any mercy since it's clear they intend to continue their evil ways.


If you reduce the aligment system to: GOOD: "i kill you because you are evil"; EVIL: "I kill you because i want", there is really no sense in that. Good people make the diference, a good character is more difficult to carry (an paladins a lot more) because they must work with restrictions that evil and neutral characters mustn´t.

In D&D; a great deal of the game is that Evil People throw the First Punch, Good People throw the second and try to make the Evil's last.


i´m sorry but I will stand in this, i think that good aligment are based in occidental christian concept because it was design first to american public, however that is an opinion as well as your believe that this rules are not based in that philophical system.

Actually, D&D Good is very much Non-Christian if you're strict about the viewpoints. Christianity is fundamentally a pacifistic religion. D&D is very much the result of Tolkien morality. Tolkien morality is a fusing of Nordic and Celtic notions of Heroism + Good Vs. Evil mixed with the Absolutism of Christianity's Heavenly Conflict.

Redemption and Forgiveness is the greatest thing in Tolkien but they strike to kill and you are made to *PAY* in D&D/Tolkien. It's a very violent worldview thats even got an addition of Howard that only makes things even more confusing.

[Deathwisher]

The Chihuahua barking at you is demanding to fight too. Would you take seriously anybody's claim that they killed it in self defense? Now we know Miko was more of a Great Dane, if not a lioness, but the ogres clearly viewed her as that toy dog.
This may be your problem. The threat of violence is not justification for violence. It is merely a part of a check list. No threat of violence, no justification for violence. Threat of violence, now we move to other factors.. One of them being just how much threat there is.


Proof of evil. You bash some drunk at the bar because he was threatening to bash you and you can go to jail if the cops show up. As long as he is just talking, you are to let him talk.
Same applies here. Violence is supposed to be the last resort. Somebody wants to fight you, you are to explore alternatives if you can.


Do you have any idea how hypocritical this sounds? In this case Miko is the aggressor from beginning to end. She walks up to the ogres, demands that they fight her, kills their leader and then orders V and Durkon to blast them. Yet you call this moral superiority. On the other hand, if a drunk at a bar approaches me with a drawn knife you expect me to wait until he actually stabs me before I defend myself. You keep ignoring that Miko has two drawn swords in her hands. The ogres are merely sitting around a fire and having a meal.
As to the chihuahua that you mention, when it starts to annoy me, I'll hit it. I won't kill it, because I see no necessity. This is called a measured response. An attacking chihuahua gets kicked, a person with two drawn swords gets killed. Too bad, it's a good lesson in sensible behaviour. Don't threaten to attack people with a deadly weapon if you're not willing to face the consequences.


Clearly not. For starters, there doesn't seem to be an approach that won't end in violence, with the merely possible exception of abject surrender. Indeed, if we look at animal behavior, it may be the way least likely to result in violence. She is "warning" them she is dangerous, and they should leave her alone. Very routine for animals that meed in the wild to make as violent of threats as they can. One attacks the weak, not the strong.

What does the behaviour of animals have to day to anything. Miko is supposed to be a sentient being. THEY should leave HER alone? SHE is threatening THEM! You cannot walk up to someone, demand that they fight and then afterwards claim that they should have left you alone


Which is sensible of her in one sense. However, yes, that is what she does. She is allowing them the time to show any signs of good they might have.

You are attributing a motive to her that isn't shown anywhere. Nowhere does she even mention the possibility of any other option than fighting. If you want to give people the opportunity to show good behaviour insisting that they fight is about the most ridiculous way to do it.



The alternative was to simply attack them. Now if you wish to argue that action X was even more morally superior, fine, but that is not the point at issue. Miko engaged in an option morally superior to what would have been acceptable LG behavior, as defined by our standard here, Roy.

I wish to argue that you claim moral superiority in a situation where tactics where the driving motive and that you are conjuring up a motive (giving ogres the opportunity to show good behaviour) out of thin air



On the basis of just these details, the cop and the department can easily get socked with big damages. He is likely aiming at you and demanding you put the gun down, but he needs evidence you are not just holding the gun, but actually intending to shoot in the very near future before he can shoot.

Pointing a deadly weapon at a person constitutes a show of intent. At that point you are only a single action (pulling the trigger) away from actually shooting. What would you consider evidence that someone intends to shoot in the near future? A big sign worn around the neck saying 'I am a guncrazy psycho'? By those rules a cop would never be able to fire first and when you are faced with an armed individual at close range the first shot is usually the only one.



Of course. The simple fact is that the thug does surrender a very large percentage of the time. The cop starts shooting and somebody winds up dead or in the emergency wing of the hospital. And that somebody is often not the thug.

that is why cops have the option to shoot to wound. It is also why cops call for a criminal to surrender, rather than insist that they fight.



She also does not attack until they have their weapons and have gathered around her with the announced intention to attack. Our cop is in no trouble shooting once a gun is aimed at him.

So she gives them a fair fight, no more, no less. Where is the proof that she wanted to give them an opportunity to show virtue? Our cop would be in big trouble if he walked up to a thug and said: fight me or die, but that is precisely what Miko is doing



To repeat what I said before "You are trying to compare the better with the perfect. The challenge is merely to find the superior here, and that challenge is met by her giving them a full chance to talk, a chance Roy was going to deny them."


To repeat what I said before, you ar econtributing motive where there is none. Miko wanted two things: 1) To defeat the ogres. 2) to do so in a fair fight. That is all. if she had any intention to let them surrender without a fight she would have taken a different approach.

[FujinAkari]

To repeat what I said before, you ar econtributing motive where there is none. Miko wanted two things: 1) To defeat the ogres. 2) to do so in a fair fight. That is all. if she had any intention to let them surrender without a fight she would have taken a different approach.

And to repeat what he said before, the argument was that Miko's plan was morally superior to Roy's, which is absolutely true.

Roy wanted to surprise attack them and kill half of them in their sleep. A plan that allows them to be aware and prepared for an attack is CLEARLY morally superior to killing them in their sleep.

While I agree that he is greatly over-sympathizing Miko here, the -fact- remains that her plan IS morally superior to the OOTS'.

[Paladin29]

And yet, you think it's valid to draw a significant moral distinction between killing evil humans and killing goblins...?

The Giant did in his history, not me. I am only arguing in the Giant´s theological paradigm. I said multiple times that paladins killing goblins for the mere fact that they are goblins, and attacking old and child are not correct in my opinion, but it is only my opinion.

Well Charles, yeah, it´s not the christian ideal: "if they hit in your left cheek then show them the right", but my point is that kindness and compassion (when it´s possible to apply, because DnD implies action and fight in great quantities) is important in the definition of good. Frodo, Gandalf and Aragorn show mercy to Gollum even knowing that he is a treacherous criature. Gandalf and Theoden again show mercy to Wormtongue, even knowing that he´ll inform to Saruman. Even Saruman is worth of Gandalf pity, even offering him redemption. Compassion is a value exalted by Tolkien, who serve in wartime andknows exactly when a man must to kill to survive or to defend his nation and his family, and when a man can show compassion.

I think Miko lack compassion, she has a heart of stone (except when she grows angry) and that it´s not a LG Paladin virtue.

[Kish]

The Giant did in his history, not me. I am only arguing in the Giant´s theological paradigm.
Now hold it. The OotS gods as Rich wrote them did. The way you're phrasing it, it sounds like you're assuming Rich himself agrees with that--that they're supposed to be right.

[Charles Phipps]

I think Miko lack compassion, she has a heart of stone (except when she grows angry) and that it´s not a LG Paladin virtue.

I know, but the fact is that Papa had a death wish.

Even if she had compassion, the only thing she could offer is feeling bad about killing him.

Disabling him isn't really going to change much.

[teratorn]

I said multiple times that paladins killing goblins for the mere fact that they are goblins, and attacking old and child are not correct in my opinion, but it is only my opinion.
Yours and the the opinion of any sane person in the real world. But you can't use real word concepts in a universe where you are sure of the afterlife and its denizens, oracles can be trusted, and the goodness of your actions is confirmed by direct intervention from your deities. If you are talking about the SoD thing, you should note that those paladins did not fall so whatever they did wasn't against their vows and was aproved by the twelve gods. Their quest and the sake of creation probably involved finishing all of those near the Crimson mantle (possibly some oracle thingy).

I agree with you that it wouldn't be correct for the PCs to take part in that, it should be kept as a NPC thing only (I would make my character kill himself after something like that). As I see it, it makes a great backstory for the DM to use, but it's not the kind of situation to confront the players with.

[Paladin29]

Please...before it continues, i am not judging the Giant or his work, i am only said what i think of paladin actions in the comic. Yes they didn´t fall in the comic, the twelve gods accept all of the actions as legitimate, it is a fact i can´t (and don´t want) discusss, i only say that IMO an LG paladin will not act like Miko or the others in SoD. If i was a DM i will not allow it, and as a player i will not act like that, but it´s my point of view (and of my roleplaying group as well).. however i give all the arguments to base my opinion, and i think that it´s enough clear.

[Beatnik gamer]

{scrubbed}

[Hidalgo]

Paladins are a lot like another "class" a lot of people hate and would like to see take a fall, actually.

they allready did "took a fall" when they lost Azure city to Xykon...

[rickvoid]

{scrubbed}

Dude...

That's like... asking for a banning.

Just... dude. :smalleek:

[Kreistor]

Well, when the mod finally does come here and see that post, I hope he'll recognize that Beatnik is not posting on topic with the thread. I don't want to see this thread closed because of one person's post.

[David Argall]

Do you have any idea how hypocritical this sounds? In this case Miko is the aggressor from beginning to end. She walks up to the ogres, demands that they fight her, kills their leader and then orders V and Durkon to blast them. Yet you call this moral superiority.
Superiority means compared to something else. The thing to compare Miko's plan to is Roy's, which clearly has a greater risk of harming the innocent.


On the other hand, if a drunk at a bar approaches me with a drawn knife you expect me to wait until he actually stabs me before I defend myself.
The law expects you to wait until violence can't be avoided. That is before he stabs you, or starts to swing his knife in most cases, but if he is waving that knife at your from several feet away you can not take a step towards him and still claim self defense. In the case of Miko, that is just what the ogres do. Miko "threatens" from a distance at which she is deemed by the rational observer to be effectively harmless. It is the ogres who move to her to fight.


You keep ignoring that Miko has two drawn swords in her hands. The ogres are merely sitting around a fire and having a meal.
The initial actions of the ogres are unimportant here. They were the same whether we adopt Roy's plan or Miko's plan. And the mere holding of a weapon makes no difference. You may not attack someone whether or not they are armed or you may attack them, again whether or not they are armed.


As to the chihuahua that you mention, when it starts to annoy me, I'll hit it. I won't kill it, because I see no necessity. This is called a measured response. An attacking chihuahua gets kicked, a person with two drawn swords gets killed.
But to the ogres, Roy, and the reader, Miko appears to be the chihuahua. We assume she is going to get her head handed her. We know she is tough in battle, but this looks like she is going to get herself killed for the sake of honor [something that happened to a good many real-life paladins].
And we don't get the measured response. Instead the ogres largely seem to be thinking this is a free chance to cause some pain.



THEY should leave HER alone? SHE is threatening THEM! You cannot walk up to someone, demand that they fight and then afterwards claim that they should have left you alone
You can indeed. Now you are unlikely to collect damages since you are also at fault, but they may well do jail time.
But to modify the dog example, let us make you a kid of 5-10 and the other guy maybe about 20. He's not supposed to take your threat seriously no matter how serious you are.
Miko, as far as the ogres could tell, was that kid. By that standard of measured response, she was not to be touched, at least not until more information was available.


You are attributing a motive to her that isn't shown anywhere.
Observe all the talk about honor and "I meant every word". And a great deal of honor is discussion of when one can and can't attack with honor. We can't determine the exact contents of her code of honor from the strip, but we, and the ogres if they cared, can determine there are conditions under which she can't attack.


Nowhere does she even mention the possibility of any other option than fighting. If you want to give people the opportunity to show good behaviour insisting that they fight is about the most ridiculous way to do it.
Urging people to exhibit bad behavior is one of the standard methods to get people to show good behavior. You want to be sure someone is honest, you try to give him a chance to cheat [when he doesn't know you are watching]. So Miko tries to give them a chance to hurt someone when they should not.


I wish to argue that you claim moral superiority in a situation where tactics where the driving motive and that you are conjuring up a motive (giving ogres the opportunity to show good behaviour) out of thin air

We have Miko's statement that tactics were secondary. Honor was the important thing. And the base definition of honor is good behavior.



Pointing a deadly weapon at a person constitutes a show of intent.
You are jumping to conclusions here. Holding a gun and aiming it are two different things. Our cop is not authorized to shoot you for holding the gun. Indeed, even aiming it is not always going to be enough. If our thug is aiming it at a hostage, the cop is not to shoot, but rather to try to talk the lout out of shooting.

In our case, Miko is not "pointing a gun" at the ogres. She is a safe distance away.



when you are faced with an armed individual at close range the first shot is usually the only one.
Quite wrong as it happens. Standard training these days is to empty a full clip precisely because the miss rate is so high. [An example from the Wild West days when we have this picture of high accuracy involved 3 gunmen, who emptied their weapons at each other and the only injury was 1 wound, caused by a not-so-innocent bystander who snuck up behind one of the shooters.]


that is why cops have the option to shoot to wound. It is also why cops call for a criminal to surrender, rather than insist that they fight.
Cops tell a criminal to surrender because it is the cops' duty to bring the prisoner in for trial. It is not his duty to fight with the suspect.


Our cop would be in big trouble if he walked up to a thug and said: fight me or die, but that is precisely what Miko is doing
He would be in even more trouble if he just shot the thug, which is the alternate suggested in the strip.
But Miko does not say "fight or die". She say she intends to vanquish the ogres, which can be consistent with their survival. Not on the terms they would prefer, of course, but still entirely alive.


To repeat what I said before, you ar econtributing motive where there is none. Miko wanted two things: 1) To defeat the ogres. 2) to do so in a fair fight. That is all.
a-As noted before, that puts her in a position of moral superiority to Roy who was willing to dispose of the ogres without the fair fight.
b-The very concept of fair fight puts limits on her behavior, and so drags in other values.

i
f she had any intention to let them surrender without a fight she would have taken a different approach.
Accepting surrender is routinely a part of a fair fight. Now if she thought there was a reasonable chance they would surrender, she might have tried different tactics, but it was possible for them to surrender, or try other tactics that likely would have required her to let them live. They had their chance and passed it up.

[teratorn]

The law expects you to wait until violence can't be avoided. That is before he stabs you, or starts to swing his knife in most cases, but if he is waving that knife at your from several feet away you can not take a step towards him and still claim self defense.

So true, people always get surprised by something like this. You are in for a lot of problems if you go against the guy and injure him.

One of my friends was faced by a robber with a knife and punched him. The bus driver and the other passangers decided to just drop the thief on the side of the road and to pretend nothing had happened. Had there been a complaint and witnesses he would have faced serious charges.

[Kreistor]

One of my friends was faced by a robber with a knife and punched him. The bus driver and the other passangers decided to just drop the thief on the side of the road and to pretend nothing had happened. Had there been a complaint and witnesses he would have faced serious charges.

How does he know? Did he ask a lawyer?

In this case, the thief was threatening grievous injury. Under Canadian law, attempted theft is treated the same as a threat to the person, so there is no difference between this and threatening to cut your friend. Your friend chose to use a punch, not a grievous injury, to counter the threat of grievous injury.

Defending yourself with a non-grievous injury technique does not require the same rigor in avoiding the conflict. It is only when you use grievous injury to defend yourself that you must ensure that you are rigorous in avoiding the conflict if possible. Your friend, by choosing a defensive technique that was not grievous, was not required to avoid the conflict in the same way as if he'd drawn a knife himself.

Further, your friend is on a bus. He could not flee the conflict.

From what I see, under Canadian law, your friend would have clearly gotten off without charges. I doubt the event took place in Canada, but I highly doubt the laws where you are to be more liberal in terms of self-defense. US law tends to be more permissive of self-defense.

Spoiler contains the relevant section of the Criminal Code of Canada. Note that the injury, being non-grievous, fulfills the criterion of 34.1. The requirement to avoid conflict is a sub-section of 34.2, which requires grievous injury to your attacker.

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

Extent of justification


(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

[Alfryd]

I feel it only fair to point out that similar threads have been closed in the not-too-distant past for touching on the subject of Miko (and Roy's) alleged misdeeds. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3406022&postcount=86)
I suggest proceeding with great caution.

[Kreistor]

I just hope he has a static IP so he can't get a new login if the mods ban him.

[teratorn]

How does he know? Did he ask a lawyer?

There was a law student in the bus. The problem is that the other guy only showed the knife (didn't even open it) and asked for his wallet.

[Kreistor]

I'm not sure I trust a law student in that situation. He may want to avoid any publicity that might influence his graduation. I'd highly recommend your friend talk to a real lawyer, just to make sure that he understands what he can do next time.

Because my reading of Canadian law suggests your friend would have been free and clear, though yes, he would have been taken to jail for a little while and questioned, as well as other humiliating things he would have wanted to avoid.

[Shraik]

He does not have as bad as an opnion of Paladins as he does monks. There has been one Monk (Origins of the PC's) which belkar made cry.

[teratorn]

I feel it only fair to point out that similar threads have been closed in the not-too-distant past for touching on the subject of Miko (and Roy's) alleged misdeeds. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3406022&postcount=86)
I suggest proceeding with great caution.

Not only that but Miko was designed as an antagonist and not member of a party. I think one could draw more reliable info on OOTS-world paladins from Soon Kim. Soon Kim probably represents better The Giant's view on how bad a paladin may fit into an adventuring party if he's someone intransigent and somewhat disruptive. They make great NPCs (Hinjo, O-Chul) but the party broke in part due to Soon Kim paladin ways.


The irony here being that banning me for that would be proving I was right...

That's a dangerous argument. One could use the fact that not being banned proved you were wrong. I like paladins and although you used it for all the wrong reasons, I do see some similitude between paladins and mods.

[DreadSpoon]

Please...before it continues, i am not judging the Giant or his work, i am only said what i think of paladin actions in the comic.

Really, if you haven't read the forewards/introductions/preambles/etc. of No Cure For The Paladin Blues, don't comment on how Rich portrays paladins. He rather clearly explains his views on paladins and why he chose to portray them as he did in Miko and the Sapphire Guard.

To make a really short summary, though, he clearly and explicitly states that Miko is an example of a paladin played within the letter of the rules but completely outside their spirit. That is, Miko is an example of a paladin played wrong.


From what I see, under Canadian law, your friend would have clearly gotten off without charges. I doubt the event took place in Canada, but I highly doubt the laws where you are to be more liberal in terms of self-defense. US law tends to be more permissive of self-defense.

Take your own advice, and refer people to a lawyer instead of telling people how the law works. Many places do have "Flight Before Fight" laws, although the circumstances to which it applies can vary.

For example, say someone pulls out a gun, but isn't pointing it at me. Now, I know that he could aim it at me and fire it in under a second - if he aims it at me, I've already lost any chance of circumventing beind shot if he then decides to pull the trigger. So, a completely rational reaction to his pulling the gun would be to attack him before he points it at me. In this situation, it is entirely possible for me to be charged and him not to be charged at all, depending on where this happend, which judge and which jury presided over the case, whether he had a license for the weapon, whether any witnesses testified that he was aggressive and dangerous, etc.

[Paladin29]

Well, really i´ll love have all the comics and publications of the OotS, but i am spanish and i´ve no money to order that comics, i only have access to the online comic and the info of the forum, however i have all the right to give my opinion of this topic, now you have widened my knowledge and i agree with the Giant, Miko is out of the spirit of the class, as i said before my opinions have nothing to do with the Giant, it refer to Miko as a character. Nothing of what you say have an effect in my opinions.

[hamishspence]

I have the following questions:
Could we quit complaining about each others arguing techniques
and quoting bits of their comments? it is simpler and more logical to just quote sources, clearly, and with no ambiguity. Plus, less chance of locked thread.

What counts as thread necromancy? Unless thread is clearly outdated, if it seems still relevant, it should still be allowed to be re-opened, so what do you define as too old?

Second: what proof do you have that Living greyhawk proves your view right? to prove it, you would have to demonstrate both that the interpretation is the official one, by citing official text from living greyhawk, and that the listed number of DMs actually follow that interpretation to the letter, to say 14900 people agree with me.

Next: didn't the same person say on another thread that Exalted Deeds WASN'T core? Now he is citing it to prove his view: odd.

Alignment rules info: Pre 3rd ed often contradicts modern, and should be taken with a grain of salt. Sources must be WOTC only, no third party stuff. There is very little in Core 3 books one can use, just those bits in Players Handbook. Vile Darkness, Exalted Deeds, and Tyrants of the Nine Hells are by far the most detailed on Evil, Good, and Lawful alignments.

Now we got that out of the way, here is my view.
Exalted Deeds is very explicit about rule on killing tied up villains. Nada. ou can try them, sentence them, but kill out of hand, no.

Exalted deeds is ALSO clear that violence against evil IS good, if the reason is good. For example, you can kill enemy, no surrender offer, no stun, IF it is the quickest, safest way to reduce danger to innocent victims, Otherwise, level of violence you are allowed starts decreasing, depending on the situation.

Eg: a paladin CAN strike first, if it is clearly the best, most moral option. Robocop, Judge Dredd, etc are modern equivalent of that kind of violence: used Lawfully, in Self Defence, and Defence Of Others.

So, no, the order could NOT kill the bandits once tied up. Not without legal sanction.
Equally, even if miko had scanned them, she couldn't kill them until they had been released and were attempting to commit an evil act.

Association with evil: this is one of biggest areas of confusion. Generally, it means real alliance. so NOT sharing a drink in a tavern, NOT escorting unrestrained suspects to police station, NOT overseeing a villains penance, these do NOT count as association, otherwise Miko would have Fallen the moment she fought alongside Belkar, since lack of knowledge of alignment does not entirely excuse you, especially if you have strong suspicions.

so, even if Miko had scanned them, she would not be required to change her mind about bringing them on board. She WOULD be required to take precautions, saying something like:
"OK, you're evil, you have a chance to make something better of yourselves, will you stop doing evil, help me apprehend these suspects, and I will testify that you are being repentant to anyone who has a grievance against you"

Talking of which, there is no such thing as no-mans land in the law. Family of bandit victims could demand they be brought to justice, etc, even if no ruler of forest exists. Possibly private justice, claim of stolen goods and value of lives lost, indentiture to pay for damages, etc. If fact, with no ruler, there is no-one to complain if bandits are hauled OUT of forest and tried in town.

so, the No Ruler of Land, so No Crime argument does not hold water.

Summary: yes, miko was ok, but only because it was plausibly self defence. Hold person is like a taser only worse, other person was armed, making the attempt counted as a threat of lethal force.

While it looked to me like Bandit dad drew, rather than tried to strike, and Mikos attack looked like it was a readied strike to take place on drawing, same principle applies: Lethal weapon, very close range, fair self defence situation. Only by narrow margin though.

[Kreistor]

Sorry, was being provocative. Nuked it all.

[chibibar]

The thing is that Paladins are probably one of the hardest class to understand as humans.

why?

We, the general human population, live in a world where moral and law dictate our action. There are upbringing as well that can factor into it, BUT we don't have the infinite direct link with a deity that can instantly tell us "this person is good, this person is neutral or this person is evil" we don't have such thing exist in our world so we have to figure it out via actions.

This is where the "rules" put into play. It is guideline of which Paladin should act. And their action will be determine by a GM if it is evil or not. Some questionable act may be left to interpretation but an answer differ from each GM.

Miko was made to show that you can follow the rule to the LETTER and yet not playing with the spirit of what WE think a paladin should be played. Sadly I must say I have personally encounter some player who play Miko as is and guess what? they didn't fall because the rule-lawyering say they can't fall.

Also in the strict sense of the law, killing evil being (regardless of their action) is not consider an evil act BUT the rule does state killing an innocent GOOD or Neutral people are (if I remember correctly)

Also check the SoD book for more details on how the OoTS world was created and WHY it is what it is.

Miko's action directly by the divine powers that she doesn't have to think for herself. She just cast Detect Alignment and if it is evil = slash slash slash... because why??? because by divine right she can do that.... talking is optional.

Rich has express that this is how a paladin should NOT be played. There are two parties in this argument. those who love miko and those who don't like her. It could be how her character played, her personality, her rules of interpretation etc etc.....

I hope that clears it up :) a little.

[hamishspence]

I actually think the alignment saystem is a good stab at representing the major traits. Not perfect, but a good try.

Exalted deeds states that Being Evil does not automatically guarantee it is ok to kill one, except in certain cases: specifically: extremely evil, naturally very evil, and very dangerous. Chromatic Dragons, unlike orcs, goblins, and drow, are awesomely powerful, and "Always Evil" and more strongly so than some other Always Evil creatures.

Fiends have this combination of power with even stronger evil, which is why, in absence of evidence, Vile Darkness says "Killing a fiend is always a good act, allowing one to exist is always an evil act" Main problem is Evil subtype guarantees that Fiends detect as evil, though redeemed fiends exist (Miniatures set has a fiend paladin) they still detect as evil. However they count as good outsiders, so it is possible to test them: +1 good outsider bane sap will sting noticably and prove the alignment. Savage Species has rituals that can add, or remove, a subtype: easier way of solving problem.

So, answer is, no, you cannot run about killing evil creatures, unless you have evidence they are actually doing something very dangerous or malevolent.

[chibibar]

I actually think the alignment saystem is a good stab at representing the major traits. Not perfect, but a good try.

Exalted deeds states that Being Evil does not automatically guarantee it is ok to kill one, except in certain cases: specifically: extremely evil, naturally very evil, and very dangerous. Chromatic Dragons, unlike orcs, goblins, and drow, are awesomely powerful, and "Always Evil" and more strongly so than some other Always Evil creatures.

Fiends have this combination of power with even stronger evil, which is why, in absence of evidence, Vile Darkness says "Killing a fiend is always a good act, allowing one to exist is always an evil act" Main problem is Evil subtype guarantees that Fiends detect as evil, though redeemed fiends exist (Miniatures set has a fiend paladin) they still detect as evil. However they count as good outsiders, so it is possible to test them: +1 good outsider bane sap will sting noticably and prove the alignment. Savage Species has rituals that can add, or remove, a subtype: easier way of solving problem.

So, answer is, no, you cannot run about killing evil creatures, unless you have evidence they are actually doing something very dangerous or malevolent.

see.. that is the moral part of life, but when you have divine right to kill evil things without question......... then you could without losing your powers.

WoTC is treading a thin line of rules and morality. I am sure they do not want to touch on this and leave it up to the GM to decide if such paladin would fall killing evil wantonly vs intent vs alignment.

The rules states you DON'T lose your power BUT the GM does have the ultimate say so, in your example above it would be consider an evil act to kill a good fiend (rare but possible). While I agree on this point, we are looking at the general rule given by WoTC latest 3rd edition rules.

Also... SoD spoilers
The gods in OoTS world specifically create these evil creature for the purpose of killing and gaining exp..... thus a paladin will never be strip of his/her power by their gods because it is decree to be so

[Kreistor]

BTW, HamishSpence, you can find Thread Necromancy defined in the Forum Rules, one of the four threads at the top of the forum list.

[hamishspence]

got it, so, anything fallen past page 3, over a month old. still, its up now.

Getting completely back on topic, I feel that the comments on the flaws of the Paladin class, while true, are not the whole story. Yes, it is a class that should be treated with caution, and players should know what they are letting themselves in for, but it is also a well loved genre. In the hands of a DM and a player who know what they are doing and know not to spend ages arguing philosophy, but rule one way or other, the paladin can be a very fun class to play.

To avoid Paladin Problems: Read as much on alignment as you can: exalted deeds is pretty handy for those wanting to play strongly good characters. Check common issues with DM before playing: what one cannot do, as well as when a paladin really ought to act if he wishes to be paladinish. And when issue comes up, resolve it and move on. In general a DM should hint first: "That seems awfully ruthless, are you sure" "That doesn't sound very brave to me, want to think again" etc. Especially with players fairly new to the class or to Exalted Deeds levels of Goodness.

So, in short, i think it doesn't deserve that much hatred, as long as DM remembers a paladin really should not fall for acts of others, unless he has actively chosen to make himself culpable. And if he cannot always prevent an evil act by a person he is trying to redeem, that should not lose him paladin powers if he deals with the issue properly.

As I said, "Associating" should be defined narrowly: being a real ally, possibly a fellow party member in a adventuring party, not ally of convenience, a acquaintance, a paroled prisoner.

[David Argall]

I have the following questions:
what proof do you have that Living greyhawk proves your view right?
Greyhawk is the default for 3.5. All others are variations. Possibly useful information, but by definition inferior sources.
Living Greyhawk was set up to be as close to official rules as possible. The "as possible" acknowledges this is a goal rather than a fact, and there are differences [such as the Broken Lands is a highly evil area and anybody as open about being Good as a paladin should be is going to be made into a zombie fast. So Broken Lands paladins are rather more "flexible" on such points.] But the goal is still the goal and all the neat stuff the individual DM might want in his game gets banned right away. Nor can the DM reject what the campaign feels is official.
So you have a large campaign where "what the rules say" is a big issue. That puts us well above the random DM in making such calls.


to prove it, you would have to demonstrate both that the interpretation is the official one, by citing official text from living greyhawk, and that the listed number of DMs actually follow that interpretation to the letter, to say 14900 people agree with me.
This is demanding excess proof, proof that if we had, we would not be having this discussion. I am hardly alone in being both an OOTS reader and a LG player/DM. In fact, it is probably harder to find a LG player who does not follow the strip. They are out there, and able to tell you what I have.


Sources must be WOTC only, no third party stuff. There is very little in Core 3 books one can use,
That is why we must use third party stuff. We bring to the table our own definitions of Good and Evil, and in large measure, the official rules just validate that. The official rules are just too vague and short to be our sole guides here.


Exalted Deeds is very explicit about rule on killing tied up villains. Nada. ou can try them, sentence them, but kill out of hand, no.
Now I can't find where it says that, tho one can argue it is so obviously wrong that the writers didn't feel it needed saying. However, the reference seems to be killing out of hand, not killing. If you can try someone and sentence them, you can carry out that sentence. But the PC often has little grounds for being deemed a competent judge and can almost always be challenged as a biased one [since you have often captured somebody trying to kill you]. The clear duty is to turn the prisoner over to more appropriate judges. However that is rarely possible for our PC in the wilderness. So you can be in situations where the good execute prisoners. You had just better be sure you have to, and not find it a convenience.


So, no, the order could NOT kill the bandits once tied up. Not without legal sanction.
Equally, even if miko had scanned them, she couldn't kill them until they had been released and were attempting to commit an evil act.
Now the two cases are not the same here. The party is aware of a major crime by the two, trying to kill the OOTS. Testimony from the other bandits seem likely to expose enough more crimes to justify Samantha's execution at least.
One limit here would be that while it would be inconvenient to take the two to a court, it would only be inconvenient, and this limits the propriety of executing them. [Roy's opinion that no court would try them is simply wrong.]
Now Miko does not know of their crimes. Assuming she checked for alignment, she can not just execute them for being evil.


Miko would have Fallen the moment she fought alongside Belkar, since lack of knowledge of alignment does not entirely excuse you, especially if you have strong suspicions.
Even then Miko would not have fallen. Associating with evil types is a code of conduct violation, not an evil deed. So mild, temporary, and weak associations are not enough to cause a fall.
Now we might note that the deva was attacking Roy for associating with evil, and Roy does not have that as a rules requirement. So we might find that Miko is under pretty strict limits here.


so, even if Miko had scanned them, she would not be required to change her mind about bringing them on board. She WOULD be required to take precautions, saying something like:
"OK, you're evil, you have a chance to make something better of yourselves, will you stop doing evil, help me apprehend these suspects, and I will testify that you are being repentant to anyone who has a grievance against you"
Now she will have a problem once she discovers they are lying to her, which repeated applications of detect evil might do. She does not have justification to attack them, until they attack her as they may well. Nor does she know of a crime to arrest them for. She could arrest them on general principles, but they would merely hamper her on her mission. She would likely have to just leave them.


While it looked to me like Bandit dad drew, rather than tried to strike,
Look closer. Dad swung, and missed. The sword is past Miko and there is a miss sound.



There was a law student in the bus. The problem is that the other guy only showed the knife (didn't even open it) and asked for his wallet.
That could be enough. I assume you are referring to some sort of switchblade that snaps open. That can mean he is the same as having a gun in a holster. The level of threat is not as large as if it was out and ready.
I would think he would walk and the thug would be jailed, but you get the wrong prosecutor and the thug gets a good [bad?] lawyer, the witnesses on the buss fess up that they really didn't pay attention... Safer to kick the jerk to the curb and pretend it didn't happen.


IMO an LG paladin will not act like Miko or the others in SoD. If i was a DM i will not allow it,
Now the paladins in SoD have some explaining to do to keep their class in most games. However SoD has a rather specialized view and such explaining may be possible.

It is the paladin in Origens that looks like a flat fall. Unlike SoD, we hear his reasoning, and a paladin should reject it out of hand.

But when we get to Miko, we do not see any such violation until she does fall. 228 suggests she may have followed a policy of killing all who detected as evil, but other readings are quite possible. [For example if she generally used her detect evil on creatures she had decided to kill anyway, and spared the non-evil.]

Our writer does tend to take a rather loose stand on the point and allow a great deal of killing by the heros that would be dubious morals in any real world, and is not really allowed in D&D either.

[teratorn]

Now the paladins in SoD have some explaining to do to keep their class in most games. However SoD has a rather specialized view and such explaining may be possible.

The whole Snarl thing isn't just good vs evil, it's not simply a question of evil winning, but one of chaos vs order, of creation being undone. In fact that's the reasoning Miko uses when facing Redcloak.

If SG paladins are used to the kind of missions shown in SoD, then they likely do things that our regular PC paladins would never do. One can only wonder the kind of stuff Miko has done, but slicing Samantha and her father are probably little league play compared to one of her regular missions. Sending Miko after OOTS, in particular if Shojo knew there was an evil member in the party (Eugene likely left that info out), was something dangerous and quite reckless.

[Kreistor]

Greyhawk is the default for 3.5. All others are variations. Possibly useful information, but by definition inferior sources.

I've let this go before, but not this time.

Greyhawk is the setting they used to provide examples in the PHB, not the default campaign setting. There is no default campaign. All settings provided by WotC are equal. No setting is more, or less, official than any other. Product produced for Greyhawk (if there had been any) would be no more usable in Eberron or FR than that produced for Midnight (a third party campaign setting).

It's kinda hard for Greyhawk to be a default setting when the setting was never upgraded to 3.0, much less 3.5. The closest you can come is the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, which only gets you involved in the RPGA Living Greyhawk campaign. At least they did publish an Eberron Campaign Setting and Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, which players can actually use with 3.0 and/or 3.5.

You're welcome to try to prove your "default" claim by quoting the Core, David, but the comment you need doesn't exist. You can't even find the word "Greyhawk" in the Religion section (page 106-108).

There is no text in any 3.0 or 3.5 product that suggests any campaign setting is dominant.

[turkishproverb]

I've let this go before, but not this time.

Greyhawk is the setting they used to provide examples in the PHB, not the default campaign setting. There is no default campaign. All settings provided by WotC are equal. No setting is more, or less, official than any other. Product produced for Greyhawk (if there had been any) would be no more usable in Eberron or FR than that produced for Midnight (a third party campaign setting).

It's kinda hard for Greyhawk to be a default setting when the setting was never upgraded to 3.0, much less 3.5. The closest you can come is the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, which only gets you involved in the RPGA Living Greyhawk campaign. At least they did publish an Eberron Campaign Setting and Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, which players can actually use with 3.0 and/or 3.5.

You're welcome to try to prove your "default" claim by quoting the Core, David, but the comment you need doesn't exist. You can't even find the word "Greyhawk" in the Religion section (page 106-108).

There is no text in any 3.0 or 3.5 product that suggests any campaign setting is dominant.


I...

I love you...

:smallredface:


YOu have know idea how many times I've tried pointing this out to people.

[David Argall]

You can't even find the word "Greyhawk" in the Religion section (page 106-108).

Instead I find descriptions of 20 gods, all from Greyhawk, and none that are exclusive to any other setting.
The spells are Bigby's...., Leomund's..., Mordenkainen's...., Tensor's..., all Greyhawk NPCs.

DMG, p. 6 "...Greyhawk setting (the standard D&D campaign setting).."

[Kreistor]

Instead I find descriptions of 20 gods, all from Greyhawk, and none that are exclusive to any other setting.
The spells are Bigby's...., Leomund's..., Mordenkainen's...., Tensor's..., all Greyhawk NPCs.

DMG, p. 6 "...Greyhawk setting (the standard D&D campaign setting).."

So, tell me: how does a modern player picking up a PHB know that Bigby is from Greyhawk? Easy answer: he doesn't. There's nothing that says he is. I didn't know Bigby as from Greyhawk until I happened across a history of Greyhawk thing on the web, a decade after I first played DnD.

As for page 6 of the DMG, let's have that entire quote, shall we?


Every Dungeon Master is teh creator of his or her own campaign world. Whether you use the Greyhawk(R) setting (the standard D&D campaign setting) or another published setting for the D&D game, such as the Forgotten Realms(R) Campaign Setting, it's still your world.

So, what does standard actually mean? Does it mean that all settings use what's in Greyhawk as a standard? No, FR and Eberron have their own gods. Do all settings use the Greyhawk map, history, or even magic? Well, clearly no. Okay, how about races? No, Eberron introduced three races that aren't in Greyhawk, but are in the MM3 so everyone gets to use them if they want (Changling, Warforged, and Shifter). Still, you'll find no reference to them as PC races in Greyhawk. How about classes? Eberron has the Artificer. Well, all settings use the standard backgrounds for the races, right? Well, no, Drow in Eberron are not considered a sub-species of elf, and are reverted to three types: a savage jungle dwelling race, a race that worships fire, and one that is getting its butt kicked out of the caves they hid in for a while.

So, what does "standard" mean in this context? Nothing. It's a world that no one can use anymore, no product is being released for, and it has no effect on the D&D community. So it's the standard setting, but it's a setting that no longer is usable, which makes it more than irrelevant to the community.

As the quote above states, everyone plays in their own world. They play in Kreistor's Eberron, David's FR, or Gary's Greyhawk, but no one really plays in Greyhawk, Eberron, or FR.

[FujinAkari]

So, tell me: how does a modern player picking up a PHB know that Bigby is from Greyhawk? Easy answer: he doesn't.

*GROAN*

Kreistor... I agree with you, but comments like this make it VERY hard for me to do that.

You challenged him to "You're welcome to try to prove your "default" claim by quoting the Core" and what does he do? -exactly that-. Blows you entirely out of the water... but you can't admit that you're wrong, Greyhawk IS the default, and there is no contesting that. Its this kind of smoke & mirror argument shifting that makes me really despise anything approaching debate on thise forums, because nothing ever gets done.

Now, that said, you're absolutely right to challenge David's assertion that Greyhawk is inherently superior to the other setting just for being the default. Thats like saying chocolate is inherently the best type of candy just because its the default. Utterly rediculous.

I know I'm getting off-topic here, I just get frustrated with everyone (myself, David, you... anyone that regularly argues) being utterly incapable of admitting the flaws in their arguments, but instead acting 100% right at ALL times.

*fume*

Back on topic...

The Paladin class has gone through a lot of challenge, and the moralistic requirements have shifted a lot. This is the problem. Old-school players like Paladin have an ingrained idea of the class that was formed when they first saw it, and despite the fact that their restrictions no longer apply, they still see them as part of the class. Newer players see Paladins as MUCH more flexible, in accordance to the actual rules that currently govern them, imo.

[Paladin29]

Yeah, i suppose i am an "old school paladin"...sigh, i am getting old :smallfrown:

About the Greyhawk topic, IMO it´s the first DnD setting so many people thinks that it means that it´s the standard, i think it´s an error because DnD isn´t a world based game, it´s a generic medieval fantasy game, it give a basic rules (with a lot of optional rules) to play a offcial setting (Greyhawk, Forgotten, Dark Sun, etc) or to create your own, and all will be "standard" and right to DnD.

[FujinAkari]

I think it´s an error because DnD isn´t a world based game, it´s a generic medieval fantasy game, it give a basic rules (with a lot of optional rules) to play a offcial setting (Greyhawk, Forgotten, Dark Sun, etc) or to create your own, and all will be "standard" and right to DnD.

I agree that any of them are "right," but the DMG explicitly states that Greyhawk is considered the Standard, so that is effectively outside the realm of debate, much the same as "Is Belkar actually evil?" :P

[Paladin29]

Well, if the DMG said that Greyhawk is standard i close my mouth :smalltongue:
There is no sense to argue against the rules.

[teratorn]

There is no sense to argue against the rules.

You are new here aren't you?

[chibibar]

True BUT in a wondrous world of gaming (old school it seems) a GM can change ANY rules and create ANY rules for their gaming group. Of course such rules do NOT carry water outside of their gaming group agree?

Thus.... this is OoTS world with many of its own rules and regulation. In this case, Rich's rule. The Giant may follow or NOT follow many of the rules in D&D 3rd, Greyhawk or whatever. We have to discover which one Rich is following and which one he is not.

What we have learn that Paladin in OoTS can follow the straight rule without having to follow the Spirit. Hence the whole topic and debate is all about. It is possible to play a character such as Miko with just "Pure Rule Lawyering" only without having her to fall (as she has been show thus far) UNTIL She commits undeniable evil act (killing Shojo) and thus she fell, up until that point she did not commit an evil act (per base rule of Paladin)

Now of course the rest of debate is "WHY" Miko didn't fall earlier. such argument is pretty moot since we are talking about OoTS world. Now if we are talking individual world and GM........ well that is a whole different ball game.

[Paladin29]

Of course Chibibar, the golden rule is that DM is the final arbiter and decide what rules apply and what not. I only accept that if in the DMG said greyhawk is standard i haven´t any more to say about that topic.

About the paladin topic, in my part i am giving my opinion about what happening if Miko was in a campaign of mine, and my feelings about paladins in general. Nothing to do with the Giant story, he is the Great DM of the comic.

Did i say that i love paladins? :smallsmile:

[Kreistor]

I agree that any of them are "right," but the DMG explicitly states that Greyhawk is considered the Standard, so that is effectively outside the realm of debate, much the same as "Is Belkar actually evil?" :P

Yeah, sure, it's the standard. Okay, which standard do they mean, though?


stand·ard /ˈstændərd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[stan-derd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model.
2. an object that is regarded as the usual or most common size or form of its kind: We stock the deluxe models as well as the standards.
3. a rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment: They tried to establish standards for a new philosophical approach.
4. an average or normal requirement, quality, quantity, level, grade, etc.: His work this week hasn't been up to his usual standard.
5. standards, those morals, ethics, habits, etc., established by authority, custom, or an individual as acceptable: He tried to live up to his father's standards.
6. a grade of beef immediately below good.
7. the authorized exemplar of a unit of weight or measure.
8. a certain commodity in or by which a basic monetary unit is stated. Compare gold standard, silver standard, bimetallism, monometallism.
9. the legally established content of full-weight coins.
10. the prescribed degree of fineness for gold or silver.
11. British. a class or grade in elementary schools.
12. a musical piece of sufficiently enduring popularity to be made part of a permanent repertoire, esp. a popular song.
13. a flag indicating the presence of a sovereign or public official.
14. a flag, emblematic figure, or other object raised on a pole to indicate the rallying point of an army, fleet, etc.
15. Military.
a. any of various military or naval flags.
b. the colors of a mounted unit.
c. (initial capital letter) a U.S. Navy radar-guided surface-to-air missile with a range of 10–30 miles (16–48 km).
16. Heraldry. a long, tapering flag or ensign, as of a monarch or a nation.
17. something that stands or is placed upright.
18. a long candlestick or candelabrum used in a church.
19. an upright support or supporting part.
20. Armor. a standing collar of mail.
21. Horticulture. a plant trained or grafted to have a single, erect, treelike stem.
22. Botany. a distinct petal, larger than the rest, of certain flowers; a vexillum.
–adjective
23. serving as a basis of weight, measure, value, comparison, or judgment.
24. of recognized excellence or established authority: a standard reference on medieval history.
25. usual, common, or customary: Chairs are standard furniture in American households.
26. manual; not electric or automatic: standard transmission.
27. conforming in pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, etc., to the usage of most educated native speakers, esp. those having prestige, and widely considered acceptable or correct: Standard American English; standard pronunciation. Compare nonstandard (def. 2).
28. authorized or approved: The program was broadcast on the standard broadcast band.

With no fewer than 28 definitions, anyone can make it mean just about anything they want. I choose 26 -- manual; not electric or automatic. Heheh... Okay, 23 then -- a basis of judgment. That works. And what does it mean? Greyhawk is the world you compare yours to in order to determine how good it is. That means my world can actually be better than Greyhawk. Or how about an upright support, 19? That makes Greyhawk the pole on which the flag of DnD waves.

Of course, it could be 1. "something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model." So that makes it a basis of comparison. Does that make it superior? Nope. It only means that this is an approved example of the game. The PHB uses Greyhawk examples for their models, so that makes sense.

The defintion of default is:


default

noun
1. loss due to not showing up; "he lost the game by default"
2. act of failing to meet a financial obligation
3. loss resulting from failure of a debt to be paid [syn: nonpayment] [ant: payment]
4. an option that is selected automatically unless an alternative is specified [syn: default option]

I'm thinking #4 is David's intended use. An option that is selected automatically unless an alternative is specified. Is that synonymous with any of the definitions of "standard"? Defaults have to do with selections. Standards have to do with comparisons. The two are not, and never were, synonymous.

f I were to say, "The default selection is 5," then that means if you do not make a choice, you will get 5. If I say, "The standard selection is 5," then that means most people selected 5. If I say, "The standard is 5," that means that "5" is the number to meet or exceed in order to achieve success. To be a default, then there must be selections to be made. For the Greyhawk defaults to be used, then whoever is making decisions on what to select for those defaults must be able to select them. Can they?

No. WotC never published those defaults. You can't select a default that is not available to be selected: that is just impossible and nonsensical. To choose a default, you must know what that default selection is defined to be.

If I say "The standard DnD campaign setting is Greyhawk," then what does that mean? It's not intended as a standard one must achieve in order to succeed. It's not a basis for judgment, since the only judge is the DM himself. What does it mean, then?

It is "an approved model", as per 1 and 28. That's all. It is a world that they use as an example of the system, and nothing more. There is no implication of superiority over other systems. It is just something that they draw examples from. And, you'll find, that is exactly what I said it was in the first place.

[David Argall]

Now, that said, you're absolutely right to challenge David's assertion that Greyhawk is inherently superior to the other setting just for being the default.

Now I have not said that Greyhawk is the superior setting [except in the same sense I deem D&D superior to other RP games. I can get games without major effort. Finding games of alternatives is frequently difficult, and you had better not be fussy about the players either. The alternate rules may be as good or better, but if you can't find anybody to play with...]
What we have here is a discussion of how much less willing our writer/DM is to make a paladin fall than a typical DM would be. So we need to decide what that typical DM would be. Greyhawk, being the official standard and the most common version, seems to be our basic picture of what that DM would do. We can consider other cases, but they are just individual cases. They are not binding on what D&D is, nor in telling us if the strip is unusually generous or stiff in dealing with the fall of paladins.

[Kreistor]

Now I have not said that Greyhawk is the superior setting [except in the same sense I deem D&D superior to other RP games.

Uh, guh? Try your #234...


Greyhawk is the default for 3.5. All others are variations. Possibly useful information, but by definition inferior sources.

Last I checked the antonym for inferior was superior. So, yes, you most certainly did declare Greyhawk to be superior.


So we need to decide what that typical DM would be. Greyhawk, being the official standard and the most common version, seems to be our basic picture of what that DM would do.

Yeah, good luck with that. You'll need a way to prove Greyhawk is the most common version of the game first, of course. That's not obvious, especially from the sales of Greyhawk product recently. Oh, wait, there hasn't been any Greyhawk product since RttToEE way back before they laid off Monte Cook. Compared to Greyhawk based on product sales, even Eberron is infinitely more popular.

[chibibar]

Also the problem is that even with the sale numbers, the DM may not even agree to the same rules or the interpretation (gee sounds like Congress doesn't it?)

We could agree on the truly BASIC rules of paladins (at least the original rules)

Paladins are LG
Paladins can NEVER commit an evil act or they will fall.
Paladin can wear Plate Armor
Paladin can cast spells
Paladin can use any weapon they are train upon
Paladin is a calling (at least via original rule)

Now that is pretty much it. The specific instance of what is consider "evil" and "good" is left up to the players and DM. In some country stealing a piece of bread is an EVIL act and can get your hand chopped off. What if the Paladin is stealing from evil (taking their treasure without permission) and give to good people is that evil? depending on the GM. If the GM is from that country which all form of stealing is evil then yea.. the paladin will fall, but if you go to a country where stealing from evil and give to good is ok, then you don't fall or even better yet

Stealing from evil is not really stealing so paladin don't fall..... see?

We have many different readers from all over the world with different rules and moral of what is consider good vs evil. Some culture believes having many wives are good. We in the U.S. believe it is an evil act (adulterous which is a sin)

see the gray area?