Did Miko actually commit an evil act?

[EllieCat]

This one’s been puzzling me for a while, when Miko killed Lord Shojo (and indeed her actions previous to that) did she ever violate the good part of her alignment?

Before anyone brings up the fact she’s fallen, killing Lord Shojo was inherently a chaotic act, but it’s possible to have a chaotic good assassin.

Basically it boils down to – are alignment violations determined by absolute truth, or by the perspective of the character.

From Miko’s personal (crazy, warped and twisted) perspective, all of her actions have been good. She believed that she had divine and secular authority over the OotS, hence forcing them to Azure City, in chains when they resisted, was both the lawful and the good thing to do. Killing Belkar and indeed, killing Lord Shojo (assuming he actually was an evil despot corrupting the sapphire guard and using them to advance an evil agenda), on the other hand are both good things, but not lawful.

However, from an absolute perspective, arresting tOotS was unlawful (she and indeed Shojo had no actual authority or jurisdiction) and possibly an evil one (that’s dubious, but some interpretations of LE allow for blindly following the letter of the law with no thought to the spirit or the consequences as LE rather than LN), killing Belkar is still a chaotic good act (even if he’s unarmed and defenseless, it’s still removing a major source of evil from the world) but killing Lord Shojo is a chaotic evil act.

I’m tending towards the personal perspective interpretation, but that completely rules out the possibility of Miko in a black chainmail bikini when she becomes a blackguard.

[Baalzebub]

Lord Shojo was a good old man. Killing a good sentient being like him just because she thought it was the best course of action is a selfish, evil act.
Her past actions were ok, she was following the law in a twisted way, but she was following it. The problem is, she wasn't following the moral code of the alignment, not at all.
Also, in DnD it's not the personal perspective that counts in the alignments, since they are forces that define the universe. As a paladin you cannot comit evil acts, killing lord Shojo was indeed a Chaotic Evil act, which provoked the lose of her paladin powers. One evil act as a paladin and you're toast. ditto.

[Wrecan]

In D&D, alignment is absolute, although the knowledge of "facts" the character possesses might be pertinent.

Someone who thinks they are killing an innocent child, but who in fact kills an evil quasit glamered to look like an innnocent child has still committed an evil act.

Someone who thinks they are killing an evil quasit, but who in fact kills an innocent child, has not.

But just because you think you are doing the right thing does not mean you aren't committing evil.

Miko knew that Shojo was unarmed, old, frail and defenseless, that Hinjo (who she believed to be good) was planning to have him arrested and tried for his crimes. She didn't even bother to use her smite evil on Shojo because she didn't think he was evil-aligned.

She purposely smote someone she knew to be a defenseless old man. That she mistakenly thought she was doing her god's will is irrelevant. On the facts she knew, her act was evil.

[EllieCat]

@Wrecan
I have to disagree with you slightly that on the facts she knew, she was commiting an evil act.

Killing an evil dictator who'd been corrupting a strong force for good, even if he's sitting in the bath with a rubber ducky, is a chaotic good act. So long as she believed, absolutely, that Lord Shojo was evil and that the courts had been corrupted beyond the point that any fair trial could be made, it was a good act.

I have to conceed you the point that she didn't use her smite evil though. She has to be at least a level 5 paladin, so even if she used one on the grounds a vase was evil, she should have had at least one left.

That said, Lord Shojo is a frail old man. A single blow from a kata...Masterwork Bastard Sword would (and did) kill him outright without the need for the smite, maybe she was saving them for Belkar and Roy, who are much harder targets. It's possible that she has three, but given the rule of thumb that 1 NPC with character levels is an on level encounter for 4 PC's of the same level and the knowledge she has at least 2 monk levels (she has evasion) it's debatable whether she's got her 10th paladin level yet.

As I said in the original post, I can't decide, I see too many points on both sides of the arguement. And if it's plot crucial or funny that she becomes a blackguard, she will, irregardless of what the SRD says. :smallwink:

[Blue_Hill]

And that "flashy_flashy_blue_lighting_from_the_sky, that_takes_Mikos_paladin_powers_away" <- that is very good piece of evidence. Lord Shojo was old, good and wiseful man, not evil.

[EllieCat]

Paladins must be LAWFUL good, commiting a major Chaotic Good act can cause them to fall just as much as commiting a evil act.

Technically a Paladin can fall and lose their powers for taking a strong neutral stance, it depends on how hung over the GM/God is at the time for how harshly they treat it.

[Baalzebub]

So long as she believed, absolutely, that Lord Shojo was evil and that the courts had been corrupted beyond the point that any fair trial could be made, it was a good act.

Maybe that was a good act in her mind. In her mind. But, as Blue_Hill pointed, the lighting from the sky proved that the act she commited was evil, and proves that good and evil are opposite, outside forces that help maintain the balance in the DnD universe. Imagine if an Orc kills a farmer. The orc thinks is a good thing to kill him because the farmer is "getting in his way". Is that a good act? No, of course not.

[Yuki Akuma]

She Fell. So yes, she did.

Please note that commiting a Chaotic act does not immediately cause a paladin to Fall. But commiting an Evil act does. Hm, I wonder which she commited... Oh, yeah, she Fell, so it was Evil.


Paladins must be LAWFUL good, commiting a major Chaotic Good act can cause them to fall just as much as commiting a evil act.

...No. It can't. Chaotic Good acts are fine. Just don't commit them more than your Neutral Good and Lawful Good acts and you're fine.

[brazilian]

The thing is in D&D it doesn't matter your perspective, good and evil are absolutes. Killing a defenceless GOOD old man is evil, it doesn't matter if you think he was evil and that you are doing the right thing.



Someone who thinks they are killing an innocent child, but who in fact kills an evil quasit glamered to look like an innnocent child has still committed an evil act.

Someone who thinks they are killing an evil quasit, but who in fact kills an innocent child, has not.

Actually in D&D BOTH acts are evil. Killing a innocent child , even if you though she was a devil, is a evil act.

That is why Paladins can atone, there are several ways that they can commit evil acts thinking they are doing good. As such in both cases of Miko and the the killing of the innocent child attonement can be reached. Whoever in the first case you presented , unless the Paladin knew it was an illusion, attonement couldn't be reached at all because that was a willing evil act.

[Aquillion]

From the d20SRD:


Ex-Paladins

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.


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.
Miko's actions failed to respect legitimate authority (and, no matter what she accused her liege of, from a lawful perspective he was still a legitimate authority); they were also dishonorable, since she was attacking an unarmed man without warning. Either of those things are gross violations of the code of conduct, and could cause a Paladin to fall even when they're not strictly evil.

Going against your liege is also a chaotic act, and while it's not typical for someone to switch alignment based on one act, it can happen if it's extreme enough. If she lost her lawful alignment she'd fall immediately, too. Many people think it's just 'willingly committing an evil act', but there's actually a ton of things a Paladin can fall for.

[EllieCat]

Maybe that was a good act in her mind. In her mind. But, as Blue_Hill pointed, the lighting from the sky proved that the act she commited was evil, and proves that good and evil are opposite, outside forces that help maintain the balance in the DnD universe. Imagine if an Orc kills a farmer. The orc thinks is a good thing to kill him because the farmer is "getting in his way". Is that a good act? No, of course not.

No, it's not a good thing if he kills the farmer for getting in his way, but you're confusing what "good" and "evil" actually are in D&D terms.

You can kill people if you're good alignment, without violating it. That's fairly important since otherwise D&D would have to consist of neutral and evil parties only.

It's why you kill someone that's important. If the Orc killed the farmer because he'd stolen the lands that had fed the orc's familly for generations and his children were starving, that's a good act.

If he killed him because he wanted the lands for himself and the farmer was in his way, that's an evil act.

If he killed him because he didn't like his hairstyle, that's a (chaotic) neutral act.

And the blue light from the sky means that Miko violated the very strict alignment rules for her class and the gods are punishing her. As I said earlier, killing Shojo at all, whether it's good or evil, forces the violation because she's acting chaotically. Good and Evil doesn't even have to come into it, only halfling paladins following Yndolla are allowed to be chaotic good (ok, I think there might be a couple of other Faerun gods that break the Lawful Good only rule, but the point holds)

"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.

Ex-Paladins

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate."

From the SRD, emphasis mine. She can fall without commiting an evil act. I think killing your leige lord and refusing to listen to his heir telling you not counts as "not respecting legitimate authority"

[Yuki Akuma]

It's why you kill someone that's important. If the Orc killed the farmer because he'd stolen the lands that had fed the orc's familly for generations and his children were starving, that's a good act.

No, that's neutral at best.


If he killed him because he wanted the lands for himself and the farmer was in his way, that's an evil act.

Yes, obviously.


If he killed him because he didn't like his hairstyle, that's a (chaotic) neutral act.

...Wait, what? No, that's even more evil than the 'he was in my way!' reason!

Random slaughter is not neutral. It is Evil. It is the definition of Chaotic Evil, in fact.

[Deuce]

Re: Topic name.

Yes.

[rxmd]

Yes. She fell, so she obviously did. Next question.

[brazilian]

It's why you kill someone that's important.
Look she killed an innocent good old man in COLD BLOOD, how is that not an evil act ?
Hey even killing Belkar in cold blood, is an evil act. A paladin should always AVOID killing, it should be always a last act.

And while she may have fallen for commiting a chaotic act, you must remember that Good>Lawfull for a Paladin. A Paladin that refuse to execute an innocent child by order of his lord is still a Paladin, a Paladin that agrees is not.

[EllieCat]

Random slaughter is not neutral. It is Evil. It is the definition of Chaotic Evil, in fact.

Actually, and wierdly....

"Chaotic Evil, “Destroyer”: A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Chaotic evil is sometimes called “demonic” because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.

Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend."

Random slaughter for no reason at all is CN (and insanity). Random slaughter because you want to kill people is CE.

[Arssanguinus]

She's not good! She's become evil! Her Paladin-hood is no more! She has ceased to be associated with the right! She's fallen and been rejected by her god! She's done evil! Bereft of good, she's a paladin no longer! If Hinjo hadn't been lenient she'd be pushing up the daisies! Her metaphysical processes are now 'evil! She's jumped the shark! She's kicked the good habit, she's shuffled off her holy nature, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir of evil!! THIS IS AN EX-PALADIN!!

[Porthos]

It's pretty darn simple:

If Miko had been right and Lord Shojo really was an evil despotic tyrant, then killing him would have been a Good act.

If Miko was wrong, and in fact Lord Shojo really was a good person who sometimes twisted the laws to benefit the world, then killing him would have been an evil act.

In this case Miko's opinion on the matter is irrelevant. I'm not disputing that in some cases, intent matters to Alignment Violations/Discussions... It's just that this isn't one of them. :smalltongue: A person can happily think they are one alignment while they really are another. Denial is a very powerful force, after all.

I'm leaving aside the whole violating the code bit, by the way, and focusing on the Good/Evil dichotomy. Now philosophers have been wrestling with the precise definitions of Good and Evil for thousands of years, so I can see why it might be a bit hard for the makers of a RPG to come up with a definition that satisfies everyone. :smallwink: But the RAW are pretty clear on this case: Attacking a Good Defenseless Ruler when you only have Wafer Thin Justifications for Killing Him is EVIL.

So what is the moral of the story? When you're going to kill defenseless old men who wield a lot of political power, you better make damn sure he is in fact evil before you kill him in cold blood. :smallamused:

[brazilian]

From the SRD


Chaotic Neutral, "Free Spirit"

A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.

Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal.

So yes killing someone because you don't like the hair style (i.e different from yourself) is an evil act

[Yuki Akuma]

Actually, and wierdly....

"Chaotic Evil, “Destroyer”: A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Chaotic evil is sometimes called “demonic” because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.

Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend."

Random slaughter for no reason at all is CN (and insanity). Random slaughter because you want to kill people is CE.

Got to love logical fallacies.

This particular definition does not say x is y =/= x is not y.

[hewhosaysfish]

Random slaughter for no reason at all is CN (and insanity). Random slaughter because you want to kill people is CE.

No-one does anything for no reason. No offence, but that's just dumb.

Imagine this: Andrew is standing there with his sword in his hand, he doeen't want to kill Bob. But he does. Why?
Because he wanted to? No.
Because he had to? No.
Because he thought Bob was a demon in disguise? No.
Because he thought Bob was a small child in disguise? No.
Because the voices in his head told him to? No.
Because he had a sudden muscle spasm? No.
Because he rolled a special dice and it came up 'Kill'. No....

...This isn't Chaotic. This isn't even insanity. This is just nonsense.

[EllieCat]

Got to love logical fallacies.

This particular definition does not say x is y =/= x is not y.

True, I think the definition I'm thinking of for insanity being CN and random killing comming under insanity is from one of the non-SRD d20 games, probably one of the lovecraftian/steampunk settings (I'm supressing the memory of most of the d20 conversions)

However, we're a bit off topic. My origional point to the speculations is that blackguards have to be evil alignment, so had Miko commited evil (and could thus shift alignment to allow her to convert her levels) or had she merely fallen, and thus be still inelligible to become a blackguard?

[Purple_cloack]

That Blue -Meanie-meanie-Lighting take Mikos powers.
THAT light was from gods. They now what they do.
MIKO is Evil, but she did not accept that.

[brazilian]

However, we're a bit off topic. My origional point to the speculations is that blackguards have to be evil alignment, so had Miko commited evil (and could thus shift alignment to allow her to convert her levels) or had she merely fallen, and thus be still inelligible to become a blackguard?

Well you can commit an evil act, and fall, and still be good or at least neutral. Actually it is very hard for only single act to completely shift an alignment (but it can happen)

I think this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0419.html) answer that she is at least not evil yet...whoever if she lets her desire for revenge of the OoTS takes more and more of her actions I can see she becoming evil.

[Daedalus73]

Did Miko actually commit an evil act?

Uh ... yes. That's just a silly question, involving a lot of verbal gymnastics to try & theorize how it isn't. An act can be both chaotic AND evil. Your argument seems to rest upon the implicit assumption that it can only be one or the other.

[Pokemaster]

Well, killing someone with a Good alignment is ALWAYS and evil act, and Lord Shojo was probably Chaotic Good, so yes, she committed an evil act.

[Maroon]

From the SRD, emphasis mine. She can fall without commiting an evil act. I think killing your leige lord and refusing to listen to his heir telling you not counts as "not respecting legitimate authority"...How does CUTTING YOUR LIEGE IN HALF not count as 'not respecting legitimate authority'? I'd think CUTTING PEOPLE IN HALF is a little disrespectful! I mean, when tacking 'kick me' notes on people is disrespectful, you would think CUTTING PEOPLE IN HALF is too, but apparently it's not. Silly me.

[atteSmythe]

She killed a man out of expediency. Evil.

[Arssanguinus]

...How does CUTTING YOUR LIEGE IN HALF not count as 'not respecting legitimate authority'? I'd think CUTTING PEOPLE IN HALF is a little disrespectful! I mean, when tacking 'kick me' notes on people is disrespectful, you would think CUTTING PEOPLE IN HALF is too, but apparently it's not. Silly me.

It doesn't count if Miko does it, obviously. However, if Roy looks cross-eyed at someone, THAT is an evil act.

[Mewtarthio]

...How does CUTTING YOUR LIEGE IN HALF not count as 'not respecting legitimate authority'? I'd think CUTTING PEOPLE IN HALF is a little disrespectful! I mean, when tacking 'kick me' notes on people is disrespectful, you would think CUTTING PEOPLE IN HALF is too, but apparently it's not. Silly me.

Um... the quoted poster was saying that it counted as an egregious violation of the "must respect legitimate authority" clause. We can argue about the alignment of her action until we get carpal tunnel syndrome, but the fact of the matter is that it's quite frankly irrelevant. Whether the act is evil or not, it's a blatant slap in the face to the Paladin Code. Now, she can still atone for simply violating the Paladin Code, but it's only when paladins knowingly and willfully commit evil acts (which she hasn't--no matter how you look at it, she was deluded into thinking Shojo was Evil, and that sort of thing can be atoned for provided she becomes a bit more humble) that they irrevocably leave the path of the Paladin behind. That and multiclassing, but with multiclassing you still keep the abilities you've already got.

[The Wanderer]

From Miko’s personal (crazy, warped and twisted) perspective, all of her actions have been good.

So as long as someone believes that, lets say, murdering babies will will save the world, (and the more babies killed, the better and faster the world will be saved) you have no problem with them murdering babies by the truckload?

After all, if they truly believe it's the right thing, can it possibly be wrong?

[Innis Cabal]

OP: what logic have you come across to make the conclusion that she has not, in any way, done an evil act. She killed her lord, not withstanding he had no weapon, but he as a good, chaotic but good, man who was her leader....ya it was evil, ya she fell, no she isnt evil yet

[Arssanguinus]

Um... the quoted poster was saying that it counted as an egregious violation of the "must respect legitimate authority" clause. We can argue about the alignment of her action until we get carpal tunnel syndrome, but the fact of the matter is that it's quite frankly irrelevant. Whether the act is evil or not, it's a blatant slap in the face to the Paladin Code. Now, she can still atone for simply violating the Paladin Code, but it's only when paladins knowingly and willfully commit evil acts (which she hasn't--no matter how you look at it, she was deluded into thinking Shojo was Evil, and that sort of thing can be atoned for provided she becomes a bit more humble) that they irrevocably leave the path of the Paladin behind. That and multiclassing, but with multiclassing you still keep the abilities you've already got.

She knew that Hojo was not evil, had the ability to check and SEE if he was evil, and attacked him in a manner that would have BEEN evil even if Hojo had been evil. She then tried to murder Belkar in a manner that would have been evil wether he was evil or not, and then she attacked with intent to kill or maim Hinjo, who he KNEW was not evil. Which part of "Comitting evil" is not obvious here? And especially in the case of HInjo, it was quite obviously deliberate.

[Yogi]

First, even if Shojo had been guilty of everything Miko said he was guilty of, it would be Evil to strike him down when he was offering no resistance.

Second, intent only matters if you had no idea your actions would be wrong. Miko had to construct her own evidence to convict Shojo, making the "intention" argument irrelavent.

[JT]

Since the Gods, and not the paladins, are the granters of power, it is their perception, and not the paladin's, which is important.

Miko may have believed that she was doing good.
The Gods, from their more informed POV, said "no, that was EVIL."

Your own personal delusions of being good and/or lawful cannot protect you from a God's judgement.

[EvilElitest]

Yes, she did. I'll Break it down

1. She had the ability to check her infomation before she acted upon it. And she failed to consider that she could be wrong. Hell, she did not even Detect evil
2. She killed an innocent person.
3. Even if Shojo had dected as evil, killing him in cold blood would have been evil as well.
4. Even if Shojo was guilty, it is not her place to exucute him. She was arrogent to think herself so.
5. She killed a person who was unarmed and surrendered. Evil
6. She attacked a person she knew was good and was trying to reason with here (hinjo).
7. She attacked Shojo in cold blood.
8. She tried to kill Belkar for just standing there.
from,
EE

[onasuma]

Yes she did. She performed killed an innocent man and severly ingured another

[brian c]

but given the rule of thumb that 1 NPC with character levels is an on level encounter for 4 PC's of the same level and the knowledge she has at least 2 monk levels (she has evasion) it's debatable whether she's got her 10th paladin level yet.

Sidestepping the main issue for a moment, I think the fact that Miko single-handedly defeated the entire OOTS is good evidence that she is a hgiher level than them. Go to the class and level geekery thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4912) to see what the consensus is for Miko's abilities. Basically, the number of attacks she has per round imply that she has between 11 and 15 Paladin levels.


Now, about evil acts: Miko knew that legally Shojo was the ruler of the city, and even if she was right, even if he was evil and plotting the downfall of the city, she still killed a weak old man in cold blood and that's an evil act. Furthermore, she proceeded to attack the new legitimate ruler of the city, Hinjo (regardless of Roy's actions and how his attack might have made Miko more willing to fight, she still did it). I'm cautiously pegginer her alignment at LN for right now. If a non-Paladin character had done what she had done, there wouldn't have been a Fall and it would not be as much of a big deal. We'll have to see what happens next.

[EllieCat]

@The Wanderer: From the point of view of the person doing it, it's good, from the point of view of absolute morality, it depends if it's actually going to save the world or not.

The point of my post and my question was does personal or absolute morality apply for determining whether an alignment violation has taken place (and thanks to those who pointed out the attonement spell, since if no penalty applies for unknowing/complusion driven acts of evil, they must count so it's absolute)

I have never disagreed (and indeed stated in my first post) that for absolute morality killing Lord Shojo is Chaotic Evil.

@Innis: See point about absolute/vs personal morality.

@Arssanguinus: Disagree with you on Belkar, if Paladins are allowed to murder goblins and kobolds left right and centre on the grounds they're evil, killing Belkar under any circumstances isn't an evil act, but you have a very good point with Hinjo, especially as her intent before Roy interveened again is fairly clear.

@Yogi: Killing Shojo, even if she had been right, would have been an alignment and a code violation but not an evil act in and of itself. Roy killing Xykon by sneaking up on him and chopping his head off with an undead-killing sword/smashing his phylactory while he was miles away wouldn't be an evil act, but Xykon would still be helpless and defenseless. Ok, Roy is a bad example since he's LG, but Elan or Hayley could do it.

Miko constructed her own evidence, but 1) she's insane, and 2) she needed to justify breaking the code in order to attack him at all.

She should have known she was going to fall because of it though, even if she was right the code violation would have forced her to fall.

[Lady_Orc]

True, I think the definition I'm thinking of for insanity being CN and random killing comming under insanity is from one of the non-SRD d20 games, probably one of the lovecraftian/steampunk settings (I'm supressing the memory of most of the d20 conversions)

However, we're a bit off topic. My origional point to the speculations is that blackguards have to be evil alignment, so had Miko commited evil (and could thus shift alignment to allow her to convert her levels) or had she merely fallen, and thus be still inelligible to become a blackguard?

Miko committed an Evil act, and so she Fell. We don't know yet what her current alignment is, we haven't seen her enough after her Fall to do other than speculate. So far, I'm reserving my judgment on the matter.

[Porthos]

The thing is, Elena Faith-hold from Ravenloft is the classic example of "Pladain that is convinced she is doing good, but has turned evil anyway." :smallsmile: So there is an example for you that absolute morality holds sway in these cases. And DnD is rife with other examples of the Tragic Fallen Paladin. It makes for great storytelling opportunities, which is probably why so many authors/DMs like to pursue that strategy. :smallsmile:

[Baalzebub]

On the other hand, we still don't know if she is going to turn into a Blackguard, right now she is just a :belkar: "Fighter without feats" :belkar:. As far as we see her, Miko just did that evil act, but that does not mean she'll give up her code and turn into a blackguard right away. She is trying to commune with her gods, trying to know what happened, she is confused right now. I admit, the possibility of seeing Miko turn into a Blackguard is there, but for the good of the OOTS we pray that does not happen.

[Oxymoron]

First, Miko killing Shojo in cold blood was evil. She wasn`t in any real danger and Shojo wasn`t threatening her with deadly force. She just snapped. Her sanity has been hanging on a thin thread for years and she failed her balance check. In her defence, she had reasons to think Shojo was a corrupt tyrant, but slicing him was a critical overreaction. So is Miko evil? That remains to be seen. She has commited an evil act and has failed to see her own mistakes, but so far she hasn`t convinced me she is true evil, more like confused. Her further actions will lead her path.

Second, after seeing your interpretations of good and evil, how many paladins would stand a chance in any of your games if you were the DM? Paladins are LG, not LN. A lawful neutral person is more interested in upholding the law just for the sake of law than trying to interpret it for the good of the people. Would a paladin do the first or the latter? The latter of course. If a law is unjust or plain wrong, a paladin can easily ignore it. An Inevitable (lawful outsider) is a good example of how a paladin is NOT supposed to be. An Inevitable will haunt down and punish people who has wronged a law regardless of the circumstances. Too many posts have been written were lawful good is described almost as lawful neutral.

[Innis Cabal]

OP: D&D is, sadly, not about personal perception. Good and evil are tangible things that affect your everyday life. Wanton slaughter is not a CN act, if you could go to page 105 of the players hand book for me and read what CN is.

A paladin is a vessel of a Gods will, and must act according to their gods tennets. Miko slaughtered her liege lord not only in cold blood but without taking measuers to see if she was correct, she denied him fair trial and took the law into her own hands. I agree that in and of itself is not evil, but her motivation was. She was selfish in her beleifs and even if Shojo was not the pargaon of LG that they all assumed he was that does not mean she can just cut him in two. She actually is no better then Belkar, who is evil no matter what anyone says, she just has "laws" and "beliefs" that make her seem better. I am aware that i use her perception as a foundation of my argument but her personal ideals are what led her to commit a non-good act

I hate paladins as a class, and Miko is a perfect window into my reasons. No one seems to play them any other way then the anal retentive zealot that they dont always have to be. Here is the truth of it. Miko commited an act that made her lose her paladin class abilities, she isnt evil yet, the gods have turned their back on her, and she will fall...it is inevitable. Her single minded hatred for the OoTS and those that support them will push her into an evil alignment, becuase hate is not a good emotion, and vengence is not a good act unless it is divine retrebution...which hers will clearly not be

[Yogi]

@Yogi: Killing Shojo, even if she had been right, would have been an alignment and a code violation but not an evil act in and of itself. Roy killing Xykon by sneaking up on him and chopping his head off with an undead-killing sword/smashing his phylactory while he was miles away wouldn't be an evil act, but Xykon would still be helpless and defenseless. Ok, Roy is a bad example since he's LG, but Elan or Hayley could do it.
At NO point in time can a high level Sorceror Lich be considered defenseless. Xykon is a clear and present threat to the OotS, and could have lots of magical protection, traps, contingency spells etc. Hence a preemptive strike is justified, and even if he surrenders, extreme precautions are necessary to make sure it's not a trick and he's not faking. If Shojo had been, say, a 20th level Cleric or something, then it might have been acceptable to kill him even if he was offering no resistance because of the possiblty of some trick he can pull, and because it would be impossible to defeat him in a straight fight. Emphasis on MIGHT and assuming that Miko was actually correct.

However, Shojo is not a 20th level Cleric. He's a very old 14th level Aristocrat and so stands no chance against Miko, even if we give him a surprise round. If he surrenders, he presents no furthur threat and should be taken into custody.

[Gitman00]

This poor horse has had its flesh thoroughly flayed off, but as I wasn't posting when the most intense debate was going on, I'll throw my hat in the ring here.

It was a chaotic evil act. No doubt in my mind about that. We don't know how much of Roy and Shojo's conversation she overheard in this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0405.html) comic, but for the sake of argument, let's assume she heard all of it. Here's what Miko knows. Not what she believes, what she knows, or can reasonably extrapolate from their conversation.

1. Shojo and Roy (with the Order of the Stick) are working together.

2. Miko traveled a very long way and undertook considerable hardship to apprehend the Order of the Stick. This, along with their trial, was a ruse that Shojo engineered so that he could extradite and hire the OotS without the paladins knowing.

3. Shojo is preparing to send the OotS to Girard's Gate, in possible violation of the Sapphire Guard's oath.

Now, we know that Miko has a very strong anti-OotS bias, as evidenced in the second-to-last panel here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html), among other places. Based on this, she made the highly questionable leap here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0371.html) that the OotS was working for/with Xykon. She came up with this belief without any compelling evidence, and without even any trickery on Redcloak or Xykon's part. At most they didn't deny it. She then classified it as fact in her mind: "We all know that he's working for Xykon." Combining this "fact" with what she overheard between Roy and Shojo, she came to the entirely irrational conclusion that Shojo was working with Xykon as well, with the apparent goal of destroying the Sapphire Guard so he could rule the city with an iron fist. She declared herself judge, jury, and executioner, and murdered, yes, murdered Lord Shojo.

Miko believed Shojo was evil, or at least in league with evil. She didn't come to this conclusion by any reasonable means, however. She wasn't given compelling evidence for it. She wasn't tricked into it, magically or otherwise, and killing him was a willful act. We can speculate all day as to why in fact she did come to this conclusion. Her hatred of the OotS seems to be the deciding factor, however. This is pure speculation, but I think once she discovered that Shojo was in league with the OotS, she likely made up her mind right then. Her accusations against Shojo were almost exclusively regarding his relationship to the OotS.

Bottom line, killing Shojo was evil, even with DnD's relaxed attitude toward killing. Miko doesn't believe it was, but Miko's justification doesn't fly, as Hinjo points out to her. Her capacity for self-delusion is such that she can't accept that she was wrong even after her fall and imprisonment but DnD morality is objective, and whether she believes it or not doesn't change the fact.

[Arssanguinus]

@The Wanderer: From the point of view of the person doing it, it's good, from the point of view of absolute morality, it depends if it's actually going to save the world or not.

The point of my post and my question was does personal or absolute morality apply for determining whether an alignment violation has taken place (and thanks to those who pointed out the attonement spell, since if no penalty applies for unknowing/complusion driven acts of evil, they must count so it's absolute)

I have never disagreed (and indeed stated in my first post) that for absolute morality killing Lord Shojo is Chaotic Evil.

@Innis: See point about absolute/vs personal morality.

@Arssanguinus: Disagree with you on Belkar, if Paladins are allowed to murder goblins and kobolds left right and centre on the grounds they're evil, killing Belkar under any circumstances isn't an evil act, but you have a very good point with Hinjo, especially as her intent before Roy interveened again is fairly clear.

@Yogi: Killing Shojo, even if she had been right, would have been an alignment and a code violation but not an evil act in and of itself. Roy killing Xykon by sneaking up on him and chopping his head off with an undead-killing sword/smashing his phylactory while he was miles away wouldn't be an evil act, but Xykon would still be helpless and defenseless. Ok, Roy is a bad example since he's LG, but Elan or Hayley could do it.

Miko constructed her own evidence, but 1) she's insane, and 2) she needed to justify breaking the code in order to attack him at all.

She should have known she was going to fall because of it though, even if she was right the code violation would have forced her to fall.

Regarding Belkar:

YOu obviously have a quite different opinion on what Paladins are allowed to do regarding Goblins and the like. Any Paladin that, without reason, murdered goblins "Left right and center" would cease to be a Paladin _very quickly_. A 'Smite onsight' paladin would no longer be one in my world. Belkar was in no way directly threatening her, moreover was LITERALLY helpless against her with the Mark of Justice. He couldn't have BEEN more helpless. AND he was in custody of the law and awaiting his _legal_ trial. There is no way to justify her attack> There are plenty of other occasions on which she could have, this was not one of them.

[Assassinfox]

If we're gonna start calling the murder of a defenceless old man a purely chaotic act, why not just bring up the "Belkar is Chaotic Neutral!" argument again?

[elliott20]

oh god not this debate again.

[Oxymoron]

where in the D&D books does it stand that killing evil is good? A paladin is supposed to punish the guilty, not kill the evil (however in most cases they are the same). Killing evil is often necessary, but I still don`t call it good. In the end, it`s up to the DM to decide how the laws of alignment should apply to their universe.

[Innis Cabal]

when talking in hypothetical terms its not a "this DM says one and this DM says two" you need to work with printed material

[Wrecan]

where in the D&D books does it stand that killing evil is good? A paladin is supposed to punish the guilty, not kill the evil
Actually, they are to "punish evil", not the guilty. Paladins are crusaders against evil, not law enforcement officers.

[Caractacus]

She's not good! She's become evil! Her Paladin-hood is no more! She has ceased to be associated with the right! She's fallen and been rejected by her god! She's done evil! Bereft of good, she's a paladin no longer! If Hinjo hadn't been lenient she'd be pushing up the daisies! Her metaphysical processes are now 'evil! She's jumped the shark! She's kicked the good habit, she's shuffled off her holy nature, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir of evil!! THIS IS AN EX-PALADIN!!

A brave, beautiful and, sadly, ultimately futile attempt to inject some much-needed levity into the situation. Kudos :smallcool:

She must atone - someone give her a map to the forest of tall trees and a bag of small fish of her choice...

[UglyPanda]

If you want mechanical proof, Miko could still use her stunning fist attack. She's still lawful, she's just not a *cough* "shining paragon of good".

[Nerd-o-rama]

Basically it boils down to – are alignment violations determined by absolute truth
In D&D? Yes. Question answered.

Note that a single Evil act is not enough to change one's alignment. It is enough to make a Paladin fall, if it's unambiguously Evil. In Miko's case, it also likely pushed her over the fine line between Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral, but that is pure speculation on my part.

(Note the capital "E"'s, which denote D&D's objective definition of Evil, which the unlawful execution of your good-hearted lord who only ever acted in the best interests of his nation qualify for.)

[rashambo]

In D&D, good & evil are not "shades of gray" , they are part of the glue that holds everything together. A paladin cannot kill an unarmed, non-evil person. Killing a defenseless person, regardless of alignment is an evil act in the D&D setting and is a violation of the paladin's code of honor.

[Demented]

oh god not this debate again.

There are so many statements in this thread that I could quote and say "I fully agree!", but this... this one takes the cake. The double-decker-fudge-hotcake with cranberries on top. (And note that weird, candied, chemical cranberries either).

[Oxymoron]

Actually, they are to "punish evil", not the guilty. Paladins are crusaders against evil, not law enforcement officers.

Actually, we`re both wrong. A paladin shall punish those who harm or threaten innocents (checked my players handbook). So basicly there`s nothing in the paladins code that require him/her to go on a zealous onslaught of evil. A paladins code is stricter than than the ethics a "normal" LG character may follow, but it`s not that strict. I agree they are crusaders against evil, but in a good way.

[Laesin]

where in the D&D books does it stand that killing evil is good?

I believe that is stated in the travesty that is the Book of Exalted Deeds. Can't be sure where though and I may be wrong.

[rashambo]

In the games I've played, it was the paladin's duty to bring evildoers to justice. A paladin could not kill anyone that didn't put up a fight. Shojo was not putting up a fight, he could have been brought to justice.

[Arssanguinus]

In the games I've played, it was the paladin's duty to bring evildoers to justice. A paladin could not kill anyone that didn't put up a fight. Shojo was not putting up a fight, he could have been brought to justice.

By the same token, Belkar was not putting up a fight either. Was not CAPABLE of putting up a fight if arested.

[Pollux]

Yes, I would consider bisecting an unarmed octagenarian who has done nothing wrong "evil".

[Felius]

Yes, I would consider bisecting an unarmed octogenarian who has done nothing wrong "evil".

True. And I put more: Even if he did something wrong, there were the possibility of fair justice here. We have a place full of paladins. Miko heard him that the Paladins were being tricked, so she doesn't have any reason to think that they are corrupt too and she is the last bastion of good and honor.

The only way I could see it as a not evil (but also not good. At the maximum it would be neutral, probably bordering evil) act, is if he was truly a evil warlord, weren't any way to bring justice in the legal ways, like if there is no other possible good choice or at least no other safe enough to risk (like if he was a epic evil arch-mage, or an overlord of all know land with a fanatical blackguard dedicated entirely to him). But then again, he is just a very old man with npc classed. And he even admitted that he needs to tricks his followers so there is on ninja squad at his door, nor the paladins have problems with his more questionable acts.

[Wojiz]

It really was more of an almost-evil or neutral act than an evil act. I think the reason she violated her alignment and thus lost her powers was due to Chaotic-Lawful rather than Good-Evil. Assassination can never be considered lawful, really, especially when there's a peaceful, alternative route. So she lost her powers when she crossed the line from lawful and chaotic. Unless a Paladin can be Neutral Good/Chaotic Good, then my idea is disproved.

[Elephant]

No, it's not a good thing if he kills the farmer for getting in his way, but you're confusing what "good" and "evil" actually are in D&D terms.



Actually, *you're* the one confusing what "good" and "evil" mean in D&D terms.



It's why you kill someone that's important. If the Orc killed the farmer because he'd stolen the lands that had fed the orc's familly for generations and his children were starving, that's a good act.


Not quite. Did he try to get the farmer to leave? Or did he just go and mash the farmer before even thinking that there might be a way to resolve things while still respecting the farmer's life and dignity.



If he killed him because he wanted the lands for himself and the farmer was in his way, that's an evil act.


Another fair assessment.



If he killed him because he didn't like his hairstyle, that's a (chaotic) neutral act.


DEFINITELY not. Random, pointless killing is textbook CE.



And the blue light from the sky means that Miko violated the very strict alignment rules for her class and the gods are punishing her. As I said earlier, killing Shojo at all, whether it's good or evil, forces the violation because she's acting chaotically. Good and Evil doesn't even have to come into it, only halfling paladins following Yndolla are allowed to be chaotic good (ok, I think there might be a couple of other Faerun gods that break the Lawful Good only rule, but the point holds)

"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.

Ex-Paladins

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate."

From the SRD, emphasis mine. She can fall without commiting an evil act. I think killing your leige lord and refusing to listen to his heir telling you not counts as "not respecting legitimate authority"

You've made some good points about not respecting authority and about violating the Code. However, and this is a HUGE however, you're completely ignoring the evil inherent in MURDERING an unarmed, helpless old man.

[Fineous Orlon]

She killed a man out of expediency. Evil.

Ooooh, good, pithy thoughtful answer. I don't agree 100%, but I like it.

Miko was a code and authority paladin. As long as she had a code and authority to follow, she was lawful good. When left to her own devices, she had more problems. She was easily baited by Belkar. When first told to collect the OotS, she tells Shojo she will kill them, he says Scruffy says not to. She swears an oath to punish OotS for their evil, and for consorting with Belkar, etc.

Time and again, her own judgement is lacking in the Lawful Good department. When she can substitute another's judgement [Shojo] or uses the Code, she is fine.

She has never understood Lawful Good, and thus, when legitimate authority was delegitimized within earshot, she fell back on her own non-code judgement, and went straight off the charts.

And, remember, she killed Shojo, fell, and THEN tried to murder Belkar and Hinjo.

Yeah..., evil. There's an evil act in there somewhere.

[Kreistor]

EllisCat, everyone thinks that they are personally Good. If that was how you define Good and Evil, there is no Evil.

In my opinion, Miko did not Fall because of that one act. Miko Fell because she had a major flaw. So long as that flaw remained secret and private, she was okay. But when she said, "Hinjo, I hope that someday you have a spiritual awakening as I have had," Miko has sealed her fate. Miko suffers from hubris -- self-centered pride. She presumes that because she overheard Shojo revealing his lies, that it was an act the gods wanted her to hear because she had prayed for it.

The gods may have wanted her to hear it, but it was a test, not an answer to her prayers. The gods were putting her in a position to test her flaw... could she overcome it in order to see what was really important. Which was more important -- the Leader that was playing games in order to protect the Gates, or the Lich that was about to batter down the doors and destroy the Gate? Miko chose poorly.

Was killing him an Evil act? Miko killed him based on supposition and presumption. She created a reason to kill him, based on the assumption that she is "special", not because she had witnessed him doing anything in particular worthy of a death sentence. So, yes, it was a selfish and self-centered act and that made it Evil.

[Porthos]

If you want mechanical proof, Miko could still use her stunning fist attack. She's still lawful, she's just not a *cough* "shining paragon of good".

Actually, ex-Monks retain all of their Monk powers regardless of their alignment. :smallsmile: So that means that the 15th level Monk who suddenly wiggs out and goes CE still gets to use all of their bad-ass Monk powers. The only restriction is that can't learn any new ones. :smallsmile:

[Flubadubdub]

I disagree with Assassins being incapable of being lawful. Mind you, I play first edition, so abilities of assassins are going to differ slightly. With that in mind, due to some sad and depressing deaths, my assassin friend is now the strongest person in the party. Not the highest level, that title goes to a druid, but easily most capable of killing everyone else, definitely the assassin.

If he were chaotic, he'd simply slay them all, and take their magical items. Instead, he prefers to travel with the party, and use his power to take the majority of the wealth. He used to take bribes from fellow party members and kill other party members (we had some problems with that), but with everyone constantly dying, it was to difficult to earn a decent amount of experiences and loot on adventures. Therefore, he decided to stop all arguments amongst the party members, and force them to continue. Cruel, yes, but it did more for himself.

Also, he only accepts offers to assassinate higher levels npc's, or those of importance. He simply believes assassinating a level 1 for a tiny amount of gold not worth the time.

Definitely lawful evil.

As for Miko, I originally guessed her fall to be of a somewhat permanent matter, not because she did an evil act, but because she truly believes in the chaotic belief system she has coughed up. The laws are wrong, I am the chosen one, all signs that I think she'll remain to close to a chaotic mind set for an atonement. Even if she pulled it off, it wouldn't be her drive of performing evil acts that will cost her paladin status again, it would be her chaotic views.

I thought the monk idea could possibly go against this, since in first edition, monks who become unlawful become thieves, thus losing monk abilities. But if they get to keep them, then my theory holds out.

[Pvednes]

In a word: Yes.

[StrykerX]

One thing people are forgetting is that Miko was a samurai serving Oriental-style gods... killing her lord is just about the worst possible violation of her code she could commit. And even if it was somehow justified (like if he betrayed the city and was about to let the lich's army in or something) she'd probably still need to commit seppeku to atone for something like that. So regardless of whether killing Shojo was evil or not (I personally think it was), it was an massive breach of the Sapphire Guard's code of conduct.

[Estrosiath]

God, I can't believe people are still debating this.
The short version: Yes, she did.
The long version: She WAS a LG paladin. Paladins do NOT kill weaponless octogenarians. No matter how insane the paladin is (and miko is clinically insane - she suffers from severe delusions, no matter which way you look at it), and no matter how evil you think he is. This wasn't a dungeon where you can just kill at will - she was in a city, and disrespected its laws (which were sound, despite the fact they were written by a Chaotic character). And no, you cannot have CG assassins (you MUST be evil to be an assassin, in the prestige class sense).

[Arssanguinus]

It really was more of an almost-evil or neutral act than an evil act. I think the reason she violated her alignment and thus lost her powers was due to Chaotic-Lawful rather than Good-Evil. Assassination can never be considered lawful, really, especially when there's a peaceful, alternative route. So she lost her powers when she crossed the line from lawful and chaotic. Unless a Paladin can be Neutral Good/Chaotic Good, then my idea is disproved.

Almost evil? The spinning here to try to get MIko out of her own actions is frankly amazing.

[Baalzebub]

Everyone agrees that, If a person kills an old, indefense man in the street just because "he was conspiring against me" is a Chaotic EVIL act. Where's the neutrality in there??

[Nimelennar]

What I want to know is:
Where is the line drawn to make an evil act?

If killing Shojo is evil, and attacking Hinjo is evil, and attacking Belkar is evil, then why isn't this evil?:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0189.html

Both were armed, yes, but they were obviously low-level compared to Miko. She could have easily incapacitated them rather than kill them (as she did with the OotS). In addition, the father attacked her for a very good reason: she'd just killed his daughter. Instead of trying to not kill him, she immediately stabbed him.

The act of killing people you could easily incapacitate seems at least Neutral, if not Evil.

[brazilian]

What I want to know is:
Where is the line drawn to make an evil act?

If killing Shojo is evil, and attacking Hinjo is evil, and attacking Belkar is evil, then why isn't this evil?:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0189.html

Both were armed, yes, but they were obviously low-level compared to Miko. She could have easily incapacitated them rather than kill them (as she did with the OotS). In addition, the father attacked her for a very good reason: she'd just killed his daughter. Instead of trying to not kill him, she immediately stabbed him.

The act of killing people you could easily incapacitate seems at least Neutral, if not Evil.

Big difference there, against Samatha she was attacked without provocation, and a very direct threat ("you'll serve me or you'll die!") and the father had raised his weapons. Yes she maybe could choose not to kill but hey characters don't have a sign saying "I am level X" specially against a sorcerer casting spells you don't have time for going easy, if that hold person connects Miko is finished. The same for the father, she has no idea what his powers is.

You have to remeber that against OoTS Rich said that Roy surrendered, and against both Belkar and Shojo there were defenceless, no threat for her there.

[Arssanguinus]

What I want to know is:
Where is the line drawn to make an evil act?

If killing Shojo is evil, and attacking Hinjo is evil, and attacking Belkar is evil, then why isn't this evil?:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0189.html

Both were armed, yes, but they were obviously low-level compared to Miko. She could have easily incapacitated them rather than kill them (as she did with the OotS). In addition, the father attacked her for a very good reason: she'd just killed his daughter. Instead of trying to not kill him, she immediately stabbed him.

The act of killing people you could easily incapacitate seems at least Neutral, if not Evil.

At least in that case, whatever else you can say, she was being attacked with intent to harm.

[Maroon]

Yeah, Miko has always been clinically insane. Her gods just chose to ignore it because she was efficient in furthering their goals (that is, murdering people because they have green skin and fangs, and to a lesser extent, protecting Azure City). When she decided to bisect the octegenarian who was protecting Azure City, she screwed with their plans and put everyone's lives at risk.

[Wrecan]

they were obviously low-level compared to Miko.
How is that obvious? (Samantha has the ability to cast maximized fireballs, making her at least 11th level, and her father is probably a rogue of roughly equal power. They probably weren't low-leveled compared to Miko at all.)


Instead of trying to not kill him, she immediately stabbed him.She was defending herself.


The act of killing people you could easily incapacitate seems at least Neutral, if not Evil.And yet, it's not. There is no requirement that good people inflict nonlethal damage. D&D is predicated on running around killing stuff for treasure.

[Wojiz]

Almost evil? The spinning here to try to get MIko out of her own actions is frankly amazing.

First off, we've established no universal moral standard or code besides the laws of the city, and those are related to stability rather than morality. Unless we do that, the only moral code or standard that can be held up as relevant to the situation would be the one in Miko's head, and it seems probable that she believed that it was the morally right thing to do. It may differ from other moral codes or standards, but since we have no universal standard, we can't judge it or compare it.

Now, you could say that the laws of Miko's gods are relevant to the situation. However, the only indication of these codes are to uphold LAW and GOOD. Violation of either of those would do it, so we don't know whether she lost her powers for evil or chaotic actions. Since we can't judge it by her gods' scale, seeing as all we know is that she lost her powers for a chaotic, potentially evil action, we have to judge it by the one in her mind. She 'knew' she was doing the right thing, and she 'knew' it was chaotic. The only constant is the chaotic nature of her action, rather than good or evil.

[Arssanguinus]

First off, we've established no universal moral standard or code besides the laws of the city, and those are related to stability rather than morality. Unless we do that, the only moral code or standard that can be held up as relevant to the situation would be the one in Miko's head, and it seems probable that she believed that it was the morally right thing to do. It may differ from other moral codes or standards, but since we have no universal standard, we can't judge it or compare it.

Now, you could say that the laws of Miko's gods are relevant to the situation. However, the only indication of these codes are to uphold LAW and GOOD. Violation of either of those would do it, so we don't know whether she lost her powers for evil or chaotic actions. Since we can't judge it by her gods' scale, seeing as all we know is that she lost her powers for a chaotic, potentially evil action, we have to judge it by the one in her mind. She 'knew' she was doing the right thing, and she 'knew' it was chaotic. The only constant is the chaotic nature of her action, rather than good or evil.

. . .good or evil for her is defined by her GODS not her opinion. . .

POTENTIALLY evil? Undoubtedly and indisputably evil.

[Wojiz]

. . .good or evil for her is defined by her GODS not her opinion. . .

POTENTIALLY evil? Undoubtedly and indisputably evil.

I'm disputing it right now. We know the gods took away her powers because her act was either CHAOTIC or EVIL. It was DEFINITELY chaotic, as stability isn't as intangible as morality, and whether a government is just or unjust, killing its leader is chaotic. We don't know, however, what kind of morality the gods have. They could be totally warped compared to ours. For instance, Miko slaughtered a bunch of people, apparently, and kept her powers. Your morality may not fit Miko's gods.

[Bluelantern]

short answer: yes.
Long answer: freaking hell yes, baby! 8)

[Tussy the Druid]

Yes she commited an evil act. This thread has been created a billion times....

Murdering an unarmed good person. How does that not sound evil?

^ As always, you're avatar never ceases to creep me out.

[Arssanguinus]

I'm disputing it right now. We know the gods took away her powers because her act was either CHAOTIC or EVIL. It was DEFINITELY chaotic, as stability isn't as intangible as morality, and whether a government is just or unjust, killing its leader is chaotic. We don't know, however, what kind of morality the gods have. They could be totally warped compared to ours. For instance, Miko slaughtered a bunch of people, apparently, and kept her powers. Your morality may not fit Miko's gods.

Why could it not have been Chaotic _and_ evil?

And D&D has a definition of good. By the definition of good, her acts are not.

Get over it Miko was a wicked and evil little girl.

TO be more distinct, does that mean if a Cleric of Grummsh sacrifices all of the children of a village because he thinks its good?

Moreover, why not then apply the argument that she "Thought" she was being lawful at the time, so it shouldn't be a chaotic violation either!

[Wrecan]

I'm disputing it right now. We know the gods took away her powers because her act was either CHAOTIC or EVIL.
You don't fall for chaotic acts, only evil ones.

[Mr Horse]

yes. yes she did.

[EvilElitest]

This one’s been puzzling me for a while, when Miko killed Lord Shojo (and indeed her actions previous to that) did she ever violate the good part of her alignment?

Well sense killing defencless innocent, and weak old men without proof or proper exucution were a better option was around, yeah she did


Before anyone brings up the fact she’s fallen, killing Lord Shojo was inherently a chaotic act, but it’s possible to have a chaotic good assassin.


Basically it boils down to – are alignment violations determined by absolute truth, or by the perspective of the character.
From personal perspective that would make RedCloak good. He is trying to work for the betterment of his god and his race. But we know that he is LE


From Miko’s personal (crazy, warped and twisted) perspective, all of her actions have been good.
Good for her. EvilBob McNazi think from his crazy warped twisted perspective all of his baby killing action's have been good


[QUOTE]She believed that she had divine and secular authority over the OotS,
Arogent and egomanical. While it did not make her fall by itself, it led to her down fall


hence forcing them to Azure City, in chains when they resisted, was both the lawful and the good thing to do
While she did handle that situation really badly, because she did not know that is was happened. If she was in on Shojo's plans, then yes it would be unlawful and not good to handle the situation the way she did.


Killing Belkar and indeed, killing Lord Shojo (assuming he actually was an evil despot corrupting the sapphire guard and using them to advance an evil agenda), on the other hand are both good things, but not lawful.
Not when you have not proved their guilt. Belkar was hepless and still not proven guilty, so it is not you job to kill the helpless.
Shojo's guilty was not proven, and you still have no right to kill an old man who can't defend himself


However, from an absolute perspective, arresting tOotS was unlawful (she and indeed Shojo had no actual authority or jurisdiction) and possibly an evil one (that’s dubious, but some interpretations of LE allow for blindly following the letter of the law with no thought to the spirit or the consequences as LE rather than LN),
I don't like miko, but she would not fall because she did not know about Shojo's plan


killing Belkar is still a chaotic good act (even if he’s unarmed and defenseless, it’s still removing a major source of evil from the world)
No proof. Might be a LN, but mercy is a good trait.



I’m tending towards the personal perspective interpretation, but that completely rules out the possibility of Miko in a black chainmail bikini when she becomes a blackguard.

Everyone thinks their good, that does not make them so
from,
EE

[Aquillion]

You don't fall for chaotic acts, only evil ones.Yes, you really do. They have to be more serious (you fall automatically for a willing evil act), but the relevant text, as I quoted before:


A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies).Emphasis mine. And the code of conduct?


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.Again, emphasis mine. Miko's code requires that she respect legimate authority, which (all other matters aside) Shojo clearly was; and they require that she act with honor (which is quite aside from goodness--Roy, say, is quite allowed to attack an unarmed evil opponent without risking his good alignment, if the circumstances warrant it. Haley backstabs people all the time and nobody calls her evil. Elan brought the world a major step closer to complete destruction by destroying that gate--in fact, he probably did more damage to the world with that single act than most of the other characters in the strip combined---and nobody here is suggesting it was an evil act.)

Look at it this way: Could a chaotic good character have done what Miko did without risking their alignment? I think it's flatly, indisputably plain that they could do so, that nobody would even suggest that, say, a chaotic good Barbarian would be risking their alignment under such circumstances; nobody's alignment is ever going to change over a mistake or misunderstanding, no matter how serious it is. Miko's actions, in other words, were gross violations of her code of conduct, and extremely chaotic besides, but not evil. 'Screw the law, I'll do what's right' is the very essence of a chaotic good character.

In fact, even if Miko had been exactly right in her assumptions, the OOTS evil, and Shojo a monstrous ruler, she would still have fallen, even though her actions were plainly good. A paladin is required to respect legitimate authority, even evil authority, and fight honorably, even against evil; there are valid laws and rules that she could have used to challenge Shojo while still respecting his position. She didn't use them, and indeed went against them in the most grossly code-violating way possible short of an actual evil act; but if she things like repeatedly and kept to her present course, her alignment would shift to chaotic good, not chaotic evil.

Need more proof? From the section of the d20srd on alignment:

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. Alignment represents your personal outlook, and therefore the goodness and evilness of your actions is based entirely on your intentions, not your results. Miko could spend the rest of her life killing good characters, and as long as she thinks that they're evil, her alignment remains good.

You. do. not. become. evil. for. mistakes. Not ever. Doesn't happen. Alignment reflects your character's outlook and views, and (short of magical means) it cannot be changed by anything short of deliberate, fully-informed and willing acts on your own part. Miko's actions were willingly chaotic (that doesn't change her alignment for one act and wouldn't cause her to fall on its own, though her later statements damning the corrupt laws and so forth indicate that her alignment may be shifting to chaotic anyway), and, more importantly, they were a gross violation of the code for reasons totally unrelated to alignment (which, again, would have caused her to fall even if she had been genuinely acting in the name of good); but they were not evil, and don't represent any significant shift towards evil on her part.

I don't see, basically, how anyone could suggest that Miko's actions here were evil, and (say) Elan's destruction of the gate wasn't.

Note, also, that if (say) a wizard had used an illusion to trick Miko into killing her liege by disguising him as Xykon, her paladin status wouldn't have been affected at all; being tricked isn't "fighting dishonorably", it isn't "disrespecting her liege", it isn't evil by the personal definition of alignment given above, and so forth. The problem for her is that she knowingly and willingly went against her liege and, worse, attacked him dishonorably, not the fact that she was wrong about him being a traitor. That wouldn't have made any difference at all.

A paladin who somehow finds themselves in service to an evil liege going to be tormented and probably doomed; they do have some options, but attacking their (unarmed) lord unexpectedly is not allowed under any circumstances, no matter how evil he is or how much good you're accomplishing by doing it.

[Assassinfox]

Can we just IGNORE the fact that Shojo is her Lord for a moment? Miko MURDERED AN UNARMED, WEAK, HELPLESS OLD MAN!

If doing that is a "Chaotic" act, then Belkar is Chaotic Neutral, and a Chaotic Good character can waltz down the street hacking off heads.

[Arssanguinus]

Can we just IGNORE the fact that Shojo is her Lord for a moment? Miko MURDERED AN UNARMED, WEAK, HELPLESS OLD MAN!

If doing that is a "Chaotic" act, then Belkar is Chaotic Neutral, and a Chaotic Good character can waltz down the street hacking off heads.

This twisting around to try to absolve Miko gets even more absurd.

[Assassinfox]

This twisting around to try to absolve Miko gets even more absurd.

[Scrubbed] I'm not trying to absolve Miko! I'm saying that she commited an evil act!

[Aquillion]

No. In her eyes, she executed an evil helpless old traitor in the name of the greater good. Like I said, that fits chaotic good almost perfectly. Refusing to trust the readings of her own divine abilities when her personal moral compass says otherwise (evil is what I say it is according to my personal sense of right and wrong, no matter what the gods say) is, likewise, an extremely chaotic good position, not an evil one.

[Assassinfox]

No. In her eyes, she executed an evil helpless old traitor in the name of the greater good. Like I said, that fits chaotic good almost perfectly. Refusing to trust the readings of her own divine abilities when her personal moral compass says otherwise (evil is what I say it is according to my personal sense of right and wrong, no matter what the gods say) is, likewise, an extremely chaotic good position, not an evil one.

So, yes, a Chaotic Good person CAN waltz down the street slaughtering the elderly without proof of guilt. I'll keep that in mind next time I'm rolling up a CG character.

DM: An elderly person approaches.
Me: POWER ATTACK!
DM: Alignment violation.
Me: He looked at me funny! I have absolutely no proof, but he MUST be evil! I can kill him, BECAUSE I'M CHAOTIC!

[Arssanguinus]

Did you read what I said? I'm not trying to absolve Miko! I'm saying that she commited an evil act!

Actually, that was meant for the post YOUquoted. Oops, sorry.

On your side.

[Aquillion]

So, yes, a Chaotic Good person CAN waltz down the street slaughtering the elderly without proof of guilt. I'll keep that in mind next time I'm rolling up a CG character.

DM: An elderly person approaches.
Me: POWER ATTACK!
DM: Alignment violation.
Me: He looked at me funny! I have absolutely no proof, but he MUST be evil! I can kill him, BECAUSE I'M CHAOTIC!They can do it if they think they have proof, even if they actually don't. Miko believed she had proof at the time, remember.

But yes, if you made an obsessed monomaniac CG rogue who devoted his life to hunting evil warlocks in towns, and occasionally may have killed innocent person by accident, that doesn't risk his alignment. It's your character's outlook and goals that matter for your alignment, not your results; an utterly insane good-aligned madman can do far more damage than an evil lich who sticks to his lair and makes the occasional virgin sacrifice.

This is good for gameplay. It makes for more depth, and it keeps spells and abilities like detect evil from wrecking nuanced gameplay. Reading the rules on alignment, it is plainly the RAW intention. The fact that so many people misunderstand this is why you get so many complaints over detect evil-type abilities and the D&D alignment system.

[Arssanguinus]

No. In her eyes, she executed an evil helpless old traitor in the name of the greater good. Like I said, that fits chaotic good almost perfectly. Refusing to trust the readings of her own divine abilities when her personal moral compass says otherwise (evil is what I say it is according to my personal sense of right and wrong, no matter what the gods say) is, likewise, an extremely chaotic good position, not an evil one.

In her mind, in the D&D universe is irrelevant. There GOOD AND EVIL ARE NOT SUBJECTIVE. Evil is what the Gods say it is, and is NOT what Miko says it is, or no Paladin would EVER fall due to evil.

[Querzis]

Yes, you really do. They have to be more serious (you fall automatically for a willing evil act), but the relevant text, as I quoted before:

Emphasis mine. And the code of conduct?

Again, emphasis mine. Miko's code requires that she respect legimate authority, which (all other matters aside) Shojo clearly was; and they require that she act with honor (which is quite aside from goodness--Roy, say, is quite allowed to attack an unarmed evil opponent without risking his good alignment, if the circumstances warrant it. Haley backstabs people all the time and nobody calls her evil. Elan brought the world a major step closer to complete destruction by destroying that gate--in fact, he probably did more damage to the world with that single act than most of the other characters in the strip combined---and nobody here is suggesting it was an evil act.)

Look at it this way: Could a chaotic good character have done what Miko did without risking their alignment? I think it's flatly, indisputably plain that they could do so, that nobody would even suggest that, say, a chaotic good Barbarian would be risking their alignment under such circumstances; nobody's alignment is ever going to change over a mistake or misunderstanding, no matter how serious it is. Miko's actions, in other words, were gross violations of her code of conduct, and extremely chaotic besides, but not evil. 'Screw the law, I'll do what's right' is the very essence of a chaotic good character.

In fact, even if Miko had been exactly right in her assumptions, the OOTS evil, and Shojo a monstrous ruler, she would still have fallen, even though her actions were plainly good. A paladin is required to respect legitimate authority, even evil authority, and fight honorably, even against evil; there are valid laws and rules that she could have used to challenge Shojo while still respecting his position. She didn't use them, and indeed went against them in the most grossly code-violating way possible short of an actual evil act; but if she things like repeatedly and kept to her present course, her alignment would shift to chaotic good, not chaotic evil.

Need more proof? From the section of the d20srd on alignment:
Alignment represents your personal outlook, and therefore the goodness and evilness of your actions is based entirely on your intentions, not your results. Miko could spend the rest of her life killing good characters, and as long as she thinks that they're evil, her alignment remains good.

You. do. not. become. evil. for. mistakes. Not ever. Doesn't happen. Alignment reflects your character's outlook and views, and (short of magical means) it cannot be changed by anything short of deliberate, fully-informed and willing acts on your own part. Miko's actions were willingly chaotic (that doesn't change her alignment for one act and wouldn't cause her to fall on its own, though her later statements damning the corrupt laws and so forth indicate that her alignment may be shifting to chaotic anyway), and, more importantly, they were a gross violation of the code for reasons totally unrelated to alignment (which, again, would have caused her to fall even if she had been genuinely acting in the name of good); but they were not evil, and don't represent any significant shift towards evil on her part.

I don't see, basically, how anyone could suggest that Miko's actions here were evil, and (say) Elan's destruction of the gate wasn't.

Note, also, that if (say) a wizard had used an illusion to trick Miko into killing her liege by disguising him as Xykon, her paladin status wouldn't have been affected at all; being tricked isn't "fighting dishonorably", it isn't "disrespecting her liege", it isn't evil by the personal definition of alignment given above, and so forth. The problem for her is that she knowingly and willingly went against her liege and, worse, attacked him dishonorably, not the fact that she was wrong about him being a traitor. That wouldn't have made any difference at all.

Yes it was evil and YES if a chaotic good character would have done what Miko did, it would be as much evil and he would have to switch to CN at best but probably CE. This is just silly, why the hell do you think it was a chaotic action? She served Shojo and the gods, she hear that Shojo betrayed her so she serve the gods by killing him. She was the jury, the judge and the executionner, she cant be more lawfull then that! Hell she is almost the definition of some LE characters. Killing Shojo wasnt chaotic at all, it was just evil and by the way Assassin are just as likely to be lawfull as chaotic, assassination isnt chaotic, its just evil (or at is best, neutral). Miko was just lucky that her two boss (shojo and the gods) were good and always asked her to do good actions because as far as I'm concerned she was always more LN-LE then LG and killing Shojo was definitly LE.

I think you guys need to know something, killing is NEVER a good action. Killing evil creatures isnt good, its neutral. Saving other creature or putting your life in danger for someone else now thats good. Compassion, respect, mercy, honor and finding other solutions then killing now thats good. But having no compassion for evil creature, no respect for your fellow kinsmen and killing everyone that is evil from your point of view is LN borderlines LE. Seriously guys, its not like it was a huge change, Miko personnality was always more LN-LE then LG but since only actions matter in D&D, she still came out as LG because her boss asked her to do good things.

[Assassinfox]

This is good for gameplay. It makes for more depth, and it keeps spells and abilities like detect evil from wrecking nuanced gameplay. Reading the rules on alignment, it is plainly the RAW intention. The fact that so many people misunderstand this is why you get so many complaints over detect evil-type abilities and the D&D alignment system.

If that's how you houserule your games, that's your thing.

[Arssanguinus]

If that's how you houserule your games, that's your thing.

WHat I don't understand is how he thinks that relative morality is clearly what RAW says. Even those who dislike the Alignment system generally don't list among its features that it is a system designed for "Moral relativism'

[Wojiz]

Killing is never a good action according to your morality.

We have no idea what kind of morality the gods of Azure City uphold. We have no precedent whatsoever. Why would we accept that they uphold killing an evil person who could potentially be plotting to take over the entire city and enslave all inside or who knows what as wrong? Your morality is totally irrelevant to the gods of the South and their morality, and since we have no precedent on their morality, we cannot make a judgement on the morality the gods lay down. The only way, then, is to lay down a set of moral codes that are universal, like the Golden Rule or Categorical Imperative and argue according to those, OR to reference Miko's mind.

Since the former are both just theoretical, the latter is the only option. As Miko was obviously surprised she lost her alignment, she must have expected that the action was both lawful and good. Now, since we don't have a universal moral standard, the only morality that can apply to the situation is what Miko sees as right or wrong. Therefore, if she expected it to be good, it was good. If you do something you believe was right but turned out to be wrong by someone else's moral standard, who has the right to be the moral judge? No one. So this means that the morality of a person's actions is totally decided in their mind seeing as we don't have a universal precedent.

However, chaos and law are much more tangible concepts. Killing a government official is definitely chaotic, even if he was evil, as it would plunge the government into instability and defies the laws it sets down, which is the definition of chaotic. So this basically means Miko could THINK that it was Lawful and Good, and if she THOUGHT it was good, it WAS good. However, she could think it was lawful and still have it be chaotic, as law and chaos is more tangible and morality is abstract. Since she was obviously surprised that she lost her powers, she thought the action was good, and therefore it was good. However, she therefore also thought it must have been lawful, and it was not. Therefore, the action was Chaotic Good, which violates the Lawful Good Paladin requirements and thus nullifies her position as paladin.

[Querzis]

Intentions doesnt matter at all in D&D and as far as I'm concerned it shoudnt even matter in real life!

Intentions: An old defenseless ruler did a crime and you want to punish him, you can
A) Put him in jail.
B) Interrogate him and hear his arguments.
C) Wait until the fight with the army of hobgobelins is finished to take care of him.
D) Tell him that he is no longer the ruler of the city, give him a horse and let him go.
E) Kill him because of crime that you invented and dont listen to anything he has to say to defend himself.

Is it really hard to guess which one is evil?

[Aquillion]

In her mind, in the D&D universe is irrelevant. There GOOD AND EVIL ARE NOT SUBJECTIVE. Evil is what the Gods say it is, and is NOT what Miko says it is, or no Paladin would EVER fall due to evil.Again, where are you getting this from? I quoted a section of the SRD that clearly states that alignment represents a character's personal outlook and goals, and says nothing about their actions or any sort of divine judgement.

Of course a Paladin can fall due to evil. They can become power-hungry, or disillusioned, just like anyone else. But they have to actually be evil, and willingly commit an evil act; they can't just be tricked into it by circumstances, because alignment in the D&D universe is defined exclusively by your own outlook and goals.


Yes it was evil and YES if a chaotic good character would have done what Miko did, it would be as much evil and he would have to switch to CN at best but probably CE. This is just silly, why the hell do you think it was a chaotic action? She served Shojo and the gods, she hear that Shojo betrayed her so she serve the gods by killing him. She was the jury, the judge and the executionner, she cant be more lawfull then that!

From the d20SRD again:

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

...

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.A character who obeys only their own personal code of good and evil is wholly and completely chaotic. This is why, for instance, revolutionaries are almost always chaotic, even when they're fighting for their own idea of a greater good.


If that's how you houserule your games, that's your thing.Again, I've quoted the SRD extensively; these are the rules. If someone has sections where it says that good and evil are decided by the Gods, or where following your own conscience in opposition to written law is lawful and not chaotic, then go ahead and present them; but as I'm seeing it, you're quoting house rules, misinterpretations, and gut-responses, even if they're wide-spread ones.

...hmm, for instance, I suppose you could say that I'm the lawful one here. :smalltongue:

[Arssanguinus]

Killing is never a good action according to your morality.

We have no idea what kind of morality the gods of Azure City uphold. We have no precedent whatsoever. Why would we accept that they uphold killing an evil person who could potentially be plotting to take over the entire city and enslave all inside or who knows what as wrong? Your morality is totally irrelevant to the gods of the South and their morality, and since we have no precedent on their morality, we cannot make a judgement on the morality the gods lay down. The only way, then, is to lay down a set of moral codes that are universal, like the Golden Rule or Categorical Imperative and argue according to those, OR to reference Miko's mind.

Since the former are both just theoretical, the latter is the only option. As Miko was obviously surprised she lost her alignment, she must have expected that the action was both lawful and good. Now, since we don't have a universal moral standard, the only morality that can apply to the situation is what Miko sees as right or wrong. Therefore, if she expected it to be good, it was good. If you do something you believe was right but turned out to be wrong by someone else's moral standard, who has the right to be the moral judge? No one. So this means that the morality of a person's actions is totally decided in their mind seeing as we don't have a universal precedent.

However, chaos and law are much more tangible concepts. Killing a government official is definitely chaotic, even if he was evil, as it would plunge the government into instability and defies the laws it sets down, which is the definition of chaotic. So this basically means Miko could THINK that it was Lawful and Good, and if she THOUGHT it was good, it WAS good. However, she could think it was lawful and still have it be chaotic, as law and chaos is more tangible and morality is abstract. Since she was obviously surprised that she lost her powers, she thought the action was good, and therefore it was good. However, she therefore also thought it must have been lawful, and it was not. Therefore, the action was Chaotic Good, which violates the Lawful Good Paladin requirements and thus nullifies her position as paladin.

Good is not even defined by individual gods. .Good has a _substantive and definite Rules definition of its own, entirely different from what any god or any individual thinks. MOrality in the D&D rules set is NOT abstract.

How many times does that really have to be repeated?

WHAT SHE THOUGHT her actions were is UTTERLY irrelevant.

[Arssanguinus]

Again, where are you getting this from? I quoted a section of the SRD that clearly states that alignment represents a character's personal outlook and goals, and says nothing about their actions or any sort of divine judgement.

Of course a Paladin can fall due to evil. They can become power-hungry, or disillusioned, just like anyone else. But they have to actually be evil, and willingly commit an evil act; they can't just be tricked into it by circumstances, because alignment in the D&D universe is defined exclusively by your own outlook and goals.



From the d20SRD again:
A character who obeys only their own personal code of good and evil is wholly and completely chaotic. This is why, for instance, revolutionaries are almost always chaotic, even when they're fighting for their own idea of a greater good.

Again, I've quoted the SRD extensively; these are the rules. If someone has sections where it says that good and evil are decided by the Gods, or where following your own conscience in opposition to written law is lawful and not chaotic, then go ahead and present them; but as I'm seeing it, you're quoting house rules, misinterpretations, and gut-responses, even if they're wide-spread ones.

...hmm, for instance, I suppose you could say that I'm the lawful one here. :smalltongue:

One could say that since it gives the EXACT same language. implies, et al, for ALignment you woudl treatboth axises the same, but you seem to think LAw/Chaos should get a different treatment than good/evil. YOU show me where it says that good/evil is subjective where law/chaos isn't?

[Assassinfox]

...hmm, for instance, I suppose you could say that I'm the lawful one here. :smalltongue:

I'd say you're lawful evil for furthering the cause of Miko. :smallwink:

[Luklan]

God DAMN IT people! How hard is it?! Alignment in D&D is NOT relative! It is not what you believe that matters, but what you do!

I swear I read something in this thread about the Book of Exalted Deeds as being a farce. Or something like that. In all honesty, it's a far better source for 'how to play a proper paladin' (let alone any ultimately good character) than the rest of the junk I've read.

Good and Evil are actual factors in the Dungeons & Dragons universe. Good. Versus. Evil. Charity vs Greed, Growth vs Destruction. The only part about DnD that is morally questionable at all times is Killing. Is it wrong to kill a village of orcs without warning or reason? Yes. Is it wrong to kill a village of orcs that have been raiding a village of halflings? Seemingly not, until you discover that the halflings have been stealing from the orcs in the first place.

On topic though, Miko screwed up for the last time. She is an egomaniacal, psychopathic bitch. She thinks she is the Chosen One. She thinks she's Neo. She's the Messiah. She thinks she is the ultimate, mortal authority on Good and Lawful in this plane.

Unfortunately for her (and fortunately for the rest of the sane people), that's not how the universe works in her reality! Her Paladin powers are granted by the Twelve Gods of the South. Amazingly, these gods are Good and Lawful gods. They saw what she did, and decided "Wow, you know what? She really screwed up there... We need to teach her a lesson" and pushed her off her high chair and down the stairs before her throne.

People talk about how alignment doesn't change because of a single mistake. Who says her alignment has changed? She may still appear Lawful Good under detect spells, but it's her paladin status that has changed. She made a grievous error in judgment, by committing an evil and chaotic act, and she's being punished for it. As Hinjo said, 'Atonement spells exist for a reason'. Being willing to atone is the exact same as saying "I'm sorry... I'll try harder next time", and you prove it by doing the quest for atonement given by the Gods.

She might think she did the right thing, but to everyone else, including the Gods that grant her her powers, she did an evil thing.

Edit: Jebus, you people typed a lot while I was typing that... Oh, and sorry if it seems to be hopping from point to point ><

[Arssanguinus]

God DAMN IT people! How hard is it?! Alignment in D&D is NOT relative! It is not what you believe that matters, but what you do!

I swear I read something in this thread about the Book of Exalted Deeds as being a farce. Or something like that. In all honesty, it's a far better source for 'how to play a proper paladin' (let alone any ultimately good character) than the rest of the junk I've read.

Good and Evil are actual factors in the Dungeons & Dragons universe. Good. Versus. Evil. Charity vs Greed, Growth vs Destruction. The only part about DnD that is morally questionable at all times is Killing. Is it wrong to kill a village of orcs without warning or reason? Yes. Is it wrong to kill a village of orcs that have been raiding a village of halflings? Seemingly not, until you discover that the halflings have been stealing from the orcs in the first place.

On topic though, Miko screwed up for the last time. She is an egomaniacal, psychopathic bitch. She thinks she is the Chosen One. She thinks she's Neo. She's the Messiah. She thinks she is the ultimate, mortal authority on Good and Lawful in this plane.

Unfortunately for her (and fortunately for the rest of the sane people), that's not how the universe works in her reality! Her Paladin powers are granted by the Twelve Gods of the South. Amazingly, these gods are Good and Lawful gods. They saw what she did, and decided "Wow, you know what? She really screwed up there... We need to teach her a lesson" and pushed her off her high chair and down the stairs before her throne.

People talk about how alignment doesn't change because of a single mistake. Who says her alignment has changed? She may still appear Lawful Good under detect spells, but it's her paladin status that has changed. She made a grievous error in judgment, by committing an evil and chaotic act, and she's being punished for it. As Hinjo said, 'Atonement spells exist for a reason'. Being willing to atone is the exact same as saying "I'm sorry... I'll try harder next time", and you prove it by doing the quest for atonement given by the Gods.

She might think she did the right thing, but to everyone else, including the Gods that grant her her powers, she did an evil thing.

Edit: Jebus, you people typed a lot while I was typing that... Oh, and sorry if it seems to be hopping from point to point ><

I have a feeling that if Miko decided that allof Azure city was guilty of somethign and walked down the stret slaughtering every man, woman and child, there would be people trying to excuse her actions as 'not evil'.

[Luklan]

Hmm... I'm only double-posting because I presume someone is going to post before I do.

Technically, we DO have a universal standard, because this is Dungeons and Dragons, not Real Life.

If the Prime Material Plane (mortal world, not god-world) standard was all men (or women) must be killed after their first child, it still makes it evil by the terms of the Dungeons and Dragons universe.

These arguments are the exact reason why we all know DnD alignments can not, and never will be, be tagged to anyone in reality. We don't really know what's considered Good and Evil by the rules of our reality.

Edit: I was right!


I have a feeling that if Miko decided that allof Azure city was guilty of somethign and walked down the stret slaughtering every man, woman and child, there would be people trying to excuse her actions as 'not evil'.

More than likely, since apparently your opinion matters more than, oh, I don't know...

"The Rules of the Multiverse And How They Apply To Your Reality"

The Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia, The Abyss, The Nine Hells, all of these planes exist for a reason, and they don't change because someone perceives them to be of differing alignments.

[Aquillion]

I'd say you're lawful evil for furthering the cause of Miko. :smallwink:I don't really care for Miko one way or the other, except to note that she's more interesting as a confused or disillusioned CG former paladin than she was as a LG paladin or as she would be as an inexplicably evil ?E ex-paladin.


One could say that since it gives the EXACT same language. implies, et al, for ALignment you woudl treatboth axises the same, but you seem to think LAw/Chaos should get a different treatment than good/evil. YOU show me where it says that good/evil is subjective where law/chaos isn't?Not at all. In D&D, both Good / Evil and Lawful / Chaotic are used to describe a character's outlook, the basic attitudes that are imprinted on their heart. It isn't at all subjective; but a character's alignment is wholly based on their own informed decisions and is not affected by things like misunderstandings or mistakes.

...with that said, reading over the rules again I'm no longer sure I can argue that Miko's action wasn't evil itself; a good character can accidentally perform an evil action, although since the wording in the Paladin's code would prevent them from falling over this and the wording on alignment would prevent it from having any actual effect on their alignment, it wouldn't usually mean anything.

Good and evil are objective in the D&D universe, yes, but a character's alignment is intended to represent how their outlooks, attitudes and personal feelings relate to this objective yardstick, not on whether (say) they've been tricked into killing a few innocent men by an evil wizard lately or misread the facts and made a massive mistake or whatever. As long as Miko's intentions and instincts are good, she remains of good alignment no matter what she does.

...and as for the question of whether or not Miko's basic, original intentions, instincts, and underlying character attributes qualify as good or not, I didn't intend to get into that. Like I said, I don't really care for Miko. RAW would say that she has to have technically had a LG alignment to use any Paladin powers, but she could've been borderline for a while.

My only real issue is with the idea that her actions could've pushed her closer to evil or caused her to fall on the grounds of being evil. Ignoring the advice and guidance of others, acting rashly and without thinking, putting your own view of what's right and wrong above anyone else's, and so forth are symptoms of a chaotic character, not an evil one; while an unknowingly evil act, no matter what the magnitude, can neither influence your alignment, nor cause a paladin to fall.

[Arssanguinus]

I don't really care for Miko one way or the other, except to note that she's more interesting as a confused or disillusioned CG former paladin than she was as a LG paladin or as she would be as an inexplicably evil ?E ex-paladin.

Not at all. In D&D, both Good / Evil and Lawful / Chaotic are used to describe a character's outlook, the basic attitudes that are imprinted on their heart. It isn't at all subjective; but a character's alignment is wholly based on their own informed decisions and is not affected by things like misunderstandings or mistakes.

...with that said, reading over the rules again I'm no longer sure I can argue that Miko's action wasn't evil itself; a good character can accidentally perform an evil action, although since the wording in the Paladin's code would prevent them from falling over this and the wording on alignment would prevent it from having any actual effect on their alignment, it wouldn't usually mean anything.

Good and evil are objective in the D&D universe, yes, but a character's alignment is intended to represent how their outlooks, attitudes and personal feelings relate to this objective yardstick, not on whether (say) they've been tricked into killing a few innocent men by an evil wizard lately or misread the facts and made a massive mistake or whatever. As long as Miko's intentions and instincts are good, she remains of good alignment no matter what she does.

...and as for the question of whether or not Miko's basic, original intentions, instincts, and underlying character attributes qualify as good or not, I didn't intend to get into that. Like I said, I don't really care for Miko. RAW would say that she has to have technically had a LG alignment to use any Paladin powers, but she could've been borderline for a while.

My only real issue is with the idea that her actions could've pushed her closer to evil or caused her to fall on the grounds of being evil. Ignoring the advice and guidance of others, acting rashly and without thinking, putting your own view of what's right and wrong above anyone else's, and so forth are symptoms of a chaotic character, not an evil one; while an unknowingly evil act, no matter what the magnitude, can neither influence your alignment, nor cause a paladin to fall.

Well, I wasn't arguing that she had BECOME evil, so much as that her actions in that scene WERE evil, and the last with HInjo was DEFINITELY knowingly evil, even if they other two were at all questionable.

[Wojiz]

Mmm... When you put it in the way of a universal moral standard existing in that it's the DND universe, it doesn't apply 100%, but it's still plausible enough. Yeah, I guess you could definitely perceive it as an evil action in terms of DND alignment mechanics rather than actual good versus evil.

So, mechanics wise I'd say it was an evil act. In reality, it would probably be perceived as Chaotic Good for the reasons I've stated. So my final decision kind of goes both ways; Evil for DND mechanics, Good for reality.

[Arssanguinus]

Mmm... When you put it in the way of a universal moral standard existing in that it's the DND universe, it doesn't apply 100%, but it's still plausible enough. Yeah, I guess you could definitely perceive it as an evil action in terms of DND alignment mechanics rather than actual good versus evil.

So, mechanics wise I'd say it was an evil act. In reality, it would probably be perceived as Chaotic Good for the reasons I've stated. So my final decision kind of goes both ways; Evil for DND mechanics, Good for reality.

I'm sory. .but even in reality I don't see how you can come up with GOOD. At BEST you could find a way to say neutral, but _good_?

[Arssanguinus]

Note that I am not talking about HER alignment for the moment, just of the action. I see no way in hell that these three actions combined, or any of them by itself, could be GOOD.

[Jayabalard]

This one’s been puzzling me for a while, when Miko killed Lord Shojo (and indeed her actions previous to that) did she ever violate the good part of her alignment?the evil part was where she took her sword and killed an unarmed person in cold blood; perception or not, that was an evil act. Killing Belkar in the same circumstances would also be an evil act.

Evil people rarely, if ever, see themselves as villains, but a murdering ****head is evil regardless of what their perception is.

[Wojiz]

Because it's in her mind. I, of course, think it would be a neutral at the very least or probably an evil act.

However, my opinion of the matter is totally irrelevant, it's what the best objective would be. I believe the morality of an action is decided by the intention, and if someone intends good then they can't be held accountable for an act that they don't acknowledge to be evil. They can be held accountable for disrupting society or hurting societal welfare, but not for morality.

[Querzis]

Mmm... When you put it in the way of a universal moral standard existing in that it's the DND universe, it doesn't apply 100%, but it's still plausible enough. Yeah, I guess you could definitely perceive it as an evil action in terms of DND alignment mechanics rather than actual good versus evil.

So, mechanics wise I'd say it was an evil act. In reality, it would probably be perceived as Chaotic Good for the reasons I've stated. So my final decision kind of goes both ways; Evil for DND mechanics, Good for reality.

...WHAT???? OK I could at least understand someone who would say the opposite but you think what you did was good in reality? You are scaring me...except of course if you were just kidding, please tell me you were kidding!

If you really think that intentions is all that matter in morality then why dont you just say that evil doesnt exist and that everything everybody ever did was good? Because there is no evil intentions in itself, everything everyone ever did in this world or even in D&D was for another good, even if its just their own pleasure.

[Arssanguinus]

Because it's in her mind. I, of course, think it would be a neutral at the very least or probably an evil act.

However, my opinion of the matter is totally irrelevant, it's what the best objective would be. I believe the morality of an action is decided by the intention, and if someone intends good then they can't be held accountable for an act that they don't acknowledge to be evil. They can be held accountable for disrupting society or hurting societal welfare, but not for morality.

Very strange view, but, I never did like moral relativism.

[Wojiz]

Neither do I. I don't believe in moral relativism. However, for the purpose of the argument, again, my beliefs are irrelevant and how morality is decided at it's core is what's relevant to the topic. So I guess you could say I'm only a relativist in argument, though only to clarify the topic rather than explain my opinion.

[ArmorArmadillo]

Everyone seems to be saying Miko is evil because she killed Shojo, and Shojo was good, even if she thought he wasn't.

But really, Shojo wasn't good, he was Chaotic Neutral at best. He was a manipulative, decietful jerk, who had Miko (as well as most of the other guards) trained from birth under the pretenses that they were serving an honest and lawful lord.

Miko wasn't just reacting to paranoid suspicions, she was in a state of shock from learning that the ideas she had devoted her entire life to were gilded lies meant to keep Shojo's precious weapons, the Sapphire Guard, in line.

You can say that Shojo was forced to lie out of fear of nobles usurping him, but building your rulership and relations with others on lies and deciet is still no way to rule.

That is what is motivated by convenience, not Miko's killing of him. It was an extreme solution motivated by extreme passion; convienent would have been to just send him to prison and handle the whole thing later.

(And, for what it's worth, Belkar is very evil, and associating him is a clear bad sign in regards to Shojo.)

Miko was born and raised to believe in harsh, unyielding code of Law (keyword, Law) and what she did, although wrong in the big picture, was not Evil.

Also, being old and helpless doesn't make killing him evil. If an old vile and evil wizard ran out of spells and was standing before you, executing him for his crimes would not be evil. Maybe not Exalted, but not evil.

[Arssanguinus]

Neither do I. I don't believe in moral relativism. However, for the purpose of the argument, again, my beliefs are irrelevant and how morality is decided at it's core is what's relevant to the topic. So I guess you could say I'm only a relativist in argument, though only to clarify the topic rather than explain my opinion.

Sorry, no insult but. you have COMPLETELY lost me.

I fail to see your distinction.

[Luklan]

I think what Wojiz means is that he argues the other side just to see all the points to the argument.


Also, being old and helpless doesn't make killing him evil. If an old vile and evil wizard ran out of spells and was standing before you, executing him for his crimes would not be evil. Maybe not Exalted, but not evil.

And you know something? I wish people would stop saying "what if"

We're not dealing with what ifs. We're dealing with 'things that did happen whether you like it or not' before the Twelve Gods went "Boom! Heh, Dragon, didja see me make that paladin fall?" "Nice shot, Monkey"

1) She killed an old guy.
2) The old guy was unarmed
3) The old guy was a level 14 Aristocrat
4) The Old Guy had no chance

This is not "But killing an unarmed epic-level sorcerer who's used up his spells isn't evil" argument. This is an argument about whether killing an old, unarmed, unarmoured, helpless, level 14 aristocrat is evil.

And in ANY definition involving the DnD universe, killing an old, unarmed, unarmoured, helpless man who's sitting in his chair, is evil.

Why is this so hard?!

Edit: On top of this... Saying something like "It might be wrong in the big picture, but it's not evil" is useless in the DnD universe.

If it tips the scales in favour of Evil in the big picture, it's Evil.

That's the underlying factor in DnD. Good actions in the grand scheme of things are Good, Evil actions in the grand scheme of things are Evil. Intent doesn't matter.

[Arssanguinus]

I think what Wojiz means is that he argues the other side just to see all the points to the argument.

And you know something? I wish people would stop saying "what if"

We're not dealing with what ifs. We're dealing with 'things that did happen whether you like it or not' before the Twelve Gods went "Boom! Heh, Dragon, didja see me make that paladin fall?" "Nice shot, Monkey"

1) She killed an old guy.
2) The old guy was unarmed
3) The old guy was a level 14 Aristocrat
4) The Old Guy had no chance

This is not "But killing an unarmed epic-level sorcerer who's used up his spells isn't evil" argument. This is an argument about whether killing an old, unarmed, unarmoured, helpless, level 14 aristocrat is evil.

And in ANY definition involving the DnD universe, killing an old, unarmed, unarmoured, helpless man who's sitting in his chair, is evil.

Why is this so hard?!

And Then AFTER falling you have to consider both the Belkar and Hinjo situations.

[Arssanguinus]

I think what Wojiz means is that he argues the other side just to see all the points to the argument.



And you know something? I wish people would stop saying "what if"

We're not dealing with what ifs. We're dealing with 'things that did happen whether you like it or not' before the Twelve Gods went "Boom! Heh, Dragon, didja see me make that paladin fall?" "Nice shot, Monkey"

1) She killed an old guy.
2) The old guy was unarmed
3) The old guy was a level 14 Aristocrat
4) The Old Guy had no chance

This is not "But killing an unarmed epic-level sorcerer who's used up his spells isn't evil" argument. This is an argument about whether killing an old, unarmed, unarmoured, helpless, level 14 aristocrat is evil.

And in ANY definition involving the DnD universe, killing an old, unarmed, unarmoured, helpless man who's sitting in his chair, is evil.

Why is this so hard?!

Edit: On top of this... Saying something like "It might be wrong in the big picture, but it's not evil" is useless in the DnD universe.

If it tips the scales in favour of Evil in the big picture, it's Evil.

That's the underlying factor in DnD. Good actions in the grand scheme of things are Good, Evil actions in the grand scheme of things are Evil. Intent doesn't matter.

Whats more, even if you did bring up the theoretical EPic level sorcerer - if there was an easily available way to capture, hold, and try them without killing them and without them being able to realistically escape, then yes it WOULD be evil to just kill them.

[Luklan]

And Then AFTER falling you have to consider both the Belkar and Hinjo situations.

Hell yeah. Belkar is completely helpless, since he's not allowed to fight back within the confines of the city. And hinjo was trying to help her, but she went all "No! The Gods must have a greater plan for me! Slash Slash Slash!"

...Yeah, because that's a really good act. Attack the guy who's trying to help set things right.


Whats more, even if you did bring up the theoretical EPic level sorcerer - if there was an easily available way to capture, hold, and try them without killing them and without them being able to realistically escape, then yes it WOULD be evil to just kill them.

Tie and gag him. Unless you can combine metamagic... But then again, they have to rest for 8 hours to get it back, right? So just keep him awake for 17 hours at a time :smallwink:

Anyway, it's not neccesarily an automatically evil act, but it sure as heck isn't a good act.

[ObadiahtheSlim]

Murder is always evil. This thread is about as bad a Belkar is CN threads.

[Jayabalard]

It's pretty darn simple:

If Miko had been right and Lord Shojo really was an evil despotic tyrant, then killing him would have been a Good act.
Nope.

Murdering an old man in cold blood, even if he is an evil despotic tyrant, is not a good act. It may or may not be evil an evil, but it's definitely not a good act.

[Strengfellow]

In reference to the original question,

Yes.

[Imgran]

I disagree with Assassins being incapable of being lawful. Mind you, I play first edition, so abilities of assassins are going to differ slightly. With that in mind, due to some sad and depressing deaths, my assassin friend is now the strongest person in the party. Not the highest level, that title goes to a druid, but easily most capable of killing everyone else, definitely the assassin.

If he were chaotic, he'd simply slay them all, and take their magical items. Instead, he prefers to travel with the party, and use his power to take the majority of the wealth. He used to take bribes from fellow party members and kill other party members (we had some problems with that), but with everyone constantly dying, it was to difficult to earn a decent amount of experiences and loot on adventures. Therefore, he decided to stop all arguments amongst the party members, and force them to continue. Cruel, yes, but it did more for himself.

Also, he only accepts offers to assassinate higher levels npc's, or those of importance. He simply believes assassinating a level 1 for a tiny amount of gold not worth the time.

Definitely lawful evil.

That's textbook Neutral Evil.

[Gitman00]

Samantha has the ability to cast maximized fireballs, making her at least 11th level

Because she's a sorceress, not a wizard, she actually needs to be at least 12th level.

Now, on to the topic at hand!


an unknowingly evil act, no matter what the magnitude, can neither influence your alignment, nor cause a paladin to fall.

Wrong. A paladin can fall if she commits an evil act unknowingly. She can even fall for committing one under magical compulsion. The difference is that if she commits the act under these circumstances, it's a lot easier to atone. I can't get to the SRD from here and I don't have a PHB handy, but look up the spell description for Atonement, as well as the rules for ex-paladins. If the act was committed unknowingly or under compulsion, the cleric casting the spell doesn't need to spend XP. If the act was deliberate (as Miko's certainly was; see my post here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2233104&postcount=46)) the cleric must spend 500 XP to intercede with his deity.

Now, I would technically agree that under these extenuating circumstances, the character's alignment wouldn't be affected, even though she's fallen. It's her reaction upon learning the truth that determines the impact to alignment. Miko's act, as I have argued, did not qualify for the extenuating circumstances. It was deliberate and evil, even if she didn't do it in the name of Evil, capital E. However, let's say for the sake of argument that it did qualify. She got a pretty clear sign (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html) that she did the wrong thing. Her reaction, however, is not one of introspection and repentance. It is entirely egotistical: "I am special!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html) and she refuses (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0419.html) to even believe that she has fallen. Hence, an alignment shift.


But really, Shojo wasn't good, he was Chaotic Neutral at best. He was a manipulative, decietful jerk, who had Miko (as well as most of the other guards) trained from birth under the pretenses that they were serving an honest and lawful lord.

How do you figure Shojo wasn't good? He certainly wasn't Lawful (by his own admission), but I think he was very clearly good. He deceived and manipulated those around him, but all in the interest of protecting his people and the gates. He took these responsibilities - which he had to bear alone, with no one to confide in until Eugene and Roy showed up - very seriously. His questionable methods were from a desire to prevent the world's destruction, and he deemed this (correctly, IMHO) more important than upholding an oath, the original purpose of which was to stop infighting among a long-disbanded adventuring party.


Miko wasn't just reacting to paranoid suspicions, she was in a state of shock from learning that the ideas she had devoted her entire life to were gilded lies meant to keep Shojo's precious weapons, the Sapphire Guard, in line.

Nope, sorry. Have to disagree again. Paranoid suspicions all the way. Again, see post #46 of this thread. I'll give you that she was in shock, but your statement reflects her belief based upon delusions she crafted out of whole cloth, rather than Shojo's actual motives. She thinks she knows the reason for his lies, but she has no excuse for jumping to the conclusions that she did. Especially considering said conclusions are self-contradictory.

[ArmorArmadillo]

And you know something? I wish people would stop saying "what if"

We're not dealing with what ifs. We're dealing with 'things that did happen whether you like it or not' before the Twelve Gods went "Boom! Heh, Dragon, didja see me make that paladin fall?" "Nice shot, Monkey"

1) She killed an old guy.
2) The old guy was unarmed
3) The old guy was a level 14 Aristocrat
4) The Old Guy had no chance

This is not "But killing an unarmed epic-level sorcerer who's used up his spells isn't evil" argument. This is an argument about whether killing an old, unarmed, unarmoured, helpless, level 14 aristocrat is evil.

And in ANY definition involving the DnD universe, killing an old, unarmed, unarmoured, helpless man who's sitting in his chair, is evil.

Why is this so hard?!Nice, acting incredulously condescending about your opinion really sells it.

I brought up the "What If" to note that things aren't always absolute; which is relevant because people have been saying "killing an old man in a chair is ALWAYS evil."

What Miko did is, in the long run, wrong. But her perceptions are highly important in determining alignment based questions.

I will cop to the fact that this specific action was evil in objective terms; I will say, though, that Miko herself is still Lawful Good, even if she lost her Paladin powers due to a lapse in judgement. But bad judgement is not evil, evil needs egregious selfishness or malice of forethought.

Also, attacking Belkar wasn't evil, Miko had no idea he had a Mark of Justice on, and Belkar is clearly evil.

What Miko did is the difference between manslaughter and murder; one is motivated by extreme emotional outburst; and, although wrong, is not necessarily "evil" in the D&D sense. The other has pre-meditation and malice of forethought, and is fully evil.

As for Miko having been shown the truth, she's been given arguments and is still in a state of confusion. Why should she believe anyone, when the people she's trusted most have all treated her like crap and lied to her?

I'm not saying she is justified in doing anything, I'm just saying she's not a bad person, just confused.


He took these responsibilities - which he had to bear alone, with no one to confide in until Eugene and Roy showed up - very seriously. His questionable methods were from a desire to prevent the world's destruction, and he deemed this (correctly, IMHO) more important than upholding an oath, the original purpose of which was to stop infighting among a long-disbanded adventuring party.
Shojo didn't have to take the burden alone, he could have shared it with the paladins. He chose not to. And, after making that choice, he still chose to utilize the paladins for their power while making sure they have a false idea what was going on.
(PS He always knew that Miko was too extreme in her beliefs and emotions; but instead of reeling her in or controlling her he just continued feeding her misinformation and sending her on critical missions)

He had never even met Roy before the Trial, but he still confided more in him than in Hinjo. His own trusted nephew. This is why Hinjo was also outraged at his Uncle's actions, if not as extremely as Miko.

Using people is wrong, and saying "I have the greater good so I can do what I want" is exactly the reason why people have always hated Miko, so I don't see what Shojo has going for him other than the fact that he is funnier.

[Innis Cabal]

that is all well and good, and a very moving argument...if D&D was an objective game. Miko is no longer good, not evil yet but not good, when you grossly go against your alignment you slip down the axis...

[Greebo]

I don't think its fair to say that Miko is no longer good. She wants to be good, she believes she is good. She is misguided, yes, but while she has IMO definitely committed a clearly evil act in the killing of Shojo, that does not mean she automaticall falls to Neutral or Evil. She Fell from Grace, certainly, after all she committed a decisively EVIL act, but it takes a consistent pattern of non-good behavior to stop fitting in the "good" category.

I submit to you that if good = acting perfectly good all the time, then NO one, not even paladins, would be "good".

[Jayabalard]

He had never even met Roy before the Trial, but he still confided more in him than in Hinjo. His own trusted nephew. This is why Hinjo was also outraged at his Uncle's actions, if not as extremely as Miko.

Using people is wrong, and saying "I have the greater good so I can do what I want" is exactly the reason why people have always hated Miko, so I don't see what Shojo has going for him other than the fact that he is funnier.

1. Hinjo and the rest of the paladins are honor bound not to interfere, had they known they would have been unable to defend the other gates; Roy on the other hand, is under no such obligation.

as a matter of fact, being honest with the sapphire guild would have made the situation worse, because they would have been required by their oaths to actively interfere with him protecting the other gates.

2. Using people (i.e. telling lies, being deceitful, etc) is chaotic, not evil. His actions are consistent with his chaotic good alignment.

3. Her perception is not important in this case; if Shojo had actually been the evil individual that she claimed that he was, it would still have been an evil act. premeditation and malice of forethought would make it more evil, but even without that it's an evil act.

4. She's not confused; she knew full well what would happen when she split her rightful lord nearly in half.

[Innis Cabal]

i do not care for the alignment system that is in place, and i would remind all that there was no "good" and "evil" in 1st edition, just law chaos and neutrality. You are correct in saying that it takes a progessive and consistent pattern of evil and non-good to slip on the axis but there are times when you do something so bad and wrong, as miko did, you slip immeditaly and swiftly from good. Killing your unprotected, and as far as you knew senile, liege lord is wrong no matter how well intentioned you are. Also it dosnt matter if Miko thinks she is good, thats not how alignemnt works

[Jayabalard]

To be clear, there was good/evil 1ed AD&D

[Greebo]

i do not care for the alignment system that is in place, and i would remind all that there was no "good" and "evil" in 1st edition, just law chaos and neutrality.
Um... if we're talking about AD&D, 1st Ed, 1979, you are very mistaken. If you're referring to some other rule set, please enlighten me.


You are correct in saying that it takes a progessive and consistent pattern of evil and non-good to slip on the axis but there are times when you do something so bad and wrong, as miko did, you slip immeditaly and swiftly from good. Killing your unprotected, and as far as you knew senile, liege lord is wrong no matter how well intentioned you are. Also it dosnt matter if Miko thinks she is good, thats not how alignemnt works

I'm not nearly as familiar with 3rd ED alignment rules as I was 1st, so I'll have to take your word for it. However, if Miko were a PC acting under the false assumptions, and I were the DM, personally I'd rule that she was just barely still good and that how she dealt with the ramifications of her actions would determine her final alignment position.
Thats just me however.

[Jayabalard]

I'm pretty sure he's talking 1ed D&D, the white/brown book, before they revamped into AD&D and the simpler D&D boxes.

D&D Edition history from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_&_Dragons#Edition_history)

[Innis Cabal]

i dont have my box on my, my kids got into it a while back and i have sense moved it but i do not remember any good/evil, my memeory might be slipping.

[Querzis]

That had to happen, since people dont want Miko to be evil, they say Shojo was evil. Paladin are honor bound to respect that oath! They would respect it and, if they dont, then it would be a fall from grace because thats a seriously chaotic act. As a matter of fact, most of the paladins, especially Miko, would prevent him from interfering with the other gates. He cant risk the world safety because he is the commander of those paladins!

[Innis Cabal]

i mean original print after chainmail

[Imgran]

Frankly, doing something because you think is right no matter what the law says, is Neutral on the Chaos-Lawful axis.

Doing what you think is right even if the laws say otherwise is Chaotic.

Doing what you know is wrong, without provocation, because you're angry and want revenge, is Evil.

Miko had to know that killing her lord was wrong. The best she can claim is that she might have had extenuating circumstances, but even if she did, she knew that killing her lord was wrong.

And the extenuating circumstances shift doesn't stick either. Miko had no unique provokation for her attack. The only causes she had to specifically attack Shojo were things that everyone in the order had against him, or would have had had they known.

Given these things, Miko was behaving like a Chaotic Evil individual.

[Innis Cabal]

she did not think it was wrong, she thought it was a sign from the gods, in her mind she was doing right, the gods told her it was just and good, and she in her mind beleived it against logic and reason. Hearing Shojo say all the "lies" might have been for nought only reenforced her opinon that he needed to die for his evil against the almighty 12 gods and azure city.

[Imgran]

She knew it was wrong, she just thought that this was different

That doesn't change the fact that she knew that this wasn't Good.

[TOAOMT]

For length's sake, my argument is in tags.

Well, I suppose it depends on perspective of good and evil and perspective of the character. Killing is not nesseccarily evil, but murder is. If Shojo had been in any way able to defend himself, it might not have been an evil act. If Shojo had registered on her detect evil as evil (even through decieving magic) it might not have been an evil act. If she had proof that Shojo's deception was malevolent, it wouldn't have been an evil act.

However, keeping the situation to pure fact we get this.

Shojo was defenseless
Shojo was not registering as evil
Shojo was deceptive, but there was no evidence to what he was being deceptive about.
Shojo was trying to reason with Miko to the point of (if he had believed he would be bisected) begging for mercy.

Now with what we know of good, we know the following things are exemplary of good.

Protecting the defenseless
Destroying dangerous evil
Mercy (particularly when being begged for)

That said, the following act, while not necessarily exemplary of evil (though I think it is) is rather dark:

Mercilessly slaughtering a defenseless innocent while he begs for mercy.

However, I'll give Miko the benefit of the doubt and say from her perspective she was just doing this:

Mercilessly slaughtering a defenseless old man who was misusing his power while he begged for mercy.

Still quite evil.

She'd lose her powers for evil under my DMage.

[Gitman00]

Shojo didn't have to take the burden alone, he could have shared it with the paladins. He chose not to. And, after making that choice, he still chose to utilize the paladins for their power while making sure they have a false idea what was going on.
(PS He always knew that Miko was too extreme in her beliefs and emotions; but instead of reeling her in or controlling her he just continued feeding her misinformation and sending her on critical missions)

He had never even met Roy before the Trial, but he still confided more in him than in Hinjo. His own trusted nephew. This is why Hinjo was also outraged at his Uncle's actions, if not as extremely as Miko.

Using people is wrong, and saying "I have the greater good so I can do what I want" is exactly the reason why people have always hated Miko, so I don't see what Shojo has going for him other than the fact that he is funnier.

Okay, fair enough. There were other routes Shojo could have taken to accomplish the same ends. I'm merely expounding on his situation to provide a context, and point out that his actions while not the only, and perhaps not even the best way to accomplish his goals, the goals themselves are honorable.

Shojo was accosted by assassins. A Lawful ruler's response to this would be to find out which noble was behind the assassination attempt, seize his assets, and try him for treason. This could prove problematic, because ninja are notoriously hard to capture alive. Shojo is not lawful. He realizes that if he took that action, even if successful, it might provoke allied nobles to send more assassins in retaliation. Shojo decides it's easier to feign senility. As he says to Roy, that way he can make the decisions he thinks are right and not worry about being killed for them.

The only way this method works, however, is if NOBODY knows what he's up to. He couldn't tell the paladins, because their code would prevent them from allowing the deception. He couldn't tell his nephew, because Hinjo is also one of the paladins under his command. We can debate whether there was a better way to handle the situation, but my point is that this makes for an extremely lonely existence. He has enormous responsibility, and not one person with whom to share his burden until Eugene, and eventually Roy, come along. And honestly, he was taking a huge risk in letting them in on the deception. He had no idea how the OotS would react upon learning his secret, which is probably why he engineered their fake trial - the OotS has a very good reason not to let Mr. Scruffy out of the bag if they know they'll be in just as much trouble. Since this has been going on for many years, it has left Shojo cynical and paranoid, but no less good. Heck, Roy himself is pretty cynical, and not many people question his goodness.

The comparison to Miko doesn't fit here, because Shojo's actions actually were for the greater good, while Miko simply assumes that any action taken by the most powerful paladin of the Sapphire Guard is infallible. For the record, I don't hate Miko, and I find her to be an excellent antagonist, but what she did was evil.

[Bluelantern]

Maybe someone already said this but, how about the saphire factor? I would assume that Miko knew that the saphire was the gate (considering that the others knew too). So why not only she kill a unarmed old man, but kill it with a dash of sword that nearly smashed a gemstone that helps the FABRIC OF REALITY TO STAY TOGETHER?!?! This kind of careless act it is what really sealed her fate.

[wowy319]

Before anyone brings up the fact she’s fallen, killing Lord Shojo was inherently a chaotic act, but it’s possible to have a chaotic good assassin.


Just a point of clarification: you have to be of evil alignment to become an assassin (if we're talking class-wise). However, It wasn't just chaotic, it was evil. she killed a defenseless old man based on a hunch. THAT ISN'T A GOOD ACT!!!! I'm sorry, but if someone walked over and killed your mother because they jumped to a conclusion, I don't think you'd be trying to justify that their actions weren't evil.

[Assassinfox]

I was talking to my friend about how much we hate old people, but then I remembered this topic and said "But hey! We can go around hacking up old people! Cuz it's not an evil act!"

[EvilElitest]

Everyone seems to be saying Miko is evil because she killed Shojo, and Shojo was good, even if she thought he wasn't.

Good for her, i think that killing people who have personal pools is good. Am i evil? Hell yes if i really did kill people for that.


But really, Shojo wasn't good, he was Chaotic Neutral at best. He was a manipulative, decietful jerk, who had Miko (as well as most of the other guards) trained from birth under the pretenses that they were serving an honest and lawful lord.
1. Well Shojo is not a paladin, so you can't hold him to those standards
2. I think he is CG really, as he worked for the betterment of the city. He could be LN or N. He was working for the city, not himself you you discount CN. Anyways, Belkar said he was CG and i don't think he could be evil with all these paladin's around.
3. Even if Miko was right (dear gods) killing him in the way she did would still be evil, as he was defenceless. If Shojo drew on her, different story, but as it is.



Miko wasn't just reacting to paranoid suspicions, she was in a state of shock from learning that the ideas she had devoted her entire life to were gilded lies meant to keep Shojo's precious weapons, the Sapphire Guard, in line.
Angst, angst, angst. Miko was reacting to paraniod delsions. Hell, she freaking attacked Hinjo for the love of gods, who was clearly even by her standards good. State of shock? She reached the conclusion of OOTS being evil the moment she learned of Xykon. And did she try to veritfy her sources or understand what was going on. NO! Who needs proves, we have Miko's massive ego.


You can say that Shojo was forced to lie out of fear of nobles usurping him, but building your rulership and relations with others on lies and deciet is still no way to rule.
Where apperently zealos purgery is? Shojo did not follow the LG code. So he is CG or N.


That is what is motivated by convenience, not Miko's killing of him. It was an extreme solution motivated by extreme passion; convienent would have been to just send him to prison and handle the whole thing later.
Ah extermasiom. That never went badly.


(And, for what it's worth, Belkar is very evil, and associating him is a clear bad sign in regards to Shojo.)
So? Walking around killing evil people is still murder and so its evil.


Miko was born and raised to believe in harsh, unyielding code of Law (keyword, Law) and what she did, although wrong in the big picture, was not Evil.
Mercy, compassion, and justice are part of the paladin's code.


Also, being old and helpless doesn't make killing him evil. If an old vile and evil wizard ran out of spells and was standing before you, executing him for his crimes would not be evil. Maybe not Exalted, but not evil.
1. Shojo was more then just helpless, he was defencless. He was a freaky NPC aristcrat. No chance. And what did he do when Miko threatened him. Sat their and talked, nothing just talked. Real deadly
2. Is it your place to excutate the helpless. He who fights a monster might become a monster.
3. Miko had the options of imprisionment quite near by, as Hinjo mentioned it.
4. Miko never considered that she was wrong, because she is an arrogent phyco.
from,
EE

[chibibar]

I can see some of the confusion but let me try to put in simpler way from my perspective.

Before Miko kill Shojo

1. Miko was rude and crash toward OoTS - their crime was to bring them in because the OoTS has destroy the gate and thus it was true. No evil acts here

2. Miko treat them like criminals she believe to be because they are technically criminal of the charges thus no evil

3. Miko uses force because it was allow within her right... still no evil

4. Killing unarm person (note I said unarm which include Belkar's encounter) after giving up... can be an evil act because the person gave up according to the lawful good side they are suppose to be taken into custody. Also her direct order was to bring Belkar to the throne room not bring pieces of him :)

5. Killing Shojo, Shojo was actually doing good using some gray area for the city. The gods see that Shojo is doing good and thus killing him is evil act.

The main thing is that the gods decide if it is evil or good (in gaming session usually the GM decides it or the group) Shojo's act might consider to be "evil" by some people but overall act is for the greater good so Shojo is not evil and killing him in the thought of him being evil is evil act.

[Imgran]

We all commit slightly evil acts every day. If I so much as call someone a bad name, that's a tiny little evil.

The question is absurd. Evil is in all of us, it's only a question of hiw tightly it's controlled.

[Wikkin]

The act was evil. Yes. Duh.

[Mr Teufel]

Is this still even a question?

[rashambo]

The problem is were trying to apply "real world" logic to a D&D-type setting. Even if we as the readers don't agree, the 12 gods of that setting (and the DM) thought it was evil. In D&D, the good guys bring the evil guys to justice, a LAWFUL GOOD person brings evildoers to trial, if they put up a fight, then they might have to die.

I myself played a paladin that was blessed with the "bands of bolero", so I didn't have to make that choice too often, but still. You have to follow your orders...LAWFUL. Face it, attacking an unarmed, non-evil person who just so happens to be your leader is evil and chaotic. Did that turn her evil? no. But it's more than enough to turn off the divine powers in any game setting.

[Merlin the Tuna]

Man, alignment is awesome.

[Yogi]

Shojo's alignment is irrelevant. Even if Shojo was guilty of everything Miko said he was guilty of, killing him when he is offering no resistance and is no longer a threat is evil.

[Aquillion]

that is all well and good, and a very moving argument...if D&D was an objective game. Miko is no longer good, not evil yet but not good, when you grossly go against your alignment you slip down the axis...This is incorrect. Your alignment does not automatically shift as a result of one action, or even as a result of a single day's actions, no matter how serious they may be. To quote the d20srd again:

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. That means that not only does alignment not shift as result of one action, it won't shift as a result of three actions, or twenty actions, or a lifetime of actions. As long as your "general moral and personal attitudes" remain good, you are good-aligned, no matter what your actions are and no matter what anyone else says. Note that being good-aligned is not the same thing as being a 'good person', at least not in the way you're seeing it. Also note that it's not enough to simply think that you're good; your overall outlook has to match the metaphysical D&D concept of good. But your actions, technically, don't. If commit an evil act while, say, under extreme pressure or in a fit of madness, it doesn't change your alignment, not as long as your basic outlook remains the same. You may feel guilty about it later (you will feel guilty about it later, actually, if you're really good-aligned), but it won't suddenly change how you show up on detect good / detect evil or anything like that.

Now, wait, I can here you saying, that's not how it works! When my barbarian kills a bunch of innocents in a campaign, the DM eventually steps in and says "That's enough, you're evil." And this is true, and they're allowed and encouraged to do that. What they're actually doing, though, under the D&D definition of alignment is saying "That's enough, this has reached the point where you can't possibly claim that your barbarian is really good at heart. You have to either shape up and actually play him as a good character, or we'll say his feelings have shifted recently for whatever reason." That rule exists to encourage players to stick to the declared alignments of their characters more closely, nothing more. In actual game terms, it's the other way around: Committing an evil act is a sign of an evil alignment, not the cause of it.

...now, some people might claim that Miko was never good in the first place, but that's a whole different story.

And one final note: In the D&D universe, good alignment encompasses a lot of things. One of the things it encompasses is killing things that ping as evil. I know a lot of people here don't like it, and it's a perfectly reasonable thing to houserule out if you want to play a more nuanced campaign; but them's the breaks. D&D is not, primarily, intended to be a setting to roleplay deep and meaningful moral issues, although it can be adopted for that; one of its prime and original purposes was, to paraphrase Belkar, to provide players, even players playing good characters, with a roomful of creatures that they're allowed to kill.

[Innis Cabal]

In this case any DM that rules she is anything but non-good needs to re think why thet are DM'ing. As i have said yes it is not common to shift on the axis for one action but i restate...this is an action that only is an exception to the rule but write the definition of the exeption. When you grossly violate your alignment...and yes hacking your liege in two even with the best intentions counts, you shifts, them's the breaks. Killing isnt evil, very very true, but murdering a harmless old man who dosnt even have a PC class is an evil act...again them's the breaks

[Nightmarenny]

I think this topic has officially been beaten to death. How about no more posting?

[Cyborg Pirate]

She's not good! She's become evil! Her Paladin-hood is no more! She has ceased to be associated with the right! She's fallen and been rejected by her god! She's done evil! Bereft of good, she's a paladin no longer! If Hinjo hadn't been lenient she'd be pushing up the daisies! Her metaphysical processes are now 'evil! She's jumped the shark! She's kicked the good habit, she's shuffled off her holy nature, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir of evil!! THIS IS AN EX-PALADIN!!

You, get an Awesome point for this beautifull and brutal monty python reference!

I'm so saving this to my comp :smallbiggrin:

[Luklan]

People still don't get it, apparently.

When considering the DnD Multiverse, whether we're dealing with Greyhawk, or Faerun or pretty much any DnD setting, Good and Evil are not just ideals. They are a part of the very laws that govern the world.

Let's put it in a way that's far easier to understand. Imagine if the gravitational pull of our planet (that's Earth) was affected by our actions, these actions defined BY THE UNIVERSE as Good or Evil. It doesn't matter what we think, what our reasons, what our intents, for doing it were, but rather, what something completely out of our control and ability to persuade says. Imagine if, the more 'Good' we did, the more stable our gravity was. It stayed normal. Now, what happens if 'Evil' actions made the gravitational pull on us (ourselves, no one else) stronger. The more evil we did, the stronger said gravity got.

What happens if we do something evil, but we didn't realise it was evil? BOOM, gravity gets stronger. We start getting crushed, and more crushed. If we do good things, gravity's pull on us starts going back to normal.

So, using the above to explain Miko's predicament... She got crushed.

@Aquillion: I might be misreading you, but from what I gather, you're saying no one can change alignment? Or are you only saying they can't change without wanting to? Because if it's the latter, I'll agree with that.

Edit: And the original point of this topic is whether Miko did something evil, not whether she changes alignment anyway.

Seriously, if a single action was enough to change your alignment, we may as well remove it because everytime you go through a dungeon, the DM'd be like "Oops, that was a chaotic act... You're no longer TN" or "Oops, that was a lawful act, you're no longer CG"

[Innis Cabal]

the idea isnt that a single act does it every time....major acts should and do....

[Arssanguinus]

People still don't get it, apparently.

When considering the DnD Multiverse, whether we're dealing with Greyhawk, or Faerun or pretty much any DnD setting, Good and Evil are not just ideals. They are a part of the very laws that govern the world.

Let's put it in a way that's far easier to understand. Imagine if the gravitational pull of our planet (that's Earth) was affected by our actions, these actions defined BY THE UNIVERSE as Good or Evil. It doesn't matter what we think, what our reasons, what our intents, for doing it were, but rather, what something completely out of our control and ability to persuade says. Imagine if, the more 'Good' we did, the more stable our gravity was. It stayed normal. Now, what happens if 'Evil' actions made the gravitational pull on us (ourselves, no one else) stronger. The more evil we did, the stronger said gravity got.

What happens if we do something evil, but we didn't realise it was evil? BOOM, gravity gets stronger. We start getting crushed, and more crushed. If we do good things, gravity's pull on us starts going back to normal.

So, using the above to explain Miko's predicament... She got crushed.

@Aquillion: I might be misreading you, but from what I gather, you're saying no one can change alignment? Or are you only saying they can't change without wanting to? Because if it's the latter, I'll agree with that.

Edit: And the original point of this topic is whether Miko did something evil, not whether she changes alignment anyway.

Seriously, if a single action was enough to change your alignment, we may as well remove it because everytime you go through a dungeon, the DM'd be like "Oops, that was a chaotic act... You're no longer TN" or "Oops, that was a lawful act, you're no longer CG"

Personally, what will determine where she goes from here alignment wise, were I her DM, is what she does NEXT.

[wowy319]

another point to consider: The Giant actually said in the comic that Miko committed an evil act.

[Arssanguinus]

another point to consider: The Giant actually said in the comic that Miko committed an evil act.

You mean take the Giant's word over a Miko Fan's interpretation? That would be almost like admitting that Belkar is evil when Giant flat out says he is!

[EvilElitest]

Bear in mind, good does not promote killing things that ping as evil. It promotes killings things that ping as evil that happen to be doing something evil. If Hinjo meets Black Adder who detects as evil but is simple eating his dinner, then he can't just kill him as he has not done anything, hence innocent. If Hinjo meets Black Adder as he tries to murder his man servant, he is duty bound to save the manservent, not matter how repuslive he is.

Also, Miko's aligment is most likely LN by now. Her general manner, as pointed out by Roy is not LG. She has walked a fine line up until now, but finally fell when she killed an innocent person. Count that up with all of her actions before hand, the scale tips and i say she would be LN, maybe LE (Don't think so but maybe).
from,
EE

[NeonRonin]

I'm tired of this thread myself, so I shall try to be brief(but probably not succeed). Miko is not Lawful Good, she is Lawful Psychotic. I've viewed her as such ever since her stupid tirade over the mattress tag back in strip #227. And YES, killing an unarmed, defenseless individual, regardless of what they may have done, is an evil act. If played properly, paladins are not supposed to be judge, jury and executioner, and just because something registers as 'evil' does not give a paladin carte blanche to kill it on the spot. If it DID, paladins would turn into Judge Dredd. (Which might actually be kinda cool...)

One has to wonder what happened in the past to give Ms. Miyazaki such a skewed view of the world around her; perhaps The Giant will show us one day.

[Baalzebub]

We all commit slightly evil acts every day. If I so much as call someone a bad name, that's a tiny little evil.

The question is absurd. Evil is in all of us, it's only a question of hiw tightly it's controlled.

We are talking about DnD, not real life. That's much more complicated.

[EvilElitest]

I'm tired of this thread myself, so I shall try to be brief(but probably not succeed). Miko is not Lawful Good, she is Lawful Psychotic. I've viewed her as such ever since her stupid tirade over the mattress tag back in strip #227. And YES, killing an unarmed, defenseless individual, regardless of what they may have done, is an evil act. If played properly, paladins are not supposed to be judge, jury and executioner, and just because something registers as 'evil' does not give a paladin carte blanche to kill it on the spot. If it DID, paladins would turn into Judge Dredd. (Which might actually be kinda cool...)

One has to wonder what happened in the past to give Ms. Miyazaki such a skewed view of the world around her; perhaps The Giant will show us one day.

I agree. Miko is a zealot, who have tricked herself into thinking that she is proper judge of what is good and what is evil, and that defeats the purpose.
from,
EE

[MReav]

Also, Miko's aligment is most likely LN by now. Her general manner, as pointed out by Roy is not LG. She has walked a fine line up until now, but finally fell when she killed an innocent person. Count that up with all of her actions before hand, the scale tips and i say she would be LN, maybe LE (Don't think so but maybe).
from,
EE

I want to reply to this one. I think Roy was talking out his ass when he made that accusation (regarding the dignity of sentient beings thing if that's what you're talking about in 251). Remember, Roy doesn't have a good track record when it comes to plot-irrelevant NPCs. In fact, in the previous comic, Miko expressed concern for the dignity of the sentient being whose livelihood the Order had helped screw over. She may have treated the Order like crap, but let's not forget that between annoying her, insulting her, trying to blow her up, revelling in her apparent demise, trying to gouge her monetarily (V's bill and the hotel bill), and threatening her mount and companion, in addition to the standing accusations of trying to destroy the universe, most of the Order has done as much to antagonize Miko outside of combat as Miko has to antagonize the Order.

Still, she definitely did do evil acts in the whole "killing Shojo" and "attacking Hinjo" things.

[Corsair]

Let's discount the whole carving up unarmed elderly gentlemen part for a moment, and here's some fairly indisputable proof that she has not only committed an evil act, but most likely switched alignments to True Neutral at the very least (The act was both Chaotic and Evil.)


Everyone in this room but you and I (speaking to Hinjo) are agents of evil, whether or not their alignment registers as such

She's redefined Good and Evil to suit what she thinks is right, and that is pretty much textbook evil.

And then


As the highest ranking member of the Sapphire Guard, I find you guilty of treason

Thus making her Judge, Jury, and Executioner, and if Miko hadn't gotten her can handed to her by Roy, she'd basically be Queen of Azure City, handing down judgments based upon whether or not she liked the shape of the guys beard.

As for Chaotic, well, she chopped her lord in half. 'nuff said.

[Drekkan]

My good sweet lord people. It's not that hard to figure out - killing defenceless people is an evil act. In my campaign I play the pragmatist in a group of good characters. I'm the one that loots tombs while their backs are turned, who makes bribes, and otherwise engages in debauchery, lawlessness, and the occasional evil act (such as killing a puppy to make a magic item of some power). I also do a lot to try and mitigate, and have done more then my share of good.

Even then I still regard myself as somewhat evil vis-a-vis the campaign; though my character would not. My character has had these absurd "good-evil don't exist but in your head" debates about relativism, and both then and now it's BS.

Honest to God, in DnD there are absolutes of good and evil. Killing someone just sitting there is evil. Especially when he's already been subdued and placed under arrest in an area where he can be under heavy guard in anti-magic fields.

Now, she can kill him if she wants - but that's her own judgment. One's judgment does not matter in this, it's as simple as that.

Of course, there's the issue of "being tricked into the evil act". I have a challenge to ANYONE that takes this position. Find where she was tricked into believing what she did. You won't find one. Why? Because she was NOT TRICKED INTO ANYTHING. Everything she did was completely of her own free will.

Oh yes, and as for the poster on snap emotions and rage being the difference between murder and manslaughter - that's not true. The difference between the two is intent to kill; intent=murder. What you're thinking about is murder one versus mruder two - that's the difference between life-capital punishment and 25-life.

[Nightmarenny]

*hits thread with lead pipe*

WHY. WONT. YOU. DIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEE?

please, die?

[EvilElitest]

I think Roy was talking out his ass when he made that accusation (regarding the dignity of sentient beings thing if that's what you're talking about in 251).
Funny, because last time i checked, Roy has friends and Miko does not. Oh that and the fact that Roy seems to be able to hold himself ot his own code while Miko does not. Where in his little tiraid is he wrong.


Remember, Roy doesn't have a good track record when it comes to plot-irrelevant NPCs.
Hmmm, strange, i can't help but notice that Roy does not view himself as god. Also that when he a npc is plot relevant he has a much better track record. As for irrelevant NPCsi would like to point out that he is respecting their dignity. Take that doctor for example, who did the test of the heart. Roy told him to shut up because he was being annoying. Roy did not claim to be morally greater and try to punish him for that. Also Roy is not a paladin. As for him not being nice to NPCs, Roy has given up power, something Miko has not. Roy had contract with the rest of OOTS, but he torn it up to allow them the free will to choose. Also Roy tried to be nice to Miko. Miko never tried to be nice to anyone else.


In fact, in the previous comic, Miko expressed concern for the dignity of the sentient being whose livelihood the Order had helped screw over.
No, she used the desctruction of the inn as and excuse to yell at the order for how sinful they were (oh sleeping at an inn, how awful. Next thing you know they might be allowed to have free will and we can't have that).


She may have treated the Order like crap,
I would point out that even before meeting them see said that she shall bath her blades in their blood. Also she attacked them on sight.


but let's not forget that between annoying her,
For her taking them prisioner without a just cause. just becasue she is willing to trust her liege does not mean anyone else should.\

insulting her,
How can Miko talk? She is the one calling them sinful crimeals, heratics, and inferior beings.


trying to blow her up,
No, she was not aware of that. Also, i would like to point out she attacked them on sight.


revelling in her apparent demise,
So? I don't like Charlie Manson. If he dies, i will be happy. She treated the order like crap, with no good cause. She used his self rightous bearing and rank to basiclly act as a bully, while a far nicer apprach would have worked.


trying to gouge her monetarily (V's bill and the hotel bill),
So? Why should the OOTs spend money on a trip she forced them on. She is their warden, her responsiblity.


and threatening her mount and companion,
Never to her face.


in addition to the standing accusations of trying to destroy the universe,
They have not been tried yet. Good should not use a "Guilty until proven innocent" approach. It should be visa versa


most of the Order has done as much to antagonize Miko outside of combat as Miko has to antagonize the Order.
Being attacked on sight, treated like convicts for no real charge, being treated like infeoir heratics is not an apprach of a good person. the OOTS are agngry because Miko is a self rightous bitch with not sense of social skills.



Still, she definitely did do evil acts in the whole "killing Shojo" and "attacking Hinjo" things.

And those aformentioned actions caused show signs of her personality that lead to her fall
zealorty is not goodness
from,
EE

[Innis Cabal]

he has a good argument....while the rest of you....do not....look up alignment and the planes....perhaps that will explain it to you

[EvilElitest]

he has a good argument....while the rest of you....do not....look up alignment and the planes....perhaps that will explain it to you

Nicely put.
Nice avarter by the way.
from,
EE

Edit: wait, you are talking about my argument right? Because otherwixe i will feel right silly

[Innis Cabal]

oh why thank you...you to...i wish i could get a custom but no on on the board seems to respond or check it...so alas....back on topic...To those of you who wonder how the planes have anything to do with alignement look at the outer planes....and you will notice they are extreme alignements and their outsiders are just exstentions...look at angels...would they kill Shojo? the answer is no, lets look at the demons.....would they? In a heart beat

[MReav]

Funny, because last time i checked, Roy has friends and Miko does not.

And that's relevant how? Miko is not trying to make friends with the Order. She does not want necessarily want their friendship. And she doesn't have friends (save Windstriker), fine. That's her problem. Her inability to make friends is a serious character flaw. But that doesn't mean she doesn't respect other people. The fact that she also spends a lot of time alone and travelling on long missions by herself doesn't help make friends either.


Oh that and the fact that Roy seems to be able to hold himself ot his own code while Miko does not. Where in his little tiraid is he wrong.

Until she killed Shojo, she held herself to a different code. Not her own, one determined by the gods. I don't even know what you're getting at here with regard to that anyways.

And as for the tirade, he is wrong with the "not showing concern for sentient beings". I cite the inn owner as the prime example. And as for "not good", I point out the fact that she tends to show concern more for people's safety. She helped the Old Couple at no charge, she went into the burning building to search for stragglers (while V and Haley went to save their treasure), and her first reaction after getting slammed by MitD and falling several hundred feet? 374: "By the twelve gods! I must hurry back and save Wind-". So, Roy's analysis of Miko isn't totally correct.


Hmmm, strange, i can't help but notice that Roy does not view himself as god. Also that when he a npc is plot relevant he has a much better track record. As for irrelevant NPCsi would like to point out that he is respecting their dignity. Take that doctor for example, who did the test of the heart. Roy told him to shut up because he was being annoying. Roy did not claim to be morally greater and try to punish him for that.

He didn't say he was annoying. He said the doctor had fulfilled his purpose and that he doesn't have any interest in speaking to him. If someone said that to my face, I would be insulted at that. If he would have respected their dignity, he would have simply mentioned that he's in a hurry. Roy also wouldn't listen to the Flumph when he told him that he was standing on his tentacle. And then there's the fact that Roy had stated that he would have stabbed the weapon's dealer for wasting his time (136). So, instead of berating someone for their shortcomings, he would assault with a dangerous weapon them. Real moral superiority there, Roy.


Also Roy is not a paladin. As for him not being nice to NPCs, Roy has given up power, something Miko has not. Roy had contract with the rest of OOTS, but he torn it up to allow them the free will to choose.

Just because he's not a paladin doesn't mean he should be compelled to treat people like crap either, even if they are plot irrelevant NPCs. He is good to his followers, and should be commended for that. And granted, she could have conferred with the Order about her plan against the ogres, but seriously, Miko's position came from years of hard work from a legitimate government. She has no really good reason to give up any power. Roy's position comes from contracting a bunch of mercenaries to come with him to do stuff for him (except Durkon, who is his longtime friend). He wants their respect, and earns it by doing stuff like that. Miko does not want their respect, maybe because she probably does not believe she would be interacting with them after their trial, guilt or innocence aside. But the fact that only Roy and Durkon weren't giving her a hard time, would indicate that they didn't really do much to earn any from her either.


Also Roy tried to be nice to Miko. Miko never tried to be nice to anyone else.

She is nice to Durkon and she was nice to the Old Lady (listened to her troubles, offered to help her at no expense, didn't consider her something to alleviate her boredom). She showed respect to the front Watchtower guard by bowing to him (something most media tells me is a sign of respect), and was nice enough to offer to get any local peasants along the way to send rice (she may not have offered to look for the supplies, but looking at it from a cost/benefit analysis, even without the peasants, it would be more likely that AC could get them the supplies faster, what with teleporting wizards).


No, she used the desctruction of the inn as and excuse to yell at the order for how sinful they were (oh sleeping at an inn, how awful. Next thing you know they might be allowed to have free will and we can't have that).

Their actions seriously screwed someone over. Quite frankly, using it as an excuse to berate them of their way of life does not preclude her in any way from actually feeling sorry for the man. They are not mutually exclusive things.


I would point out that even before meeting them see said that she shall bath her blades in their blood. Also she attacked them on sight.

For the first part, true, but she thought they had deliberately destroyed one of the only things that was holding up the failing structure of the Universe. As for the second, she gathered a lot of information (from the Flumphs that they had assaulted on multiple occasions, to the weaponsmith [whom Nale and Thog screwed over, but that's mistaken identity], to the Barbarian guild where Belkar killed three people, to the talking weasel that Roy fed to the giants, to Samantha and her father [irrelevant to our timeline, but before someone says she murdered them, let's not forget they initiated violence against her both times]), Detected Evil on Roy, Elan and Durkon, then made a speech, and THEN finally attacked them. Not on sight. The fact that the author goes to a lot of trouble to establish the trail of misunderstandings also helps go to show that Miko was anything but frivolous in her investigations at the time.


For her taking them prisioner without a just cause. just becasue she is willing to trust her liege does not mean anyone else should.\

I was referring to Elan, who couldn't get his head around the idea that someone could be a samurai without having the class, despite him describing his former employer as a knight without him having any knight classes, even given the prevalence of knight-based PrCs and PrCs with knight in the title (the PHB2 hadn't come out yet, so he couldn't have also confused the notion with the Knight Base Class)

It was the most minor of the cases, but Elan is sufficiently annoying to have been abandoned by his peers on multiple occasions.

Roy abandoned him, Sir Francois abandoned him, and he has been abandoned by his peer/s on at least one other occasion, since he said "Aww, not again after Sir Francois ran out on him"


How can Miko talk? She is the one calling them sinful crimeals, heratics, and inferior beings.

I was referring to V, who did not stop gloating about his/her intellectual superiority or insulting Miko about her lower intelligence. Funny how s/he gets off for talking down to people about a trait s/he believes/demonstrates s/he has over others, but Miko can't? Especially during a time when she still retained it.


No, she was not aware of that. Also, i would like to point out she attacked them on sight.

True she did not know about that, but if she did, she could chalk up another reason to not respect them. And she did not attack them on sight, as I explained earlier in the post.


So? I don't like Charlie Manson. If he dies, i will be happy. She treated the order like crap, with no good cause. She used his self rightous bearing and rank to basiclly act as a bully, while a far nicer apprach would have worked.

The Order was quite condescending to her. V insulted her intellect in 207 (she was overbearing to Roy, but she was seriously concerned that they had killed a benevolent entity to steal it treasure). Elan was being really annoying in 209. Belkar wanted to slaughter villagers in 211 and V couldn't give a damn about suffering innocents in 212. Belkar shoved her out of his way, made a sexist comment, and ultimately had no business to demand to be the tracker in the first place in 213. V tried to gouge her over the use of spells in 220 (despite V's extreme willingness to waste them in Random Encounters). I could go on. Do not tell me that they were being treated like crap for no good reason. A nicer approach might have been better. An even better one would have been to bring a few teleporting wizards, and get the whole thing over with in before all the misunderstandings could take place.


So? Why should the OOTs spend money on a trip she forced them on. She is their warden, her responsiblity.

That doesn't mean they get to take the luxury suites that they wouldn't be paying for under normal circumstances, or that they should to try to create faux bills that they only made up to spite the person they didn't like (especially given a precedent of wasting them on trivial battles beforehand).


and threatening her mount and companion,
Never to her face.

Empathic link. She probably knew that Belkar was threatening Windstriker.


They have not been tried yet. Good should not use a "Guilty until proven innocent" approach. It should be visa versa

No, but it's in a long line of reasons for her not to like them. She let them walk around without constraints (until after the second fight), which demonstrated that she was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if they came with her, but an accused criminal does not get off just because he thinks/knows he's innocent, because the relevant law enforcement needs to find out.


Being attacked on sight,

Not the case, as explained.


treated like convicts for no real charge,

No, she treated them like prisoners. If she treated them like convicts, given the charges and what's at stake, she would have summarily executed all of them.


being treated like infeoir heratics is not an apprach of a good person. the OOTS are agngry because Miko is a self rightous bitch with not sense of social skills.

And the part of the party that she disrespected consisted of a killcrazy psychopath (Belkar), an unrepentant thief (Haley), a dangerously stupid doofus (Elan), a semi-self-aggrandizing blowhard (Roy), and an egomaniacal know-it-all (V).



Still, she definitely did do evil acts in the whole "killing Shojo" and "attacking Hinjo" things.

And those aformentioned actions caused show signs of her personality that lead to her fall
zealorty is not goodness
from,
EE[/quote]

I cite her willingness to put herself at risk to save others and trying to protect the world from legitimate threats as a sign of goodness. She is not perfect, and far from it, but that does not mean that all her qualities should ignored or re-interpreted as being scummy.

[Arssanguinus]

And that's relevant how? Miko is not trying to make friends with the Order. She does not want necessarily want their friendship. And she doesn't have friends (save Windstriker), fine. That's her problem. Her inability to make friends is a serious character flaw. But that doesn't mean she doesn't respect other people. The fact that she also spends a lot of time alone and travelling on long missions by herself doesn't help make friends either.



Until she killed Shojo, she held herself to a different code. Not her own, one determined by the gods. I don't even know what you're getting at here with regard to that anyways.

And as for the tirade, he is wrong with the "not showing concern for sentient beings". I cite the inn owner as the prime example. And as for "not good", I point out the fact that she tends to show concern more for people's safety. She helped the Old Couple at no charge, she went into the burning building to search for stragglers (while V and Haley went to save their treasure), and her first reaction after getting slammed by MitD and falling several hundred feet? 374: "By the twelve gods! I must hurry back and save Wind-". So, Roy's analysis of Miko isn't totally correct.



He didn't say he was annoying. He said the doctor had fulfilled his purpose and that he doesn't have any interest in speaking to him. If someone said that to my face, I would be insulted at that. If he would have respected their dignity, he would have simply mentioned that he's in a hurry. Roy also wouldn't listen to the Flumph when he told him that he was standing on his tentacle. And then there's the fact that Roy had stated that he would have stabbed the weapon's dealer for wasting his time (136). So, instead of berating someone for their shortcomings, he would assault with a dangerous weapon them. Real moral superiority there, Roy.



Just because he's not a paladin doesn't mean he should be compelled to treat people like crap either, even if they are plot irrelevant NPCs. He is good to his followers, and should be commended for that. And granted, she could have conferred with the Order about her plan against the ogres, but seriously, Miko's position came from years of hard work from a legitimate government. She has no really good reason to give up any power. Roy's position comes from contracting a bunch of mercenaries to come with him to do stuff for him (except Durkon, who is his longtime friend). He wants their respect, and earns it by doing stuff like that. Miko does not want their respect, maybe because she probably does not believe she would be interacting with them after their trial, guilt or innocence aside. But the fact that only Roy and Durkon weren't giving her a hard time, would indicate that they didn't really do much to earn any from her either.



She is nice to Durkon and she was nice to the Old Lady (listened to her troubles, offered to help her at no expense, didn't consider her something to alleviate her boredom). She showed respect to the front Watchtower guard by bowing to him (something most media tells me is a sign of respect), and was nice enough to offer to get any local peasants along the way to send rice (she may not have offered to look for the supplies, but looking at it from a cost/benefit analysis, even without the peasants, it would be more likely that AC could get them the supplies faster, what with teleporting wizards).



Their actions seriously screwed someone over. Quite frankly, using it as an excuse to berate them of their way of life does not preclude her in any way from actually feeling sorry for the man. They are not mutually exclusive things.



For the first part, true, but she thought they had deliberately destroyed one of the only things that was holding up the failing structure of the Universe. As for the second, she gathered a lot of information (from the Flumphs that they had assaulted on multiple occasions, to the weaponsmith [whom Nale and Thog screwed over, but that's mistaken identity], to the Barbarian guild where Belkar killed three people, to the talking weasel that Roy fed to the giants, to Samantha and her father [irrelevant to our timeline, but before someone says she murdered them, let's not forget they initiated violence against her both times]), Detected Evil on Roy, Elan and Durkon, then made a speech, and THEN finally attacked them. Not on sight. The fact that the author goes to a lot of trouble to establish the trail of misunderstandings also helps go to show that Miko was anything but frivolous in her investigations at the time.



I was referring to Elan, who couldn't get his head around the idea that someone could be a samurai without having the class, despite him describing his former employer as a knight without him having any knight classes, even given the prevalence of knight-based PrCs and PrCs with knight in the title (the PHB2 hadn't come out yet, so he couldn't have also confused the notion with the Knight Base Class)

It was the most minor of the cases, but Elan is sufficiently annoying to have been abandoned by his peers on multiple occasions.

Roy abandoned him, Sir Francois abandoned him, and he has been abandoned by his peer/s on at least one other occasion, since he said "Aww, not again after Sir Francois ran out on him"



I was referring to V, who did not stop gloating about his/her intellectual superiority or insulting Miko about her lower intelligence. Funny how s/he gets off for talking down to people about a trait s/he believes/demonstrates s/he has over others, but Miko can't? Especially during a time when she still retained it.



True she did not know about that, but if she did, she could chalk up another reason to not respect them. And she did not attack them on sight, as I explained earlier in the post.



The Order was quite condescending to her. V insulted her intellect in 207 (she was overbearing to Roy, but she was seriously concerned that they had killed a benevolent entity to steal it treasure). Elan was being really annoying in 209. Belkar wanted to slaughter villagers in 211 and V couldn't give a damn about suffering innocents in 212. Belkar shoved her out of his way, made a sexist comment, and ultimately had no business to demand to be the tracker in the first place in 213. V tried to gouge her over the use of spells in 220 (despite V's extreme willingness to waste them in Random Encounters). I could go on. Do not tell me that they were being treated like crap for no good reason. A nicer approach might have been better. An even better one would have been to bring a few teleporting wizards, and get the whole thing over with in before all the misunderstandings could take place.



That doesn't mean they get to take the luxury suites that they wouldn't be paying for under normal circumstances, or that they should to try to create faux bills that they only made up to spite the person they didn't like (especially given a precedent of wasting them on trivial battles beforehand).



Empathic link. She probably knew that Belkar was threatening Windstriker.



No, but it's in a long line of reasons for her not to like them. She let them walk around without constraints (until after the second fight), which demonstrated that she was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if they came with her, but an accused criminal does not get off just because he thinks/knows he's innocent, because the relevant law enforcement needs to find out.



Not the case, as explained.



No, she treated them like prisoners. If she treated them like convicts, given the charges and what's at stake, she would have summarily executed all of them.



And the part of the party that she disrespected consisted of a killcrazy psychopath (Belkar), an unrepentant thief (Haley), a dangerously stupid doofus (Elan), a semi-self-aggrandizing blowhard (Roy), and an egomaniacal know-it-all (V).



I cite her willingness to put herself at risk to save others and trying to protect the world from legitimate threats as a sign of goodness. She is not perfect, and far from it, but that does not mean that all her qualities should ignored or re-interpreted as being scummy.[/QUOTE]

All of which tries to go the long way around not addressing the point that she committed evil acts regarding Hojo, HInjo, Belkar in the throne room.

No matter how much you tend to want to worship her.

[Talya]

Paladins can commit chaotic acts and not fall from grace, so long as their alignment is not changed by the chaotic acts.

A single evil act will cause a paladin to fall, regardless of whether the act changes their alignment.

I suppose you could make a tennuous argument that this was the last in a long string of chaotic actions that changed Miko's alignment to NG, but I think you'd have a hard time proving that. Miko's conduct (other than this one act) has been pristinely lawful up to this point.

The only thing that really makes sense is that killing Shojo was an evil act, otherwise she would not have fallen.

[Kreistor]

And as for the tirade, he is wrong with the "not showing concern for sentient beings". I cite the inn owner as the prime example. And as for "not good", I point out the fact that she tends to show concern more for people's safety. She helped the Old Couple at no charge, she went into the burning building to search for stragglers (while V and Haley went to save their treasure), and her first reaction after getting slammed by MitD and falling several hundred feet? 374: "By the twelve gods! I must hurry back and save Wind-". So, Roy's analysis of Miko isn't totally correct.

This would be great, except for one thing... Roy is the Giant and you are not.

412 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0412.html)

So, why did the giant make this comic? The first section about Miko doesn't really do anything, but it's there nonetheless.

The Giant is telling us that V was smart enough to correctly analyze Miko and not be surprised by her actions. He therefore intended smart people to be able to predict Miko's Fall.

Thus, no matter how you spin Miko's actions, ultimately, the Giant intended a smart person's analysis to result in noticing that Miko was flawed and would predictably Fall.

So, though there may be two ways to analyze a particular choice of actions, it is the one that includes her flaw that is actually correct. You see an action as altruistic and noble, but if it can be interpreted as guided by her Hubris, then no matter what she said or how she said it, the interpretation that includes her Hubris is the correct one; otherwise, tehre is no evidence to make V's analysis of Miko correct.

A couple of events does not negate an overall theme. Even if you can find a couple times when someone is kind, that doesn't make that person truly kind, if that person is also cruel.

Ultimately, Roy's analysis must be correct, because it is the Giant's analysis. Roy has been vindicated, over and over again, by the Giant. People insisted Roy should have talked to Miko instead of attacking her in #403, so the Giant placed Hinjo in the same situation and showed how useless talking to Miko was... vindicating Roy's choice to attack her. Roy's analysis that the sword was the correct choice was vindicated.

Or hadn't you noticed?

People complain about Roy appearing too sarcastic and cruel to be Lawful Good.

So Roy saves Elan.

Or hadn't you noticed?

Roy's analysis is correct, no matter how you see the events you cite, because the Giant intends Roy to be vindicated.

V is smart, and she sees Miko is flawed, so there must be a flaw to be seen. The Giant vindicates Roy, so Roy must be correct in his analysis.

In falling, Miko revealed a Flaw, in this case hubris. ("I am special!") That isn't a new belief: she always felt that way. A flaw like that causes us to have to review all of our previuos analysis, in the light that she was always flawed. Previously benevolent behavior now becomes suspect -- was it actually inspired by her flaw, and thus selfishly inspired instead of altruistic?

Ultimately, Roy was vindicated. Miko Fell. There is no question she Fell. Roy's interpretation that Miko had flaws was correct. If you still can't see that Roy's interpretation of events was correct, and yours incorrect, then it is time to go back with the knowledge that Miko Fell and review your own analysis. She Fell. The Giant created her flawed so that she would Fall.

[EvilElitest]

And that's relevant how? Miko is not trying to make friends with the Order. She does not want necessarily want their friendship.

Because she treats everyone like crap, because of she is so caugth up i her own self deluded sense of greatness. And she does not live up to her own ego, as she is arrogent, selfish, spoilded, emotional confused, angry, duludied and zealos.


And she doesn't have friends (save Windstriker), fine.
Windstriker might not be a friend, as he has shown no sighs of friendship. He is a compandion. Just pointing that out, we don't know their relationship. He most likely is a friend, as Miko showned concern for him, but we don't know.


That's her problem. Her inability to make friends is a serious character flaw. But that doesn't mean she doesn't respect other people. The fact that she also spends a lot of time alone and travelling on long missions by herself doesn't help make friends either.
The reason why she doesn't have friends is because she does not respect people. Apart from Shojo and windstriker, who has she shown respect for that she did not take back when they disagreed with her. Durkon she respected until he dissagreed with her, then she attacked OOTs, same with Hinjo and Shojo.


Until she killed Shojo, she held herself to a different code. Not her own, one determined by the gods. I don't even know what you're getting at here with regard to that anyways.
She has to follow the paladin's code. Mercy, respect, justice and kindness are part of the paladin's code. She seems to follow them in action but as yet not in thinking.


And as for the tirade, he is wrong with the "not showing concern for sentient beings".
When has she showned Concern? Not to OOTS. If she showed concern, she would have had a different approach. What if Hinjo had been sent after OOTS?


I cite the inn owner as the prime example. And as for "not good", I point out the fact that she tends to show concern more for people's safety. She helped the Old Couple at no charge, she went into the burning building to search for stragglers
So? She did those duties because they were just that, duty. She never showned any true concern.


(while V and Haley went to save their treasure),
Haley and Elan tried to save the people and they would not come. After that, they simple tried to save their stuff. If I had that kind of money, i would not want to lose it.


and her first reaction after getting slammed by MitD and falling several hundred feet? 374: "By the twelve gods! I must hurry back and save Wind-".
Yes, her mount. Her paladin abilties suffer. Anyways, am i the only one here a little upset that the only person Miko cares about is a horse?


So, Roy's analysis of Miko isn't totally correct.
Ok, Miko show repect for a horse. Good for her. What about OOTS. She certainly did not show repect for their feelings.


He didn't say he was annoying. He said the doctor had fulfilled his purpose and that he doesn't have any interest in speaking to him.
That is saying that you are annoying, just being slightly more nice about it.


If someone said that to my face, I would be insulted at that. If he would have respected their dignity, he would have simply mentioned that he's in a hurry.
No repect for dignity means repect for their rights. Roy has the right to say that the doctor is annoying, he as the right to say whatever he wants. The doctor has the right to say whatever he wants to. But if the doctor says stuff that is boring and annoying, he should respect a negative response.


Roy also wouldn't listen to the Flumph when he told him that he was standing on his tentacle.
1. He didn't hear
2. He didn't care, as that might keep it from hurting him
Does he even know what a flump is? If they were not a comitic gag, maybe it would be different.


And then there's the fact that Roy had stated that he would have stabbed the weapon's dealer for wasting his time (136).
Ok two points
1. Now your going back on yourself. You protect miko for activly treating OOTS badly in response to their rudness (rudness rightly deserved i would point out) but attack Roy for talking about possible hurting a guy for extreme unwarrented trickery?
2. Look at what the freaky weapon dealer did? After that treatment, i would be rude to. Roy did not however really hurt him. He simple threated to, and never really made any sign of following that up.


So, instead of berating someone for their shortcomings, he would assault with a dangerous weapon them
Where has he hurt any NPC with a dangerous weapon? Unlike Miko


Real moral superiority there, Roy.
Yes, he treates OOTS like human beings and his when the yells at someone he is correct. And Roy never claimed Moral superiority. He just yelled at Miko claim of moral superiority.


Just because he's not a paladin doesn't mean he should be compelled to treat people like crap either, even if they are plot irrelevant NPCs.
And he has not, just been rude when they ignore them.


He is good to his followers, and should be commended for that. And granted, she could have conferred with the Order about her plan against the ogres, but seriously, Miko's position came from years of hard work from a legitimate government.
Good for her, so did the OOTS' loot. But Miko accused them of greed for it. Good for Miko, she learned how to be a zealot. Xykon's position tooks years of hared killing. Just doing work does not grant you moral superoity, though Miko would say different.

She has no really good reason to give up any power.
Oh, so she is justified in her arrogence but Roy is not? Strange how a paladin is allowed to be a control freak, but a fighter is not?


Miko does not want their respect, maybe because she probably does not believe she would be interacting with them after their trial, guilt or innocence aside.
But that does not allow her to treat them like crap.


But the fact that only Roy and Durkon weren't giving her a hard time, would indicate that they didn't really do much to earn any from her either.
They didn't come to her, she came to them.


She is nice to Durkon and she was nice to the Old Lady (listened to her troubles, offered to help her at no expense, didn't consider her something to alleviate her boredom). She showed respect to the front Watchtower guard by bowing to him (something most media tells me is a sign of respect
and was nice enough to offer to get any local peasants along the way to send rice
1. She was respectful to Durkon because he was willing to allow her to walk over him. His relgion barred him from fighting back
2. Helping the peasents at no expence is a paladin's duty. She showned not signs of really caring
3. Sending the food was a miltary desion. Logical. yet again, no real emotion. It is a miltary matter to send food to your bases.
All of her nice deeds simple followed the basic nessarity of being a paladin.


Their actions seriously screwed someone over. Quite frankly, using it as an excuse to berate them of their way of life does not preclude her in any way from actually feeling sorry for the man. They are not mutually exclusive things.
What about the assassin? It is OOTS fault but not theirs? Bear in mind, Miko does not know about Roy pretending to be the king of somewhere
Yeah this statment
"You unmitigated greed led directly to the destruction of your tainted gold. If you had all been willing to sleep in a muddy ditch as I suggested, you would still have your precious dragon treasure."
Yeah, no mention of who really destoryed the inn. Their crime, sleeping in an inn rather than in a muddy ditch. How awful. As for arrogent and "morally better" well
"It looks as if I will need to keep a closer eye on ALL of you in the furture to keep you from straying from the right path".
The right path? She is not a missionary.
And Roy does the correct thing and says he is sorry for all the sexist things he said. Yeah, unlike MIko he said he was sorry in meaning when he did not need to. THEN he goes into how she is an awful person.


For the first part, true, but she thought they had deliberately destroyed one of the only things that was holding up the failing structure of the Universe.
"You know what must be done young one"
Aprrently not
from,
EE

[Pax_Chi]

*sees the thread topic*

:eek:
:annoyed:
:mad:
:furious:
:sigh:

How in any of the unholy hells can this still be a debatable topic?

[Gitman00]

(Spoilered for length)


This would be great, except for one thing... Roy is the Giant and you are not.

412 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0412.html)

So, why did the giant make this comic? The first section about Miko doesn't really do anything, but it's there nonetheless.

The Giant is telling us that V was smart enough to correctly analyze Miko and not be surprised by her actions. He therefore intended smart people to be able to predict Miko's Fall.

Thus, no matter how you spin Miko's actions, ultimately, the Giant intended a smart person's analysis to result in noticing that Miko was flawed and would predictably Fall.

So, though there may be two ways to analyze a particular choice of actions, it is the one that includes her flaw that is actually correct. You see an action as altruistic and noble, but if it can be interpreted as guided by her Hubris, then no matter what she said or how she said it, the interpretation that includes her Hubris is the correct one; otherwise, tehre is no evidence to make V's analysis of Miko correct.

A couple of events does not negate an overall theme. Even if you can find a couple times when someone is kind, that doesn't make that person truly kind, if that person is also cruel.

Ultimately, Roy's analysis must be correct, because it is the Giant's analysis. Roy has been vindicated, over and over again, by the Giant. People insisted Roy should have talked to Miko instead of attacking her in #403, so the Giant placed Hinjo in the same situation and showed how useless talking to Miko was... vindicating Roy's choice to attack her. Roy's analysis that the sword was the correct choice was vindicated.

Or hadn't you noticed?

People complain about Roy appearing too sarcastic and cruel to be Lawful Good.

So Roy saves Elan.

Or hadn't you noticed?

Roy's analysis is correct, no matter how you see the events you cite, because the Giant intends Roy to be vindicated.

V is smart, and she sees Miko is flawed, so there must be a flaw to be seen. The Giant vindicates Roy, so Roy must be correct in his analysis.

In falling, Miko revealed a Flaw, in this case hubris. ("I am special!") That isn't a new belief: she always felt that way. A flaw like that causes us to have to review all of our previuos analysis, in the light that she was always flawed. Previously benevolent behavior now becomes suspect -- was it actually inspired by her flaw, and thus selfishly inspired instead of altruistic?

Ultimately, Roy was vindicated. Miko Fell. There is no question she Fell. Roy's interpretation that Miko had flaws was correct. If you still can't see that Roy's interpretation of events was correct, and yours incorrect, then it is time to go back with the knowledge that Miko Fell and review your own analysis. She Fell. The Giant created her flawed so that she would Fall.

This is... a very interesting way of looking at it. I applaud you, sir. And, if I may be so bold, I think you may have hit the proverbial nail on the head in figuring out why people defend their favorite characters so rabidly, and Miko more than most. Rather than reinterpreting the character's prior actions in light of new information, they attempt to justify the latest actions based on the opinions that they formed earlier.

Hence, we have people saying, "Miko can't have committed evil! Look when she did good acts X, Y, and Z! She was completely justified!" where you take a more logical approach in saying, "Miko's good acts X, Y, and Z may not be so pure, given this new information we have about her beliefs and character."

Always good to avoid getting emotionally involved with a comic character, IMHO. :smallsmile:

[Kreistor]

And he has not, just been rude when they ignore them.

I agree with the majority of things you have to say, but not this one. Roy is regularly dismissive of NPC's he has no further use for. Roy is intelligent, but not charismatic, and that may just be an indicator of those stats.

But that trait is not enough to counter all of Roy's other good traits. and force him out of his chosen alignment. This is just a player trait seeping into the PC's actions. A lot of players are dismissive of NPC's, and one of the paradigms for this comic is demonstrating player choices in the actual world they say things in. That's why they talk about mechanics and other things a PC should never know about. So though some people interpret Roy as being dismissive of unimportant people, it's much more likely to be Roy's player being dismissive of unimportant NPC's.

[EvilElitest]

I agree with the majority of things you have to say, but not this one. Roy is regularly dismissive of NPC's he has no further use for. Roy is intelligent, but not charismatic, and that may just be an indicator of those stats.

I think Roy is charismatic when he wants to be. He keeps OOTS in line, he kept Miko under control for a while, he has a great sarcastic wit, he has been on good terms with Hinjo and Shojo, he helped clear OOTS, he has gotton on with Celia, he helped almost clear Belkar, and he two more questions from the oracle. Ok, maybe the last one is different, but yeah.
Roy normally does not use his chrisma becuase he does not care and is far to elitist. But he can if he wants to


But that trait is not enough to counter all of Roy's other good traits. and force him out of his chosen alignment. This is just a player trait seeping into the PC's actions. A lot of players are dismissive of NPC's, and one of the paradigms for this comic is demonstrating player choices in the actual world they say things in. That's why they talk about mechanics and other things a PC should never know about. So though some people interpret Roy as being dismissive of unimportant people, it's much more likely to be Roy's player being dismissive of unimportant NPC's.
I'll agree. Sarcatic remarks does not make you evil. Apart from me (see name).
from,
EE

Edit:
Oh, and i am using this post as an example of the phrase
"Beating a dead horse".
Miko lovers, you get a message here?

[MReav]

I cite her willingness to put herself at risk to save others and trying to protect the world from legitimate threats as a sign of goodness. She is not perfect, and far from it, but that does not mean that all her qualities should ignored or re-interpreted as being scummy.
All of which tries to go the long way around not addressing the point that she committed evil acts regarding Hojo, HInjo, Belkar in the throne room.

First off, I had fully admitted that she had done evil things in the throne room. However, I was counterarguing a point. The post that I had originally posted to indicated that I felt Roy was talking out his ass when it came to analysing at least some issues regarding Miko, regarding whether or not she was good. I got a long tirade detailing a lot of stuff about her negative actions. I responded to that.


Windstriker might not be a friend, as he has shown no sighs of friendship. He is a compandion. Just pointing that out, we don't know their relationship. He most likely is a friend, as Miko showned concern for him, but we don't know.

He's a horse and hasn't been in that many comics, and most of them were him simply being a mount. Still, she shares her potions with him, and tries to help him when he was in danger. She at least cares for him.


The reason why she doesn't have friends is because she does not respect people. Apart from Shojo and windstriker, who has she shown respect for that she did not take back when they disagreed with her. Durkon she respected until he dissagreed with her,

Need I remind you that Durkon was defending Belkar, who had killed a guard in cold blood, and whose handiwork they had all witnessed smeared all over a wall? Coupled with the fact that Belkar had been seriously provoking her for some time prior to the encounter, it's not exactly condusive for rational thought. It's the kind of thing that screws her over in the end, but acting as a law officer, she had to do what she could to bring a dangerous criminal down.

Furthermore, she still respected Shojo despite the fact that he ordered her to not fight the Order at that point, despite her preconceived notions about them and how they were defending a man who had killed someone under her command and desecrated his corpse.


Haley and Elan tried to save the people and they would not come. After that, they simple tried to save their stuff. If I had that kind of money, i would not want to lose it.

Mind providing a source? When did Haley and Elan try to save someone that would not come? The old man came with them, but that was a different arc. Or if you're referring to V and Haley, when did they try to help someone? I am curious, since I do not see a comic in the relevant timeframe where they tried to help anyone.


Yes, her mount. Her paladin abilties suffer. Anyways, am i the only one here a little upset that the only person Miko cares about is a horse?

Need I remind you that the Horse has an intelligence above 2, and therefore is a sentient being, who is smart enough to acquire the services of a legal aid to impose a restraining order on someone who was actively threatening him?


Ok, Miko show repect for a horse. Good for her. What about OOTS. She certainly did not show repect for their feelings.

And I remind you they were annoying (Elan), insulting (V, Belkar), gouging (V, Haley), callous (V), threatening (Belkar), and of murderous intent (Belkar). Such a wonderful group of people to have to be stuck with. Yeah she treated them like crap, but don't act like they're not earning it to at least some degree.


When has she showned Concern? Not to OOTS. If she showed concern, she would have had a different approach. What if Hinjo had been sent after OOTS?

Then he wouldn't have found them. Miko was Azure City's best tracker, and she has only 1 rank in Survival. Furthermore, even if he did, he probably wouldn't have fought them by himself, because the Order would have taken him apart easily. Let's not forget that the Order and their dopplegangers cut a swath of misery in their paths, so the extreme prejudice that she lay into them wasn't exactly unwarranted. I don't know what Hinjo would have done, but I think he would have had a larger posse covering his back (which he probably would have had, since he's much more popular).


So? She did those duties because they were just that, duty. She never showned any true concern.

This is my biggest complaint about the Miko bashers. EVERYTHING has to be re-explained as a lawful action. What exactly defines "true concern" anyways?


No repect for dignity means repect for their rights. Roy has the right to say that the doctor is annoying, he as the right to say whatever he wants. The doctor has the right to say whatever he wants to. But if the doctor says stuff that is boring and annoying, he should respect a negative response.

No, respect for their dignity is respect for their feelings. In real life (i.e.: not on these boards :smallwink:), I have the right to insult people, due to Freedom of Speech. Such rights do not necessarily exist in the OotS-verse. If I respected a person's dignity, however, I would not make light of various personal problems that they cannot change, like physical imperfections, or uncontrolled bodily functions, or stuff that they could, but would be insulting to bring it up, especially over and over again. If a disabled person is proud, I will not insult their dignity by picking them up and carrying them until I am asked to (unless we are in mortal danger, in which case, screw dignity).


1. He didn't hear
2. He didn't care, as that might keep it from hurting him
Does he even know what a flump is? If they were not a comitic gag, maybe it would be different.

A flumph is a lawful good abberation (from an outdated sourcebook). He might not know that it was, but the thing was moaning in pain, plus he got off the original Flumph he landed on to step on the other one (so he didn't avoid stepping on a living creature, or a creature he might have thought was dead). But if he did do it to "keep it from hurting him" them it further shows that Roy isn't the greatest judge of character, since the thing wouldn't attack him under normal circumstances anyways.


Ok two points
1. Now your going back on yourself. You protect miko for activly treating OOTS badly in response to their rudness (rudness rightly deserved i would point out) but attack Roy for talking about possible hurting a guy for extreme unwarrented trickery?
2. Look at what the freaky weapon dealer did? After that treatment, i would be rude to. Roy did not however really hurt him. He simple threated to, and never really made any sign of following that up.

No, I'm pointing out the double standard being employed. Miko thumbs her nose at people for not living up to her standards, and she's total and utter and complete and unforgiveable scum. Roy threatens people who annoy him with bodily harm (weapon dealer, the Oracle, and with a bit of a stretch, the goblin teens), and he's comparatively a moral paragon.


Where has he hurt any NPC with a dangerous weapon? Unlike Miko

He's threatened to (Weapon Dealer, the Oracle since he didn't use a weapon to threaten him, merely falling damage). Furthermore, properly define NPC within the context in your argument, because every monster and person (goblins, ogres, giant snake things, the hangman, etc) does qualify in that defition. Even with that nitpick out of the way, there was that room full of sleeping goblins he coup-des-grace'd. Helpless creatures they are when sleeping.


Good for her, so did the OOTS' loot. But Miko accused them of greed for it. Good for Miko, she learned how to be a zealot.

She lived a very secluded and minimalistic life. She doesn't have a big imagination as to why people would be hauling large quantities of money around, save for the benefit of others or reward from a legitimate authority (207). When she found out they killed a dragon, she went bats*** over the prospect that they might have put down a good dragon. Granted, it could have been handled much better, but then she wouldn't be Miko.


Xykon's position tooks years of hared killing. Just doing work does not grant you moral superoity, though Miko would say different.

Not saying that it does, but tell me where she should give up powers over the Order, when her orders required her to bring them to AC.


But that does not allow her to treat them like crap.

No, the fact that they're annoying, callous, insulting, vindictive, and potentially psychotic is a much better one.


They didn't come to her, she came to them.

Not disagreeing with the idea that situation not lending itself to a helpful resolution. Both sides made many missteps along the way, and Miko may have made more, but sending Miko in the first place, or at least alone (you know, Aid Another rolls for Gather Information and Survival) was a colossal bugger-up on behalf of Shojo. She followed her orders under the basic belief that the orders were justified and had to be done, and did so to the best of her abilities.


1. She was respectful to Durkon because he was willing to allow her to walk over him. His relgion barred him from fighting back

She complimented him on his wisdom and trusted him enough to heal his leader despite the leader detecting as strongly evil (201 and 202), and was willing to trust his word that the Order was not trying to escape when they were 264.


2. Helping the peasents at no expence is a paladin's duty. She showned not signs of really caring

So she's part Vulcan. Not everyone is good at showing emotion.


3. Sending the food was a miltary desion. Logical. yet again, no real emotion. It is a miltary matter to send food to your bases.
All of her nice deeds simple followed the basic nessarity of being a paladin.

But they neither preclude her from having genuinely having them.

I'm not saying that she made a correct judgement about the inn situation, but at least of the situation was coloured by their incessant and remorseless gouging of her and as well as her upbringing.


This would be great, except for one thing... Roy is the Giant and you are not.

No, Roy is a character in his comic that occasionally serves as the Giant's mouthpiece. He has Roy be correct on some occasions, and be incorrect on others. Roy tried to find out about the next Gate Xykon was going to. The Giant obviously knew which Gate he was going to, but Roy didn't. Roy didn't figure out that he buggered up until Elan pointed it out, and then forgot promptly when the memory charm came into effect.


The Giant is telling us that V was smart enough to correctly analyze Miko and not be surprised by her actions. He therefore intended smart people to be able to predict Miko's Fall.

And V has also been wrong about people. Or does Belkar secretly harbour homoerotic about Elan and Shojo?


So, though there may be two ways to analyze a particular choice of actions, it is the one that includes her flaw that is actually correct. You see an action as altruistic and noble, but if it can be interpreted as guided by her Hubris, then no matter what she said or how she said it, the interpretation that includes her Hubris is the correct one; otherwise, tehre is no evidence to make V's analysis of Miko correct.

I don't disagree that she's flawed. But I don't think that she is incapable of doing good that isn't genuine. The first in the Watchtower arc gives me the impression that she does care for the lessers in the army.


Ultimately, Roy's analysis must be correct, because it is the Giant's analysis. Roy has been vindicated, over and over again, by the Giant. People insisted Roy should have talked to Miko instead of attacking her in #403, so the Giant placed Hinjo in the same situation and showed how useless talking to Miko was... vindicating Roy's choice to attack her. Roy's analysis that the sword was the correct choice was vindicated.

Or hadn't you noticed?

I don't think Roy was unjustified at attacking Miko. She went bats*** insane and was a clear and present danger to everyone. I supported his attack on her, and even the use of lethal force. I even thought the people who felt that Roy's verbal personal attacks were too mean were being silly.

However, I disagree with the notion that Roy is a perfect judge of character since he has repeatedly shown himself lacking in that department. Sure he was correct about Miko, especially at that point, but he was incorrect about a lot of other stuff. He misjudged Nale and his crew on two separate occasions (he travelled with him thinking he's a fellow adventurer, and he thought he could thwart Nale's plans in an hour and be back in time for supper, almost condemning Elan to dying in a Cliffport cell and Haley at the end of Nale's knife), he misjudged Haley and Belkar in their willingness to help random peasants (and V's unwillingness to), he misjudged Shojo in assuming he was totally senile, so until the comic proves the relevant individual correct, why should I rely on Roy or V as the total and absolute authorities on people?

Again, I cite her actions in the throne room as being unequivocably evil and the culmination of her many flaws. However, I don't think she doesn't have a genuine good bone in her body.

I think we've derailed this thread quite nicely, don't cha'll agree?

Man, all this over a comment that I felt Roy was talking out his ass at one point.

I don't think I'll make any more long posts, since I don't feel like spending an hour making a comment on a webcomic character, especially on something that's really off the original thread's topic.

[Kreistor]

However, I disagree with the notion that Roy is a perfect judge of character since he has repeatedly shown himself lacking in that department.

Oh, that's certainly true. He's not always correct... at least about what people will do in the future. Roy did not foresee Miko cutting Shogo down, so even there he gave her the benefit of the doubt until she drew her sword.

The ppoint here is that we have hindsight to look at what was happening. We may not have known Roy was right at the time the comic was written, but looking back we know Roy was.

The Giant does use his characters to speak to us. he rads these forums and he does respond to them. I doubt Hinjo's discussion with Miko in #404 was planned, for instance. He was WAY out of position to stop her. He was last seen on the Throne, on the far left behind Roy. Now he's ahead of Roy at Belkar? The big bone of contention on the forum at that time for Roy, at least, was whether attacking Miko was the correct decision. Many felt he should have tried to talk first. I can just see Rich reading all of that and pounding his palm to his forehead... ("They Just Don't Get It!").

And then deciding that he can vindicate Roy by placing Hinjo on the spot. He suddenly needs Hinjo up front, so poof he's there, despite the suspect movement of a grieving nephew away from his dead uncle.

That also explains #412. he hides it in the characters talking to each other, but that whole conversation with V claiming to not be surprised by Miko is the Giant talking to us. he is telling us that we were supposed to be able to see Miko's fall coming: he intended for us to see it. It was misinterpretation of Miko's motives that led people to the concept that Miko was some sort of ideal paladin.

So, no, I'm not saying that Roy is always right: he is clearly wrong in many cases.

What I am saying is that Roy, when he makes a leap of logic that confuses you, will turn out to be vindicated. This is often because the Giant writes such that he will justify Roy's actions to the Giant, without seeing that he is not always the best judge of whether something is justifiable.He justifies it to himself, but sometimes fail to put that justification clear and obvious in the strip. Now, I don't mind that: i like a comic that is challenging to predict. But I think the Giant has a problem with it sometimes, when things like Miko's true motivations are still being argued a couple months after she Fell and revealed them for everyone to see.

[NeonRonin]

THOR'S NOSTRILS, I can't believe this thread has gotten to the level of point-counterpoint posts that take up a screen and a half to read before moving on to the next one. Miko drew her weapon on an unarmed elder, HER LORD, and killed him. Evil Act. End of discussion.

[zeratul]

Hell Yes. SHES CRAZY I TELLS YA CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!

[Kreistor]

Uhm... I don't think anyone has disagreed with that sentiment in about two pages. We're stuck on a few other things that were side issues and minutiae.

[EvilElitest]

First off, I had fully admitted that she had done evil things in the throne room.

Funny, then why are you using this thread. You can start your own on Miko/Roy morally greatness


However, I was counterarguing a point. The post that I had originally posted to indicated that I felt Roy was talking out his ass when it came to analysing at least some issues regarding Miko, regarding whether or not she was good. I got a long tirade detailing a lot of stuff about her negative actions. I responded to that.
I will repeat myself, where was Roy wrong. Please don't make me disect the comic.



Need I remind you that Durkon was defending Belkar, who had killed a guard in cold blood, and whose handiwork they had all witnessed smeared all over a wall?
So? She attacked them for defending a defeated comrade. She does not have the right to jail them. But she lost all respect for Durkon when he countered her, because she can't admite she is wrong. She still has not


Coupled with the fact that Belkar had been seriously provoking her for some time prior to the encounter, it's not exactly condusive for rational thought.
So? After what she put Belkar though prior to his killing, i am surprised he showed this much restraint. OH i remember, because Roy stopped him.


It's the kind of thing that screws her over in the end, but acting as a law officer, she had to do what she could to bring a dangerous criminal down.
And she did, Belkar was defeated (Though he helped). A finishing blow was not needed, and attacking OOTS was not needed. She took the idea of being Judge, jury and prosecutioner upon herself then and when she killed Shojo.

Furthermore, she still respected Shojo despite the fact that he ordered her to not fight the Order at that point, despite her preconceived notions about them and how they were defending a man who had killed someone under her command and desecrated his corpse.
No she did not respect his orders. She obeyed them because she had too. If she repected his orders, she would not have threatened to kill them right afterwards. Also when Shojo directly disagreed with her, she did not give him the benifit of the doubt as Roy gave her, but took it upon herself to admister justice.


Mind providing a source? When did Haley and Elan try to save someone that would not come?
Oh looky here. What is this? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0238.html)
Oh, no haley. But OOTS none the less, trying to rescue the helpless while Haley and V try to help Roy. I would like to point out Roy sacerficed something very important to save Elan's life.




Need I remind you that the Horse has an intelligence above 2, and therefore is a sentient being, who is smart enough to acquire the services of a legal aid to impose a restraining order on someone who was actively threatening him?
So? Miko treats the horse bettetr than her fellow humans.


And I remind you they were annoying (Elan), insulting (V, Belkar), gouging (V, Haley), callous (V), threatening (Belkar), and of murderous intent (Belkar). Such a wonderful group of people to have to be stuck with. Yeah she treated them like crap, but don't act like they're not earning it to at least some degree.
Wait you say that OOTS, arrested in lands not controled by Azure city for a crime they did not knownly commit, attacked on sight, belittled and insulted by a stuck up paladin with a "Holier than thou" complex and treated like crimeals and heratics deserve their treatment but miko did not deserve being yelled out by Roy, even after he said sorry for what he did wrong? Yeah......


Then he wouldn't have found them. Miko was Azure City's best tracker, and she has only 1 rank in Survival.
Irelevant.


Furthermore, even if he did, he probably wouldn't have fought them by himself, because the Order would have taken him apart easily. Let's not forget that the Order and their dopplegangers cut a swath of misery in their paths, so the extreme prejudice that she lay into them wasn't exactly unwarranted. I don't know what Hinjo would have done, but I think he would have had a larger posse covering his back (which he probably would have had, since he's much more popular).
1. If Hinjo found them, he most likely would have approached them in a manner of "Innocent before proven guilty" rather than attacking on sight. Maybe saying calmly
"you have been acusse for blah blah blah. What do you plea?"
When Roy explains himself, respond
"I am sorry but we must take you to Azure city for trial. You shall be treated well and given a fair trial. I am sorry but we must assert you guilt."
Maybe talking instead of charging into with volience?


This is my biggest complaint about the Miko bashers. EVERYTHING has to be re-explained as a lawful action. What exactly defines "true concern" anyways?
And this is my biggest complaint about Miko followers, illogical delusions of Miko's surrpose grander. True concern is showing emotion in onese actions is showing emotions (concern, fear, worry, understanding, kindness, compassion ect) to those you help. Miko has never done that, she simple does it because that is her job


No, respect for their dignity is respect for their feelings. In real life (i.e.: not on these boards :smallwink:), I have the right to insult people, due to Freedom of Speech. Such rights do not necessarily exist in the OotS-verse. If I respected a person's dignity, however, I would not make light of various personal problems that they cannot change, like physical imperfections, or uncontrolled bodily functions, or stuff that they could, but would be insulting to bring it up, especially over and over again. If a disabled person is proud, I will not insult their dignity by picking them up and carrying them until I am asked to (unless we are in mortal danger, in which case, screw dignity).
And Miko never showed any respect for ether their feelings or their rights.


A flumph is a lawful good abberation (from an outdated sourcebook). He might not know that it was, but the thing was moaning in pain, plus he got off the original Flumph he landed on to step on the other one (so he didn't avoid stepping on a living creature, or a creature he might have thought was dead). But if he did do it to "keep it from hurting him" them it further shows that Roy isn't the greatest judge of character, since the thing wouldn't attack him under normal circumstances anyways.
Reread the comic
1. Roy did not land on the flumph on purpose. He simple fell on it
2. When the flumph asked for hi to get off, he was yelling at Elan for nearly killing him (because Roy stayed behind to protect him
In the next panal, you notice he is no longer on it.


No, I'm pointing out the double standard being employed. Miko thumbs her nose at people for not living up to her standards, and she's total and utter and complete and unforgiveable scum. Roy threatens people who annoy him with bodily harm (weapon dealer, the Oracle, and with a bit of a stretch, the goblin teens), and he's comparatively a moral paragon.
Miko has killed an innocent, Roy never did. As for Roys actions
1. Weapon's dealer, minor threat that he was not going to follow up, joke
2. Oracle, can't say we did not see the whole story.
3. Goblins teens is far to much of a strech
4. Roy, unlike Miko never claimed to be a moral paragon, he just burst the ego bubble of those who do.


He's threatened to (Weapon Dealer, the Oracle since he didn't use a weapon to threaten him, merely falling damage).
No, he did not threaten the weapons dealer with a wepaon, he just made an empty threat. I mean come one, what kind of sadistcal pyton weapons dealer puts a customer though that.


Furthermore, properly define NPC within the context in your argument, because every monster and person (goblins, ogres, giant snake things, the hangman, etc) does qualify in that defition.
Please say you are joking? This is a satire.


Even with that nitpick out of the way, there was that room full of sleeping goblins he coup-des-grace'd. Helpless creatures they are when sleeping.
Who were going to attack V before they went to sleep. Him killing them is just like attacking Miko. Not exalted, but not evil.


She lived a very secluded and minimalistic life. She doesn't have a big imagination as to why people would be hauling large quantities of money around, save for the benefit of others or reward from a legitimate authority (207). When she found out they killed a dragon, she went bats*** over the prospect that they might have put down a good dragon. Granted, it could have been handled much better, but then she wouldn't be Miko.
So she is a judgemental nut case. What's you point?


Not saying that it does, but tell me where she should give up powers over the Order, when her orders required her to bring them to AC.
Bring them alive, not attack them on sight.


No, the fact that they're annoying, callous, insulting, vindictive, and potentially psychotic is a much better one.
But they are not forcing their company on her, it is visa versa


Not disagreeing with the idea that situation not lending itself to a helpful resolution. Both sides made many missteps along the way, and Miko may have made more, but sending Miko in the first place, or at least alone (you know, Aid Another rolls for Gather Information and Survival) was a colossal bugger-up on behalf of Shojo. She followed her orders under the basic belief that the orders were justified and had to be done, and did so to the best of her abilities.
I'll agree with you her, why did Shojo send Miko?


She complimented him on his wisdom and trusted him enough to heal his leader despite the leader detecting as strongly evil (201 and 202), and was willing to trust his word that the Order was not trying to escape when they were 264.
Only after her smite evil worked (note, she attacked them on sight when told not to) And when Durkon did not agree with her? "I'll defeat you a third time. Make peace with your gods northerners!"


So she's part Vulcan. Not everyone is good at showing emotion.
More like a sociapath. What is there to show other than anger arrogence and hubris.


But they neither preclude her from having genuinely having them.
Nothing show that she truely cares about anyone other than those who agree with her.

I'm not saying that she made a correct judgement about the inn situation, but at least of the situation was coloured by their incessant and remorseless gouging of her and as well as her upbringing.
She left out the assassin.


No, Roy is a character in his comic that occasionally serves as the Giant's mouthpiece. He has Roy be correct on some occasions, and be incorrect on others. Roy tried to find out about the next Gate Xykon was going to. The Giant obviously knew which Gate he was going to, but Roy didn't. Roy didn't figure out that he buggered up until Elan pointed it out, and then forgot promptly when the memory charm came into effect.
roy is a mouth piece when he is naming options, like worst way to play LG. He is wrong at times when the plot demands, like finding the wrong gate.


And V has also been wrong about people. Or does Belkar secretly harbour homoerotic about Elan and Shojo?
But V was not wrong her, that is why he is saying.


I don't disagree that she's flawed. But I don't think that she is incapable of doing good that isn't genuine. The first in the Watchtower arc gives me the impression that she does care for the lessers in the army.
Sure she can do good. So could belkar.


I don't think Roy was unjustified at attacking Miko. She went bats*** insane and was a clear and present danger to everyone. I supported his attack on her, and even the use of lethal force. I even thought the people who felt that Roy's verbal personal attacks were too mean were being silly.
Wait, the what are you trying to do on this thread?


However, I disagree with the notion that Roy is a perfect judge of character since he has repeatedly shown himself lacking in that department. Sure he was correct about Miko, especially at that point, but he was incorrect about a lot of other stuff. He misjudged Nale and his crew on two separate occasions (he travelled with him thinking he's a fellow adventurer, and he thought he could thwart Nale's plans in an hour and be back in time for supper, almost condemning Elan to dying in a Cliffport cell and Haley at the end of Nale's knife), he misjudged Haley and Belkar in their willingness to help random peasants (and V's unwillingness to), he misjudged Shojo in assuming he was totally senile, so until the comic proves the relevant individual correct, why should I rely on Roy or V as the total and absolute authorities on people?
Some of his tatics where wrong, but very few of his options. And roy does not claim to be a saint.


Again, I cite her actions in the throne room as being unequivocably evil and the culmination of her many flaws. However, I don't think she doesn't have a genuine good bone in her body.
Nether do I, but it does not excuse hte fact taht she commited an evil act, and that can be judged by her pass expereinces


I think we've derailed this thread quite nicely, don't cha'll agree?
Well friend, we have done our duty in spreading hatred between the two miko factions. I might get a promotione.:smallsmile:

Man, all this over a comment that I felt Roy was talking out his ass at one point.
Start a new thread.


I don't think I'll make any more long posts, since I don't feel like spending an hour making a comment on a webcomic character, especially on something that's really off the original thread's topic.

Well i got the last word. Horray.
from,
EE

[MReav]

If you want, we can take this to PMs and not derail the thread further (though honestly, I'd rather just say my piece and agree to disagree). I'm going to state that I don't think Miko was all bad (before killing Shojo), and that Roy wasn't totally correct in analyzing her about her not being good (which was my original post and point, with her concern for the peasants, her concern for the Innkeeper, her concern for the Watchtower guards, her concern for the sentient being Windstriker, and her concern for Azure City when Xykon is watching her on the Teevo, [the latter two showing emotions of some kind what with the eyes], as primary counter examples to the idea that Roy has totally and correctly analyzed Miko in his accusation. Yeah she was borderline, but I can't say that she was only good because she had to0. You want an example of that, find someone who claims that s/he's only Lawful Good to fulfill the alignment requirements of the class)


Also, Miko's aligment is most likely LN by now. Her general manner, as pointed out by Roy is not LG. She has walked a fine line up until now, but finally fell when she killed an innocent person. Count that up with all of her actions before hand, the scale tips and i say she would be LN, maybe LE (Don't think so but maybe).
from,
EE

[Innis Cabal]

well this thread has gone crazy...

[J_Muller]

Yes. The Gods spoke.

[MReav]

well this thread has gone crazy...

Don't worry, it won't be long before someone makes a comparison to Nazism or Hitler (for instance, how this thread can be long and boring, like Hitler's speeches are for those who don't speak German or any comparable language), and loses because of Godwin's Law.

Ah boop! :smalltongue:

[Kreistor]

I've said my piece and don't need to continue, but if someone wants to, just post a new thread with Miko in the title. It'll attract my notice sooner or later.

[shadowkire]

THOR'S NOSTRILS, I can't believe this thread has gotten to the level of point-counterpoint posts that take up a screen and a half to read before moving on to the next one. Miko drew her weapon on an unarmed elder, HER LORD, and killed him. Evil Act. End of discussion.

plus she broke her oath to protect the gate on the throne.

[shadowkire]

Don't worry, it won't be long before someone makes a comparison to Nazism or Hitler (for instance, how this thread can be long and boring, like Hitler's speeches are for those who don't speak German or any comparable language), and loses because of Godwin's Law.

Ah boop! :smalltongue:

(because I like to argue)
I had heard that Hitler's speeches were exiting, to the point where (From the mouths of historians and history teachers) "women actually had orgasms listeming to him talk"

[Frank]

I read too much not to respond to this thread.

The best thing said so far, other than the debate proving why the throne room events were a sequence of chaotic and evil acts, is the fact that Miko's personal belief structure had been twisted by a tragic flaw: Hubris.

Yes, a character's alignment (as opposed to Alignment itself) was constructed in an Aristotlean way: it is the predisposition of a character based on a constant nurturing of the will to act within certain matters most of the time.

The problem with Miko? She had been nursing her will based on unlawful a priori principles, the main (and perhaps, the only principle necessary) being "I am special!"

An LG character who believes they are special will not stay LG for long. Why?

Because while they're LG within themselves, they are fallible, and their LG is not the same as the absolute Alignment of the Gods.

Miko was thrown into a situation where the Paladin Code and Shojo were put into question...and these two entities were the only two entities that had kept Miko from having her twisted interpretation of LG stray from the God's definition of LG. So, as could have been predicted by V, Miko committed an evil act that made her fall, thanks to hubris, which distorted her version of LG, but not the Gods.

She had been an LG in action, and therefore an LG in the Gods' eyes. But inside of her, her disposition had changed, or had been for a long time, that of someone who held herself above the Law, and above Good...she had the trigger that, when pulled, could make her commit any act, including a Chaotic Evil one. Thus, though she lived by a code for a long time, when that code seemed threatened, her first choice was to abandon that code altogether. What does that mean?

She had never embodied the code, never internalized it for herself. She had followed it blindly. Why? She allowed it to give her purpose, rather than her finding as purpose within the code. The Code of the Sapphire Guard allowed Miko to believe she was special, so she never questioned it, not even so much as found out why she should stand by it.

Clearly, Hinjo took the Code to heart, embodied it. Miko never learned enough about herself to change the way she viewed the world. And you know what? She's a total social failure.

How will she be able to tell the difference between Good and Evil without Detect Evil? She can't infer anything from anyone...she never had to. She just intimidated them, used the law to guilt others, or used her Paladin Powers to determine truth. Now she's on her own and she has to FIND the truth.

PROBLEM!!!!!!!! She has never had to do that, never had to deal with deception. And the one time she did? A.) It was handed to her on a plate (she overheard it.) B.) She committed a string of Chaotic Evil acts, enraged.

That's why, unless she gets a therapist, and a couple of drinking buddies willing to take part in some team building exercises with her, she's screwed. She has no intuition, no social skills, and no way to discern fact from fiction, chaos from order, good from evil. All she had was a Code and that's proven meaningless. She never developed her own discourse within the code, only to follow it. Now she's skillless, powerless and hopeless.

See Miko in Rich Burlew's fictional Hell.

-Frank

[pendell]

When I look at Miko, I am reminded of a pair of Nietzsche quotes:

""Distrust everyone in whom the impulse to punish is powerful.""
-- Also Sprach Zarathustra, Chapter 29

And also ...

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

----
Both of those little aphorisms fit Miko to a T.

Now, Nietzsche and I are polar opposites on almost everything, but I think he has a point here. Which is, that "hating evil" is still hatred, and a person who becomes consumed with hatred -- even of evil -- can himself become a very evil creature.

And I think that's the path Miko is walking down.

And I think the answer is found in the belief system Nietzsche rejected as weak: That the essence of "good" is love, compassion for others and for the weak. That one must learn to have mercy upon not only the deserving but also on the undeserving, and to show love (if possible) even to one's enemies. Failure to do so can change the crusader against evil into a very avatar of vengence, and in doing so to put on the anger, rage, wrath and other attributes until one has become the very thing one swore to destroy.

Evil can be many things, but in my mind one form of evil is a crusade against evil taken to an extreme without any counterbalancing compassion or mercy. Such a crusade is one of vengeance, and the end result can be worse than the original evil.

And that, I fear, is Miko's weakness. As far as I can tell, she has no compassion or mercy for others. And because of this, unless something changes, she is fated to become a Fury, a goddess of vengence, of anger and rage and despair.

But hey, at least she'll look good in black leather :)

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Ave]

Random slaughter for no reason at all is CN (and insanity). Random slaughter because you want to kill people is CE.

Miko wants to kill people, any people.
And she really looks for a reason, any reason.

[SteveMB]

This would be great, except for one thing... Roy is the Giant and you are not.

412 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0412.html)

So, why did the giant make this comic? The first section about Miko doesn't really do anything, but it's there nonetheless.

The Giant is telling us that V was smart enough to correctly analyze Miko and not be surprised by her actions. He therefore intended smart people to be able to predict Miko's Fall.

Thus, no matter how you spin Miko's actions, ultimately, the Giant intended a smart person's analysis to result in noticing that Miko was flawed and would predictably Fall.
Odd, I thought that Vaarsuvius was simply expressing his long (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0220.html)-established (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0221.html) dislike (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0246.html) of Miko.

[Greebo]

Miko wants to kill people, any people.
And she really looks for a reason, any reason.
No, I don't think thats supportable by the actual events of the comic.

[Kreistor]

No, I don't think thats supportable by the actual events of the comic.

It's closer to the truth than many interpretations.

Even with all of the evidence against the OotS's involvement in evil acts, Miko deludes herself into thinking they are agents of evil.

She finds it hard to believe that Elan has an evil twin, but only goes with it for the time being. But look, he's standing right next to her right now, so does she give any credit to Elan? No, she's still convinced she has to kill the OotS.

The OotS couldn't have been involved in Shojo's plot... but obviously they are involved.

Miko creates justification to kill anyone that she thinks should die, regardless of evidence against them.

His statement is not always true, but it is true often.

[Greebo]

It's closer to the truth than many interpretations.
I'm no Miko defender, but no, that isn't.

Look at it again:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2270614#post2270614) Miko wants to kill people, any people.
And she really looks for a reason, any reason.


She wants to eliminate Evil, yes. However, she does not demonstrate a desire to kill just *anyone*, only evil people. In her early introduction, she interviews the flumphs, she doesn't kill them. She kills the Sorceress and her dad, but they initiated combat. She AIDS the mud farmers and the innocent citizens in the inn.

If the above quote were at all true, none of the examples I've cited would have occurred in the method that they did.


Even with all of the evidence against the OotS's involvement in evil acts, Miko deludes herself into thinking they are agents of evil.

They are not "any people" for "any reason". She has a history with them that biases her view, badly.


She finds it hard to believe that Elan has an evil twin, but only goes with it for the time being. But look, he's standing right next to her right now, so does she give any credit to Elan? No, she's still convinced she has to kill the OotS.
I think you're drawing conclusions that aren't supported. So far I don't think she's really noticed Nale, and since Nale and Elan look alike now (no goatee). She's snapped Sabine's neck (very violent indeed) but she has not reacted to Nale at all. Nor do we know her conclusions post-fall as to what she has to do next.


The OotS couldn't have been involved in Shojo's plot... but obviously they are involved.
Sure, she's nutso. But she's not out to kill anyone for any reason.


Miko creates justification to kill anyone that she thinks should die, regardless of evidence against them.
Here, we agree - but this is not anywhere close to the same as wanting to kill any people, for any reason. She forms opinions that are rigid and inflexible, and then builds her opinions with self-delusion to the point that she justifies killing unjustly, but if her initial opinion is *good*, she does not look for ways to justify killing them.


His statement is not always true, but it is true often.
No, its only loosely true for the OotS, and they are not any people, and it is not for any reason, so the statement still is unsupportable.

She has very specific reasons for killing them. They're very flawed, but they're specific.

[EvilElitest]

well this thread has gone crazy...

Reread the title. It was crazy to start with
from,
EE

[Baalzebub]

Unholly Molley, those are large replies! please, let this thread die for once!

[EvilElitest]

Unholly Molley, those are large replies! please, let this thread die for once!

Hey cut Miko whorshipers some slack. This is their last stand. The final point. The grasping of the straws. At this point all logic and easy answer solutions are throw a side for last ditch desperate efforts to prove a point that by proven it they would have destroyed what they like about it. It is like the Confiederates recuiting black soilders during the last stages of the Cival war. We win here we have complete victory until Rich proves one of us otherwise. For them it is all or nothing.
from,
EE

[MReav]

Dude, stop acting all melodramatic.

Besides, as they say, "The Mik shall inherit the Earth":smallbiggrin:

[EvilElitest]

Look at the title of the thread, do you think i can even attempt to act serios. I'm not insulting everyone who likes miko. I like miko
But I like her as a character. I think she is a very good idea of a Paladin played wrong. And the paladin played wrong falls.
So making a thread that says "No, she did not commit evil dispite all the overwhelming evidience saying otherwise" is simple comical. I can't say for everyone else, but if it turned out miko was right then a major part of the character would be lost. The part of her being the worst way to play a paladin.
So forgive me, but i can't act in a straight faced manner on such a topic. If one is a member of the miko fan club, just sit back and relax. Watch until Rich shows what he intends to do with Miko, because she will not simple fad out of existence. She'll do dumb things, she will fall more, she will cause more annoyence to OOTS and be a general antagoist. She will become more evil, and hopefullly she will realize where she was wrong and come back.
from,
EE

[MReav]

Yeah, this thread title is utterly ridiculous. Miko bleedin' well hacked a helpless old man in cold blood and attacked a former ally providing absolution.

The last few pages that involved huge posts, however, was largely a result of the two of us disagreeing over something Roy said well before the incident.

And yes, Rich did mention she's an example of the Lawful Awful stereotype.

[EvilElitest]

so, as i have mentioned quite a few times before, what are we arguing about. Hell, derailing it got more done
from,
EE

[Kreistor]

We win here we have complete victory until Rich proves one of us otherwise. For them it is all or nothing.

Win? That implies there's some chance we might lose. This isn't a contest. The truth is or is not, it isn't maybe one or the other, if we can talk long and loud enough. The reality isn't really debatable... we are right about it or wrong about it, but there's no victory in being right, just the state of being right.

A contest implies two equally possible end results where competition can determine either one the final solution. That's not true here. We're right or wrong, but debate doesn't prove either case... only time and evidence.

[shadowkire]

Win? That implies there's some chance we might lose. This isn't a contest. The truth is or is not, it isn't maybe one or the other, if we can talk long and loud enough. The reality isn't really debatable... we are right about it or wrong about it, but there's no victory in being right, just the state of being right.

A contest implies two equally possible end results where competition can determine either one the final solution. That's not true here. We're right or wrong, but debate doesn't prove either case... only time and evidence.

I agree with the statement that this arguement can't be won or lost.
The arguement is over the question that is the title of this thread, any answer alone is opinionated, add in that evil is subjective and you get an arguement over a topic that is impossible to "win". The best you can hope for from this thread is that you can convince people that you are right and other people are wrong.

[Kreistor]

Miko wants to kill people, any people.
And she really looks for a reason, any reason.


It's closer to the truth than many interpretations.


Miko creates justification to kill anyone that she thinks should die, regardless of evidence against them.


Here, we agree - but this is not anywhere close to the same as wanting to kill any people, for any reason. She forms opinions that are rigid and inflexible, and then builds her opinions with self-delusion to the point that she justifies killing unjustly, but if her initial opinion is *good*, she does not look for ways to justify killing them.

Okay, obviously you missed that I said, "Closer to the truth than most people".

You agree that (paraphrased) "Miko wants to kill some people and she looks for any reason that she can invent."

That is not far from "Miko wants to kill any people for any reason."

What I said was he was closer to the truth than many. Too many can't even see Miko has always manipulated reality to conform to her desires, and so think that her Fall was just a minor glitch. He is closer to the truth than them.

[kialos]

Anyway, back to the subject.

Miko Did comitted an evil act even If she was competely fooled by chance. Killing an Innocent is evil no matter if you're aware their innocent or not. It might make it easier for her to be redeemed if she realises how stupid she's being. But it doesn't seem so likely since she tends to enjoy the thought of hurting people. No matter that she only act that way towards people she deems "evil." Which may be a hint into her personality. Anyone who disagrees with her gets on her shi...um, smite list fairly quickly.

Though I will say that the debate is enjoyable as long as both sides are civil.

[EvilElitest]

Win? That implies there's some chance we might lose. This isn't a contest. The truth is or is not, it isn't maybe one or the other, if we can talk long and loud enough. The reality isn't really debatable... we are right about it or wrong about it, but there's no victory in being right, just the state of being right.

A contest implies two equally possible end results where competition can determine either one the final solution. That's not true here. We're right or wrong, but debate doesn't prove either case... only time and evidence.

As the comic goes on, the radical Miko lovers will have less to ague with. If Rich writes something else and Miko's morality becomes even more blurred, then this threads will go on.

And how is being right not a victory. Yes i admit that it is hard to judge what is right and waht is wrong, but to a limited extend it could be considere a victory.
And example would be is somebody spread a rumor that i was bald and i proved him wrong by showing him i an not bald, i would make him look quite silly and have victory over a nasty rumor. It gets more complacated in some cases, but to an extent. The irony of this argument is that while you can reply, nether one of us can prove any point, and thus being right is impossible in this arugement.
from,
EE

[Kreistor]

And how is being right not a victory.

Because you can never "win", only give the appearance of winning. A good debater can argue anything and prove it right, regardless of reality, if the opponent is a poor debater, despite being right. So, ultimately, debating proves nothing, whether you consider yourself the victor or not. There is always a doubt in the audience over whether you were right, because you may have merely been a better debater than the opponent and proven a falsehood.

[EvilElitest]

Because you can never "win", only give the appearance of winning. A good debater can argue anything and prove it right, regardless of reality, if the opponent is a poor debater, despite being right. So, ultimately, debating proves nothing, whether you consider yourself the victor or not. There is always a doubt in the audience over whether you were right, because you may have merely been a better debater than the opponent and proven a falsehood.

So? I know a good debater can argue anything and prove it right regardless of facts. I have argued the most retared things and "proven them right". It is the apperence of right. In reality of course, their is no such thing of truly right or wrong, just a really high percent. So it is a victory because i have the apperence of fact. I'll admit that fact and victory don't go hand in hand. But back on topic, if rich shows more evidience of Miko falling, then it will be harder for miko worshipers to defend her. Same if Rich shows her in a good light. My point is that this thread simple a last stand for really radical miko lovers, while the more mild ones like myself are fine knowing that she has fallen as was intended
from,
EE

[Milandros]

Gah. Evil. Yes.

Come on guys, I know we all love the image of the sexy kung-fu chick, but there are limits - when people look like they're on the edge of arguing that the OoTS is truly evil, and so was Shojo, and so was Hinjo for trying to stop her, and the OoTS probably really were conspiring with Shojo and Xykon to overthrow Azure City.... just don't pick up any swords, guys, please?

Murder, treason, betrayal, hubris, attempted murder, resisting lawful arrest with deadly force, etc etc etc.

Being deluded is not an excuse.

Someone murders their wife because they are convinced that she must be having an affair and will therefore try to poison him, because she left the house and went shopping the other day and came back with milk, so that's proof! He shows no other evidence of mania or dementia or of being functionally incapable of reason. Is the murder of his wife an evil act? Or is nothing done for any reason other than "Buwahahahaha! I want to do evil!" ever evil? Is the attempted genocide of a race not evil if the one committing genocide believes that the race is naturally inferior and has spent centuries undermining and oppressing his own race? Is a child molester not committing evil acts if he truly believes that it's ok and that children are sexual beings?
There is of course a certain element of relativism in defining good and evil, but I reject the concept that it goes to the point that nothing done for any reason other than the desire to be eeeeviiilllll is evil.

The gods of good decided that it was an evil act.

Most of all, the DM decided it was an evil act.

Give it up. She's still an interesting character, and will probably be even more interesting as a full-on antagonist. After all, we like Thog, and Xykon, and Redcloak, and nale and crew, and they're evil too.

[Guancyto]

Thoroughly evil, and not even for the reasons continually cited (though those are also good reasons).

Even if killing good people while deluded that they're evil isn't bad, even if the apologetics were correct in their arguments of subjective morality?

Miko knew better.

Look at it. She took one look at Redcloak and said 'oh snap, the Gate is in danger.' Then Xykon waltzed in, obviously in league with this scheming Bearer of the Red Mantle and revealed he's going to attack Azure City.

Miko knew, perfectly well. Right. There. What the game was. She knew Redcloak + army + Gate = gate go 'splodey.

What did she kill Shojo for? 'Army of hobgoblins to kill the nobles and make a reign of terror?' The hot kung-fu chick knew the universe was at stake and she killed the guy over politics? And what's more, if he was in league with Xykon, he would know what was at stake and, well, wouldn't be in league with Xykon. Miko knew that.

And as Hinjo showed right afterward, she also knew it didn't actually make any sense. But she did it anyway. Evil act.

[pjackson]

Miko was Azure City's best tracker

Do you have any evidence for that statement?
I don't think there is any in the strip.

Miko said she would not have been chosen to find the OOTS if she did not have the feat, but made no claim to be a better tracker than others.
I don't think we even know that she is the best tracker amongst the Paladins.
Hinjo might even be a better tracker. It is quite possible that he has a level or two of aristocrat and survival is a class skill for aristocrats.
Shojo may well have been a far better tracker than Miko for that matter.

Regarding the thread topic, of course Miko committed an evil act. She had no Good reason to kill Shojo.

[LCR]

She's not good! She's become evil! Her Paladin-hood is no more! She has ceased to be associated with the right! She's fallen and been rejected by her god! She's done evil! Bereft of good, she's a paladin no longer! If Hinjo hadn't been lenient she'd be pushing up the daisies! Her metaphysical processes are now 'evil! She's jumped the shark! She's kicked the good habit, she's shuffled off her holy nature, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir of evil!! THIS IS AN EX-PALADIN!!

Actually, it's an ex-parrot ...

[Drekkan]

Do you have any evidence for that statement?
I don't think there is any in the strip.

Miko said she would not have been chosen to find the OOTS if she did not have the feat, but made no claim to be a better tracker than others.
I don't think we even know that she is the best tracker amongst the Paladins.
Hinjo might even be a better tracker. It is quite possible that he has a level or two of aristocrat and survival is a class skill for aristocrats.
Shojo may well have been a far better tracker than Miko for that matter.

Regarding the thread topic, of course Miko committed an evil act. She had no Good reason to kill Shojo.

In fact, isn't the fact that she frequently gets sent on long missions away from home more due to her personality then anything else?

265 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0265.html) seems to indicate so.

[Tokiko Mima]

This one’s been puzzling me for a while, when Miko killed Lord Shojo (and indeed her actions previous to that) did she ever violate the good part of her alignment?

Before anyone brings up the fact she’s fallen, killing Lord Shojo was inherently a chaotic act, but it’s possible to have a chaotic good assassin.

Basically it boils down to – are alignment violations determined by absolute truth, or by the perspective of the character.

From Miko’s personal (crazy, warped and twisted) perspective, all of her actions have been good. She believed that she had divine and secular authority over the OotS, hence forcing them to Azure City, in chains when they resisted, was both the lawful and the good thing to do. Killing Belkar and indeed, killing Lord Shojo (assuming he actually was an evil despot corrupting the sapphire guard and using them to advance an evil agenda), on the other hand are both good things, but not lawful.

However, from an absolute perspective, arresting tOotS was unlawful (she and indeed Shojo had no actual authority or jurisdiction) and possibly an evil one (that’s dubious, but some interpretations of LE allow for blindly following the letter of the law with no thought to the spirit or the consequences as LE rather than LN), killing Belkar is still a chaotic good act (even if he’s unarmed and defenseless, it’s still removing a major source of evil from the world) but killing Lord Shojo is a chaotic evil act.

I’m tending towards the personal perspective interpretation, but that completely rules out the possibility of Miko in a black chainmail bikini when she becomes a blackguard.

Killing an unarmed innocent is an evil act. Killing your liege lord is possibly a chaotic act. Lord Shojo was both.

Chaotic/Lawful actions are based more on the personal perspective of the character in question. As long as you're defending the law, you can do things that seem chaotic and not worry about shifting that way. Adventurers are practically all about taking the law into their own hands, anyway.

Good/Evil acts are based more on the reality of the situation. If you kill a human baby that someone had disguised as a demon, that's an Evil act. It doesn't matter that you thought you were doing Good. Likewise, if you intentionally murder a child that was actually a polymorphed demon, then you've commited a Good act whether you knew beforehand or not.

[Kreistor]

As long as you're defending the law, you can do things that seem chaotic and not worry about shifting that way.

"Lawful" is not "legal". Lawful is about acting according to a code of behavior, not a legal document. In Miko's case, she swore to uphold the traditions of the Sapphire Guard, which I'm fairly certain includes not killing the Leader of the Sapphire Guard at whim. By violating her code, she commited a chaotic act.


Good/Evil acts are based more on the reality of the situation. If you kill a human baby that someone had disguised as a demon, that's an Evil act. It doesn't matter that you thought you were doing Good.

Intent is also a component of Good and Evil. The person did not intend to kill a baby: he intended to stop a world destroying malovolent being. If you are fooled in such a way into commiting such an act, it should not be changing your alignment, because it was not a willing act. Your crime was being fooled into killing a baby, not murder. A paladin, for instance, does not fall unless she "willingly" commits an evil act. In this case, the paladin was not willing, and does not change alignments, so she would not fall.

[Tokiko Mima]

"Lawful" is not "legal". Lawful is about acting according to a code of behavior, not a legal document. In Miko's case, she swore to uphold the traditions of the Sapphire Guard, which I'm fairly certain includes not killing the Leader of the Sapphire Guard at whim. By violating her code, she commited a chaotic act.

This would be the case, but she believed those traditions were violated by Lord Shojo first, thereby nullifying any protection he may have enjoyed. Laws and traditions do not protect traitors or criminals. Miko is well within her rights to protect the Sapphire guard from a leader plotting it's downfall.


Intent is also a component of Good and Evil. The person did not intend to kill a baby: he intended to stop a world destroying malovolent being. If you are fooled in such a way into commiting such an act, it should not be changing your alignment, because it was not a willing act. Your crime was being fooled into killing a baby, not murder. A paladin, for instance, does not fall unless she "willingly" commits an evil act. In this case, the paladin was not willing, and does not change alignments, so she would not fall.

Killing an innocent baby that someone had disguised as an evil monster may not be a "willing" Evil act, but it is an Evil act. It's still murder, only with mitigating circumstances. Just because you're tricked into a crime doesn't completely absolve you of your part in that crime. Your intent is irrelevant because good intentions can very often lead to bad results, and it's the results that matter on the good/evil axis.

If you're arguing Paladin standards, then I'm going to have to state that Miko's case is different from my example in one crucial way. While in the baby example the subject is unaware that they are commiting an evil act (due to the deception) in Miko's case she was well aware that she was killing an defenseless, elderly and unarmed man. She just convinced herself that it was for the "greater good," and her conviction doesn't matter when weighing the Good/Evil of the act itself, only in the "willingness" portion.

A single act also does not change your alignment, willing or not. You must show a commitment to your new alignment. Miko has never displayed any such commitment to Evil or Chaos, and in fact can often be accused of overzealousness in being Lawful Good.

[Porthos]

. A paladin, for instance, does not fall unless she "willingly" commits an evil act.

AIUI, one of the reasons (if not the main reason) that the cause of a Paladin's Fall was changed from "commits an evil act" to "willingly commits an evil act" was that one of the favorite Blood Sports of Sadistic DMs was the Dominate Paladin game. That is, "Hey... Let's screw over the Paladin. Round One of combat, the evil NPC spellcaster casts Domination on the Paladin. Save versus Spells, Buddy. Oh you fail?? Too Bad. Time to attack you fellow party members while swearing oaths to Dark Powers. Yeah, yeah, you get another save. Oh you fail again? Just not your day, is it...

And oh yeah, kick that puppy while you're at it. :smallamused: "

A rather large segment of the DnD playing base loudly, and for a long time, decried that it wasn't fair that their Paladins could be punished for actions that were out of their control. And so it was finally changed. So in this case, "willingly" means "did out of your own free will" and not (at least as far as I am concerned) "I really thought what I did was right, therefore I didn't willingly commit evil."

The Baby Disguised as a Demon is one of those classic Paladin Dilemmas (along with the other classics: The Orc Baby or The Surrendering Ubervillian Miles Away From Civilized Society). And, when it comes right down to it, just another variation of the never ending debate on just what is willfully evil behavior. And one I don't expect to be settled to everyones satisfaction for a long, long time. :smallbiggrin:

[NOTE: This might be why "Paladin Fall" debates have intensified over the recent years. It was hard enough to get everyone to get on the same page on the whole, "is this a good or evil act". It became much harder when you injected "willful" into the equation.

While it got rid of, justifiably IMO, the "Screw with Paladins because they were being mentally controlled", it added the whole, "But I didn't knooooow I was doing evil. It was an aaaacident. I shouldn't Fall because I didn't know," element.

Was the trade-off worth it? In most cases I think so. But when I hear people repeatedly, and against all logic, try to justify Miko's actions, I start to doubt my position. :smallbiggrin:]

[SteveMB]

So in this case, "willingly" means "did out of your own free will" and not (at least as far as I am concerned) "I really thought what I did was right, therefore I didn't willingly commit evil."
Why am I reminded of Belkar's conversation with the guard in On The Origin Of PCs? ("In this context, 'guilty' means that you committed the crime, not that you feel guilt.") :smallsmile:

[MReav]

Do you have any evidence for that statement?
I don't think there is any in the strip.

I thought I saw Shojo mention that. I was wrong.

Of course, the real easy thing to have done was just have Eugene cast Sending. Which is why I'm convinced he's barred from Evocations.

[EvilElitest]

This would be the case, but she believed those traditions were violated by Lord Shojo first, thereby nullifying any protection he may have enjoyed. Laws and traditions do not protect traitors or criminals. Miko is well within her rights to protect the Sapphire guard from a leader plotting it's downfall.

Wrong, in azure city those accused of crimes, and i empathis of accused not proven are tried. Miko just took justice into her own hands.


Killing an innocent baby that someone had disguised as an evil monster may not be a "willing" Evil act, but it is an Evil act. It's still murder, only with mitigating circumstances. Just because you're tricked into a crime doesn't completely absolve you of your part in that crime. Your intent is irrelevant because good intentions can very often lead to bad results, and it's the results that matter on the good/evil axis.[/QUOTE]
Correct. It is not entirly your fault, but it was an evil act.


A single act also does not change your alignment, willing or not. You must show a commitment to your new alignment. Miko has never displayed any such commitment to Evil or Chaos, and in fact can often be accused of overzealousness in being Lawful Good.

But Miko's general manner was very LN up until the murder. She just did nothing that voliated her LG aligment and her paladin code until attacking Shjo. Her reason for attacking Shojo were very LN in manner, Ends justfies the means can at best be LN, at worst LE.
from,
EE

[SteveMB]

This would be the case, but she believed those traditions were violated by Lord Shojo first, thereby nullifying any protection he may have enjoyed.
She believed that Lord Shojo had cut down an unarmed man much weaker than himself (assuming he could find such a person)?

[Kreistor]

This would be the case, but she believed those traditions were violated by Lord Shojo first, thereby nullifying any protection he may have enjoyed. Laws and traditions do not protect traitors or criminals. Miko is well within her rights to protect the Sapphire guard from a leader plotting it's downfall.

Not true. Hinjo told her that it was the responsibility of the legal system. miko chose to view them as corrupt, despite that Shojo's comments absolved them of any complicity in his false trial of the OotS, in order to justify stealing their power. Miko violated more than one aspect of her Oath.

If Hinjo hadn't been there arguing that she didn't have the right to take these actions, you might have had a case, but he was there and he was telling her that her choice was wrong.


Your intent is irrelevant because good intentions can very often lead to bad results, and it's the results that matter on the good/evil axis.

Very, very not true. An evil person can commit good acts without changing his alignment, because he performs them for the wrong reasons. A good person deserves the same lattitude, when commiting evil acts.


If you're arguing Paladin standards, then I'm going to have to state that Miko's case is different from my example in one crucial way. While in the baby example the subject is unaware that they are commiting an evil act (due to the deception) in Miko's case she was well aware that she was killing an defenseless, elderly and unarmed man. She just convinced herself that it was for the "greater good," and her conviction doesn't matter when weighing the Good/Evil of the act itself, only in the "willingness" portion.

Miko deluded herself. That's the difference. No one tried to fool her into thinking what she did. Her delusions stem from hubris, which is ultimately the cause of Miko's downfall. Killing Shojo was evidence of that hubris. She believed what she did because she thought the gods were answering her prayers and showing her the source of all evil, because she deserved that knowledge because she was special. In fact, they may have placed her there as a test to determine how deep that hubris ran. They got their answer.

Miko's hubris calls all of her convictions into question. The "greater good" isn't a truth she lives to, it is a tool she uses to do the things she wants to do. For Miko, it isn't a key to open a door, but a sledgehammer to pound it down, regardless of who is standing on the opposite side.

Killing Shojo was unnecessary for the greater good. He was undone. The forces of Law were there to see that he did no more damage and answered for his crimes. That was the greater good. Miko's "greater good" was justification to feed her ego, nothing more.


Miko has never displayed any such commitment to Evil or Chaos

I will disagree here on the "chaos" side. Miko's delusions and hubris cause many of her actions to become suspect. Shojo was not the first unarmed, nonthreatening person Miko attacked. Nor was she above provoking other people into attacking her, in order to kill them. Miko erred on the side of slaughter, and that taste for blood of evil led her to seek out evil even against her ability to Detect it.


in fact can often be accused of overzealousness in being Lawful Good.

Her abuse of the law leans her more towards LN than LG. LG recognizes intent and evidence, but Miko rarely needed that. Twice she sentenced people to death based on insufficient evidence and without allowing a defnse, when she had the opportunity to hear both. But "the lies of the wicked are nto to be believed", so no evil person can ever be justified in any act.

Miko fails the LG test just as Roy says. She fails to respect the dignity of sentient life. She respected only the dignity of Good sentient life, and was very prejudiced against evil, regardless of sentience. Ironically, she is now on a path to seek her redemption by murdering the OotS, which is clearly an evil path. She has already abandoned Azure City to Xykon to seek this goal, so what other horrors will she ignore in order to achieve that end?

[Kreistor]

The Baby Disguised as a Demon is one of those classic Paladin Dilemmas (along with the other classics: The Orc Baby or The Surrendering Ubervillian Miles Away From Civilized Society). And, when it comes right down to it, just another variation of the never ending debate on just what is willfully evil behavior. And one I don't expect to be settled to everyones satisfaction for a long, long time.

I am not saying the paladin should not feel shame and guilt. Yes, a good person, not just a paladin, would seek restitution for the family of the dead child.

But is succombing to an evil deception and killing a child when the intent was otherwise an evil act? Most certainly not! It is unfortunate and tragic, but not evil! The evil was done by the person that created the deception, not the paladin. The paladin did not put the child in that situation: someone intentionally created that situation. That the paladin succumbed to the illusion does not transfer that evil act to the paladin. The evil deceiver is the evil person performing the evil act: his actions directly place the paladin in the room to be deceived, and therefore take the entire responsibility for the act, regardless of who holds the sword.

So long as the paladin does not suspect the demon is a child, then there can be no evil on the paladin's part. Tragedy, yes, but not evil.

[Tokiko Mima]

She believed that Lord Shojo had cut down an unarmed man much weaker than himself (assuming he could find such a person)?

Shojo isn't a Paladin, and doesn't even have a PC class. So that doesn't make sense.

What she did say was that Lord Shojo knew that Xykon was going to attack, and that Lord Shojo knew that because he was cooperating with Roy, Xykon's agent.


Miko: "Right now, less than a day's march away, the lich Xykon is leading an army of tens of thousands of hobgoblins here to conquer us all!"
Shojo: What?!?
Hinjo: Impossible! The early warning beacons--
Miko: --were destroyed, one by one, before any warning could be sent. Convenient, no? Of course you already knew that, Shojo, because you're working with HIM! Greenhilt! And we all know he's working for Xykon!

You have to keep in mind that she just watched at least 3 guardsmen massacred by Xykon, so their murder is on her mind. She's connecting Shojo to Roy to Xykon, and making Shojo just as responsible for actions that hurt the Sapphire Guard. That breaks with the Sapphire Guards tradition of, I dunno, continued existance? No reasonable code of honor requires that you die or allow yourself to be killed to fufill it, and that's exactly what would be required if Miko allowed a traitor to continue to sit on the throne and plot her murder.

[Kreistor]

She's connecting Shojo to Roy to Xykon, and making Shojo just as responsible for actions that hurt the Sapphire Guard.

Based on nothing. That's the problem. Her hubris filled in all of those blanks such that she got what she wanted: she was going to be able to attack those that defended Belkar... those she had sworn to punish for standing against her, even though they were doing her own Masters will at the time.

Like I said, Hinjo was right there and counselling her against her course of action. She ignored that at her own peril.

[Porthos]

I am not saying the paladin should not feel shame and guilt. Yes, a good person, not just a paladin, would seek restitution for the family of the dead child.

But is succombing to an evil deception and killing a child when the intent was otherwise an evil act? Most certainly not! It is unfortunate and tragic, but not evil! The evil was done by the person that created the deception, not the paladin. The paladin did not put the child in that situation: someone intentionally created that situation. That the paladin succumbed to the illusion does not transfer that evil act to the paladin. The evil deceiver is the evil person performing the evil act: his actions directly place the paladin in the room to be deceived, and therefore take the entire responsibility for the act, regardless of who holds the sword.

So long as the paladin does not suspect the demon is a child, then there can be no evil on the paladin's part. Tragedy, yes, but not evil.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on that. I'm only saying that the dilemma is one of the Classics, and one that is guaranteed to get disagreement in some quarters.

All one has to do is look at this debate (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=185674) over at EN World to see what I mean. I especially loved the Woodsman Dilemma as a new twist to the debate. :smallamused:

BTW, if you want to see a great Orc Baby debate, in all it's "glory", then read this thread (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=187573) that was created a little later over on EN.

And as an amusing note, the discussion on #406 was also one of the most "interesting" ones over at EN. I especially love the number of people who came out of the woodwork that stated, not only didn't she commit an evil act, but what she did was good and proper.

Check it out if you don't believe me. (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=186429). I don't think anyone on this board that reached the levels of justification that I saw in that thread. Of course, my fun was spoiled slightly when someone started a poll over there about Miko (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=186691) that put things slightly back in perspective. :smalltongue:

[Tokiko Mima]

I am not saying the paladin should not feel shame and guilt. Yes, a good person, not just a paladin, would seek restitution for the family of the dead child.

But is succombing to an evil deception and killing a child when the intent was otherwise an evil act? Most certainly not! It is unfortunate and tragic, but not evil! The evil was done by the person that created the deception, not the paladin. The paladin did not put the child in that situation: someone intentionally created that situation. That the paladin succumbed to the illusion does not transfer that evil act to the paladin. The evil deceiver is the evil person performing the evil act: his actions directly place the paladin in the room to be deceived, and therefore take the entire responsibility for the act, regardless of who holds the sword.

So long as the paladin does not suspect the demon is a child, then there can be no evil on the paladin's part. Tragedy, yes, but not evil.

You still committed the act itself, and it couldn't have happened without you. On some level you allowed yourself to be tricked, and by believing the evil deciever you take on a small measure of responsibility for their actions. In other words you become a unwitting co-conspirator. Willing? No. Evil? Yes.

As one of the other posters pointed out, the only time this is different is when you have a Dominate spell in effect. Then you are literally out of control and can't be held responsibles for the actions you are forced to take, because you haven't been taking any action under your own control.

Being duped into Evil acts is different than being forced into them. There's always things that "should" have been done that would have prevented being duped. In the baby-illusioned-into-demon situation, detect evil should have been applied before the killing stroke, for example. Ignorance, willful or otherwise, is not an excuse for commiting acts of evil nor should it be. ESPECIALLY for those that deal death with their judgements.

[Kreistor]

Well, as a DM, I am far kinder than i think the PHB intends, too. I will neer let a paladin player commit an act that will cause him to fall unless I tell him, "You realize you could Fall for doing this, right?" If he answers "No", then he knows he is going somewhere that he doesn't realize his character should know is dangerous to his class.

In a lot of Dilemmas, I give the gods a whole lot more credit than other people. If there is no clear Good solution, then the gods are not going to cause a Fall for choosing an unavoidable path. When I say only the Paladin can cause his own Fall, I mean it. Some evil guy that creates a situation that traps the Paladin in a dilemma is counter to the gods intention for their champion.

Belkar's little bit of work, on the other hand, would have been allowed. Belkar wasn't trapping Miko, he was revealing a character flaw that she really did have. Miko always had the option to put away her katana and call in the guard to help. He hubris (read ego) demanded that she deal with this affront personally, and thus she placed herself in the positionthat her rage would cause her Fall. I don't think I would have had her Fall for it, since Belkar was a snivelling little worm that had done really nasty things and deserved to die, but something like what belkar was doing wasn't trapping Miko in an unavoidable dilemma... he was only bringing her flaw to the surface and letting the flaw destroy her.

[Kreistor]

You still committed the act itself, and it couldn't have happened without you.

Your basic assumption is that killing a child is always evil. I don't agree with that assumption. I can invent four or five situations where killing a child is absolutely necessary and not evil.

[Drekkan]

You have to keep in mind that she just watched at least 3 guardsmen massacred by Xykon, so their murder is on her mind. She's connecting Shojo to Roy to Xykon, and making Shojo just as responsible for actions that hurt the Sapphire Guard. That breaks with the Sapphire Guards tradition of, I dunno, continued existance? No reasonable code of honor requires that you die or allow yourself to be killed to fufill it, and that's exactly what would be required if Miko allowed a traitor to continue to sit on the throne and plot her murder.

Except her chocies weren't kill Shojo or be killed herself. A third, and very likely alternative, was arrest Shojo and put him on trial.

[Tyrmatt]

Miko attacked a defenceless old man (and an NPC to boot. Remember Shojo was a 14th level aristocrat. He couldn't have dodged or done anything useful to save himself). Attacking the defenceless is an evil act. And she will burn for it. >:)

[EvilElitest]

Your basic assumption is that killing a child is always evil. I don't agree with that assumption. I can invent four or five situations where killing a child is absolutely necessary and not evil.

Maybe, but guess what that is called? Neutral. Not good.
from,
EE

[Tokiko Mima]

Except her chocies weren't kill Shojo or be killed herself. A third, and very likely alternative, was arrest Shojo and put him on trial.

Do you think it would be possible for Lord Shojo, ruler of Azure City and captain of the Sapphire Guard to get a fair and impartial trial in his own domain? Moreover, Miko knows that no one else believes her (even though she's nuts she's still lucid enough to understand that not everyone sees things as "clearly" as she does.) If she lets Shojo go then the result would probably be that she would be locked up and/or executed on charges that Shojo just makes up to keep things quiet. So it's still kill or be killed, in her insane mind.

[Jayabalard]

Your basic assumption is that killing a child is always evil. I don't agree with that assumption. I can invent four or five situations where killing a child is absolutely necessary and not evil.Being necessary does not make it not evil. The people who do evil because it is "necessary" might be lawful neutral, but won't be lawful good; they might start that way but won't remain that way for very long.

Any situation that you invent that justifies murdering a child is simply a rationalization. Righteousness does not require justification and rationalization; but trying to live with committing evil does.

[Kreistor]

Exactly my point. It takes a "willful" "evil" act to lose paladinhood, not a willful neutral or Lawful act.

My point is that Tokiko presumes that the Paladin commited an evil act because he killed a child, which I present is not automatically an evil act and therefore won't cause a Fall.

If the paladin does everything possible to determine the reality of a summoning ritual, and arrives in time to find the demon gating in, killing the demon but discovering it was all an illusion and the paladin just cut a child in half will not cause the paladin to Fall. The paladin did everything possible to see through the deception, but was fooled into believing the demon was coming. The death of the child is tragic, but not an evil act on the part of the paladin, because the paladin could not foresee this deception and had rigorously investigated beforehand.

If a paladin were to not cut down that demon because it might be a child even though no evidence ever existed that it could be, and then it turned out to really be a demon, then he would be in trouble. The demon will kill dozens of children for the mone that might have been saved. In this case, the paladin is betting the entire world on a hunch that he can save one child.

[Drekkan]

Do you think it would be possible for Lord Shojo, ruler of Azure City and captain of the Sapphire Guard to get a fair and impartial trial in his own domain? Moreover, Miko knows that no one else believes her (even though she's nuts she's still lucid enough to understand that not everyone sees things as "clearly" as she does.) If she lets Shojo go then the result would probably be that she would be locked up and/or executed on charges that Shojo just makes up to keep things quiet. So it's still kill or be killed, in her insane mind.

Except there were multiple witnesses to his statements that he broke the law including Shojo's kin and successor. Furthermore, both the witnesses are avowed Paladins who, at the time, were both non-fallen.

He might not be convicted of working for Xykon - but if he can't be convicted then he isn't guilty regardles sof what she 'thinks'. Furthermore, there's no evidence that she would be just "thrown in jail".

She did not have a "him or me" situation. She was delusional, over-reacted, and committed an evil act; she had plenty of non-murder related options none of which she chose.

[EvilElitest]

Do you think it would be possible for Lord Shojo, ruler of Azure City and captain of the Sapphire Guard to get a fair and impartial trial in his own domain? Moreover, Miko knows that no one else believes her (even though she's nuts she's still lucid enough to understand that not everyone sees things as "clearly" as she does.) If she lets Shojo go then the result would probably be that she would be locked up and/or executed on charges that Shojo just makes up to keep things quiet. So it's still kill or be killed, in her insane mind.
And those actions by defination are evil.


Exactly my point. It takes a "willful" "evil" act to lose paladinhood, not a willful neutral or Lawful act.

My point is that Tokiko presumes that the Paladin commited an evil act because he killed a child, which I present is not automatically an evil act and therefore won't cause a Fall.
[QUOTE]
And that mindset is lawful neutral.


If the paladin does everything possible to determine the reality of a summoning ritual, and arrives in time to find the demon gating in, killing the demon but discovering it was all an illusion and the paladin just cut a child in half will not cause the paladin to Fall. The paladin did everything possible to see through the deception, but was fooled into believing the demon was coming. The death of the child is tragic, but not an evil act on the part of the paladin, because the paladin could not foresee this deception and had rigorously investigated beforehand.

If a paladin were to not cut down that demon because it might be a child even though no evidence ever existed that it could be, and then it turned out to really be a demon, then he would be in trouble. The demon will kill dozens of children for the mone that might have been saved. In this case, the paladin is betting the entire world on a hunch that he can save one child.[QUOTE]

Damit, i already went over this in a different thread. Ok, here is the link to
Why ends don't justfy the means (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36000&highlight=paladins+WOTC). It is long dead, but if you want to argue strange paladin situations read what happened.
from,
EE