The Miko Debate Compendium.

[Alfryd]

Once more- as in the bygone days of yore- the forums groan beneath the oppressive weight of discord and emnity, and the most grim veterans of discourse find themselves hard-pressed to withstand a seething tide of bile, inanity, and prejudice.

Ah, Miko. You always bring me the very best violence.
Good times!

But in the interest of curbing this wanton pandaemonium, I have undertaken a comprehensive survey of Miko's conduct since her introduction to the present day. The most commonly cited arguments both for and against her moral rectitude, integrity and intellectual merits, arrogance, bloodlust or malice, will be catalogued with matchless diligence. One hopes.

In a previous essay on the subject, which may be found here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4911), I made no pretence at impartiality, fairness or an even-handed assessment of the facts. Now I will now make a pretence at impartiality, fairness and an even-handed assessment of the facts. I will, however, reserve my customary privilege of editing this initial post without notice and at my sole discretion. Entries are spoilerised for brevity's sake.


Now then. Let us begin. Meet Good Miko, and Bad Miko:
http://home.graffiti.net/alfryd:graffiti.net/ArtImages/goodmikoS.pnghttp://home.graffiti.net/alfryd:graffiti.net/ArtImages/badmikoS.png
These convenient moral signposts will guide you in buttressing whatever position you wish to take during forum debates, by enumerating previously invoked arguments which will impress no-one. Or at least nobody worth impressing.


Strip 120: The End of the Beginning (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0120.html)
Strip 174: Interlude of Dooooooom! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0174.html)
Strip 189: Tied Up Nicely (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0189.html)
http://home.graffiti.net/alfryd:graffiti.net/ArtImages/badmikoS.png "My blades shall be bathed in the blood of those responsible?" Come on! That kind of fixation is not healthy. Also- "My master has decreed it- the Order of the stick must die!" Didn't Shojo specifically tell her to bring them back alive? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0290.html)
http://home.graffiti.net/alfryd:graffiti.net/ArtImages/goodmikoS.png Wasn't that Mr. Scruffy? I mean, diviners are one thing, the cat is another.
Her speech was "mostly grandstanding," according to Rich, and she thinks "a giant demon or something is responsible." But, yeah. Not healthy. But- See! See! She doesn't just arbitrarily decide to smite people! She doesn't solely rely on Detect Evil! She goes to the trouble of conducting multiple witness interviews! I mean, really.
http://home.graffiti.net/alfryd:graffiti.net/ArtImages/badmikoS.pngShe killed Sam and Pa for no damned reason!
http://home.graffiti.net/alfryd:graffiti.net/ArtImages/goodmikoS.png Pay attention, people! Sam first enunciates, quite clearly, "You'll serve me or you'll die!" before casting Hold Person. This is generally a strong sign of hostility. Yes, Sam was wounded, but Miko has no idea what level she is and primary casters have a worrying number of effective 'save or die' spells much like Hold Person. Yes, she might have been a little more diplomatic with Pa, but it was entirely unlikely he'd be pursuaded to back down in any case. This was self-defence, pure and simple, nothing evil to it.
I will furthermore add that the fact Miko offered to associate with Sam and Pa in the first place indicates that she doesn't use Detect Evil on people reflexively: Sam is almost certain to be Evil, even if her father was likely Good (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0156.html).
I will further point out that leaving a trussed-up pair of strangers to starve in the wilderness verges on passive evil, so despite Miko's comment Gather Information was not a viable option for her. Indeed, she was already in the process of releasing the two before she knew they would help her in locating the Order.
Defending herself in the manner she did may not have been outstandingly Good, but it certainly wasn't wrong. It's unreasonable to castigate her simply because she didn't deal nonlethal damage and neglects to put ranks in diplomacy.
Strip 199: It Was a Dark and Stormy Night (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0199.html)
Strip 200: The Confrontation (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html)
Strip 201: Seeing Signs (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0201.html)
Strip 202: Scanning... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0202.html)
Strip 203: Just the Facts, Ma'am (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0203.html)
Strip 204: What's My Motivation? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0204.html)
http://home.graffiti.net/alfryd:graffiti.net/ArtImages/badmikoS.png Sneaking up on your opponents unannounced and delivering a terminal ultimatum without explanation is not an honourable way of going about things. Besides, how does Miko know that they're guilty?
Also, she's an ass.
http://home.graffiti.net/alfryd:graffiti.net/ArtImages/goodmikoS.png Miko thinks the Order are guilty because she gathered independant witness testimony (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0174.html), which incidentally left them suspect of crimes commited by the Linear Guild, sapphire guard diviners indentified (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0120.html) the Order as culprits for the Gate's destruction, and Detect Evil tagged Roy, bigtime.
It is quite possible that Miko believed the "ancillary crimes" commited by the populace were what merited a death sentence, and would certainly mean the Order knew perfectly well what they were guilty of, so elaborate explanations were unnecesary and risky. The longer she delayed, the more of an advantage her opponents would have.
Yes, Miko could stand to improve her people skills.
(Though, to be fair, Roy cutting her off in mid-introduction and courting her like a 40-dollar hooker ain't the pinnacle of etiquette.)
http://home.graffiti.net/alfryd:graffiti.net/ArtImages/badmikoS.png I still think she's sticking more to the letter of her code of conduct than to it's spirit.
http://home.graffiti.net/alfryd:graffiti.net/ArtImages/goodmikoS.png Yes. On the other hand, she thanks Durkon for his intervention, and is forbearing enough to accept an 'Evil twins' explanation, assurances of non-evil alignment, and "halfings of my village carry lead sheets to prove our manhood" excuse, from total strangers.
(This may just be due to character shields, but the record stands.)
Strip 207: Now If Only We Could Organize the Fiends Somehow (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0207.html)
Strip 208: A Battle of Wits (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0208.html)
Strip 209: Multiclass Discrimination (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)
http://home.graffiti.net/alfryd:graffiti.net/ArtImages/badmikoS.png Wonderful. The Order couldn't possibly have a legimitate explanation for having beat the wealth-by-level guidelines, so she rips into them with an acrid, pompous tirade on proper moral conduct. Did I mention she's an ass?
Well, she is.
And she's mean to Elan!
http://home.graffiti.net/alfryd:graffiti.net/ArtImages/goodmikoS.png This isn't strictly on topic, but how is "your simple mind cannot possibly grasp the means by which I wrested the beast from the jaws of reality itself", or Roy's typical attitude, any better?
http://home.graffiti.net/alfryd:graffiti.net/ArtImages/badmikoS.png She keeps trying to use Detect Evil on Belkar! She's a spiteful, begrudging, paranoid zealot!
http://home.graffiti.net/alfryd:graffiti.net/ArtImages/goodmikoS.png Uh... could be. Could be... That, or she's not a moron.
Strip 211: The Hook (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0211.html)
Strip 212: Dirt Farm (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0212.html)
Strip 213: The Man Knows His Limitations (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0213.html)
Strip 214: No Plan Survives Contact with One's Allies (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0214.html)
Strip 215: Taking Charge (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0215.html)
Strip 219: No Joke Too Cliched (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0219.html)
Strip 220: For a Reasonable Fee (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0220.html)
Strip 223: Love, in the Abstract (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0223.html)
http://home.graffiti.net/alfryd:graffiti.net/ArtImages/goodmikoS.png Miko seems to be scrupulously fair toward Belkar, and she offers to Heal Roy after the battle. Plus she goes out of her way to help out some... dirt... -poor dirt farmers.
http://home.graffiti.net/alfryd:graffiti.net/ArtImages/badmikoS.png All she was interested in was whacking ogres!
No independant testimony was gathered, and we see no use of Detect Evil! How come elves, dwarves, halfings and humans get a full forensic sweep, but not the Ogres! What we see here is straightforward specieist bigotry.
And how does Miko get off assuming command of the Order in the middle of a pitched battle when they've agreed to come peacefully and help out of their own free will? For somebody waxing lyrical on fair play and honourable combat, she's afforded the Order next to none.
http://home.graffiti.net/alfryd:graffiti.net/ArtImages/goodmikoS.png Technically, it's the Ogres' fault if they assume she's an idiot, and the Order were always fed, rested, forewarned and alert when she engaged them. Yes, her battle plan is closer to the letter of her code of conduct than it's spirit, but on the other hand, it probably avoided a lot of bloodshed on her own team. If the Ogres wanted to raise some peaceful objections, they were hardly lacking the opportunity.
http://home.graffiti.net/alfryd:graffiti.net/ArtImages/badmikoS.png I'd bet she didn't even have a plan in mind when she usurped command, but was cocky enough to assume she could 'wing it.' The proper course would have been- at minimum- to outline her strategy beforehand, take criticism and suggestion under advisement, and address participants by name or title rather than racial epithet!
Does she even think to apologise? Hell no! She thinks they're obliged to follow her orders. She's a megolomanic tyrant too intoxicated by her own self-importance to concede the remotest possibility of error. Also an ass.
...Good plan, though.
http://home.graffiti.net/alfryd:graffiti.net/ArtImages/goodmikoS.png Agreed.
http://home.graffiti.net/alfryd:graffiti.net/ArtImages/badmikoS.png Good plan. Lots of burning.
http://home.graffiti.net/alfryd:graffiti.net/ArtImages/goodmikoS.png Her actions may well have been presumptuous and inconsiderate, but you don't know her underlying motives for sure. She may have been willing to force their hand rather than risk casualties through dissent, disgusted at the notion of gutting sleeping enemies, or naive enough to think they'd obey unthinkingly.
http://home.graffiti.net/alfryd:graffiti.net/ArtImages/badmikoS.png That's because she's an ass. What about V's bill of expenses!
http://home.graffiti.net/alfryd:graffiti.net/ArtImages/goodmikoS.png V is just being a bitch.
('I know where you can ram that roaming charge, assuming you have the appropriate orifice, you ambiguously-gendered blowhard.' Let it out.)

END TRANSMISSION

More coming in due time. Feel free to chip in your own contributions for summary and inclusion.

NOTICE: For those of you concerned that Good Miko is being given special treatment: Yes, she is, because Miko's early behaviour is generally Good. You may expect later installments to give greater bandwidth to Bad Miko.

[Lord Zentei]

Once more- as in the mighty days of yore- the forums quake and quail beneath the oppressive weight of discord and emnity, and the most hardened warriors of discourse find themselves hard-pressed to withstand the seething tide of bile, inanity, and prejudice.

Ah, Miko. You always bring me the very best violence.
Good times!

Indeed. :smallcool:

Are you going to use the material from the FRC or redo the thing?

[Alfryd]

Are you going to use the material from the FRC or redo the thing?
Most of the points made will most likely be re-used, but the organisation is different, and they'll have to be rewritten for tone, clarity, or being-out-of-date. I'll be adding a lot of material regardless, since I'm at least attempting to represent the other side's PoV.

[Kreistor]

Alfryd, that's about as objective as a kick in the head. You spin all of the evil comments to make the accusers look bad, and ignore many of the actual arguments by providing no support for their position.

As a biased participant in the Miko arguments, like me, you are not an objective analyst of the opposing side's position. You are neither qualified or trustworthy to provide this function.

For instance, your argument about Sam and Pa deals with Sam casting a non-lethal spell after saying "Serve me or die." You cast Hold Person to capture someone. We know Sam has third level offensive spells that could kill Miko, which she did not cast (Sorcerer, remember... she could have if she wanted to). The Hold Person is, therefore, an attempt at the "Serve me" part not the "Or die" part.

And it ends without referring to the murder of Pa. Pa was unarmed at the time she killed Sam and even for two frames later. Miko presents to him (parphrased) "Help me find the OotS", holding a weapon to the father of the woman she just killed, and if the positioning in the comic is true, she actually advances on him. This is no different from Sam's "Serve me or die" demand. She is making a threat with her weapon and demanding aid of someone that has no possiblity of agreeing with the demand, providing no indication that she would not kill him if he did not agree. She was provoking him to attack, with every intention of killing an old man that had tried to prevent the previous fighting. She could have backed away, sheathed her weapons to provide an honourable start to the fight, and said, "I'm sorry for your loss. If you wish to aid me in finding the OotS, I will not deny your company, but I do not expect it." She could then back away and leave. But she didn't. She did the opposite: the very thing that could only result in Pa's death or her own.

Like I said, you're not qualified to speak as the opposition.

[Alfryd]

Pa was unarmed at the time she killed Sam and even for two frames later.
Actually, he clearly carries twin swords, and was drawing them when Miko struck.

We know Sam has third level offensive spells that could kill Miko, which she did not cast (Sorcerer, remember... she could have if she wanted to). The Hold Person is, therefore, an attempt at the "Serve me" part not the "Or die" part.
Since Miko would have no interest in serving Sam, it follows logically she would have wound up dead in any case. (Unless Sam used mind-affecting magic, but I don't see how that makes Miko unjustified.)

And it ends without referring to the murder of Pa.
That's because it starts with a reference to killing Pa. Pay attention.
"She killed Sam and Pa for no damned reason!"

She is making a threat with her weapon and demanding aid of someone that has no possiblity of agreeing with the demand, providing no indication that she would not kill him if he did not agree.
Her specific phrase is, "I must request your assistance," not 'Aid me or die'.
By the time she learned there was no chance of Pa assisting her, she had already 'advanced', and sheathing her weapon would have been very unwise under the circumstances.
Killing Sam and Pa was not an act of Good, but it wasn't close to Evil.


You spin all of the evil comments to make the accusers look bad, and ignore many of the actual arguments by providing no support for their position.
Feel free to list them and/or suggest rephrasings. But they have to make sense.
I'm only human.

[Lord Zentei]

Alfryd, that's about as objective as a kick in the head. You spin all of the evil comments to make the accusers look bad, and ignore many of the actual arguments by providing no support for their position.

As a biased participant in the Miko arguments, like me, you are not an objective analyst of the opposing side's position. You are neither qualified or trustworthy to provide this function.

Yeah, though he does ask for input from all and sundry. Perhaps we need someone in the thread to summarise the "evil" comments?


For instance, your argument about Sam and Pa deals with Sam casting a non-lethal spell after saying "Serve me or die." You cast Hold Person to capture someone. We know Sam has third level offensive spells that could kill Miko, which she did not cast (Sorcerer, remember... she could have if she wanted to). The Hold Person is, therefore, an attempt at the "Serve me" part not the "Or die" part.

True, though the threat remains that she was planning on killing her if she refused to serve, something she could not really accede to.

You have a point on Pa, though.

[Silkenfist]

Alfryd, that's about as objective as a kick in the head. You spin all of the evil comments to make the accusers look bad, and ignore many of the actual arguments by providing no support for their position.

As a biased participant in the Miko arguments, like me, you are not an objective analyst of the opposing side's position. You are neither qualified or trustworthy to provide this function.

For instance, your argument about Sam and Pa deals with Sam casting a non-lethal spell after saying "Serve me or die." You cast Hold Person to capture someone. We know Sam has third level offensive spells that could kill Miko, which she did not cast (Sorcerer, remember... she could have if she wanted to). The Hold Person is, therefore, an attempt at the "Serve me" part not the "Or die" part.

And it ends without referring to the murder of Pa. Pa was unarmed at the time she killed Sam and even for two frames later. Miko presents to him (parphrased) "Help me find the OotS", holding a weapon to the father of the woman she just killed, and if the positioning in the comic is true, she actually advances on him. This is no different from Sam's "Serve me or die" demand. She is making a threat with her weapon and demanding aid of someone that has no possiblity of agreeing with the demand, providing no indication that she would not kill him if he did not agree. She was provoking him to attack, with every intention of killing an old man that had tried to prevent the previous fighting. She could have backed away, sheathed her weapons to provide an honourable start to the fight, and said, "I'm sorry for your loss. If you wish to aid me in finding the OotS, I will not deny your company, but I do not expect it." She could then back away and leave. But she didn't. She did the opposite: the very thing that could only result in Pa's death or her own.

Like I said, you're not qualified to speak as the opposition.


QFT, sadly. You let the Good Miko get the last word in each and every argument and make the Bad Miko sound like a moron compared to the elaborated Good Miko posts. Also Good Miko gets to debate the arguments of Bad Miko but not the other way round. If I was part of the hardcore Bad Miko debaters, I would feel offended by your post.


edit: Don't want to leave the post without saying something positive. I think it is a good work of you to summarize some of the basic arguments with links to the comic for easy reference. It is just the impartiality that I miss.

[Lord Zentei]

Actually, he clearly carries twin swords, and was drawing them when Miko struck.

Since Miko would have no interest in serving Sam, it follows logically she would have wound up dead in any case. (Unless Sam used mind-affecting magic, but I don't see how that makes Miko unjustified.)

That's because it starts with a reference to killing Pa. Pay attention.
"She killed Sam and Pa for no damned reason!"

Her specific phrase is, "I must request your assistance," not 'Aid me or die'.
By the time she learned there was no chance of Pa assisting her, she had already 'advanced', and sheathing her weapon would have been very unwise under the circumstances.
Killing Sam and Pa was not an act of Good, but it wasn't close to Evil.


Feel free to list them and/or suggest rephrasings. But they have to make sense.
I'm only human.

The points elaborated upon here should be included, methinks, for the purposes of fairness.

[LordVader]

Yes, this is good, but biased. I suggest you review the "Bad Miko" arguments, and make it less of a one-sideed debate. This favors the "Good Miko" side and is not objective. Bad Miko needs the chance to refute some arguements as well.

[Alfryd]

You let the Good Miko get the last word in each and every argument and make the Bad Miko sound like a moron compared to the elaborated Good Miko posts.
That's because it's generally true with criticisms of Miko's earlier behaviour. Bad Miko should have an advantage when dealing with Miko's handling of Belkar's escape, 3rd attempt to beat the Order, Xykon encounter, Fall, assault on Hinjo, and subsequent events.

But actually, bad Miko roughly has the upper hand when discussing the Ogre fight.

The points elaborated upon here should be included, methinks, for the purposes of fairness.
Three and a half of Kreistor's points were based on crap he made up. I also want to keep things relatively concise.

[LordVader]

I guess Bad Miko just has to wait until you catch up with her gibbering descent into insanity.:smallamused:

[ZeroNumerous]

Since Miko would have no interest in serving Sam, it follows logically she would have wound up dead in any case. (Unless Sam used mind-affecting magic, but I don't see how that makes Miko unjustified.)

That's because it starts with a reference to killing Pa. Pay attention.
"She killed Sam and Pa for no damned reason!".

Theres one thing I don't like about this statement. The fact that, in D&D, there is the option to hit for non-lethal at a -4 penalty. What was stopping Miko, a Lawful Good paladin from knocking them both out and bringing them to the town she had just left to be arrested? Killing them was not necessary, yet she jumped at the chance to do so.

[Lord Zentei]

Theres one thing I don't like about this statement. The fact that, in D&D, there is the option to hit for non-lethal at a -4 penalty. What was stopping Miko, a Lawful Good paladin from knocking them both out and bringing them to the town she had just left to be arrested? Killing them was not necessary, yet she jumped at the chance to do so.

There might be two things to migitate that: first, she is a lawfully sanctioned enforcer. As in James Bond having a licence to kill (that's why she is granted powers like Smite Evil, after all). Second, she was in a hurry to aprehend criminals who were charged with weakening the fabric of creation, and for all she knew, were a danger still.

Though yes, your point should be included as it is a fair one.

[ZeroNumerous]

There might be two things to migitate that: first, she is a lawfully sanctioned enforcer.

Yes, she is lawfully sanctioned within her own country, but as Miko herself says she is not within her own country. I would suspect that any other Sapphire Guard Paladin would have knocked Sam out and spoke to her father in a civilized manner, rather than stabbing her and killing the, obviously enraged, father.

Also I'd like to bring your attention (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html) to this strip right here.

I cannot help but feel, knowing Roy is Lawful Good, that he was going to say:

:roy: "We're not going to surrender without a little explaining."

But Miko assumed he meant fight, and immediately attacked the Order. Though that is subjective, I feel it makes more sense given what we know about Roy's character.

[Lord Zentei]

Yes, she is lawfully sanctioned within her own country, but as Miko herself says she is not within her own country. I would suspect that any other Sapphire Guard Paladin would have knocked Sam out and spoke to her father in a civilized manner, rather than stabbing her and killing the, obviously enraged, father.

Her authority as a paladin is not restricted to her own lands any more than James Bond's authority is. Shojo stated as much here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0267.html). And though the charges were trumped up, there was no question that the Sapphire Guard did in point of fact have jurisdiction outside of Azure City. This being since the functions of Lord of Azure City and Commander of the Sapphire Guard are distinct, even though these offices are held by the same person. With other paladins being present in the room when he said this, Shojo could at least not have lied about that.


Also I'd like to bring your attention (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html) to this strip right here.

I cannot help but feel, knowing Roy is Lawful Good, that he was going to say:

:roy: "We're not going to surrender without a little explaining."

But Miko assumed he meant fight, and immediately attacked the Order. Though that is subjective, I feel it makes more sense given what we know about Roy's character.

Naturally. I doubt anyone thinks she isn't way too hotheaded for her own good.

[Alfryd]

Though yes, your point should be included as it is a fair one.
Very well.
"Defending herself in the manner she did may not have been outstandingly Good, but it certainly wasn't wrong. It's unreasonable to castigate her simply because she didn't deal nonlethal damage and neglects to put ranks in diplomacy."


What was stopping Miko, a Lawful Good paladin from knocking them both out and bringing them to the town she had just left to be arrested?
...
Yes, she is lawfully sanctioned within her own country, but as Miko herself says she is not within her own country.
This point may well need to be touched on. Remind me later...
Firstly, anyone, regardless of legal entitlement, has every right to defend themselves with force when assaulted or subject to threat of assault.
Secondly, wooden forest is outside of any kingdom, so there's no legal jurisdiction to try them. That's why Roy & Co. left them starving in the wilderness in the first place.
Thirdly, Miko's duty to correct injustice is based on a divine mandate that ignores national boundaries. At the very least, she can believe so and still be 100% Lawful Good.

Perhaps a Neutral Miko tag might be useful.

[ZeroNumerous]

Things about authority of Paladins and James Bond

James Bond is also a spy and secret agent. He actually doesn't have authority to do anything. As far as the Crown is concerned, James Bond may as well not exist. Plausible deniability gives him free reign to do what he will.

As for the Paladin part.. Yes, they could believe that they aren't restrained by political boundaries, but we have yet to see any other government or their stance on the Sapphire Guard. We can't be sure that this isn't just their belief. It does, however, remain an action outside of what would normally be considered "Lawful".


Perhaps a Neutral Miko tag might be useful.

I wholeheartedly support this.

As for your points..

1. I cannot see how this makes the fact that she struck lethally versus non-lethally any less important.
2. I'll concede the point about there being no legal reason to bring them in.
3. Yes, she can believe this, but that makes her reaction no more appropriate.

[Alfryd]

We can't be sure that this isn't just their belief. It does, however, remain an action outside of what would normally be considered "Lawful".
Being Lawful has nothing intrinsically to do with 'obeying the law of whatever country you're in,' and Rich has gone to some lengths to point this out. Lawful == Consistent, not 'legal.'
Law and Chaos tags may also be apt.

I cannot see how this makes the fact that she struck lethally versus non-lethally any less important.
You're claiming that "Killing them was not necessary, yet she jumped at the chance to do so." She didn't 'jump at' anything, they attacked her. Showing mercy in that instance might or might not be a Good thing to do, but failing to do so sure doesn't make her wrong.
(Besides, what if they're higher-level than her, and that -4 nonlethal penalty means she can't overcome their AC? Miko doesn't have any backup if she fumbles.)

[Lord Zentei]

James Bond is also a spy and secret agent. He actually doesn't have authority to do anything. As far as the Crown is concerned, James Bond may as well not exist. Plausible deniability gives him free reign to do what he will.

He does have that authority. He has a licence to kill, and is an agent of the crown. He kills on their behalf. Other countries may not approve and plausible deniability may be in effect should he be capured, but those the rules of the game as far as spies are concerned, and everybody knows it.


As for the Paladin part.. Yes, they could believe that they aren't restrained by political boundaries, but we have yet to see any other government or their stance on the Sapphire Guard. We can't be sure that this isn't just their belief. It does, however, remain an action outside of what would normally be considered "Lawful".

That's a load of nonsense. Firstly, the Sapphire Guard receives their authority from the gods, who participated in the creation of the world. Moreover, the Sapphire Guard are secretive: the comparison with James Bond is indeed apt.

I see Alfryd has already covered the "lawful" aspect, so I'll leave it at that.

[ZeroNumerous]

Being Lawful has nothing intrinsically to do with 'obeying the law of whatever country you're in,' and Rich has gone to some lengths to point this out. Lawful == Consistent, not 'legal.'
Law and Chaos tags may also be apt.

Point. I guess I could let that go.


You're claiming that "Killing them was not necessary, yet she jumped at the chance to do so." She didn't 'jump at' anything, they attacked her.

Yes, Sam attacked her. She was under no obligation to kill Sam, as Sam did not use a lethal means of attack. Even further, she could have understood that Pa was angry that Miko had just killed his daughter. Instead of subdue him, she murdered him.


(Besides, what if they're higher-level than her, and that -4 nonlethal penalty means she can't overcome their AC? Miko doesn't have any backup if she fumbles.)

I'm not saying she's wrong, I'm saying she wasn't acting in accordance to Good. Also: The first step on the path of Evil is justification for one's actions.


He does have that authority. He has a licence to kill, and is an agent of the crown. He kills on their behalf. Other countries may not approve and plausible deniability may be in effect should he be capured, but those the rules of the game as far as spies are concerned, and everybody knows it.

The concept of plausible deniability is that he isn't doing it on authority of the Crown. He doesn't have a license to kill because it doesn't exist. He isn't an agent of the crown because that would imply Britain supports his actions. To other governments, James Bond does not exist as a spy. He's not meant to. However, to other governments, Miko exists as a Paladin of the Sapphire Guard. The allusion is baseless.


That's a load of nonsense. Firstly, the Sapphire Guard receives their authority from the gods, who participated in the creation of the world. Moreover, the Sapphire Guard are secretive: the comparison with James Bond is indeed apt.

And yet an entire city knew they existed? How can that be secretive? How can they lie about their existence when they're Paladins? This is more nonsense than my own post.

[Friv]

(Besides, what if they're higher-level than her, and that -4 nonlethal penalty means she can't overcome their AC? Miko doesn't have any backup if she fumbles.)

Speaking as someone who's generally on the "Miko used to be more or less a good guy" side of things, I would like to point out that the chances that an unarmed and unarmoured spellcaster who was previously tied up and unable to cast, wearing none of the usual relics that allow one to increase AC (no amulet, no ring, no bracers) is exceptionally unlikely to have an AC higher than 15.

Miko, we already know, has a BAB of at least +10, a decent Str bonus, and a magic weapon. Her chances of missing are effectively nil. She also has at least two attacks per round if she wants them. I'm pretty sure she could do just fine with a -4 penalty.

[Lord Zentei]

Yes, Sam attacked her. She was under no obligation to kill Sam, as Sam did not use a lethal means of attack. Even further, she could have understood that Pa was angry that Miko had just killed his daughter. Instead of subdue him, she murdered him.

I'm not saying she's wrong, I'm saying she wasn't acting in accordance to Good. Also: The first step on the path of Evil is justification for one's actions.

Are you aware that a hold person spell allows people to coup de grace you, and Sam had already asserted that her options were seritude or death?

As for Pa, of course his anger was understandible, no one is claiming otherwise. At that stage, hostilities were pretty much inevitable. However, if you are claiming that she was not wrong to kill rather than subdue, but merely non-Good, then presumably you are claiming that it was a Neutral act, yes?

Lastly, one always tries to justify one's actions. Miko's problem is not that she justifies them, but that she doesn't question them.

[Kioran]

Speaking as someone who's generally on the "Miko used to be more or less a good guy" side of things, I would like to point out that the chances that an unarmed and unarmoured spellcaster who was previously tied up and unable to cast, wearing none of the usual relics that allow one to increase AC (no amulet, no ring, no bracers) is exceptionally unlikely to have an AC higher than 15.

Miko, we already know, has a BAB of at least +10, a decent Str bonus, and a magic weapon. Her chances of missing are effectively nil. She also has at least two attacks per round if she wants them. I'm pretty sure she could do just fine with a -4 penalty.

Sam tried to subdue her and threatened her with death. Killing her in self-defense, especially if you don´t you strong she is, is a martial characters most sensible course of action, since only one failed save could very well mean death.
And leaving her father alive after killing his daughter might be merciful on the other hand, but also emotional cruelty. I´m not sure whether she was actually (unintentionally) doing him a favor......

[Kreistor]

Actually, he clearly carries twin swords, and was drawing them when Miko struck.

What comic are you looking at?

Panel 7, Pa's hands are not by his swords. He is saying, "Pumpkin, I'm not so sure --" and is interrupted.
Panel 8. No Pa
Panel 9. No Pa. Sam dies.
Panel 10: Pa says, "You... you killed my daughter." hands are out at his sides. Hilts are by his shoulders. He is not going for weapons. Miko standing with weapon in threat range of Pa.
Panel 11: Pa's grief and vengeance overwhelm him and he draws swords, attacking once. Miko kills him.

You really need to rad what you're talking about.

[qoute]Since Miko would have no interest in serving Sam, it follows logically she would have wound up dead in any case. (Unless Sam used mind-affecting magic, but I don't see how that makes Miko unjustified.)[/quote]

Don't care about Sam. Whether Sam should have been killed or not is a matter of culture. (In Canada, Miko would be charged with excessive force, since Sam did not use a lethal spell. In Texas, Miko goes scot free.)


That's because it starts with a reference to killing Pa. Pay attention."She killed Sam and Pa for no damned reason!"

As a representative of the contrary side, I deny that I ever said that. Killing Sam was possibly self defence. Killing Pa was murder by provocation.


Her specific phrase is, "I must request your assistance," not 'Aid me or die'. By the time she learned there was no chance of Pa assisting her, she had already 'advanced', and sheathing her weapon would have been very unwise under the circumstances. Killing Sam and Pa was not an act of Good, but it wasn't close to Evil.

That's a nice opinion, but it only proves what I was saying. You are not capable of representing the opposing point of view. Those of us that truly disagree with you present that Miko's expectation of Pa's aid was absurd, which makes her words moot. She was physically threatening Pa even if she was verbally not.

If you stick a gun in the face of a shopkeeper and say, "Please give me your money", you're still commmiting armed robbery and demonstrating Intent to Assault. The gun's presence is enough to confirm a threat to the person's life. Miko's position is no different. She is making an unreasonable demand and holding a sword to a man that had been trying to stop the upcoming battle.


Feel free to list them and/or suggest rephrasings. But they have to make sense. I'm only human.

Are you going to let the "bad Miko" side have the last word and not spin the opposition? Nah, you aren't. I'm not going to suggest. Suggest means you still have control of the words of your opposition. I have achieved what I set out to do, which is present that this thread is a farce -- a marketing ploy designed to auto-win an argument that is long and ongoing.

i will not allow you to characterize my arguments.

[Kreistor]

Firstly, anyone, regardless of legal entitlement, has every right to defend themselves with force when assaulted or subject to threat of assault.

Ugh... you're getting into real world politics here. There is no agreement on this statement. I don't think I can go further without hitting the forum's rules. I beg you to look up "Excessive Force" in reference to Canada's legal system. Miko broke that particular law.

As for Miko and Pa, you need to go back and look at what causes a Paladin to Fall. It's more than just commiting an evil act, it's also gross violations of the Code of Conduct. That Code includes a very loose term called "honour".

Miko's Code is loosely modelled on the Japanese Samurai code. What Miko did by holding her weapon unsheathed to Pa was dishonourable. She expected him to draw and attack, but by not levelling the playing field and sheathing her own weapon to return to his level, she was taking an advantage. The Samurai code was about fighting fairly. She did violate the spirit if not the letter by failing to begin at the same level of readiness as her opponent. It wasn't a gross enough violation to cause a Fall, but it demonstrates that Miko was already on the road to that state -- to whit, she violated her code grossly by killing the Master of her Order, and attacking another member of the Order in good standing.

[Poppatomus]

You know how I feel on this already Alfryd, but I have to salute a truly... Well let's call it Galilean (how else would one say like Galileo?) effort. I give you a lot of credit for trying to make it a better debate, even if the temptation to unintentionally use strawmen isn't always resisted. (an inherent peril of your chosen format)

[TOAOMT]

While the information is presented in such a way that it hardly seems fair and balanced, with evil Miko having only the response of "she's an ass" for various things, at this point it works. To this point, Miko hasn't done anything inherently evil and I don't consider her to be evil in the strictest sense. I consider her a good character gone completely and totally insane.

Although I think deciding on a fight to the death against strict orders to bring them back alive would qualify as unlawful (and would have resulted in her losing her powers). Since someone earlier referenced James Bond we'll use him as analogy. If M told him "Bring Dr. Angerson in alive." James finds out that someone fitting Dr. Angerson's description is a serial killer, so he waits until the good doctor is alone and empties his Walther PPK into the good doctor's head. Upon returning he tells M "Mission accomplished, Dr. Angerson has been terminated!" Guess who no longer has double-O status anymore.

Since I personally have a fairly neutral stance on Miko, perhaps I should do a similar thread that's actually... um... balanced. Though I don't particularly want the forum flooded with "MY analysis of the Miko argument" threads and someone will surely say that my logic is also biased (because in spite of what she was, she certainly IS delusional and violent)

[ZeroNumerous]

Are you aware that a hold person spell allows people to coup de grace you, and Sam had already asserted that her options were seritude or death?

And she made her save versus the spell. One non-lethal hit later, and the sorceress is unconscious. And again, the spell itself was not lethal. After all, being unconscious lets people coup de grace you, but it's stil the end result of a non-lethal attack.


As for Pa, of course his anger was understandible, no one is claiming otherwise. At that stage, hostilities were pretty much inevitable. However, if you are claiming that she was not wrong to kill rather than subdue, but merely non-Good, then presumably you are claiming that it was a Neutral act, yes?

I'm not claiming she's right or wrong because that would mean my opinion on right or wrong would have to be present as a basis for judgment. It is not, therefore, I cannot claim she is right or wrong. I can, however, say that she is not acting in a Good manner because Good is presented within D&D as a tangible force that her actions can be weighed against.

And yes, hostilities were inevitable. But was murder inevitable? No. Non-lethal means could have still been employed. Miko, however, disregarded their use and killed him.


Lastly, one always tries to justify one's actions. Miko's problem is not that she justifies them, but that she doesn't question them.

Actually, it is that she justifies them. To justify her actions, she absolves herself from questioning them to begin with.

:miko: "That woman had to die. She attacked me!"

The proper and sane question is: "Why did that sorceress cast a spell on me?"

[Poppatomus]

The proper and sane question is: "Why did that sorceress cast a spell on me?"

Clearly she hates you for your freedom.

[TOAOMT]

And she made her save versus the spell. One non-lethal hit later, and the sorceress is unconscious. And again, the spell itself was not lethal. After all, being unconscious lets people coup de grace you, but it's stil the end result of a non-lethal attack.

And yes, hostilities were inevitable. But was murder inevitable? No. Non-lethal means could have still been employed. Miko, however, disregarded their use and killed him.




Alright, NOW you've done it. Every other argument has at least some grounding in the logic of D&D play or reality. At least every other argument that comes to mind immediately, and so they deserve to be treated with the respect that you would treat anything with logic and reason behind it.
Not this one.

First I pose this question, when was the last time you played a character who responded to "You will serve me or die" followed by an aggressive action with "Ya know, I should probably reduce my effectiveness in order to keep them alive." If said character had Vow of Peace and was exalted, ok, but merely being lawful good does not mean taking chances with people who are blatantly trying to enslave and/or murder you.

The second part of my response is how such an argument pertains to real life. For background, I am speaking from experience here. I grew up in a bad neighborhood and as one of the few white kids in a neighborhood full of very prejudiced African Americans I ended up in a lot of fights, lost a lot of them, won a lot of them later on. I can speak from real experience and tell you I would've done the same thing as Miko, and I consider myself a good person. The moment any variant of "I'll kill you" comes into play, all bets are off and if their intention happens to be sincere and you play soft you will die. When it happened to me, I was lucky, I was only in the hospital for a week. In a world of Coup de Grace's, Miko could not afford to take such chances.

So yes, murder WAS inevitable, Miko just made sure it wasn't hers. (And I'm on the side of Miko as a psychopath).

(And the sorcerer cast the spell on her as either a means to subject her to her will, or so daddy could coup de grace her. This much was obvious. But no, that is NOT the logical and sane question to ask. If a guy comes at me with a knife, or shoots at me, my first reaction will not be "Why am I being shot?" it will be to fight or flee.)

[Poppatomus]

Alright, NOW you've done it. Every other argument has at least some grounding in the logic of D&D play or reality. At least every other argument that comes to mind immediately, and so they deserve to be treated with the respect that you would treat anything with logic and reason behind it.
Not this one.

First I pose this question, when was the last time you played a character who responded to "You will serve me or die" followed by an aggressive action with "Ya know, I should probably reduce my effectiveness in order to keep them alive." If said character had Vow of Peace and was exalted, ok, but merely being lawful good does not mean taking chances with people who are blatantly trying to enslave and/or murder you.

The second part of my response is how such an argument pertains to real life. For background, I am speaking from experience here. I grew up in a bad neighborhood and as one of the few white kids in a neighborhood full of very prejudiced African Americans I ended up in a lot of fights, lost a lot of them, won a lot of them later on. I can speak from real experience and tell you I would've done the same thing as Miko, and I consider myself a good person. The moment any variant of "I'll kill you" comes into play, all bets are off and if their intention happens to be sincere and you play soft you will die. When it happened to me, I was lucky, I was only in the hospital for a week. In a world of Coup de Grace's, Miko could not afford to take such chances.

So yes, murder WAS inevitable, Miko just made sure it wasn't hers. (And I'm on the side of Miko as a psychopath).


First I agree with you 100% on almost everything you've said.

Second, I have to disagree on one small piece. I don't see as direct a parallel between this situation and the one's you seem to have personally experienced. If someone says they are going to kill you, and has the means to do it, all bets are off. As you point out, it might be exalted to go out of your way not to kill them, but it doesn't make them not good.

Problem is there are two differences between that situation and this one:

1.) Miko provoked the action. It's one thing to go out of your way to not kill someone that randomly acosts you. Another thing to do something, even something you didn't want to do, that provokes them into attacking you and than coldly execute them without even an attempt to disarm or disuade them.

If you're walking down the street, and some guy tries to rob you, or doesn't like your hat, and starts a fight, you can do whatever you need to defend yourself. If you kill someone's kid right in front of them, even if you had to, you should expect they're going to come after you. Maybe you'll have to kill them anyway, but not even giving them a chance to surrender? Not even attempting to just evade and escape? That's a very different thing.

2.) Miko was in very little real danger. She clearly was way, way over leveled for the two of them. She did kill them both in one hit after all. It's open to question whether Pa even could have harmed Miko, let alone killed her. what's the penalty for doing subdual -4 to attack? How about just tripping him and then getting back on your horse? If a guy with a gun turns on you and says he's going to kill you, you do whatever you have to. If an angry five year old child comes at a fully grown adult with a sharp fork, you aren't justified in killing the child. Even if the kid has a knife or a razor blade, you'd expect the adult to at least try to avoid killing the child.

It also makes 1 even less excusable. Miko could have literally punched circles around this guy, meaning she should have been able to give his anger even more leeway, rather than less.

-----

Further support for this can be found in context. At this point we are meant to think that this is some force for evil, or at least some mercanary force, coming for the OOTS. The comic itself is supposed to establish the character as a nigh undefeatable combatant, with little compunction about killing. In retrospect the action can be justified within the paladin code, but at the time it clearly seemed right on the edge of evil, and ceratinly not good.

[Shatteredtower]

The concept of plausible deniability is that he isn't doing it on authority of the Crown. He doesn't have a license to kill because it doesn't exist. He isn't an agent of the crown because that would imply Britain supports his actions. To other governments, James Bond does not exist as a spy. He's not meant to. However, to other governments, Miko exists as a Paladin of the Sapphire Guard. The allusion is baseless.Not in the least. Assuming the Sapphire Guard exists at all to other nations, their real purpose in the world is a secret. As far as other governments are concerned, the real purpose does not exist.


And yet an entire city knew they existed?Not according to Hinjo, they don't. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0287.html)


How can that be secretive?...

Exhibit A (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html)
Exhibit B (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0449.html)

Nothing more needs to be said on the subject.


How can they lie about their existence when they're Paladins?By saying nothing at all on the subject. Silence is not lying. Paladins are warned against lying, but they are not compelled to reveal the truth. One can avoid doing both at the same time; thus, there is no contradiction between the two.


Killing Sam was possibly self defence.No, it was definitely self-defense. Sam issued a death threat backed up by an attempt to instantly incapacitate Miko.


Killing Pa was murder by provocation.Acting in self defense is not provocation. Repeating a request for aid cannot reasonably be defined as a provocation either. And:


If you stick a gun in the face of a shopkeeper and say, "Please give me your money", you're still commmiting armed robbery and demonstrating Intent to Assault. The gun's presence is enough to confirm a threat to the person's life. Miko's position is no different. She is making an unreasonable demand and holding a sword to a man that had been trying to stop the upcoming battle.Miko's position is completely different than that to which you've compared it. A more accurate comparison is to a person who, after being shot at and responding in kind, asks another person, one who came with the person that shot at her, for assistance without first holstering her weapon.

It is not reasonable, in the circumstances, to expect Miko to sheathe her swords before making her request. She retaliated against a man who was given time to draw against her and swing a weapon at her for reasons that do not reasonably constitute provoking him to attack. It is obvious that his reason for attacking was because Miko killed his daughter, not because he had cause to believe he was being threatened.

[TOAOMT]

Poppatomus, you have made a very good point and led to me see the error in my previous post. I was focusing largely on his killing of Sam, less than his killing of her father.

From that standpoint, she was stepping a bit over the line of good, but not quite into the line of evil. That was largely practicality. She won so easily because he was using only natural healing over the course of his being tied up, and his con bonus probably wasn't that high. He was mostlikely around seven hitpoints assuming 12 CON and reduction to near death before his stabilization (it's 1 + CON bonus HP per day right?). We (unlike Miko) know that the man is a very capable combatant, having bested Roy in single combat. It is entirely possible (lot likely, but possible) that in peak condition he could've beaten Miko (As Roy was on his way to doing when he got his ancestral weapon back). In that sense, she was just ensuring that she did not have to deal with being hunted down by an angry bandit and his potentially newly raised daughter.

I consider this act neither immediately good or immediately evil (acts of pure self preservation tend to hit the grey area), certainly against any current laws and lord knows unless the man were swearing to hunt me down and kill me I myself would not do it, in a world of frontier justice like D&D it's really just good business.

[Poppatomus]

Acting in self defense is not provocation. Repeating a request for aid cannot reasonably be defined as a provocation either.

She retaliated against a man who was given time to draw against her and swing a weapon at her for reasons that do not reasonably constitute provoking him to attack. It is obvious that his reason for attacking was because Miko killed his daughter, not because he had cause to believe he was being threatened.

So it's obvious that the reason for attacking was anger over her killing his daughter, meaning that the request for aid is a strawman, and apparently killing a person's daughter in front of them does not reasonably constitute provocation.




Miko's position is completely different than that to which you've compared it. A more accurate comparison is to a person who, after being shot at and responding in kind, asks another person, one who came with the person that shot at you, for assistance without first holstering her weapon.


I think my above post addresses this, but let me put it in a way more specific to this example.

A more accurate comparison would be if you happened upon two people walking down the street and went over to ask a question of a couple of people you'd never met. Through no fault of your own you get into a fire fight with the first one, which they start against the advice of the second, and you kill them. After doing that you turn to the still living person and act like nothing happened. Then, after giving that person a chance to draw their gun, you kill them too.

Oh, then you leave their bodies in a heap behind you and make a meta-gaming joke.

[Poppatomus]

Poppatomus, you have made a very good point and led to me see the error in my previous post. I was focusing largely on his killing of Sam, less than his killing of her father.

From that standpoint, she was stepping a bit over the line of good, but not quite into the line of evil. That was largely practicality. She won so easily because he was using only natural healing over the course of his being tied up, and his con bonus probably wasn't that high. He was mostlikely around seven hitpoints assuming 12 CON and reduction to near death before his stabilization (it's 1 + CON bonus HP per day right?). We (unlike Miko) know that the man is a very capable combatant, having bested Roy in single combat. It is entirely possible (lot likely, but possible) that in peak condition he could've beaten Miko (As Roy was on his way to doing when he got his ancestral weapon back). In that sense, she was just ensuring that she did not have to deal with being hunted down by an angry bandit and his potentially newly raised daughter.

I consider this act neither immediately good or immediately evil (acts of pure self preservation tend to hit the grey area), certainly against any current laws and lord knows unless the man were swearing to hunt me down and kill me I myself would not do it, in a world of frontier justice like D&D it's really just good business.

I have some points of disagreement with this (it was a tight fight even after she'd fallen and he was wielding a +5 sword), but they are small, nitipicky and outweighed by the fact that we come to the same conclusion. In the interests of continued debate, rather than just argument, I'll stop there.

[TOAOMT]

Meta-gaming jokes are important in any real life situation. Given time to calm down, I'm sure Pa would have realized that his daughter brought her death upon herself. However, Miko is a soldier, not a psychologist. She had an immediate threat and she dealt with it. Is that a good act, no, but it's human. People, even good people, don't always deal with problems in the best way.

As for the samurai code of honor thing, if we assume the Sapphire Guard code is based on the historical Samurai code, she didn't even have to untie them before killing them to avoid dishonor. In feudal Japan, a Samurai could cut down anyone of a lower class without provocation. Peasantry and non-people (like Hinin and Gaijin) were not under the code of honor, had no right to self defense, and further were not protected by a Samurai's code of honor. Romanticize it all you like but is Bushido was much like the "Pirate's Code" in the first Pirates of the Carribean where, as Barbossa said, "Thing about the Pirate Code, for it to apply... you gotta be a Pirate."

[Poppatomus]

Meta-gaming jokes are important in any real life situation. Given time to calm down, I'm sure Pa would have realized that his daughter brought her death upon herself. However, Miko is a soldier, not a psychologist. She had an immediate threat and she dealt with it. Is that a good act, no, but it's human. People, even good people, don't always deal with problems in the best way.


Then we agree. All I am arguing is that what she did is the behavior of a normal soldier, and that she played a role in causing the death of Pa beyond mere self defense. Does it go against the code, no? Is it an act that should see her thrown in prison? probably not. Is it something that we should expect of a character claiming to be a paragon of good? far from it. If that cloak had been thrown off in strip 200 to reveal Nale, or some other villain, you could just as easily look back on this seen as an example of callousness towards the lives of others.




Deleted the samurai stuff since you're right and while others have tried to argue using it, it's not my argument. I only mentioned allowing him to draw because Miko had, among her options, attacking him before he drew in order to prevent him from representing a lethal threat, or as much of one.

[Shatteredtower]

So it's obvious that the reason for attacking was anger over her killing his daughter, meaning that the request for aid is a strawman, and apparently killing a person's daughter in front of them does not reasonably constitute provocation.There's no straw man in that request. It cannot reasonably construed as a statement meaning, "Come on, give me a reason to kill you as well."

And there is no justification for attempting to murder someone you saw kill a member of your family for threatening to kill that individual in the first place. None.

Are you telling me Miko should have said, "By all means, I shall just stand here and allow you to avenge the woman that just attempted to kill me," instead?

Of course not. Indeed, she could have picked better words, but the ones chosen can not reasonably be construed as an attempt to provoke a second attempt on her life.


(A more accurate comparison would be if you happened upon two people walking down the street and went over to ask a question of a couple of people you'd never met. Through no fault of your own you get into a fire fight with the first one, which they start against the advice of the second, and you kill them. After doing that you turn to the still living person and act like nothing happened. Then, after giving that person a chance to draw their gun, you kill them too.Sure, let's go with that, so long as it's acknowledged that by fire fight, you mean, "Sam shot first."

So now demonstrate how the second person has thus been provoked into attacking you.[/url]

[ZeroNumerous]

First I pose this question, when was the last time you played a character who responded to "You will serve me or die" followed by an aggressive action with "Ya know, I should probably reduce my effectiveness in order to keep them alive."

Thief-Acrobat who refused to kill out of personal choice. And she was Chaotic Good.


Stuff

All this other stuff about your past is fairly irrelevant, as this is a discussion about a game system where good and evil are tangible forces that exist and can be defied. It's not the real world.

Poppatomus: Actually, a Paladin can't lie. At all. It's part of their code of conduct. And I didn't know that the city didn't know there was a bunch of Paladins running the show. That seems kind of ridicilious to me, since they're fairly obviously guards of some sort and it's pretty hard not to know about them given how many people were in the normal army compared to how many lived in the city.


I consider this act neither immediately good or immediately evil (acts of pure self preservation tend to hit the grey area), certainly against any current laws and lord knows unless the man were swearing to hunt me down and kill me I myself would not do it, in a world of frontier justice like D&D it's really just good business.

Thats just it, there is no gray area in D&D. You've either done a good act or an evil act. You haven't done a neutral act, because no such act exists. To be neutral, you'd have to have an equal amount of good and evil actions. Again, it's meaningless to apply things from the real world to D&D, because we do not have immutable world laws like that of alignment.

[Kreistor]

Heh... I don't even have to respond. There is so much disagreement and debate on Miko's position wrt Sam and Pa that it is clearly impossible to straightjacket the opinions as Alfryd was trying to do to start. And every single attempt he makes only re-raises the issues and inspires anyone that gets edited out to respond demanding to have their say in the synopsis.

[Poppatomus]

Zero, I think you're mixing up one of my comments with someone else's. Did I talk about Miko lying somewhere?


There's no straw man in that request. It cannot reasonably construed as a statement meaning, "Come on, give me a reason to kill you as well."


The strawman i was referring to was the idea that her request for aid from Pa was in any way related to the murder. It isn't. The provocation for his action isn't being rescued, or being interrogated, or being offended by being asked the question, it's seeing his daughter killed.

when you said "Repeating a request for aid cannot reasonably be defined as a provocation either." It was a strawman. You were knocking down an argument that no one was making, namely that his actions were provoked because Miko asked for information.

Now, that argument definitely applies to the murder of Sam, and perhaps that's how you meant it, but it has nothing to do with the murder of Pa.



And there is no justification for attempting to murder someone you saw kill a member of your family for threatening to kill that individual in the first place. None.


So Miko gets the benefit of the doubt for killing someone she could have disarmed or evaded, despite being a god damn paladin, but Pa doesn't. Isn't it possible his anger was also colored a bit by the fact that Miko still had her weapon drawn and was now pointing it at him while asking the same question he asked his recently dead daughter?

There's equally no justification in treating someone that just watched their daughter get killed the same way as somone that tried to enslave you.




Are you telling me Miko should have said, "By all means, I shall just stand here and allow you to avenge the woman that just attempted to kill me," instead?


how about bashing him on the head with the sword instead of murdering him with it? How about putting him in one of the pair of shackles she was going to use on the OOTS? she does, after all, succeed in subduing an entire party just a few strips later. how about risking the attack of opportunity, which surely won't kill a paladin of her level at full health, and using a disarm? How about using that stun move she uses against Haley and roy, and then disarming or disabiling him?



Of course not. Indeed, she could have picked better words, but the ones chosen can not reasonably be construed as an attempt to provoke a second attempt on her life.


no, they can't, and i pity the person who thinks they can. What can be considered provocation is murdering his daughter than turning at him with a drawn sword and saying, "do you want to answer my question." infact, the murder alone, justified though it may be logically, is emotional provocation in itself. As a Paladin, she is supposed to hold herself to a higher standard. she doesn't.



Sure, let's go with that, so long as it's acknowledged that by fire fight, you mean, "Sam shot first."


Sam is, without doubt, Han in this case.



So now demonstrate how the second person has thus been provoked into attacking you.[/url]

that I still have a weapon drawn and I just killed their friend. Are you saying you would be surprised if that person then came after you?

Also, what makes you think he was actually going to kill her? maybe he would have just disarmed her, or beaten her up? or dragged her to the law. Sure these are out there possibilities, especially since we know he was a bandit leader, but Miko didn't know that. The fact is she plays both sides.

We and Miko are confident that Pa's trying to kill her because she committed the provacative act of murdering his daughter. Because of that she kills him in "self defense." The problem is that she, as the provoker, should have done whatever was in her power, (in the case of a highlevel monk paladin a considerable amount) to avoid killing someone who might have seen reason. she didn't.

I repeat my question from above: Had this not ended up being a paladin, but instead an assasin in strip 200, would anyone go back to this strip and cite it as an example of entirely justifiable murder?

My guess is no, my guess is it would go quite the other way, and people would feel bad for Pa.

[TOAOMT]

Mr. Zero, I highly commend you for the thief acrobat character. It's a difficult path to play the pacifist in such a game and worthy of applause.


Thats just it, there is no gray area in D&D. You've either done a good act or an evil act.

So could you please kindly tell me where the following acts fall on the good or evil axis so that I may avoid my characters violating their alignment in the future: Waking up, Walking, Making a purchase at a store, sleeping inside, sleeping outside, running, jumping, skipping, dancing, singing, movin' to the groove, shouting "Play that funky music white boy," doing a handstand, eating, farming, cowherding, goatherding, herding dolphins... the list goes on.

As for good and evil being tangible forces and real life situations not applying, perhaps I should go through the books and find the passage that specifically says "Killing is not always an evil act, and killing an evil and dangerous creature even for selfish reasons is, while not good, not evil either," make a five hundred page book consisting of nothing but this passage, and thwack you across the head with it. For reference, I believe the example they use is an evil Dragon in that passage.

[Poppatomus]

Mr. Zero, I highly commend you for the thief acrobat character. It's a difficult path to play the pacifist in such a game and worthy of applause.



So could you please kindly tell me where the following acts fall on the good or evil axis so that I may avoid my characters violating their alignment in the future: Waking up, Walking, Making a purchase at a store, sleeping inside, sleeping outside, running, jumping, skipping, dancing, singing, movin' to the groove, shouting "Play that funky music white boy," doing a handstand, eating, farming, cowherding, goatherding, herding dolphins... the list goes on.

As for good and evil being tangible forces and real life situations not applying, perhaps I should go through the books and find the passage that specifically says "Killing is not always an evil act, and killing an evil and dangerous creature even for selfish reasons is, while not good, not evil either," make a five hundred page book consisting of nothing but this passage, and thwack you across the head with it. For reference, I believe the example they use is an evil Dragon in that passage.

Brilliant.

Some help on your list: Good, good, good, good (exalted if there is air conditioning), good, good, good, good, good, 70's music references are good but actually singing them is evil, good, good, good, good, evil (dolphins count as evil outsiders.)

[David Argall]

We can be very quick about the deaths of Sam and Pa. They were quite simply justified conduct for a paladin.

The paladin code makes no distinction between beggar and baron. Killing either can be justified or not. And the unjustified killing of either is an evil act that causes the revocation of paladinhood.

Miko's paladinhood was not revoked over the killings of these criminals. Therefore the killings were justified, period. We can ask whether she could have behaved even better, but the base position remains. The killings were justified. End of story.

[Poppatomus]

We can be very quick about the deaths of Sam and Pa. They were quite simply justified conduct for a paladin.

The paladin code makes no distinction between beggar and baron. Killing either can be justified or not. And the unjustified killing of either is an evil act that causes the revocation of paladinhood.

Miko's paladinhood was not revoked over the killings of these criminals. Therefore the killings were justified, period. We can ask whether she could have behaved even better, but the base position remains. The killings were justified. End of story.

Thanks for clearing that up. here I thought we were arguing about whether killing Pa was a good act, a netural act that supported the theory that Miko is heartless/mean/a bully/not a nice person/prone to over reaction/actually a tea kettle, or a neutral act that was to be expected of a paladin.

Turns out we were just arguing over whether killing these characters was an evil act or not. That really does make this simpler. I hope everyone above that was arguing these killings proved she was evil reads this so they'll understand how wrong they were.

[TOAOMT]

Indeed Mr. Argall. You win the thread.

[evileeyore]

Alfryd: You are a shining beacon of Truth in an otherwise benighted forum.

I bow to your patience and wit.

David Argall: You see with a quickness and clarity that others can only hope to reach for.

I bow to your keen intellect.



http://www.geocities.com/evileeyore/bow.gif

[Poppatomus]

Thought of another way to look at the Miko vs. Pa situation.

You're walking down the street with your big tough best friend. Some one comes over to you and asks for help with something. You start to help, but your friend decides they are going to mug the new comer. your friend brandishes knife and tells the new arrival to hand over all their money, the new arrival pulls out a gun and shoots your friend dead.

The new arrival then turns to you and repeats their question for help like nothing happened, the smoking gun still out and now casually pointed in your direction. You have a knife of your own, can your pulling out that knife be considered justifiable?

[evileeyore]

Thought of another way to look at the Miko vs. Pa situation.

You're walking down the street with your big tough best friend. Some one comes over to you and asks for help with something. You start to help, but your friend decides they are going to mug the new comer. your friend brandishes knife and tells the new arrival to hand over all their money, the new arrival pulls out a gun and shoots your friend dead.

The new arrival then turns to you and repeats their question for help like nothing happened, the smoking gun still out and now casually pointed in your direction. You have a knife of your own, can your pulling out that knife be considered justifiable?Two things;

1 - That is not a comparable situation.

2 - No, you are not justified. Your friend initiated an armed robbery, the stranger defended themselves. If they act hostily towards you, then yes, you are justified in defending yourself. However casually holding a gun is not a hostile action.


A better analogy is this:

You and a friend are in a lawless land. A stranger comes upon you and helps you out of a minor bind. The stranger then requests your assistance, you reply "Sure, we'd gladly help out after you just helped us, and your mission has coincidental points to our own ends". Your friend replies with "No, I think you'll be our new slave or you'll die", draws a shotgun and fires on the stranger. The first load was rocksalt, mostly just painful, rarely dangerous. The stranger draws their own weapon and kills your friend cold, while stand you there. You had made noise at your friend not do this, but were ignored. They then turn to you, weapon still out but not threatening, and repeat their request for assistance.

Are you justified in drawing and assaulting this stranger?


Keep in mind, magic does not equal a knife. It better equals a whole kit of weapons and tools, each suited to a different task, each as easily accessible as the last.

You can run from a knife. Running from a Mage rarely helps. Also, you can disarm a knife. Mage? Not so easy.

[Poppatomus]

Two things;

1 - That is not a comparable situation.


It is comparable, it's not a perfect match. We've argued different analogies above, as well as the actual scenario. I feel the above analogy highlights a useful part of the situation in putting the focus on Pa rather than Miko.



2 - No, you are not justified. Your friend initiated an armed robbery, the stranger defended themselves. If they act hostily towards you, then yes, you are justified in defending yourself. However casually holding a gun is not a hostile action.


The stranger defended themself, that's one way to think about it. Another is that the stranger, seemingly much stronger than your companion and yourself, used that hostile action as an excuse to kill. When that stranger acts like nothing happened, barely even responds with human emotion when they find out they killed your good friend, you don't think you might reasonable feel threatened at that point? You don't think its reasonable for you to pull out a weapon of your own?

Remeber, he doesn't know this is a paladin or an authority figure, it's just some person that showed up looking for information. They had no compunction killing your companion, what makes you think they'd care about killing you?



A better analogy is this:

You and a friend are in a lawless land. A stranger comes upon you and helps you out of a minor bind. The stranger then requests your assistance, you reply "Sure, we'd gladly help out after you just helped us, and your mission has coincidental points to our own ends". Your friend replies with "No, I think you'll be our new slave or you'll die", draws a shotgun and fires on the stranger. The first load was rocksalt, mostly just painful, rarely dangerous. The stranger draws their own weapon and kills your friend cold, while stand you there. You had made noise at your friend not do this, but were ignored. They then turn to you, weapon still out but not threatening, and repeat their request for assistance.

Are you justified in drawing and assaulting this stranger?



Right, which is basically exactly the situation in the comic, except with technology that does not, as the comic does, allow for a much more powerful character to easily disarm/disable a lesser character. That analogy would be more accurate if the first shot wasn't rocksalt, but a regular shot aimed at the knees, but which bounced off the target like she was made of metal.

and I would say you were justified in drawing your weapons yes. I personally don't think you'd be justified in assaulting the stranger, unless they took further aggressive action, but I do think it would be murder 2 not murder 1, maybe even manslaughter. I also would fault the stanger for not even making a serious attempt to let you vent your anger and maybe regain your senses, but instead killing you in what would appear to be a single blow.



Keep in mind, magic does not equal a knife. It better equals a whole kit of weapons and tools, each suited to a different task, each as easily accessible as the last.

You can run from a knife. Running from a Mage rarely helps. Also, you can disarm a knife. Mage? Not so easy.


There are actually a set of examples above that capture some of the points you are pointing out in this example. The end bit, about magic, relates only to the death of Sam, which no one is challenging. (Though I do find it interesting that you can run from/disarm a knife, yet you don't hold Miko responsible for not taking the course of action you admit was available to her.)

The idea of the new analogy was only to try and put the reader into pa's shoes. You just saw someone you really like get killed. Was it in the course of a fight? yes. justifiably? yes. but you're also justifiably angry. You're also very scared. A person you like, who's much stronger than you, was just swatted like a fly.

The person that did that killing now turns to you, weapon still drawn. ("unthreateningly" drawn perhaps, if that's a distinction you want to make.) Say the police happen upon this scene, before either of you is killed. Do you think that they are going to arrest you for drawing in that situation? No way.

and if the drawing is justified then it goes back to miko. The drawing is justified, but Pa swinging isn't/is in a much greyer area. THe onus is no one her. Do the neutral thing and just dispatch him quickly or do the merciful thing and risk being hurt to give him a chance to calm down/disarm and disable rather than kill him? Hell, do you even give him the common decency of explaining, "I'm sorry I killed your daughter but she was trying to kill me."?

We know Miko's answer, what's yours?

[Iranon]

The lethal response to Sam's attack is pretty much a no-brainer. One failed save could give the caster all the opportunity they need to magically enslave their victim for as long as they consider them useful.

The arguments about Dad so far ignore an aspect I deem rather important: That of willingly and knowingly keeping murderous company. Yes, it
s easy to argue that loyalty overrides other moral obligations in this case (to a greater extent than in the Roy/Belkar dynamic). However, a situation like this was enevitable in the long run, and apparently he was prepared to kill innocent people if his daughter overstepped the line.

Miko's behaviour comes across as very cold... but we know little about her reasons. Was she truly indifferent and oblivious? Was she trying to goad Dad into attacking? Was it an attempt of cowing him into submission in a situation where any display of human warmth would have been MORE likely to end in violence? We don't know. My personal impression is that it was a test - determine there and then whether he could be reasoned with or whether she'd be forced to kill him.

This brings up another point: While many interpretations of Good would call for sparing lives whenever possible, even then the question of practicability remains. In the real-life example critics seem to be so fond of, it would be possible to disarm either gunman... it would, however, involve taking unnecessary risks. Risking defeat - and therefore the death of innocents in the future - by showing too much mercy could be seen as morally unacceptable.

'Death to the sinners' is a valid attitude for Good, as long as a sense of proportion is kept (an interesting question would be whether Miko values sentient life too little, or whether her principles are fine and she merely displayed a lot of bad judgment).
If we followed some of the arguments presented to their logical conclusion, we would have to worry about many things that are left mostly unquestioned as of now - such as the indiscriminate slaughter of sentient beings (how many goblins in the Dungeon of Dorukan really needed to be killed?) and the moral implications of training in lethal combat in the first place (use a jitte instead of a daisho... take all combat feats that allow you to subdue an opponent... refuse to learn damage spells).

[Poppatomus]

'Death to the sinners' is a valid attitude for Good, as long as a sense of proportion is kept (an interesting question would be whether Miko values sentient life too little, or whether her principles are fine and she merely displayed a lot of bad judgment).
If we followed some of the arguments presented to their logical conclusion, we would have to worry about many things that are left mostly unquestioned as of now - such as the indiscriminate slaughter of sentient beings (how many goblins in the Dungeon of Dorukan really needed to be killed?) and the moral implications of training in lethal combat in the first place (use a jitte instead of a daisho... take all combat feats that allow you to subdue an opponent... refuse to learn damage spells).


Good points all Iranon, and you're correct in saying that other moral issues are raised, alot more. From my understanding, the context of this particular argument, on-going accross multiple threads, is whether this action by Miko represents the kind of "good" action one expects of a Paladin, whether it represents an act that is neutral and of no importance, or whether it represents an action that, while not "evil" by D&D standards, reflects poorly on Miko's character.

The larger question is, as you put it, "whether Miko values sentient life too little, or whether her principles are fine and she merely displayed a lot of bad judgment."

To me the fact that she could have disarmed this opponent, that she didn't for a second consider taking an action that might have given him a chance to calm down or take even the slightest risk to see if he could be disarmed, suggests that she values sentient life too little, and thus that this is an action that reflects poorly on her character. The death of Pa is neither trivial, nor neutral, even if it is not murder.

Your own caveat is that "death to sinners" is only a tool of good when proportion is kept. Killing someone that tries to enslave you is one thing. The swift, merciless execution of one with a perfectly human reason to be angry, even murderously so, is not proportionate, at least, not until it is the only remaining option.

[Alfryd]

I would like to thank all and sundry- especially you, sundry- for their contributions to the thread. I will probably not be making any further major revisions until the end of thee week, however.

Alfryd: You are a shining beacon of Truth in an otherwise benighted forum.
I bow to your patience and wit.
Thank you.:smallsmile: