List of Miko's Crimes

[Ancalagon]

Let us see what crimes we can find for Miko the Criminal...

Murder: Shojo
Probably Murder (2x): Sam, Sam's Dad

Attempted Murder (2x): Belkar, Hinjo

Breaking free from a Prison

Weakening the Fabric of the Universe (blowing up a Gate)

Misuse of Authority: Violentlyarresting the Order of the Stick (she only had orders to bring them to Azure City, noone said she was supposed to arrest them and she had no right to use violence)

---
You can go on, I also would it appreciate it if you provided fitting links.

[LordVader]

Possible Murder (also, could be self-defense) (x2) Sam, Sam's Dad
Definite Murder (x1) Shojo
Attempted Murder (x2) Hinjo, Belkar (Belkar attacked her the first time, but the second time he was unarmed and nonthreatening)
Harrassment (x1) Order of the Stick
Treason- (x1) Soon's Gate
(note- I used real crime terms for all)

[kirbsys]

Being a self righteous bitch.

Seeing things in black and white while not in a prequel comic.

Killing the wacky old dude with the cat.

Sending O-Chul to have a tea party witht the MitD

Seing signs from the Gods in everything (OMG its the monkey on that Tortilla!!!!)

Oh wait, were these suppossed to be things she couldactually get arrested for, or things I would charge her for if I were ruler of the Earth?

[LordVader]

Actual, real-llife crimes.

[Rhyeira]

Treason- (x1) Soon's Gate

Don't forget that trying to kill Hinjo most likely also qualifies as treason - in most medieval societies, (attempted) regicide was considered High Treason, and it's even worse trying to kill the town's leader when there's a huge army of enemies approaching and the town really needs someone who is in charge.

[factotum]

If Sam and her father were actually considered murder then Miko would have Fallen right there and then. Clearly she didn't, so as far as the gods are concerned she was acting in self-defence when she killed them both.

[Rhyeira]

True. Since a paladin falls as soon as he or she commits an evil deed (= a crime), nothing that happened before she actually fell can be taken into consideration here.

[jindra34]

Let me point out that
Real World=/=OOTS World.
SO we can make zero assumptions about the ethical ramifications of our laws on an OOTS charecter...

[doliemaster]

Technically non-evil deeds can be considered crimes in some-societys, also don't forget all the damage blowing up that gate caused, if miko doesn't get executed based on all this than those fines will have her working til' the end of her days to pay them off.:smallsmile: Eat that self-rightous BIZNATCH!!!

[Ancalagon]

Theft, treason, murder... I think it is save to assume those are crimes. Also... crimes not already listed would be nice. :)

[Lord Zentei]

Misuse of Authority: Violentlyarresting the Order of the Stick (she only had orders to bring them to Azure City, noone said she was supposed to arrest them and she had no right to use violence)

Not entirely accurate: linka (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0290.html).

Observe that Shojo said "you should try hard to bring them back alive for trial", to which she responded "as your cat wishes, Master, if it is possible".

Did she? Hell no, at least not initially, since she tried to smite Roy. Later, she used non-lethal violence to bring them back in chains.

But: Shojo did not explicitly forbid her to use violence. He asked that she should try hard to bring them back to stand trial. By that order she uses any means at her disposal to do so.

Her initial attack exceeded that order (until she realized that Roy was not evil), her violence in general did not.


Technically non-evil deeds can be considered crimes in some-societys

Some societies consider free speech a "crime". :smalltongue:

What is relevant is evil deeds in her society, and it is a Lawful Good one.


also don't forget all the damage blowing up that gate caused, if miko doesn't get executed based on all this than those fines will have her working til' the end of her days to pay them off.:smallsmile: Eat that self-rightous BIZNATCH!!!

Already been listed. :smalltongue:

[Rhyeira]

Well, on a general note... what you consider as "crime" here strongly depends on the point of view... for example, I doubt that Hinjo would consider any of Miko's deeds a crime that happened before she fell, because obviously the Gods didn't consider any of those a crime, and since Hinjo is a paladin, chances are pretty high that he accepts the Gods' judgement.

[Ancalagon]

Of course it depends on the point of view... was that ever in question? I do not think so.

[Rhyeira]

No, but you didn't specify from which point of view you wanted this to be discussed, which makes the discussion quite difficult and irritating.

[Ancalagon]

It seems pretty simple to me: People list what they think could qualify as noteable crime. Miko did a lot of things "in the name of what is good and right" that are questionable to bad.

Only because the police force has some authority in an area and has a wide area of what is allowed does not mean all they do is correct and good. Miko is a pretty good proof of that, even before her obvious fall.

Of course Elans breaking free of priston in Cliffport is a crime as well, but that is not the question here.

[jindra34]

The lets add resisting arrest, assaulting an officer, and numerous counts of agravated assault.

[Alfryd]

Misuse of Authority: Violentlyarresting the Order of the Stick (she only had orders to bring them to Azure City, noone said she was supposed to arrest them and she had no right to use violence)
What incentive was she supposed to apply? Candy floss?
Shojo specifically told her that they were charged with the crime of weakening the fabric of reality. "You know what to do, young one." That's an arrest order.
Also, she was under the impression the OOTS were guilty of crimes committed by the Linear Guild, which, given an evil alignment, she was empowered to pass sentence on. Bear in mind she only tried to kill Roy.
She was fully entitled to use force to arrest the Order if they didn't agree to come quietly.

Possible Murder (also, could be self-defense) (x2) Sam, Sam's Dad
There's nothing 'possible' about it! She was attacked or directly threatened first!

[Rhyeira]

Misuse of Authority: Violentlyarresting the Order of the Stick (she only had orders to bring them to Azure City, noone said she was supposed to arrest them and she had no right to use violence)

I disagree - as far as she knew, they were criminals, and she had been given orders to bring those criminals to Azure City to stand trial, which pretty clearly involved the possibility of arresting them in case of resistance.
Yes, they were in fact innocent and Shojo knew that quite well, but Miko didn't know it because she had been told they were criminals.

Edit: Oh, I seem to finally agree with Alfryd on one point. Nice. :smallwink:

[Closet_Skeleton]

Probably Murder (2x): Sam, Sam's Dad

Self defence. No other way about it. Mind control is an offensive action.


Misuse of Authority: Violently arresting the Order of the Stick (she only had orders to bring them to Azure City, noone said she was supposed to arrest them and she had no right to use violence)

She had orders to bring them back because they commited a crime, that's arresting.

This one is Shojo's crime for giving the order. Miko was doing what was expected of her and she had to use violence because she was forced to. She attacked at first but she'd already detected that Roy was evil and was more reasonable when she found out that Roy wasn't evil.

[Lorde]

What legal system are we using? American? Japanese? Azurean? Divine? This post remind me of small kids playing pretend, with exception the kids are all sure they are just playing.

Here is a hint champion.. what was a crime in a age / place may be legal in another.

[Rhyeira]

Yeah, I was already pointing out that such a discussion seems pretty pointless to me without specifying the point of view relevant for the judgement... after all, killing the ogres certainly was a crime when considered from an ogre's point of view.

[Ancalagon]

I also pointed out what is needed to know about this. So... what is the point in telling over and over again that the crime depends on the system?

[Lorde]

Yeah, I was already pointing out that such a discussion seems pretty pointless to me without specifying the point of view relevant for the judgement... after all, killing the ogres certainly was a crime when considered from an ogre's point of view.

Psssh... its more fun my way. What the OP *really* wanted is to gather supporters for his dislike of Miko by adding her the label of criminal, and do some bashing in between.

Next part would be catching a crayon, drawing some bars and put a cut-out of Miko above it.

SO CUTE!!! @_@

[Ancalagon]

Actually, this is not what I wanted. :)

[Lorde]

I also pointed out what is needed to know about this. So... what is the point in telling over and over again that the crime depends on the system?

Champ... following your logic, she can be judge by bad look by the fashion police, because blue is so passé.

You want to bash Miko do it the old fashionable way.

[Rhyeira]

So, just out of curiosity, what you actually *did* want was getting proposals from any possible point of view (including ogres?) as to what could be qualified as a crime and what could not?

[Shatteredtower]

Actual, real-llife crimes.Oh, well then, we'll go with this one: leaving the toilet seat up.

...any minute now...

[Ancalagon]

No, not ogres.

I wanted to look what miko did wrong in her cause to do the best, it does not matter if here or there one of the crimes falls out... she just did not behave as a "good" characer should do (roy pointed this out in detail, so I won't do it again).
I listed the occasions I came up with and wanted to see what other occasions other people mention I forgot... that it was NOT about ogres or hair-splitting should have been obvious.

[Rhyeira]

She just did not behave as a "good" characer should do (roy pointed this out in detail, so I won't do it again).

She probably wasn't nice or friendly, true, but she did behave like a good character until she fell... as several people pointed out already, she didn't do anything that could seriously been regarded as a "crime" before she fell.

[Shatteredtower]

she just did not behave as a "good" characer should do (roy pointed this out in detail, so I won't do it again).No, what he pointed out was that she did not behave as he felt a good character should act. Clearly, she was a good character, if not the epitome of the alignment.

Even now, I'd prefer to have her still be lawful good. I think it's more interesting to see how wrong and dangerous to the general order one can be while still maintaining that alignment.

[jindra34]

I'm going to point this out to everyone one more time:
"crimes" are offenses against civil society.
"evil" is a term used to describe things that are contrary to the moral fiber of the universe.
While the two overlap neither completely contains the other.

Any questions?

[Lorde]

No, not ogres.

I wanted to look what miko did wrong in her cause to do the best, it does not matter if here or there one of the crimes falls out... she just did not behave as a "good" characer should do (roy pointed this out in detail, so I won't do it again).
I listed the occasions I came up with and wanted to see what other occasions other people mention I forgot... that it was NOT about ogres or hair-splitting should have been obvious.

Hey... to err is to be human. Miko just is extremely human as it is.

[Shatteredtower]

"crimes" are offenses against civil society.So if a nomadic clan declare it an offense to poison their wells, this is not a crime?


"evil" is a term used to describe things that are contrary to the moral fiber of the universe.Sorry, no. Evil is as much one of the universe's moral fibres as good or neutrality. You might as well claim that chaotics are unethical.

[Rhyeira]

No, what he pointed out was that she did not behave as he felt a good character should act. Clearly, she was a good character.

Quoted for truth.
She simply didn't commit any non-good acts before she fell, she just wasn't the nicest person around... and not being a very nice person hardly qualifies as a crime.

[jindra34]

So if a nomadic clan declare it an offense to poison their wells, this is not a crime?
Depends on how civil the nomads are... though generally yes it would be a crime.

Sorry, no. Evil is as much one of the universe's moral fibres as good or neutrality. You might as well claim that chaotics are unethical.

Then would you mind presenting a better definition, considering DnD has absolute standards of good and evil?

[Ampersand]

Then would you mind presenting a better definition, considering DnD has absolute standards of good and evil?

You know, I keep seeing people say this, but the more time goes on the less I'm convinced it's true. I mean, look at half the fights about Miko. Hell, most of them. We can't even agree on what constitutes good and evil, and alignment debates are only tangentially related to the topic of the comic.

Where are these absolute standards of good and evil that exist in D&D? I look in the Player's Handbook and all I see are some vague notions of what it means to be lawful, chaotic, good, evil or neutral, and how those moral and ethical qualities tend to work in combination. Heck, one of the major themes of the Planescape setting was the idea that maybe those absolute alignments weren't so absolute after all...

[David Argall]

Response

Charge 1: Death of Sam, criminal sorceress
Defense: Self defense. Defendant was both threatened in a manner that produced a reasonable belief that defendant's life was in danger and that lethal force was a reasonable response. [A less violent response was of course possible, but both imperialed defendant's own life and the mission defendant was send on.]

Charge 2: Dead of Sam's father, criminal bandit
Defense: Self defense. Defendant was both threatened in a manner that produced a reasonable belief that defendant's life was in danger and that lethal force was a reasonable response. [A less violent response was of course possible, but both imperialed defendant's own life and the mission defendant was send on.]

Charge 3: Excess force in arrest of Order of the Stick
Defense: Actions were within defendant discretion. The Order consists of several powerful individuals whom the defendant could not expect to easily overcome in a non plot-aided situation. The evidence at hand identified them as evil and dangerous, fully justifying aggressive tactics in carrying out orders.

Charge 4: Murder: Shojo
Defense: Execution of criminal. Shoto was at the time of the incident under arrest and removed from office for a variety of crimes that are yet to be fully classified. They amount to quite sufficient for a death penalty. Since the justice system present to try Shoto was one created by Shoto, and now to be under the control of his nephew, inaction by the defendant would have meant the criminal would have avoided deserved punishment.
As paladin of the Saphire Guard, defendant is authorized to carry out lethal punishment.

Charge 5: Attempted Murder, Belkar
Defense, 1st: Actions against Belkar never reached the legal status of attempted murder or anything else. That it was intended and desirable does not constitute attempted.
Defense, 2nd: Record of Belkar reveals long list of crimes sufficient for a death penalty, and intent to carry out a great deal more. Elimination of Belkar is a praiseworthy act.

Charge 6: Attempted Murder, Hinjo
Defense: Resisting unlawful restraint. Defendant was going about lawful duties and was unreasonably attacked.

Charge 7: Prison break
Defense: Defendant was lawfully released from prison by act of the gods

Charge 8: Weakening the Fabric of the Universe (blowing up a Gate)
Defense: Defendant was carrying out assigned duties. As the united testimony of Hinjo, Shoto, and the trial of the Order of the Stick demonstrate, the destruction of a Gate is not the ultimate evil, and its guardians have/had to be prepared to destroy it at need. Defendant was faced with a situation where it was reasonable to decide that was necessary.

Charge 9: Harrassment, Order of the Stick
Defense: This does not rise to the level of criminal behavior. Nor has it in fact happened.

Charge 10: Treason- (x1) Soon's Gate
Defense: Defendant was carrying out assigned duties. As the united testimony of Hinjo, Shoto, and the trial of the Order of the Stick demonstrate, the destruction of a Gate is not the ultimate evil, and its guardians have/had to be prepared to destroy it at need. Defendant was faced with a situation where it was reasonable to decide that was necessary.

[Firestar27]

Response

Charge 1: Death of Sam, criminal sorceress
Defense: Self defense. Defendant was both threatened in a manner that produced a reasonable belief that defendant's life was in danger and that lethal force was a reasonable response. [A less violent response was of course possible, but both imperialed defendant's own life and the mission defendant was send on.]

Charge 2: Dead of Sam's father, criminal bandit
Defense: Self defense. Defendant was both threatened in a manner that produced a reasonable belief that defendant's life was in danger and that lethal force was a reasonable response. [A less violent response was of course possible, but both imperialed defendant's own life and the mission defendant was send on.]

Charge 3: Excess force in arrest of Order of the Stick
Defense: Actions were within defendant discretion. The Order consists of several powerful individuals whom the defendant could not expect to easily overcome in a non plot-aided situation. The evidence at hand identified them as evil and dangerous, fully justifying aggressive tactics in carrying out orders.

Charge 4: Murder: Shojo
Defense: Execution of criminal. Shoto was at the time of the incident under arrest and removed from office for a variety of crimes that are yet to be fully classified. They amount to quite sufficient for a death penalty. Since the justice system present to try Shoto was one created by Shoto, and now to be under the control of his nephew, inaction by the defendant would have meant the criminal would have avoided deserved punishment.
As paladin of the Saphire Guard, defendant is authorized to carry out lethal punishment.

Charge 5: Attempted Murder, Belkar
Defense, 1st: Actions against Belkar never reached the legal status of attempted murder or anything else. That it was intended and desirable does not constitute attempted.
Defense, 2nd: Record of Belkar reveals long list of crimes sufficient for a death penalty, and intent to carry out a great deal more. Elimination of Belkar is a praiseworthy act.

Charge 6: Attempted Murder, Hinjo
Defense: Resisting unlawful restraint. Defendant was going about lawful duties and was unreasonably attacked.

Charge 7: Prison break
Defense: Defendant was lawfully released from prison by act of the gods

Charge 8: Weakening the Fabric of the Universe (blowing up a Gate)
Defense: Defendant was carrying out assigned duties. As the united testimony of Hinjo, Shoto, and the trial of the Order of the Stick demonstrate, the destruction of a Gate is not the ultimate evil, and its guardians have/had to be prepared to destroy it at need. Defendant was faced with a situation where it was reasonable to decide that was necessary.

Charge 9: Harrassment, Order of the Stick
Defense: This does not rise to the level of criminal behavior. Nor has it in fact happened.

Charge 10: Treason- (x1) Soon's Gate
Defense: Defendant was carrying out assigned duties. As the united testimony of Hinjo, Shoto, and the trial of the Order of the Stick demonstrate, the destruction of a Gate is not the ultimate evil, and its guardians have/had to be prepared to destroy it at need. Defendant was faced with a situation where it was reasonable to decide that was necessary.

Charge 1 (against David Argall): Employed as a lawyer and a Miko-sympathiser

Defense: There is no possible defense.

Penalty: Death

Note: Please do not take offense. I just love lawyer jokes. (I know a family with a lawyer that does not only tolerate lawyer jokes, he encourages them.) If you feel offended I will edit this post.

People forgot that Miko performed an illegal search and damaged others using that illegal search. This was done by using her Detect Evil. (It does not matter what legal system is used for this case because Miko admitted that it was the law (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html).)

[jindra34]

You know, I keep seeing people say this, but the more time goes on the less I'm convinced it's true. I mean, look at half the fights about Miko. Hell, most of them. We can't even agree on what constitutes good and evil, and alignment debates are only tangentially related to the topic of the comic.

Where are these absolute standards of good and evil that exist in D&D? I look in the Player's Handbook and all I see are some vague notions of what it means to be lawful, chaotic, good, evil or neutral, and how those moral and ethical qualities tend to work in combination. Heck, one of the major themes of the Planescape setting was the idea that maybe those absolute alignments weren't so absolute after all...

Absolute means that it stays relatively constant when the circumstances change... its relatively the same for all people everywhere regardless of race, color, nationality, location, how they were raised etc. No such standard exists in the real world and it is hard for most people to get there head around the concept... the fact that Miko lost her paladin powers for killing Shojo is evidence of a absolute standard.

[Kreistor]

Self defence. No other way about it. Mind control is an offensive action.

Offensive but non-lethal. There are societies that do not permit lethal responses to non-lethal assaults. So...

Use of Excessive Force -- wrt the level of attak she used against Samantha.

Self-defense against Pa is not justifiable. Miko drew first and made what any rasonable person expects is an unreasonable request of Pa whie threatening with a weapon. That one, at least, is manslaughter. Pa, on the other hand, could have claimed self-defense as a jutification fo defending himself against Miko.

[Lenny]

Charge 1: Death of Sam, criminal sorceress
Defense: Self defense. Defendant was both threatened in a manner that produced a reasonable belief that defendant's life was in danger and that lethal force was a reasonable response. [A less violent response was of course possible, but both imperialed defendant's own life and the mission defendant was send on.]


True. The killing of Samantha was a legitimate response to the attack made by Samantha.



Charge 2: Dead of Sam's father, criminal bandit
Defense: Self defense. Defendant was both threatened in a manner that produced a reasonable belief that defendant's life was in danger and that lethal force was a reasonable response. [A less violent response was of course possible, but both imperialed defendant's own life and the mission defendant was send on.]


Again, Miko acted in self defense. This killing was justified.



Charge 3: Excess force in arrest of Order of the Stick
Defense: Actions were within defendant discretion. The Order consists of several powerful individuals whom the defendant could not expect to easily overcome in a non plot-aided situation. The evidence at hand identified them as evil and dangerous, fully justifying aggressive tactics in carrying out orders.


Miko was under specific instruction to bring in the OotS alive. By attempting "Smite Evil" on Roy, she went beyond the instructions issued to her by her lord.



Charge 4: Murder: Shojo
Defense: Execution of criminal. Shoto was at the time of the incident under arrest and removed from office for a variety of crimes that are yet to be fully classified. They amount to quite sufficient for a death penalty. Since the justice system present to try Shoto was one created by Shoto, and now to be under the control of his nephew, inaction by the defendant would have meant the criminal would have avoided deserved punishment.
As paladin of the Saphire Guard, defendant is authorized to carry out lethal punishment.


If the Sapphire Guard had the right to summarily execute criminals, why are there several high-level dangerous criminals kept in a prison in the castle? Why were Nale, Sabine, Thog, Tsukiko etc. not summarily executed by the Sapphire Guard. Also, Shojo was not a criminal - he may have breached Soon's oath, but that in itself is not necessarily a crime. With Shojo removed from office, power falls into the hands of Hinjo, making him the Lord of Azure City and head of the Sapphire Guard. He did not seek the execution of Shojo, therefore Miko's action was in fact, a crime.



Charge 5: Attempted Murder, Belkar
Defense, 1st: Actions against Belkar never reached the legal status of attempted murder or anything else. That it was intended and desirable does not constitute attempted.
Defense, 2nd: Record of Belkar reveals long list of crimes sufficient for a death penalty, and intent to carry out a great deal more. Elimination of Belkar is a praiseworthy act.


1st - Miko was about to finish Belkar when Shojo stopped her - if that is not "attempted", what is?
2nd - Hinjo insrtucted Belkar to be remanded for trial - indicating Miko had neither precedent nor authority to summarily execute anyone, even a known criminal.



Charge 6: Attempted Murder, Hinjo
Defense: Resisting unlawful restraint. Defendant was going about lawful duties and was unreasonably attacked.


Attempting to slay your rightful liege lord is rarely considered one's "lawful duty"



Charge 7: Prison break
Defense: Defendant was lawfully released from prison by act of the gods


Miko has fallen from grace, therefore the Gods are unlikely to be acting in her favour. Escaping from a prison where she had been remanded by her rightful lord is not justified.



Charge 8: Weakening the Fabric of the Universe (blowing up a Gate)
Defense: Defendant was carrying out assigned duties. As the united testimony of Hinjo, Shoto, and the trial of the Order of the Stick demonstrate, the destruction of a Gate is not the ultimate evil, and its guardians have/had to be prepared to destroy it at need. Defendant was faced with a situation where it was reasonable to decide that was necessary.


Miko committed an act for which she was prepared to kill the OotS. Their act was committed accidentally, and in a situation where it was under more threat than the Azure City gate. If their act was a crime, so was hers.



Charge 9: Harrassment, Order of the Stick
Defense: This does not rise to the level of criminal behavior. Nor has it in fact happened.


This charge against Miko can't be proved.



Charge 10: Treason- (x1) Soon's Gate
Defense: Defendant was carrying out assigned duties. As the united testimony of Hinjo, Shoto, and the trial of the Order of the Stick demonstrate, the destruction of a Gate is not the ultimate evil, and its guardians have/had to be prepared to destroy it at need. Defendant was faced with a situation where it was reasonable to decide that was necessary.

By destroying the gate instead of defending it, as her oath stated, Miko is a criminal if Shojo is. As I don't take Shojo's action as a crime, it would be hard to justify Miko's as such.

[jindra34]

DAvid you also forgot resisting arrest, asaulting an officer of the law, and numerous counts of agravted assault...

[Poppatomus]

Response

Charge 2: Dead of Sam's father, criminal bandit
Defense: Self defense. Defendant was both threatened in a manner that produced a reasonable belief that defendant's life was in danger and that lethal force was a reasonable response. [A less violent response was of course possible, but both imperialed defendant's own life and the mission defendant was send on.]


The charge is not murder. The state does not claim that the murder was committed in cold blood nor does it claim that the defendent acted lethally in the heat of the moment. Possible charges include, but are not limited to, excessive force, wreckless disregard for human life, and/or negligence.

That the defense admits that a less violent response was possible only further supports the unjustified nature of the defendents lethal actions, particularly as a first resort.

[Kreistor]

Charge 2: Dead of Sam's father, criminal bandit
Defense: Self defense. Defendant was both threatened in a manner that produced a reasonable belief that defendant's life was in danger and that lethal force was a reasonable response. [A less violent response was of course possible, but both imperialed defendant's own life and the mission defendant was send on.]

Self-defense denied.

Pa was unarmed and being threatened by Miko before he drew his weapon. In response to his daughter being summarily killed, the defendent should have expected him to draw certanly; however, by approaching him and presenting instead of backing away and attempting to calm the situation, she was, in fact, the aggressor in this engagement, not the victim. Pa could, in fact, use the self-defense argument himself, since it is not necessary to verbally present a threat to initiate a fight and be the aggressor. To defend yourself, you must not threaten your opponent first, and Miko clearly did threaten Pa by pointing a bloodied sword at him while he was unarmed.

At best, it was Manslaughter. Miko had the option of backing away instead of presenting her weapon to him. By failing to take that defensive action, she was provoking Pa and eliminating her own Self-Defense argument.


Charge 3: Excess force in arrest of Order of the Stick
Defense: Actions were within defendant discretion. The Order consists of several powerful individuals whom the defendant could not expect to easily overcome in a non plot-aided situation. The evidence at hand identified them as evil and dangerous, fully justifying aggressive tactics in carrying out orders.

When Roy was down and without a weapon, there was no reason to use force. he was talking and in a position to surrender. Use of lethal force on an unarmed and reasonable being is not just excessive, it is murder.


Charge 4: Murder: Shojo
Defense: Execution of criminal. Shoto was at the time of the incident under arrest and removed from office for a variety of crimes that are yet to be fully classified. They amount to quite sufficient for a death penalty. Since the justice system present to try Shoto was one created by Shoto, and now to be under the control of his nephew, inaction by the defendant would have meant the criminal would have avoided deserved punishment.
As paladin of the Saphire Guard, defendant is authorized to carry out lethal punishment.

As stated by Lord Hinjo at the time, the determination of guilt is the purview of the courts, not the officers. Taking the law into your own hands is vigilantism, and is not a defense.

Shojo did not create the legal system: Soon did. Miko may think it has been corrupted by Shojo, but she does not make that decision: the coutrts do. Arguing that the courts are corrupt is not a defense, unless you have actual evidence of this. Miko has no proof that the courts were corrupt, only Shojo's trial of the OotS, which was not a secular trial, was corrupt. As Shojo says in 267 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0267.html) "He has had you captured strictly on the authority of the gods, not on behalf of his secular city." The trial of the OotS is, therefore, not evidence against the legal system of AC, just Shojo himself.


Charge 6: Attempted Murder, Hinjo
Defense: Resisting unlawful restraint. Defendant was going about lawful duties and was unreasonably attacked.

Inside the borders of Azure City, the secular authority rules pertaining to crime, not the Sapphire Guard. The Sapphire Guard's mandate is to protect the Gate, and Miko is only allowed to act in that defense. Shojo's crimes were secular, not divine, which means the legal court system has jurisdiction.

The innocent are not permitted to resist arrest just for being innocent. You must stand trial, regardless of innocence; thus, resisting arrest, innocent or guilty, is a crime.

After all, if innocence justifies resisting arrest, Miko was unreasonably attacking the Order of the Stick. The only crime Miko was arresting for they were innocent of, and so they were equally justified in all attempts to resist Miko's arrest.

Try again.


Charge 7: Prison break
Defense: Defendant was lawfully released from prison by act of the gods

Shojo clearly separates divine and secular authority. Secular authorities in AC do not submit to the will of the gods, or his dancing around to try the OotS himself would not have been necessary.

Besides, you actually have to prove that defense, not just say it. So, where's the proof that the gods indicated she should escape? This is a court of law, after all. You can prove this defense, right?


Charge 8: Weakening the Fabric of the Universe (blowing up a Gate)
Defense: Defendant was carrying out assigned duties. As the united testimony of Hinjo, Shoto, and the trial of the Order of the Stick demonstrate, the destruction of a Gate is not the ultimate evil, and its guardians have/had to be prepared to destroy it at need. Defendant was faced with a situation where it was reasonable to decide that was necessary.

A crime does not need to be an ultimate evil to be a criminal act. Lots of lesser evils, and even some neutral acts are criminal.

Defendent was arrested and stripped of position at the time of the crime. She had no authority with the Sapphire Guard at the time. Her assigned duties were to remain in prison until she had defended herself against her charges. She chose to take on these responsibilities: they were not given to her. While arrested, she had no assigned duties, and so cannot use that as a defense for her action.


Charge 10: Treason- (x1) Soon's Gate
Defense: Defendant was carrying out assigned duties. As the united testimony of Hinjo, Shoto, and the trial of the Order of the Stick demonstrate, the destruction of a Gate is not the ultimate evil, and its guardians have/had to be prepared to destroy it at need. Defendant was faced with a situation where it was reasonable to decide that was necessary.

Same as Charge 8. Miko was under arrest, which removes her assigned duties and assigns her to prison. She may choose to believe that she is following her oath, but that does not make any duty she chooses to follow that defends the gate assigned to her. Lord Hinjo, her Order's master, legally ordered her into prison, making her legally assigned duties to remain in prison. She violated her assigned duties, not obeyed them, by leaving and approaching the Gate.

[Ampersand]

Absolute means that it stays relatively constant when the circumstances change... its relatively the same for all people everywhere regardless of race, color, nationality, location, how they were raised etc. No such standard exists in the real world and it is hard for most people to get there head around the concept... the fact that Miko lost her paladin powers for killing Shojo is evidence of a absolute standard.

No, the fact that Miko lost her paladin powers is evidence that the Twelve Gods decided to revoke their patronage of her in response to her actions. You might have been able to argue that if Miko had been a philosophy paladin, but the fact that her powers came from imperfect and limited divine beings detaches any greater implication of standardized morality from her fall. Gods grant powers to mortals entirely at their whim...Hinjo and O-Chul could both be stripped of their abilities next comic for no reason other than Monkey lost a hand of poker to Pig (or would that be trotter of poker?).

Again, I ask given the supposition that the D&D multiverse acts on a absolutist morality system, please provide a page number in the PHB or SRD where the intricities of said system are laid out. If such a system truly exists, than documenting it should be simple.


When Roy was down and without a weapon, there was no reason to use force. he was talking and in a position to surrender. Use of lethal force on an unarmed and reasonable being is not just excessive, it is murder

Jumping in with a minor point, prior to Miko beating Roy he had already purposefully and unambiguously rejected the notion of surrender.

[Chronos]

Again, I ask given the supposition that the D&D multiverse acts on a absolutist morality system, please provide a page number in the PHB or SRD where the intricities of said system are laid out. If such a system truly exists, than documenting it should be simple.I don't have 3.5, but from the third edition PHB, page 87 (the beginning of Chapter 6: Description, under the heading "Alignment": There's probably similar text in the 3.5 edition): "Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos." This is further supported by the existance of spells and special abilities such as Know Alignment, Smite Evil, and Unholy Blight: If one person, subjected to Unholy Blight, is damaged and risks being sickened, while another person is not damage and suffers no risk of sickness, then there is an objective difference between those two people. That difference is alignment.

Back to the original topic, might there be some procedural issues with Miko's original arrest of the Order of the Stick? While she does tell them that they are charged with crimes, she does not state what those crimes are, who she is, nor by what authority she's arresting them. The laws of Azure City might well require such statements, and indeed, subsequent evidence shows that had she identified herself appropriately at the start, violence in the arrest would have been unnecessary (since the Order cooperated peacefully once it became apparent that she was a paladin). Nor does the fact that she retained her paladinhood argue against this: Such failure to declare her authority is not an evil act, merely an unlawful one, and a paladin may commit an unlawful act and retain her abilities (so long as it does not represent a sufficient pattern of behaviour to shift her overall alignment away from lawful).

[Kreistor]

Jumping in with a minor point, prior to Miko beating Roy he had already purposefully and unambiguously rejected the notion of surrender.

For an officer of the court, that is irrelevant. The duty of the officer, as clarified by Shojo directly to Miko, was to bring them back alive. Once that possiblity was achieved, Miko was honour bound and duty bound to obey it, regardless of Roy's activities or alignment. Execution by the arresting officer is not a trial, it is murder.

Criminals can say anything they want, but the officers are required to capture wherever possible. With the lethal threat removed, Miko no longer has justification to kill Roy.

Additionally, Miko failed to present her authority and crime when she approached the OotS. She presented that they were charged with something for which they would die if found guilty. Given Miko's vigilante ways, any reasonable person would be not want to be tried by such a black and white court when their lives were at stake.

I've made this argument before. What it comes down to is that Miko's presentation to the OotS is identical to Sam's presentation to Miko. Sam presents surrender or die and attacks with something that is nonlethal. Miko presents surrnder or die and attacks with something nonlethal. The two situations are parallel. Some people see some slight nuance between the two, but courts tend not to accept such fine hair splitting.

[Stormthorn]

evil deed (= a crime)

Not so. Where i am from a Mercy Killing (aka assisted suicide) is a crime, but it isnt evil in the least if mercy is the actual motivation. On the other hand, it perfectly ok for a major corperation to artificialy inflate its prices (which i have a problem with) or for the government to lock up its people based upon hearsay and rumors (Im in the US. With the Patriot Act, suspicion of terrorism is all it takes. Very McCarthy). Evil does not equal crime and crime does not equal evil.

[Poppatomus]

Kreistor, I am on your side but just because pa can claim self defense does not mean miko can't also claim self defense. They are nor mutually exclusive concepts. It's tough to have happen, but it can happen. The problem with two, as you have yourself mentioned elsewhere, is not that Miko defended herself, even with violence, but that she used excessive, lethal violence and acted without mercy or compassion.

She was more than justified in defending herself, as pa was, she was not justified in killing him in one blow, if indeed killing him was justified at all.

[Ampersand]

I don't have 3.5, but from the third edition PHB, page 87 (the beginning of Chapter 6: Description, under the heading "Alignment": There's probably similar text in the 3.5 edition): <snip>

The problem with that is the text attempts to establish objective, unshakable morality and then describes all of the alignments in the vaguest terms possible. Heck, the sum what it means to be "good" in two sentences, and "evil" in three, only one of which is actually relevant to what it means to be "evil."

Heck, when Miko first fell, one of the big debates raging on this board was whether she fell because she committed an evil act or a chaotic act. Surely any absolute moralistic system would be self-evident enough so as to render such arguments moot.


For an officer of the court, that is irrelevant. The duty of the officer, as clarified by Shojo directly to Miko, was to bring them back alive.

His exact order was to "Try really hard to bring them back alive for trial." Particularly in light of magic that allows the dead to be brought back to life or spoken to, that essentially gives Miko authority to execute the prisoners should she deem it necessary for the success of her mission.

Given that Roy detected strongly as evil, essentially said he wouldn't surrender to her, and took such obvious joy in hurting her (200 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html), panels 30-32, when Haley provides the sneak attack; note the big smile on Roy's face), is it any wonder that she didn't believe that he suddenly wanted to surrender just as soon as the fight as going against him?

[jindra34]

The problem with that is the text attempts to establish objective, unshakable morality and then describes all of the alignments in the vaguest terms possible. Heck, the sum what it means to be "good" in two sentences, and "evil" in three, only one of which is actually relevant to what it means to be "evil."


The PHB is vague for 2 reasons:
1. The absolute definition of 'good' and 'evil' vary from DM to DM and by campaign setting. Thus without constricting the options of the DM they could not put a specific definition down.
2.Very few DM's would like there players to know what exactly is and is not 'good' or 'evil' because it would invariably allow the players to come to accurate conclusions about a charecters alignment by just observing that charecter.

[Poppatomus]

Given that Roy detected strongly as evil, essentially said he wouldn't surrender to her, and took such obvious joy in hurting her (200 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html), panels 30-32, when Haley provides the sneak attack; note the big smile on Roy's face), is it any wonder that she didn't believe that he suddenly wanted to surrender just as soon as the fight as going against him?

Absolutely right on the rest, but the quoted bit is somewhat off. first, imagine a police officer telling that to his boss, "Well Chief I disarmed him and had him at sword point, and in the middle of his saying, 'I think if we all calm down,' I decided It was easier to just kill the bastard." It's a good point that with rez magic even a dead person could be revived for trial, but I guarentee that 5,000 GP would be coming out of Miko's pay.

Also, that's when evil creatures usually want to surrender, when they realize they can't win. Same as Elan and Nale. Elan let's Nale surrender because Elan is the good twin, not the neutral twin. In a similar situation, albeit a more intense one, Miko chooses the opposite approach.

Overall though, I agree, this isn't really a "crime" per say.

[Citizen Joe]

I believe there were numerous cases of vandalism and destruction of public property and probably some conspiracy to conduct such crimes and aiding and abetting those doing said crimes. Most of this occured while she attempted to capture Belkar, but that's little consolation to the victims.

[EvilElitest]

What incentive was she supposed to apply? Candy floss?

You know, their is a skill call talking that should have used. Instead of attacking them without warning

Shojo specifically told her that they were charged with the crime of weakening the fabric of reality. "You know what to do, young one." That's an arrest order.
But she attacked them on sight, not arrest them on sight.


Also, she was under the impression the OOTS were guilty of crimes committed by the Linear Guild, which, given an evil alignment, she was empowered to pass sentence on.
Impression does not =guilty. She had not proof and their is not harm in allowing them a chance to explain them selves.

Bear in mind she only tried to kill Roy.
And that is justified how?

She was fully entitled to use force to arrest the Order if they didn't agree to come quietly.
That is fine, provided she ask first



There's nothing 'possible' about it! She was attacked or directly threatened first!
If we use the US law system, then she still gets murder two, but would most likely get away because of the self defence claus

I disagree - as far as she knew, they were criminals, and she had been given orders to bring those criminals to Azure City to stand trial, which pretty clearly involved the possibility of arresting them in case of resistance.
Yes, they were in fact innocent and Shojo knew that quite well, but Miko didn't know it because she had been told they were criminals.
So? She attacked unproviced, without even trying to use diplomacy. Also, just because OOTS had been acused of crime does not mean she has proof.



Psssh... its more fun my way. What the OP *really* wanted is to gather supporters for his dislike of Miko by adding her the label of criminal, and do some bashing in between.

Next part would be catching a crayon, drawing some bars and put a cut-out of Miko above it.

SO CUTE!!! @_@
OH dear, conspiracy theory, it is all an evil plan to discredit Miko, oh the unjustice ect.
I'm pretty sure the OP just wants to list her crimes, not that hard

No, what he pointed out was that she did not behave as he felt a good character should act. Clearly, she was a good character, if not the epitome of the alignment.
No, it is pretty much a way of saying that she basiclly doesn't understand the very thing she claims to be, throught the comic she has been on the verge of LG

Where are these absolute standards of good and evil that exist in D&D? I look in the Player's Handbook and all I see are some vague notions of what it means to be lawful, chaotic, good, evil or neutral, and how those moral and ethical qualities tend to work in combination. Heck, one of the major themes of the Planescape setting was the idea that maybe those absolute alignments weren't so absolute after all...
You know, funny you should say that because you know in the PHB, under aligments, one of the first things it isays are that Morals are NOT relative

For more details you can read the book of vile darkness or the book of exalted deeds, but the aligments seem pretty well defined to me, because both of those books only backed up what i already thought

No, the fact that Miko lost her paladin powers is evidence that the Twelve Gods decided to revoke their patronage of her in response to her actions. You might have been able to argue that if Miko had been a philosophy paladin, but the fact that her powers came from imperfect and limited divine beings detaches any greater implication of standardized morality from her fall. Gods grant powers to mortals entirely at their whim...Hinjo and O-Chul could both be stripped of their abilities next comic for no reason other than Monkey lost a hand of poker to Pig (or would that be trotter of poker?).
Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong
1. A paladin does not draw their powers from the gods, look up religion under paldin in PHB
2. Miko fell both for voilating her paladin's oath and for failing her gods, so far these charges overlap
3. Hinjo and O-Chul are not clerics, and so they can not lose their powers at their god's whime, then need to volate their oath
4. The gods don't control wheather or not Hinjo or O-Chul are paladins are not, they just control their position in the SG.
5. Miko fell for voilating her oath

from,
EE

[Setra]

There is so much amatuer lawyering here, I think I'm gonna cry.

[David Argall]

Self-defense denied.

Pa was unarmed and being threatened by Miko before he drew his weapon.
Did you read what you typed?
If you have a weapon to draw, you are not unarmed. You simply do not have a weapon at the ready. And Pa is even drawn with weapons visible. He is not unarmed.


In response to his daughter being summarily killed, the defendent should have expected him to draw certanly; however, by approaching him and presenting instead of backing away and attempting to calm the situation, she was, in fact, the aggressor in this engagement, not the victim.
No such conclusion can be drawn from the comic
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0189.html
The claim of approach is not supported. Quite the contrary, we find Dad is approaching.
Nor is there a duty to back away from a confrontation. It is routinely good advice, but there is no duty to retreat, particularly by an officer of the law carrying out assigned duties. One can argue for miserable people skills, but that is not criminal, and Dad remains fully the aggressor.


To defend yourself, you must not threaten your opponent first, and Miko clearly did threaten Pa by pointing a bloodied sword at him while he was unarmed.
You may indeed threaten the other party first and still be only defending yourself, particularly when you have a duty to carry out. The relavent case here would be "Don't illegally approach me or I shoot.". However, Miko is making no threat by merely keeping her weapon in hand [or even pointed at the potentially hostile individual, which she is not doing.] It is the action of PA to draw his weapons that is entirely the aggressor.


Miko had the option of backing away instead of presenting her weapon to him. By failing to take that defensive action, she was provoking Pa and eliminating her own Self-Defense argument.
She was doing an entirely legal action. This definition of "provoke" offered here bring up the joke "You are violent." "Only when provoked." "Which is whenever somebody does anything you don't like." "True." Provoked or not, Pa has no right to attack and is fully in the wrong, which means Miko is acting in self-defense.


When Roy was down and without a weapon, there was no reason to use force. he was talking and in a position to surrender. Use of lethal force on an unarmed and reasonable being is not just excessive, it is murder.
Roy was claiming to be reasonable and willing to surrender. Being evil on the evidence at hand, clearly guilty of resisting arrest and assaulting an officer of the law with lethal intent, not to mention the basic death penalty charge, and the presence of several other dangerous criminals, summary execution is an authorized action.


As stated by Lord Hinjo at the time, the determination of guilt is the purview of the courts, not the officers. Taking the law into your own hands is vigilantism, and is not a defense.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0120.html
As the text shows, Miko was indeed authorized to administer extreme justice if the circumstances warrented, and she was the one to decide that. The record merely shows she is to attempt to bring them back alive. The basic requirement was to bring them back, period.


Miko may think it has been corrupted by Shojo, but she does not make that decision: the coutrts do. Arguing that the courts are corrupt is not a defense, unless you have actual evidence of this.
A defense does not need evidence to be a defense. Normally it is a weak or insufficient defense without evidence, but it is still a defense, and sometimes sufficient of itself.


Miko has no proof that the courts were corrupt, only Shojo's trial of the OotS, which was not a secular trial, was corrupt. As Shojo says in 267 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0267.html) "He has had you captured strictly on the authority of the gods, not on behalf of his secular city." The trial of the OotS is, therefore, not evidence against the legal system of AC, just Shojo himself.
Given that Shojo is leader of both city and paladins, evidence of corruption in one is evidence of corruption in the other.


Inside the borders of Azure City, the secular authority rules pertaining to crime, not the Sapphire Guard. The Sapphire Guard's mandate is to protect the Gate, and Miko is only allowed to act in that defense. Shojo's crimes were secular, not divine, which means the legal court system has jurisdiction.
All of this is presenting as fact what is simply not in evidence. The exact relationship between Guard and city is not made clear.
However, Shojo's crimes are crimes in both secular and divine. He is removed from both offices at once. So he is subject to Sapphire Guard justice, which can mean immediate execution by Miko.

[Now leaving here the role of Miko lawyer, we can note that Miko acted not out of any evidence of court corruption, but from personal anger. However, that does not negate her duty to execute the guilty if she had sufficient grounds for feeling the court system was corrupt. She merely misued a power she had, not created a power.]


The innocent are not permitted to resist arrest just for being innocent. You must stand trial, regardless of innocence; thus, resisting arrest, innocent or guilty, is a crime.
This of course is the opinion of any legal system. But it assumes the validity of that system. And a paladin need not accept that a particular system is valid. This is obvious in the case of evil systems, but is not limited to them. At this point Miko has rejected the authority of Lord Hinjo, and thus his authorization to arrest her.


After all, if innocence justifies resisting arrest, Miko was unreasonably attacking the Order of the Stick. The only crime Miko was arresting for they were innocent of, and so they were equally justified in all attempts to resist Miko's arrest.
Does not follow. Miko was representing valid authority then, and resisting invalid authority later. [This is close to a Miko is always right argument, but is not invalid on those grounds. There is a need to show she was resisting valid authority and/or representing invalid.]


Shojo clearly separates divine and secular authority. Secular authorities in AC do not submit to the will of the gods, or his dancing around to try the OotS himself would not have been necessary.
Not at all. It is the defense that raises the claim that the city authorities have limited authority. There is no claim they do not not submit to the will of the gods. In fact, they would likely say they do [while often avoiding obeying any order they don't feel like obeying on various technical grounds.] The prosecution merly points out that any limit on the secular authority does not apply here.


Besides, you actually have to prove that defense, not just say it. So, where's the proof that the gods indicated she should escape? This is a court of law, after all. You can prove this defense, right?
As we know, Miko would offer the fact she got out, and that she did what had to be done as clear proof of that. The court may well view that with a grain of salt.


Defendent was arrested and stripped of position at the time of the crime. She had no authority with the Sapphire Guard at the time. Her assigned duties were to remain in prison until she had defended herself against her charges. She chose to take on these responsibilities: they were not given to her. While arrested, she had no assigned duties, and so cannot use that as a defense for her action.
a-that a captain arrests you does not mean a general can't or won't assign you a duty to be carried out. Miko, acting on the authority of the gods, need not concern herself with an arrest by lesser authorities. [Now showing she is acting on the authority of the gods may prove a problem for her.]
b-She is claiming she did what had to be done. Any individual, paladin or not, was in fact under a duty to act as she did under those circumstances.


Miko was under arrest, which removes her assigned duties and assigns her to prison. She may choose to believe that she is following her oath, but that does not make any duty she chooses to follow that defends the gate assigned to her. Lord Hinjo, her Order's master, legally ordered her into prison, making her legally assigned duties to remain in prison. She violated her assigned duties, not obeyed them, by leaving and approaching the Gate.
Arrest, to the degree it is valid, does not remove all other duties. In the case of defense of the Gate, Lord Hinjo had no valid authority to prevent her from entering the throne room to defend the Gate. In fact, he had a duty to ensure her presence whenever he judged her of use as a guard of the gate. [We can speculate that the summons of Soon might be flawed if a non-paladin was present. But in any case, Miko's arrest and imprisonment are no barrier to her when she has a duty to be guarding the Gate, which is the prime duty.]

[jindra34]

Argall you might want to stop trying to defend Miko. It has been show to be very bed for your mental and physical health.

[EvilElitest]

The problem with that is the text attempts to establish objective, unshakable morality and then describes all of the alignments in the vaguest terms possible. Heck, the sum what it means to be "good" in two sentences, and "evil" in three, only one of which is actually relevant to what it means to be "evil."

Back this up please. If you really want details, read BoED for good


Heck, when Miko first fell, one of the big debates raging on this board was whether she fell because she committed an evil act or a chaotic act. Surely any absolute moralistic system would be self-evident enough so as to render such arguments moot.
So? Some people can't read rules correctly. And as i recall, the debate chaotic vs. Evil (the non evil act team lost by a land slide) didn't really start for quite a few weeks
Also, to be honest most of the people saying Miko didn't commit an evil act were far more concerned with protecting their favorite character than really making a point




His exact order was to "Try really hard to bring them back alive for trial." Particularly in light of magic that allows the dead to be brought back to life or spoken to, that essentially gives Miko authority to execute the prisoners should she deem it necessary for the success of her mission.
Wow, that's ends justifies the means for you
Miko losses nothing by appraching Order at a distance and saying "I'm sorry, but you are under arrest and i am to take you for trial, i assure you that you will be treated failly and given a fail trial ect if you would just come quitly
Instead she attacked unprovacted
Also right to excute prisoners should they resist arrest, and it is not arrest if you don't name the charges. If Miko had killed Roy, that wouldn't be defeating resisting prisoners, it would be murder
As a final point, the ablity to bring them back to the dead doesn't make it correct to kill them.


Given that Roy detected strongly as evil, essentially said he wouldn't surrender to her, and took such obvious joy in hurting her (200 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html), panels 30-32, when Haley provides the sneak attack; note the big smile on Roy's face), is it any wonder that she didn't believe that he suddenly wanted to surrender just as soon as the fight as going against him?
Just wrong, in every sense possible
1. Roy decting strongly of evil does not give Miko right to kill
2. Miko attacked Roy without warning, hence Roy has the right of self defence
3. Roy was on the ground defencless
4. Roy smiled at the fact that he pulled off a hit, that doesn't mean he is a sadist
5. Roy taking delight in hurting her is irrelevant, as he is the one being attacked not visa versa
6. Just because she doesn't belive he will surrender doesn't mean that he won't, she doesn't know him
7. Regardless, without offering the guy a chance to surrender that is basiclly borders murder and goes against the orders of Shojo


Roy was claiming to be reasonable and willing to surrender. Being evil on the evidence at hand, clearly guilty of resisting arrest and assaulting an officer of the law with lethal intent, not to mention the basic death penalty charge, and the presence of several other dangerous criminals, summary execution is an authorized action.
Wait what?
1. Roy is claiming to be reasonable, so that means it is time to accept the surrender
2. Being evil is not a crime
3. What evidence? What proof. The only thing Miko saw him do was walk down a road while detecting of evil
4. No it wasn't resisting arrest because miko simple attacked, she didn't make an arrest
5.how is self defence assusting an officer
6. Charge, not convicted
7. Without a trial they are not guilty
8. Proof to me that the other are guilty crimeals, you can't exacute somebody without a trail


A defense does not need evidence to be a defense. Normally it is a weak or insufficient defense without evidence, but it is still a defense, and sometimes sufficient of itself.
Wow, I bet hte KGB said that plenty of times
yes she does need evidence, why did they have a trial? If they don't need evidence to convict them of guilt, then why bother with a trial

Given that Shojo is leader of both city and paladins, evidence of corruption in one is evidence of corruption in the other.
1. Does not justify Murder, more so because Shojo wasn't reisting arrest
2. No proof of corruption
4. No proof of present charges
5. So? You can hold a trial without Shojo.

All of this is presenting as fact what is simply not in evidence. The exact relationship between Guard and city is not made clear.
Yes their are, when we first meet Shojo he says very clearly that their is a difference between the AC law and the AC Guard

However, Shojo's crimes are crimes in both secular and divine. He is removed from both offices at once. So he is subject to Sapphire Guard justice, which can mean immediate execution by Miko.
Prove to me that SG's justice is immediate execution, because here are some reasons why it is not
1. Miko lost her freaky powers,
2. Hinjo, who miko knew was innocent said they should try Shojo
3. Hinjo disaproved of Miko's methods and arested her
4. When Hinjo arrested Miko, he didn't use immediate excution, he gave her a chance to surrender
5. The fact that the SG offer trials proves that they don't do immediate excution, otherwise OOTS would be killed on the spot

[Now leaving here the role of Miko lawyer, we can note that Miko acted not out of any evidence of court corruption, but from personal anger. However, that does not negate her duty to execute the guilty if she had sufficient grounds for feeling the court system was corrupt. She merely misued a power she had, not created a power.]
Miko does not have the authority to order Shojo's exacution without trial, Hinjo proved that

This of course is the opinion of any legal system. But it assumes the validity of that system. And a paladin need not accept that a particular system is valid. This is obvious in the case of evil systems, but is not limited to them. At this point Miko has rejected the authority of Lord Hinjo, and thus his authorization to arrest her.
1. Their is a difference in saying hte legal system is corrupt and murder
2. This does not justify murdering an helpless old man, guilty or not
3. And Miko fell, so that didn't work


Does not follow. Miko was representing valid authority then, and resisting invalid authority later. [This is close to a Miko is always right argument, but is not invalid on those grounds. There is a need to show she was resisting valid authority and/or representing invalid.]
A valid authority who said to take them alive, and Miko attacked without even asking for surrender.

As we know, Miko would offer the fact she got out, and that she did what had to be done as clear proof of that. The court may well view that with a grain of salt.
Dispite what a certain fanclub says, what Miko says does not equal right. Most of the time it is quite the opposet

Arrest, to the degree it is valid, does not remove all other duties. In the case of defense of the Gate, Lord Hinjo had no valid authority to prevent her from entering the throne room to defend the Gate. In fact, he had a duty to ensure her presence whenever he judged her of use as a guard of the gate. [We can speculate that the summons of Soon might be flawed if a non-paladin was present. But in any case, Miko's arrest and imprisonment are no barrier to her when she has a duty to be guarding the Gate, which is the prime duty.]
She was stripped of those duties by the gods themselves

[David Argall]

Argall you might want to stop trying to defend Miko. It has been show to be very bed for your mental and physical health.

Bed? Who said anything about my wanting to bed the hot virgin chick? My thoughts have been pure and pristine...Well, most of them .... some of them? One or two anyway.

[Setra]

Miko is completely innocent of all charges! And here is my proof.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a psychopathic ex-paladin, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests."

[blennus]

Before I bring up one point, I would like to state for the record that I am not a Miko fan, nor do I wish to defend her. However due to evidence provided in this strip http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0171.html we can clearly see according to what roy says in the 7th panel we can see that since the wooden forest is not part of any kingdom there are no laws for the bandits to have have broken. This would therefor include anything that Miko has done in the Forest as well. Whether her acts are good or evil may be up for debate, but they are not unlawful as there is no law, as I understand it. Please correct me if I am wrong here.

[Setra]

I move for a mistrial.

As we, the viewers, are all witnesses, none of us can be suitable jury for her. Therefore, it is a conflict of interest, and I motion to dismiss.

Edit: also, good point blennus

[Kreistor]

Did you read what you typed?
If you have a weapon to draw, you are not unarmed. You simply do not have a weapon at the ready. And Pa is even drawn with weapons visible. He is not unarmed.

Weapons not in hand, then. Pa has no weapons in hand and is drawn with hands below the waist while the hilts are above his shoulders, so he is not reaching for them.

If you consider Pa threatening despite having no weapons in hand, then Miko was threatening to completely unarmed Sam, since Miko carries weapons as well. That makes Miko the threat to Sam and justifies a Hold Person to prevent Miko's threat.

it does come down to one or the other. There are many parallels in Miko's situation here where if you use a justification for her actions, it can justify the actions of another character in the opposite position with Miko.


[/quote] No such conclusion can be drawn from the comic
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0189.html
The claim of approach is not supported. Quite the contrary, we find Dad is approaching.
Nor is there a duty to back away from a confrontation. It is routinely good advice, but there is no duty to retreat, particularly by an officer of the law carrying out assigned duties. One can argue for miserable people skills, but that is not criminal, and Dad remains fully the aggressor.[/quote]

Miko was not in Azure City terrain and not an officer of the law. Shojo says that the Twelve Gods recognize no borders, but this is clearly false. We see the gods respecting each others borders in 453. At the very least, Miko was not acting as an officer of the law, since Shojo states that the charge was divine, not secular. She was acting as an agent of her gods, whose jurisdiction does not extend to individuals not of their own pantheon, so she had no jurisdiction over the Order of the Stick.


You may indeed threaten the other party first and still be only defending yourself, particularly when you have a duty to carry out. The relavent case here would be "Don't illegally approach me or I shoot.". However, Miko is making no threat by merely keeping her weapon in hand [or even pointed at the potentially hostile individual, which she is not doing.] It is the action of PA to draw his weapons that is entirely the aggressor.

A weapon in hand is indeed a threat. Picture this case. A thief carrying a weapon enters a shop and says, "Give me your money, please and thank you." This is armed robbery. It is not necessary to brandish the weapon or point it at the shopkeeper for the threat to be implicit.

Miko had nbot identified any authority to Pa. She had not stated that she was an officer of anything, nor that she had any legal authority, which prevents any duty arguments. She was just a civilian, wielding a weapon, who had killed a man's father. She states that she has a master, which does not imply any legal authority.


She was doing an entirely legal action. This definition of "provoke" offered here bring up the joke "You are violent." "Only when provoked." "Which is whenever somebody does anything you don't like." "True." Provoked or not, Pa has no right to attack and is fully in the wrong, which means Miko is acting in self-defense.

Legal only inside AC jurisdiction. Legal only if the individuals worshipped her gods outside AC. Otherwise, she is beholden to the laws of the land she occupies. She is welcome to strongarm someone back to AC, but that is a crime according to the laws of 100% of the nations in this world. There are methods of extradition for a reason.


Roy was claiming to be reasonable and willing to surrender. Being evil on the evidence at hand, clearly guilty of resisting arrest and assaulting an officer of the law with lethal intent, not to mention the basic death penalty charge, and the presence of several other dangerous criminals, summary execution is an authorized action.

Miko had not identified her authority. There are many nations in the world, and some of them are evil. Without identifying her nation, she could jsut as easily have been an evil blackguard as a good paladin: the suspects are not mindreaders. With no identifyication as a force of good, Miko is just someone trying to kidnap the Order of the Stick.

That is why police as their first act in any altercation are required to identify themselves as police. Criminals can invade houses, too, and it is legal to defend oneself against them.

It is not reasonable to expect submission of suspects to a force of law that has not identified its authority, especially in a world like the OotS, since evil authority can arrest people in exactly the same manner as Miko used.


http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0120.html
As the text shows, Miko was indeed authorized to administer extreme justice if the circumstances warrented, and she was the one to decide that. The record merely shows she is to attempt to bring them back alive. The basic requirement was to bring them back, period.

Jurisdiction extends only as far as your own borders, no matter what someone says. A King of England ordering a Knight to arrest someone in France can expect the head of his Knight in a pretty little box with a note to respect the authority of the King of France, who is the only rule of law in France. Your rule ends at your border.

In this case, the OotS were in lawless lands, so it simply came down to a question of power and Miko had more. Might made right, and that was what Shojo was saying. But Shojo could not try them for crimes on that land, since he was not the master of that land.


Given that Shojo is leader of both city and paladins, evidence of corruption in one is evidence of corruption in the other.

Uhm... ninja? Nobles? Hardly a city made entirely of assassins. In fact, Shojo suggests that AC is a very dangerous place, especially for him, making the secular leadership very non-paladin and therefore unassociated with the Sapphire Guard.



All of this is presenting as fact what is simply not in evidence. The exact relationship between Guard and city is not made clear.
However, Shojo's crimes are crimes in both secular and divine. He is removed from both offices at once. So he is subject to Sapphire Guard justice, which can mean immediate execution by Miko.

I find it highly unlikely that a Lawful society has allowance for the chaotic act of summary execution.


[Now leaving here the role of Miko lawyer, we can note that Miko acted not out of any evidence of court corruption, but from personal anger. However, that does not negate her duty to execute the guilty if she had sufficient grounds for feeling the court system was corrupt. She merely misued a power she had, not created a power.]

One of my favorite Miko quotes is in #203. "Your guilt or innocence, in the absence of an evil alignment, is not for me to determine."

Miko does not, in fact, have the authority to commit summary executions unless the suspect has an evil alignment. Shojo was Neutral and therefore immune to her justice. She had only the authority to arrest him and present him to the legal authorities for this matter, probably the magistrates Hinjo was suggesting.


This of course is the opinion of any legal system. But it assumes the validity of that system. And a paladin need not accept that a particular system is valid. This is obvious in the case of evil systems, but is not limited to them. At this point Miko has rejected the authority of Lord Hinjo, and thus his authorization to arrest her.

No one has to accept that a legal system is valid, but denying it is does not free you from punishment for the crimes they have jurisdiction for. LEgal systems defnd themselves from people like Miko, disliking the chaos of people taking the law into their own hands. If Miko is on trial, Miko's opinion of the legal system is irrelevant, unless you can prove to a reasonable judge that the system was corrupt. Miko rejected the system before the system had a chance to deal with Shojo, which prevents gathering any evidence that it was truly corrupt. miko could have just as easily waited until after the trial, gathered evidence of corruption during the trial due to her superior position, and then used that as evidence proving her later execution of a freed Shojo was justified. Denying teh system its chance to deal with Shojo can only result in the system putting Miko in chains in its own defense.


Does not follow. Miko was representing valid authority then, and resisting invalid authority later. [This is close to a Miko is always right argument, but is not invalid on those grounds. There is a need to show she was resisting valid authority and/or representing invalid.]

Except she did not identify herself, and so was not presenting vaild authority to the OotS. This makes her potentially invalid authority, and so restores the parallel. She's only valid if she has jurisdiction and identifies herself. She did not do the second, and didn't have the first.


Not at all. It is the defense that raises the claim that the city authorities have limited authority. There is no claim they do not not submit to the will of the gods. In fact, they would likely say they do [while often avoiding obeying any order they don't feel like obeying on various technical grounds.] The prosecution merly points out that any limit on the secular authority does not apply here.

Murder is a secular crime, no matter the reason for it. The gods made their point: killing Shojo caused Miko to Fall, and so was not their will. Divine authority cannot justify this murder, since there is ample evidence Miko's belief that she had such authority was false. This casts doubt on all of her supposed divinely inspired choices. The prosecution can prove that she is not always divinely inspired when she chooses to commit an act of violence, and so there is always doubt that any act is divinely inspired.

Miko cannot prove divien inspiration and the prosecution can prove that she is not 100% divinely inspired. This casts doubt on any divine justification, and undermines such a defense.


As we know, Miko would offer the fact she got out, and that she did what had to be done as clear proof of that. The court may well view that with a grain of salt.

Belkar escaped. So he is divinely inspired? I suppose he must go free, too.


a-that a captain arrests you does not mean a general can't or won't assign you a duty to be carried out. Miko, acting on the authority of the gods, need not concern herself with an arrest by lesser authorities. [Now showing she is acting on the authority of the gods may prove a problem for her.]

Regrettably, Miko has been proven to not always act out of divine inspiration, and so the belief that she is so inspired cannot be assumed. Miko's beliefs are not a legal defense.


b-She is claiming she did what had to be done. Any individual, paladin or not, was in fact under a duty to act as she did under those circumstances.

She acted illegally and without honour. Paladins are required to act honourably.


Arrest, to the degree it is valid, does not remove all other duties. In the case of defense of the Gate, Lord Hinjo had no valid authority to prevent her from entering the throne room to defend the Gate. In fact, he had a duty to ensure her presence whenever he judged her of use as a guard of the gate. [We can speculate that the summons of Soon might be flawed if a non-paladin was present. But in any case, Miko's arrest and imprisonment are no barrier to her when she has a duty to be guarding the Gate, which is the prime duty.]

Wow, that is pure invention. Hinjo is not required to do anything with someone the god have demonstrated their displeasure towards -- they kinda appeared over AC and zapped her for everyone to see, after all, and there were lots of witnesses to back that up. Miko murdered his uncle and attacked Hinjo when pretending to surrender, a very dishonourable act. Hinjo is perfectly justified in believing Miko's oaths were no longer binding her actions, and so was certainly justified in ordering her incarcerated until trial and punishment. She had stated that she would not submit to his authority: that ends any expectation that she is serving the Sapphire Guard.

[Kreistor]

Before I bring up one point, I would like to state for the record that I am not a Miko fan, nor do I wish to defend her. However due to evidence provided in this strip http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0171.html we can clearly see according to what roy says in the 7th panel we can see that since the wooden forest is not part of any kingdom there are no laws for the bandits to have have broken. This would therefor include anything that Miko has done in the Forest as well. Whether her acts are good or evil may be up for debate, but they are not unlawful as there is no law, as I understand it. Please correct me if I am wrong here.

I knew that existed someplace. Couldn't find it. No, you're right, but only sort of.

As a lawless area, not a nation, there is no force to protest Azure City authorities choosing to try Miko for any crimes she commmited while in the Forest. This is not unheard of. Nations try their own citizens for crimes committed on other Sovereign territories, especially when that person is acting as some authority there. For example, a diplomat with immunity, for instance, could be tried at home for something they did while techinically immune from the other nation's laws. There are other examples including mundane crimes by citizens which, while not illegal in that country are sometimes tried in the country of the visitor's citizenship. (Sorry, no examples possible. Violates forum rules, so don't ask me to prove it.)

Miko was acting as an extension of the Sapphire Guard, and as a unit that would want to ensure other nations did not fear their tread while they seek out theats to the Sapphire Gate while on other Sovereign Territory, the Guard may choose to try her for any action that was illegal in AC, despite her being in some place that it is not technically illegal. It's just a good idea.

[Ridureyu]

You also forgot when she killed Mace Windu and all the younglings.

[blennus]

Jurisdiction extends only as far as your own borders, no matter what someone says. A King of England ordering a Knight to arrest someone in France can expect the head of his Knight in a pretty little box with a note to respect the authority of the King of France, who is the only rule of law in France. Your rule ends at your border.

In this case, the OotS were in lawless lands, so it simply came down to a question of power and Miko had more. Might made right, and that was what Shojo was saying. But Shojo could not try them for crimes on that land, since he was not the master of that land.

Agreed. This applies to both her apprehending the OotS as well as her murder of the Father/Daughter combo.


No one has to accept that a legal system is valid, but denying it is does not free you from punishment for the crimes they have jurisdiction for. LEgal systems defnd themselves from people like Miko, disliking the chaos of people taking the law into their own hands. If Miko is on trial, Miko's opinion of the legal system is irrelevant, unless you can prove to a reasonable judge that the system was corrupt. Miko rejected the system before the system had a chance to deal with Shojo, which prevents gathering any evidence that it was truly corrupt. miko could have just as easily waited until after the trial, gathered evidence of corruption during the trial due to her superior position, and then used that as evidence proving her later execution of a freed Shojo was justified. Denying teh system its chance to deal with Shojo can only result in the system putting Miko in chains in its own defense.

Again a very good point. I'm going to have to agree with these points by Kreistor. Miko's acts were definitely unlawful when she escaped from jail, as well as her murder of Shojo. Even if a system is corrupt, a lawful character would endeavor to correct those problems by dealing within the parameters of the law.

Edited:

For example, a diplomat with immunity, for instance, could be tried at home for something they did while techinically immune from the other nation's laws..
So this would boil down to whether her actions were legal in AC. Thanks for the clarification.

[Kreistor]

Agreed. This applies to both her apprehending the OotS as well as her murder of the Father/Daughter combo.

Yep. But it similarly removes any crimes that might have been charged relative to Miko's initial attack on the OotS. She could not have had legal authority, and so they would not be required to submit.

Anyone can claim jurisdiction, like Shojo tries to, but that only justifies it to themselves, not others. Divinities have tried to claim entire nations, but if the people in those nations disagree, such claims have no power. The only people that accept such claims are those that agree with them, which is those that worship the divinity in question. Claiming jurisdiction over an area with no treaty defining borders comes down to Might makes Right and no more.


So this would boil down to whether her actions were legal in AC. Thanks for the clarification.

Pretty much. It's not clear if the OotS trace a path to AC through any non-lawless lands. The whole Inn sequence might have been on someone's territory, but we just can't be certain either way. So far, no crimes are claimed for Miko there, but that could change.

[EvilElitest]

Miko is completely innocent of all charges! And here is my proof.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a psychopathic ex-paladin, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests."
Dear god in heaven, it all makes sense now, Belkar is LG. And Roy's CE. And Miko threads are ok. And Grey Guards makes sense. Quick, you have inspired me to reopen hte link vs. Seph thread, because only that can counter your post in insanity


Before I bring up one point, I would like to state for the record that I am not a Miko fan, nor do I wish to defend her. However due to evidence provided in this strip http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0171.html we can clearly see according to what roy says in the 7th panel we can see that since the wooden forest is not part of any kingdom there are no laws for the bandits to have have broken. This would therefor include anything that Miko has done in the Forest as well. Whether her acts are good or evil may be up for debate, but they are not unlawful as there is no law, as I understand it. Please correct me if I am wrong here.

But miko is still a paladin and a member of the SG and so follows the laws of AC

You also forgot when she killed Mace Windu and all the younglings.
No that was me, my bad
I blame the Jawas, them and their hoods
from,
EE

[squidthingy]

miko has only commited 1 crime:

existing after she became a fallen paladin

[Dunklezahn]

I started out liking Miko, but as time has gone by, I don't. At first I thought she was pretty funny. The dogmatic(sp?) way she acted was sad and funny.

[Chronos]

The whole Inn sequence might have been on someone's territory, but we just can't be certain either way.Of course we can be certain. The inn was in the middle of Somewhere (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0226.html), a place which has a king, so the inn can be reasonably concluded to be subject to the laws of the Kingdom of Somewhere.

[David Argall]

Quote:
His exact order was to "Try really hard to bring them back alive for trial." Particularly in light of magic that allows the dead to be brought back to life or spoken to, that essentially gives Miko authority to execute the prisoners should she deem it necessary for the success of her mission.

Wow, that's ends justifies the means for you
Miko losses nothing by appraching Order at a distance and saying "I'm sorry, but you are under arrest and i am to take you for trial, i assure you that you will be treated failly and given a fail trial ect if you would just come quitly
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html
“You have been charged with crimes for which the only possible sentence is death….Surrender yourselves or have that sentence carried out immediately.”

The suggested alternative may be more polite, but both meet the legal requirements, and I doubt you will find many cops willing to apologize as they arrest somebody.


Instead she attacked unprovacted
Refusing to surrender is resisting arrest, and is full provocation in any cop’s book.


Also right to excute prisoners should they resist arrest, and it is not arrest if you don't name the charges.
Arrest without revealing the charges is entirely valid. Consider the conversation “You are under arrest.” “On what charge?” “I’ll let the captain figure that out.” The cop makes the arrest, and only afterwards, if at all, does he mention the charge. “Under arrest” means you are under the command of that cop and to obey him. We seldom use the term in non-criminal cases, but it is not limited to such.

Quote:
Given that Roy detected strongly as evil, essentially said he wouldn't surrender to her, and took such obvious joy in hurting her (200, panels 30-32, when Haley provides the sneak attack; note the big smile on Roy's face), is it any wonder that she didn't believe that he suddenly wanted to surrender just as soon as the fight as going against him?


1. Roy decting strongly of evil does not give Miko right to kill
It puts him on the eligible list. Our game PCs who detect evil and immediately attack are incorrect, but they are in the right direction.


2. Miko attacked Roy without warning,
Clearly wrong. See above.


4. Roy smiled at the fact that he pulled off a hit, that doesn't mean he is a sadist
5. Roy taking delight in hurting her is irrelevant, as he is the one being attacked not visa versa
This points are rather trivial, but are still valid evidence of illegal and immoral behavior. And since Roy is resisting arrest, he does not qualify for any benefit from “being attacked”.


6. Just because she doesn't belive he will surrender doesn't mean that he won't, she doesn't know him
The average cop does not know the typical criminal and must decide on the instant whether the suspect is pulling a wallet or a gun. If she validly believes his offer of surrender is false, she is fully able to dice him. On that, see below.


7. Regardless, without offering the guy a chance to surrender that is basiclly borders murder and goes against the orders of Shojo
The chance to surrender was offered, and the orders made alive merely preferable.

Quote:
Roy was claiming to be reasonable and willing to surrender. Being evil on the evidence at hand, clearly guilty of resisting arrest and assaulting an officer of the law with lethal intent, not to mention the basic death penalty charge, and the presence of several other dangerous criminals, summary execution is an authorized action
.

1. Roy is claiming to be reasonable, so that means it is time to accept the surrender
A mere claim does not get automatic acceptance. Falsely claiming to be reasonable is an obvious criminal tactic.


2. Being evil is not a crime
In D&D terms, it comes close.


3. What evidence? What proof. The only thing Miko saw him do was walk down a road while detecting of evil
She had the testimony of several people, the orders of her master, and Roy’s earlier refusal to surrender on command.


4. No it wasn't resisting arrest because miko simple attacked, she didn't make an arrest
That is precisely what she did do.


5.how is self defence assusting an officer
Because it is not self defense when you are resisting arrest.


6. Charge, not convicted
A distinction with no meaning at the time of arrest.


7. Without a trial they are not guilty
Without trial they are not found guilty. Obviously the guilty can and do avoid arrest and trial at times.


8. Proof to me that the other are guilty crimeals, you can't exacute somebody without a trail
You are trying to extend general current legal standards to situations where they do not apply. Miko, by her position, was in fact authorized to act as judge and jury, not to mention executioner, whenever she deemed it proper.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0120.html Her “My blades will be bathed in the blood of those responsible.” is not denied. She is merely told to do her best to bring them back alive if she can. She remains authorized to kill as she sees fit.

Quote:
A defense does not need evidence to be a defense. Normally it is a weak or insufficient defense without evidence, but it is still a defense, and sometimes sufficient of itself.

yes she does need evidence, why did they have a trial? If they don't need evidence to convict them of guilt, then why bother with a trial
You need evidence to convict. You do not need evidence to offer a defense.

Quote:
Given that Shojo is leader of both city and paladins, evidence of corruption in one is evidence of corruption in the other.

1. Does not justify Murder, more so because Shojo wasn't reisting arrest
Irrelevant. The act was the execution of a criminal or a killing of the innocent [of that particular charge]. The resisting does not matter.


2. No proof of corruption
4. No proof of present charges
A much more serious point and related to why Miko falls


5. So? You can hold a trial without Shojo.
Irrelevant. If Miko’s claims were valid, the trial would be held before Shojo clones and would thus free a criminal.

Quote:
All of this is presenting as fact what is simply not in evidence. The exact relationship between Guard and city is not made clear.

Yes their are, when we first meet Shojo he says very clearly that their is a difference between the AC law and the AC Guard
That there is a difference does not tell us what that difference is. We are merely told that city law is limited to the city whereas SG law is not so limited.

Quote:
However, Shojo's crimes are crimes in both secular and divine. He is removed from both offices at once. So he is subject to Sapphire Guard justice, which can mean immediate execution by Miko.

Prove to me that SG's justice is immediate execution, because here are some reasons why it is not
1. Miko lost her freaky powers,
This is proof that her decision was incorrect, not that she lacked the [potential] authority to do this.


5. The fact that the SG offer trials proves that they don't do immediate excution, otherwise OOTS would be killed on the spot
You are assuming an either-or when there is both. The SG, like any other legal system, would offer trials of varying levels of complexity and formality depending on the circumstances. They simply also do on the spot executions when they deem it justified.

Quote:
[Now leaving here the role of Miko lawyer, we can note that Miko acted not out of any evidence of court corruption, but from personal anger. However, that does not negate her duty to execute the guilty if she had sufficient grounds for feeling the court system was corrupt. She merely misued a power she had, not created a power.]

Miko does not have the authority to order Shojo's exacution without trial, Hinjo proved that
No, he arrested her for misuse of that authority, not for lacking that. Much the same thing here of course, but had she been able to provide the needed evidence that Shojo would have escaped justice unless she acted immediately, there would have been no arrest.

Quote:
This of course is the opinion of any legal system. But it assumes the validity of that system. And a paladin need not accept that a particular system is valid. This is obvious in the case of evil systems, but is not limited to them. At this point Miko has rejected the authority of Lord Hinjo, and thus his authorization to arrest her.

1. Their is a difference in saying hte legal system is corrupt and murder
Now there is a difference between saying and proving, but the lack of such evidence means there is no difference between saying and murder here

Quote:
Arrest, to the degree it is valid, does not remove all other duties. In the case of defense of the Gate, Lord Hinjo had no valid authority to prevent her from entering the throne room to defend the Gate. In fact, he had a duty to ensure her presence whenever he judged her of use as a guard of the gate. [We can speculate that the summons of Soon might be flawed if a non-paladin was present. But in any case, Miko's arrest and imprisonment are no barrier to her when she has a duty to be guarding the Gate, which is the prime duty.]

She was stripped of those duties by the gods themselves
She was stripped of paladin status. Just what duties that also removed is uncertain. Given the vital nature of the Gate, it is unlikely this duty is negated.



due to evidence provided in this strip http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0171.html we can clearly see according to what roy says in the 7th panel we can see that since the wooden forest is not part of any kingdom there are no laws for the bandits to have have broken.
Roy is in error on other legal points as well. That the woods in question are not part of any kingdom would not stop any king or lesser agent that caught them from hanging the bandits as bandits. There is the pragmatic problem of catching them of course, and if there were borders involved, the pragmatic dangers of angering the other king, but any system of laws is unlimited except by what limits it chooses to impose on itself. The law of behavior is deemed no different from the law of gravity here.
That you are able to avoid the immediate authority of the law gives you only the immediate immunity of being out of reach. Once you are within reach, no matter how, you may suffer the proper punishment of your crime. This does not matter whether you are a citizen of the country or that you have ever visited the country, or interacted with any of its citizens, or… The law says X and it applies to you, period.

Originally Posted by David Argall showthread.php?p=2723570 - post2723570showthread.php?p=2723570 - post2723570
If you have a weapon to draw, you are not unarmed. You simply do not have a weapon at the ready. And Pa is even drawn with weapons visible. He is not unarmed.

Weapons not in hand, then. Pa has no weapons in hand and is drawn with hands below the waist while the hilts are above his shoulders, so he is not reaching for them.
We have him pictured drawing those weapons, with intent to use them in an aggressive manner. He is definitely reaching for them.


If you consider Pa threatening despite having no weapons in hand, then Miko was threatening to completely unarmed Sam
Sam is a sorcerer, just like a profession boxer, she is always legally using lethal weapons.

,
since Miko carries weapons as well. That makes Miko the threat to Sam and justifies a Hold Person to prevent Miko's threat.
You continue to focus on the irrelevant. Having a weapon out is not of itself a threat. You may threaten with or without such, and you may not threaten whether or not you have a weapon in hand.

[/quote] No such conclusion can be drawn from the comic
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0189.html
The claim of approach is not supported. Quite the contrary, we find Dad is approaching.
Nor is there a duty to back away from a confrontation. It is routinely good advice, but there is no duty to retreat, particularly by an officer of the law carrying out assigned duties. One can argue for miserable people skills, but that is not criminal, and Dad remains fully the aggressor.[/quote]


Miko was not in Azure City terrain and not an officer of the law. Shojo says that the Twelve Gods recognize no borders,
Shojo says the Gods recognize no borders. He does not say the particular subset of them recognize such borders.


We see the gods respecting each others borders in 453.
This is too little evidence. And a biased selection as well. Thor has clearly acted within the South by granting spells, and there is no sign here that he will not in the future. Note that Thor grumbles about being called to account for violating the rules in favor of one follower. We thus can read this as having very little to do with borders at all. Thor is told to stay away from a favored priest who he has overfavored in the past. That this requires he stay in the North and out of the South is incidental.
Possibly there is a strict set of borders among the gods. That does not tell us that such borders limit such agents as the Sapphire Guard. That would depend on the particular rules governing the gods. What we do have is
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html
which tells us that the SG paid no attention to such borders or lack of them.


At the very least, Miko was not acting as an officer of the law, since Shojo states that the charge was divine, not secular. She was acting as an agent of her gods, whose jurisdiction does not extend to individuals not of their own pantheon, so she had no jurisdiction over the Order of the Stick.
Again, this is simply an assertion. From all the evidence before us, there is no such limit on the jurisdiction of the SG. They may not approach the other Gates in most [nearly all?] circumstances, but besides that, we have no evidence that there is any other limit.



A weapon in hand is indeed a threat. Picture this case. A thief carrying a weapon enters a shop and says, "Give me your money, please and thank you." This is armed robbery. It is not necessary to brandish the weapon or point it at the shopkeeper for the threat to be implicit.
But the threat must be there. It is not hard to change the example to where the court would rule that the man with the gun was merely making a request, and the mere presence of the weapon unimportant. The weapon has to be held in a “threatening manner”, something that varies with who has the better lawyer, but the mere holding of a weapon is not sufficient.

A slight alteration of a case out here in California: A cop is in a gun battle with some heavily armed robbers. Finding himself outgunned, he enters a local gun store and requests the most powerful weapon available. The fact he is holding his gun in his hand makes no difference. It is still a request [The store clerk in fact had to violate the law to give the cop the weapon.]
Now we have a thug enter the store. He demands the gun/money “or you will be sorry”. He is making a threat, and again, the presence or absence of that gun makes no legal difference.

In the case at issue, it is Pa, not Miko who makes the threat. Miko has a valid plea of self defense.


She was just a civilian, wielding a weapon, who had killed a man's father.
a-the ignorance of the attacker is of no importance
b-it is the drawing of the weapon, with clear intent to attack that is important
C-Daughter,

Quote:
She was doing an entirely legal action. This definition of "provoke" offered here bring up the joke "You are violent." "Only when provoked." "Which is whenever somebody does anything you don't like." "True." Provoked or not, Pa has no right to attack and is fully in the wrong, which means Miko is acting in self-defense.

Legal only inside AC jurisdiction. Legal only if the individuals worshipped her gods outside AC. Otherwise, she is beholden to the laws of the land she occupies. She is welcome to strongarm someone back to AC, but that is a crime according to the laws of 100% of the nations in this world. There are methods of extradition for a reason.
You are mixing apples and oranges. Whether she had the authority to strongarm the Order is not part of the discussion of her battle with Pa.

Quote:
Roy was claiming to be reasonable and willing to surrender. Being evil on the evidence at hand, clearly guilty of resisting arrest and assaulting an officer of the law with lethal intent, not to mention the basic death penalty charge, and the presence of several other dangerous criminals, summary execution is an authorized action.

Miko had not identified her authority. There are many nations in the world, and some of them are evil. Without identifying her nation, she could jsut as easily have been an evil blackguard as a good paladin: the suspects are not mindreaders. With no identifyication as a force of good, Miko is just someone trying to kidnap the Order of the Stick.

That is why police as their first act in any altercation are required to identify themselves as police.
There is no such requirement. It is routinely common sense and they routinely do so, but the failure to do so does not void the arrest or any charges based on it.


It is not reasonable to expect submission of suspects to a force of law that has not identified its authority, especially in a world like the OotS, since evil authority can arrest people in exactly the same manner as Miko used.
It may not be reasonable, but it is what the law requires.

Quote:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0120.html
As the text shows, Miko was indeed authorized to administer extreme justice if the circumstances warrented, and she was the one to decide that. The record merely shows she is to attempt to bring them back alive. The basic requirement was to bring them back, period.
Jurisdiction extends only as far as your own borders, no matter what someone says. A King of England ordering a Knight to arrest someone in France can expect the head of his Knight in a pretty little box with a note to respect the authority of the King of France, who is the only rule of law in France. Your rule ends at your border.[/QUOTE]
And the Sapphire Guard rule has no border, as Shojo pointed out, and all the other paladins agreed.

Quote:
Given that Shojo is leader of both city and paladins, evidence of corruption in one is evidence of corruption in the other.

Uhm... ninja? Nobles? Hardly a city made entirely of assassins. In fact, Shojo suggests that AC is a very dangerous place, especially for him, making the secular leadership very non-paladin and therefore unassociated with the Sapphire Guard.
Again consult 277, which tells us the two rulers were the same person, and intended to be.


Quote:
All of this is presenting as fact what is simply not in evidence. The exact relationship between Guard and city is not made clear.
However, Shojo's crimes are crimes in both secular and divine. He is removed from both offices at once. So he is subject to Sapphire Guard justice, which can mean immediate execution by Miko.

I find it highly unlikely that a Lawful society has allowance for the chaotic act of summary execution.
All legal systems allow for summary execution. It is implicit in any lethal police action. It is clearly dangerous, and routinely hedged by a great many controls and limitations, but it does and must exist in any real world legal system.

Quote:
[Now leaving here the role of Miko lawyer, we can note that Miko acted not out of any evidence of court corruption, but from personal anger. However, that does not negate her duty to execute the guilty if she had sufficient grounds for feeling the court system was corrupt. She merely misued a power she had, not created a power.]


One of my favorite Miko quotes is in #203. "Your guilt or innocence, in the absence of an evil alignment, is not for me to determine."

Miko does not, in fact, have the authority to commit summary executions unless the suspect has an evil alignment.
Note you are now saying she does have such authority to commit summary executions when she feels justified.


Shojo was Neutral and therefore immune to her justice.
You are reading too much into this. 203 is merely the ruling of the circumstances of a particular case. 406 assumes quite different circumstances, among them being the reliability of the courts to deal out justice. In 203, she assumes the court will come to a reliable decision and so she should send the case to them. In 406, she denies they will, and so makes a claim she has a duty to administer justice right away.

Quote:
This of course is the opinion of any legal system. But it assumes the validity of that system. And a paladin need not accept that a particular system is valid. This is obvious in the case of evil systems, but is not limited to them. At this point Miko has rejected the authority of Lord Hinjo, and thus his authorization to arrest her.

miko could have just as easily waited until after the trial, gathered evidence of corruption during the trial due to her superior position, and then used that as evidence proving her later execution of a freed Shojo was justified.
Based on the [highly biased of course] evidence Miko had in mind, this presented too much chance of the criminal escaping. Her chance to execute the criminal was now. The future was all too uncertain.

Quote:
Does not follow. Miko was representing valid authority then, and resisting invalid authority later. [This is close to a Miko is always right argument, but is not invalid on those grounds. There is a need to show she was resisting valid authority and/or representing invalid.]

Except she did not identify herself, and so was not presenting vaild authority to the OotS.
The law puts no such requirement on the cop. Our cop sees a crime in progress. He pulls his gun and simply orders the criminal to surrender. His arrest is valid despite never identifying himself.
Keep in mind here there is something called the citizen’s arrest. Anyone can arrest anyone at any time, anywhere. One rarely does it because the arrestee is often dangerous, and as a private citizen, one is vulnerable to false arrest suits that can bankrupt you even if you were in the right. But that is still a valid arrest.

Quote:


Murder is a secular crime, no matter the reason for it.
That does not mean it is not also a divine crime.

Quote: b-She is claiming she did what had to be done. Any individual, paladin or not, was in fact under a duty to act as she did under those circumstances.

She acted illegally and without honour. Paladins are required to act honourably.
On the point at issue? Destroying the Gate when it seemed likely to fall into the wrong hands? No, that was entirely legal and honorable, particularly if we assume she knew doing so was personally dangerous.

Now we can question her view of the situation, quite vigorously in fact, but given the limits of her knowledge, her action rises to the level of absolutely required of her.

Quote:
Arrest, to the degree it is valid, does not remove all other duties. In the case of defense of the Gate, Lord Hinjo had no valid authority to prevent her from entering the throne room to defend the Gate. In fact, he had a duty to ensure her presence whenever he judged her of use as a guard of the gate. [We can speculate that the summons of Soon might be flawed if a non-paladin was present. But in any case, Miko's arrest and imprisonment are no barrier to her when she has a duty to be guarding the Gate, which is the prime duty.]

Wow, that is pure invention. Hinjo is not required to do anything with someone the god have demonstrated their displeasure towards
Hinjo has the duty of defending the Gate. If this means kissing Miko's feet, he has a duty to do it. If she will be useful in the Throne room, he has a duty to see that she is there. We can argue that he deems her dangerous to have there [as she proved to be], but the gods' displeasure does not mean he has to keep her away.



Miko attacked Hinjo when pretending to surrender, a very dishonourable act. .
Look at that scene again. There was no pretense of surrender. Miko simply changed her mind.

[LordVader]

You may notice her total lack of an explanation as to their crimes, and her cutting Roy off before he even gets to finish his sentence, which most likely would have been something like "until you tell us what for". Hardly sterling "police" work. She was way too overeager there. With Sam and Sam's Dad, yes, that was self-defense. You may argue "she could have stunned them", but if you were in her position, would you?

[den452001]

aGREE! Miko is totally a Criminal a Murderer a...Killer...::P Well Miko fighting skill
were awesome but Miko kill the Leader of Azure City and I hate her.:smallfurious:

[delguidance]

Ha ha ha for the Chewbacca defense. South Park FTW.

Miko has littered a castle all over the streets of Azure city.

Defamation of the OotS and associates.

Human rights violations (also elven, dwarven, and halfling rights violations) She denies others' dignity, reason, and conscience.

Miko makes baby John Locke cry.

[Justinian]

Here is an exhaustive list of Miko's crimes:

#1: Killing Shojo without a trial (by the laws of his land, he likely had earned death anyway, but it wasn't as clearcut as Miko thought it was)
#2: Attacking Hinjo
#3: Prisonbreak

[Yeril]

She has a parking ticket.