Why does Rich seem to punish the good and let evil get away

[thurvok]

Yes Miko was over zealous, BUT look at all the evil done by The Linear Guild, Xylon and Belkiar, but they get away with it all the time. How about the poor chief of police in Cliffport or the seer in Azure City.. Seems only the good die young.. I hope there is some justice for Miko. She always TRIED to do good as she was ALLOWED to see it..

[Scutatus]

Depends on your definition of "good". Miko was at best delusional, at worst insane (and should surely have had her sword taken away LONG before it was).

I'm sure fanatical suicide bombers think they are being "good" too.

Good riddens to Miko I say.

[Neithan]

Yeah, she wasn't fun anymore for a long time... And what's happening to Roy we will see when the whole battle thing is over. The corpse is still there and as D&D works, it shouldn't be a problem to raise him the next day.

[Lòkki Gallansbayne]

Because if you punish the evil and let the good get away from the get-go, it would be a really boring story. Patience, child. The other villains will get their comeuppance. :smallwink:

[Spiryt]

Dude this is COMIC. It would be strange if Giant, instead making interesting story, he were "punishing" or "rewarding" his characters!

Miko was in the castle which just was blown away, so it would be illogal for plot if she survived.
Justice has nothing to do with good story. You know (first example which come too my mind, so probably not very good) Prometheus also didn't deserved his fate. And Hamlet, and others.

EDIT: In fact evil persons qiute commonly ends better. Evil is profitable... not in games like Baaldurs Gate or something of course :smallwink:

[Skyserpent]

Because a lot of the Villains are more popular.

Xykon and Redcloak have a far bigger, albeit less devoted, fanbase than Miko.

[Baalzebub]

Because that's how good stories are made. Look into comic books, stories, movies... etc. It's all the same. Example? Lord of the Rings (the book and the film), anime series (Saint Seiya), and a ton of comic series. :smallsigh:

[AKA_Bait]

Simply, oh neophyte to dramatic writing, you can't have worthwile villians unless they manage to kill or mangle at least a few characters you liked. If all the folks that get killed are NPC's who don't mean anything (as oposed to NPC's like Miko who do mean something, even if what varies depending upon who you ask) then you have no drama.

Plus, remember the oracle. The only one promised a happy ending is Elan.

[Roderick_BR]

As Scutatus said, Miko was not a very "good" person anymore.
The destruction of the portal is attributed to Miko.
Roy fell in battle, so in his case was bad luck.

As for the Linear Guild, and Xykon ran away when things got bad for them. Just that. It's not punishing or getting away, it's the characters acting in character.

Makes sense that if you need to defense a greater cause, you're likely to get the bad end on it, like Roy. and if you are a villain that lose all staying and survives escaping, you're likely to run away. Look Xykon, he ran away like... a lich from a paladin :smallamused:
Miko is an example of a character that "crossed the line", and paid for her mistakes.

[Khoran]

I didn't know betraying your Soverign an "executing" him for non-existant crimes than attacking the hier who had commited no wrong and had served loyally along side you counted as good. Sure, she probobly died as repentant, but until then, she was hardly what I'd call good.

Anyways, to answer your question. It's very simple: the comic needs villans. Without Villans, the comic would be stagnant. OoTS is not designed for that, it requires a plot to keep the comic going.

[nimby]

Comic #1, new, Good-friendly edition:

Ok, you face an epic lich. You are vastly underpowered against his attacks, but because you are the Good guys, you win.

Congratulations! You saved the world!

[evileeyore]

Why does Rich seem to punish the good and let evil get awayThis is The Empire Strike Back.

Have no fear, we'll roll inot Revenge of the Jedi momentarily, where Slave Girl Haley gets captured by Xykon the Liche and it is up to Elan to rescue Roy from the carbo----


Wait, Lawyer Senses Tingling... best not speculate further.

[banjo1985]

Let's be honest people, Miko stopped being "a good person" a long time ago, whether she retained her alignment to the end or not. She was delusional, borderline insane and deeply stubborn and ignorant to the feelings and goals of others, like most paladins in my experience!

I personally never really liked Miko, and will be glad if this is the last we see of her, I thought her character of the stereotypical holier than thou paladin was good for joke material for a few strips, but never for the recurring NPC she had become.

However as a talking point Miko was great, she divided opinion completely, with people loving and hating her in equal measure. I never liked her but for all of those who did, at least she went out with a bang!

[Wojiz]

Because that's how life works.

[Iranon]

If life was fair, wouldn't it be incredibly boring?

I prefer stories in which it is not a given that Good will always triumph over Evil.

[Wolf_Shade]

Yes Miko was over zealous, BUT look at all the evil done by The Linear Guild, Xylon and Belkiar, but they get away with it all the time. How about the poor chief of police in Cliffport or the seer in Azure City.. Seems only the good die young.. I hope there is some justice for Miko. She always TRIED to do good as she was ALLOWED to see it..

Plot. Kill Xykon and the Linear Guild and OOTs ends, that or you create another evil for them to fight. Xykon's got too much character development to just be done away with because he's evil.

[Sigbru]

Yes Miko was over zealous, BUT look at all the evil done by The Linear Guild, Xylon and Belkiar, but they get away with it all the time. How about the poor chief of police in Cliffport or the seer in Azure City.. Seems only the good die young.. I hope there is some justice for Miko. She always TRIED to do good as she was ALLOWED to see it..

Saying "it is not an apple" don't change the nature of the apple
Why do i have the feeling that this comic will be the most comented of all

[TARINunit9]

Why does Rich seem to punish the good and let evil get away?

Because bad things happen to good people and vice versa. Even in real life. Scratch that, ESPECIALLY in real life!

[delguidance]

Because good is dumb.

[Ras Sha'Akhamen]

Because a lot of the Villains are more popular.

Xykon and Redcloak have a far bigger, albeit less devoted, fanbase than Miko.

Fanatics attract fanatics.

[Duffren]

Because the more you hate the evil characters, the more satisfying it is when they finally get what they deserve.

[The_Jackal]

Yes Miko was over zealous, BUT look at all the evil done by The Linear Guild, Xylon and Belkiar, but they get away with it all the time. How about the poor chief of police in Cliffport or the seer in Azure City.. Seems only the good die young.. I hope there is some justice for Miko. She always TRIED to do good as she was ALLOWED to see it..

Because you're confusing storytelling with justice. The Giant's aim is to tell a good tale, and the Linear Guild, Xykon (who's Xylon?) and Belkar are pivotal characters in that story, regardless of what YOU think they deserve. Also, in real life, bad things happen to good people all the time, and bad people do get away with their misdeeds.

Irregardless, I find fault with your notion that a) Miko was 'good', and b) she was punished for her actions. Justice for Miko would result in her execution for killing her liege-lord. Her actual fate appears to be nothing more than the consequences of her own recklessness and vanity.

[chibibar]

That is the art of story telling.... you have your main protagonist (the OoTS) and that group may meet other people who can help/hinder or facilitate change in the group.. they may get killed off to entice the reader to read more to see what will happen to the antagonist.

It is common to see the "bad guys" win for awhile before things catch up to them :)

[Nerd-o-rama]

Because we're still in the middle of the story. This is heroic fantasy, so we can be fairly sure that the villains (as opposed to delusional plot devices like Miko, or protagonists like Roy) get theirs in the end. We can also be sure that plenty of good and morally-questionable people will die earlier in the story, and later be avenged.

[Axl_Rose]

She always TRIED to do good


Depends on your definition of "good". Miko was at best delusional,
Being delusional and having good intentions is not mutually exclusive.

And just because you say she was at best delusional doesn't make it so.

[TakerFoxx]

Welcome to the real world.

[elliott20]

Why does Rich seem to punish the good and let evil get away?
Because the Giant hates you. SO.SO. Much.

[Fanatic-Templar]

Because good is dumb.

Or you could say Evil is lazy.

The Dark Side is not stronger, it is simply easier.

Look at Xykon, and liches in general. What they want is immortality, but that's too hard. So instead they settle with simply 'not dying' and trying to convince themselves that it's the same thing.

[Deepblue706]

If you hadn't realized this by now: OotS is an autobiography told from another point of view. Rich is Xykon.

Sheesh, you people are slow.

[squidthingy]

because if you punish the evil than the evil dies and the good has nothing to do and the comic strip either ends or becomes stupid and boring

[Ancalagon]

No clue what the topic-starter wanted to tell us... this is not a bible-story about good and evil and that the evil will receive their punishment.

As answer to the question: Because it is an interesting story to tell!

[bronzemountain]

Really what you're saying is: Why does Rich seem to punish the protagonists and let the antagonists get away. This way, we avoid murky but seductive definitions of good and evil.

To answer the question, Rich does it because protagonists require struggle to remain protagonists. If they have no struggle, they're just incidental characters. And heck, even incidental characters benefit from having some struggle thrown at them. Instinctively, as humans, we identify with those who suffer and struggle in stories. We connect with them. We want them to overcome.

That desire is the engine that drives us to the ends of stories. That desire is what storytellers have tapped for our entire existence, from tales told around guttering campfires to stick figure comics on the internet.

[Kreistor]

She always TRIED to do good as she was ALLOWED to see it..

There was something I was trying to remember about pavement and good intentions, and where the combination lead to. Something to do with Miko being denied access to the Celestial Realms. Now, what was that?

Oh yes, I remember. "The road to [insert appropriate plane of punishment for the wicked here] is paved with good intentions."

The greatest evil is done in the name of good. When we set our sight on a lofty destination, every step we take on that path must be carefully considered. We must not overlook the incidental damage that we do along the way, since those hurt rarely have any appreciation for a final goal that we choose for ourselves.

Miko did not have the capacity to see the potential negative results of her actions. In the name of the divine, she chose a path based on signs and portents, and she stopped using her own mind to attempt to discern whether the sign came from the gods or from an enemy. Miko's basic flaw in her Faith was the belief that Evil lacks power. Had she known that Evil can present signs and portents, too, maybe she wouldn't have been so trusting of those she saw.

In the end, Miko tried to be spiritual, but lacked all spirituality. She mistook the trapings of Faith for the vestements of the righteous. And so she fell from grace and the favour of those she wanted to serve.

Miko was, in the end, too flawed to be either Lawful or Good. She became unpredictable and capable of committing terrible acts that could harm many for nothing more than a crack in a bar.

[Lord_Butters_I]

It's not so much "punish the good" as "get rid of unnessary characters". The comic no longer needed those characters, so rather than just let them disappear Rich killed them off. Just a way of providing closure and preventing bizare theories from poping up about an obscure character returning for some reason.

[Poppatomus]

maybe someone here can remember the full quote. There's a very good one, from swift I think, that goes something like:

It is better to be ruled by a tyrant than a do-gooder. A tyrant knows that what they are doing is wrong and one can appeal to their sense of mercy or honor and occasionally they will relent. You can't do this with a do gooder. They will never allow an exception, because in their minds everything they are doing is for your own good.

That's not even close to the exact wording, but the structure and the sentiment are close I think. If anyone knows it, please post it.

[CDR Grendelwulf]

"Evil will always win because Good is DUMB!" - Dark Helmet

No?

Simply put, we all need good villains. They challenge us, making us want to rise above our ordinary lives to something greater, something purer, something awesome....with which we can totally smash them down and grind them into the dust!

Hmm, I think I lost my train of thought there for a moment...

Ciao,
CDR Grendelwulf

[Sigbru]

Welcome to the real world.

You ate the one red too?

[Dolohov]

As a number of people seem to be implying, the more victories the bad guys get, the more satisfying are OotS's victories, both the temporary ones and the eventual final victory.

[MReav]

Didn't a whole bunch of evil creatures buy it? A black dragon, the vast majority of the goblins, ogres, and discount mercenaries encountered, the Annis, Samantha, the Y-k Y-ks?

[DreadSpoon]

Miko was in the castle which just was blown away, so it would be illogal for plot if she survived.

Just as illogical as O'Chul surviving, I'd imagine. :p

[EdgarVerona]

The thing to remember as well is that Miko wasn't really punished. She made a lot of mistakes (such as killing an old, unarmed man). But indeed, she was TRYING to do good... and for that, she got to be personally reassured by Soon himself that her efforts weren't in vain, and comforted in her last mortal moments. That's pretty good, considering that Roy's final moments were spent falling and clawing desperately to find a way out of the bind he was in.

[Demented]

True, but Roy was capable of accepting that his efforts were in vain. Indeed, he's probably quite used to it by now.

[Nathander]

I agree with what most of the people here are saying: that by showing the forces of evil technically getting away most of the time, while the heroes taking severe blows, will make the eventual finally victory that much sweeter when it comes. And I honestly think Xykon WILL fall hard when he's finally defeated. :smallamused:

Anyone else thinking that, if he does succeed in infusing himself with some of the power of the Snarl, doing so will be Xykon's ultimate mistake. While he'll be a nigh-unstoppable force as long as he exists, I would assume that, upon his destruction, he would be obliterated entirely, soul and and all. We know that the Snarl destroys the souls of those it kills, so my logic is that if Xykon infuses himself with the Snarl, it would destroy his soul if his body and phylacetry (sp?) were destroyed. And that would be one of the biggest ironies: in becoming one of the greatest beings that could exist, Xykon, in the end, would be reduced to absolutely nothing due to this: not even his soul would remain, making him simply into a memory at best.

[Charles Phipps]

I think that Shojo hardly did "nothing." Like if you spent your life as a soldier for the Church only to have the Bishop who raised you reveal he didn't believe in God.

[Nathander]

I think that Shojo hardly did "nothing." Like if you spent your life as a soldier for the Church only to have the Bishop who raised you reveal he didn't believe in God.

AN interesting point, though I think the analogy is a bit off (no offense). Shojo obviously did believe in the Twelve Gods, but didn't think the function (or strict morality) of the paladins was completely necessarily, at least to the degree of power they held. It's more like the Bishop simply didn't think the function he had raised the soldier for was necessary than anything else. Still fairly dubious reasoning on his part and what he did, but not as bad as it could have been.

That being said, while I think Shojo was wrong to have treated the paladins as he did, I do agree he didn't deserve the fate he suffered at Miko's hands. While this was said FAR before I said it, I wasn't an active member during the "Fading" story arc, so I guess I'm just getting my voice in.

[Demented]

Which, being apparently worse than a crack in bar, is instant justification to whallop his head with a hefty mallet.

...In my dreams.
KILL! MURDER! PILLAGE! INNOCENTS ARE FOR CARNAGE!

[Pvednes]

It's because no good deed ever goes unpunished.

[Roderick_BR]

Didn't a whole bunch of evil creatures buy it? A black dragon, the vast majority of the goblins, ogres, and discount mercenaries encountered, the Annis, Samantha, the Y-k Y-ks?
I just thought about it too. A whooping big number of bad guys died, but since no one cared for them, no one took note.
Now, major villains, they are always careful about their well beings.
Xykon: When Soon tells him he can destroy him for good, he decides to pick up RedClock and fly the heck out of there, portals to ultimate power be damned.
Linear Guild: Nale noticed that entering in the middle of a fight between two groups was not worth it, and exited stage left. He could find others less guarded portals.
Roy, and later the Sapphire Guard: They were trying to destroy Xykon and save the world. They couldn't just walk away.

[Max_Sinister]

What? The story hasn't ended yet, has it?

[Overdose]

What you mean that Rich punish the good and not the evil?

What about of Samantha?or Trigak? or Yikyik?or Grand Larcenist? etc
How many "evil" goblins,hobgoblins and other "evil" monsters got killed without no regret by the "Heros"?

It seems to me that alot more evil guys died so far than the good ones

And Good not always Win

[EvilElitest]

Dude this is COMIC. It would be strange if Giant, instead making interesting story, he were "punishing" or "rewarding" his characters!

Miko was in the castle which just was blown away, so it would be illogal for plot if she survived.
Justice has nothing to do with good story. You know (first example which come too my mind, so probably not very good) Prometheus also didn't deserved his fate. And Hamlet, and others.

EDIT: In fact evil persons qiute commonly ends better. Evil is profitable... not in games like Baaldurs Gate or something of course :smallwink:

1. What do you mean evil is not profitable in Baldur's gate. I play an evil character and i make so much more money. Also the evil characters are the most powerful (Edmond anyone?)
2. Because the comic is realistic (Realitivly speaking) and realisticlly good guys don't win just by being "good".
from,
EE

[AyuVince]

[spelling fascist]It's "Xykon", "Belkar" and "good riddance".[/spelling fascist]


Simply, oh neophyte to dramatic writing, you can't have worthwile villians unless they manage to kill or mangle at least a few characters you liked. If all the folks that get killed are NPC's who don't mean anything (as oposed to NPC's like Miko who do mean something, even if what varies depending upon who you ask) then you have no drama.

Plus, remember the oracle. The only one promised a happy ending is Elan.

No, the Oracle says "Yes, for you at least." That does not mean that nobody else will have a happy ending, just that he will get one while other OotS members won't.

[CliveStaples]

2. Because the comic is realistic (Realitivly speaking) and realisticlly good guys don't win just by being "good".

That's true. But evil people do quite frequently lose by being evil.

Think about it: there are the Power That Be. Generally, these Powers That Be want things to go smoothly. Evil conduct tends to be disruptive--theft, murder, rape, etc. Now, in OOTS, the Powers That Be have heretofore been portrayed as Good Guys (albeit neglectful, idiotic, uncaring "Good" Guys).

My problem is that Evil is portrayed as Awesome!, while Good is portrayed as boring, worthless, and generally unhelpful and undesirable. Lawful Good is once again portrayed as Fascist. Just a little disappointing, although I don't take my moral and ethical cues from webcomics so it isn't exactly world-shattering.

[RobbyPants]

Because if you punish the evil and let the good get away from the get-go, it would be a really boring story. Patience, child. The other villains will get their comeuppance. :smallwink:
Exactly.

Now you know where reoccuring villians come from! :smalltongue:

[CliveStaples]

Because if you punish the evil and let the good get away from the get-go, it would be a really boring story. Patience, child. The other villains will get their comeuppance. :smallwink:

Not necessarily.

And it isn't just that "Good hasn't triumphed yet". It's that Good characters are portrayed either as undesirable extremists (Miko) or accepting of evil (Roy), Lawful characters aren't portrayed as Lawful (Miko breaking the chain of command, for instance), and Evil characters are generally portrayed as more competent, intelligent, and in general more desirable than their incompetent, buffoonish, less-desirable Good counterparts.

But hey, if that's the way the comic wants to present Good and Evil, that's up to the writer.

[Ancalagon]

I would also like to add that the story has not reached its end...

[Breaon]

Yes Miko was over zealous, BUT look at all the evil done by The Linear Guild, Xylon and Belkiar, but they get away with it all the time. How about the poor chief of police in Cliffport or the seer in Azure City.. Seems only the good die young.. I hope there is some justice for Miko. She always TRIED to do good as she was ALLOWED to see it..

The story is not over; this is but a chapter in a longer, epic tale.

[CliveStaples]

The story is not over; this is but a chapter in a longer, epic tale.

I've gotten pretty tired of the story, since the Good guys are such complete idiots, and whoever supposedly puts Goodness at her first priority goes completely nuts.

[Solara]

My problem is that Evil is portrayed as Awesome!, while Good is portrayed as boring, worthless, and generally unhelpful and undesirable. Lawful Good is once again portrayed as Fascist. Just a little disappointing, although I don't take my moral and ethical cues from webcomics so it isn't exactly world-shattering.

Well I guess we all interpret things in different ways, but personally I've never seen any member of the OotS (or for that matter my favorite Good NPCs such as Hinjo and Shojo) portrayed as "boring, worthless, generally unhelpful and undesirable", let alone "fascist". They've frequently gotten their Awesome! moments as well.


I've gotten pretty tired of the story, since the Good guys are such complete idiots, and whoever supposedly puts Goodness at her first priority goes completely nuts.

See what I mean? We're interpreting things in different ways all right. :smallwink: I never for a moment got the impression that Miko put Goodness as her first priority, and while individual members of the OotS have occasionally done dumb things, (which I am thankful for - NPCs which are all badass, all the time are great and all but I like my heroes to be a little more realistic and fallible) the only "complete idiots" in the comic at the moment are :thog: and the :mitd:. (Oddly-Effective Elan no longer qualifies...well, most of the time. :smallbiggrin: )

[chibibar]

I've gotten pretty tired of the story, since the Good guys are such complete idiots, and whoever supposedly puts Goodness at her first priority goes completely nuts.

Yea.... but you forget that the OoTS also represent many time that actual players do the same thing!!!!

It is a "gaming" session per se. Sure the story is more detail now and higher character development (just in long time playing a table top session over the years your character flesh out.) But the players will still make some stupid decisions since to them "its only a game" ;)

That is my thought on the subject.

[CardinalFang]

I don't want to put words in Rich's mouth, but it seems like he's deliberately TRYING to make Good characters not strictly good, and Evil characters not strictly evil. Part of the entire reason for this comic is to poke fun at fantasy and gaming stereotypes and clichés. One of those is that the good guys are people like Prince Charming, who can do no wrong, make all the ladies swoon, and are perfect gentlemen, and the bad guys are Emperor Palpatine, and are ugly, spiteful, and completely evil in every way.

So Rich gives us Roy, who is certainly fighting for the greater good, but isn't always the nicest person, even to his friends. And he gives us Miko, who WANTS to fight for good but can't seem to understand that it can be somewhat subjective, and that sometimes you must accept the presence of a minor evil to stop a major one. And he gives us Redcloak, who is supposed to be a "soulless nihilist seeking to undo all of creation," but wants revenge for his dead mother and mentor, and learns compassion for his fellow goblinoids. And he gives us Nale, who, if only he had been raised by his kind and gentle mother, could have turned out exactly like Elan. And sometimes the bad guys win a fight or two. And sometimes there are bad guys on both sides, such as Daimyo Kubota and Team Evil. And sometimes a character can do good for all of the wrong reasons (Belkar), and another character can do evil for all of the right ones (Redcloak).

I don't think any of that means "Rich wants evil to win," or "Rich makes the good guys boring or annoying." And if you think Roy is a bad Good person because he works with Belkar, then would you rather have him be like Miko, and freak out over mattress tag removal? You don't seem to like her, either. You can't have it both ways. Each of the characters in this story is unique, and plays uniquely with all of the others. There wouldn't be such a rich (no pun intended) storyline if it were about an all-powerful angel of pure Good fighting an all-powerful demon of pure Evil. And if you find that you're not enjoying the story, then maybe you need a fresh perspective. Most of the people on these forums are here because they DO like the story.

You say the good guys are idiots? That the most Good character of them all made the biggest mistakes in the story? I say, good. How long would the battle have taken if Roy had remembered to ask the Oracle about the Azure City gate? How many more lives would have been saved if Shojo hadn't died, and the nobles hadn't fled, and Miko had been free to help in the battle with all of her paladin abilities? What if Redcloak had been some grunting goblin who could barely speak even his own tongue, much less Common, and gave orders like "go attack the humanz!"? The flaws and merits of these characters are what make the story interesting, what give it life and a sense of suspense and even realism. The characters and their diversity and humanity are what allow the story to go places other than the obvious. If you don't like that, because you want the good guys to be perfect, and the bad guys to be despicable, then you should rent a copy of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. Not the original Grimm fairy tale, though...that one can be even darker than OotS; stick to the Disney version, and let me know which story is better when you finish watching.

[thurvok]

I want to point out Miko did NOT just kill an old man.. She got rid of ( in her mind a deadly threat.. a traitor).. Consider the facts .. as SHE knew them

1) OOTS DID blow up the Red Mountain gate..
2) She heard OOTS "claim" to have destroyed Xykon
3) She MET Xykon and saw he was NOT destroyed
4) Heard from Shojo's own mouth how he had fixed the trial
(IF that trial could be fixed.. her detect evil scans may have been worthless as well)
5) Knew Xykons's army was less than a day away.

Here act was not based on evil, but error in judgement. In her mind there was no time and she could not take the risk.. She WAS wrong, but she was not EVIL.. I HOPE she gets into where ever LG's go..

[CardinalFang]

I want to point out Miko did NOT just kill an old man.. She got rid of ( in here mind a deadly threat.. a traitor).. Consider the facts .. as SHE knew them

1) OOTS DID blow up the Red Mountain gate..
2) She heard OOTS "claim" to have destroyed Xykon
3) She MET Xykon and saw he was NOT destroyed
4) Heard from Shonjo's own mouth how he had fixed the trial
(IF that trial could be fixed.. her detect evil scans may have been worthless as well)
5) Knew Xykons's army was less than a day away.

Here act was not based on evil, but error in judgement. In her mind there was no time and she could not take the risk.. She WAS wrong, but she was not EVIL.. I HOPE she gets into where ever LG's go..

Except that she not only made an error in judgement, but forgot some of the most basic principles of Good Law: innocent until proven guilty, the benefit of the doubt, habeas corpus (do they have Latin in OotS-verse?), and the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence.

If I go over to a friend's house, and I walk in the door and hear a couple of guys talking about killing a hooker and stealing all her money, am I supposed to run in there with my katana (I wish I had a katana :smallfrown:) and stab them? No, I'm supposed to walk in and (hopefully) see that they're playing GTA. Miko's mistake wasn't just coming to the wrong conclusion, but of assuming that she knew the whole truth and that nobody could be right if they disagreed with her. Hubris, in a nutshell. And THAT is the downfall of many a good person.

[thurvok]

There was no time for a triai. Xykon and his army were less than a day away!! IF Shojo and OOTS were in co-hoots ( as she thought).. Since OOTS DID blow up the Red Mouintain gate.. maybe THAT was the real reason Shojo wanted them here!!

[CardinalFang]

There was no time for a triai. Xykon and his army were less than a day away!! IF Shojo and OOTS were in co-hoots ( as she thought).. Since OOTS DID blow up the Red Mouintain gate.. maybe THAT was the real reason Shojo wanted them here!!

If there was no time for a trial, then her duty as Lawful, Good, and a Paladin was to submit to the will of her new liege, Hinjo. There cannot be any doubt about that. He told her to wait for a trial, but she KNEW that the courts were corrupt, and she could NOT be wrong, therefore she ignored her lord and master. In a way, her crimes are manifold: not just murder, but treason, insubordination, and fomenting dissent and discord. If she could only let go of her pride, her self-assurance that the 12 gods had something great in store for her, that she was more special, BETTER than everyone else, she would have seen the right thing to do, and would have submitted to Hinjo. But her pride never let go of her until the very end.

[thurvok]

Ahhh THAT was the problem Hinjo was NOT her liege.. He was not in power.. Shojo was.. NOW after Shojo was dead.. when she had the chance to turn over here Katana and instead attack Hinjo.. THATS when the rail left the track in my mind.. Her pride did her in.. No question..

[chibibar]

Ahhh THAT was the problem Hinjo was NOT her liege.. He was not in power.. Shojo was.. NOW after Shojo was dead.. when she had the chance to turn over here Katana and instead attack Hinjo.. THATS when the rail left the track in my mind.. Her pride did her in.. No question..

hence Pride is one of the deadly sins :)

[Twilight Jack]

Not necessarily.

And it isn't just that "Good hasn't triumphed yet". It's that Good characters are portrayed either as undesirable extremists (Miko) or accepting of evil (Roy), Lawful characters aren't portrayed as Lawful (Miko breaking the chain of command, for instance), and Evil characters are generally portrayed as more competent, intelligent, and in general more desirable than their incompetent, buffoonish, less-desirable Good counterparts.

But hey, if that's the way the comic wants to present Good and Evil, that's up to the writer.

Buffy: Does it ever get easy?
Giles: You mean life?
Buffy: Yeah. Does it get easy?
Giles: What do you want me to say?
Buffy: Lie to me.
Giles: Yes, it's terribly simple. The good guys are always stalwart and true, the bad guys are easily distinguished by their pointy horns or black hats, and, uh, we always defeat them and save the day. No one ever dies, and everybody lives happily ever after.
Buffy: Liar.

What did you want to see here? I think that you're radically misinterpreting the text, but I'll unpack that in a moment or three. Let's start with unrealistic expectations regarding the nature and necessary portrayal of morality. Should all characters who identify as Good be absolutely perfect? Should the villains be presented as absolutely devoid of any manner of redeeming qualities? This isn't serial melodrama, my friend. People, whether good or evil, have motivations and emotions which transcend their morality.

On to the text. Where shall I start? Since the only good character portrayed as an extremist thus far is Miko, this statement is a total non-starter. I'll roll right past it. Now then, I take it that your position on Roy's "acceptance of evil" is based purely upon his failure to smite Belkar? Ignoring for a moment the fact that Belkar's presence in the party was originally intended as a humorous commentary on the fact that every gaming group has one ******* who wants to play an evil psychopath obsessed with killing things and taking their stuff, in what way has Roy's solution to the Belkar problem contributed to greater evil or suffering for the innocent? Quite the contrary, Belkar has become something of an unwitting force for good under Roy's watchful eye. His passion for violence has been turned in a productive direction and unleashed, and history will remember the Belkster as quite the hero when this all wraps up. In fact, the only innocent to lose his life since Belkar joined the party was a single Azurite soldier, and that was because Belkar was removed from Roy's influence. Does he deserve to be punished for that? Sure. But in the meantime, he's saved the lives of Hinjo and the entire party on a few occasions. Additionally, he killed a rather prodigious number of the hobgoblins laying seige to Azure City, more than any other member of the party except Vaarsuvius. This doesn't balance the moral scales in Belkar's favor, but the point remains that he's done far more good than harm since joining up with Roy. In short, Roy's solution works. Also, Roy's continuing defense of Belkar is based in loyalty, which I was given to understand is a virtue.

Lawfulness does not obligate you to obey corrupt or illegitimate laws, nor to allow a villain to continue to subvert legitimate law. Miko's breaking of the chain of command was based in her incorrect conclusions regarding the situation, not in any inherent chaotic tendencies. It was perfectly within the boundaries of a lawful character who believed the rule of law had been subverted. It was wrongheaded and ultimately evil, but not chaotic, given her explanation of her thinking on the matter.

Now then, so far as lawfulness and goodness are concerned, let's take a look at some of the other characters in the strip. Durkon? Elan? Hinjo?? Sure, they're played for laughs and occasionally buffoonish, but it's a comedic strip. Their tendency towards incompetence is part of the joke. Besides, Hinjo has yet to be portrayed as even approaching incompetent. What hideous moral failings has the Giant visited upon him to justify your hypothesis? Was there a bonus strip in which he kicked a puppy?

Now then, let's take a look at the "competent, intelligent, and desirable" evil characters of the strip.
Xykon: a power-mad lich possessed of overweaning narcissism, cruelty, and impulsiveness. An utter fool, Xykon only manages to succeed at all because he's a powerful sorcerer. As has been demonstrated, he couldn't be bothered to plan in any detail if his unlife depended on it. He certainly can't be bothered to stick to a plan if something else looks like more fun. He gets by on sheer bravado, a tactic which would never work for anyone without the ability to cast 9th level spells. Real admirable.
Redcloak: okay, you got me there. Redcloak rocks on high. That's one. His competence is counteracted by Hinjo's.
Nale: C'mon, Nale? This guy has completely inherited the familial propensity for staggering incompetence. I fully expect to see him building his own wooden alpaca before too much longer. The only difference is that it will have rocket skates. The guy's a total buffoon, just like his brother.

What else have you got?

[evileeyore]

Buffy: Does it ever get easy?
Giles: You mean life?
Buffy: Yeah. Does it get easy?
Giles: What do you want me to say?
Buffy: Lie to me.
Giles: Yes, it's terribly simple. The good guys are always stalwart and true, the bad guys are easily distinguished by their pointy horns or black hats, and, uh, we always defeat them and save the day. No one ever dies, and everybody lives happily ever after.
Buffy: Liar.


>> Everything Else Too<<http://www.geocities.com/evileeyore/bow.gif

You fast becoming one the people whose responses I always stop to take the time to read.



durrrrr.... image address failure

[Poppatomus]

Always worth Reading Twilight Jack's stuff. I was kind of hoping he'd know the quote I was looking for on page 2 actually.

[The Linker]

First of all, it's not just Rich. Most of Batman and Superman's villains come back, multiple multiple times. :smallwink:

And second of all, I wouldn't say the bad guys are doing better than the good guys. I mean, the Linear Guild lost like 4 members in their fights, while the OOTS have lost none. Plus the OOTS just continued on afterwards, while the LG was captured and sent to jail (even if not for very long.) And as for Miko; well, I always thought of her as an antagonist (even if for different reasons than real villains,) so in my opinion she got just what she deserved. I woulda liked to have seen her live, though, just so Soon could give her a big lecture, yelling at her about how how much of an arrogant *expletive* she's been. :smallbiggrin:

The Team Xykon Vs. Azure City thing is a bit different SO FAR, but we haven't seen the complete closure yet. Maybe Xykon and Redcloak will get shot down, maybe some cleric from the city will give Roy a free rez after the battle's over, and there's STILL a lot of hobgoblins within the walls. We just can't count the losses yet.

[Solara]

Ditto on Twilight Jack's post being great, though Cardinal Fang also gets an imaginary internet cookie. :)

And I'm sure I'm probably missing a couple of other people; quite a bit of intelligent discussion in this thread actually.

[Twilight Jack]

Always worth Reading Twilight Jack's stuff. I was kind of hoping he'd know the quote I was looking for on page 2 actually.

And you know, that quote did sound really familiar and I put a quick search through for it and came up with bupkis.

[Twilight Jack]

Oh, and thank you everyone for the appreciation. Flattery will get you everywhere. :smallwink:

[Atheist_Cleric]

Aside a bit from the whole "why good wins, who's really good, who's really evil" thing, if people are accepting Miko's death but still wondering about Roy's, its quite simple. The first time they met, Roy incredibly beat Xykon, despite being about 10 levels too low and having approximatly 0 equipment that was even remotely magical or special in any way that would influence a battle. If Roy had beaten Xykon on that dragon, or even gotten away, it would have been a cheap trade-off. The amount of luck Roy had that first time around is unelievable, probably the single most lucky occurrnce in OOTS to date.

Second round, yes he had a much better sword and yes he'd gained a few levels. SO now instead of being 10 levels behind and having no good equipment, he was about 7-8 levels behind, with one new piece of decent equipment. To be frank, when Xykon tried to convince Roy to leave, go off and level, get some great stuff and THEN come and fight him, he was right. That doesnt make Roy's choice to fight on wrong, he's a hero and a great person, he did the right thing. It just wasnt the smart thing. Roy's death was pretty much Karma. He won the first time, when he shouldnt have. The second time, when he MAYBE had a slim chance of winning, he lost. Really, if it werent for Xykon's horrible excuse for a memory, he probably would have annihilated Roy on-sight as payback.

[evileeyore]

Always worth Reading Twilight Jack's stuff. I was kind of hoping he'd know the quote I was looking for on page 2 actually.

Closest I can get is:

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience. -- Albert Camus

or

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. -- Aristotle

My favorite has always been from Terry Pratchett (which I can't find right now so am paraphrasing):

I would rather face a villian than a righteous man. The villian will take the time to tell you his plans and craft elaboate schemes to ensure your death. The righteous man will simply kill you where you stand.

[delguidance]

Roy's death is not Karma at all. If he was really lucky to win the first time, Karma would be being really unlucky to die the second time.

[CliveStaples]

And second of all, I wouldn't say the bad guys are doing better than the good guys.

If you substitute "antagonists" and "protagonists" for "bad guys" and "good guys", then I'll agree. Belkar isn't a Good guy, he's an Evil guy. Haley is at least not Good. The only actually Good people so far as I can see are the Sapphire Guard--who are now all dead--and possibly Roy himself, who is also dead.

Yeah, Good guys are doing really well. The message: Be Evil, or you're stupid and lame.

[CardinalFang]

If you substitute "antagonists" and "protagonists" for "bad guys" and "good guys", then I'll agree. Belkar isn't a Good guy, he's an Evil guy. Haley is at least not Good. The only actually Good people so far as I can see are the Sapphire Guard--who are now all dead--and possibly Roy himself, who is also dead.

Yeah, Good guys are doing really well. The message: Be Evil, or you're stupid and lame.

Actually, Haley is, by her own admission, Chaotic Good (ish). Elan is certainly Good. Hinjo is obviously Good. Durkon is Good. The only member of the OotS who is Evil is Belkar...and yet, he's still DOING good things. So if you're going to insist that ONLY the Sapphire Guard, Miko, and MAYBE Roy are Good Guys, then you're really limiting yourself in scope of who you actually WANT to do well.

[CliveStaples]

Actually, Haley is, by her own admission, Chaotic Good (ish).

Stealing from her own party? That's Good?


Elan is certainly Good.

Yes, but fits neatly into the "Good is stupid" trope that is the basis of this discussion.


Hinjo is obviously Good. Durkon is Good.

Agreed.

Hinjo? Murdered by another according-to-the-author Good character.


The only member of the OotS who is Evil is Belkar...and yet, he's still DOING good things.

Yes, like avoiding detection of alignment by a Paladin.

He does Good things like killing Kobolds because it allows him to kill and not be punished. If he could kill everyone in the world and not be punished, he'd certainly try.


So if you're going to insist that ONLY the Sapphire Guard, Miko, and MAYBE Roy are Good Guys, then you're really limiting yourself in scope of who you actually WANT to do well.

Miko isn't Good. Murder of an innocent person? Not Good!

[Lord Zentei]

Yeah, she wasn't fun anymore for a long time... And what's happening to Roy we will see when the whole battle thing is over. The corpse is still there and as D&D works, it shouldn't be a problem to raise him the next day.

Unfortunately, that's the problem with D&D stories. You don't really know whether anyone who is dead is really dead for good. It sort of cheapens the whole thing.


Because a lot of the Villains are more popular.

Xykon and Redcloak have a far bigger, albeit less devoted, fanbase than Miko.

Not sure that the Giant cares much about that. He's creating a story, not going by popular vote. Nor am I really sure that Red has a larger fanbase; though he has fewer anti-fans.


If life was fair, wouldn't it be incredibly boring?

I prefer stories in which it is not a given that Good will always triumph over Evil.

Seconded. For one thing, there would be no excitement in such stories.


Miko isn't Good. Murder of an innocent person? Not Good!

One evil act (or one good act) != alignment change. Otherwise people would be changing alignments more often than socks. Rich has commented on this a number of times in his articles.

[CliveStaples]

One evil act (or one good act) != alignment change. Otherwise people would be changing alignments more often than socks. Rich has commented on this a number of times in his articles.

Except that she shows no remorse for the murder. Meaning that she'd do it again, and again, and again, and again. All she needs is the opportunity.

Action is belief.

[Lord Zentei]

Except that she shows no remorse for the murder. Meaning that she'd do it again, and again, and again, and again. All she needs is the opportunity.

Action is belief.

Incorrect. Indeed, nothing could be further from the truth. If this statement were true, humanism and consequentialism would be equivalent moral philosophies, which is certainly not the case.

She wrongly beleived that Shojo was under the influence or control of Xykon: in that, her action was non-evil (if rash and wrong-headed). The consequences of her action was the death of an innocent old man. Consequences and beleifs are both important, but they are not the same thing.

[CardinalFang]

Stealing from her own party? That's Good?
She's a Rogue. She steals. It's her nature. Amazingly, in D&D, Good does not mean Perfect.



Yes, but fits neatly into the "Good is stupid" trope that is the basis of this discussion.
And yet, Elan is the happiest character in the comic. He loves his friends, has amazing adventures, just got an awesome girlfriend he really likes, and even invented his own god.



Agreed.

Hinjo? Murdered by another according-to-the-author Good character.
No. That would be SHOJO. Hinjo is the one who's still alive. And just tried his hardest to save a frankly ungrateful citizenry from destruction.



Yes, like avoiding detection of alignment by a Paladin.

He does Good things like killing Kobolds because it allows him to kill and not be punished. If he could kill everyone in the world and not be punished, he'd certainly try.
So? He's Evil. Nobody ever claimed otherwise. However, at the moment, he IS doing good things. He just demolished a large portion of a hostile invading army and probably saved innocent lives. Nobody ever claimed he was doing it out of altruism and compassion, but he IS doing it.



Miko isn't Good. Murder of an innocent person? Not Good!
You seem to have some misconceptions about the D&D alignment system. Do you play D&D? (I'm not trying to be a jerk; there are a lot of people who don't play and yet still read OotS and post on these boards.) Good doesn't mean Perfect. Your alignment doesn't change at the drop of a hat, or with each act. Even Miko's regicide, it could be argued, didn't automatically make her Chaotic Evil. Just because it wasn't a Good act doesn't mean that she didn't live a life doing Good things up until then.

There are a lot of people doing Good and fighting for Good in this comic who you seem very ready to write off. Who do you WANT to be the protagonist of this story? Some Paladin in very shiny armor with a big sword who can commit no wrong at all, and slays monsters in a single swipe? You seem just as upset about Belkar being successful as you do about Roy being unsuccessful; that seems like the only compromise which would satisfy you. But I can tell you this: most people here wouldn't want to read that story. It's boring. A character with no flaws can learn nothing, cannot change, and is flat and dull. A group of identical characters who all think the same thing, act the same way, and have the same goals is devoid of meaningful interaction, boring, and lifeless. OotS is funny BECAUSE Belkar is Evil, and it gets him into trouble with the party. It's funny BECAUSE Haley is greedy, and yet underneath has a noble goal she hasn't shared with anyone. And it's funny BECAUSE Elan is a happy go lucky idiot who nevertheless manages to be the heart of his group. Anything less would be dissatisfying.

[Puck]

Lawfulness does not obligate you to obey corrupt or illegitimate laws, nor to allow a villain to continue to subvert legitimate law. Miko's breaking of the chain of command was based in her incorrect conclusions regarding the situation, not in any inherent chaotic tendencies. It was perfectly within the boundaries of a lawful character who believed the rule of law had been subverted. It was wrongheaded and ultimately evil, but not chaotic, given her explanation of her thinking on the matter.

Your last sentence, unfortunately, is your undoing in this chaotic explanation of what the law really means.

Chaos is about the individual, and individual interpretation:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.

According to Miko, she did nothing wrong, and she should still be a paladin. She considered the act both good, and lawful.

Obviously, you agree she wasn't good. Why, then, do you bring forward another part of her factual disproven testimony to prove that her act was lawful?

If criminal action invalidated a paladin's oaths to obey the law, then no paladin would EVER have to obey the law, because they are ALWAYS dealing with people who have broken it. Woohoo, ANARCHY!

Hinjo summarized it best in comic #409: Miko is a murderer. Murder is not only evil. It is a law broken. He placed Miko under arrest for ... what?

Breaking the law.

Miko's response?

"I will not submit to your tainted courts! The gods have a plan for me, I know it! I am special, the most powerful paladin in the Sapphire Guard!"

Miko considered herself about the law. Her actions were not merely evil, but chaotic.

[CardinalFang]

Your last sentence, unfortunately, is your undoing in this chaotic explanation of what the law really means.

Chaos is about the individual, and individual interpretation:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.

According to Miko, she did nothing wrong, and she should still be a paladin. She considered the act both good, and lawful.

Obviously, you agree she wasn't good. Why, then, do you bring forward another part of her factual disproven testimony to prove that her act was lawful?

If criminal action invalidated a paladin's oaths to obey the law, then no paladin would EVER have to obey the law, because they are ALWAYS dealing with people who have broken it. Woohoo, ANARCHY!

Hinjo summarized it best in comic #409: Miko is a murderer. Murder is not only evil. It is a law broken. He placed Miko under arrest for ... what?

Breaking the law.

Miko's response?

"I will not submit to your tainted courts! The gods have a plan for me, I know it! I am special, the most powerful paladin in the Sapphire Guard!"

Miko considered herself about the law. Her actions were not merely evil, but chaotic.

Honestly, that's a flaw of Divine Justice more than anything. Miko thought she was doing the work of the 12 gods, and that any mortal court (especially a corrupt one set up by Shojo the Deceiver) was a waste of time. When you have the ability for a human to be an extension of a deity, and deliver Divine Will, then you have the opportunity for a human to THINK they are an extension of a deity, and deliver their own will. In essence, it boils down to this: if the 12 gods said that evildoers should be struck down where they stand, then she was obeying a higher law. If they said that evildoers should be given full trial rights, then she broke it. Breaking the laws of Azure City are kind of secondary to the Divine Law in this case. Granted, Azure City's laws are probably heavily founded in the laws of the 12 gods, but you never know.

[Aevii]

Because that's how good stories are made. Look into comic books, stories, movies... etc. It's all the same. Example? Lord of the Rings (the book and the film), anime series (Saint Seiya), and a ton of comic series. :smallsigh:
LotR?
Not so much compared to others.

Good vs Evil is so played out, anyways.

A Song of Fire and Ice trumps most of what was mentioned anyways as far as the dispensing of misery goes.

[Lord Zentei]

Your last sentence, unfortunately, is your undoing in this chaotic explanation of what the law really means.

Chaos is about the individual, and individual interpretation:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.

According to Miko, she did nothing wrong, and she should still be a paladin. She considered the act both good, and lawful.

Obviously, you agree she wasn't good. Why, then, do you bring forward another part of her factual disproven testimony to prove that her act was lawful?

If criminal action invalidated a paladin's oaths to obey the law, then no paladin would EVER have to obey the law, because they are ALWAYS dealing with people who have broken it. Woohoo, ANARCHY!

Hinjo summarized it best in comic #409: Miko is a murderer. Murder is not only evil. It is a law broken. He placed Miko under arrest for ... what?

Breaking the law.

Miko's response?

"I will not submit to your tainted courts! The gods have a plan for me, I know it! I am special, the most powerful paladin in the Sapphire Guard!"

Miko considered herself about the law. Her actions were not merely evil, but chaotic.

This appears to have become more a discussion on the alignment system as so often happens in these threads.

Not wanting to submit oneself to (what one thinks are) corrupt courts is not automatically chaotic, nor is it placing oneself above the law. In fact, it may be quite the opposite, since corrupt courts are a perversion of a lawful institution. That was the justification for her rejecting the courts, not her desire for personal freedom. Refusing to submit oneself to courts that are not corrupt (with the quote you provided), that would possibly be chaotic.

[Puck]

Miko thought she was doing the work of the 12 gods ...

That's a little hard to justify when the 12 gods just yanked your paladin creds for what you just did.


... and that any mortal court (especially a corrupt one set up by Shojo the Deceiver) was a waste of time.

So any time someone breaks the law, you are automatically released from obeying the law or following due process?

Shinjo was a lawful paladin in good standing, and he arrested her. She said, in plain English, that would not submit to trial.

That is unlawful. That is chaotic.

She then attacked Hinjo, who had put his weapon away. Hinjo, who was still a paladin in good standing and OBVIOUSLY/demonstratably an actual representative of the law.

[Puck]

Not wanting to submit oneself to (what one thinks are) corrupt courts is not automatically chaotic, nor is it placing oneself above the law. In fact, it may be quite the opposite, since corrupt courts are a perversion of a lawful institution. That was the justification for her rejecting the courts, not her desire for personal freedom. Refusing to submit oneself to courts that are not corrupt (with the quote you provided), that would possibly be chaotic.

People keep saying "corrupt courts" as if Miko actually had any proof of this. She didn't. She had no proof. She had only the evidence that one person in the system was corrupt, and he was about to be arrested and lawfully tried.

I have to love the sentiment "placing one's self above the law is not automatically chaotic." Of course it is. It is not necessarily EVIL, but it is necessarily chaotic.

[CardinalFang]

That's a little hard to justify when the 12 gods just yanked your paladin creds for what you just did.



So any time someone breaks the law, you are automatically released from obeying the law or following due process?

Shinjo was a lawful paladin in good standing, and he arrested her. She said, in plain English, that would not submit to trial.

That is unlawful. That is chaotic.

She then attacked Hinjo, who had put his weapon away. Hinjo, who was still a paladin in good standing and OBVIOUSLY/demonstratably an actual representative of the law.

Oh, I'm not arguing that she was Lawful at all. I am simply saying that there are cases where following a higher, divine Law may trump the laws of man (as in any theocracy or fantasy setting in which gods can manifest their will). And that is what Miko thought she was doing. I'm certainly not going to argue she was right, because I don't think so. But the basis is there...and if she HAD been right about EVERYTHING (not just about Shojo, but about Hinjo not seeing the truth, AND about the courts being corrupt) then she very well could have done the most Lawfully Good action available. The fact that she was completely wrong about everything takes that away, of course.

And I would also argue that, while killing Shojo was Chaotic (especially since she knew the city was on the brink of invasion), it was more Evil, and that disobeying Hinjo was the more Chaotic action. So within that whole scenario, she managed to get both in good measure.

[CardinalFang]

People keep saying "corrupt courts" as if Miko actually had any proof of this. She didn't. She had no proof. She had only the evidence that one person in the system was corrupt, and he was about to be arrested and lawfully tried.

I have to love the sentiment "placing one's self above the law is not automatically chaotic." Of course it is. It is not necessarily EVIL, but it is necessarily chaotic.

Yes, but again (sigh, I miss Multiquote), if she HAD been right, it wouldn't have been Chaotic at all; she would have been restoring Law to a corrupted government. And it's important to note that she DID think she was committing a Lawful act. I don't feel that her misguided intentions absolve her in any way, but it's important to note that she didn't walk into the throne room thinking, "OK, I'll just kill Shojo really quickly and then resist arrest so that I can possibly doom the entire city." She could have been doing a noble, heroic act which would have been praised far and wide as the salvation of Azure City...if she hadn't been completely wrong about everything.

[CliveStaples]

She's a Rogue. She steals. It's her nature. Amazingly, in D&D, Good does not mean Perfect.

Amazingly, in D&D, Good means that you don't steal from, lie to, and generally decieve your party.

She isn't a Thief. She's a Rogue. She's sneaky. She doesn't have to use Slight of Hand to steal from her party in order to be a rogue.

I mean, come on! Apply your logic to the fighter class:

"He's a Fighter. He kills. It's his nature. Amazingly, in D&D, Good does not mean perfect."

Yeah, so he slaughtered three party members in their sleep. So what, he's a fighter, whaddya gonna do?


And yet, Elan is the happiest character in the comic. He loves his friends, has amazing adventures, just got an awesome girlfriend he really likes, and even invented his own god.

...and is a complete idiot, which is my point. I never said that the author was attempting to show that "Good isn't innocent", just that "Good is stupid and lame". Which Elan is.


No. That would be SHOJO. Hinjo is the one who's still alive. And just tried his hardest to save a frankly ungrateful citizenry from destruction.

Did he succeed?

Oh, wait, he's a good guy. He doesn't get to.


So? He's Evil. Nobody ever claimed otherwise. However, at the moment, he IS doing good things. He just demolished a large portion of a hostile invading army and probably saved innocent lives. Nobody ever claimed he was doing it out of altruism and compassion, but he IS doing it.

Which means that it isn't Good.

So when M. Entreri takes an assassination contract to kill a rival gang leader...he's a Good guy!

Motives matter.


You seem to have some misconceptions about the D&D alignment system. Do you play D&D? (I'm not trying to be a jerk; there are a lot of people who don't play and yet still read OotS and post on these boards.)

Since 2.0

And if you want to be a jerk, go ahead. I've got thick skin--and my Scots-Irish side likes a blood-pressure-raising argument.


Good doesn't mean Perfect. Your alignment doesn't change at the drop of a hat, or with each act. Even Miko's regicide, it could be argued, didn't automatically make her Chaotic Evil. Just because it wasn't a Good act doesn't mean that she didn't live a life doing Good things up until then.

I never argued that she was Chaotic Evil, did I?

In another thread, I argue that she is now Lawful Neutral--one step away from Lawful Good, mind you.

And history doesn't matter. If Hitler became Good, he wouldn't mystically stay evil because of what he did in the past. Alignment isn't a measure of the morality/ethos of all actions you have performed heretore; it is rather a measure of your current morality/ethos--which is demonstrated in action and attitude. Miko shows no regret for her regicide, which tells me that she doesn't consider it an Evil act. Which tells me that her moral compass isn't pointing at "Good".


There are a lot of people doing Good and fighting for Good in this comic who you seem very ready to write off.

I cheer Hinjo. I like the Sapphire Guard. I just wish that the author would portray Good in a light that doesn't make it seem completely worthless. Why be Good if all you do is fail, get betrayed, and generally make a muck-up of everything you do?


Who do you WANT to be the protagonist of this story? Some Paladin in very shiny armor with a big sword who can commit no wrong at all, and slays monsters in a single swipe? You seem just as upset about Belkar being successful as you do about Roy being unsuccessful; that seems like the only compromise which would satisfy you. But I can tell you this: most people here wouldn't want to read that story. It's boring. A character with no flaws can learn nothing, cannot change, and is flat and dull. A group of identical characters who all think the same thing, act the same way, and have the same goals is devoid of meaningful interaction, boring, and lifeless. OotS is funny BECAUSE Belkar is Evil, and it gets him into trouble with the party. It's funny BECAUSE Haley is greedy, and yet underneath has a noble goal she hasn't shared with anyone. And it's funny BECAUSE Elan is a happy go lucky idiot who nevertheless manages to be the heart of his group. Anything less would be dissatisfying.

I don't mind flawed characters, for crying out loud. They're necessary, if only for the fact that at least everyone can agree that they aren't perfect--any attempt to portray a perfect character will alienate 100% of your audience, because nobody can agree on what constitutes absolute perfect goodness in every situation.

I am simply expressing my disappointment in his portrayal of Good vs. Evil. As I've said, Evil is portrayed as smart, funny, bitingly sarcastic, clever, powerful, and rather enjoyable. Good, as most directly represented by his portrayal of paladins, is prone to deception, internal collapse, failure, unattractive personality traits, stupidity, ignorance, and hypocrisy.

The reason why I'm disappointed is because I see that portrayal all the time. A protrayal that I haven't seen in a long time is actually presenting the Good guys as people that you could get along with, kind, intelligent, compassionate, loving, unfailingly loyal, etc., etc. Durkon comes closest to this, and is in my opinion the real heart of the group. Elan just flits about looking nice and being funny. Durkon is reticent, sensible--except when it comes to trees, but it is a comic for crying out loud--Good, and *gasp* religious!

[Lord Zentei]

People keep saying "corrupt courts" as if Miko actually had any proof of this. She didn't. She had no proof. She had only the evidence that one person in the system was corrupt, and he was about to be arrested and lawfully tried.

Such proof is not required. She wrongly beleived that the courts were corrupt. Therefore, it is an in-alignment action to reject them.

Consider: when your DM pulls a fast one and deceives you during a game into thinking that an institution is lawful while in truth it is a secret cult devoted to Orcus and your lawful character aids said organization. Does he suddenly become chaotic? Of course not: his motivations remained lawful even though the consequences of his acts were not. Even assuming your character were delusional and he made this poor choice as a result of said delusion, the analysis remains. When considering alignment both motives and consequences are important.


I have to love the sentiment "placing one's self above the law is not automatically chaotic." Of course it is. It is not necessarily EVIL, but it is necessarily chaotic.

And I did not say that placing oneself above the law is not chaotic. I said that rejecting corrupt courts is not placing oneself above the law (re-read that bit again :smallwink: )

[cavalier973]

This is The Empire Strike Back.

Have no fear, we'll roll inot Revenge of the Jedi momentarily, where Slave Girl Haley gets captured by Xykon the Liche and it is up to Elan to rescue Roy from the carbo----


Wait, Lawyer Senses Tingling... best not speculate further.

"Revenge of the Jedi", boy does that take me back. It was "Revenge of the Jedi" on the Kenner toy packages for awhile, before they settled on "Return of the Jedi". If only I had not lost those toys, if only I had kept them in the package, instead of playing with them. *smacks himself in the head* Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!

[Puck]

Oh, I'm not arguing that she was Lawful at all. I am simply saying that there are cases where following a higher, divine Law may trump the laws of man (as in any theocracy or fantasy setting in which gods can manifest their will). And that is what Miko thought she was doing.

Again, it's kind of hard to argue that you are serving divine law when the gods just yanked your paladin creds.


I'm certainly not going to argue she was right, because I don't think so. But the basis is there...and if she HAD been right about EVERYTHING (not just about Shojo, but about Hinjo not seeing the truth, AND about the courts being corrupt) then she very well could have done the most Lawfully Good action available.

That's incorrect. She wasn't unlawful because she was wrong. Law is about due process. It is not an individual decision, nor individual prerogative. No one person embodies the law, and anyone who considers themselves a law above all others is necessarily chaotic.


The fact that she was completely wrong about everything takes that away, of course. And I would also argue that, while killing Shojo was Chaotic (especially since she knew the city was on the brink of invasion), it was more Evil, and that disobeying Hinjo was the more Chaotic action. So within that whole scenario, she managed to get both in good measure.

Actually, on that point, I can see where you're coming from, and you may very well be right on how you weighed her actions. Thank you for the thought.


Yes, but again (sigh, I miss Multiquote), if she HAD been right, it wouldn't have been Chaotic at all; she would have been restoring Law to a corrupted government.

I disagree here, though. If she had arrested Shojo, and prosecuted him under the law, then she would have been lawful. But that involved staying within the legal system, and overseeing it, rather than taking it upon herself to act outside the law.


And it's important to note that she DID think she was committing a Lawful act.

She also thought what she did was good. Apparently, she was wrong.


Such proof is not required. She wrongly beleived that the courts were corrupt. Therefore, it is an in-alignment action to reject them.

Proof is required. That's the law. Hinjo said so, and he is a lawful paladin in good standing with his deity. He also arrested her, lawfully. She resisted, unlawfully. She attacked him dishonorably, and took a surprise round and a full attack action before the lawful representative could even draw his sword.


And I did not say that placing oneself above the law is not chaotic. I said that rejecting corrupt courts is not placing oneself above the law (re-read that bit again :smallwink: )

But when you say, "The courts are corrupt and I need not obey them!" then you must provide proof, or have proof that they are corrupt.

[CardinalFang]

I don't feel like quoting and dissecting your post into multiple chunks, so I'll just give it a blanket argument.

You like flawed characters, you say, but at the same time, you turn everybody's flaws and traits into how they're either not really Good, or how they're a terrible representation of Good. The problem with your argument is simple: Good's FAILURE to triumph over Evil is what makes a story rich and meaningful. It's what makes the moment where everything goes from bleak and despairing to suddenly hopeful and victorious. Tolkien himself centered The Lord of the Rings around that precise moment (I think he even had a specific name for it). What is the point of The Order of the Stick if Xykon and Redcloak are defeated in Azure City? The story ends there. Good is Good because it fails and KEEPS TRYING. Good is Good because it KNOWS that the struggle against evil can NEVER end, and yet fights the endless battle anyway. Good is not Good because it wins, or because it's clever and compassionate and every characteristic we like, and because Evil is lying and spiteful and vicious. Good is Good because it is NOT perfect, and it KNOWS it is not perfect, but it tries anyway.

And if you feel that Good is always portrayed as incompetent or doomed, then reread the pre-Azure City storylines. Read the bits without the tragically doomed paladins. Maybe you'll see some things you forgot.

[Lord Zentei]

Proof is required. That's the law. Hinjo said so, and he is a lawful paladin in good standing with his deity. He also arrested her, lawfully. She resisted, unlawfully. She attacked him dishonorably, and took a surprise round and a full attack action before the lawful representative could even draw his sword.

But when you say, "The courts are corrupt and I need not obey them!" then you must provide proof, or have proof that they are corrupt.

Obviously, that is the ideal situation. But if you beleive wrongly that they are corrupt, then you are not requred to submit.

As far as she was concerned, Shojo's little speech to Roy was enough to convince her that the courts were corrupt (and she was right: they were corrupt -- Shojo all but openly stated as much). Moreover, she was right that he had had decades to stack the courts with his representatives and it is not too much of a stretch to assume that those representatives would also be corrupt.

Her failing was in being hasty, delusional and overly uncompromising. That alone is not enough to make her chaotic any more than an evil act brought about by the same wrongheaded delusion makes one evil. Why should the standards for law/chaos be more strict?

[CardinalFang]

Puck (also not quoting monster reply, sorry), I HATE to bring out this argument (I really do, I promise), but you're beginning to confuse modern, man-made laws with laws in a theocracy such as Azure City. If the 12 gods have made their will clear that Shojo should die, then due process is unnecessary. And she had that thought BEFORE she Fell. That's why I say killing Shojo was more Evil and disobeying Hinjo was more Chaotic. It may well have been within her rights (or even part of her duties) to strike down evildoers shown to her by the gods, and to skip the courts entirely. Azure City wasn't a secular government, so we can't say that due process was the only Lawful option available to her. If she had been right about Shojo (and for all she knew, she was...she was still a Paladin at that point, in the favor of her gods), she may have been serving Divine Justice and it would have been completely Lawful and OK.

[Puck]

You like flawed characters, you say, but at the same time, you turn everybody's flaws and traits into how they're either not really Good, or how they're a terrible representation of Good.

Everyone? Hardly. I'm speaking specifically about Miko. So stop exaggerating.


The problem with your argument is simple: Good's FAILURE to triumph over Evil is what makes a story rich and meaningful. It's what makes the moment where everything goes from bleak and despairing to suddenly hopeful and victorious. Tolkien himself centered The Lord of the Rings around that precise moment (I think he even had a specific name for it). What is the point of The Order of the Stick if Xykon and Redcloak are defeated in Azure City? The story ends there. Good is Good because it fails and KEEPS TRYING. Good is Good because it KNOWS that the struggle against evil can NEVER end, and yet fights the endless battle anyway. Good is not Good because it wins, or because it's clever and compassionate and every characteristic we like, and because Evil is lying and spiteful and vicious. Good is Good because it is NOT perfect, and it KNOWS it is not perfect, but it tries anyway.

At this point, I'm not talking about good. That's a different alignment axis. I'm talking about law versus chaos, and on that discussion, a more appropriate author is Michael Moorcock, upon whose books the whole law and chaos axis is designed.


And if you feel that Good is always portrayed as incompetent or doomed, then reread the pre-Azure City storylines. Read the bits without the tragically doomed paladins. Maybe you'll see some things you forgot.

Again, we're not talking about good at this point. We're talking about law and chaos.


Obviously, that is the ideal situation. But if you beleive wrongly that they are corrupt, then you are not requred to submit.

The law never exists in an ideal world. It is designed to deal specifically with lawlessness.

Your individual belief is not the law. That's the whole point. The chaotic individual believes in freedom. The lawful individual believes in order.

That's why there is a Paladin of Freedom variant:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinofFreedomClassF eatures


As far as she was concerned, Shojo's little speech to Roy was enough to convince her that the courts were corrupt (and she was right: they were corrupt -- Shojo all but openly stated as much). Moreover, she was right that he had had decades to stack the courts with his representatives and it is not too much of a stretch to assume that those representatives would also be corrupt.

So she took the word of a self-proclaimed liar that the courts were corrupt? And this authorizes her to believe that she is under no obligation to obey the will of her own order of paladins?

She did not follow due process. She did not follow the law. That is not necessarily an evil thing, by itself, but it is certainly chaotic.

[CardinalFang]

Everyone? Hardly. I'm speaking specifically about Miko. So stop exaggerating.



At this point, I'm not talking about good. That's a different alignment axis. I'm talking about law versus chaos, and on that discussion, a more appropriate author is Michael Moorcock, upon whose books the whole law and chaos axis is designed.



Again, we're not talking about good at this point. We're talking about law and chaos.

<snip>


Um, not to disregard everything you worked so hard to type out, but the post you quoted of mine wasn't directed at you; it was for Clive. Sorry.

[Puck]

Puck (also not quoting monster reply, sorry), I HATE to bring out this argument (I really do, I promise), but you're beginning to confuse modern, man-made laws with laws in a theocracy such as Azure City.

You're wrong. I'm not making that mistake, nor yours. We're talking about an alignment system based primarily upon D&D. That is the basis of any discussion on alignment.


If the 12 gods have made their will clear that Shojo should die, then due process is unnecessary.

That's Miko's logic, and unfortunately, as Shojo said, "It appears not everyone agrees with your analysis."


And she had that thought BEFORE she Fell. That's why I say killing Shojo was more Evil and disobeying Hinjo was more Chaotic.

I agreed with the "more" part. But that doesn't make her killing of Shojo lawful. In fact, it wasn't. That's why she was arrested: because she was a law-breaker.

[CardinalFang]

You're wrong. I'm not making that mistake, nor yours. We're talking about an alignment system based primarily upon D&D. That is the basis of any discussion on alignment.



That's Miko's logic, and unfortunately, as Shojo said, "It appears not everyone agrees with your analysis."



I agreed with the "more" part. But that doesn't make her killing of Shojo lawful. In fact, it wasn't. That's why she was arrested: because she was a law-breaker.

Again, I'm not arguing that she was Lawful in killing Shojo. My only point is that IF she had been right about Shojo, then she may well have been within her rights to ignore due process anyway, because Azure City is a theocracy and she was (at the time) a representative of their gods. The fact that she was wrong makes it all moot, but I feel that it's a point worth noting: she COULD have been doing the right thing (if Shojo had, in fact, been a traitor). Her crimes were regicide and insubordination, not simply a lack of due process, and those are what made her actions Chaotic more than anything else.

[Lord Zentei]

The law never exists in an ideal world. It is designed to deal specifically with lawlessness.

Your individual belief is not the law. That's the whole point. The chaotic individual believes in freedom. The lawful individual believes in order.

That's a red herring. She did not beleive in freedom. She beleived that the institutions of the law had been corrupted. That's not the same as discarding the law itself.


So she took the word of a self-proclaimed liar that the courts were corrupt? And this authorizes her to believe that she is under no obligation to obey the will of her own order of paladins?

She took a confession of a ruler that he had corrupted a trial to mean that the trial was corrupt. She took his plot with a person who she thought was an enemy of the city as treason to the city. And she is the highest ranking member of the order of paladins after the commander.


She did not follow due process. She did not follow the law. That is not necessarily an evil thing, by itself, but it is certainly chaotic.

In her view, the due process of the courts was already subverted. She followed the ideal of the law where (she thought) the institutions had failed. Her action was not inherently chaotic. It was, however, evil. Hence, she fell.

[Puck]

That's a red herring. She did not beleive in freedom. She beleived that the institutions of the law had been corrupted. That's not the same as discarding the law itself.

It's not a red herring. You keep saying "She BELIEVED she was the law" or somesuch.

Individual belief is insufficient to override the law.

Hinjo was lawful. Miko was not. Hinjo was good. Miko was not. Hinjo is a model of what a paladin should be. Miko? She's make a damn good Blackguard.


She took a confession of a ruler that he had corrupted a trial to mean that the trial was corrupt. She took his plot with a person who she thought was an enemy of the city as treason to the city. And she is the highest ranking member of the order of paladins after the commander.

Even the highest ranking paladin, however, is not above the law. Nor is she a law unto herself.


In her view, the due process of the courts was already subverted. She followed the ideal of the law where (she thought) the institutions had failed. Her action was not inherently chaotic. It was, however, evil. Hence, she fell.

A court. She she knew "a" court had been subverted. And the person guilty of that act caught.

An orderly society means respecting the law, which is half of a what a paladin is supposed to exemplify.

You don't toss out the law because any one particular person breaks it. Otherwise, you just throw out the law whenever it's convenient.

[Lord Zentei]

It's not a red herring. You keep saying "She BELIEVED she was the law" or somesuch.

Individual belief is insufficient to override the law.

It is a red herring. You always do what you think is the correct path of action within the framework of your moral philosophy. You may, of course, be mistaken.


Hinjo was lawful. Miko was not. Hinjo was good. Miko was not. Hinjo is a model of what a paladin should be. Miko? She's make a damn good Blackguard.

Oh, give it a rest. A single act does not change one's alignment. This has been done to death.


Even the highest ranking paladin, however, is not above the law. Nor is she a law unto herself.

Who claimed any such thing?

The highest ranking paladin is however, supposed to enforce the law, or at least the ideal of the law when other such insitutions fail.


A court. She she knew "a" court had been subverted. And the person guilty of that act caught.

And she knew that he had been on the throne for decades filling posts with his chosen representatives. Rather difficult to find a neutral court under those circumstances.


An orderly society means respecting the law, which is half of a what a paladin is supposed to exemplify.

You don't toss out the law because any one particular person breaks it. Otherwise, you just throw out the law whenever it's convenient.

Again: she was not tossing out the law when she struck down Shojo. She was rejecting the institutions of law which were under his control. It was an unforgiving and rash act, hence evil, but it was not unlawful.

If you want to look for unlawful acts she performed, the attack on Hinjo might qualify, since he was the lawful heir to the throne. The act on Shojo, not so much.

[Puck]

It is a red herring. You always do what you think is the correct path of action within the framework of your moral philosophy. You may, of course, be mistaken.

And that is why, for the lawful individual, the law itself exists. So you have something apart from yourself as a reference point and touchstone. When in doubt, refer to the law.

Ergo, it's not a red herring. But you may continue to claim so, albeit without proof.


Oh, give it a rest. A single act does not change one's alignment. This has been done to death.

If you're continuing to argue, but tell me to give it a rest, then perhaps you should follow your own advice.


Who claimed any such thing?

Many people are. In their defense of Miko, they keep saying, "She THOUGHT she was fulfilling the law."


The highest ranking paladin is however, supposed to enforce the law, or at least the ideal of the law when other such insitutions fail.

How do you enforce the law by breaking it?


And she knew that he had been on the throne for decades filling posts with his chosen representatives. Rather difficult to find a neutral court under those circumstances.

You mean like ... the paladins?

Like Hinjo, the one she tried to murder?


Again: she was not tossing out the law when she struck down Shojo. She was rejecting the institutions of law which were under his control. It was an unforgiving and rash act, hence evil, but it was not unlawful.

And when he was removed from office, he no longer controlled the institutions of the law. It was her duty to find a lawful court in which to try him, and oversee that, if need be.

It was not her duty to commit regicide.


If you want to look for unlawful acts she performed, the attack on Hinjo might qualify, since he was the lawful heir to the throne. The act on Shojo, not so much.

If you ever find any reason to back this up, instead of merely repeating it, I'll be listening.

[Lord Zentei]

And that is why, for the lawful individual, the law itself exists. So you have something apart from yourself as a reference point and touchstone. When in doubt, refer to the law.

Ergo, it's not a red herring. But you may continue to claim so, albeit without proof.

No. You seem to be confusing adherance to the authority of the land with lawful alignment. A lawful character is not obligated to follow the orders or obey the servants of one who subverts the law for his own ends.


If you're continuing to argue, but tell me to give it a rest, then perhaps you should follow your own advice.

I was referring to the "lol, Miko is a blackguard" meme.


Many people are. In their defense of Miko, they keep saying, "She THOUGHT she was fulfilling the law."

That is not equivalent to claiming that she is above the law. It is an assertion that she was not an unlawful character. Again, you seem to be conflating lawful alignment with legalism. That is not the same thing at all.


How do you enforce the law by breaking it?

The ideal of the law is not adherance to corrupt legalistic institutions. See above.


You mean like ... the paladins?

Like Hinjo, the one she tried to murder?

If you are insinuating that the paladins could have set up court on their own, you are discarding the courts of the city yourself.


And when he was removed from office, he no longer controlled the institutions of the law. It was her duty to find a lawful court in which to try him, and oversee that, if need be.

Incorrect. If he appointed the members of the institutions of law, they are still his stooges, even though he is arrested. To take an exreme example, would you have placed Hitler under arrest and had Goebbels be the judge?


It was not her duty to commit regicide.

If you ever find any reason to back this up, instead of merely repeating it, I'll be listening.

Where does anyone claim that it was her duty to commit regicide?

[Puck]

No. You seem to be confusing adherance to the authority of the land with lawful alignment. A lawful character is not obligated to follow the orders or obey the servants of one who subverts the law for his own ends.

And you seem to be confusing lawful for "whatever somebody feels like." A paladin is obliged to follow the law. If he or she thinks the system is corrupt, then they are obligated to show proof of this. That is why Hinjo said, "Save it for the magistrates."

At the very least, she was obliged to comply when arrested by a lawful paladin. She didn't. Hence, both evil and chaotic.


I was referring to the "lol, Miko is a blackguard" meme.

You may refer to whatever you like. So log as you continue to argue, you lose the right to tell anyone else to quit.


That is not equivalent to claiming that she is above the law. It is an assertion that she was not an unlawful character. Again, you seem to be conflating lawful alignment with legalism. That is not the same thing at all.

No, I'm simply saying that someone who is lawful has to follow the law.

You think lawful is, "Whatever a paladin feels like."


The ideal of the law is not adherance to corrupt legalistic institutions. See above.

The law itself requires rooting out corruption within the system through lawful means, rather than gangbang drive-bys in the throne room.


If you are insinuating that the paladins could have set up court on their own, you are discarding the courts of the city yourself.

The paladins were certainly capable of seeing that justice was done. That's what Hinjo was trying to do when he arrested Miko.

Instead, she tried to murder him.


Incorrect. If he appointed the members of the institutions of law, they are still his stooges, even though he is arrested. To take an exreme example, would you have placed Hitler under arrest and had Goebbels be the judge?

Funny you should mention that, because your example is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. The Nazis were tried lawfully at Nuremberg. Goebbels would have been tried, as well, if he hadn't committed suicide. The law was not discarded. In fact, those Nazis were lawfully executed.


Where does anyone claim that it was her duty to commit regicide?

You do, if you tell me that committing regicide was lawful. If you can admit it was a chaotic act, then we're all good, aren't we?

[Lord Zentei]

And you seem to be confusing lawful for "whatever somebody feels like." A paladin is obliged to follow the law. If he or she thinks the system is corrupt, then they are obligated to show proof of this. That is why Hinjo said, "Save it for the magistrates."

No, you ar misrepresenting my position. Doing whatever you feel like is not lawful behaviour. Consistent, disciplined behaviour is, as is acting in what one thinks is the ideal of law, even should institutions be corrupt.


At the very least, she was obliged to comply when arrested by a lawful paladin. She didn't. Hence, both evil and chaotic.

Her rebellion against Hinjo was non-lawful. That is not the same act as her killing of Shojo.


You may refer to whatever you like. So log as you continue to argue, you lose the right to tell anyone else to quit.

Good grief, you think that "give it a rest" is instructing you that you can't do something? Pretty literal minded, there aren't we? It's an exasperated statement to the effect that the tangent had been done to death.


No, I'm simply saying that someone who is lawful has to follow the law.

You think lawful is, "Whatever a paladin feels like."

And you are wrong on both counts.


The paladins were certainly capable of seeing that justice was done. That's what Hinjo was trying to do when he arrested Miko.

Instead, she tried to murder him.

So, you accept that the paladins can in fact discard the institutions of state in seeking justice.


Funny you should mention that, because your example is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. The Nazis were tried lawfully at Nuremberg. Goebbels would have been tried, as well, if he hadn't committed suicide. The law was not discarded. In fact, those Nazis were lawfully executed.

No it is not the same thing at all, because the Nuremberg trials were not set up by German institutions.


You do, if you tell me that committing regicide was lawful. If you can admit it was a chaotic act, then we're all good, aren't we?

Again, you are conflating lawful with legalistic.

[Puck]

No, you ar misrepresenting my position. Doing whatever you feel like is not lawful behaviour. Consistent, disciplined behaviour is, as is acting in what one thinks is the ideal of law, even should institutions be corrupt.

So as long as you do what you THINK is lawful, you need no reference to any outside law?

You can attack paladins with impugnity when you are lawfully arrested, and as long as you FEEL lawful, you are?

You can strike down rulers without recourse to the courts because - hey - they MIGHT be corrupted? Or the process of law might be subverted?

Paladins are just lawful killing machines who can do whatever they want as long as they FEEL lawful?

That's anarchy. That's not law.


Her rebellion against Hinjo was non-lawful. That is not the same act as her killing of Shojo.

In your opinion. You haven't proven it, though.


Good grief, you think that "give it a rest" is instructing you that you can't do something? Pretty literal minded, there aren't we? It's an exasperated statement to the effect that the tangent had been done to death.

So drop it, because the tangent isn't here, anymore.


And you are wrong on both counts.

Whenever you want to get around to showing this, instead of claiming it - over and over - let me know.


So, you accept that the paladins can in fact discard the institutions of state in seeking justice.

I never said that the paladins were discarding the institutions of state. Hinjo wasn't. O-Chul didn't.

Only Miko.

And oh look! She's the only one of the three who isn't a paladin anymore.

Go figure.


No it is not the same thing at all, because the Nuremberg trials were not set up by German institutions.

But they were the law, and they were executed lawfully. They didn't just go around murdering Germans or Nazis at will, which is basically what Miko did.


Again, you are conflating lawful with legalistic.

No, I'm simply saying that ignoring the law isn't lawful.

[Ridureyu]

Hm. Now Nazis have been invoked.

GODWIN'S LAW WINS AGAIN!

[silent_watcher]

Why does Rich seem to punish the good and let evil get away?

I've got a large horde of dead hobgoblins who might disagree with your point there. I'm sure the thousands upon thousands slain for no reason but to provide experience for a small band of power-hungry mass murderers supposedly fighting for "good" would see the situation a little differently. Oh, a few hoity-toity paladins and their personal entourages got whacked? Pfft.

There is another argument, that this is indeed how the real world sometimes works and Rich is attempting to follow that model. Good things sometimes do happen to bad people. Bad things sometimes do happen to good people. It's the first lesson we ever learn as kids: "Life is unfair." Call it fate, call it God, call it dumb luck, but it happens. If the religious are right, then in the next life, things will work out.

Of course, if we're going with the whole "real world" perspective, then we'd have to argue what exactly defines one as "good" and another as "evil." As previously stated, our little band of stick heroes are responsible for a death toll equal to that of several small nations. That's significantly above "FBI's Most Wanted" and just a little under "Cthulthu, Destroyer of Worlds."

Furthermore, their behavior indicates that the OOTS are violent racists, intolerant of anything non-mammalian or dark in color. Reptilians -- indeed, anything cold-blooded -- must be killed on sight. "Dark" elves? Destroy them. And these aren't just other subspecies of vary genetic difference. These are entire sentient races, who are pre-judged as "evil." They are guilty before proven innocent. What, you can have an evil halfling, but you can't have a good kobold? You have to wipe out the bad races or put them in "Friendship" camps? (http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/bargain-book-bin-3.php)

And there are precious few people who ever do anything except with the intention of doing good. Everyone has good intentions, or at least has deluded themselves into believing they have good intentions. "Oh sure, we should destroy their country, it'll help them more than it'll hurt them. And these nice shiny pieces of gold - well, if we were any sort of good, we'd remove that kind of temptation from their path." Or the perennial favorite, "Those people are evil! Kill them in the name of good!"

But of course, that's stupid, because this is a comic, set in a fictional universe. It's because when villains die and heroes rewarded, it's boring. You expect it. If the villain dies in the first chapter, there's no story anymore. Unless bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people, there is no sense of possible danger and loss, so there's no sense of excitement or accomplishment.

Hence the suckiness of the Star Wars prequels and the Matrix sequels. Because both featured heroes who are, for all intents and purposes, God.

In the original Star Wars, the heroes lose. A lot. The good guys are always running away or getting caught or killed or getting limbs cut off. The bad guys are always winning or torturing people, which, being bad guys, goes down as a win in their book. In the prequel, though, kindness and goodness rule the galaxy and instead a small band of evil survivors are the ones running from the Man. It's not until the 3rd prequel that you even get a real sense of danger, but it's ruined because you know evil wins. (SPOILER!!!!!OMG)

[Lord Zentei]

So as long as you do what you THINK is lawful, you need no reference to any outside law?

You can attack paladins with impugnity when you are lawfully arrested, and as long as you FEEL lawful, you are?

You can strike down rulers without recourse to the courts because - hey - they MIGHT be corrupted? Or the process of law might be subverted?

Paladins are just lawful killing machines who can do whatever they want as long as they FEEL lawful?

That's anarchy. That's not law.

This entire rant is dependant on the assumption that adherance to legalism is equivalent to lawful alignment. If an institution fails to be lawful, one does not remain lawful by obeying it.


In your opinion. You haven't proven it, though.

What would you have me prove? That her attack on Shojo is not the same act as her attack on Hinjo? You are seriously asking for "proof" of this?


Whenever you want to get around to showing this, instead of claiming it - over and over - let me know.

As for the first point: if you are lawful, you are not obligated to obey a person who has broken the law of the land, nor are you obligated to trust institutions that one can reasonably suppose that he controls. This point you have yet to credibly refute.

In any case, she was the highest ranking paladin in the order, as such, she was the second highest ranking millitary commander in the city. There is no basis for claiming that she did not have the right to depose him and appoint herself in command with emergency powers, though her execution of Shojo was and remains evil.

As for the second point: you asserted the following: 'you think lawful is, "Whatever a paladin feels like."' I claim that this is false, as I can perfectly well do, since I should think that I have more access to my own thoughts than you do.

And incidentally, what have you proven? Nothing, you merely restate your own opinion ad nauseam.


I never said that the paladins were discarding the institutions of state. Hinjo wasn't. O-Chul didn't.

Only Miko.

And oh look! She's the only one of the three who isn't a paladin anymore.

Go figure.

Dishonest. She fell because of an evil act, as you know perfectly well. This has no bearing on whether the act was chaotic.


But they were the law, and they were executed lawfully. They didn't just go around murdering Germans or Nazis at will, which is basically what Miko did.

That they were not the institutions that were present in germany is precisely the point, since she rejected the magistrates of Azure City.


No, I'm simply saying that ignoring the law isn't lawful.

That is conflating the lawful with the legalistic, as you assert that the one is dependant on the other.


Hm. Now Nazis have been invoked.

GODWIN'S LAW WINS AGAIN!

No, it doesnt. Godwin only applies when someone has said "your position is alike to that of the Nazis", which thankfully no-one has done.

[Puck]

This entire rant is dependant on the assumption that adherance to legalism is equivalent to lawful alignment. If an institution fails to be lawful, one does not remain lawful by obeying it.

And neither does one become lawful through regicide and the attempted murder of those who fulfill the law.


What would you have me prove? That her attack on Shojo is not the same act as her attack on Hinjo? You are seriously asking for "proof" of this?

No, but simply doing something besides repeating yourself would be nice. This is turning into one of those internet staredowns where we both keep repeating ourselves until one of us blinks. I used to do those, but this is growing droll very quickly.


As for the first point: if you are lawful, you are not obligated to obey a person who has broken the law of the land, nor are you obligated to trust institutions that one can reasonably suppose that he controls. This point you have yet to credibly refute.

I never said she should obey Shojo. But that is the only person who has demonstratably broken the law.

She was not obligated to obey Shojo. But his chaotic treatment of the law does not absolve her of her responsibility to follow it.

You think that the law is whatever Miko feels like. Go you.


In any case, she was the highest ranking paladin in the order, as such, she was the second highest ranking millitary commander in the city. There is no basis for claiming that she did not have the right to depose him and appoint herself in command with emergency powers, though her execution of Shojo was and remains evil.

Her rank does not matter. Shojo's rank did not absolve him of his responsibility to follow the law. But nobody is arguing that Shojo was lawful. Clearly, he wasn't. Neither was he evil.

He had no right to depose him. The gods themselves struck her down for doing so in the manner she did. If she had simply arrested him, there would be no problem.

That's what Hinjo did. And oh! Look! He's still wearing blue!


As for the second point: you asserted the following: 'you think lawful is, "Whatever a paladin feels like."' I claim that this is false, as I can perfectly well do, since I should think that I have more access to my own thoughts than you do.

And yet, you keep saying, "But Miko believed what she was doing was lawful!"


And incidentally, what have you proven? Nothing, you merely restate your own opinion ad nauseam.

Physician, heal thyself.


Dishonest. She fell because of an evil act, as you know perfectly well. This has no bearing on whether the act was chaotic.

Round and round we go! Whee!!!!!


That they were not the institutions that were present in germany is precisely the point, since she rejected the magistrates of Azure City.

She rejected all of them unilaterally without proof, substance, or any attempt to discover who was honest, and who was not. The paladins are guardians of the law, not a law unto themselves.

They are about justice, due process and order.

Not personal whim.


That is conflating the lawful with the legalistic, as you assert that the one is dependant on the other.

You sure do enjoy that word, legalistic.

You simply want Miko to be chaotic lawful law-unto-herself. The gods themselves said, "You're wrong!" And she continued to follow only herself. She attacked lawful and unlawful alike.

She literally was anarchy unleashed, and neither gods nor fellow paladins could tell her what to do.

[Lord Zentei]

And neither does one become lawful through regicide and the attempted murder of those who fulfill the law.

Execution of a traitor is not non-lawful. You have repeatedly stated that she did not have authority to execute Shojo, and without proof.


No, but simply doing something besides repeating yourself would be nice. This is turning into one of those internet staredowns where we both keep repeating ourselves until one of us blinks. I used to do those, but this is growing droll very quickly.

You are doing that now, so at least be honest enough to admit as much. "Droll", indeed.

And you are wrong on another count too: I have repeatedly stated why I am of the position that refusal to adhere to corrupt institutions is not non-lawful. You simply keep restating your own opinion as though that were a rebuttal.


I never said she should obey Shojo. But that is the only person who has demonstratably broken the law.

She was not obligated to obey Shojo. But his chaotic treatment of the law does not absolve her of her responsibility to follow it.

You think that the law is whatever Miko feels like. Go you.

I have alredy corrected you on that multiple times. I do not think any such thing. Kindly stop strawmanning my position.


Her rank does not matter. Shojo's rank did not absolve him of his responsibility to follow the law. But nobody is arguing that Shojo was lawful. Clearly, he wasn't. Neither was he evil.

He had no right to depose him. The gods themselves struck her down for doing so in the manner she did. If she had simply arrested him, there would be no problem.

That's what Hinjo did. And oh! Look! He's still wearing blue!

Because he didn't commit evil. You are aware, are you not, that it was the evil act that caused Miko to fall and nothing else? Chaotic acts do not cause paladins to fall, so the fact she fell as a result of an act does not prove it to be chaotic.


And yet, you keep saying, "But Miko believed what she was doing was lawful!"

No. I keep saying that adhering to the ideal of the law is what makes one lawful. Execution of traitors is within that framework, as is rejecting corrupt institutions.


Physician, heal thyself.

Cute. You were complaining about the absence of proof. That was the irony.


Round and round we go! Whee!!!!!

Adress the point instead of dodging it.


She rejected all of them unilaterally without proof, substance, or any attempt to discover who was honest, and who was not. The paladins are guardians of the law, not a law unto themselves.

They are about justice, due process and order.

Not personal whim.

It is false to claim that she had no substance to her suspicions.


You sure do enjoy that word, legalistic.

Adress the point instead of dodging it.


You simply want Miko to be chaotic lawful law-unto-herself. The gods themselves said, "You're wrong!" And she continued to follow only herself. She attacked lawful and unlawful alike.

I grow tired of your appeals to motive and fraudulent claims as to what my position is.

[Puck]

Execution of a traitor is not non-lawful. You have repeatedly stated that she did not have authority to execute Shojo, and without proof.

She was arrested by a lawful paladin for her crime of murder and regicide. What more proof do you need? It was illegal, against the law, chaotic. She did not have the authority, and she was arrested for her crime. Your statement that my assertion is baseless and without evidence is false.


You are doing that now, so at least be honest enough to admit as much. "Droll", indeed.

The difference between us, though, is that I can admit it.


And you are wrong on another count too: I have repeatedly stated why I am of the position that refusal to adhere to corrupt institutions is not non-lawful. You simply keep restating your own opinion as though that were a rebuttal.

I gotta be honest here. You're not doing anything except repeating yourself at this point. I didn't find your arguments compelling the first time, and they haven't acquired any driving force ever since. I'm sure you feel the same. Nobody is going to get a KO at this point, and a staredown just isn't in my vocabulary, so unless you've got something brand spanking new, this is probably - but not certainly - going to be my last post in this discussion, because it's starting all sound the same on both sides.


I have alredy corrected you on that multiple times. I do not think any such thing. Kindly stop strawmanning my position.

But it's so fun!


You are aware, are you not, that it was the evil act that caused Miko to fall and nothing else?

I'm aware that you have asserted this many times, now.


Chaotic acts do not cause paladins to fall, so the fact she fell as a result of an act does not prove it to be chaotic.

Demonstratably untrue:

-

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

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents ... A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.

-

So, in fact, you can lose your paladin status by committing a chaotic act.

It is ... how did you say before? ... plausible.


No. I keep saying that adhering to the ideal of the law is what makes one lawful. Execution of traitors is within that framework, as is rejecting corrupt institutions.

Except that Miko didn't execute anyone. She murdered her lawful ruler without trial.


Cute. You were complaining about the absence of proof. That was the irony.

So "You do it, too!" is your best defense? You are unfamiliar with the phrase "tu quoque" I take it?


Adress the point instead of dodging it ... Adress the point instead of dodging it.

You mean address?


It is false to claim that she had no substance to her suspicions.

Which is why she was arrested as a murderer. Right. We've been over this before.

[Lord Zentei]

She was arrested by a lawful paladin for her crime of murder and regicide. What more proof do you need? It was illegal, against the law, chaotic. She did not have the authority, and she was arrested for her crime. Your statement that my assertion is baseless and without evidence is false.

She invoked her status as highest ranking member of the Sapphire Guard when she overthrew Shojo. However, she fell -- indicating that her descision was morally wrong -- and paladins are required to enforce good as well as law.


The difference between us, though, is that I can admit it.

Aren't we high and mighty. You claimed I was repeating myself after repeatedly failing to respond adequately, which is rather dishonest, IMHO. How exactly do you expect me to respond to you if you refuse to adress arguments with anything other than "I disagree" and "you repeat yourself" when you didn't answer me the first time?

You also claimed that you had no desire to participate in repetitive arguments. If so, seeya.


I gotta be honest here. You're not doing anything except repeating yourself at this point. I didn't find your arguments compelling the first time, and they haven't acquired any driving force ever since. I'm sure you feel the same. Nobody is going to get a KO at this point, and a staredown just isn't in my vocabulary, so unless you've got something brand spanking new, this is probably - but not certainly - going to be my last post in this discussion, because it's starting all sound the same on both sides.

I know I have repeated my position. This is because you have failed to show why it is false; simply saying "I disagree" doesn't cut it. Again: you didn't respond with a rebuttal the first time, and I'm still waiting.


But it's so fun!

Ah. So you were trolling.


I'm aware that you have asserted this many times, now.

Demonstratably untrue:

-

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

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents ... A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.

-

So, in fact, you can lose your paladin status by committing a chaotic act.

It is ... how did you say before? ... plausible.

Finally a argument. But this is an incorrect interpretation: a single act does not change one's alignment. A single evil act does not change one's alignment to evil, neither does a single chaotic act change one's alignment to chaotic.

A single evil act is explicitly stated as causing a fall, however. A single chaotic act is not sufficient, a full alignment change is required for that.

Therefore, that a single act is enough to fall definately proves that it was evil, it does not prove that it was chaotic.


Except that Miko didn't execute anyone. She murdered her lawful ruler without trial.

She certainly did execute him since she invoked her authority as highest ranking member of the Sapphire Guard.


So "You do it, too!" is your best defense? You are unfamiliar with the phrase "tu quoque" I take it?

Yes. And this is not it, since your assertion that I provided no argument is false.


You mean address?

Obviously. And I'm still waiting.


Which is why she was arrested as a murderer. Right. We've been over this before.

Indeed we have. That you fail to distinguish the point that she was arrested for an obviously evil act, and for attacking Hinjo is another matter.

[Poppatomus]

She certainly did execute him since she invoked her authority as highest ranking member of the Sapphire Guard.



Hate to get involved in an ongoing argument, but that one's no good. Even if we assume that she has the authority to kill people on her own accord, a big assumption, especially if we assume it applies to those she's not tasked to kill, it is simply ridiculous to assume she has the authority to decide to kill the head of the sapphire guard. The head of the sapphire guard, by virtue of being its head, can over rule that decision, and clearly seemed to be trying to do so. Thus while she may have cited an authority, she didn't actually have authority. at that moment, striking him down was murder with fluff, she could have claimed authority from any source, but that doesn't make it any less murder.

Any way you slice it, its vigilante, outside the law, justice. Now, I agree with you about the "more than one act" bit, but the act of killing Shojo was only an execution in the gangland sense of the word, not in the legal sense. Perhaps that's how you meant it though, in which case the point is just semantic and almost any killing by a representative of an organization, even an organization of one, is an execution by definition.

[Lord Zentei]

Hate to get involved in an ongoing argument, but that one's no good. Even if we assume that she has the authority to kill people on her own accord, a big assumption, especially if we assume it applies to those she's not tasked to kill, it is simply ridiculous to assume she has the authority to decide to kill the head of the sapphire guard. The head of the sapphire guard, by virtue of being its head, can over rule that decision, and clearly seemed to be trying to do so. Thus while she may have cited an authority, she didn't actually have authority. at that moment, striking him down was murder with fluff, she could have claimed authority from any source, but that doesn't make it any less murder.

Not so: a second in command of a millitary outfit can releive the head of that organization of duty if he is unfit to continue in that office. A first mate can releive the captain of duty. And so on.

She knew that he had subverted the rule of law, and thought additionally that he was a traitor. Given that notion she would be remiss in not releiving him of duty.

[Ithekro]

Would someone please psychoanalysis this debate? It looks like a nice project for someone skilled at that sort of thing.

It sounds a lot like you are arguing the Letter of the Law verse the Spirit of the Law.

The main point of crisis seem to be if one act was evil or chaotic. It retrospect, does it matter which of you is right? No. There are at least three counted acts in this debate. Murder, attempted murder, and resisting arrest. However the workout in terms of Evil/Good and Lawful/Chaos is rather pointless. Especially since it has gotten to the point of throwing jabs at either other. Is this about the issue, or is this about being right? Or is this just about winning? Is there a point to this debate anymore?

This is about the third "longer than it needs to be" debate I've seen in a day conducted by people who will not let it go. If you haven't been able to make the other person see your point of view by this point you are never going to be able to do so. It gets worse when it goes down to just arguing to tell everyone that the other person can't "prove" you wrong. It is immature and egotistical. I know it is likely that I could just ignore these forums, but the original topic still interests me and I try to read all the forums if I can.

So why are you still debating?