To all Belkar fans

[Flubadubdub]

For those who felt ripped off that Belkar was going to have to serve a WHOLE year in jail for murder (crazy isn't it?)

Good news, there's no more law :smallsmile:

No Ac, no more prison.

Oh, and sorry if this has been previously mentioned, but I haven't seen it so I figured it was worth a shot.

[Saithis Bladewing]

No more AC also means they have to find someone capable of removing the mark now.

[jamroar]

No more AC also means they have to find someone capable of removing the mark now.

Eh, the OOTS is high enough level that either Durkon, V or even Elan could attempt to remove it if they wanted to. They just prefer having it on him up to this point.

[teratorn]

For those who felt ripped off that Belkar was going to have to serve a WHOLE year in jail for murder (crazy isn't it?)

Good news, there's no more law :smallsmile:

No Ac, no more prison.

There's Hinjo. His level is not high enough but V would be glad to help. I think the best for Hinjo would be to detect evil on Belkar, then kill him and only let the order bring him back one year later.

[Flubadubdub]

Right, cause Hinjo is gonna kill Belkar, after being the only prisoner who didn't turn his back on him, and made a decent impact on the battle, and saved his life. V's gonna be a lot of use right now with no spells prepared either.

Belkar to live for the win

[teratorn]

Right, cause Hinjo is gonna kill Belkar, after being the only prisoner who didn't turn his back on him, and made a decent impact on the battle, and saved his life.

That was part of the agreement, and was worth only 5 years of prison time. As a paladin Hinjo can not release evil into the world so Belkar must be checked for one year. In fact it should have been a magistrate to handle the sentence reductions, Hinjo associated with evil there. I don't understand how he still is a paladin.

[mockingbyrd7]

That was part of the agreement, and was worth only 5 years of prison time. As a paladin Hinjo can not release evil into the world so Belkar must be checked for one year. In fact it should have been a magistrate to handle the sentence reductions, Hinjo associated with evil there. I don't understand how he still is a paladin.

ZOMG Belkar is Chaotic Neutral w/ eval tendenciez lolol!!

Heh, you make a good point, but I don't think it's worth quarreling over. Occasionally in a D&D comic like this you need to bend the rules a bit for the sake of a joke/to advance the plot.

[blademaster42]

Because he associated with evil for the greater good. If he hadn't let Belkar help, there wouldn't have been survivors, few as there are now.

[teratorn]

Because he associated with evil for the greater good. If he hadn't let Belkar help, there wouldn't have been survivors, few as there are now.

It doesn't matter. In DnD a paladin can not associate with evil, even to protect the innocent. If it were a magistrate to negociate sentences, everything it would be ok. I understand it for plot purposes, because it saves the introduction of a needless character but it's problematic nonetheless. A paladin as a ruler of a city is too weird, he should have given up being one.

[Breaon]

It doesn't matter. In DnD a paladin can not associate with evil, even to protect the innocent. If it were a magistrate to negociate sentences, everything it would be ok. I understand it for plot purposes, because it saves the introduction of a needless character but it's problematic nonetheless. A paladin as a ruler of a city is too weird, he should have given up being one.

Clearly there is some greater power at play here, for the 12 Gods have not stripped Hinjo of his powers for his actions to date. Every game I've been in has presented the moral dilema, and made the paladin really think in terms other than black and white; the world is hardly that, there are many shades of grey to consider.

And then, this is the comic. Everything is subject to the rule of plot.

[David Argall]

Hinjo, showing that paladins can also be Good Stupid as well as Lawful Stupid, has decided that Belkar is reforming, and is not really evil at the moment. Probably this means he has not bothered to detect evil, but Belkar and Roy are well aware of his wrong impression.

The rules say a paladin Will not associate with evil, not Can not. The difference is mostly trivial. In either case, a Hinjo-Belkar relationship is going to need a lot of work, far more than it is worth.

[teratorn]

Clearly there is some greater power at play here, for the 12 Gods have not stripped Hinjo of his powers for his actions to date.

Well, Tsukiko and the other guy might have been neutral at that time (Tsukiko says she "wants to be evil") and Belkar with the MOJ couldn't do evil acts.

About good using or associating with evil. If good associates with evil for the greater good then is evil doing it for the greater evil? You don't associate with evil for the greater good but for the lesser evil. It's always an evil choice. AC could have harvested the power of the gate "just in case it was needed for the greater good". They didn't, and even if it cost them their city and many innocent lives, it was the right thing to do.

Well, not always, I can think of exceptions, in particular dumb evil. Associating with Belkar is sort of ok, he is not wise enough; his goals are all about himself. By associating with him OOTS saves innocent lifes and does not further evil purposes in any way. But with someone like Nale it would be something very different.

[factotum]

Well, Tsukiko and the other guy might have been neutral at that time (Tsukiko says she "wants to be evil") and Belkar with the MOJ couldn't do evil acts.


All that meant was that Tsukiko wanted to join the evil side. I'm pretty sure she was ALREADY evil at that point. As for Belkar, regardless of whether the MoJ is preventing him doing evil acts, HE IS EVIL. If you'd locked Stalin or Hitler away in a cell somewhere so they were unable to do anything nasty to anyone, it wouldn't have stopped them being fundamentally evil by any definition that matters.

[EyethatBinds]

And I am now invoking Godwin's law. [Smite forum?]

Hinjo isn't associating with Belkar as much as being in the same room with him and not attacking him. If that qualifies as assiociating with evil then a paladin would fall if a villian surrenders every time, since it would be an evil act to kill a helpless person who has surrendered and taking him to prison would cause you to assiociate with him.
The only thing that causes a paladin to fall is willingly commiting an evil act. That's it. The paladin must also remain lawful good to stay a paladin, but a single chaotic act won't suddenly shift you to chaotic insanity. They follow the paladin code as a part of being lawful and refuse to commit acts of evil to stay good.
Also Belkar is going to be stuck with the Mark until the end of the comic just to torture his fans! Bwa ha ha ha!

[Emperor Ing]

Also Belkar is going to be stuck with the Mark until the end of the comic just to torture his fans! Bwa ha ha ha! Nah thats not going to happen. Its too evil...:eek: were skrewed

[Aerusan]

That was part of the agreement, and was worth only 5 years of prison time. As a paladin Hinjo can not release evil into the world so Belkar must be checked for one year. In fact it should have been a magistrate to handle the sentence reductions, Hinjo associated with evil there. I don't understand how he still is a paladin.

My response to this borderlines what could be construed as a speculation of things to come, mixed with what has already happened. Mostly events that have already occurred. Spoiler tags are just for safety's sake.

Time and time again, as we've followed Miko's behavior through the comic, we have seen that paladins can clearly get away with many gray areas in the name of 'good' without invoking the wrath of the twelve gods. Only when a paladin betrays their code in such a black and white way are they disjoined from their powers. So long as it can be rationalized in any remotely 'good' way, the paladin is safe from the wrath of the gods. Lord Shojo, gods rest his soul, is another example of this. He did what he needed to do for the greater good. This included lying to and acting behind the backs of the very people he swore to protect. Its clear that in the OoTSVerse (not sure who used that term first, but it sticks well) the gods need a very, very strong prod before they actually act on anything.

I think the Order will probably gather their bearings and find a way to revive Roy. Frankly, I cannot see Miss Starshine pulling off the leader role for any extended period of time. She has the energy, but not the qualities required to keep people in line as Roy was capable of doing. None of the members of the Order really could keep each other in line like Roy could, actually. I mean, the only one who could possibly replace Roy, Vaarsuvius, would have no desire to keep Belkar in order peaceably. Somewhere down the road, they will need someone like Roy or Hinjo if they truly plan to continue their pursuance of Xykon and the protection of the gates. This is even more true if they need to keep fending off the Linear Guild during this as well. As for Belkar.. he'll stick around the Order so long as there are things to kill, whether because they seek it or because it seeks them.

Or it could always go the route of everyone splitting up to pursue their own goals. Haley could tend to her family issues, Vaarsuvius could continue his/her quest for ultimate arcane power, Belkar could find someone to remove the MoJ, Elan could get in touch with his inner Dashing Swordsman, pick up a book of puns, or somesuch. And eventually the whole team could meet up later on, finding that they once again need to protect one of the gates. I'm just looking forward to seeing a bit more revelations in everyone's prophecies.


>.> I promise I'm not just addicted to the Spoiler tags.

[Demented]

Someone* pointed out that Paladins don't explicitly fall for associating with evil. They simply don't do it (in the sense that they don't want to, ever). At least that's how it is in the SRD. Thus, Hinjo associated with Belkar only because he thought Belkar was some form of non-evil.

Even if it weren't so, however, there was not any association during Belkar's (brief) trial. At least no more than a Paladin might have with an evil shopkeeper. The real association was in the battle, when Hinjo trusted his back to two felons.

(Though, given DnD's approach to evil, I'm beginning to wonder if a shopkeeper can truly be Evil if he doesn't have people chained up in a dungeon beneath his shop.)

*That 'someone' being Argall. And it's a good thing that was pointed out, too. Poor Paladins fall left and right because of this stuff, or so I hear.

[teratorn]

From the SRD:

Associates
While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.

This part is below the code of conduct of a paladin. I've seen demented (:smallamused: ) arguments that fall by association is not given anywhere. Well, it is. Again from the SRD:

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.
Emphasis mine. Doing something you should never do is a gross violation. Of course the SRD puts associates below code of conduct (weird).

EDIT. And in the brief trial Hinjo is asking them to fight for him.

[truemane]

That rule exists primarily to prevent a Paladin from hooking up with an evil group and "turning a blind eye" as they do all the bad stuff he's not supposed to do. It's meant to restrict the membership of a Paladin's party, not necessarily the people he hangs out with casually.

I mean, by a strict reading of the RAW you could make a case in either direction. It all depends on how you define the word "associates." Is he one of Belkar's buddies? No. But he DID knowlingly recruit evil people to fight in his war, and that certainly walks the line, if not crosses it.

Paladin's don't have the luxury of that Greater Good thing. For them the MEANS justify the ENDS, not the other way around.

But still, following the spirit of the rules, I would say he wouldn't Fall.

Now, if one of his advisors was evil, and Hinjo knew about it and let him stay anyway, THAT would be an issue.

[Corsair]

This is ridiculous. Hinjo should have fallen for essentially asking Belkar to redeem himself? Why not just make it so that if a Paladin comes within thirty feet of an evil character without intent to kill, he loses Paladin status?

[thegreatmightynerd]

that's way to lax, it should go like this: a paladin should spend all time killing anything that has any poential for being evil without asking questions and will fall if he kills someone who's good or neutral, even in self defence.

[teratorn]

This is ridiculous. Hinjo should have fallen for essentially asking Belkar to redeem himself?
An evil character can not redeem himself unless it reverses alignment. Not evil to neutral, but evil to good. He needs to start making a lot more good acts than evil ones to compensate. Hinjo should have checked with a detect evil, but I think knowing Roy he just wouldn't believe Belkar could be that bad. Some time with the halfling ought to be enough. The catapult thing was just the beginning.

[kirbsys]

Note that it says a paladin who GROSSLY violates they're code will lose the class abilites, so umm Hinjo trusting his back to evil guys doesn't count, now if he sat and had drinks with Belkar, and went all buddy buddy with them, yeah he'd probably lose his powers, but fighting along side him... not so much.

[SteveMB]

About good using or associating with evil. If good associates with evil for the greater good then is evil doing it for the greater evil?
Well, that precise argument (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html) carried the day in the debate between Belkar's Long-View Evil Conscience and Belkar's Instant-Gratification Evil Conscience....

[Fishybugs]

That was part of the agreement, and was worth only 5 years of prison time. As a paladin Hinjo can not release evil into the world so Belkar must be checked for one year. In fact it should have been a magistrate to handle the sentence reductions, Hinjo associated with evil there. I don't understand how he still is a paladin.

Maybe Belkar has fallen? His alignment has shifted from his association with good people. That would explain why Hinjo has not fallen also.


Disclaimer: The above statement is a joke. It is not intended to taken seriously by people. Views of the poster are not necessarily the views of the producer. Take with plenty of water. Do not drive for 6 hours after reading.

[Kreistor]

As a paladin Hinjo can not release evil into the world so Belkar must be checked for one year.

Hunh? That's not true. Paldins are not responsible for not allowing any evil to exist. An evil alignment can come with no overtly illegal acts, and society will not accept a "death by alignment" policy from anyone.

Becoming non-evil is not a prerequisite of Belkar's release, should he have gone to prison. One year is one year, not one year so long as you be a good boy after you leave.

Associate: to keep company, as a friend, companion, or ally

Belkar is not keeping company wiht Hinjo, so there is no threat to Hinjo's paladinhood. The restriction on association is to prevent travelling in a party on a long term basis, not casual contact or functional contact. Hinjo has no choice but to have dealings with evil people in his position as Lord of the Sapphire Order. That enforced contact cannot result in Hinjo's loss of paladinhood, since it is a part of his function.

[teratorn]

Hunh? That's not true. Paldins are not responsible for not allowing any evil to exist.

Not, but Hinjo was holding Belkar captive, he is responsible for enforcing his own sentences. From the SRD:

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.
By releasing Belkar Hinjo is violating the paladin code. Belkar needs to be punished.

My problem is with Hinjo changing the sentence. Respecting legitimate authority means allowing Belkar to go after his sentence is finished, but by shortening it Hinjo is helping an evil being pursue its evil ways.


An evil alignment can come with no overtly illegal acts, and society will not accept a "death by alignment" policy from anyone.

The thing is, if there are no overtly evil acts (and no good acts) than the creature should be considered neutral under DnD rules. If it is evil then "death by alignment" is ok in OOTS:


Doesn't matter. Killing evil creatures isn't evil,

[Tredrick]

Hinjo's power to hold Belkar prisoner came from being the rightful ruler of Azure City. He has lost that position by Right of Conquest. He no longer has the right to keep Belkar prisoner, unless he intends to establish a government in exile. Of course, since Belkar will be pivotal in getting him out of the city and to a point where he can establish such, he might take some more time off that sentence.

His agreement to remove the MoJ was a personal arrangement he made with Belkar. If he does not do so, he will break his code and should fall. Belkar has more than fulfilled his end of the bargain.

[RobbyPants]

No more AC also means they have to find someone capable of removing the mark now.
Yeah, I'd kinda wondered what would happen with that now.


Eh, the OOTS is high enough level that either Durkon, V or even Elan could attempt to remove it if they wanted to. They just prefer having it on him up to this point.
Or maybe it's some super-powerful enchantment effected by DM, er, TheGiant fiat. :smalltongue:

You can never tell with these wierd, unique curses. They somehow seem to supersceed all forms of Remove Curse or Break Enchantment.

[Chronos]

My problem is with Hinjo changing the sentence. Respecting legitimate authority means allowing Belkar to go after his sentence is finished, but by shortening it Hinjo is helping an evil being pursue its evil ways.Of course Hinjo is respecting legitimate authority. Hinjo is the legitimate authority. It's never made exactly explicit how the political system of Azure City works, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that the Lord of the City has the authority to negotiate sentences. Nor is he allowing Belkar to go unpunished; being required to help in the battle is still a perfectly legitimate punishment (legally, at least... Belkar's probably thoroughly enjoying it).


Or maybe it's some super-powerful enchantment effected by DM, er, TheGiant fiat.

You can never tell with these wierd, unique curses. They somehow seem to supersceed all forms of Remove Curse or Break Enchantment.Mark of Justice isn't a weird, unique curse. As described in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/markOfJustice.htm),
Like the effect of bestow curse, a mark of justice cannot be dispelled, but it can be removed with a break enchantment, limited wish, miracle, remove curse, or wish spell. Remove curse works only if its caster level is equal to or higher than your mark of justice caster level. These restrictions apply regardless of whether the mark has activated.Durkon can certainly cast Break Enchantment, and Vaarsuvius and Elan probably can, too (even if Elan didn't pick it as one of his spells, he can probably sing a Song of Freedom, which has equivalent effects).

The real question is, will they? Hinjo gave his word, and Belkar certainly held up his end of the bargain, so Hinjo's now required to get the Mark removed. But he can't do it himself, and the other Stickers are probably the only folks he'll find capable of it, any time soon. It remains to be seen whether he'll be able to convince any of them to go along.

[Kreistor]

By releasing Belkar Hinjo is violating the paladin code. Belkar needs to be punished.

He was. Pay for the Raise Dead and 6 years in prison, commuted to 1 if he fights for Azure City against Xykon. That is a punishment.

You're talking about punishment for alignment alone. You punish for the crime, not the thought crime.


My problem is with Hinjo changing the sentence. Respecting legitimate authority means allowing Belkar to go after his sentence is finished, but by shortening it Hinjo is helping an evil being pursue its evil ways.

Okay, let me get this straight... Belkar is offered a deal in which he risks death to remove 5 years from his sentence. He might survive, he might come out maimed, or he might come out free and clear. Two of these are worse than 5 years in prison, while only one is better. That's just Belkar's persepective. For AC, Belkar's participation could save lives and at the least save the money that would have had to go to feed him. So, either Belkar comes out dead or injured (worse punishment), or he saves the lives of Azure City's citizens (countering or more than countering the one life he took). From AC's side, they can't lose with this deal. From Belkar's, he has to take a risk in order to come out on top.

In fact, we as readers know Hinjo is possibly alive today because Belkar was given this deal. AC clearly benefited, since its true ruler is alive and well and capable of going out and finding the people he needs to rescue his beloved city. All because of Belkar.


The thing is, if there are no overtly evil acts (and no good acts) than the creature should be considered neutral under DnD rules. If it is evil then "death by alignment" is ok in OOTS:

Unfortunately, that's not what Miko says. #203. "In the absence of an evil alignment, your guilt or innocence is not for me to determine." This implies that she might be able to judge someone based on alignment.

However, when appearing before Shojo, no one casts Detect Evil on the OotS. Alignment is not evidence in the case against them. Even when standing before Shojo, Miko is turned away from the now known to be evil Belkar and not permitted to harm him by Shojo. Miko was taking it upon herself to judge evil in the "lawless lands" (171). In AC, this is not admissable due to its absence in the case before Shojo. Shojo's words are "he will be taken into custody and tried lawfully on those charges" when Miko tells him that Belkar murdered a guard. Shojo does not ask "Is he of evil alignment?" Tried lawfully.

The thing many people overlook is that evil alignment is possible without the commision of crimes. You can think evil without doing evil. You can perform acts that are superficially beneficial, but your attitude behind them is malicious. These make you evil; thus, evil alignment is an indicator of the possiblity of criminal behavior, but not proof of such.

[teratorn]

Belkar is risking his life to get something in return: a shorter sentence, and the MOJ taken out. That is selfish, though not evil, does not mean any kind of redemption.

Had Hinjo hired an army of evil ogres it would not matter if they were risking their life for AC or not, he could not do it as a paladin. Belkar is not different. As a ruler he may decide it's for the best, but it's not something a paladin would do.



The thing many people overlook is that evil alignment is possible without the commision of crimes. You can think evil without doing evil. You can perform acts that are superficially beneficial, but your attitude behind them is malicious.

Not in DnD. If you say you're evil but you haven't done anything evil in the past or if you don't commit evil acts during the campaign the DM will change you to neutral. Alignment, at least for the PC's, is defined by actions (or inaction if you don't stop someone from doing an evil act in your presence).

[Oxymoron]

I hope most of you guys who has posted in this thread never DM a D&D game EVER. Even the nicest and most lawful paladin wouldn`t stand a chance. One bad decision and he/she would fall.

For the record, Hinjo never truly associated with Belkar and he never violated his paladin code. You people describe the paladin code as if Hinjo should kill Belkar on the spot. In a sense you favor zealots like Miko in your game instead of a protector of the innocent and good. As the legimitate ruler of Azure city, Hinjo has the authority to make deals with prisoners for the greater good of the city.

[teratorn]

I would likely not make Hinjo fall, but I would tell him that he was almost crossing the line.


As the legimitate ruler of Azure city, Hinjo has the authority to make deals with prisoners for the greater good of the city.

But this example has shown that deals with evil give bad results. Belkar would have helped kill Hinjo if it were not for the MOJ, and that is something people who have been talking about all the "nice" things Belkar did seem to forget. And note that as a paladin Hinjo could not put a MOJ on Belkar. If Shojo had not done that Hinjo would be dead now.

[Adeptus]

There's Hinjo. His level is not high enough but V would be glad to help. I think the best for Hinjo would be to detect evil on Belkar, then kill him and only let the order bring him back one year later.

What's with the ideas about paladins murdering people for thought-crime. Bizarre.

[Ermete]

Belkar is risking his life to get something in return: a shorter sentence, and the MOJ taken out. That is selfish, though not evil, does not mean any kind of redemption.

Had Hinjo hired an army of evil ogres it would not matter if they were risking their life for AC or not, he could not do it as a paladin. Belkar is not different. As a ruler he may decide it's for the best, but it's not something a paladin would do.



Not in DnD. If you say you're evil but you haven't done anything evil in the past or if you don't commit evil acts during the campaign the DM will change you to neutral. Alignment, at least for the PC's, is defined by actions (or inaction if you don't stop someone from doing an evil act in your presence).

Well..IMHO I think you can't put on the same plane (is this expression correct?) hiring a horde of ogres and freeing a prisoner...It seem that you're forgetting something very important for someone who is truly good: the mercy. A paladin can show mercy without incurring in some "code breaking". He could also show forgiveness because, IMHO, his duty it is not only to destroy the evil beeing but also, at least, try to redempt them. I'm not saying that Belkar's actions are toward redemption, because it doesn't matter. The important thing is that you try to redempt him, also by showing mercy. You're doing the same error of Miko...

EDIT: for further information about mercy, paladin and D&D have a look at the "Book of Exalted Deed"...

(sorry for my bad english I tried to write the best I can :smalleek: )

[the mysterian]

HOORAY!!!! and durkon can probably dispel the mark

[teratorn]

What's with the ideas about paladins murdering people for thought-crime. Bizarre.
The weird thing about DnD is that being killed is better than going a few years to prison, at least if you have friends you can trust to bring you back. Jail is in fact more cruel as a punishment. And Belkar doesn't mind, he was willing to die just to make Miko fall.

[Parasocrates]

From the SRD:

Associates
While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.

This part is below the code of conduct of a paladin. I've seen demented (:smallamused: ) arguments that fall by association is not given anywhere. Well, it is. Again from the SRD:

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.

Emphasis mine. Doing something you should never do is a gross violation. Of course the SRD puts associates below code of conduct (weird).

EDIT. And in the brief trial Hinjo is asking them to fight for him.

As you mention, the SRD puts "associates" below "code of conduct," not within the same section. The "rule" against association with evil creatures is not part of the code of conduct.

Next: you say, "Doing something you should never do is a gross violation." First off, the SRD says a paladin will not associate with an evil creature, not that he or she should not. Secondly, the paladin's "code of conduct" as stated in the SRD makes no mention of the paladin's associates, so no association is in itself a violation of the paladin's code. An association only violates the paladin's code if that association constitutes an evil act. One would have to prove that associating with Belkar is evil, and offer more proof than merely pointing out that Belkar himself is evil.

[teratorn]

I don't have strong opinions about this, it's just that no one was arguing against (and I dislike Belkar). What seems clear is that despite being a paladin, Hinjo knows how to move in the gray areas. A bit like Miko with the ogres, not really cheating but not very far from it.


First off, the SRD says a paladin will not associate with an evil creature, not that he or she should not.

That's what I find so weird. A paladin "will not" is pretty strong, it implies automatic fall: if you've done it, it's because you are not a paladin. If you were a paladin you would not do it. Will not is imperative.

Ok, it's only semantics, but I don't understand why the SRD would put things so poorly. There is also, the question of associate, I say that recruiting someone to fight a war with you falls in that category, but again semantics. Another thing is the MOJ. That one seems to violate the code of conduct, but again not in a very explicit way. Hinjo didn't put it there but he is making use of it.

It's tough for a paladin because depending on the state of mind of the DM it can go either way.

[Chronos]

And note that as a paladin Hinjo could not put a MOJ on Belkar. If Shojo had not done that Hinjo would be dead now.So Mark of Justice was put on the paladin spell list just to tempt them? Azure City in particular doesn't use the Mark as part of its secular justice system, but that doesn't mean that it's inherently evil or unjust. And yes, it represents a form of coercion, but then, so does imprisoning or killing a wrongdoer, and nobody argues that a paladin shouldn't be allowed to do either of those.

[Poppatomus]

I don't have strong opinions about this, it's just that no one was arguing against (and I dislike Belkar). What seems clear is that despite being a paladin, Hinjo knows how to move in the gray areas. A bit like Miko with the ogres, not really cheating but not very far from it.



That's what I find so weird. A paladin "will not" is pretty strong, it implies automatic fall: if you've done it, it's because you are not a paladin. If you were a paladin you would not do it. Will not is imperative.

Ok, it's only semantics, but I don't understand why the SRD would put things so poorly. There is also, the question of associate, I say that recruiting someone to fight a war with you falls in that category, but again semantics. Another thing is the MOJ. That one seems to violate the code of conduct, but again not in a very explicit way. Hinjo didn't put it there but he is making use of it.

It's tough for a paladin because depending on the state of mind of the DM it can go either way.

To me it's in another section because it's unrelated to the fall, and is meant only as fluff. That first paragraph is a reminder that paladins aren't relaxed about being good or live and let live type people. paladins are paragons. If you're a paladin you're the kind of person that will not associate with a person that you know to be evil, or who violates some part of your code. Your too straight arrow to cut them some slack.

The reason It's not in the mechanics section is because it's not meant to be a requirement of behavior. If a paladin needs to escape from a dungeon to kill a tyrant, and the only way to do it is by assocaited with the neutral evil guy in the cell next door, they might well do it, provided they don't directly participate in any evil acts. Whether, at the end of their "mission," the paladin then attempts to aprehend the evil associate or lets him go, or some other option, depends on the particular situation and the personality of the Paladin.

[Shatteredtower]

The weird thing about DnD is that being killed is better than going a few years to prison, at least if you have friends you can trust to bring you back.As well as 25,000 gp and access to a 17th lvl cleric, but that's just the virtue of being rich enough to buy yourself a commuted sentence.

Besides, while it is that simple for PCs, it's not always that simple for NPCs. The gods and other outsiders can be rather possessive of the souls of the dead, which may help keep the BBEG population in check.


And Belkar doesn't mind, he was willing to die just to make Miko fall.Mainly because he'd never considered the flaw in his plan until V pointed it out.

As for the matter of associating with evil, paladins don't get carte blanche to kill every evil creature they meet. In most civilized regions, that's called murder, and committing it displays gross disrespect for legitimate authority. Now there are societies in which paladins might be given that authority, but that's a dangerous arrangement. Killing members of an ambassador's staff for no more reason than the fact that they looked funny to you is simply not good diplomacy. Executing any of the more mercenary guards a caravan might have because, "They must have done something," is more likely to leave the caravan inadequately guarded than betrayed to bandits (because you can't be sure the evil ones are more likely to do that than the neutrals). Killing an evil mercant for smuggling contraband sounds great in theory, but when it hurts legitimate business and workers, your paladin should be looking into alternate forms of punishment.

In times of war, government tends to streamline operations where it can to more efficiently deal with a crisis. Not having to negotiate with the rest of the city's nobles probably didn't hurt either, and it's not hard to tell that they had a significant hand in deciding policy to date. Releasing prisoners in exchange for time served is not a violation of the non-association rule. It is a way of saying, "If we go down, you go down; since we need everyone we can get, we're going to commute your sentence if you agree."

It doesn't matter that the criminal's response is, "Right on, dudes! Somebody hand me that axe!"

Still, the issue isn't so much whether a ruler is permitted to do this, but whether a paladin is given the freedom to do so, isn't it? This is where the, "Suck it up, princess!" clause comes into effect for our ruling class.

See, as ruler of Azure City, Hinjo does not have the luxury of simply putting the more evil of his political enemies to the sword. That is not recognized as a legitimate right of his authority, and would result in further chaos. Likewise, any attempt to delegate meetings with those he finds repugnant to a subordinate is just turning a blind eye to wrongdoing. A paladin in this position may refuse personal invitations and gifts, but social obligation is another matter.

Where possible, the paladin must still strive to right wrongs, but must do so within the system. It is a treacherous balance, but the paladin must put the welfare of the society first, even when it restricts the means by which he can deal with evil -- and occasionally forces unpleasant associations upon him. Talk about a thankless job.

Kind of reminds me of the latest issue of Green Arrow in a way, even if Ollie falls quite short of the paladin's code of conduct.

[teratorn]

So Mark of Justice was put on the paladin spell list just to tempt them?

Now that is really weird. I had checked MOJ and it was under curse and necromancy. Strange thing for a paladin to have as a 4th level spell.

[Ithekro]

That also implies that only a Paladin can remove it. The Mark needing ot be removed by someone with the same level or higher than the original caster. Durkon doesn't have Paladin levels, if that is what the description is saying.

[Poppatomus]

That also implies that only a Paladin can remove it. The Mark needing ot be removed by someone with the same level or higher than the original caster. Durkon doesn't have Paladin levels, if that is what the description is saying.

Could be, but I'm pretty sure it just refers to overall level of the casting character, regardless of the specific class in which those levels are gained.

[comicadv]

A lot of people have been talking about if Hinjo committed an evil act or not, but I don't see how this can be decieded. The Giant can bend the rules all he wants and I'm he'll know how to handle the Belkar/MOJ thing. Belkar will probably get it off somehow (like useing soap and water) or he won't. Most of our guesses will be wrong so I guess we'll just have to wait. Unless my guess is wrong...:tongue:

[Quikngruvn]

That also implies that only a Paladin can remove it. The Mark needing ot be removed by someone with the same level or higher than the original caster. Durkon doesn't have Paladin levels, if that is what the description is saying.

No, it's just comparing the caster level of the caster who created the Mark vs. the caster trying to remove it. Otherwise (for example) a cleric couldn't Dispel Magic that a wizard had created. In fact, if a Paladin did create the Mark, it would be slightly easier to remove because


At 4th level and higher, her caster level is one-half her paladin level (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm).

MoJ (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/markOfJustice.htm) is a 4th level Paladin spell and a 5th level Clerical spell. A Paladin would have to be minimum 14th level (with an 18 Wisdom, 15th level without) to cast it, but since his caster level is halved, the Paladin's mark is effectively cast by a 7th level caster (and maxes out at 10th level caster pre-Epic). Compare that to the Clerical spell, which requires a 9th level cleric-- which is a 9th level caster (who maxes out at caster level 20 pre-Epic).

The upshot? If you want the Mark to stay put, have a Cleric cast it. Like, for example, the one who tried to Resurrect Shojo.

[JaxGaret]

Code of Conduct

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates

While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

The first section is the CoC. The second section, Associates, is a completely separate class feature of the Paladin class, and there is no reason to link their limitations together. A Paladin may never adventure with an Evil party member, nor accept non-LG followers, henchmen, or cohorts; Belkar is neither a fellow party member, follower, henchman, or cohort, thus he is no Associate, as defined by D&D rules.


http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html

I really don't understand how people here are arguing that Hinjo's actions were a violation or near-violation of the CoC. It is explained in detail in the last 7 panels of this comic why Hinjo's actions do not break the CoC.

[Breaon]

A lot of people have been talking about if Hinjo committed an evil act or not, but I don't see how this can be decieded. The Giant can bend the rules all he wants and I'm he'll know how to handle the Belkar/MOJ thing. Belkar will probably get it off somehow (like useing soap and water) or he won't. Most of our guesses will be wrong so I guess we'll just have to wait. Unless my guess is wrong...:tongue:

Have we seen definite proof that the MoJ actually works, or is it just something we've been told and he was fooled into believing?

[teratorn]

Ok, I'll quit after this one. It seems I'm the only one thinking that Hinjo did something wrong. Of course, Hinjo is a NPC and The Giant wanted Belkar free so no big deal. It's clear from the strips that the MOJ was put there by one of the clerics, probably a pretty high level one, not by a paladin. Belkar is stuck with the thing.


Belkar is neither a fellow party member, follower, henchman, or cohort, thus he is no Associate, as defined by D&D rules.
He was drafted into Hinjo's service. They were almost side by side on the city wall.The question is if Hinjo was just being stupid or did he avoid checking the prisoner's alignments to avoid ethical problems?

[JaxGaret]

He was drafted into Hinjo's service. They were almost side by side on the city wall.The question is if Hinjo was just being stupid or did he avoid checking the prisoner's alignments to avoid ethical problems?

Belkar was essentially a mercenary hired for this one battle. That is not explicitly covered in the Associates section of the Paladin; adventuring with someone, or being thier fellow party member, implies longstanding relations (not one battle) and the other types (follower, henchman, cohort) are mechanically defined types of allies through the use of the Leadership feat, and Belkar was not any of those types.

Hinjo did not use his Detect Evil to determine Belkar's current alignment, and as I stated above, there are 7 whole panels dedicated to Hinjo's reasoning for allowing Belkar to join AC's effort.

[Roderick_BR]

For those who felt ripped off that Belkar was going to have to serve a WHOLE year in jail for murder (crazy isn't it?)

Good news, there's no more law :smallsmile:

No Ac, no more prison.

Oh, and sorry if this has been previously mentioned, but I haven't seen it so I figured it was worth a shot.
After the explosion, there's no more prison, period! :smallamused:

[Chronos]

Have we seen definite proof that the MoJ actually works, or is it just something we've been told and he was fooled into believing?Well, no definite proof, but there really is a spell by that name and description, and V was able to see the mark on his forehead using Detect Magic. It's conceivable that they just cast Arcane Mark on him and told him it was a Mark of Justice, but really, why bother?

[Breaon]

Well, no definite proof, but there really is a spell by that name and description, and V was able to see the mark on his forehead using Detect Magic. It's conceivable that they just cast Arcane Mark on him and told him it was a Mark of Justice, but really, why bother?

If it wasn't a city full of lawful people, I'd have a great reason. But you're right, it probably is the real thing, and we just haven't seen him try & fail, unless failure has no visible effects.

[Keldaria]

there seems to be alot of talk flying around this forum implying that blekar is clearly evil... which for the most part is correct =P .. but i'd like to take this time and remind everyone that belkars only a few wisdom points away from being chaotic good as displayed here

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0058.html

/ducks

[Breaon]

there seems to be alot of talk flying around this forum implying that blekar is clearly evil... which for the most part is correct =P .. but i'd like to take this time and remind everyone that belkars only a few wisdom points away from being chaotic good as displayed here

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0058.html

/ducks


Hehe, that does set a dangerous precedent. Why, though, did V dismiss the Owl's Wisdom? :)

[Kreistor]

Not in DnD. If you say you're evil but you haven't done anything evil in the past or if you don't commit evil acts during the campaign the DM will change you to neutral. Alignment, at least for the PC's, is defined by actions (or inaction if you don't stop someone from doing an evil act in your presence).

Of course in DnD. Motive is part of an act. You can lie about your motive, in order to make something seem reasonable, but if your real motive is vile, it's an evil act, regardless of legality.

That's the great trick of the Lawful Evil. They can perform violent acts that are in fact lawful (for instance, in the enforcement of law and order), but the real motivation behind their acts are really the joy of violence. The act is legal, since it is in the service of the state, but it is also evil, since it is being performed because the person enjoys hurting people.

Motive is, and always was, important in determining alignment. Here's a quote from the SRD: “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Can someone legally hurt someone else? Oppress them? Kill them? Absolutely. Not all killing is murder. Nobility have a lock on oppression. And law enforcement hurts people all the time. An act of this type is not, however, inherently evil. Paladins hurt and kill others, and some would allow them to oppress those with evil alignments. And yet the acts are lawful and good? Why? Motive.

Hidden motives are the method to having a legally acquired evil alignment.


He was drafted into Hinjo's service. They were almost side by side on the city wall.The question is if Hinjo was just being stupid or did he avoid checking the prisoner's alignments to avoid ethical problems?

Standing side-by-side is not enough to be "association". Please check your dictionary.