Possible loophole in the Hinjo can't associate with Belkar problem [SPOILERS]

[Porthos]

Ok, it looks like Hinjo might be traveling with the OotS for a while. But that raises a very tricky problem. Paladins cannot "knowingly associate with evil people". Now this rule is (mostly) in place so that Paladins and Evil People can't be in the same adventuring party (because of all of the problems that would raise).

However, there might be a very crafty loophole that Hinjo could exploit if he is clever enough to think of it. Previously, Miko was able to "associate" with Belkar because he was her prisoner. Well, if you recall, Belkar will still have one year left to serve on his prison sentence (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html). The real problem is that he can't serve it in Azure City, since AC is now controlled by Xykon and Co.

But, I really don't think the Order is going to put up with having to deal with another Miko situation, so having Belkar under arrest while traveling for the next year is probably out of the question. So what's the solution? Hinjo becomes (for lack of a better phrase) Belkar's Parole Officer! This way he can (technically) hang around Belkar without associating with him. He can claim that he is making sure that Belkar isn't running around committing Evil Acts. Of course, he is really adventuring with the OotS, but if he can keep up that pretense, then maybe the Twelve Gods will look the other way. :smallwink:

So here is the situation: Hinjo goes up to Belkar and agrees to have someone lift the Mark of Justice (if possible). And he agrees to commute the last year of his sentence. However, he will travel with Belkar to assure that he doesn't violate the terms of parole (whatever they may be) and will throw him in the jail of the nearest civilized society that he finds if he violates his parole.

Everybody wins in this case. Hinjo gets to travel with the OotS without "associating" with Belkar, Belkar gets his MoJ removed. And Belkar gets a new Paladin to torment. Seems like the perfect result to me. :smallbiggrin:

[Saithis Bladewing]

Hinjo isn't what I'd call 'trigger-happy' with his Detect Evil ability, Belkar and the others can always just bluff that he's good and keep the lead sheet handy.

[Mordokai]

When reading over your post I couldn't help but notice certain similarities with Ash and Misty from Pokemon. I don't know if you watched that(probably not, not many people do or did), but in there Ash brakes Misty's bike(well, not he, but that's another story) and she ends up following him, claiming it that she will follow him until he repays her back her bike. And she means it. In the end(very soon, actually), she ends up liking the guy. And when I say liking him, I mean she fels head over heals in love with him.

And before anybody starts soaking his/her brains in acid, no, I'm not suggesting a possible new relation. That would never happen, and it just isn't possible. But if that would happen, Hinjo could end up with a certain fondness for Belkar. They could end up as sort of friends, even if that is practically impossible. Being friend with Belkar, that is.

[teratorn]

Paladins cannot "knowingly associate with evil people". Now this rule is (mostly) in place so that Paladins and Evil People can't be in the same adventuring party (because of all of the problems that would raise).


SRD says paladins "will not". I thought that was even stronger than can not, and had a discussion about that in another thread. I was the only one holding that view. I interpreted the "will not" as meaning that If you're "associating" then you can not be a paladin ergo you have fallen.

And I didn't know the true meaning of associate: it seems that drafting someone evil to fight at your side during a battle is not associate, hiring evil mercenaries is not associate. At least that 's what everyone kept telling me. I guess just travelling with OOTS but without being a member is not associating (party members signed contracts with Roy, though Roy released them from obligation).

It's all semantics and people will find all sort of loopholes just in the writing of the SRD.

[Senex]

As Sabine would put it, there's association with evil people, and 'association' with evil people. :smallamused:

[Swordguy]

SRD says paladins "will not". I thought that was even stronger than can not, and had a discussion about that in another thread. I was the only one holding that view. I interpreted the "will not" as meaning that If you're "associating" then you can not be a paladin ergo you have fallen.

And I didn't know the true meaning of associate: it seems that drafting someone evil to fight at your side during a battle is not associate, hiring evil mercenaries is not associate. At least that 's what everyone kept telling me. I guess just travelling with OOTS but without being a member is not associating (party members signed contracts with Roy, though Roy released them from obligation).

It's all semantics and people will find all sort of loopholes just in the writing of the SRD.

Does Hinjo know that Belkar is Evil, per se? From what I recall, he only knows that Belkar is a criminal, who has performed an evil action (killing the guard). That does not mean that his alignment is Evil.

Yes, I know that Belkar really is CE. However, Hinjo doesn't necessarily know - and we haven't seen him perform any checks to see whether Belkar is Evil or not. And as long as he doesn't, then he's not "knowingly" associating himself with a Evil companion. I'd drop an Atonement on him at the end of his involvement, just in case, but it'd work...

[jamroar]

Yes, I know that Belkar really is CE. However, Hinjo doesn't necessarily know - and we haven't seen him perform any checks to see whether Belkar is Evil or not. And as long as he doesn't, then he's not "knowingly" associating himself with a Evil companion. I'd drop an Atonement on him at the end of his involvement, just in case, but it'd work...

I think arguing for a plan involving using minions to calibrate a catapult is pretty much a clear sign of evil alignment.

[Droodle]

SRD says paladins "will not". I thought that was even stronger than can not, and had a discussion about that in another thread. I was the only one holding that view. I interpreted the "will not" as meaning that If you're "associating" then you can not be a paladin ergo you have fallen.Sure, it says that in the SRD. The Book of Exalted Deeds, however, loosens that and offers several plausible instances in which a Pally would be allowed to work with an evil character. Protecting the fabric of the universe or saving Azure City both qualify. Also, let's not forget that Belkar still bears the Mark of Justice, so Shinjo also has no need to worry about Belkar getting involved in any funny business for quite some time. Belkar is still his prisoner.

[Kurald Galain]

Exploiting loopholes is unworthy for a paladin.

[dehro]

Exploiting loopholes is unworthy for a paladin.

none of the OoTS is a paladin..and as long as we know, Hinjo still isn't in the know about belkar's allignement.

he could also release the halfling and go along with him just by modifying his sentence into a couple of years of servitude to the "good cause" (and thus having to follow him to make sure he doesn't vamoose at the first turn in the road.)

[teratorn]

Sure, it says that in the SRD. The Book of Exalted Deeds, however, loosens that and offers several plausible instances in which a Pally would be allowed to work with an evil character.

I can see it working with lawful evil. Chaotic evil it's much of a problem. The only reason Belkar saved Hinjo was because of the MOJ (he would have killed him himself).

We've already seen in this strip Belkar's antagonism for paladins in action. This is going to be fun. Miko had no faith in Belkar's potential for good so it was a hate-hate relation from the beginning. Hinjo is too good at heart, and still thinks he can redeem Belkar. He'll crack up, but it'll take time.

[Fighteer]

Remember, the code of paladinhood respects the intent of a person's actions even more than whether they are obeying the "letter of the law". If Hinjo were to make some excuse, such as "he's really my prisoner, only I don't have a convenient jail", I would expect that to hasten his fall, not postpone it.

In this case, his association with Belkar is directly predicated upon the condition he set when releasing him from prison: that he would fight to defend Azure City in exchange for a reduced sentence. Hinjo's error, if you can call it that, is in believing that Belkar is capable of redemption. Also, the fight for AC is not yet over.

In summary, Hinjo is not ignoring Belkar's alignment, but neither is he in danger of losing his paladinhood through association as long as Belkar continues to act within the terms of his parole.

[Poppatomus]

In summary, Hinjo is not ignoring Belkar's alignment, but neither is he in danger of losing his paladinhood through association as long as Belkar continues to act within the terms of his parole.

I agree, but not for the same reason I suspect. The fact is, with due respect to Tera, Paladin's don't fall from association with evil creatures, they fall from comitting evil acts or grossly violating their code. When the PhB say "will not" associate with evil characters its saying that in the same way it might say a barbarian is a swirling whirlwind of smashy destruction. It's meant as flavor, to describe the character of people that become paladins, not their behavior in ever possible instance.

A paladin is not allergic to evil characters they simply dislike them. If the greater good can truly be served by brief or strictly controlled interaction with an evil character, than a Paladin should be expected to hold their nose and work with that creature. It only becomes trouble when that creature advocates or tries to committ an evil act, and the paladin is endanger of falling, not because of the association with the character, but because of direct complicity in something that goes against the code.

[Fighteer]

I agree, but not for the same reason I suspect. The fact is, with due respect to Tera, Paladin's don't fall from association with evil creatures, they fall from comitting evil acts or grossly violating their code. When the PhB say "will not" associate with evil characters its saying that in the same way it might say a barbarian is a swirling whirlwind of smashy destruction. It's meant as flavor, to describe the character of people that become paladins, not their behavior in ever possible instance.

A paladin is not allergic to evil characters they simply dislike them. If the greater good can truly be served by brief or strictly controlled interaction with an evil character, than a Paladin should be expected to hold their nose and work with that creature. It only becomes trouble when that creature advocates or tries to committ an evil act, and the paladin is endanger of falling, not because of the association with the character, but because of direct complicity in something that goes against the code.
I think the distinction here is whether Hinjo is "associating" with Belkar in the sense that he's simply another soldier helping to defend/retake Azure City, or in the sense that he's actually joining the OotS.

If Hinjo were to consider joining the OotS and adventuring with them, then he and Belkar could not both remain in the group by any possible interpretation of the paladin code, except for the (highly improbable) case where Belkar is genuinely trying to change his alignment and atone for his past crimes.

[PirateMonk]

That would never happen, and it just isn't possible.

NOTHING'S IMPOSSIBLE TO THE OOTS HOUSE OF HORRORS!!!! <Grabs quote and runs off> :smallbiggrin:

[elliott20]

I still think the no association with evil is a stupid rule for paladins. I can understand if they disdain their company but risking your own power loss by associating with them is just foolish. To paraphrase Roy, "what kind of class depends on OTHER people's behavior to keep it's power any way?"

[comicadv]

Wow what a great idea Porthos. THat way everyone would be happy and Hinjo (who is cool) could hang around longer. Or there's Bladewing's brillient bluff. It would fun to get more lead sheet jokes those were funny!:smallbiggrin:

[NerfTW]

Why does it even matter?

As long as Belkar doesn't do anything actually evil (last time I checked, you couldn't be arrested for expressing an opinion in Azure City), Hinjo doesn't have any reason to attack him. The strict "Destroy all evil on sight" code that Miko follows isn't the only way to be a Paladin.

[comicadv]

Wow what a great idea Porthos. THat way everyone would be happy and Hinjo (who is cool) could hang around longer. Or there's Bladewing's brillient bluff. It would fun to get more lead sheet jokes those were funny!:smallbiggrin:

[Thorin]

a) is not going to be another miko-situation, because... welll, Hinjo is not like Miko
b) Hinjo is not in the party. He is a named important NPC that travels near the OoTS, nothing more
c) you sould tag your text hith a spoiler sign

[Tirian]

Perhaps Hinjo doesn't mind associating with Belkar because he has secretly performed a Detect Alignment check on him ...

... and discovered that Belkar isn't evil.

DUN DUN DUUUUUUUN!!!

I mean, how are we so sure? He is willing to use excessive violence to take down Miko and V to the point of taking down a guard, and he was unaffected by an Unholy Blight spell way back in #11. His suggestions are dark, sure, but his willingness to abandon them and follow the LG leader's agenda is actually tangible.

I mean, for goodness sakes, why was he so uptight about Miko not knowing his alignment? He was desperate for her to know how evil he was, but not being able to *know* how evil he was? What motivation could he have for this other than concealing that behind all the bluster he's CN?

[Porthos]

a) is not going to be another miko-situation, because... welll, Hinjo is not like Miko
b) Hinjo is not in the party. He is a named important NPC that travels near the OoTS, nothing more
c) you sould tag your text hith a spoiler sign

A) Yes, I agree. But that doesn't also mean that the OotS would put up with a prisoner situation anyway. So neither the OotS or Hinjo is inlined to go down that road. :smallsmile:

B) The way Hinjo acted in 467 (But I wanna stay with you guys) sure made it sound like he wanted to travel with the OotS. :smalltongue: Besides, even if he was "travels near the OotS" as you put it, he would be associating with Belkar. :smallwink:
C) I don't need to put the message in SPOILER brackets because I tagged the title of this thread with a nice friendly [SPOILER] warning. :smallbiggrin:

[Megalomaniac2]

It's possible the point is moot, since the latest strip implies that Hinjo will probably lose his paladinhood anyway for leaving the city while it's under attack.

[Fighteer]

Perhaps Hinjo doesn't mind associating with Belkar because he has secretly performed a Detect Alignment check on him ...

... and discovered that Belkar isn't evil.

DUN DUN DUUUUUUUN!!!

I mean, how are we so sure? He is willing to use excessive violence to take down Miko and V to the point of taking down a guard, and he was unaffected by an Unholy Blight spell way back in #11. His suggestions are dark, sure, but his willingness to abandon them and follow the LG leader's agenda is actually tangible.

I mean, for goodness sakes, why was he so uptight about Miko not knowing his alignment? He was desperate for her to know how evil he was, but not being able to *know* how evil he was? What motivation could he have for this other than concealing that behind all the bluster he's CN?
The Giant has already stated multiple times and made it quite evident through many comic strips that Belkar is Chaotic Evil (and, moreover, enjoys it). There is no possibility for rational argument here. Roy rationalizes his presence in the OotS in terms of loyalty and the fact that Belkar arguably commits fewer evil acts under his supervision than he would otherwise. But Roy is under no illusions about Belkar's true nature, as seen here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html).


It's possible the point is moot, since the latest strip implies that Hinjo will probably lose his paladinhood anyway for leaving the city while it's under attack.
Nobody said anything about Hinjo losing his paladinhood except for Belkar, and he's not exactly a reliable authority on the subject. There is nothing in Hinjo's current behavior that would even hint at breaking the paladin code or committing an evil act. Throughout our experience of him, he's been the epitome of the ideal paladin: brave, self-sacrificing, honest, principled, and above all, committed to the higher good as opposed to literal, slavish adherence to laws or codes of behavior. He pushes to continue fighting the enemy to the death, but allows himself to be persuaded that he can serve the higher good by retreating and fighting another day.

Hinjo's fine, folks. Nothing to see here, let's move on.

[Kreistor]

There is no need for a loophole.

A paladin will not associate with an evil character, not "must not" associate. Further, a paladin does not fall for associating with an evil character. The "Associate" section is not part of the Code of conduct and not listed in the things that can cause a Fall. The term "will not" implies choice: "can not" or "must not" are indicators of lack of choice. A paladin will not choose to associate with an evil character, but if there is no choice but to do so, the paladin can because he must.

In this situation, Hinjo has no choice. He does not have the skills to sneak out of AC, and so must rely on others' aid to get him out wihtout causing a ruckus. The only ones left are the OotS, and so Hinjo has only one option to escape alive.


And I didn't know the true meaning of associate: it seems that drafting someone evil to fight at your side during a battle is not associate, hiring evil mercenaries is not associate. At least that 's what everyone kept telling me. I guess just travelling with OOTS but without being a member is not associating (party members signed contracts with Roy, though Roy released them from obligation).

You are interpreting "associate" with "being anywhere near". That's not what it means.

To be an associate, you need to be thought of when someone talks about your associate. So, if I say to you, "Hey, do you know Dean Martin?" you could have Jerry Lewis pop into your head, due to the long relationship those two had. Jerry Lewis was an associate of Dean Martin.

But you're not going to think of some unnamed extra that happened to be in a film with the two of them. The extra worked with Dean, but the extra isn't associated with Dean because there is no relationship.

"Association" implies more than just proximity for a short period, it demands a closer relationship.

[teratorn]

You are interpreting "associate" with "being anywhere near". That's not what it means.

And you're choosing the meaning you want. For someone "to associate" in the usual sense of the word means to join as an ally or friend.

You are interpreting it in the sense of connecting in the mind or imagination of other people. (I always associate Hinjo with the Sapphire guard).

The associate in the SRD is intended in the sense of joining not of thinking about.

[David Argall]

I mean, for goodness sakes, why was he so uptight about Miko not knowing his alignment? He was desperate for her to know how evil he was, but not being able to *know* how evil he was? What motivation could he have for this other than concealing that behind all the bluster he's CN?

Belkar loves torture even more than murder. [He refuses to kill Miko when he has the chance to possibly ruin her paladinship instead. And killing undead is not near as much fun, as with the Eye, where he is about to leave the undead alone, until he learns it is scared of him.] So keeping her in a state of bothersome uncertainity was a goodie in and of itself. She knows he is evil, but she doesn't Know, which means she must be much more careful with him. Even with outright evil, she can't just kill on the spot, but she still knows how to handle the situation and is much more comfortable with that certainity. So keeping her in a state of uncertainity is fun in and of itself.

And it is a matter of survival. Belkar is simply not going to be able to avoid a "death penalty" offense if Miko is sure he is evil. As probably evil, he is still within the ranks to whom mercy and the benefit of the doubt have to be extended. That means a big chance he gets off. So much better she not be sure.

[Alysar]

Paladins don't do "pretenses". Hinjo would have to decide that he actually is Belkar's parole officer. And he would hold himself to it.

[Porthos]

There is no need for a loophole.

A paladin will not associate with an evil character, not "must not" associate. Further, a paladin does not fall for associating with an evil character. The "Associate" section is not part of the Code of conduct and not listed in the things that can cause a Fall. The term "will not" implies choice: "can not" or "must not" are indicators of lack of choice. A paladin will not choose to associate with an evil character, but if there is no choice but to do so, the paladin can because he must.

Will not. Must not. Same difference. :smalltongue:

You see, I saw your debate in that other thread, and while you bring up some interesting points to ponder, I am not entirely convinced you are right in your arguments. :smallsmile:

But all of that is irrelevant since I didn't mention Hinjo Falling. :smalltongue:


In this situation, Hinjo has no choice. He does not have the skills to sneak out of AC, and so must rely on others' aid to get him out without causing a ruckus. The only ones left are the OotS, and so Hinjo has only one option to escape alive.

So what? The description of the Paladin class states "Will not associate with evil," not, "Will not associate with evil unless he has no choice." Will not means Will not in my book. If WotC had meant for their to be exceptions, then they would have alluded to it. :smallwink:

As for Hinjo having "no choice," of course he has a choice. He can take a small group of soldiers with him (what, you think the only soldiers that survived are the ones "on panel"), storm the Junk that he has berthed in the harbor, and go to the remains of the population at sea and work from there.

Hinjo is simply choosing the OotS to be the small band of soldiers because he wants to be with them, not because he has to be with him.



<SNIP>You are interpreting "associate" with "being anywhere near". That's not what it means.

To be an associate, you need to be thought of when someone talks about your associate. So, if I say to you, "Hey, do you know Dean Martin?" you could have Jerry Lewis pop into your head, due to the long relationship those two had. Jerry Lewis was an associate of Dean Martin.

But you're not going to think of some unnamed extra that happened to be in a film with the two of them. The extra worked with Dean, but the extra isn't associated with Dean because there is no relationship.

"Association" implies more than just proximity for a short period, it demands a closer relationship.

Oh come on now, we all know what the rule in the book is designed for. :smallsmile: It's designed so that you can't have the LG Paladin and the CE Assassin in the same party. :smallsmile: The real problem is defining "being in the same party".

I was only saying that if Hinjo wants to be with the OotS for a long period of time, he needs to come up with an excuse/figleaf so he can claim that he is not "associating" with Belkar. In other words, I was looking for a reason/explanation for Hinjo joining the party without "officially" joining the party (hence the argument over "association").

Now I will agree with you that if Hinjo is simply using the OotS to break out of the city and then leave the OotS behind, then that would indeed be one thing. But my argument is geared toward the long term, so the "Using the OotS to bust of out AC" doesn't hold water either, because that's not what I was talking about. :smalltongue:

Really this argument, and the one in the other thread over "association" is reason number 821,547 why the Paladin class either needs to be completely abolished or heavily, heavily reworked whenever 4.0 comes down pike. People can't agree on what constitutes an evil act, what does "willingly" mean, what grossly violating the Code of Conduct means, what should be in the Code of Conduct, what does association mean, and really just about every other single feature over the class.

I say just abolish the class and make the Divine/(Un)Holy Warrior and be done with it. :smalltongue:

[Drakron]

A evil act is what the DM says is a evil act.

I am a bit tired of the "Paladin must be abolished" arguments, they are useless since the same could be said about bards, rangers, druids or pretty much all the classes that are not the 4 basic (Fighter,Cleric,Wizard and Rogue).

[Tirian]

Belkar loves torture even more than murder. [He refuses to kill Miko when he has the chance to possibly ruin her paladinship instead. And killing undead is not near as much fun, as with the Eye, where he is about to leave the undead alone, until he learns it is scared of him.] So keeping her in a state of bothersome uncertainity was a goodie in and of itself. She knows he is evil, but she doesn't Know, which means she must be much more careful with him. Even with outright evil, she can't just kill on the spot, but she still knows how to handle the situation and is much more comfortable with that certainity. So keeping her in a state of uncertainity is fun in and of itself.

And it is a matter of survival. Belkar is simply not going to be able to avoid a "death penalty" offense if Miko is sure he is evil. As probably evil, he is still within the ranks to whom mercy and the benefit of the doubt have to be extended. That means a big chance he gets off. So much better she not be sure.

I'll grant that Belkar enjoys a good fight more than he might (as does Roy when he fought Miko the last time), and he didn't want to cooperate with Miko (nor did V or Haley), and he doesn't give quarter in combat, and he's not jolly. But I'm having trouble thinking of the times when his berserker combat personality made the world a worse place in which to live, and can think of more than a few in which it became better. And if you want to call someone in the OotS a callous torturer, you'd better be talking about Vaarsuvius. The vendetta between Belkar and V was utterly orchestrated by V, and Belkar received much more than he gave.

Rich is not above portraying evil acts and making me feel the evil. When Nale murders the police chief of Cliffport in order to frame his brother, I shuddered. When Redcloak ordered his minions to their very immediate deaths on several occasions, I recognized that as chilling. When Belkar, um, killed three novice barbarians before being told that he did not need to use lethal force against them, I giggled at what a merry prankster he was. If I knew that the message to Miko in #265 was written with the dead guard's blood, that would be a big step toward convincing me that he is dedicated to evil and not, you know, whatever lets you fight the coolest monsters.

[comicadv]

There are a lot of weird rules for Paladins which is why I started PWHM you can get all the info here.http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48140

[Kreistor]

Now I will agree with you that if Hinjo is simply using the OotS to break out of the city and then leave the OotS behind, then that would indeed be one thing.

That looks to be his intention. His concern is recovering Azure City. The OotS has the task of getting to Girard's Gate. Their goals are not aligned anymore, except in getting out of the city is the first step for both of them.

I'm really wondering how you think Hinjo has a hope of getting past 20000 hobgoblins to the waterfront. That shifts over to the useless death argument everyone was using on him in 467. The castle is never drawn near the waterfront, and the OotS was last shown near there. From 467, they have moved somewhat since it appears Haley is looking at the hobs around the castle from some distance, but her relative height suggests they're back on the wall, possibly having taken the same tunnel back. That would put the entire hobgoblin army between them and the waterfront.

[David Argall]

I'll grant that Belkar enjoys a good fight more than he might But I'm having trouble thinking of the times when his berserker combat personality made the world a worse place in which to live, and can think of more than a few in which it became better.

When Belkar, um, killed three novice barbarians before being told that he did not need to use lethal force against them, I giggled at what a merry prankster he was. If I knew that the message to Miko in #265 was written with the dead guard's blood, that would be a big step toward convincing me that he is dedicated to evil and not, you know, whatever lets you fight the coolest monsters.
Just what else do you think it could be? You think maybe somebody left a bucket of red paint around?

This is really ignoring the evidence. Belkar is a moral monster that just happens to be on the right side. They keep him in restraints, but realize his horrid nature. check...

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html

[Gavin Sage]

I'm really wondering how you think Hinjo has a hope of getting past 20000 hobgoblins to the waterfront. That shifts over to the useless death argument everyone was using on him in 467. The castle is never drawn near the waterfront, and the OotS was last shown near there. From 467, they have moved somewhat since it appears Haley is looking at the hobs around the castle from some distance, but her relative height suggests they're back on the wall, possibly having taken the same tunnel back. That would put the entire hobgoblin army between them and the waterfront.

Driving an army off and moving around/through it are different beasts. They can always take the same tunnel you are presuming them to have used again, a third time around most of the army which in focused on the castle. And while there are a lot of baddies, as yet they won't have secured the city well, which means the farther from the main force the less there are and the heroes can dice the little groups into ribbons. Isolated fighting is not going to draw out Xykon and Redcloak, who are low on spells and likely not going to move unless they have to. So getting to any part of the city but the castle would be of little problem.

[David Argall]

Belkar moral breakdowns continued...


http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0014.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0072.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0085.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0101.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0115.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0124.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0125.html

and...

[EvilElitest]

Ok, it looks like Hinjo might be traveling with the OotS for a while. But that raises a very tricky problem. Paladins cannot "knowingly associate with evil people". Now this rule is (mostly) in place so that Paladins and Evil People can't be in the same adventuring party (because of all of the problems that would raise).

However, there might be a very crafty loophole that Hinjo could exploit if he is clever enough to think of it. Previously, Miko was able to "associate" with Belkar because he was her prisoner. Well, if you recall, Belkar will still have one year left to serve on his prison sentence (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html). The real problem is that he can't serve it in Azure City, since AC is now controlled by Xykon and Co.

But, I really don't think the Order is going to put up with having to deal with another Miko situation, so having Belkar under arrest while traveling for the next year is probably out of the question. So what's the solution? Hinjo becomes (for lack of a better phrase) Belkar's Parole Officer! This way he can (technically) hang around Belkar without associating with him. He can claim that he is making sure that Belkar isn't running around committing Evil Acts. Of course, he is really adventuring with the OotS, but if he can keep up that pretense, then maybe the Twelve Gods will look the other way. :smallwink:

So here is the situation: Hinjo goes up to Belkar and agrees to have someone lift the Mark of Justice (if possible). And he agrees to commute the last year of his sentence. However, he will travel with Belkar to assure that he doesn't violate the terms of parole (whatever they may be) and will throw him in the jail of the nearest civilized society that he finds if he violates his parole.

Everybody wins in this case. Hinjo gets to travel with the OotS without "associating" with Belkar, Belkar gets his MoJ removed. And Belkar gets a new Paladin to torment. Seems like the perfect result to me. :smallbiggrin:

Well acording to the book of Exalted Deeds, a paladin can work with evil just can't allow the evil person to commit any evil actions in their presence.
from,
EE

[David Argall]

more Belkar evil...


http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0133.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0139.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0164.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0170.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0171.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0211.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0221.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0230.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0261.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0286.html

and...

[Kreistor]

Driving an army off and moving around/through it are different beasts. They can always take the same tunnel you are presuming them to have used again, a third time around most of the army which in focused on the castle.

The tunnel "leads to the armory" only "six blocks away". It doesn't even get to the castle, much less the waterfront. You can see the hobgoblins massed around the castle, packed in like sardines. The tunnel doesn't get them around that: that's why they were entertaining methods of getting into the castle. (Belkar's suggested using a catapult, remember?)

The big problem with the "Hinjo sneaks to the waterfront" plan is that if something goes wrong, Hinjo is dead. I highly doubt that Hinjo could make it alive, but let's say he does. Now he needs to get on a boat. So the boat sails to the dock and Hinjo jumps on, right? Wrong. Hobgoblins are not blind and will want to intercept that boat, so any boat returning to the wharf is going to face a hot reception. That'll turn any boat around from a rescue attempt.

Escaping over the wall carries much less risk, because the hobs are headed into the city in force, leaving little outside to block the way of the OotS and co. They're not looking for escapees that don't want to fight, the hobgoblins are looking for easy plunder. Why take on a fight when you can get easy loot without fighting?

[Kreistor]

But I'm having trouble thinking of the times when his berserker combat personality made the world a worse place in which to live

David, I think you completely missed Tirian's point. He said that Belkar's way (evil or not) has made the world a better place. If acts are teh cause of alignment, as some have suggested, and not motives, then Belkar's acts must be analyzed to determine if they have truly been good or evil.

Strip 11: Belkar is proven evil, but that gave him immunity to the Cleric's evil spell, and the good guys survive. Belkar did no evil there (unless self defense is evil), diminished the evil in the world, and prevented the loss of good. Tirian's point is demonstrated.

Strip 13: Goes to motive, not acts.

Strip 14: Belkar commits no acts. Roy's opinion is not evidence of Belkar's evil.

Strip 72: Belkar suggests killing Nale and Thog after capture. The LG had just attempted to murder the OotS, and there was no court to try them for it. Vigilante justice is not uncalled for in this situation, and the jury is still divided on whether corporal punishment is good. This one is not clear evidence of evil, per se. The suggestion, however, if followed, would have saved lives, since they went on to do many terrible acts. Ironically, Tirian's point is proven true, despite that Belkar was not allowed to pursue his suggestion. The world would have been a better place if Belkar had been allowed to be evil.

85: Belkar throws a knife at Roy for no reason other than pleasure. Little harm done.

101: Belkar prevented from killing a goblin that betrayed them, causing the capture of Haley. World might have been better if the goblin had died.

115: Belkar does not take surrender of enemies. Unclear if this made the world better or worse.

124: Unclear whether Belkar is chasing Elan as a joke or seriously.

125: Again, unclear whether this was a joke on Belkar's part, or serious.

133: The world might indeed be better off with three fewer barbarians. :smallsmile:

139: No act to analyze. Reference to "not being allowed to kill Elan", but again, may be a sense of humour.

164: Belkar congratulates Roy for nailing the guy about to throw the switch and hang Belkar. I would have done the same. Not even evil, much less an act that hurt anyone.

170: Belkar talks a lot but does little. This is just another case of the same. No act to analyze, just the suggestion of an act.

171: Belkar suggests slavery for Sam. Ironically, this would have saved her life, since Miko comes along and offs her and Pa. that might not have made the world a better place, though.

211: More words, no action. Suggests killing all the local farmers.

221: Belkar enjoys the idea of killing Miko's horse. Again, no act.

230: Belkar chases after a lawyer. Had he succeeded, the world would have been a better place.

261: Begins the sequence of Miko vs. Belkar. Kills a guard. And, yet, had Belkar's plan succeeded, Miko would have fallen there, and not been in position to kill Shojo later. Belkar himself may have died, but the world might certainly have been a better place, despite the loss of this guard and Miko's paladinhood.

286: Explanation of Belkar's plan.

Tirian's point is that Belkar's intent does not match his results. That is all too common for good guys. The road to [insert place of posthumous punishment here] is paved with good intentions. Tirian merely suggests the opposite may also be true. If bad intentions result in good being done, might that result in posthumous reward?

[David Argall]

And to bring us up to date...

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0322.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0329.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0340.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0357.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0383.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0385.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0429.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html

Stay tuned for the next disgusting chapter...

The defense that Belkar may have caused more good than harm is entirely invalid. It is in no way his intent and is rather clearly an accidental result [also one of having only a limited view of Belkar's lifetime record. See OPC.]
It is also rather an excuse in this case. Flat out cases of evil where more harm did result are shrugged off. The case seems pretty much the usual. Belkar is amusing and therefore must not be the depraved horror he obviously is.

[teratorn]

Stay tuned for the next disgusting chapter...


Belkar has been doing some neutral acts, not evil, maybe even good if done by some other character, but still neutral because the motivation has always been selfish. He never pretended to have other motives, but Kreistor is right that if he were a smarter character he could fake intent and pretend having a different alignment for a reasonable amount of time. Of course, in order to acquire an evil alignment that character would still need an evil past, but party members wouldn't know that.

The problem with Hinjo is that the paladins outside of AC will have a though time understanding that:
(1) he was the only one to survive (coward?)
(2) he spent some time with someone evil.
Even Kubota may use that to his advantage "he's not braver than me, he fled after letting his men die". Things don't look good for him.

[Kreistor]

The defense that Belkar may have caused more good than harm is entirely invalid.

Unsupported statements like this beg:

Prove it.

[teratorn]

Unsupported statements like this beg:

Prove it.
My problem is finding an example of "good" done by Belkar.

If an evil army goes to fight another evil army are they doing good? No, they are not. Killing evil characters does not equate doing good if you promote evil, for example by making evil gain levels.

Belkar has been gaining Xp and increasing in level. So Belkar's killing of evil characters is in fact a neutral act (evil loses but evil gains). If they defeat Xykon, Belkar will level quite a lot, and the world will never be the same, he could slaughter whole towns.

Belkar is making the world safer in what concerns Xykon but a lot more dangerous in what regards Belkar. After they finish Xykon, OOTS will have to finish Belkar, can you imagine an epic level psycho halfling?

[Tredrick]

And to bring us up to date...

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0322.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0329.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0340.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0357.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0383.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0385.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0429.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html

Stay tuned for the next disgusting chapter...

The defense that Belkar may have caused more good than harm is entirely invalid. It is in no way his intent and is rather clearly an accidental result [also one of having only a limited view of Belkar's lifetime record. See OPC.]
It is also rather an excuse in this case. Flat out cases of evil where more harm did result are shrugged off. The case seems pretty much the usual. Belkar is amusing and therefore must not be the depraved horror he obviously is.

So, if intent matters, why did Miko fall? Her intent was always lawful and good.

Also, your list of recent evil acts is, quite frankly, pathetic. The most recent is an obvious good act. Unless gambling is inherently evil, I don't see how lending a friend a magic item is an evil act. Yes, he profited from it, but Haley has been all about the gold since the beginning and people don't classify her as evil for it, despite explicitly and implicitly stealing from party members in the Dungeon of Durokon.

Apparently having the self control to not kill your team mates and keep their magic items unless under magical compulsion is an evil act. Also, risking the Mark of Justice activating so you can stop a person you know is a sworn enemy of your group and is almost certainly up to no good is as far from evil as you can get. In other words, strip 383 shows a good act and that Belkar has self control.

On to Cliffport. Paying extra for torturing is an evil act. Recounting past eyestabbing is not evil. He is complaining that everyone else will get some action. Does that mean the rest of the party is evil? Of course not! Also, we know nothing abotu his prom's afterparty. It may have been attacked by bandits and Belkar saved everyone.

If 329 is evil, I assume you are rather miffed that Durkon and Roy are considered good. Belkar only threatened physical violence, R+D actually began a plan.

Finally, 322 is an act of self defense. If you look but one strip further you will see V had attacked him no less than 12 times with no fear of reprisal. If this means Belkar is evil, V must be evil as well (which is actually a position of mine; V is as bad, or worse, than Belkar.)


As for good acts done by Belkar, there is 435. He passes up immediate reward and petty revenge for the possible promise of an unguaranteed future reward.

Also, he rescues the dirt farmer for no reward other than the satisfaction he gets from doing so. Yes, he likes the sound ogres make when they hit the ground. These were ogres actively engaged in an evil act (kidnapping).

By teratorn's logic the entire OotS is evil for helping Belkar in any way, shape or form. That is Miko-logi.

[teratorn]

So, if intent matters, why did Miko fall? Her intent was always lawful and good.
Intent needs to match action for something to be good. It's as Kreistor said, an evil character can mantain its evil status by making things that look good, by that in fact are selfish-neutral. People from the outside may in fact get the wrong impression.


By teratorn's logic the entire OotS is evil for helping Belkar in any way, shape or form. That is Miko-logi.
Reread what I said, I consider most Belkar's actions in OOTS as neutral.

Of course they could be doing more for good with a good character and not Belkar, but now they are stuck with him. It would be way more evil to unleash him in the world. Killing him unless he attacks first is not an option. They need to keep him with them. Since he's been with OOTS he's always fighting evil, most of his actions can be considered neutral (even good if we forget intent and the fact he's gaining xp). He's not harming innocents.

[Fighteer]

The intent of Belkar's actions is what establishes him as and keeps him Evil.

The effect of his actions are what allow the OotS to continue to keep him in their party while maintaining a Good alignment. Roy has the (possibly unique) ability to channel Belkar's destructive urges toward Evil opponents.

Belkar is Chaotic for obvious reasons (well, anyone who disputes this needs to soak their head in a bucket of "wake up and smell the coffee"). He is Evil because he (a) acts solely for his own amusement and/or profit, (b) has no respect for the rights or even the existence of others, (c) wantonly advocates slaughter and destruction, (d) revels in the misery of others. Nothing that's happened since he joined OotS has moderated these tendencies to the slightest; they have merely been channeled (for the most part) to non-Evil purposes.

Evil comes in many flavors. Not every Evil character is out to take over the world. Some just want to carve out their own little niche of it... out of the bodies of others if needed.

Here's another excellent point to remember: Good acts committed with Evil motives are Evil. Evil acts committed with Good motives are also Evil.

[Poppatomus]

Here's another excellent point to remember: Good acts committed with Evil motives are Evil. Evil acts committed with Good motives are also Evil.

Which only proves, of course, that good is odd.

[Twilight Jack]

Really, it just proves that good is rare and something to which to aspire, rather than any sort of default.

Good requires a supression of self-interest; whereas Neutral pursues self-interest to the greatest degree possible, trumped only by empathy for loved ones, valued ideals, and the truly unconscionable; and Evil actively pursues self-interest at the expense of others, and goes so far as to enjoy the harm inflicted on the way.

I will disagree with a prior assertion, however. A good act undertaken for the wrong reasons is still a good act. It just remains an immoral act. It doesn't affect the morality of the actor in any way, but the act itself doesn't cease to be good because of it. Conversely, an evil act undertaken with the best of intentions remains evil; whether it affects the morality of the actor is dependent upon the circumstances.

[Poppatomus]

Really, it just proves that good is rare and something to which to aspire, rather than any sort of default.

Good requires a supression of self-interest; whereas Neutral pursues self-interest to the greatest degree possible, trumped only by empathy for loved ones, valued ideals, and the truly unconscionable; and Evil actively pursues self-interest at the expense of others, and goes so far as to enjoy the harm inflicted on the way.

I will disagree with a prior assertion, however. A good act undertaken for the wrong reasons is still a good act. It just remains an immoral act. It doesn't affect the morality of the actor in any way, but the act itself doesn't cease to be good because of it. Conversely, an evil act undertaken with the best of intentions remains evil; whether it affects the morality of the actor is dependent upon the circumstances.

My above comment was only meant as a mathematics pun, and a bad one at that.

I would actually say that while the "act" remains good, the person does not become good. Good people are made by good intentions and good acts in combination. doing good acts for the wrong reasons just means your benigns, but doing the wrong actions for the right reasons, as we've discussed before, may actually make you more malignent than your evil adversary.

[Twilight Jack]

My above comment was only meant as a mathematics pun, and a bad one at that.

I would actually say that while the "act" remains good, the person does not become good. Good people are made by good intentions and good acts in combination. doing good acts for the wrong reasons just means your benigns, but doing the wrong actions for the right reasons, as we've discussed before, may actually make you more malignent than your evil adversary.

Exactly. I'm just pointing out that the act itself does not become an evil one because the actor was operating from an impure motive. The actor remains evil, but that act was good.

[taigen]

On this subject, one has to look at the actual rules and the flavor that explains a typical paladin.

The association or lack thereof with evil characters is not in the code of conduct, it is seperate from it, but still in the 'game rule information', and the words are 'will never knowingly associate'

The part on falling, under 'Ex-Paladins' however says a paladin will lose their class powers for ceaseing to be lawfull good, willfully comitting an evil act, or grossly violateing the code of conduct. None of these are directly related to associateing with an evil character, except for willfully committing an evil act.

Belkar is not Hinjo's Henchman, follower, or cohort which is specifically mentioned in the associateing bit, so its still a very grey area.

My opinion would be a lot like this. If Hinjo led the Order of the Stick, he would have to kick Belkar out. If Belkar led the Order of the Stick he certainly wouldn't be able to associate with them since they would likely be mostly commiting evil acts. If Belkar did something evil and Hinjo didn't stop him or try to stop him, he would be in danger of comitting an evil act 'by association' but so long as Belkar 'behaves' which he mostly does around the OotS, Hinjo would be fine associateing with the Order of the Stick, since as a group it is definately good or at least neutral, and for the moment Belkar is doing more good then harm.
-Taigen

[Fighteer]

Exactly. I'm just pointing out that the act itself does not become an evil one because the actor was operating from an impure motive. The actor remains evil, but that act was good.
Let us examine a few hypothetical "good acts for evil purposes":

A man gives food to a starving child, with the intention of gaining that child's trust in order to lure him/her into slavery. Act: good. Intent: evil.

A man in an impoverished kingdom hires people to distribute food to starving children. He is doing this in an attempt to gain political power so as to be in a position to betray the kingdom to its enemies. Act: good. Intent: evil. (Note that the people he hires are not necessarily evil.)

You're right that the good act, in and of itself, does not become evil because of the intent behind it. However, the person doing the act is still evil, because of that very same intent.

[David Argall]

So, if intent matters, why did Miko fall? Her intent was always lawful and good.
Rather debatable. Note that when she kills the ogres, her expression is somewhat neutral. [At least she wasn't any different than she was about 90% of the time anyway.] This is, so to speak, just work.
When she killed Shojo, she was mad! She intended to hurt him. It is not unreasonable to argue all her protestations about law and duty during this incident were just words to disguise [from herself as much as anybody else] she was just angry with him. I would argue that law and duty were still important considerations, but there is no denying her fury, and while a paladin must be willing to kill, she must be reluctant to, and not be attacking with what amounts to savage joy.


The most recent is an obvious good act. Unless gambling is inherently evil, I don't see how lending a friend a magic item is an evil act.
There are some fine lines involved here. With just a little difference, the act can be considered clearly good. But it is not the gambling that is the problem, but what they were gambling about. In effect Belkar bet "I can talk Roy into killing himself." More precisely, into doing something that is highly dangerous, but we see no evidence that Belkar was concerned about the danger to Roy.


Apparently having the self control to not kill your team mates and keep their magic items unless under magical compulsion is an evil act.
The very fact that this is a question is what shows us Belkar's evil. If any of the other members of the OOTS, or a common man on the street for that matter, had been the victim, the difference between kill friends without reward and kill with reward would be trivial. For Belkar, it is the important factor. Killing his friends? Great. giving somebody else the loot? Never!


Also, risking the Mark of Justice activating so you can stop a person you know is a sworn enemy of your group and is almost certainly up to no good is as far from evil as you can get.
This assumes that Belkar, not exactly noted for mental poweress, recalled the Mark of Justice at that time. It is much easier to assume he forgot about it [and/or our writer did, or decided it would interfere with the scene to worry about it.]


Recounting past eyestabbing is not evil.
Recounting how disappointed you were [and still are] is.


If 329 is evil, I assume you are rather miffed that Durkon and Roy are considered good. Belkar only threatened physical violence, R+D actually began a plan.
R&D made a limited demand for what they were possibly entitled to. Belkar is making an open-ended demand for what he clearly is not.


Finally, 322 is an act of self defense. If you look but one strip further you will see V had attacked him no less than 12 times with no fear of reprisal.
V is guilty of harassment, at most. We do not get a full list of interactions between the two, and the assumption that Belkar has not tried something at times is clearly suspect. But even if we somehow assume innocence on Belkar's part, his revenge is an act of potential murder. And this is revenge, not self defense.


As for good acts done by Belkar, there is 435. He passes up immediate reward and petty revenge for the possible promise of an unguaranteed future reward.
of killing a lot more people. We note too that Belkar is furious over having to do something might look like a good deed to the outside observer.
We have here the reverse of the normal hero dilemma. Kill the evil one in order to save many lives later. Belkar faces not-kill the good one in order to kill many later. And as we consider the first an acceptable option for the hero, we consider the 2nd an evil, not good, act.


Also, he rescues the dirt farmer for no reward other than the satisfaction he gets from doing so.
Again, the satisfaction of killing others. If the dirt farmer had died in the process, Belkar would not have been concerned in the slightest.

[EyethatBinds]

I can't believe this even needs to be argued. Unholy blight affects good and neutral characters, true it only does half the damage to a neutral character but it still does damage. It didn't do anything to Belkar so Belkar's alignment has to be evil. No ifs, no maybes, it is outright stated in the 11th comic.
On to the actual topic, I myself have played a paladin that knowingly associated with evil characters. I kept a constant sharp eye on them and never allowed them to commit an evil act, while constantly trying to convert them to good but I did associate with them. I never fell either because not only did I stop several evil acts from being committed I managed to turn two of these evil people to the side of good, going so far as to redeem an assassin.
So it really depends on how flexible the GM wants to be with the books rules, particularly since it only implies in the flavor text that paladins will never adventure with evil people. If you couldn't associate with evil how would you redeem them anyways?

[Tredrick]

Rather debatable. Note that when she kills the ogres, her expression is somewhat neutral. [At least she wasn't any different than she was about 90% of the time anyway.] This is, so to speak, just work.
When she killed Shojo, she was mad! She intended to hurt him. It is not unreasonable to argue all her protestations about law and duty during this incident were just words to disguise [from herself as much as anybody else] she was just angry with him. I would argue that law and duty were still important considerations, but there is no denying her fury, and while a paladin must be willing to kill, she must be reluctant to, and not be attacking with what amounts to savage joy.

But, if intentions are what are important, she intended to remove someone she considered evil and a traitor from the throne by the only means available. If intent is more important than result, this is a good act.



There are some fine lines involved here. With just a little difference, the act can be considered clearly good. But it is not the gambling that is the problem, but what they were gambling about. In effect Belkar bet "I can talk Roy into killing himself." More precisely, into doing something that is highly dangerous, but we see no evidence that Belkar was concerned about the danger to Roy.

Belkar bet Roy would make the jump. If Roy remembered Belkar's ring before Belkar offered it, Roy would have asked. If anything, he is guilty of making a bet he knew the outcome of. We also see evidence of Belkar wanting to stop Xykon in his speech to Roy and, in the latest comic, his insult to Hinjo.


This assumes that Belkar, not exactly noted for mental poweress, recalled the Mark of Justice at that time. It is much easier to assume he forgot about it [and/or our writer did, or decided it would interfere with the scene to worry about it.]

So Belkar is capable of planning to have Miko fall by killing him after he has her beat but revives her but is incapable of remembering the much hated Mark of Justice? Sorry, I do not buy it.


V is guilty of harassment, at most. We do not get a full list of interactions between the two, and the assumption that Belkar has not tried something at times is clearly suspect. But even if we somehow assume innocence on Belkar's part, his revenge is an act of potential murder. And this is revenge, not self defense.

Harassment? She hit him with 11 explosive runes and a fire trap. That is 66d6 points of damage from the runes and 13d4+13 from the fire trap. If that is merely harassment, then pushing V to the owl bear is practically kindness. if not for all the healing that must have taken place off screen, Belkar would likely be quite dead.


of killing a lot more people. We note too that Belkar is furious over having to do something might look like a good deed to the outside observer.
We have here the reverse of the normal hero dilemma. Kill the evil one in order to save many lives later. Belkar faces not-kill the good one in order to kill many later. And as we consider the first an acceptable option for the hero, we consider the 2nd an evil, not good, act.

You are assuming the second act will ever take place, much like the normal hero dilemma assumes the evil one will kill.


Again, the satisfaction of killing others. If the dirt farmer had died in the process, Belkar would not have been concerned in the slightest.

Miko derived a lot of joy in the exercising of her duties. Enjoying killing is not evil. Heck, Roy seems to get a kick out of the whole deal now and then.

[Poppatomus]

But, if intentions are what are important, she intended to remove someone she considered evil and a traitor from the throne by the only means available. If intent is more important than result, this is a good act.


She intended to take the law into her own hands in order to kill someone she considered to have done wrong. beyond the extra-judicial aspect, it is also regicide, almost undoubtedly implying the violation of an oath on her part. Further she struck hastily out of anger, rather then killing as a last or only resort, shojo being clearly no threat to her and Hinjo backing his capture. She additionally acted selfishly, asserting her own opinion over others. Definitely an evil act, though admittedly not "as" evil as killing someone for no reason or for personal pleasure.




Miko derived a lot of joy in the exercising of her duties. Enjoying killing is not evil. Heck, Roy seems to get a kick out of the whole deal now and then.

Difference between enjoying killing and enjoying fighting. personally I don't think miko particularly enjoyed killing. I see no evidence of it in the comic. (Xykon, by contrast, clearly does enjoy killing)

However, if she did enjoy killing that is evil by definition in the D&D universe. In fact, that's the central part of the definition of evil in the D&D universe, something missed in a lot of alignment discussion. Looking out for number one, even by trickery, can usually be argued as neutral, it's killing, especially for the sake of killing, that makes evil.

[pendell]

Just a quick English trivia note: according to Bartleby (http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html) , the correct word to use when mandating behavior is shall . Will implies a wish, a desire.

The relevant quote:

"Shall had the meaning of command or obligation, and will of wish."

====
Of course, this refers to "pure" English as found in legal documents. In normal everyday usage, the two words are commingled to a distressing degree, to such an extent that in normal speech the two words are synonyms.

The question is, what was the intent of the original authors of the SRD and it's precursor documents? I don't know offhand. But judging by the BoED, I incline to using "will" in the sense of "wish". A Paladin will not, all other things being equal, choose to associate with evil characters. Anyone worthy of the name paladin wants nothing to do with them. But that doesn't mean that having an evil character in the party *in and of itself, regardless of context*, shall cause a paladin to fall.

Ultimately, the laws of paladinhood in D&D are not a blind force, a law like gravity enforced arbitrarily. Paladinhood is granted by the gods, and therefore the gods act as judges as to whether a paladin deserves to keep that status or not.

So it could be that the flexibility of a paladin code would directly depend on which deity granted it in the first place. Someone like Helm from the forgotten realms might take it for any reason. Others might allow almost anything short of actual participation in human sacrifice.

In the real world, of course "the gods will rule" means "the GM will rule". So whatever you can convince the GM to accept is "within the paladin code" IS within the paladin code ... at least within his game world.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[the mysterian]

HUZZAH!!!!! right?

[basilisk 89]

When reading over your post I couldn't help but notice certain similarities with Ash and Misty from Pokemon. I don't know if you watched that(probably not, not many people do or did), but in there Ash brakes Misty's bike(well, not he, but that's another story) and she ends up following him, claiming it that she will follow him until he repays her back her bike. And she means it. In the end(very soon, actually), she ends up liking the guy. And when I say liking him, I mean she fels head over heals in love with him.

I did...heck, I have the entire first four seasons on VHS.

Anyway, I like that idea of "parole".

:belkar: So basically, you're doing it because you don't really know me at all?

:hinjo(we need a hinjo emoticon): No, I'm doing it because it's the only way I can travel with you.

:belkar: Cool with me. Let's go massacre something.

[Renegade Paladin]

And I didn't know the true meaning of associate: it seems that drafting someone evil to fight at your side during a battle is not associate, hiring evil mercenaries is not associate. At least that 's what everyone kept telling me.
For your convenience, the applicable English definition of "associate" in its verb form:

Main Entry: 1as·so·ci·ate
Pronunciation: &-'sO-shE-"At, -sE-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
Etymology: Middle English associat associated, from Latin associatus, past participle of associare to unite, from ad- + sociare to join, from socius companion -- more at SOCIAL
transitive verb
1 : to join as a partner, friend, or companion (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=associate)

I would not call his relationship with Belkar a partnership or friendship. Companion maybe, but it's a stretch.

[David Argall]

But, if intentions are what are important, she intended to remove someone she considered evil and a traitor from the throne by the only means available. If intent is more important than result, this is a good act.
Does not follow. And not especially true. We have a fatal auto accident. The driver more at fault may not even get a ticket, may get his license suspended, be jailed for reckless driving, manslaughter, or murder, all depending on factors little related to intent. In the case in question, it is at best suspect that she had the intent to remove the evil as opposed to simply killing someone. It is even more questionable that killing was at all the only means available.


Belkar bet Roy would make the jump. If Roy remembered Belkar's ring before Belkar offered it, Roy would have asked.
As I said, the act, just slightly different, could have been good. But Belkar wasn't concerned with what Roy wanted, nor with how effective the tactic actually would be. Instead he makes a bet that he can send Roy on what looks to be a suicide mission. He is not acting any different than if he bet whether Roy could survive being kicked off the wall and then kicked him.


We also see evidence of Belkar wanting to stop Xykon in his speech to Roy and, in the latest comic, his insult to Hinjo.
Rather weak evidence. Belkar wants to stop everybody. In the particular case of Hinjo, we see that his intent is to insult Hinjo, and any desire to stop Xykon is no more than incidental.


So Belkar is capable of planning to have Miko fall by killing him after he has her beat but revives her but is incapable of remembering the much hated Mark of Justice? Sorry, I do not buy it.
Why not? Both incidents show Belkar miscalculating. [He assumed the cleric would be able to raise him, despite knowing that the needed diamond was not available.]


Harassment? She hit him with 11 explosive runes and a fire trap. That is 66d6 points of damage from the runes and 13d4+13 from the fire trap. if not for all the healing that must have taken place off screen, Belkar would likely be quite dead.
But that healing was very definitely available, something well known to V, and healing he did get. He was in no danger of death.


You are assuming the second act will ever take place, much like the normal hero dilemma assumes the evil one will kill.
Which merely adds to our parallel here. Belkar had an ethical dilemma and had to identify and do the truly evil act, just as the good hero in such a case had to identify and do the truly good act.


Miko derived a lot of joy in the exercising of her duties.
It's hard to see where Miko derived joy from much of anything. We get very few smiles from her.


Enjoying killing is not evil. Heck, Roy seems to get a kick out of the whole deal now and then.
Which would be a sin on his part. However, generally the killing is an incidental here. He gets his joy from the defeat of the evil, not from the pain to the evil.
But yes, enjoying killing is rather obviously evil. It is an evil act that sometimes has to be done. As they say, the lesser evil is still evil, and one should be on the lookout for a better alternative. It is not always to be found and so the killing is sometimes justified, but it is still something we deem evil.

[Aquillion]

None of this matters, since per here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html) Hinjo definitely has no clue that Belkar is evil, and, indeed, he seems to be under the impression that Belkar is 'reformed' and leaning towards good. The fact that Belkar has made a few (as Hinjo would take them) tastless jokes in his presence since then is hardly going to lead to Hinjo concluding that he's evil, especially given that Hinjo seems to tend towards seeing the good in people anyway.

It's not a loophole or anything like that, Hinjo simply does not know that Belkar is evil. He doesn't have the slightest clue. We've never seen him throw a single detect evil around, Belkar has done only one verifiable evil act that he knows of (and one act that he misinterpreted as a good act, afterwards), and, in short, Hinjo has no reason to even consider this.

Following RAW, if Hinjo knew that Belkar was as evil as he is he would probably refuse to "associate" with him (whatever that means), but he doesn't have a clue, and the text very clearly talks only about knowing association, so none of the other points matter.

[Kreistor]

It's not a loophole or anything like that, Hinjo simply does not know that Belkar is evil.

I have to disagree with that. Hinjo knows he was evil but thought Belkar had learned his lesson. Alignment isn't permanent, so Hinjo gave him the benefit of the doubt.

[nagora]

SRD says paladins "will not". I thought that was even stronger than can not,
If I say that I can do something but won't, surely that's weaker than saying that I would like to do something but can't. One is choice ("will") while the other is forced ("can").

A paladin can certainly work with an evil character against a common enemy if the common enemy is a much bigger evil. It might drive them to madness (*ahem*), and it doesn't mean that they'll be able to "look the other way" if an actual evil act is carried out, but I don't think any DM would be justified in making Hinjo fall just for joining up with the OotS while getting a resistance force together to eject an occupying army of hobbos from his city, Belkar notwithstanding.

[DreadArchon]

Looks like The Giant has solved this for now: Hinjo has joined the OotS, but he's not journeying with Belkar!

Good one, Giant! :smallsmile:

[Erloas]

If Hinjo where to start throwing around detect evils he still couldn't make a conclusive identification of Belkar's allignement because Belkar is carrying around an undead skull. If the crown could make Roy look evil, there would be no way to tell what Belkar's actual alliagnement is with him obviously carrying the skull around.
Much of what Belkar does is more chaotic then evil, at least from an outside point when you don't have all the details. Which is the situation Hinjo is in. Hinjo might think Belkar is chaotic neutral, assuming that the rest of the OOTS wouldn't let Belkar stay around if he was evil. Killing a few guards while you break out of prison is well within chaotic neutral, he might not know of the bloody picture or the fact that he was purposefully trying to get Miko to fall. Hinjo already knew Miko was hard to get along with and not entirely sane at the best of times, so conflict there isn't going to point instantly to evil. Most of the details of what Belkar did was probably told to Shojo and little if any of it was probably told to Hinjo given the situation when he took over.