Spoilers: HtPGhS: What's needed for "blue bolt of disapproval" from the Twelve Gods"? [Archive]

hamishspence

2019-01-23, 07:47 AM

In order to avoid further derailing the Belkar Alignment thread, I've decided to open up a new topic - based on this post by The Giant:

Suffice to say that the Twelve Gods are not beholden to put on the same visual display they did for Miko for every paladin who transgresses, and that all transgressions are not created equal. It is possible that some of the paladins who participated in the attack crossed the line. It is also possible that most did not. A paladin who slips up in the execution of their god-given orders does not warrant the same level of personal attention by the gods as one who executes the legal ruler of their nation on a glorified hunch. Think of Miko's Fall as being the equivalent of the CEO of your multinational company showing up in your cubicle to fire you, because you screwed up THAT much.

Of course, while Redcloak is not narrating the scene, it is shown mostly from his perspective; we don't see how many Detect Evils were used before the attack started, and we don't see how many paladins afterwards try to heal their wounds and can't, because these things are not important to Redcloak's story. Whether or not some of the paladins Fell does not bring Redcloak's family back to life. Indeed, if we transplant the scene to real life, he would think it cold comfort that some of the police officers who gunned down his family had to turn in their badge afterward (but were otherwise given no punishment by their bosses at City Hall).

Dramatically, showing no-name paladins Falling at that point in the story would confuse the narrative by making it unclear whether or not Redcloak had already earned a form of retribution against them. To be clear, he had not: Whether or not some of them lost a few class abilities does not change the fact that Redcloak suffered an injustice at their hands, one that shaped his entire adult life. That was the point of the scene. Showing them Fall or not simply was not important to Redcloak's story, so it was omitted.

Further, it would have cheapened Miko's fall to show the same thing over and over--and Miko, as a major character in the series, deserved the emotional weight that her Fall carried (or at least that I hope it carried).

I hope that clears this issue up. I hope in vain, largely, but there you have it.

(Oh, and I leave it up to the readers to form their own opinions on which paladins may have Fallen and which didn't.)

So "screwing up THAT much" causes a Bolt.

IMO, it's triggered when all twelve, the Good and the Evil, are in consensus that their minion has made a huge mistake - one which is against the interests of the pantheon as a whole.

hroþila

2019-01-23, 08:05 AM

I don't think (and this is more a reply to Lacuna's last post in the Belkar thread) that there's necessarily any strict correlation between "divine display" (i.e. blue bolt of booing) and "severity of the transgression". I believe it's more about how notorious, high-profile or unusual the transgression was, and that PR is not a small component of it. Any members of the Sapphire Guard that fell while raiding Redcloak's village or while serving under Gin-Jun, including Gin-Jun himself, would have fallen in the most usual way soldiers would fall in war: by using excessive force, not discriminating between combatants and civilians, etc. As such, their falls wouldn't have been remarkable. Miko, however, murdered her liege lord, her commander and a head of state. So yes, what those other paladins did was worse from an ethical point of view, or more Evil, but that doesn't mean they needed to be dealt with in an extraordinary fashion when the normal channels would suffice.

It does seem possible that the Twelve Gods as a whole are more lenient to paladins who on the whole are furthering their agenda even when they're so off that what they're doing at the moment is useless for the purposes of that agenda, though.

Lacuna Caster

2019-01-23, 08:16 AM

Reposting, though I dislike what amounts to vigilante-modding here.

This was The Giant's statement...
I am aware of the author's stance on this point, hamish. Do you think waving it around like some magic formula is going to solve this problem?

A paladin who slips up in the execution of their god-given orders does not warrant the same level of personal attention by the gods as one who executes the legal ruler of their nation on a glorified hunch...
Yeah, except that SoD shows paladins who go around slaughtering goblin toddlers after the Bearer was destroyed and their mission was completed, which has nothing to do with their god-given orders. (And in any case implies that the Twelve can communicate with their followers, which raises any number of other problems.) Conversely, if Gin-Jun was treated with leniency because of a divine mandate for his mission, that implies his mission was actually given a divine mandate, despite the narrative implication that the Bearer was nowhere nearby and his intel was a total fantasy.

I happen to agree that killing Shojo was fall-worthy, but Shojo was at least actually guilty of something. Shojo actually did corrupt the azurite legal system, collude with dangerous criminals, and withhold vital information that might have saved his city from destruction. I see far more justification for killing Shojo than I do for what other paladins in the narrative apparently get away with.

It seems to me that they regard his actions as proving him unsuitable to be a member of the Sapphire Guard - that they believe him to have Fallen...
This is still a total invention on your part, hamish. And why on earth would the paladins think this is something for mere mortals to decide? The whole schtick to being a paladin is that a supernatural agency judges the moral rigour of your actions. It's not their call to make, it's the Gods'.

hamishspence

2019-01-23, 08:21 AM

Lacuna Caster

2019-01-23, 08:24 AM

IMO, it's triggered when all twelve, the Good and the Evil, are in consensus that their minion has made a huge mistake - one which is against the interests of the pantheon as a whole.
Again, it is heavily implied that Gin-Jun's actions were actually detrimental to the interests of their own worshippers, quite aside from being, independently, war crimes. So either the Gods viewed his missions as being ultimately beneficial, or they don't care about harm to azurite citizens.

I don't think (and this is more a reply to Lacuna's last post in the Belkar thread) that there's necessarily any strict correlation between "divine display" (i.e. blue bolt of booing) and "severity of the transgression". I believe it's more about how notorious, high-profile or unusual the transgression was, and that PR is not a small component of it. Any members of the Sapphire Guard that fell while raiding Redcloak's village or while serving under Gin-Jun, including Gin-Jun himself...
You cannot be a fallen paladin and expect to remain in command of a paladin organisation. Ergo, Gin-Jun did not fall at any point prior to his duel with O-Chul, and there is precisely zero evidence that he did at any point afterwards.

hamishspence

2019-01-23, 08:29 AM

His expulsion from the Sapphire Guard seems like circumstantial evidence to me.

hroþila

2019-01-23, 08:34 AM

You cannot be a fallen paladin and expect to remain in command of a paladin organisation. Ergo, Gin-Jun did not fall at any point prior to his duel with O-Chul, and there is precisely zero evidence that he did at any point afterwards.
OK, but I didn't say he fell before that point. Or at all, really - in fact, I'm an agnostic in regards to Gin-Jun's hypothetical fall.

I'm not so sure that you can't be a fallen paladin and remain in command, though. Shojo was their official commander and he wasn't even a paladin.

Kish

2019-01-23, 08:39 AM

Rich explicitly said that the big display for Miko was not standard for a paladin falling in the OotS universe. Clinging to "no big display, no Fall" strikes me as exercising willful obtuseness in the name of not accepting that any paladin except Miko has ever fallen.

That said, I'm certainly not on board with "only when the entire pantheon is angry." That would require all the Twelve Gods to care about Shojo's death, which, since it at least tried to be a bastion of Law and Good rather than a melting pot metropolis like Sharn, would be awfully close to saying that the evil members of the pantheon don't actually exist, and might even bring a trace of sanity to the idea that it's odd that Tsukiko never fell.

I don't think the blue bolt is anything more than "Rich wanted this to be dramatic," or if you prefer, "This is the first time in the history of the OotS world that a paladin has actually murdered the entirely defenseless head of their own order."

Edited to add: Gin-Jun said "if I cannot be a paladin." When a paladin stops being a paladin, whatever the circumstances, that's called falling. If he hadn't fallen yet (and again, it's willful obtuseness to maintain that the lack of blue bolt means he hadn't) then he apparently had some reason to think he was about to even if he didn't attack O-Chul.

Lacuna Caster

2019-01-23, 08:41 AM

Only when all the pantheon's gods, Evil and Good alike, are angry, do they break out the blue bolts.

His expulsion from the Sapphire Guard seems like circumstantial evidence to me.
It's evidence for human disapproval, but not evidence for divine judgement. I mean, people make fun of certain ex-paladins saying (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0460.html) "it is easily in your power to stop me", but when it came to Gin-Jun's mission, this is actually a logical valid inference. It was easily in their power to stop him, and they didn't.

Now my original point here was simply to emphasise that whatever criteria the Twelve are using to decide fall-worthiness for their paladins (and clerics), it should be evident that good and evil are apparently minor considerations. Which goes back to my point that while Miko's actions might be considered good or evil on independent moral grounds, the Gods' disapproval doesn't really tell you anything.

hamishspence

2019-01-23, 08:45 AM

That said, I'm certainly not on board with "only when the entire pantheon is angry." That would require all the Twelve Gods to care about Shojo's death, which, since it at least tried to be a bastion of Law and Good rather than a melting pot metropolis like Sharn, would be awfully close to saying that the evil members of the pantheon don't actually exist, and might even bring a trace of sanity to the idea that it's odd that Tsukiko never fell.

My theory was that, back when Soon found out about the gates, he was given a mandate from the whole pantheon to found the Sapphire Guard to protect them. The fact that (aside from the leader) they're almost all paladins, is him projecting his own ideas on it.

Thus, the whole pantheon, even the Evil ones, care about the Sapphire Guard and its actions, at least insofar as they protect the Gates.

And they care about the wellbeing of its leader.

Thus, for a Sapphire Guard member to destroy the leader of the Sapphire Guard is, from the pantheon's point of view, an offense against them all.

Lacuna Caster

2019-01-23, 08:48 AM

Rich explicitly said that the big display for Miko was not standard for a paladin falling in the OotS universe. Clinging to "no big display, no Fall" strikes me as exercising willful obtuseness in the name of not accepting that any paladin except Miko has ever fallen.
As opposed to what? Inventing facts with absolutely no supporting evidence?

I don't think the blue bolt is anything more than "Rich wanted this to be dramatic," or if you prefer, "This is the first time in the history of the OotS world that a paladin has actually murdered the entirely defenseless head of their own order."
What does this have to do with it? Shojo being in charge of the Guard doesn't mean he should be held less accountable, it means he should be subjected to more rigorous judgement than anyone else. And while he was physically defenceless, if he'd actually lived, it's entirely plausible he'd manage to jury-rig the legal system to escape prosecution.

Again, to be perfectly clear, I don't think this negates that killing him was a gross violation of the paladins' code of conduct. I do consider Miko's actions eminently fall-worthy. But uniquely and outstandingly so? Hell, no.

hroþila

2019-01-23, 08:48 AM

Edited to add: Gin-Jun said "if I cannot be a paladin." When a paladin stops being a paladin, whatever the circumstances, that's called falling. If he hadn't fallen yet (and again, it's willful obtuseness to maintain that the lack of blue bolt means he hadn't) then he apparently had some reason to think he was about to even if he didn't attack O-Chul.
That's a good point. My first impulse was to interpret that as "If I cannot be in the Sapphire Guard", but we do know not all Azurite paladins were in the guard, so in that case his wording wouldn't have been entirely accurate (I think it would still be accurate enough in context, but your interpretation certainly fits).

hamishspence

2019-01-23, 08:55 AM

Shojo being in charge of the Guard doesn't mean he should be held less accountable, it means he should be subjected to more rigorous judgement than anyone else.

The pantheon don't judge him by paladin standards, but by their own. Since they're of lots of alignments, not just LG - what matters to them isn't "Is he being LG" but "Is he fulfilling the goal the Sapphire Guard were founded to achieve - the protection of the gates"?

Shojo doesn't have to be a caster to be "a direct servant of one or more gods" after all:

Interesting how you repeatedly assume that Shojo is a secular leader and that he is acting based on the legal procedures of a mortal nation. Instead of, you know, a direct servant of one or more gods granted a holy mandate that knows no borders.

Lacuna Caster

2019-01-23, 08:58 AM

Gin-Jun said "if I cannot be a paladin." When a paladin stops being a paladin, whatever the circumstances, that's called falling...

That's a good point. My first impulse was to interpret that as "If I cannot be in the Sapphire Guard", but we do know not all Azurite paladins were in the guard, so in that case his wording wouldn't have been entirely accurate (I think it would still be accurate enough in context, but your interpretation certainly fits).
But why would anyone in the story think that this is decided by a bunch of mortal peers getting together and voting on the topic? They don't have any more evidence to go by than we do, and they don't decide how divine mojo gets apportioned. They don't see a bolt of blue lightning, they don't see Gin-Jun's robes turn gently beige, and he doesn't feel suddenly woozy or hear a rumbling voice from the heavens.

That's the whole problem here. The entire narrative frames Gin-Jun's decisions as badbadwrongno, and I'm not exactly disagreeing, but this is a situation that should never have developed if the Twelve were doing their jobs. You can't just gloss over that.

hamishspence

2019-01-23, 09:02 AM

hroþila

2019-01-23, 09:07 AM

But why would anyone in the story think that this is decided by a bunch of mortal peers getting together and voting on the topic? They don't have any more evidence to go by than we do, and they don't decide how divine mojo gets apportioned. They don't see a bolt of blue lightning, they don't see Gin-Jun's robes turn gently beige, and he doesn't feel suddenly woozy or hear a rumbling voice from the heavens.

That's the whole problem here. The entire narrative frames Gin-Jun's decisions as badbadwrongno, and I'm not exactly disagreeing, but this is a situation that should never have developed if the Twelve were doing their jobs. You can't just gloss over that.
(I think you should spoiler our posts)

No one thinks this is decided by a bunch of mortal peers getting together and voting on the topic. Hamishpence said that he takes those mortal peers abandoning Gun-Jin as evidence that they think (or even know, if you will) he has fallen, but that doesn't mean they had any say on the matter. And we're not glossing over anything, we just disagree about every fall having to be treated the same or in a strict severity pecking order, and about the job of the Twelve being "to uphold Good". The way paladinhood works follows mechanical rules, and as long as those are met to the letter of the law they're good to go.

Lacuna Caster

2019-01-23, 09:12 AM

Look, I'm not going to spoiler this- just put 'spoilers' in the thread heading since the thread is obviously going to be talking about SoD/Scar.

The pantheon don't judge him by paladin standards, but by their own...

Their job is not to support the Lawful Good agenda alone...
The argument that I'm hearing is that Miko should be judged with particular severity because Shojo was, nominally speaking, her lawful superior and liege lord. Okay, filial piety and all that. But by those same standards, Shojo had grossly betrayed his obligations as an honourable Lord- such as honesty, integrity and respect for rule of law. If we're going to say that the paladin code isn't so important in the grand scheme of things, or doesn't matter to the Gods, fine. But that counts both ways.

Lacuna Caster

2019-01-23, 09:17 AM

No one thinks this is decided by a bunch of mortal peers getting together and voting on the topic. Hamishpence said that he takes those mortal peers abandoning Gun-Jin as evidence that they think (or even know, if you will) he has fallen, but that doesn't mean they had any say on the matter...
As I said, twenty or thirty people spontaneously arriving at the same conclusion without evidence doesn't make the conclusion any more sound, it makes the narrative more baffling.

And I'm not saying that the Gods have to treat every Fall the same way, I'm just saying that the way they do treat different transgressions- up to the point of apparently not considering them transgressions at all- tells you something about their underlying values or lack thereof. The Twelve, so far as the text suggests, do not care about good or evil.

hamishspence

2019-01-23, 09:17 AM

The argument that I'm hearing is that Miko should be judged with particular severity because Shojo was, nominally speaking, her lawful superior and liege lord.

The "legal ruler of nation" bit does seem to be pretty important:

A paladin who slips up in the execution of their god-given orders does not warrant the same level of personal attention by the gods as one who executes the legal ruler of their nation on a glorified hunch.

though my theory is that the "superior within Sapphire Guard" factor may also be important.

As I said, twenty or thirty people spontaneously arriving at the same conclusion without evidence doesn't make the conclusion any more sound, it makes the narrative more baffling.

They're all paladins - makes sense that they'd know their own Code inside out, better than we do.

woweedd

2019-01-23, 09:18 AM

Look, I'm not going to spoiler this- just put 'spoilers' in the thread heading since the thread is obviously going to be talking about SoD/Scar.

The argument that I'm hearing is that Miko should be judged with particular severity because Shojo was, nominally speaking, her lawful superior and liege lord. Okay, filial piety and all that. But by those same standards, Shojo had grossly betrayed his obligations as an honourable Lord- such as honesty, integrity and respect for rule of law. If we're going to say that the paladin code isn't so important in the grand scheme of things, or doesn't matter to the Gods, fine. But that counts both ways.
Shojo is not a Paladin, and, thus,not subject to the forces of Law and Good, as Miko did. Also, he ended up being murdered by his adoptive daughter, and watching, albeit from the afterlife, his city burn to the ground, partially because of his own mis-mangement. Sounds like a punishment to me.

hroþila

2019-01-23, 09:26 AM

As I said, twenty or thirty people spontaneously arriving at the same conclusion without evidence doesn't make the conclusion any more sound, it makes the narrative more baffling.
First of all, those 30 people are paladins who are familiar with the code and perfectly capable of guessing what might constitute a Fall-inducing breach. But if that doesn't work for you, then adopt a different headcanon. Because Gin-Jun falling? Not confirmed by the text. Those paladins abandoning him because they thought he fell? Not confirmed by the text. Both theories have merit and you can accept one and reject the other - they don't have to go together.

And I'm not saying that the Gods have to treat every Fall the same way, I'm just saying that the way they do treat different transgressions- up to the point of apparently not considering them transgressions at all- tells you something about their underlying values or lack thereof. The Twelve, so far as the text suggests, do not care about good or evil.
The Twelve taken as a whole probably don't care much about Good or Evil, no. We've been saying this for a long time. But it so happens that paladins have to follow some rules, because some god or other decided it'd be cool to have characters who need to follow a strict Lawful Good code, so the gods (including the Evil ones) have to judge them on that basis.

But again, that they didn't go the extra mile with their display doesn't mean they don't consider them to have transgressed.

Lacuna Caster

2019-01-23, 09:30 AM

The "legal ruler of nation" bit does seem to be pretty important...
Shojo wasn't the 'legal' or 'legitimate' anything at the point where Miko killed him. That's my point. To the extent that one might imagine Miko owes some special duty of care and deference to Shojo due to his position, his position also entailed obligations to Miko, the other paladins, and his city that he was not living up to, which gave her particularly strong grounds for judging him. The Mandate of Heaven is supposed to be a two-way street.

They're all paladins - makes sense that they'd know their own Code inside out, better than we do.
Oh, I'm basically in agreement that Gin-Jun broke the code. But again, there's virtually no evidence that the Gods themselves actually care about the code, so why should this matter?

Shojo is not a Paladin, and, thus,not subject to the forces of Law and Good, as Miko did. Also, he ended up being murdered by his adoptive daughter...
Miko was not Shojo's adoptive daughter. This has already been covered (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?557625-New-Prequel-Book!-Order-of-the-Stick-Good-Deeds-Gone-Unpunished-(Book-1-2)&p=23074831&viewfull=1#post23074831) in some detail.

woweedd

2019-01-23, 09:34 AM

Shojo wasn't the 'legal' or 'legitimate' anything at the point where Miko killed him. That's my point. To the extent that one might imagine Miko owes some special duty of care and deference to Shojo due to his position, his position also entailed obligations to Miko, the other paladins, and his city that he was not living up to, which gave her particularly strong grounds for judging him. The Mandate of Heaven is supposed to be a two-way street.

Oh, I'm basically in agreement that Gin-Jun broke the code. But again, there's virtually no evidence that the Gods themselves actually care about the code, so why should this matter?

Miko was not Shojo's adoptive daughter. This has already been covered (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?557625-New-Prequel-Book!-Order-of-the-Stick-Good-Deeds-Gone-Unpunished-(Book-1-2)&p=23074831&viewfull=1#post23074831) in some detail.
Shojo does not posses the mandate of heaven. He is not a paladin, not bound by their code, which is necessary as his position as civilian rule may sometimes necessitate he make non-Good decisions. Neither the gods nor the forces of lawful good may impose their morals on someone who does not, and never claimed to, adhere to them. Paladins are governed by the forces of Law and Good. They are not merely variant Clerics.

Synesthesy

2019-01-23, 09:36 AM

Why am I sure that this thread will derail pretty fast? :smalleek:

hroþila

2019-01-23, 09:36 AM

Shojo wasn't the 'legal' or 'legitimate' anything at the point where Miko killed him. That's my point.
Shojo was all those things until the courts determined he wasn't.

Lacuna Caster

2019-01-23, 09:38 AM

First of all, those 30 people are paladins who are familiar with the code and perfectly capable of guessing what might constitute a Fall-inducing breach...
This apparently did not occur to them 20 or 30 paladins who assaulted Redcloak's village, so no, I don't think this is a particularly sound conclusion. We're not talking about incidental collateral damage from fireball-based carpet bombing either, we're looking at paladins going out of their way to slaughter an entire civilian population for no particularly clear reason. Why would they behave this way if they all know what the standard D&D paladin code entails?

The Twelve taken as a whole probably don't care much about Good or Evil, no. We've been saying this for a long time...
Have we now? Because this entire argument started, IIRC, with Kish asserting that Miko being stripped of her powers was a sign of committing an evil act. I countered that the Twelve have tolerated plenty of evil acts by other azurite paladins, and, well here we are.

Synesthesy

2019-01-23, 09:46 AM

Have we now? Because this entire argument started, IIRC, with Kish asserting that Miko being stripped of her powers was a sign of committing an evil act. I countered that the Twelve have tolerated plenty of evil acts by other azurite paladins, and, well here we are.

Define evil.

Because I think that the point is all there: the twelve Gods use a definition of evil for their paladin that is not the definition we would use. And this because they built a world that isn't fair for some people, like the Goblins people.

We can argue that dnd rules aren't fair from the beginning, but whatever, let's stick to ootsverse (pun intended).

hamishspence

2019-01-23, 09:49 AM

Shojo wasn't the 'legal' or 'legitimate' anything at the point where Miko killed him. That's my point.

It would appear that The Giant disagrees as to what constitutes a legal ruler.

Lacuna Caster

2019-01-23, 09:53 AM

Define evil.
Okay, fine. If the Twelve are using some radically different definition of 'evil' or some alternate formulation of the code, then their servants can do whatever. But then this is not a story about the flaws of paladins, because paladins don't actually appear in the story.

Shojo does not posses the mandate of heaven. He is not a paladin, not bound by their code, which is necessary as his position as civilian rule may sometimes necessitate he make non-Good decisions...
Actually, Shojo did swear the same oaths as the rest of the Guard, or he wouldn't be permitted to be directly in charge of the organisation. So he could, in fact, be judged by those standards, were one so inclined. There was just no supernatural enforcement of those oaths.

Shojo was all those things until the courts determined he wasn't.
The same courts that formed part of the government that Shojo had spent decades kneecapping so it was directly dependent on him to function? Good luck with that.

hamishspence

2019-01-23, 09:58 AM

Actually, Shojo did swear the same oaths as the rest of the Guard, or he wouldn't be permitted to be directly in charge of the organisation.

Shojo swore a oath to Not Interfere With The Other Gates:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0290.html

we've got no reason to believe he swore "all the regular paladin oaths" though.

"I command the paladins - I have never claimed to be one":

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0289.html

Oh, I'm basically in agreement that Gin-Jun broke the code. But again, there's virtually no evidence that the Gods themselves actually care about the code, so why should this matter?

It matters because paladins Fall for "grossly breaking the Code" not specifically for "incurring the wrath of their pantheon".

If you agree that he didn't just break the code, but "grossly broke the code" then that means you agree he Fell.

Kish

2019-01-23, 11:37 AM

You know what? I don't think there's any good reason for Miko to be treated as having screwed up more than Gin-Jun. Rich can (and did) talk about the context, and Miko having executed the ruler of her nation on a glorified hunch, but...either the context matters and Gin-Jun the fascist is the worst of the two and the one who really should have gotten the "personal firing by the CEO," or the context doesn't matter and both of them are guilty of murderously stabbing someone unarmed, defenseless, and good-aligned (with Miko just being a little more successful at the "murder" part).

Ironically, I think Miko ultimately got the light show because she was a more important character than Gin-Jun. The moment when Gin-Jun went from "fascist who's kept his personal hands clean enough to still have magic powers" to "fascist who hasn't kept his personal hands clean enough to still have magic powers" didn't make any difference to the fundamentally one-dimensional character he was written to be.

(hamishspence, could you change the thread to "spoilers for How the Paladin Got His Scar"? Just "spoilers" doesn't help anyone decide whether to click on it or not unless they're avoiding all print-only content.)

My theory was that, back when Soon found out about the gates, he was given a mandate from the whole pantheon to found the Sapphire Guard to protect them. The fact that (aside from the leader) they're almost all paladins, is him projecting his own ideas on it.

Thus, the whole pantheon, even the Evil ones, care about the Sapphire Guard and its actions, at least insofar as they protect the Gates.

And they care about the wellbeing of its leader.

Thus, for a Sapphire Guard member to destroy the leader of the Sapphire Guard is, from the pantheon's point of view, an offense against them all.
Okay, so Tsukiko actually should have lost her cleric powers when she turned to attack Azure City's defenders? That's the logical extension of any case that the Twelve Gods were specifically backing Azure City, Shojo, or the Sapphire Guard. My position has been that it's silly to say an entire mixed-alignment pantheon was invested in a Lawful Good city--and my position remains that, but if you're going to join in some of Lacuna's wackier premises, at least also join him in following them to their logical conclusion.

hamishspence

2019-01-23, 11:57 AM

(hamishspence, could you change the thread to "spoilers for How the Paladin Got His Scar"? Just "spoilers" doesn't help anyone decide whether to click on it or not unless they're avoiding all print-only content.)

There's a limited amount of space in the title - but I've changed it - to the abbreviation.

You know what? I don't think there's any good reason for Miko to be treated as having screwed up more than Gin-Jun. Rich can (and did) talk about the context, and Miko having executed the ruler of her nation on a glorified hunch, but...either the context matters and Gin-Jun the fascist is the worst of the two and the one who really should have gotten the "personal firing by the CEO," or the context doesn't matter and both of them are guilty of murderously stabbing someone unarmed, defenseless, and good-aligned (with Miko just being a little more successful at the "murder" part).

My theory is that Miko's actions were far more offensive to the evil members of the Twelve, than Gin-Jun's were.

That Shojo became the "servant of all Twelve Gods" when he became the leader of the Guard - and thus, killing him offended them all.

Okay, so Tsukiko actually should have lost her cleric powers when she turned to attack Azure City's defenders? That's the logical extension of any case that the Twelve Gods were specifically backing Azure City, Shojo, or the Sapphire Guard.

She's not a member of the Guard though.

The Guard were created, not to defend the city, but to defend the planet, by protecting the gates (their gate, in particular).

IMO, to get "blue-bolted" Tsukiko would need to offend the Evil members of the Twelve, by endangering the whole Southern Continent, rather than Azure City specifically.

woweedd

2019-01-23, 12:20 PM

You know what? I don't think there's any good reason for Miko to be treated as having screwed up more than Gin-Jun. Rich can (and did) talk about the context, and Miko having executed the ruler of her nation on a glorified hunch, but...either the context matters and Gin-Jun the fascist is the worst of the two and the one who really should have gotten the "personal firing by the CEO," or the context doesn't matter and both of them are guilty of murderously stabbing someone unarmed, defenseless, and good-aligned (with Miko just being a little more successful at the "murder" part).

Ironically, I think Miko ultimately got the light show because she was a more important character than Gin-Jun. The moment when Gin-Jun went from "fascist who's kept his personal hands clean enough to still have magic powers" to "fascist who hasn't kept his personal hands clean enough to still have magic powers" didn't make any difference to the fundamentally one-dimensional character he was written to be.

(hamishspence, could you change the thread to "spoilers for How the Paladin Got His Scar"? Just "spoilers" doesn't help anyone decide whether to click on it or not unless they're avoiding all print-only content.)

Okay, so Tsukiko actually should have lost her cleric powers when she turned to attack Azure City's defenders? That's the logical extension of any case that the Twelve Gods were specifically backing Azure City, Shojo, or the Sapphire Guard. My position has been that it's silly to say an entire mixed-alignment pantheon was invested in a Lawful Good city--and my position remains that, but if you're going to join in some of Lacuna's wackier premises, at least also join him in following them to their logical conclusion.
Agreed. In fact, in many ways, I think Gin-Jun was a re-do of Miko, how Rich, older and hypothetically wiser, would have written her, with how he's improved as a writer since then. That's why Miko has defenders, and Gin-Jun, mostly, doesn't. Gin-Jun is what Miko was meant to be, an authoritarian POS who uses his "mandate form the gods" as just an excuse to kill so long as he has the theoretically moral high ground. Indeed, Miko in the intro to SOD, and Miko in the bonus strips written after her death, acts a lot like Gin, and that's the point. He is how Rich would have written Miko, with the benefit of a decade more writing experience.

The Aboleth

2019-01-23, 12:23 PM

IMO, to get "blue-bolted" Tsukiko would need to offend the Evil members of the Twelve, by endangering the whole Southern Continent, rather than Azure City specifically.

In one of the more recent strips, Thor does make it a point to mention how upset Rat--one of the Twelve's Evil gods--is at the Dark One for the conquest of Azure City. I don't think it's a big stretch to extrapolate that to "He was upset at Miko's murder of Shojo" because that act demonstrably weakened the defenses of Azure City against the invading goblins (remember some soldiers desert specifically because of the uncertainty around Shojo's death/Hinjo's ascension to the throne).

hamishspence

2019-01-23, 12:30 PM

Peelee

2019-01-23, 12:52 PM

hamishspence

2019-01-23, 12:58 PM

Put me on the "context matters and Gin-Jun the fascist is the worse of the two" side

On a "how bad a person can a not-fallen Paladin be" scale, I'd agree that Gin-Jun and Origin of PCs Paladin were worse people than pre-fallen Miko was at her worst.

KorvinStarmast

2019-01-23, 01:28 PM

The Evil gods of the pantheon approve of slaughtering goblin toddlers. On a "it's the only way to be sure that goblins won't come back and revenge themselves" principle.
This, IMO, is why those paladins weren't "Blue-bolted".
Only when all the pantheon's gods, Evil and Good alike, are angry, do they break out the blue bolts. That makes sense. There is also a little bit of a world/setting/expectation variation OoTS. The bog standard assumption in most editions of D&D is that a paladin serves a god rather than a dozen gods of different alignments. (In 3.5e this seems to get the 'one step rule' treatment ...)

I like that the Azure Guard can be serving all of the Twelve; I hope that was Rich's intent. (Setting wise)

hamishspence

2019-01-23, 01:31 PM

I like that the Azure Guard can be serving all of the Twelve; I hope that was Rich's intent. (Setting wise)

Shojo, as their leader, despite having no powers, is "a direct servant of one or more gods":

Interesting how you repeatedly assume that Shojo is a secular leader and that he is acting based on the legal procedures of a mortal nation. Instead of, you know, a direct servant of one or more gods granted a holy mandate that knows no borders.

Makes sense to me that he'd be serving all twelve, by protecting the Southern Continent Gate.

KorvinStarmast

2019-01-23, 01:31 PM

And for all we know, the "magic items that only function for a paladin in good standing" are a fairly new invention. Nope. That goes back to Original D&D, three books + Greyhawk, where Paladin arrived.
Greyhawk Page 8:
Paladins with any form of "Holy Sword" are virtually immune to all magic (see
MONSTERS & TREASURE, MAGIC & TREASURE, Swords).
Greyhawk page 46

Holy Sword +5. As a Holy Sword this weapon will display its true worth only in the hands of a Paladin. Wielded by a Paladin it negates all spells (including wands and staves and the like) in a radius of 1", thus making the Paladin virtually magic-proof. Won't comment on the lore of Roland of Roncevalle's sword, Durandal, but Excalibur/Arthur seems to need the rightful king to own it ... (though whether Arthur is a paladin is beyond scope ...)

I don't think the blue bolt is anything more than "Rich wanted this to be dramatic," or if you prefer, "This is the first time in the history of the OotS world that a paladin has actually murdered the entirely defenseless head of their own order." Makes sense.

hamishspence

2019-01-23, 01:34 PM

Nope. That goes back to Original D&D, three books + Greyhawk, where Paladin arrived.

In 3.0-3.5, at least, magic items that permanently lose all their powers when worn by a non-paladin, aren't standard rules. While they might exist in OD&D, I got the impression from War & XPs commentary that The Giant homebrewed them up for OoTS 3.5.

KorvinStarmast

2019-01-23, 01:35 PM

In 3.0-3.5, at least, magic items that permanently lose all their powers when worn by a non-paladin, aren't standard rules. While they might exist in OD&D, I got the impression from War & XPs commentary that The Giant homebrewed them up for OoTS 3.5.
OK, fair enough, OoTS is 3.5 centric.

Makes sense to me that he'd be serving all twelve, by protecting the Southern Continent Gate. against a god eating abomination. Makes sense to me.

The Guard were created, not to defend the city, but to defend the planet, by protecting the gates (their gate, in particular). IMO, to get "blue-bolted" Tsukiko would need to offend the Evil members of the Twelve, by endangering the whole Southern Continent, rather than Azure City specifically. Fits. And as Aboleth pointed out, Rat was upset ... but perhaps Tiamat not as upset?

Jasdoif

2019-01-23, 02:57 PM

In 3.0-3.5, at least, magic items that permanently lose all their powers when worn by a non-paladin, aren't standard rules.The closest I can think of offhand...is how a holy avenger has a lot more powers when wielded by a paladin, and how the DMG's custom magic item guidelines suggest a 30% price reduction if a magic item requires a specific class or alignment to use it.

Synesthesy

2019-01-23, 03:35 PM

Agreed. In fact, in many ways, I think Gin-Jun was a re-do of Miko, how Rich, older and hypothetically wiser, would have written her, with how he's improved as a writer since then. That's why Miko has defenders, and Gin-Jun, mostly, doesn't. Gin-Jun is what Miko was meant to be, an authoritarian POS who uses his "mandate form the gods" as just an excuse to kill so long as he has the theoretically moral high ground. Indeed, Miko in the intro to SOD, and Miko in the bonus strips written after her death, acts a lot like Gin, and that's the point. He is how Rich would have written Miko, with the benefit of a decade more writing experience.

Yes and no, IMHO.

Miko and Gin-Jun represent the same thing - a person immune to the fear of being wrong - but they aren't at all the same person, and this is clear if you see how Gin-Jun story ended, and how Miko's did.

Gin-Jun was a leader, while Miko was a soldier, albeit a powerful one. Gin-Jun did make the decisions. Gin-Jun led the paladins into the crusade for the Crimson Mantle, he's the one who gave the order to kill every goblin in sight, even women and children.

Miko was only a gear of a machine that Gin-Jun moved for years. She was a orphane, raised as a Monk, then adopted by the guard. They raised her, they educated her, they made her this way. And while we can argue she wasn't a good person, she never did anything near what Gin-Jun did. Instead, Miko was always looking for the right things to do, and she tried until the very end.

This is not to open a debate about Miko vs Gin, but just to say that they are very different characters. I don't think that it's only a matter of experience, but that the Giant ment them to be different and to be both exactly the way they are.

This also because old Miko is more interesting than newer Gin. IMHO.

Lacuna Caster

2019-01-23, 04:45 PM

In one of the more recent strips, Thor does make it a point to mention how upset Rat--one of the Twelve's Evil gods--is at the Dark One for the conquest of Azure City. I don't think it's a big stretch to extrapolate that to "He was upset at Miko's murder of Shojo" because that act demonstrably weakened the defenses of Azure City against the invading goblins (remember some soldiers desert specifically because of the uncertainty around Shojo's death/Hinjo's ascension to the throne).
Yes, if only there had been some method (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1150.html) by which Shojo could have returned to serve his city in it's direst hour of need.

Agreed. In fact, in many ways, I think Gin-Jun was a re-do of Miko, how Rich, older and hypothetically wiser, would have written her, with how he's improved as a writer since then. That's why Miko has defenders, and Gin-Jun, mostly, doesn't. Gin-Jun is what Miko was meant to be, an authoritarian POS who uses his "mandate form the gods" as just an excuse to kill...
What makes you think Miko was 'meant to be' a monodimensional punching bag villain if she was originally written in ways that were demonstrably different from Gin-Jun? You think Rich had her run into a burning building and rescue the helpless by accident?

If you agree that he didn't just break the code, but "grossly broke the code" then that means you agree he Fell.
By this standard, I'd have considered plenty of other things he did prior to O-Chul's duel to be fall-worthy, and he can't both Fallen and in charge of the guard. So, no, unfortunately, I don't see any real connection between gross violations of the code and falling.

Peelee

2019-01-23, 04:50 PM

Yes, if only there had been some method (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1150.html) by which Shojo could have returned to serve his city in it's direst hour of need.

Nobody is accusing Shojo of being a saint. You saw the ending we get if Han Solo doesn't return to the the Death Star attack. That he didn't come back to stop the villains from winning the fight doesn't mean he couldn't have.

Lacuna Caster

2019-01-23, 05:08 PM

I like that the Azure Guard can be serving all of the Twelve; I hope that was Rich's intent. (Setting wise)
Whereas I consider it to raise all manner of bafflement (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?578127-Belkar-s-Alignment&p=23648012&viewfull=1#post23648012).

hamishspence

2019-01-23, 05:20 PM

I don't see any real connection between gross violations of the code and falling.

Three things will cause a standard paladin to Fall. "Gross violation of Code" "Evil Act" "Changing alignment to something that is not LG".

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

Ex-Paladins
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).

hroþila

2019-01-23, 05:25 PM

This apparently did not occur to them 20 or 30 paladins who assaulted Redcloak's village, so no, I don't think this is a particularly sound conclusion. We're not talking about incidental collateral damage from fireball-based carpet bombing either, we're looking at paladins going out of their way to slaughter an entire civilian population for no particularly clear reason. Why would they behave this way if they all know what the standard D&D paladin code entails?
We didn't see the 20 or 30 paladins who assaulted Redcloak's village do Fall-worthy things. If they had thought about it out of combat, I find it likely that even those members who eventually fell (if any) would have agreed that what they ended up doing would lead to their Fall.

At any rate, none of this changes the fact that literally no one said they get to vote on it.

Have we now? Because this entire argument started, IIRC, with Kish asserting that Miko being stripped of her powers was a sign of committing an evil act. I countered that the Twelve have tolerated plenty of evil acts by other azurite paladins, and, well here we are.
You took my quote, removed the bit that addressed the counterpoint you wanted to make, then made said counterpoint. Huh, OK then. I guess this is my exit cue.

KorvinStarmast

2019-01-23, 05:48 PM

Whereas I consider it to raise all manner of bafflement (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?578127-Belkar-s-Alignment&p=23648012&viewfull=1#post23648012).
Certainly. The basic (core) 3.5 alignment deal, and the basic Paladin (core rules) deal do not seem to fit with the OoTS variation that is "serve a pantheon" versus "serve one deity." But I personally find it appealing that Miko, an LG paladin, prays to and serves The Twelve gods (a pantheon).
I like it.
Yes, it creates some mechanical things that look wrong for the paladin class.

The only 3.5e book I have left is the Complete Divine which does not, alas, address paladins. It has a small blurb about serving a pantheon, but that's aimed at clerics.

Kish

2019-01-23, 05:50 PM

As someone who has argued that Miko might have Fallen because she shifted alignment in the Chaotic direction or because she committed a gross violation of the paladin code against people insisting that she clearly committed an evil act for years before you showed up on this board, I'm pretty sure you don't RC. Though I could be wrong, I suppose.

KorvinStarmast

2019-01-23, 05:55 PM

hamishspence

2019-01-23, 05:57 PM

Certainly. The basic (core) 3.5 alignment deal, and the basic Paladin (core rules) deal do not seem to fit with the OoTS variation that is "serve a pantheon" versus "serve one deity."

In Core, paladin spells, at least, are described as coming from "the forces of law and good" rather than any specific deity - at least, by default:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/divineSpells.htm

Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells. The divine forces of law and good power paladin spells.

Lacuna Caster

2019-01-23, 06:20 PM

We didn't see the 20 or 30 paladins who assaulted Redcloak's village do Fall-worthy things.
The argument I was hearing was that the paladins judging Gin-Jun must be reliable in their judgement of what is and isn't fall-worthy, which is blatantly untrue when we see members of the same organisation cutting down a crowd that consisted in large part of unresisting goblin civilians. When their superior declared "exterminate the rest and let us be done here", that was their cue to say "sir, what are you doing?" and/or forcibly restrain any colleagues who seemed intent on cutting down 'lil green toddlers. I would consider that the bare minimum required to avoid the 'association with evil' clause from triggering.

If they had thought about it out of combat, I find it likely that even those members who eventually fell (if any) would have agreed that what they ended up doing would lead to their Fall... ...You took my quote, removed the bit that addressed the counterpoint you wanted to make, then made said counterpoint...
Why do you consider it likely when there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest it? If they knew it would trigger a fall, why do it in the first place?

You're asserting that paladins in OOTS are held accountable to an LG code distinct from the Gods' own views on morality. I see absolutely nothing in the text to suggest that any such code is actually enforced, and much to suggest that it isn't. It's basically not plausible that institutional behaviour like this would be sustained so long unless the Gods were turning a very blind eye.

Certainly. The basic (core) 3.5 alignment deal, and the basic Paladin (core rules) deal do not seem to fit with the OoTS variation that is "serve a pantheon" versus "serve one deity." But I personally find it appealing that Miko, an LG paladin, prays to and serves The Twelve gods (a pantheon).
I like it.
Yes, it creates some mechanical things that look wrong for the paladin class.
Oh, I have no problem with paladins serving a pantheon. I just have problems with paladins with an emphatically black-and-white-morality willingly serving a pantheon that holds it's clerics to such radically different ethical standards that they can fly around gleefully murdering their fellow citizens.

As someone who has argued that Miko might have Fallen because she shifted alignment in the Chaotic direction or because she committed a gross violation of the paladin code against people insisting that she clearly committed an evil act for years before you showed up...
I never said that Miko killing Shojo was non-evil. I'm just pointing out that using the Gods' disapproval to infer this is fallacious, given their tepid or nonexistent sanctions against other evil actions by their followers.

woweedd

2019-01-23, 06:25 PM

The argument I was hearing was that the paladins judging Gin-Jun must be reliable in their judgement of what is and isn't fall-worthy, which is blatantly untrue when we see members of the same organisation cutting down a crowd that consisted in large part of unresisting goblin civilians. When their superior declared "exterminate the rest and let us be done here", that was their cue to say "sir, what are you doing?" and/or forcibly restrain any colleagues who seemed intent on cutting down 'lil green toddlers. I would consider that the bare minimum required to avoid the 'association with evil' clause from triggering.

Why do you consider it likely when there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest it? If they knew it would trigger a fall, why do it in the first place?

You're asserting that paladins in OOTS are held accountable to an LG code distinct from the Gods' own views on morality. I see absolutely nothing in the text to suggest that any such code is actually enforced, and much to suggest that it isn't. It's basically not plausible that institutional behaviour like this would be sustained so long unless the Gods were turning a very blind eye.

Oh, I have no problem with paladins serving a pantheon. I just have problems with paladins with an emphatically black-and-white-morality willingly serving a pantheon that holds it's clerics to such radically different ethical standards that they can fly around gleefully murdering their fellow citizens.

I never said that Miko killing Shojo was non-evil. I'm just pointing out that using the Gods' disapproval to infer this is fallacious, given their tepid or nonexistent sanctions against other evil actions by their followers.
Once again, by vanilla-D&D, Paladins don't serve the gods. They serve the CONCEPTS of Law and Good. I admit Rich is at fault for creating confusion, but there's no reason to think his Paladins don't work the same way. And, even if they did, Clerics are not Paladins, and "the gods" are not synonymous with "the Paladin code". Take it up with WOTC, if you want to talk about that.

hamishspence

2019-01-23, 06:26 PM

I would consider that the bare minimum required to avoid the 'association with evil' clause from triggering.

The clause in question:

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.

Kish

2019-01-23, 06:26 PM

Y'know, Lacuna, quoting part of what I said and addressing something I didn't say at all is a bad approach to making me trust your IIRC.

...and in fact, I'm going to say that this habit of cutting quotes off in mid-sentence with "..." with actual content elided, is a lot like shouting, "I'm arguing dishonestly here!" Just a thought.

hamishspence

2019-01-23, 06:34 PM

When their superior declared "exterminate the rest and let us be done here", that was their cue to say "sir, what are you doing?" and/or forcibly restrain any colleagues who seemed intent on cutting down 'lil green toddlers.

The code does demand that a paladin "punish those who harm (or threaten) innocents" but it doesn't actually demand that they protect innocents. Though, being under attack may qualify as a form of "in need".

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

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.

Being Good, however, does demand actual protective behaviour:

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

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life.

It would appear that these particular paladins don't perceive goblin toddlers as innocent. They're wrong, of course, but their actions are influenced by their perceptions.

Lacuna Caster

2019-01-23, 06:44 PM

Y'know, Lacuna, quoting part of what I said and addressing something I didn't say at all is a bad approach to making me trust your IIRC...
No, no, wait, you're right. The original remark (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?578127-Belkar-s-Alignment/page22) was about Miko being non-lawful, which was followed up by Callista bringing up Miko's fall as an evil act, so I guess I confused the two.

Well. That could have saved me a lot of trouble.

Once again, by vanilla-D&D, Paladins don't serve the gods. They serve the CONCEPTS of Law and Good. I admit Rich is at fault for creating confusion, but there's no reason to think his Paladins don't work the same way. And, even if they did, Clerics are not Paladins, and "the gods" are not synonymous with "the Paladin code". Take it up with WOTC, if you want to talk about that.
I don't understand what point you're making? Are you saying the concepts of law and good would be more tolerant of what Gin-Jun & Co. get up to?

The clause in question...
I mean in the broader sense of 'evil by inaction', unless you think standing by and doing nothing when someone on your team is killing children in front of you is legit paladin behaviour.

hamishspence

2019-01-23, 06:53 PM

I mean in the broader sense of 'evil by inaction', unless you think standing by and doing nothing when someone on your team is killing children in front of you is legit paladin behaviour.

It's possible that a certain amount of inaction is permissible.

Kish had some interesting things to say on this subject:

I suspect, based on his statements (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16033651&postcount=78) here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16033209&postcount=46) that treating nonhumans as humanoid virii was certainly evil and yet his indication that the situation with the Sapphire Guard slaughtering proto-Redcloak's village wasn't as simple as, "They all fell like rocks," that Rich may define violations of the paladin code strictly in terms of actions rather than inactions (i.e., it's never a Fall-worthy offense to not prevent someone else from doing something, as long as you don't do it yourself, and those paladins who scrupulously attacked just combatants, or even just priests of the Dark One, and killed them quickly, despite ignoring the slaughter of innocents in front of them, were able to summon their mounts and ride back to Azure City double with their more bloodthirsty no-longer-able-to-summon-mounts ex-companions). That's not the way I'd treat it, but it's at least consistent and comprehensible.

Lacuna Caster

2019-01-23, 07:06 PM

It's possible that a certain amount of inaction is permissible.
Again, sure, if the servants of the twelve who call themselves paladins are actually operating under some alternative code of conduct or a different definition of evil, then they can do whatever. But then they're not actually D&D paladins operating in a universe based on objective moral standards, and you can't make appeals to standard D&D mechanics to explain who falls and who doesn't.

Ruck

2019-01-23, 10:09 PM

You took my quote, removed the bit that addressed the counterpoint you wanted to make, then made said counterpoint. Huh, OK then. I guess this is my exit cue.

Y'know, Lacuna, quoting part of what I said and addressing something I didn't say at all is a bad approach to making me trust your IIRC.

...and in fact, I'm going to say that this habit of cutting quotes off in mid-sentence with "..." with actual content elided, is a lot like shouting, "I'm arguing dishonestly here!" Just a thought.

Weird how often (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?578127-Belkar-s-Alignment/page22&p=23649194#post23649194) that comes up (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?576774-Why-didn-t-Shojo-just-send-his-wizard-to-fetch-the-order/page13&p=23650050#post23650050). I wonder how many different people have to call out Lacuna for arguing in bad faith before he stops doing that. (I don't think it would matter, as he's said before that he wouldn't be convinced by literally everyone on the board disagreeing with him about something; like his hero Miko, he will never "even acknowledge that he could, in fact, be wrong.")

LadyEowyn

2019-01-23, 10:39 PM

My sense is that Miko got the “blue bolt of disapproval” because she killed her defenseless liege lord, the person who was primarily responsible for protecting the Gate, while an army seeking to control the Gate was headed for the city.

She took an action that was severely non-LG and that was utterly and imminently destructive to the purpose the Sapphire Guard was created for. I can see why the combination of those two things would provoke the personal intervention of the Twelve Gods in the way that an action that was “merely” the former (even if more egregiously so) would not. Gin-Jun’s actions were, a O-Chul pounted out, counterproductive to the security of Azurites, but they were not as immediately and massively opposite to the Sapphire Guard’s defining purpose of defending the Gates as Miko’s were.

However, I do agree that the prequel books (SOD, HTPGHS, and OTOOPC) show paladins behaving in ways that would, by any reasonable definition of Lawful Good, cause them to fall; and it’s rather convenient for Rich that the black-and-white art means we have no visual demonstration of whether a paladin has fallen.

(I think there’s a pretty strong indication that Gin-Jun did Fall at some point, because there’s no way a lower-level acolyte could one-hit-kill a paladin.)

KorvinStarmast

2019-01-24, 12:18 AM

(I think there’s a pretty strong indication that Gin-Jun did Fall at some point, because there’s no way a lower-level acolyte could one-hit-kill a paladin.) in the hands of an author, any hit can be a critical hit, or a lethal hit, and a complete jerk can be attractive to a good looking lady. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0622.html)

Peelee

2019-01-24, 12:23 AM

in the hands of an author, any hit can be a critical hit, or a lethal hit, and a complete jerk can be attractive to a good looking lady. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0622.html)

And in the hands of a good author, said hit will be believable. I have no problem believing Gin-Jun fell when he struck flesh while attacking O-Chul.

Ruck

2019-01-24, 12:26 AM

in the hands of an author, any hit can be a critical hit, or a lethal hit, and a complete jerk can be attractive to a good looking lady. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0622.html)

Heh, I just realized that Belkar in that scene exhibits all three tenets of The Tao of Steve. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Steve)

hamishspence

2019-01-24, 02:36 AM

The Aboleth

2019-01-24, 01:14 PM

Again, sure, if the servants of the twelve who call themselves paladins are actually operating under some alternative code of conduct or a different definition of evil, then they can do whatever. But then they're not actually D&D paladins operating in a universe based on objective moral standards, and you can't make appeals to standard D&D mechanics to explain who falls and who doesn't.

They're not D&D Paladins; they are OOTS Paladins. Rich is on record saying that the world doesn't operate under D&D rules, but OOTS rules--which are like D&D rules except when they aren't. I can't pull up the exact quote at the moment, but I believe it is in the Index.

And yes, I know that saying "D&D rules except when not" is like splitting hairs, because it is basically the same thing as D&D. But even then--and as others have pointed out--D&D can be highly subjective, especially in regards to alignment. If Rich's interpretation of the Paladin Code is different from your own, then that's just how it goes in OOTS world.

EDIT:

The point is that The Giant has a different standard from yours - not that the standard contradicts D&D. After all, alignment interpretation from DM to DM is heavily subjective.

Not sure how I missed the post, but I agree with the above.

Jasdoif

2019-01-24, 01:59 PM

They're not D&D Paladins; they are OOTS Paladins. Rich is on record saying that the world doesn't operate under D&D rules, but OOTS rules--which are like D&D rules except when they aren't. I can't pull up the exact quote at the moment, but I believe it is in the Index.This one?

As far as this thread goes, or any other attempt to align the events of the comic with D&D, my suggestion is to treat the comic as if it is based on "OOTS RPG," a hypothetical game that is exactly like D&D in every way—except for those ways that the comic shows that it isn't. Everything is D&D until proven otherwise. Because that's sort of how I write it; I use the D&D rules when they fit into the story (and I remember them), and break them when they don't. Thus, you can still extrapolate D&D stats of the characters unless I show something that simply defies the game as written—like Roy casting a fireball. And you can still make predictions about what might happen in the future as if it were all going to unfold according to the D&D rules, as long as you understand that hey, maybe I might fudge that one. And then don't complain if I do.

Snails

2019-01-24, 02:16 PM

Only when all the pantheon's gods, Evil and Good alike, are angry, do they break out the blue bolts.

I think that is the key. Miko's action drew the anger of all 12 gods simultaneously, and the display is the manifestation of an extremely rare instant consensus of the Twelve. That the Twelve could have had 12 entirely reasons for their conclusion is not important. And, in this situation, I think the Evil gods all had a positive conviction of some kind against Miko, not a generic "I vote against paladins because I am evil."

Falling is possible for a Paladin by pissing off one single god you happen to be dedicated to.* Such happens but it is far from common. Some Paladins fall by pissing off a few Good gods. It is a real "accomplishment" to get instantly get more than 11 against you.

* It is not necessarily that Falls happen more often if you are dedicated to a single god as a Paladin. A more focused philosophy also provides more concrete mitigating circumstances. "He failed at Ideal A because he was trying too hard to achieve Ideal B, both of which are important to Me."

The Aboleth

2019-01-24, 02:34 PM

This one?

Yes, thank you! That's the quote.

CriticalFailure

2019-01-27, 03:22 PM

On the topic of falling, is it guaranteed that someone who “slipped up” and fell wouldn’t be allowed to atone and resume/rejoin the guard? Hinjo even suggests this as a possibility for Miko when planning for her to be tried with the assumption that a guilty verdict is guaranteed, and the Aurzurites don’t seem to regard the goblins as having any protections under the law. So it seems plausible that they would give fallen paladins a chance to atone and consider their own ability to atone properly as a test of whether or not they should remain.

The_Weirdo

2019-01-28, 02:11 AM

It's 5 AM here and I need to go to bed if I am to wake up at my usual time of 1 PM, so I won't read the whole thread; has anyone else pointed out that it was a decades-long campaign of such attacks and that, as such, if they didn't Fall on the first, oh, fifty-seven times, they likely didn't Fall on time Four Hundred and Redcloak?

hamishspence

2019-01-28, 02:29 AM

The idea is that only the ones who actually personally killed goblin children or unarmed goblin civilians, would Fall - those who killed armed goblin soldiers, would not.

CriticalFailure

2019-01-28, 02:30 AM

In reply to The Weirdo: Yeah that’s why I was thinking it seems likely they had a more lenient “atonement=theyre still welcome with the gods=they’re still welcome in the guard” policy for eg species not protected under AC law. Dealing with other Azurites they’d be expected to be subject to the legal system, plus their oaths specify specific responsibility towards the Azurite citizens. Whereas with goblins, warcrimes will result in the gods yoinking all those nice class abilities until you atone, but the paladin hasn’t betrayed their specific responsibilities to anyone nor actually violated Azurite law. So the only accountability in behavior towards goblins etc is to the gods, and if the gods decide that an atonement is good enough to give back their class abilities then there’s no reason to not allow them back.

Paschendale

2019-01-28, 02:37 AM

Peelee

2019-01-28, 07:26 AM

Maybe they do the big blue bolt every time, but it only appears to those whom it is affecting? We as omniscient readers saw it, but maybe none of the characters besides Miko saw it in-universe? Maybe only paladins see it? Maybe only plot-relevant characters see it?

Short version? No.

Long version?
Suffice to say that the Twelve Gods are not beholden to put on the same visual display they did for Miko for every paladin who transgresses, and that all transgressions are not created equal. It is possible that some of the paladins who participated in the attack crossed the line. It is also possible that most did not. A paladin who slips up in the execution of their god-given orders does not warrant the same level of personal attention by the gods as one who executes the legal ruler of their nation on a glorified hunch. Think of Miko's Fall as being the equivalent of the CEO of your multinational company showing up in your cubicle to fire you, because you screwed up THAT much.

hamishspence

2019-01-28, 07:43 AM

There's rumbling:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html

And in Spoiler Alert, we actually get to see Therkla overhearing the rumbling.

The_Weirdo

2019-01-28, 09:13 AM

hroþila

2019-01-28, 09:18 AM

So an atinement spell is basically a get-out-of-jail-free card?

And, throughout their campaign, the paladins decided to simply use it instead of, well, not committing atrocities?

And the gods accepted that outcome?
In theory, an Atonement spell requires true repentance.

Peelee

2019-01-28, 09:22 AM

Because there seems to be confusion on the spell...

Atonement
Abjuration
Level: Clr 5, Drd 5

This spell removes the burden of evil acts or misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. Many casters first assign a subject of this sort a quest (see geas/quest) or similar penance to determine whether the creature is truly contrite before casting the atonement spell on its behalf

The_Weirdo

2019-01-28, 09:28 AM

In that case, doesn't it stand to reason that the Twelve Gods did not really mind the war crimes their Paladins committed and, thus, did not depower them?

woweedd

2019-01-28, 09:30 AM

In that case, doesn't it stand to reason that the Twelve Gods did not really mind the war crimes their Paladins committed and, thus, did not depower them?
No, it does not. What part of "rpentance" are you not getting?

The_Weirdo

2019-01-28, 09:32 AM

No, it does not. What part of "rpentance" are you not getting?

The part where it was a decades-long campaign of war crimes, which means these Paladins did it repeatedly.

hamishspence

2019-01-28, 09:32 AM

The few LG ones in the pantheon (it's mixed alignment, after all) might have minded about the excesses of the Sapphire Guard's actions, even if they approved of seeking out "those who would threaten the fabric of existence itself".

Thus (since only a few gods "mind about war crimes"), they can follow the standard rules when it comes to depowering a paladin - a Fall, but no "blue bolt".

The part where it was a decades-long campaign of war crimes, which means these Paladins did it repeatedly.

The "decades long campaign" may have had lots of killing, but only a very few war crimes.

CriticalFailure

2019-01-28, 09:34 AM

I’m not saying that paladins could just use it as an easy way to not care, because it does require “true repentance” etc.

I just meant that killing civilians not protected or recognized under Azurite law/SG oaths might be considered the kind of infraction that, while still bad and requiring repentance to the gods, is up to the gods to judge and not subject to secular law/expulsion from the SG IF the gods decide that the paladin has truely repented. So it couldn’t be something that was constantly happening and being habdwaved with a spell, but it could be something that happens sporadically with different paladins and is looked at as “they went overboard/they didn’t exercise enough caution/they didn’t detect evil enough and did wrong and so they must repent and the gods will judge their worthiness” rather than “they killed the person they were sworn to obey/an Azurite citizen they were sworn to defend and they must be expelled as per SG protocol and be subject to due process under the AC courts.”

Basically it’s possible that some fall worthy actions don’t nevessarily result in permanent dismissal. That being said I’m not trying to say that a paladin atoning with the idea that they can just use the atonement spell to do it again would be considered truly atoning or actually having a LG alignment.

The_Weirdo

2019-01-28, 09:37 AM

The "decades long campaign" may have had lots of killing, but only a very few war crimes.

Theoretically possible, I suppose.

The campaign is still wrong, criminal and evil, but that's another matter.

hamishspence

2019-01-28, 09:44 AM

The campaign is still wrong, criminal and evil, but that's another matter.

Not necessarily. A point is made in Don't Split The Party commentary that the Sapphire Guard, by trying to protect reality from threats to it, are trying to do the right thing - and O-Chul is brought in as the symbol of everything right about the Sapphire Guard.

The_Weirdo

2019-01-28, 09:52 AM

Not necessarily. A point is made in Don't Split The Party commentary that the Sapphire Guard, by trying to protect reality from threats to it, are trying to do the right thing - and O-Chul is brought in as the symbol of everything right about the Sapphire Guard.

I'm sure the innocent goblins in innocent villages saw it that way...

hamishspence

2019-01-28, 09:54 AM

Which is why there's a strong theme of "reform the Sapphire Guard" about O-Chul's joining.

The_Weirdo

2019-01-28, 09:59 AM

Which is why there's a strong theme of "reform the Sapphire Guard" about O-Chul's joining.

Cool. And yet no amends were made. Which, incidentally, is why Gobbotopia now exists.

KorvinStarmast

2019-01-28, 10:07 AM

So an atinement spell is basically a get-out-of-jail-free card? Is it really that hard to click on the SRD for 3.5 for a quick look at spells and what they do?

No, it isn't that hard, if you cleverly use the Bookmark feature of your browser and add this link to it (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/spells.htm).

They are listed alphabetically. Since I don't play 3.5 anymore, I have to refer to that with some frequency when either in comic or in a discussion someone refers to a spell and I want to understand how it works. It'a great resource.

The_Weirdo

2019-01-28, 10:13 AM

Is it really that hard to click on the SRD for 3.5 for a quick look at spells and what they do?

No, it isn't that hard, if you cleverly use the Bookmark feature of your browser and add this link to it (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/spells.htm).

They are listed alphabetically. Since I don't play 3.5 anymore, I have to refer to that with some frequency when either in comic or in a discussion someone refers to a spell and I want to understand how it works. It'a great resource.

It was rhetorical. I know the Atonement spell. I know it's not (supposed to be) a get out of jail free card.

Peelee

2019-01-28, 10:13 AM

Which is why there's a strong theme of "reform the Sapphire Guard" about O-Chul's joining.

In addition, "the goblins got a raw deal" is also a strong theme of the comic.

Keltest

2019-01-28, 10:17 AM

CriticalFailure

2019-01-28, 10:25 AM

There’s a whole lot of space between “atonement can actually be treated as a revolving door to do evil acts as a paladin” and “evil/dubious acts committed against those not recognized under azurite law or respected by them are treated as identically severe to evil/dubious acts against Azurites/humans/player races/etc”

The situation is clearly somewhere between the two.

The_Weirdo

2019-01-28, 10:25 AM

As is "Do they act monstrous because theyre treated like monsters, or are they treated like monsters because they act monstrous?"

Well, let's see.

They were minding their own business.

A decades-long campaign of destroying their villages and killing their inhabitants ensued.

Now... Do they act monstrous because theyre treated like monsters, or are they treated like monsters because they act monstrous?

I don't know. That's one for the ages, I guess.

hamishspence

2019-01-28, 10:29 AM

Keltest

2019-01-28, 10:31 AM

Well, let's see.

They were minding their own business.

A decades-long campaign of destroying their villages and killing their inhabitants ensued.

Now... Do they act monstrous because theyre treated like monsters, or are they treated like monsters because they act monstrous?

I don't know. That's one for the ages, I guess.

I mean, redcloak was being inducted into a religion that is based in part around trying to take over the world by playing with the fabric of reality. Their reactions are unnecessarily extreme at times, but the idea that they should be alarmed is not.

Peelee

2019-01-28, 10:34 AM

The Bearers of the Crimson Mantle weren't "minding their own business". One attempted to seize a gate back in the Order of the Scribble's time - only to be thwarted. The next bearer continued the scheme, and the next, and the next.

The goblins were being exploited by the Bearers of the Crimson Mantle for their schemes.

I mean, redcloak was being inducted into a religion that is based in part around trying to take over the world by playing with the fabric of reality. Their reactions are unnecessarily extreme at times, but the idea that they should be alarmed is not.

Indeed, going by Weirdo logic, The Dark One started the campaign to seize the Gates, so any Azurite crimes are only more blood on his hands. Redcloak should take it up with his Deity.

The_Weirdo

2019-01-28, 10:37 AM

Indeed, going by Weirdo logic, The Dark One started the campaign to seize the Gates, so any Azurite crimes are only more blood on his hands. Redcloak should take it up with his Deity.

Nope.

The deities started it by making goblins as XP fodder and imposing upon them the fate of an "acceptable target" race.

Fyraltari

2019-01-28, 10:43 AM

Nope.

The deities started it by making goblins as XP fodder and imposing upon them the fate of an "acceptable target" race.

So the SG isn't guilty of anything?

Peelee

2019-01-28, 10:45 AM

So the SG isn't guilty of anything?

Of course not. Although, as stated, only The Dark One is, not the other deities. T_W is clearly confused on this matter. Probably dizzy from such twisty logic.

Jack Of Rivia

2019-01-28, 11:07 AM

In addition, "the goblins got a raw deal" is also a strong theme of the comic.

As is "Do they act monstrous because theyre treated like monsters, or are they treated like monsters because they act monstrous?"

This is central, for me.
GOBLINS ARE INFERIOR HUMANOID LIFE, AND KILLING THEM IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY EVIL. That is the whole point of their existence. They were designed this way by the gods, so that the adbenturer could have an humanoid threat with no moral consequences. As orrible as it may sound, from a Divine point of wiew war crimes against the goblinoid are less severe than it would be as against human and demihumans, and the execution of a defensless child of a humanoid evil "godless" race offended less than attacking a defensless human. It is Divine Racism: how could the Gods punish the Paladin for the racist behaviours they established in the first place?

Killing an innocent goblinoid is an evil act, from a subjective point of view: but from a pratical act, it removes a potential "satanist" (this isis what a follower of the Dark One is, from some gods point of view). Miko did not just slaugtered a defensless innocent, she removed a powerful leader of the forces of good directly leading to the Fall of azure city.
And it was also Chaotic as Hell: the paranoia she demonstrated by desregarding all lawful institutions would have made Girard Draketoohth proud. While the War Crimes of SG, even if evil, always happened in a Lawful framework, in the execution of a Divine Mandate.

CriticalFailure

2019-01-28, 11:11 AM

I would guess alignment/morals/deific wise killing innocents holds the same weight, but it’s most likely that for a human the paladin would be required to face trial and SG expulsion even after atoning and being reinstated by the gods, whereas for a goblin that’s not the case.

Ruck

2019-01-28, 11:16 AM

GOBLINS ARE INFERIOR HUMANOID LIFE, AND KILLING THEM IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY EVIL. That is the whole point of their existence.

...have you actually read this comic?

Edit: I can't argue with your point that it's divine racism, but one of the points of this comic is that that's bad.

Jack Of Rivia

2019-01-28, 11:50 AM

...have you actually read this comic?

Edit: I can't argue with your point that it's divine racism, but one of the points of this comic is that that's bad.

I agree with you. BAD, not EVIL. And it explains while some Paladins falls and some other dont

hamishspence

2019-01-28, 11:57 AM

The point made in the very first post in this thread, is that The Giant has made it clear that it is possible to Fall without big dramatic visual imagery.

And IMO this:

it's ridiculous to think that any given six-year-old may have committed a horrible act worthy of being executed unless the text says otherwise, just because that six-year-old has green skin and her parents bring her to their church services. That right there is enough reason for the story to be the way it is. No author should have to take the time to say, "This little girl ISN'T evil, folks!" in order for the reader to understand that. It should be assumed that no first graders are irredeemably Evil unless the text tells you they are.

seems like a strong hint that killing children is Fall-worthy, and there's no "not if they're goblin children" exemption.

The_Weirdo

2019-01-28, 12:02 PM

The point made in the very first post in this thread, is that The Giant has made it clear that it is possible to Fall without big dramatic visual imagery.

And IMO this:

seems like a strong hint that killing children is Fall-worthy, and there's no "not if they're goblin children" exemption.

To be sure - and that's actually one of the main driving points of the plot - it being fall-worthy by any sane measure and it being fall-worthy for the OOTS gods is not necessarily the same thing. It's the main issue here: the gods see goblins as acceptable target. The story does not (nor should it), but the gods certainly do.

hamishspence

2019-01-28, 12:05 PM

the gods see goblins as acceptable target. The story does not (nor should it), but the gods certainly do.

According to The Dark One. He may not be a reliable source.

It's entirely possible that Sapphire Guard paladins Fall for war crimes, without the dramatic visual imagery. And the only gods that "sanction massacres" are the Evil (and maybe the worst Neutral) ones.

But because the Twelve Gods are a pantheon as a whole - the Good ones are bound by certain limitations.

Like not dropping "blue bolts" unless the Evil and Neutral ones feel a blue bolt is called for.

The_Weirdo

2019-01-28, 12:10 PM

According to The Dark One. He may not be a reliable source.

It's entirely possible that Sapphire Guard paladins Fall for war crimes, without the dramatic visual imagery. And the only gods that "sanction massacres" are the Evil (and maybe the worst Neutral) ones.

But because the Twelve Gods are a pantheon as a whole - the Good ones are bound by certain limitations.

Like not dropping "blue bolts" unless the Evil and Neutral ones feel a blue bolt is called for.

Well, yeah, but that's only if we assume that the war crimes were only committed once or by a very few...

D.One

2019-01-28, 12:34 PM

Just to remember the quote that started this thread. There are some very interesting key phrases:

Everything you see happened. However, everything that happened is not necessarily seen.

the Twelve Gods are not beholden to put on the same visual display they did for Miko for every paladin who transgresses, and that all transgressions are not created equal. It is possible that some of the paladins who participated in the attack crossed the line. It is also possible that most did not. A paladin who slips up in the execution of their god-given orders does not warrant the same level of personal attention by the gods as one who executes the legal ruler of their nation on a glorified hunch

we don't see how many paladins afterwards try to heal their wounds and can't, because these things are not important to Redcloak's story

Dramatically, showing no-name paladins Falling at that point in the story would confuse the narrative by making it unclear whether or not Redcloak had already earned a form of retribution against them.

Showing them Fall or not simply was not important to Redcloak's story, so it was omitted.

it would have cheapened Miko's fall to show the same thing over and over

And finally:

(Oh, and I leave it up to the readers to form their own opinions on which paladins may have Fallen and which didn't.)

The_Weirdo

2019-01-28, 12:39 PM

Snip

Yes, certainly. I am aware of all those facts, especially the "visual display" thing (or lack thereof). However, what I'm analyzing is the logics of it all.

If that's a decades-long campaign, it's likely that such crimes were committed more than once. And if the Paladins knew they'll Fall for doing this and that (because others likely did for doing that kind of thing in the previous 54 campaigns), they wouldn't do it...

Keltest

2019-01-28, 12:44 PM

Yes, certainly. I am aware of all those facts, especially the "visual display" thing (or lack thereof). However, what I'm analyzing is the logics of it all.

If that's a decades-long campaign, it's likely that such crimes were committed more than once. And if the Paladins knew they'll Fall for doing this and that (because others likely did for doing that kind of thing in the previous 54 campaigns), they wouldn't do it...

Besides the fact that we have two different examples of high ranking paladins deciding that their personal judgments and desires are more important than any others, the paladins are mortal and this fallible. They can misunderstand, misjudge and get caught up in the moment, the same as anybody else. Heck, if paladins were incapable of those lapses of judgment, falling wouldn't be a thing.

The_Weirdo

2019-01-28, 12:47 PM

Besides the fact that we have two different examples of high ranking paladins deciding that their personal judgments and desires are more important than any others, the paladins are mortal and this fallible. They can misunderstand, misjudge and get caught up in the moment, the same as anybody else. Heck, if paladins were incapable of those lapses of judgment, falling wouldn't be a thing.

Again, I'm not claiming Paladins are incapable of lapses. Or, well, of atrocoties.

I'm claiming that the balance of probabilities indicates that, when those were committed against goblins, the gods did not see much of a problem with it.

Keltest

2019-01-28, 12:50 PM

Again, I'm not claiming Paladins are incapable of lapses. Or, well, of atrocoties.

I'm claiming that the balance of probabilities indicates that, when those were committed against goblins, the gods did not see much of a problem with it.

At which point we again circle around to you choosing to believe that with minimal evidence. And while I would guess a majority of the gods don't care, a majority are also non-good and therefore their opinions are largely meaningless.

Kish

2019-01-28, 12:57 PM

Well, Lacuna seems to have ditched the thread and it's been taken over by the Weirdo.

A lateral move, to be sure.

The_Weirdo

2019-01-28, 12:58 PM

At which point we again circle around to you choosing to believe that with minimal evidence. And while I would guess a majority of the gods don't care, a majority are also non-good and therefore their opinions are largely meaningless.

Unless Redcloak's was among the first few villages to be attacked that way, there were paladins there that had likely heard of others falling for killing children. And if they had, they wouldn't do it. That's not circular.

Well, Lacuna seems to have ditched the thread and it's been taken over by the Weirdo.

A lateral move, to be sure.

Yes, yes, you thoroughly dislike me. But guess what: at this point I'm not arguing about the morality of Redcloak's reaction, I'm analyzing the logic behind the fact that a decades-long campaign that involved those atrocities likely means that said atrocities are not treated as too big a deal by the gods.

Peelee

2019-01-28, 01:02 PM

Besides the fact that we have two different examples of high ranking paladins deciding that their personal judgments and desires are more important than any others, the paladins are mortal and this fallible. They can misunderstand, misjudge and get caught up in the moment, the same as anybody else. Heck, if paladins were incapable of those lapses of judgment, falling wouldn't be a thing.

And, to a more broader point, T_W's argument is akin to saying "if Gods probably existed and afterlives were well-known, then people wouldnt be evil." He doesn't seem to grasp that people can make poor choices even knowing the consequences. Which, hell, is even plentiful enough in the real world.

Keltest

2019-01-28, 01:03 PM

Unless Redcloak's was among the first few villages to be attacked that way, there were paladins there that had likely heard of others falling for killing children. And if they had, they wouldn't do it. That's not circular.

Yes, yes, you thoroughly dislike me. But guess what: at this point I'm not arguing about the morality of Redcloak's reaction, I'm analyzing the logic behind the fact that a decades-long campaign that involved those atrocities likely means that said atrocities are not treated as too big a deal by the gods.

I don't see how that addresses my point at all. The idea that the paladins must have no idea that killing a child is an evil act is a massive stretch. It is far more likely that they didn't care that they didn't know.

The_Weirdo

2019-01-28, 01:05 PM

And, to a more broader point, T_W's argument is akin to saying "if Gods probably existed and afterlives were well-known, then people wouldnt be evil." He doesn't seem to grasp that people can make poor choices even knowing the consequences. Which, hell, is even plentiful enough in the real world.

Most such poor choices are made on the belief that said consequences can be evaded, no?

"It'll be different this time.", "The boss won't find out", "My grandma smoked 78 cigarettes a day and died peacefully in her sleep at the ripe old age of 913", etc?

I don't see how that addresses my point at all. The idea that the paladins must have no idea that killing a child is an evil act is a massive stretch. It is far more likely that they didn't care that they didn't know.

So... The vetting process at the SG is very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad?

Fyraltari

2019-01-28, 01:17 PM

So... The vetting process at the SG is very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad?

Before O-Chul came along it seems to have been "Are you a Noble? Can you kick asses?", which makes the Commander asking Yu wether Lien knows right from wrong more significant.

Keltest

2019-01-28, 01:17 PM

Most such poor choices are made on the belief that said consequences can be evaded, no?

"It'll be different this time.", "The boss won't find out", "My grandma smoked 78 cigarettes a day and died peacefully in her sleep at the ripe old age of 913", etc?

So... The vetting process at the SG is very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad?

Most people don't wake up and think "rawr, ima kill some babies today, oh yeah!" Nor, realistically, is that something they can vet for, short of putting on an elaborate production of attacking a goblin village every time they recruit a member. Everybody has a breaking point where their better judgment is thrown out the window. I can only imagine that the therapy bill for paladins who have to go after threats to reality is quite high.

The_Weirdo

2019-01-28, 01:21 PM

Most people don't wake up and think "rawr, ima kill some babies today, oh yeah!" Nor, realistically, is that something they can vet for, short of putting on an elaborate production of attacking a goblin village every time they recruit a member. Everybody has a breaking point where their better judgment is thrown out the window. I can only imagine that the therapy bill for paladins who have to go after threats to reality is quite high.

There are spells to restore sanity in some supplements.

All of them are lower-level and cheaper than Raise Dead.

woweedd

2019-01-28, 01:26 PM

OK, just so we're clear, what the SG did was wrong, even if it had good motives behind it. Those who killed innocents presumably did lose their powers, not that declared would know, or, indeed, care if you told him. I imagine his repsone would be, in the most bitterly sarcastic tone "so the punishment for murdering my family in front of me was...getting your horsey taken away? Well, NOW I feel vindicated. Clearly no further vengeance is needed." That's just not how he works. His response is disproportionate, and hurts his own people far more then it helps them, but his grievance is legitimate. As far as he's concerned, Falling won't bring back his dead family*. That said, it should be noted: The Gods do not control when Paladins falls, though they are worshiped by them. The Forces of Law And Good control The Paladins, and, no, they aren't controlled by The Gods either. After all, The Gods have Evil alignments, even as, in most D&D settings, they consider themselves the good guys. There's ab bit of a wrinkle here due to OOTS's self-awareness compared to most D&D settings, but the short version is that even The Gods are subject to Good and Evil, and must pick sides accrodingly

*Not least of all since he killed one family member himself when they tried to stop him from wrecking vengeance.

Fyraltari

2019-01-28, 01:26 PM

There are spells to restore sanity in some supplements.

All of them are lower-level and cheaper than Raise Dead.

I'm pretty sure these don't exist in-universe. Can you imagine how unsatisfying it would be if somebody just cast that on Belkar, Miko or Tarquin?

Peelee

2019-01-28, 01:29 PM

Most such poor choices are made on the belief that said consequences can be evaded, no?

....no? I'd say the vast majority simply don't think about the consequences, despite knowing them.

hamishspence

2019-01-28, 01:40 PM

Before O-Chul came along it seems to have been "Are you a Noble? Can you kick asses?", which makes the Commander asking Yu wether Lien knows right from wrong more significant.

Pretty much. Soon had a bunch of samurai (which implies he's a daimyo - same kind of noble as Kubota) and he inducted them.

Fish

2019-02-01, 06:23 PM

I think the thread is overthinking that quote from The Giant, and forgetting one key piece of reality: when he wrote that explanation, we didn't know then all that we know now about the plot. Of course Rich isn't going to say, "The reason the Twelve Gods show up when Miko fell is because Shojo is the leader of the protect-the-Gates squad in Azure City, and yeah, he did swear to some stupid oath, which the Twelve Gods are not totally on board with — I mean, who swears an oath not to help save the world?, jeez — but he's still our guy, and the Twelve Gods really want to show their displeasure at Miko's role in this whole mess." And he's not going to say, "Well, the Twelve Gods don't show up in this story about O-Chul and this other guy, because this isn't a story about the continued repeating destruction of every world the gods have built, so they don't personally take an interest in this." We didn't know that the world has been destroyed and rebuilt millions of times, or that the pantheons had different quiddities, or any of this new stuff. We knew there was a Snarl and ... and maybe there was a world inside, but ... well, that's about it.

I see no sense in clinging to the wording of a quotation that may or may not have been slightly ... well, shaded to keep us from knowing more than was appropriate about the deeper plot behind the scenes. There's only so much parsing and hair-splitting you can do. We only knew some of that stuff when Rich explained things. If Rich explained them all now, it might be a slightly different story.

The Twelve Gods show up in this story because they fit into this story. It doesn't have to be deeper than that.

Kish

2019-02-02, 01:12 AM

Joerg

2019-02-02, 08:43 AM

Again, if that's how all Twelve Gods feel about Azure City and the Sapphire Guard, why does Tsukiko never lose her clerical spellcasting?

I don't think that's how they feel, but if they do, the reason could be that Tsukiko worked against Redcloak. Her actions could have led to the other gates being safe from Xykon.

Aquillion

2019-02-02, 02:29 PM

Again, if that's how all Twelve Gods feel about Azure City and the Sapphire Guard, why does Tsukiko never lose her clerical spellcasting?Do we know where she was getting it from? She could have been a cleric of an ideal or of some other evil god. She's not exactly a fan of Azure City culture, so (unless there's something in a side-comic I don't know about) there's no reason to think she'd have worshiped any of their gods.

Alternatively, in D&D, it is a lot more rare for a Cleric to lose their spellcasting than a Paladin; it could just be that in the OOTS-verse, this is represented by agreements among the gods to only do it under specific circumstances. Or they could be reluctant to do it because a god who removes Cleric casting abilities lightly may find it hard to recruit clerics in the future.

A third possibility is that the evil Azure City gods actually hoped she would be able to master both sides of the ritual and seize the gates for them, and that getting her into a position to do so was worth the risk to Azure City itself.

A fourth possibility was that they knew they needed a way to talk to Redcloak in order to get the Dark One on their side, and as imperfect as Tsukiko was she could potentially serve that purpose.

woweedd

2019-02-02, 03:54 PM

Do we know where she was getting it from? She could have been a cleric of an ideal or of some other evil god. She's not exactly a fan of Azure City culture, so (unless there's something in a side-comic I don't know about) there's no reason to think she'd have worshiped any of their gods.

Alternatively, in D&D, it is a lot more rare for a Cleric to lose their spellcasting than a Paladin; it could just be that in the OOTS-verse, this is represented by agreements among the gods to only do it under specific circumstances. Or they could be reluctant to do it because a god who removes Cleric casting abilities lightly may find it hard to recruit clerics in the future.

A third possibility is that the evil Azure City gods actually hoped she would be able to master both sides of the ritual and seize the gates for them, and that getting her into a position to do so was worth the risk to Azure City itself.

A fourth possibility was that they knew they needed a way to talk to Redcloak in order to get the Dark One on their side, and as imperfect as Tsukiko was she could potentially serve that purpose.
She swears by them, just as every one else in Azure City does.

Fish

2019-02-02, 04:17 PM

Again, if that's how all Twelve Gods feel about Azure City and the Sapphire Guard, why does Tsukiko never lose her clerical spellcasting?
Who cares?

The question being asked is, "Why did Miko get a big lightshow?" not "Why don't we have evidence of other characters being punished by the gods?" Those things didn't happen because Rich didn't write the story that way. If you want answers, ask him.

Even if that latter query were the question at hand, it's got an absurdly simple answer: this is not a game of Dungeons and Dragons. It never was. Rich has no obligation to make anyone "fall" for any reason because the rules say so.

Okay, you say, it's still a story and there should still be consistent application of principles. But that doesn't make your point for you either. Miko gets the lightshow because Miko killed Shojo. That is the action proximal to her punishment. Why hasn't anybody else been punished? Because as far as I can tell, nobody else killed Shojo. We don't have an apples-to-apples comparison that we can make.

I can see you trying to stretch the definition ("if that's how the Twelve Gods feel about Azure City...") but obviously, if they did feel that way about Azure City, they'd have stepped in; and they didn't, so, since nothing happened, reductio ad absurdum, they don't feel that way about Azure City. Proof by contradiction. If the hypothesis holds, Miko was punished for her actions against Shojo, not for actions against any group Shojo was aligned with or in service of. It would be like saying "you oppose George HW Bush, therefore you oppose all people who went to Yale, therefore it is offenses against Yale that we must examine." It is an assertion not supported by the evidence.

Kish

2019-02-02, 05:21 PM

Who cares?

...anyone who cares about logical consistency? If that's not you why are you posting, accusing me of stretching definitions?

I can see you trying to stretch the definition ("if that's how the Twelve Gods feel about Azure City...") but obviously, if they did feel that way about Azure City, they'd have stepped in; and they didn't, so, since nothing happened, reductio ad absurdum, they don't feel that way about Azure City. Proof by contradiction.
Yes, exactly! So your "The reason the Twelve Gods show up when Miko fell is because Shojo is the leader of the protect-the-Gates squad in Azure City, and yeah, he did swear to some stupid oath, which the Twelve Gods are not totally on board with — I mean, who swears an oath not to help save the world?, jeez — but he's still our guy, and the Twelve Gods really want to show their displeasure at Miko's role in this whole mess" is...what now? Withdrawn?

To be clear, my position is that Miko fell because she committed an evil act or because she changed alignment. And that, as Haley said, it's established that "killing their defenseless liege lord" will make a paladin Fall. Nothing about the Twelve Gods unanimously caring about "the protect-the-Gates squad in Azure City"--that was something you said which I was arguing against, not vice versa.

Tsukiko didn't Fall because she did nothing extraordinary for a Neutral Evil cleric and the Twelve Gods are not actually unanimous defenders of Azure City, bastion of Lawful Good. with the corresponding requirement that they do not all care about Shojo. Not as Lord of Azure City, not as Commander of the Sapphire Guard, and not as a man with a very nice mustache.

Jasdoif

2019-02-02, 05:49 PM

Do we know where she was getting it from? She could have been a cleric of an ideal or of some other evil god. She's not exactly a fan of Azure City culture, so (unless there's something in a side-comic I don't know about) there's no reason to think she'd have worshiped any of their gods.While not a side-comic, this is pretty direct:

Southern Gods:
In certain campaign settings, you can be a cleric of a whole pantheon, and this doesn't necessarily influence your alignment. Obviously, unless the majority of the pantheon (or at least those holding the majority of the power) are of an opposite alignment from you, you may have some challenges advancing in the church hierarchy. Even in FR, am I remembering wrong, or is there at least one prestige class that worships the whole Morndinsamman?Also, this. The Twelve Gods are worshipped as a pantheon, by everyone, including evil characters like Kubota and Tsukiko.

martianmister

2019-02-08, 03:43 AM

Gin-Jun is expelled from the order because he broke the order's oath by using lethal force on an unarmed common citizen. There is nothing suggest in that scene that he fell.

hamishspence

2019-02-08, 07:53 AM

His "If I cannot be a paladin, I will salvage my honor with revenge on the one who's done this to me" thing, strongly suggests that he's aware that his act is Fall-Worthy.

That is, it's either Evil, or a "gross breach of the paladin's code", or it changed his alignment from LG to some other alignment (maybe from LG to LN or TN).

Given that paladins are supposed to protect the innocent, (and punish those that harm the innocent) - all it would take for Gin-Jun's act to be extremely "anti-Code" would be for O-Chul to qualify as "the innocent".

martianmister

2019-02-08, 11:54 AM

His "If I cannot be a paladin, I will salvage my honor with revenge on the one who's done this to me" thing, strongly suggests that he's aware that his act is Fall-Worthy.

Or, in his twisted mind, being a paladin and being a member of the Sapphire Guard is the same thing.

That is, it's either Evil, or a "gross breach of the paladin's code", or it changed his alignment from LG to some other alignment (maybe from LG to LN or TN).

She specified that he broke the oath, and it's not the same thing as the code.

Given that paladins are supposed to protect the innocent, (and punish those that harm the innocent) - all it would take for Gin-Jun's act to be extremely "anti-Code" would be for O-Chul to qualify as "the innocent".

O-Chul is definitely not an innocent considering he challenged him to a duel in the first place. And notice how she mentioned "citizen," innocent goblins didn't count.

Peelee

2019-02-08, 12:17 PM

O-Chul is definitely not an innocent considering he challenged him to a duel in the first place.

That doesn't mean he's not an innocent. And especially since he never drew a weapon.

Vendanna

2019-02-11, 08:37 AM

I don't see how that addresses my point at all. The idea that the paladins must have no idea that killing a child is an evil act is a massive stretch. It is far more likely that they didn't care that they didn't know.

well, they could have counted those as "mercy killing" them in order to avoid the child gobbos days of agony from dying from no sustent or by random monsters once all the adults on the village were killed.

not that I adscribe to "mercy killing" but its something you should consider when you leave "living" kids that cannot feed by themselves on really horrible placement (goblin lands are the suck) and you know they are going to die by that. (also there's a manga named "gobling slayer" that covers exactly this situation) [note is not safe for work and not for the weak of heart]

it also could cover the Screamapillar from the simpsons. (are you sure god didn't intended for this thing to go extinct?) as well. :)