The legitimacy of the Sapphire Guard

[Lord Zentei]

This is a bit of a puzzle: in his interview (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html) with the bureaucratic deva, Roy uses "it was an illegitimate authority" as an excuse for resisting arrest.

However, prior to the trial, Lord Shojo states (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0267.html) that the Sapphire Guard has jurisdiction that extends to the northern lands, since his status as Commander is not related to his status as Lord of Azure City.

Thus, even though the charges themselves were trumped up, the Sapphire Guard's authority to arrest was not really illegitimate. And in any case they were technically guilty as Haley pointed out here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0284.html) (you may need the translation thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4909)). A nitpick, granted, but then this is meant to be a bureaucratic deva.

So, theories:

1) They don't make bureaucratic devas like they used to. :smallwink: This is supported by the fact that she also accepts "would've been destroyed in the explosion anyway" as an excuse for what was basically theft (theft is still theft, after all).

2) The Sapphire Guard are somehow under a misapprehension as to the extent of their authority (not likely at all). :smallconfused:

3) Lord Zentei is an incorrigible nitpicker. :smalltongue:

What say ye?

[Dragon_Keeper]

Oooh! Ooh! *raises hand* Ooh! Pick me! Is it 4?!?!

[Eita]

Miko was an illegitimate authority because she broke the orders that she was under several times during her capture of the OotS.

[Oberon]

I think...ummm.. hmm.. Well its.. uhh... hmmm...

3?

Edit: I think I probably agree with Eita's post, actually.

[FujinAkari]

The "illegitimate authority" bit wasn't referring to the fact that the Sapphire Guard didn't have authority to arrest them (it does,) but that the charge they were being arrested FOR was illegetimate.

Shojo had them deliberately arrested for a crime he knew they didn't commit, rigged a trial to ensure they wouldn't get found guilty, all because he wanted to meet them. Due to this, the Sapphire Guard's authority to arrest them was illegitimate because the crime they were charged with was invalid.

[Lord Zentei]

Miko was an illegitimate authority because she broke the orders that she was under several times during her capture of the OotS.

Err, no... she was still a legitimate minion of the Sapphire Guard at the time. And her orders were simply to bring them back alive for trial, not bring them back peacefully and in one piece. She may have broken the spirit of the orders, but not their letter.


The "illegitimate authority" bit wasn't referring to the fact that the Sapphire Guard didn't have authority to arrest them (it does,) but that the charge they were being arrested FOR was illegetimate.

Shojo had them deliberately arrested for a crime he knew they didn't commit, rigged a trial to ensure they wouldn't get found guilty, all because he wanted to meet them. Due to this, the Sapphire Guard's authority to arrest them was illegitimate because the crime they were charged with was invalid.

A fair point, but see Haley's comments as to the outcome of the trial. And they were technically guilty of weakening the fabric of the universe and destroying the gate. Thus, going by the law, Shojo was technically within his rights to have them arrested.

[Eita]

The "illegitimate authority" bit wasn't referring to the fact that the Sapphire Guard didn't have authority to arrest them (it does,) but that the charge they were being arrested FOR was illegetimate.

Shojo had them deliberately arrested for a crime he knew they didn't commit, rigged a trial to ensure they wouldn't get found guilty, all because he wanted to meet them. Due to this, the Sapphire Guard's authority to arrest them was illegitimate because the crime they were charged with was invalid.

They were guilty. They weakened the fabric of reality. Yes, they did do it unknowingly, but that isn't the point.


Err, no... she was still a legitimate minion of the Sapphire Guard at the time. And her orders were simply to bring them back alive for trial, not bring them back peacefully and in one piece. She may have broken the spirit of the orders, but not their letter.

Need I remind you of Miko's "Surrender or die!" line? That directly contradicts what she was told to do.

[Rogue 7]

While it's certainly true that Miko had the authority of the Sapphire Guard, the fact is that the Order had no way of knowing that Miko was, in fact, a paladin of the guard. Look at the comic- I've brought this up many times in my argument with David Argall over on the Miko's Information thread, so I don't need to look it up- "ORDER OF THE STICK! You have been charged with crimes for which the only possible sentence is death. Surrender now, or have the judgment enacted immediately!" To which Roy replies "We're not going to surrender until we have a little..." At which point Miko throws the tanglefoot bag at V. Where in that conversation could the Order have picked up that Miko was a paladin, and not some random person out to kill them?

My argument here is this- Azure City did have the legitmacy to arrest them. However, the Order was within their rights to resist arrest because they did not know who was arresting them and on what charge.

[Lord Zentei]

Need I remind you of Miko's "Surrender or die!" line? That directly contradicts what she was told to do.

Raise dead? :smalltongue:

No, fair enough, she did overstep her bounds in issuing that challenge, though it is highly unlikely that she would have wiped them out given the chance to arrest any survivors (like Durkon, Varsuuvius and Belkar who were all incapacitated or willing to surrender); in any case that challenge hardly makes her arrest attempt itself illegitimate. And moreover, they attempted to resist arrest later when she was forced to drag them away in chains.


My argument here is this- Azure City did have the legitmacy to arrest them. However, the Order was within their rights to resist arrest because they did not know who was arresting them and on what charge.

That works for the initial confrontation, not for the second fight after the inn.

[Eita]

Raise dead? :smalltongue:

No, fair enough, she did overstep her bounds in issuing that challenge, though it is highly unlikely that she would have wiped them out given the chance to arrest any survivors (like Durkon, Varsuuvius and Belkar who were all incapacitated or willing to surrender); in any case that challenge hardly makes her arrest attempt itself illegitimate. And moreover, they attempted to resist arrest later when she was forced to drag them away in chains.

That wasn't an arrest attempt. It was an ultimatum.

[Lord Zentei]

That wasn't an arrest attempt. It was an ultimatum.

No, since she did allow Durkon to surrender.

And, there remains the second instance of resisting arrest.

[Rogue 7]

The second one was more a reaction to Miko's personality and methods than any real sense of authority, or as Roy put it, the "stupid Railroad plot". I'm not saying that it was legitimate, because it really wasn't, but to me at least, it was understandable.

[Kreistor]

#1 The charges were not from the gods.

Shojo created the charges and the trial in a conspiracy with Eugene. A lot of people don't get that, and think only the trial was fake. The charge was fake, too.

#2 Claiming to have jurisdiction does not give you jurisdiction.

Shojo was lying about a lot of things. He could easily have been lying about jurisdiction. In lawless areas, though, jurisdiction comes more or less at the point of the sword. You have whatever jurisdiction that you can force others to accept you have. Forcing too much generally results in war, though, if the locals don't appreciate your sense of justice.

#3 Religious matters do have a jurisdiction in OotS-world.

In 453 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0453.html), we can see that Thor is turned back by one of the gods of the South, This means that a god's jurisdiction is limited, seemingly by location. This suggests that the Sapphire Guard's jurisdiction did not extend into Northern lands.

So, no, the Gods of the South did not have jurisdiction in the land to the north, but Miko could force jursidiction at sword point, so long as Azure City itself did not deny her allowance to capture someone in this manner.

[Eita]

No, since she did allow Durkon to surrender.

And, there remains the second instance of resisting arrest.

Durkon accepted the ultimatum by surrendering! "Surrender or die!" Durkon choose surrender.

That was more defiance then anything. They didn't really fight her.

[Lord Zentei]

The second one was more a reaction to Miko's personality and methods than any real sense of authority, or as Roy put it, the "stupid Railroad plot". I'm not saying that it was legitimate, because it really wasn't, but to me at least, it was understandable.

Indeed.

Actually, there may be theory #4:

People earn "LG brownie points" for performing good and lawful deeds, which can be traded in during the celestial review process in order to let foibles slide (since no one is truly perfect, not even Lord Soon -- drawing a sword on his friends and all that). Thus Roy was spending his Heroic Brownie Points (TM) with those issues, even if the excuses he came up with were rather lame. :smallwink:

In other cosmologies, he would have to spend a brief while in Purgatory being punished while angels wagged their fingers at him, telling him what a bad, bad boy he has been before being allowed into Paradise. As opposed to those other poor saps who go to the Inferno...

[Jasdoif]

Take a look at the original encounter (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html). Miko didn't bother to identify the authority she was acting for, and in fact reacted to Roy's request/insistence on an explanation by attacking. He had no reason to believe she was an agent of a legitimate authority, and opted to resist arrest (and the stated death sentence accompanying it) instead of keeling over for her convenience.

[Rogue 7]

Indeed.

Actually, there may be theory #4:

People earn "LG brownie points" for performing good and lawful deeds, which can be traded in during the celestial review process in order to let foibles slide (since no one is truly perfect, not even Lord Soon -- drawing a sword on his friends and all that). Thus Roy was spending his Heroic Brownie Points (TM) with those issues, even if the excuses he came up with were rather lame. :smallwink:

In other cosmologies, he would have to spend a brief while in Purgatory being punished while angels wagged their fingers at him, telling him what a bad, bad boy he has been before being allowed into Paradise. As opposed to those other poor saps who go to the Inferno...

Seems fair enough to me. Roy isn't perfect, but he does well enough.

Wow, a debate on this forum where two people debated and came to an accord within a few posts. That's gotta be a record.:smallwink:

[Lord Zentei]

Seems fair enough to me. Roy isn't perfect, but he does well enough.

Wow, a debate on this forum where two people debated and came to an accord within a few posts. That's gotta be a record.:smallwink:

Indeed. :smallwink:


Take a look at the original encounter (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html). Miko didn't bother to identify the authority she was acting for, and in fact reacted to Roy's request/insistence on an explanation by attacking. He had no reason to believe she was an agent of a legitimate authority, and opted to resist arrest (and the stated death sentence accompanying it) instead of keeling over for her convenience.

<sigh> I have already pointed out that there is more to it than the original encounter: there is the second time they refused to follow her, however understandable that was.

And regardless, it was still a legitimate authority.


Durkon accepted the ultimatum by surrendering! "Surrender or die!" Durkon choose surrender.

That was more defiance then anything. They didn't really fight her.

Er, what? He surrendered to her challenge. She did not seek to kill him. That invalidates your earlier point.

[Jasdoif]

<sigh> I have already pointed out that there is more to it than the original encounter: there is the second time they refused to follow her, however understandable that was.So...you're claiming the first encounter was not a case of resisting arrest? :smallconfused:


And regardless, it was still a legitimate authority.I do believe Roy is justifying his actions in accordance with his alignment, and at the time he had every reason to believe her authority was illegitimate.

[Lord Zentei]

So...you're claiming the first encounter was not a case of resisting arrest? :smallconfused:

Er, no... what makes you say that? :smallconfused:


I do believe Roy is justifying his actions in accordance with his alignment, and at the time he had every reason to believe her authority was illegitimate.

Indeed. But the second time that excuse doesn't wash: hence my theory #4, above.

That would also explain why the "it would have been destroyed anyway" excuse for the royal gifts they took was accepted.

[Jasdoif]

Er, no... what makes you say that? :smallconfused: I said Roy resisted arrest in the first encounter, and unless I misread something you said that didn't count.


Indeed. But the second time that excuse doesn't wash: hence my theory #4, above.Hmm....you just reminded me of something....

Second encounter (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0251.html), Roy plainly states that he's not part of Miko's society, and that he doesn't believe she truly represents Good. He doesn't see any authority of hers that legitimately applies to him.

And this is prior to their meeting with Shojo, and his claims that the Sapphire Guard's jurisdiction extends outside of the Southern borders.

[Lord Zentei]

I said Roy resisted arrest in the first encounter, and unless I misread something you said that didn't count.

The first was certainly an example of resisting arrest. I meant that it did not extend merely to that particular event.


Hmm....you just reminded me of something....

Second encounter (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0251.html), Roy plainly states that he's not part of Miko's society, and that he doesn't believe she truly represents Good. He doesn't see any authority of hers that legitimately applies to him.

And this is prior to their meeting with Shojo, and his claims that the Sapphire Guard's jurisdiction extends outside of the Southern borders.

He was looking for excuses at that point to avoid having to follow her because he had grown to hate her.

That she was nonetheless a paladin was known, and thus that her alignment was Lawful Good was axiomatic.

[Rogue 7]

I'm forced to agree with Lord Z. here- Roy was in the wrong for resisting. However, at least to me, it's understandable- Miko treated them like c**p, disrespected them, and attacked them. That, to me, tones down the wrongness.

[Jasdoif]

That she was nonetheless a paladin was known, and thus that her alignment was Lawful Good was axiomatic.How does that give her the authority to order him around, though?

[Lord Zentei]

How does that give her the authority to order him around, though?

It does show that she is acting on the orders of a Lawful Good institution as she places them under arrest. And they are technically her prisoners.


I'm forced to agree with Lord Z. here- Roy was in the wrong for resisting. However, at least to me, it's understandable- Miko treated them like c**p, disrespected them, and attacked them. That, to me, tones down the wrongness.

Indeed. Or at least it makes it more understandable from the perspective of anyone but pure LN.

[Jasdoif]

It does show that she is acting on the orders of a Lawful Good institution as she places them under arrest.It shows her alignment is Lawful Good, and that she hasn't recently performed an evil act. It shows nothing about serving a particular institution, much less its alignment or that she is necessarily acting on orders from it.

Overlooking all that, what automatically gives a Lawful Good institution global authority?


And they are technically her prisoners.Which establishes her authority, but not any sort of legitimacy to it.

[†Seer†]

I think part of the resisting Miko's demands were common sense... if someone came up to you out of the blue (heh..attire jokes aside) and told you that you were under arrest for weakening the fabric of reality, would you put much faith in that person?

And later on, they resented Miko for how she had acted towards them (not saying it was all one-way), and so didn't feel too inclined to humor her demands then.

While this isn't an end-all point, 'tis my 2 gold.

[Lord Zentei]

It shows her alignment is Lawful Good, and that she hasn't recently performed an evil act. It shows nothing about serving a particular institution, much less its alignment or that she is necessarily acting on orders from it.

Yes it does as she claimed her authority to arrest them was derived from Lord Shojo as commander of the Sapphire Guard, an institution of paladins.


Overlooking all that, what automatically gives a Lawful Good institution global authority?

Nothing. However, a LG institution does not claim global authority wrongfully. And at the latter stage, they had conversed with her at length establishing her background.


Which establishes her authority, but not any sort of legitimacy to it.

See above.


I think part of the resisting Miko's demands were common sense... if someone came up to you out of the blue (heh..attire jokes aside) and told you that you were under arrest for weakening the fabric of reality, would you put much faith in that person?

And later on, they resented Miko for how she had acted towards them (not saying it was all one-way), and so didn't feel too inclined to humor her demands then.

Aye, indeed. As I responded to Rogue 7, it makes their actions more understandable, though it does not eliminate the fact that they were technically in the wrong.

[Jasdoif]

However, a LG institution does not claim global authority wrongfully.Where would you get an idea like that?

[Lord Zentei]

Where would you get an idea like that?

Because that would not be Lawful Good?

[The Wanderer]

But an institution could do it once, or more and still be LG as long as it did enough LG deeds to counter. :smallwink:

As for it: the first time Roy and company are completely in the right to not submit to a surrender or die ultimatum issued without any further explanation. The second time, knowing that Miko is a paladin and some of her background, they can see there might be something to the charge. However, I'd say they would be within their rights to demand a full explanation, and refuse to go with her if it was not forthcoming.

The fact that there was no explanation of their crimes or the situation does give Roy a leg to stand on to claim that resisting was a valid option.

[Lord Zentei]

But an institution could do it once, or more and still be LG as long as it did enough LG deeds to counter. :smallwink:

As for it: the first time Roy and company are completely in the right to not submit to a surrender or die ultimatum issued without any further explanation. The second time, knowing that Miko is a paladin and some of her background, they can see there might be something to the charge. However, I'd say they would be within their rights to demand a full explanation, and refuse to go with her if it was not forthcoming.

The fact that there was no explanation of their crimes or the situation does give Roy a leg to stand on to claim that resisting was a valid option.

The charge was that they weakened the fabric of the universe by destroying the Redmountain gate. That was explained to them, and they knew that they had destroyed the gate, so...

I stand by my theory #4: he was allowed to let it slide due to accumulated Heroic LG brownie points. Again: that would explain why he got away with stealing the king's of Nowhere's presents (for which there was no rationalization or excuse possible -- at least not a LG one).

[The Wanderer]

My mistake. I remembered how at the trial there was still a major debate going on about the charges, and what to tell of them (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0272.html), and misremembered that they weren't told the nature of the crime until then. Sorry!

In that case, since it seems to be a relatively minor issue, the deva could simply be categorizing Roy's responses and evaluating them based on how he he explains himself, and seeing what action to stack in the Lawful pile, what in the Good, in the Neutral, and so on.

[Lord Zentei]

My mistake. I remembered how at the trial there was still a major debate going on about the charges, and what to tell of them (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0272.html), and misremembered that they weren't told the nature of the crime until then. Sorry!

In that case, since it seems to be a relatively minor issue, the deva could simply be categorizing Roy's responses and evaluating them based on how he he explains himself, and seeing what action to stack in the Lawful pile, what in the Good, in the Neutral, and so on.

Yeah, that makes sense also.

Besides, we have yet to see her final evaluation. :smallwink: Not that I doubt he'll pass.

[kpenguin]

My opinion:

The arrest was illegitimate because, contrary to Shojo, the Sapphire Guard's jurisdiction does not extend to the Northern Lands. The Sapphire Guard's authority comes from the Southern Gods and the three different pantheons are very strict on not interfering with each other's realms.

[Lord Zentei]

My opinion:

The arrest was illegitimate because, contrary to Shojo, the Sapphire Guard's jurisdiction does not extend to the Northern Lands. The Sapphire Guard's authority comes from the Southern Gods and the three different pantheons are very strict on not interfering with each other's realms.

That would be theory #2 in the OP, since Shojo stated that the Sapphire Guard's authority was global while Hinjo and a number of other paladins and clerics of the SG were present in the throne room, and no one raised any fuss. :smallconfused:

But it would seem a bit odd that the paladins don't know how far their authority extends and/or that they would go along with the trial if they knew that their authority did not extend that far.

In fact, we can pretty much rule out the latter, due to the nature of Shojo's need for secrecy: he was concerned that they would find out that the "being of pure Law and Good" in the trial was not what it seemed, that the verdict was a cheat; not that the authority to hold a trial was in principle illegitimate...

[T.Titan]

The charge was that they weakened the fabric of the universe by destroying the Redmountain gate. That was explained to them, and they knew that they had destroyed the gate, so...


Which might not have been valid charges in the eyes of the gods... paladins do tend to be overzealous over stuff like this, something Shojo took advantage of... remember, his resting place after death was good enough for him to refuse being Raised, so the decades of lying probably didn't count very much against him... so the gods might not be as stuck up about obeying the letter of the law as the paladins...




That would be theory #2 in the OP, since Shojo stated that the Sapphire Guard's authority was global while Hinjo and a number of other paladins and clerics of the SG were present in the throne room, and no one raised any fuss.


Oh yeah, i can't really see any paladin considering the whole world their jurisdiction regardless of religious borders, especially on matters concerning rifts in reality that they guard.


Again: that would explain why he got away with stealing the king's of Nowhere's presents (for which there was no rationalization or excuse possible -- at least not a LG one).

Maybe not a lawful one... but then again law and order are different in different places, some might accept stealing for a good cause as compatible with their code.

[chibibar]

Illegitimate authority stems from this....

1. Durokon's Castle was OFF LIMITS to other member of the gate keepers. Sapphire Guards do NOT have any authority to do anything about the gate.

2. Elan blew up the gate cause well... he is naive but it is a good way to keep Xykon from controlling it (even tho OoTS did win at the time)

3. The "crime" they commit was not in the northern lands (since each area are separate) and thus OoTS cannot be prosecute them in another land. It is like you commit a crime in one country (your home country) and get trial in another country (that you are visiting)

4. Shojo stated that the trial was a sham. The whole idea was to "corner" the OoTS to investigate the other gates without breaking the original Oath from the original gatekeeper.

[GoC]

Because that would not be Lawful Good?

Whu?
If there is no authority in a certain place then any LG institution can claim jurisdiction.

kpenguin: Their authority comes from southern gods but almost certainly also with the permission of the northern ones.

chibibar: If a crime is commited in the middle of the ocean or in space does that mean noone can be charged?

[Xyathn]

Where does it suggest that the northern gods decided to let a southern religious order be in charge of its lands? I don't think that was ever really suggested, or even implied at all.

The in-strip argument that the Sapphire Guard had the authority to arrest them was this:

Ah, yes. Mr. Scruffy reminds me that the Sapphire Guard has been given their holy powers by the Twelve Gods of the South to protect the gates... And since the gods are not limited in their jurisdiction, neither are we.


The problem is... that this statement is wrong. The southern gods have absolutely no jurisdiction in the north. If they had jurisdiction everywhere, they wouldn't have needed marginally cool spellcasters named clerics.

It can't even be argued that they were acting on the specific behalf of the southern gods of good, because the arrest was deceitful, and it wasn't designed to be a real charge. Thus, it boils down to this:

A southern religious order decided that it had global authority. Why? Because it said so. No other government has agreed to it, no city/town/peasant-on-a-mule ever consented. But, because they said so, it has global authority. Or, if you'd like, because they think their gods said so, even though their gods don't have global authority, and thus they can't really give it.

What if an lawful evil religious order declared itself to have that sort of authority? If an evil god from another land told that order "It is a law that you must kill everyone who commits too much good in the world", and someone showed up to kill the OOTS, do you think the OOTS would have to let themselves be killed?

The Sapphire Guard might be lawful good, but it's the same thing. The OOTS don't worship their gods. They don't live in the south. The southern gods have absolutely no authority over them, gate or no gate (keep in mind the gates were of *mortal* creation, and this one doesn't even seem to have been built by a southerner, and wasn't built in the south). Thus, in my opinion, they don't have to listen to the Sapphire Guard, or their gods.

[Xyathn]

Whu?
If there is no authority in a certain place then any LG institution can claim jurisdiction.

chibibar: If a crime is commited in the middle of the ocean or in space does that mean noone can be charged?

Why only LG, incidently? I doubt that neutral and evil socieites would agree.

And, as to the crime in the middle of the ocean.. actually, legally, they couldn't be charged by a city. In terms of the gods, in the OOTS world, it'd be the job of whatever gods in that area to judge. That's why the divided the world.

[Deathwisher]

That would be theory #2 in the OP, since Shojo stated that the Sapphire Guard's authority was global while Hinjo and a number of other paladins and clerics of the SG were present in the throne room, and no one raised any fuss. :smallconfused:


This has been pretty much done to death in other threads and people still don't agree on it.

My thoughts (just a summary of what I have posted before:

Shojo's claim does not make it so. Hitler claimed aryans had the right to rule the world. I don't think many people would agree with that either. The crusaders claimed the right to conquer jeruzalem and kill anyone who stood in their way, because of their religious believes. (Extreme examples I suppose, but they do illustrate my point).

Apparently the paladins agree with Shojo, but that does not make him right. The paladins have to believe they have jurisdiction or otherwise their little crusades at the goblins just become genocide.

That OOTS and Delia did not contradict Shojo does not mean much either. If the judge tells you that he has jurisdiction, you can either accept that and hope to mount a credible defense on other grounds, or disagree and sulk. The problem is that the latter will not get you aquitted. You may have grounds for appeal, or call for a mistrial, but in this case there was no court of appeal and the judge was not likely to declare a mistrial based on his own statement.


But it would seem a bit odd that the paladins don't know how far their authority extends and/or that they would go along with the trial if they knew that their authority did not extend that far.


See above. The paladins may claim authority, but that does not make it legitimate. Also, Shojos argument is religious. That may work in Azur City, but a society with a secular court system might well throw it out


In fact, we can pretty much rule out the latter, due to the nature of Shojo's need for secrecy: he was concerned that they would find out that the "being of pure Law and Good" in the trial was not what it seemed, that the verdict was a cheat; not that the authority to hold a trial was in principle illegitimate...

The problem here is still that we are talking about an organisation which answers to no outside authority and which has claimed jurisdicition on religious grounds. They may have the power to force the issue, but that does not make their claim legitimate.

As I stated at the start of my post, this point has been argued in a number of threads, with posters disagreeing for a number of reasons. The outline I give above is purely my personal opinion.

[Jasdoif]

Because that would not be Lawful Good?Being Lawful Good does not make an organization faultless and beyond reproach, anymore then being Lawful Good makes Roy or Miko faultless and beyond reproach. Alignment isn't a straitjacket for characters or institutions.

[Ampersand]

Need I remind you of Miko's "Surrender or die!" line? That directly contradicts what she was told to do.

She was told to "try really hard to bring them back alive." That doesn't take hauling their corpses in to conduct the trial via Speak with Dead off the table.

[The Wanderer]

Take them back alive seems to contradict the idea of dragging corpses back for a posthumous trial.

To me it would seems to say "Take them back alive unless they give you no other choice and you need to defend your own life", not "Take them back alive, unless you don't feel like it", or "Shout submit or die, and then attack them with lethal intent without explaining yourself".

[Alex Warlorn]

The "illegitimate authority" bit wasn't referring to the fact that the Sapphire Guard didn't have authority to arrest them (it does,) but that the charge they were being arrested FOR was illegetimate.

Shojo had them deliberately arrested for a crime he knew they didn't commit, rigged a trial to ensure they wouldn't get found guilty, all because he wanted to meet them. Due to this, the Sapphire Guard's authority to arrest them was illegitimate because the crime they were charged with was invalid.

But Roy didn't know that at the time.
JUST like Miko didn't know her master WASN'T in league with Xykon when she killed him.

Thus, Roy needs a more rational reason for resisting Miko's arrest.

[Ampersand]

Take them back alive seems to contradict the idea of dragging corpses back for a posthumous trial.

The operative words in Shojo's order and Miko's response, respectively, are "try" and "if possible." Since Shojo/Mr. Scruffy didn't correct Miko's "if possible," that's essentially saying that bringing in bodies is an acceptable fulfillment of the order.

[plainsfox]

I want to say this. When the Deva was running through the items that Roy had did, the Deva was checking down a list. It didn't mean she accepted his excuses. It just meant she listened to them. I don't think she bought those excuses.

Resisting arrest aside, would you give Roy the pass for dangling an oracle out the window in order to extract more information from it or arguably stealing gifts meant for a king? At anyrate, these are just pebbles on Roy's scale. The big weights were Elan and Belkar.

[The Wanderer]

The operative words in Shojo's order and Miko's response, respectively, are "try" and "if possible." Since Shojo/Mr. Scruffy didn't correct Miko's "if possible," that's essentially saying that bringing in bodies is an acceptable fulfillment of the order.

No, it's not. It's saying don't get yourself killed if they resist being brought in. At that point you can defend yourself with lethal intent. First, and most important, is bring them in.

[Deathwisher]

The operative words in Shojo's order and Miko's response, respectively, are "try" and "if possible." Since Shojo/Mr. Scruffy didn't correct Miko's "if possible," that's essentially saying that bringing in bodies is an acceptable fulfillment of the order.

But Miko never tries to find out if it is possible. She makes a demand: Surrender or die. OOTS asks, not unreasonably, what is going on. Instead of explaining the situation, Miko attacks with the full intent to kill. This was completely unnecessary.

[Wolf53226]

Whu?
If there is no authority in a certain place then any LG institution can claim jurisdiction.

This doesn't make them the legitimate authority in the area though.


kpenguin: Their authority comes from southern gods but almost certainly also with the permission of the northern ones.

This isn't worth arguing about because we have no proof one way or the other, and as such, is a bad reason to base an argument on.

[Ampersand]

No, it's not. It's saying don't get yourself killed if they resist being brought in. At that point you can defend yourself with lethal intent. First, and most important, is bring them in.

I'm just saying that, by the order she was given, she legitimately could have brought them in dead. The criticism was that by attempting to kill the OotS she was violating her orders.


Instead of explaining the situation, Miko attacks with the full intent to kill. This was completely unnecessary.

Actually, Miko started the fight with nonlethal force (a tanglefoot bag). It's only after V, Haley, Roy and Belkar respond with lethal force that she takes the gloves off.

[Deathwisher]

This isn't worth arguing about because we have no proof one way or the other, and as such, is a bad reason to base an argument on.

Seeing that the Sothern gods kept Thor from helping Durkon out, despite them all being on the same side, i doubt that Thor would agree to having suuthern Paladins riding roughshot over his followers.

[Rogue 7]

But Roy didn't know that at the time.
JUST like Miko didn't know her master WASN'T in league with Xykon when she killed him.

Thus, Roy needs a more rational reason for resisting Miko's arrest.
Huh? What are you talking about? Are you saying Miko leaping to a false conclusion based on a combination of personal dislike for someone, a general tendency to jump to conclusions, an absolute conviction of her own righteousness regardless of the evidence presented, and a sense of moral superiority that made her Judge, Jury, and executioner is the same thing as not surrendering when some random person in a blue cloak tells you that even if you surrender you'll eventually be killed, or die right now? Forgive me if I can't make that connection.

[Deathwisher]

I'm just saying that, by the order she was given, she legitimately could have brought them in dead. The criticism was that by attempting to kill the OotS she was violating her orders.


Not by attemtping to kill, just by attempting to kill without exhasuting other possibilities.



Actually, Miko started the fight with nonlethal force (a tanglefoot bag). It's only after V, Haley, Roy and Belkar respond with lethal force that she takes the gloves off.

I quote: "Silence, if at all possible, try to meet your fate with some dignity". She cuts Roy of when he tries to ask what is going on. There is no attempt at arrest here. the tanglefoot back is just a convenient way of keeping V out of the fight while she kills Roy, who is the main threat.
Nor does she stop when Roy falls down on the ground and actually tries again to resolve things through talking, which would have been the best moment to attempt a non-lethal arrest.

[Wolf53226]

Seeing that the Sothern gods kept Thor from helping Durkon out, despite them all being on the same side, i doubt that Thor would agree to having suuthern Paladins riding roughshot over his followers.

But who is to say that at an earlier time, like when the snarl was originally stopped, that all the gods agreed to create a group to watch over the gates, and that at the time, Thor agreed to allow that group to be under the authority of the 12 gods but to have jurisdiction across the whole world.

See, you cannot argue that it didn't happen, anymore than anyone could argue that it did, thus the whole concept is an invalid argument. Being such, it should not be used to further a point, and truth be told, does not further any point what so ever. Which leads back to my statement that it isn't worth arguing.

[thereaper]

I refuse to delve into the Miko issue and let this become another Miko thread(as Miko's actions are irrelevant with regard to the SG's authority). Instead, I'm going to focus on the SG itself (and likely repeat many of the things others have said.

The SG's had no authority to arrest the OOTS.

1) The SG has taken an oath not to interfere with the gates. Trying someone for destroying one of them likely counts for that.

2) There is no actual evidence that the SG has been given authority by the Gods. We know they get their powers as paladins from the Gods, but that does not equate to any form of governmental control.

3) Assuming that the SG doesn't get authority from the Gods, then it's jurisdiction is limited to Azure City, which the Redmountain Gate was outside of.

4) Even if the SG did recieve governmental power from the Gods, they still would not have jurisdiction at the Redmountain gate because the Southern Gods themselves don't even have jurisdiction there.

5) Lawless areas by definition do not have laws. To claim that one has authority there is to claim that it is possible for a city to have authority outside it's territory. And since no form of government is innately superior to another (unless you bring in the Gods, which has other problems), it naturally follows that all laws of all lands in the world are valid everywhere. This doesn't work. For one thing, many laws will inevitably contradict one another. Another thing is that it will make most alignments impossible. Say there's a law in a goblin village that all humans must be killed on sight. So if a paladin were to see a human, he would either have to kill him or break the law. Either way, he's going to fall. The fact that paladins exist at all therefore means that this theory does not work. And this problem exists even if one brings in authority of the Gods (which, again, the SG is not confirmed to have), because the laws of different Gods are going to contradict one another. Obviously the laws of a deity like the Dark One would be designed to make being good impossible. Under this theory the strip as we know it could not possibly exist.

6) By the SG's own divinations and evidence, they knew that the blond one (Elan) had blown up the gate. Not the OOTS. If they knew that they didn't do it, then they had no right to arrest them. One might argue that they were accessories after the fact, but being an accessory after the fact requires one to have done something to help the murderer dispose of the body, hide evidence, etc. The OOTS did not do any of this. In fact, they never tried to hide at all what had happened. And there was no legal authority around to turn Elan in to, anyway. There is no basis for claiming the OOTS to be accessories after the fact other than the fact that they happened to be in the vicinity when it happened. That alone is not enough.

7) Blowing up the gate and being an accessory to said act are two different crimes. The SG can not legitimately prosecute the whole group at the same time as if they had all commited both (which would be impossible anyway).

8) The biggest problem, of course, is that the SG has no actual proof that the OOTS has indeed weakened the fabric of the universe. Considering that the only possibility they can think of for a lich to take the gate is to use it for evil purposes, then the destruction of said gate is actually an act to PROTECT the fabric of the universe by denying the lich the possibility to manipulate it and release the Snarl in any way. In fact, this is much like Soon's statement to Miko that she has technically fulfilled her duty of protecting the gate from evil by destroying it. In the OOTS's case, not destroying the gate is what would actually result in the weakening of the fabric of the universe. Therefore, they would be guilty no matter what, and if you are guilty regardless of what you do, then it can't be a crime.

[Lord Zentei]

Being Lawful Good does not make an organization faultless and beyond reproach, anymore then being Lawful Good makes Roy or Miko faultless and beyond reproach. Alignment isn't a straitjacket for characters or institutions.

Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Roy was not refusing arrest because he had valid reasons to doubt the legitimacy of Miko's authority. He resisted arrest because he hated her.


I refuse to delve into the Miko issue and let this become another Miko thread(as Miko's actions are irrelevant with regard to the SG's authority). Instead, I'm going to focus on the SG itself (and likely repeat many of the things others have said.

It was not meant to be a Miko thread.


The SG's had no authority to arrest the OOTS.

1) The SG has taken an oath not to interfere with the gates. Trying someone for destroying one of them likely counts for that.

Not a given at all. They had no right to interfere with the gates, but that does not mean that they cannot react to threats to the gates as a whole -- Shojo even implied as much.


2) There is no actual evidence that the SG has been given authority by the Gods. We know they get their powers as paladins from the Gods, but that does not equate to any form of governmental control.

This has nothing to do with government. It is only a matter of defending their gate.


3) Assuming that the SG doesn't get authority from the Gods, then it's jurisdiction is limited to Azure City, which the Redmountain Gate was outside of.

False. The Lord of Azure City and Commander of the Sapphire Guard are two separate posts.


4) Even if the SG did recieve governmental power from the Gods, they still would not have jurisdiction at the Redmountain gate because the Southern Gods themselves don't even have jurisdiction there.

Again, this has nothing to do with government, but defense of the gate.


5) Lawless areas by definition do not have laws. To claim that one has authority there is to claim that it is possible for a city to have authority outside it's territory. And since no form of government is innately superior to another (unless you bring in the Gods, which has other problems), it naturally follows that all laws of all lands in the world are valid everywhere. This doesn't work. <snip>

Weak. And incidentally, dependent on prior errors of assumption.


6) By the SG's own divinations and evidence, they knew that the blond one (Elan) had blown up the gate. Not the OOTS. If they knew that they didn't do it, then they had no right to arrest them. One might argue that they were accessories after the fact, but being an accessory after the fact requires one to have done something to help the murderer dispose of the body, hide evidence, etc. The OOTS did not do any of this. In fact, they never tried to hide at all what had happened. And there was no legal authority around to turn Elan in to, anyway. There is no basis for claiming the OOTS to be accessories after the fact other than the fact that they happened to be in the vicinity when it happened. That alone is not enough.

False. They were companions in arms, therefore also potentially culpable for the crime.


7) Blowing up the gate and being an accessory to said act are two different crimes. The SG can not legitimately prosecute the whole group at the same time as if they had all commited both (which would be impossible anyway).

False. See above.


8) The biggest problem, of course, is that the SG has no actual proof that the OOTS has indeed weakened the fabric of the universe.

Completely false, and a bizarre claim. The gates preserve the integrity of the universe. Destroying them weakens this integrity. This is a given.


Considering that the only possibility they can think of for a lich to take the gate is to use it for evil purposes, then the destruction of said gate is actually an act to PROTECT the fabric of the universe by denying the lich the possibility to manipulate it and release the Snarl in any way. In fact, this is much like Soon's statement to Miko that she has technically fulfilled her duty of protecting the gate from evil by destroying it. In the OOTS's case, not destroying the gate is what would actually result in the weakening of the fabric of the universe. Therefore, they would be guilty no matter what, and if you are guilty regardless of what you do, then it can't be a crime.

This was the technical defense Celia used for them during their trial. That they have a technical defense does not eliminate the legitimacy of the arrest. Or did you assume that one may only be legitimately arrested if one is certain to be convicted?

[Jasdoif]

Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Roy was not refusing arrest because he had valid reasons to doubt the legitimacy of Miko's authority. He resisted arrest because he hated her.Can you prove that he had no doubts of the legitimacy of her authority at the time? Or are you overlooking the matter because it doesn't support your view?

[Lord Zentei]

Can you prove that he had no doubts of the legitimacy of her authority at the time? Or are you overlooking the matter because it doesn't support your view?

Right back at you, buddy. :smallwink:

And Burden of Proof fallacy, incidentally.

[Jasdoif]

And Burden of Proof fallacy, incidentally.Fits your False Attribution pretty well, doesn't it? :smalltongue:

[chibibar]

Whu?
If there is no authority in a certain place then any LG institution can claim jurisdiction.

kpenguin: Their authority comes from southern gods but almost certainly also with the permission of the northern ones.

chibibar: If a crime is commited in the middle of the ocean or in space does that mean noone can be charged?

In a gaming setting like OoTS or any tabletop gaming? yes.. no one can be charged especially if they are in the nomad lands. The only jurisdiction is would be the local in those areas.

luckily ocean there are sea creatures controlling the area and space, well...... we can talk about Spelljammers but that is a different series.

[Lord Zentei]

Fits your False Attribution pretty well, doesn't it? :smalltongue:

Pfft: you asked me to show that Roy did not have any doubts as to her legitimacy. Which is logically a no-go. :smalltongue:

And false attribution? How much evidence do you need, anyhow? If you see a cop, whose powers indicate that s/he is definitely Lawful Good, explained his/her background at length and listed charges that you were, in fact, arguably guilty of, how long would you resist arrest with the pretext of doubting his/her legitimacy if you were LG yourself?


In a gaming setting like OoTS or any tabletop gaming? yes.. no one can be charged especially if they are in the nomad lands. The only jurisdiction is would be the local in those areas.

luckily ocean there are sea creatures controlling the area and space, well...... we can talk about Spelljammers but that is a different series.

Their jurisdiction was their gate and potential threats to it, not the wilderness per se, of course.

Anyway, any paladin is charged with bringing Law and Good into the wilderness on the point of a sword -- that is part and parcel of the class concept.

[Jasdoif]

Pfft: you asked me to show that Roy did not have any doubts as to her legitimacy. Which is logically a no-go. :smalltongue:

And false attribution?Yes, false attrobution. You've thus far failed to show any evidence that Roy's dislike for Miko was the motivating factor in resisting her arrest. The only source you provide is your own word; and I'm sorry but I don't believe you're an expert on Roy's behavior. :smalltongue:


How much evidence do you need, anyhow? If you see a cop, whose powers indicate that s/he is definitely Lawful Good, explained his/her background at length and listed charges that you were, in fact, arguably guilty of, how long would you resist arrest with the pretext of doubting his/her legitimacy if you were LG yourself?A cop from another nation, attempting "extradition" without support of the authority of the nation I am presently in? That violates sovereignty and thus makes said cop's claims of authority illegitimate.

[Lord Zentei]

Yes, false attrobution. You've thus far failed to show any evidence that Roy's dislike for Miko was the motivating factor in resisting her arrest. The only source you provide is your own word; and I'm sorry but I don't believe you're an expert on Roy's behavior. :smalltongue:

Apart from the fact that he basically stated as much, and at length? Recheck his rant.


A cop from another nation, attempting "extradition" without support of the authority of the nation I am presently in? That violates sovereignty and thus makes said cop's claims of authority illegitimate.

They were not in any nation, they were in the wilderness.

[Jasdoif]

Apart from the fact that he basically stated as much, and at length? Recheck his rant.He certainly stated his dislike for Miko and her manner of conduct. He also derided her use of moral authority, and stated that he was not subject to her feudal system of authority. Is the first one the primary motivating factor? Come to think of it, I don't recall Roy claiming "illegitimate authority" as the exclusive reason, either.


They were not in any nation, they were in the wilderness.Fair enough. Well then, what gives Azure City, or the Sapphire Guard, the right to claim authority over the OotS there? If the wilderness is in fact "lawless", how can they impose lawful authority there, and to a greater degree then any of the nations nearer to the site of their initial encounter?



Hmm....Or maybe Roy is making up reasons after the fact. They were captured on the authority of Lord Shojo, who admitted that he made the charges and rigged the trial for the purpose of getting the OotS down to Azure City, so he could get them to check on the other gates, which the SG was not allowed to do.

Shojo had no authority to arrest them as the ruler of Azure City, and using his authority as leader of the SG for the purpose of subverting the SG's own rules would similarly be illegitimate.

[Lord Zentei]

He certainly stated his dislike for Miko and her manner of conduct. He also derided her use of moral authority, and stated that he was not subject to her feudal system of authority. Is the first one the primary motivating factor? Come to think of it, I don't recall Roy claiming "illegitimate authority" as the exclusive reason, either.

His dislike for her certainly struck me as the primary justification. The "I'm not part of your feudal deal" struck me as more of a response to her line "you cannot speak to me that way, I'm Samurai!" -- i.e. his scorning of her, rather than the legitimacy of the arrest per se.


Fair enough. Well then, what gives Azure City, or the Sapphire Guard, the right to claim authority over the OotS there? If the wilderness is in fact "lawless", how can they impose lawful authority there, and to a greater degree then any of the nations nearer to the site of their initial encounter?

A threat to the gate of Azure City is a legitimate concern of the SG, regardless of where the perpetrator is; and with two gates destroyed already and the perpetrator of at least one incident known, it is a legitimate concern that their own gate might be at risk.

Anyway, as I pointed out above, it is part and parcel of the concept of the paladin class to impose Law and Good on the wilderness.


Hmm....Or maybe Roy is making up reasons after the fact. They were captured on the authority of Lord Shojo, who admitted that he made the charges and rigged the trial for the purpose of getting the OotS down to Azure City, so he could get them to check on the other gates, which the SG was not allowed to do.

Shojo had no authority to arrest them as the ruler of Azure City, and using his authority as leader of the SG for the purpose of subverting the SG's own rules would similarly be illegitimate.

That is dependent on the knowledge that Shojo was subverting the rules. It does not remove the legitimacy of the SG's authority per se.

[Jasdoif]

A threat to the gate of Azure City is a legitimate concern of the SG, regardless of where the perpetrator is; and with two gates destroyed already and the perpetrator of at least one incident known, it is a legitimate concern that their own gate might be at risk.A legitimate concern doesn't in itself grant legitimate authority to act on that concern. I'm sure Redcloak is legitimately concerned about the defenses of the other gates, that doesn't give him legitimate authority to disband said defenses.


Anyway, as I pointed out above, it is part and parcel of the concept of the paladin class to impose Law and Good on the wilderness.The concept of the paladin class is primarily to smite Evil, but I can go along with your statement.

However, Miko is not imposing Law and Good on the wilderness, she's imposing the laws of Azure City and the Sapphire Guard on the OotS. She even says herself (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0203.html) that her orders are not affected by the alignment of the OotS.


That is dependent on the knowledge that Shojo was subverting the rules. It does not remove the legitimacy of the SG's authority per se.It does remove the legitimacy of their use of authority in this particular case, however. Also, I will not claim that Roy's logic in his defense is infallible.

[Deathwisher]

A threat to the gate of Azure City is a legitimate concern of the SG, regardless of where the perpetrator is; and with two gates destroyed already and the perpetrator of at least one incident known, it is a legitimate concern that their own gate might be at risk.

Anyway, as I pointed out above, it is part and parcel of the concept of the paladin class to impose Law and Good on the wilderness.

The fact that you're a paladin doesn't give you the legal right to impose the law of your country or order on a random piece of land, that is like saying that being a rogue gives you the right to break laws. In No cure for the paladin blues, the Giant states that part of the motivation for creating the Miko character was the tendency of people who play paladins to think that they can police the actions of the rest of the party. Note: they think they have that right. They don't actually have it.
At most, being a paladin gives you a form of religious authority. It says nothing about secular legal jurisdiction.

[Lord Zentei]

The fact that you're a paladin doesn't give you the legal right to impose the law of your country or order on a random piece of land, that is like saying that being a rogue gives you the right to break laws.

Not the same thing at all. The wilderness is by definition an unclaimed territory open for colonization.


In No cure for the paladin blues, the Giant states that part of the motivation for creating the Miko character was the tendency of people who play paladins to think that they can police the actions of the rest of the party. Note: they think they have that right. They don't actually have it.

We are not talking about the tendency of paladin players to police the other players; we are talking about the paladin characters following their design concept.


PS: And in any case, this is not a Miko thread; it is a Sapphire Guard legitimacy thread. And regardless, given that the paladins' powers are dependent on the actions of others in the party, and that they are intended to be enforcers of LG in general, it seems absurd that they would be expected to not seek to place requirements on the actions of their fellow party members. But that is off topic.

[Deathwisher]

Not the same thing at all. The wilderness is by definition an unclaimed territory open for colonization.


Open for colonization? There were people living there. By that argument anybody can walk in and lay down the law and have just as much legal right as a paladin.




We are not talking about the tendency of paladin players to police the other players; we are talking about the paladin characters following their design concept.


the design concept of a paladin? Why would that include being a universal policeman overruling any local concept of law?



PS: And in any case, this is not a Miko thread; it is a Sapphire Guard legitimacy thread. And regardless, given that the paladins' powers are dependent on the actions of others in the party, and that they are intended to be enforcers of LG in general, it seems absurd that they would be expected to not seek to place requirements on the actions of their fellow party members. But that is off topic.

Enforcers of law, fine, but that does not give them carte blache to take the law of their home country and insist on enforcing that law outside the country's borders. Doing so is an illegal act, which is against the concept of the paladin.

[Lord Zentei]

Open for colonization? There were people living there. By that argument anybody can walk in and lay down the law and have just as much legal right as a paladin.

What people? The goblins? We are talking about the Redmountain gate and the Forest of Wossname. And yes, that was very much the wilderness in both cases.


the design concept of a paladin? Why would that include being a universal policeman overruling any local concept of law?

Because they receive their authority from the gods for that express purpose.


Enforcers of law, fine, but that does not give them carte blache to take the law of their home country and insist on enforcing that law outside the country's borders. Doing so is an illegal act, which is against the concept of the paladin.

They were NOT enforcing the law of Azure City. They were dealing with a threat to the gates. I have pointed out this distinction already.

[TheElfLord]

This can't be suficently answered because we don't have enough evidence.

Shojo says the SG has global authority. We have no other statements on the matter. He is a known lier and manipulator who tells people what they need to hear to do what he wants them to do. While this does not automatically invalidate his statement, one should be carful of taking such a wild idea at face value.

We know the gods only have authority limitted by geographical areas. The OotS was not in the Southern Lands, and therefore is outside the jurisdiction of the southern god. Now it is possible, as one poster pointed out, that years ago the gods got together and created the SG as a global police force and all the gods agreed to let them opperate in their lands. We have absolutly no evidicence for this or any indication that this happened. Once we enter the realm of making events up, we can go almost anywhere.

Law enforcement officers only have jurisdiction in their specific area. An American cop cannot arrest a Russian in Antartica for crimes commited in El Salvador. Likewise, Miko had no legitimate authority to arrest the OotS in the wilderness.

The only authority Miko could bring to bear against the OotS, since the crime and the apprehension took place outside of her jurisdiction, was force. And in my opinion, might makes right authority would not be recognized as legitimate by a LG celestial.

[Deathwisher]

What people? The goblins? We are talking about the Redmountain gate and the Forest of Wossname. And yes, that was very much the wilderness in both cases.


And I see that you have no objection to my statement that anybody else would have the same right to walk into the wilderness and enforce the law. The forest, by the way was not uninhabited. The bandits were living there and their leader mentioned druids as well.
I don't think the concept of a lawful good paladin includes casually conquering other peoples lands, which is what colonization is.




Because they receive their authority from the gods for that express purpose.


A religious argument, which says nothing about their legal rights.



They were NOT enforcing the law of Azure City. They were dealing with a threat to the gates. I have pointed out this distinction already.

than they have no legal authroity to begin with. If we leave Azur City out of it, the Saphire Guard is no more than a social club for paladins. Again, their religious claims do not confer jurisdiction in the secular world.

[Lord Zentei]

This can't be suficently answered because we don't have enough evidence.

Shojo says the SG has global authority. We have no other statements on the matter. He is a known lier and manipulator who tells people what they need to hear to do what he wants them to do. While this does not automatically invalidate his statement, one should be carful of taking such a wild idea at face value.

He made that statement in front of the Sapphire Guard, who are sufficiently anal about the letter of their code that he needed to deceive them. He could not have claimed global authority unless they also believed that they truly had it.


Law enforcement officers only have jurisdiction in their specific area. An American cop cannot arrest a Russian in Antartica for crimes commited in El Salvador. Likewise, Miko had no legitimate authority to arrest the OotS in the wilderness.

Assumption of relevance.

Special agents have jurisdiction beyond their borders, and once again the Sapphire Guard and Azure City are separate authorities. This has been said again and again in this thread.


The only authority Miko could bring to bear against the OotS, since the crime and the apprehension took place outside of her jurisdiction, was force. And in my opinion, might makes right authority would not be recognized as legitimate by a LG celestial.

If so, the entire Sapphire Guard has been acting illegitimately for decades without the gods raising a fuss about it. See: crusades.





And I see that you have no objection to my statement that anybody else would have the same right to walk into the wilderness and enforce the law. The forest, by the way was not uninhabited. The bandits were living there and their leader mentioned druids as well.
I don't think the concept of a lawful good paladin includes casually conquering other peoples lands, which is what colonization is.

The concept of a lawful good paladin is to act as enforcer of law and good. Bandits are not lawful good.


A religious argument, which says nothing about their legal rights.

Except that in settings such as these gods are tangible and good and evil are objective entities.


than they have no legal authroity to begin with. If we leave Azur City out of it, the Saphire Guard is no more than a social club for paladins. Again, their religious claims do not confer jurisdiction in the secular world.

So you claim. Again: if they receive their authority from the gods who are tangible entities, with good and evil being objectively existent forces and said gods being creators of the damn planet, then this certainly gives them authority.

[Deathwisher]

Special agents have jurisdiction beyond their borders, and once again the Sapphire Guard and Azure City are separate authorities. This has been said again and again in this thread.


Only if the country in which they operate gives the jurisdcition. Otherwise their actions are illegal. Without Azur City the Sapphire Guard has no legal authority ANYWHERE. They are a religious organization.



If so, the entire Sapphire Guard has been acting illegitimately for decades without the gods raising a fuss about it. See: crusades.

The gods have a very good reason to tolerate this behaviour: they don't want the Snarl to escape.

[Lord Zentei]

Only if the country in which they operate gives the jurisdcition. Otherwise their actions are illegal. Without Azur City the Sapphire Guard has no legal authority ANYWHERE. They are a religious organization.

And for the umpteenth time: they were not in any country when she arrested them, they were in the wilderness. And no: Azure City has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the Sapphire Guard. I have pointed this out several times.


The gods have a very good reason to tolerate this behaviour: they don't want the Snarl to escape.

So?


And I see that you have no objection to my statement that anybody else would have the same right to walk into the wilderness and enforce the law. The forest, by the way was not uninhabited. The bandits were living there and their leader mentioned druids as well.
I don't think the concept of a lawful good paladin includes casually conquering other peoples lands, which is what colonization is.

The concept of a lawful good paladin is to act as enforcer of law and good. Bandits are not lawful good.


A religious argument, which says nothing about their legal rights.

Except that in settings such as these gods are tangible and good and evil are objective entities.


than they have no legal authroity to begin with. If we leave Azur City out of it, the Saphire Guard is no more than a social club for paladins. Again, their religious claims do not confer jurisdiction in the secular world.

So you claim. Again: if they receive their authority from the gods who are tangible entities, with good and evil being objectively existent forces and said gods being creators of the damn planet, then this certainly gives them authority.

[chibibar]

That maybe true BUT I don't think Durokon's castle was in the same country/location as Azure city.

Even the gods can only govern in their territory.

First we must establish if Durokon's Castle are part of the Southern Lands (thus under the Southern gods authority) if it is not, then Sapphire guards have no jurisdiction at all against OoTS.

[TheElfLord]

He made that statement in front of the Sapphire Guard, who are sufficiently anal about the letter of their code that he needed to deceive them. He could not have claimed global authority unless they also believed that they truly had it.

I have no doubt the entire Saphire Guard think they have global authority. That doesn't mean they have it. They take an oath to defend their gate and avoid the other gates. Concepts of jurisdiction don't have to be mentioned in the oath at all.




Assumption of relevance.

Special agents have jurisdiction beyond their borders, and once again the Sapphire Guard and Azure City are separate authorities. This has been said again and again in this thread.

I never mentioned Azure City, it is quite seperate from the Saphire Guard. However, the Saphare Guard, whether independent or not, still gets its authority from the 12 gods, who have limited juresdiction.

And I don't see how my example assumes relevenace. I used a real world situation to help illistrate a fantasy concept.

Also, can special agents really have jurisdiction beyond their borders? or do they just act anyway? If a forgien agent tries to act in a sovereign state, without approval, he is outside the legitimate authority by definition. The fact that this occurs in real life does not confur legitimacy on the actions.




If so, the entire Sapphire Guard has been acting illegitimately for decades without the gods raising a fuss about it. See: crusades.

Quite possibly. Issues of illegitimate athourity are a matter of law. And Paladans do not fall for preforming un-lawful actions, only evil ones. As long as the members do enough lawful things to keep them from shifting to NG, the gods won't take away the powers of a paladan.*


*Since we don't know exaclty how Paladans fall in the OotS world, this comment is based on RAW DnD.


So you claim. Again: if they receive their authority from the gods who are tangible entities, with good and evil being objectively existent forces and said gods being creators of the damn planet, then this certainly gives them authority.

Only in the area under the authority of the 12 gods, which neather the site of the crime or the site of the arrest was.

[Deathwisher]

And for the umpteenth time: they were not in any country when she arrested them, they were in the wilderness. And no: Azure City has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the Sapphire Guard. I have pointed this out several times.


And for the umpteenth +1 time, the fact that they were not in a country does not automatically grant jurisdiction to any yahoo with a sword who happens to pass by. By this argument the OOTS has just as much legal right to resist the arrest as the Sapphire Gurad has to make it.



So?


So the gods lack of objection is a matter of convenience.




The concept of a lawful good paladin is to act as enforcer of law and good. Bandits are not lawful good.


and the druids don't count?



Except that in settings such as these gods are tangible and good and evil are objective entities.


that would only work if all gods agreed on the authority issue. I am quite sure the Dark One did not and he actually has a reasonable claim. There are goblins (his followers) living in that forrest.



So you claim. Again: if they receive their authority from the gods who are tangible entities, with good and evil being objectively existent forces and said gods being creators of the damn planet, then this certainly gives them authority.

Legal authority and religious authority are not the same thing. Whether the gods are tangible or not. Religion can only give authority across borders if people on both sides of the border worship the same gods and follow the same religious principles. The gods limited their own authority by dividing up the planet. OOTS was in the north lands, so a paladin of Thor or Odin should have made the arrest and then extradited them to Azur City.

[BRC]

So you claim. Again: if they receive their authority from the gods who are tangible entities, with good and evil being objectively existent forces and said gods being creators of the damn planet, then this certainly gives them authority.
The Saphire guard gets their athority from the 12 gods, and despite what shojo says, This Comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0453.html) Reveals that the gods DO have jurisdictions, and its implied they were in northern territory at the time of their arrest, so the 12 gods wouldn't have athority there.

[Lord Zentei]

That maybe true BUT I don't think Durokon's castle was in the same country/location as Azure city.

Even the gods can only govern in their territory.

First we must establish if Durokon's Castle are part of the Southern Lands (thus under the Southern gods authority) if it is not, then Sapphire guards have no jurisdiction at all against OoTS.

Er, I have pointed out:

* That Shojo claimed that the Sapphire Guard had global authority with the Sapphire Guard present. Which means they must believe they have global authority.
* Decades of crusades by the Sapphire Guard were not restricted by the Southern Lands. Yet, they got into no trouble from the gods because of it.

Also:

* Durkon can gain spells and operate in the south without problems. This suggests that tt was just direct intervention by Thor the southern gods raised a fuss over, but the agents of the gods can move around freely.


The Saphire guard gets their athority from the 12 gods, and despite what shojo says, This Comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0453.html) Reveals that the gods DO have jurisdictions, and its implied they were in northern territory at the time of their arrest, so the 12 gods wouldn't have athority there.

See final point above.

[chibibar]

Er, I have pointed out:

* That Shojo claimed that the Sapphire Guard had global authority with the Sapphire Guard present. Which means they must believe they have global authority.
* Decades of crusades by the Sapphire Guard were not restricted by the Southern Lands. Yet, they got into no trouble from the gods because of it.

Also:

* Durkon can gain spells and operate in the south without problems. This suggests that tt was just direct intervention by Thor the southern gods raised a fuss over, but the agents of the gods can move around freely.



See final point above.

But...if the gods do not have jurisdiction over a certain land, then their agent would not either (since the gods ARE higher power) the Sapphire guards maybe agents and have free will to move about, but they cannot exert authority in another land if it is NOT in the southern land (that is where I'm getting at)

Shojo claims a lot of things, but sometimes he "manipulates" information and people to greater cause. Some of which may never be answer consider he is dead (unless we get a scene in clouds)

We were arguing if the Sapphire guards has jurisdiction, someone posted that the gods grant them those rights (within their land) and since the gods CANNOT operate in other lands (ask to leave like Thor did) I'm sure they (Sapphire guard) can't exert their authority with exception of self defense.

[Deathwisher]

Er, I have pointed out:
* That Shojo claimed that the Sapphire Guard had global authority with the Sapphire Guard present. Which means they must believe they have global authority.


They also believed that their leader was a senile old man. That wasn't true either.



* Decades of crusades by the Sapphire Guard were not restricted by the Southern Lands. Yet, they got into no trouble from the gods because of it.


Those crusades were convenient for the gods, because they helped keep the Snarl locked up. WHy would they put an end to it.




* Durkon can gain spells and operate in the south without problems. This suggests that tt was just direct intervention by Thor the southern gods raised a fuss over, but the agents of the gods can move around freely.


They can move around freely. That does not give them authority.

[Lord Zentei]

And for the umpteenth +1 time, the fact that they were not in a country does not automatically grant jurisdiction to any yahoo with a sword who happens to pass by. By this argument the OOTS has just as much legal right to resist the arrest as the Sapphire Gurad has to make it.

Incorrect. The OOTS were acting on their own initiative, not that of a tangibly real higher authority.


So the gods lack of objection is a matter of convenience.

No. The SG gains its powers from the gods, if they contravene their code they eventually lose their powers.


and the druids don't count?

What druids?


that would only work if all gods agreed on the authority issue. I am quite sure the Dark One did not and he actually has a reasonable claim. There are goblins (his followers) living in that forrest.

So? He is not of the creator pantheons.


Legal authority and religious authority are not the same thing. Whether the gods are tangible or not.

If the gods are tangible and creators of the world, they do have jurisdiction over it, particularly with regards to cosmic entities that threaten creation.


Religion can only give authority across borders if people on both sides of the border worship the same gods and follow the same religious principles. The gods limited their own authority by dividing up the planet. OOTS was in the north lands, so a paladin of Thor or Odin should have made the arrest and then extradited them to Azur City.

Agents of the gods can seemingly move around even if the gods themselves cannot. Otherwise how did the southern gods get away with all those crusades by the Sapphire Guard?





They also believed that their leader was a senile old man. That wasn't true either.

Weak. We are talking about claims to their authority, which they would certainly know about.


Those crusades were convenient for the gods, because they helped keep the Snarl locked up. WHy would they put an end to it.

So: you deem that the gods acted illegitimately? Why, when the Northern Gods could simply have sent agents of their own?


They can move around freely. That does not give them authority.

Yes it does. If the gods continue to support them in such acts.



But...if the gods do not have jurisdiction over a certain land, then their agent would not either (since the gods ARE higher power) the Sapphire guards maybe agents and have free will to move about, but they cannot exert authority in another land if it is NOT in the southern land (that is where I'm getting at)

Assumption that they cannot send agents. Both the agents of the northern gods and the agents of the southern gods have consistently moved around. It's just the gods themselves that cannot.


Shojo claims a lot of things, but sometimes he "manipulates" information and people to greater cause. Some of which may never be answer consider he is dead (unless we get a scene in clouds)

How could he claim an authority in front of Hinjo that Hinjo knows that he does not possess?


We were arguing if the Sapphire guards has jurisdiction, someone posted that the gods grant them those rights (within their land) and since the gods CANNOT operate in other lands (ask to leave like Thor did) I'm sure they (Sapphire guard) can't exert their authority with exception of self defense.

How does Durkon gain spells in the south if Thor cannot operate in the south? What he cannot do is intervene divinely.

[lavidor10]

Actually, about Dorukan's castle being in a wilderness, it's not true. On the Origin of Pc's reaveals that there was a town within half a day's walk of the castle that (I think) had been suffering from goblin raids. It had a world famous mage arena.

Also, just because there is a guy with a big sword and paladin spells from the South walking around in the Northern lands, does not mean they have jurisdiction there. I didn't see Durkon trying to ARREST anybody in Azure City for a crime they commited in the South.

And the reason that the Northern Gods didn't send paladins to arrest the Oots is because the Oots AREN'T a danger to any gate, Elan destroyed the gate by ACCIDENT, it was probably a GOOD thing overall (stopping Xykon), and the Southern Gods didn't actually send Miko, it was all Shojo. Oh, and I don't think that the 12 Gods care about paladins breaking Northern Lands laws much, given their less (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0453.html)-than (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0273.html)-friendliness between the Northern Gods.

[Lord Zentei]

Actually, about Dorukan's castle being in a wilderness, it's not true. On the Origin of Pc's reaveals that there was a town within half a day's walk of the castle that (I think) had been suffering from goblin raids. It had a world famous mage arena.

It can still be wilderness for all that. And if the jurisdiction is by divine grant, it is not certain to be relevant in any case.


Also, just because there is a guy with a big sword and paladin spells from the South walking around in the Northern lands, does not mean they have jurisdiction there. I didn't see Durkon trying to ARREST anybody in Azure City for a crime they commited in the South.

That is because he is a cleric, not an enforcer on a specific mission. OTOH, I did see him fighting Xykon's minions in the south.


And the reason that the Northern Gods didn't send paladins to arrest the Oots is because the Oots AREN'T a danger to any gate, Elan destroyed the gate by ACCIDENT, it was probably a GOOD thing overall (stopping Xykon), and the Southern Gods didn't actually send Miko, it was all Shojo. Oh, and I don't think that the 12 Gods care about paladins breaking Northern Lands laws much, given their less-than-friendliness between the Northern Gods.

Er, I did not suggest that the northern gods should send anyone to arrest the OOTS, it was a reference to the sundry crusades that the SG has undertaken in the north and, indeed, across the planet.

[lavidor10]

Er, I did not suggest that the northern gods should send anyone to arrest the OOTS, it was a reference to the sundry crusades that the SG has undertaken in the north and, indeed, across the planet.

I commented that the paladins were probably breaking Northern jurisdiction laws but the Southern gods simply don't care. They are more concerned with the lawfulness of the paladins, not the legality.

Oh, and I also think the Northern Gods consider it evil (or at least unsportsmanlike) to genocide a village if its inhabitants never actually did anything evil. This is not the 12 Gods', or at least Soon Kim's view. We know from the Origin of Pcs and the mud farm sidequest that Northern towns do send out groups of adventurers to kill raiding orcs and giants and the like.

[Lord Zentei]

I commented that the paladins were probably breaking Northern jurisdiction laws but the Southern gods simply don't care. They are more concerned with the lawfulness of the paladins, not the legality.

But would the Sapphire Guard not meander away from Lawful alignment in that case? :smallconfused:

One Chaotic act is not enough to change your alignment, but consistent ones can.

[TheElfLord]

No. The SG gains its powers from the gods, if they contravene their code they eventually lose their powers.

Actually, as I pointed out above, Paladins only lose their power by commiting evil act, not un-lawful ones. By DnD RAW, a Paladin can commite many un-lawful acts, as long as he remains LG (by balancing it out with Lawful acts for instance) without ever falling.



Weak. We are talking about claims to their authority, which they would certainly know about.


Just cause a person is LG doesn't mean they can't be wrong. Also as I pointed out above, the SG clearly things they have a world wide jurisdiction. Just because they think that doesn't make it so. There are people today who think the world is flat and honestly belive it. That doesn't mean they are right.

[lavidor10]

But would the Sapphire Guard not meander away from Lawful alignment in that case? :smallconfused:

One Chaotic act is not enough to change your alignment, but consistent ones can.

Oh boy. Prepare to be hounded.

LEGALITY is NOT the same as LAWFULNESS.

[Deathwisher]

Incorrect. The OOTS were acting on their own initiative, not that of a tangibly real higher authority.


And you are the one claiming the the wilderness is open land ready for colonization. In the absence of a rule of law, anyone can decide what the law is. The OOTS actually has a better claim. There were six of them, vs. only one paladin. Moreover, they were minding their own business when they met the aforementioned paladin.




No. The SG gains its powers from the gods, if they contravene their code they eventually lose their powers.


If the gods decide so and as I just pointed out the Gods have vested interest in the Sapphire Guards actions.



What druids?


the druids living in the forest. The druids I mentioned in my earlier post.
The druids mentioned by Sams father in this http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0169.html
comic



So? He is not of the creator pantheons.


The new elven gods were granted autonomy in the elven lands. They were not part of the creator pantheons either.



Bull. If the gods are tangible and creators of the world, they do have jurisdiction over it, particularly with regards to cosmic entities that threaten creation.


Not if they give it up, which they did.



Agents of the gods can seemingly move around even if the gods themselves cannot. Otherwise how did the southern gods get away with all those crusades by the Sapphire Guard?


Marvelous! By that argument Redcloak is quite legitimate too, when he attacks Azur City. After all, his spells still worked too.



Weak. We are talking about claims to their authority, which they would certainly know about.


No we are talking about their BELIEVE that they had authority. Some people believe the earth is flat.




So: you deem that the gods acted illegitimately? Why, when the Northern Gods could simply have sent agents of their own?


Which agents? The northern equivalent of the Sapphire Guard? Oh yeah, now I remember, that doesn't exist. These crusades don't have to be legitimate to be useful for the gods.



Assumption that they cannot send agents. Both the agents of the northern gods and the agents of the southern gods have consistently moved around. It's just the gods themselves that cannot.


I can travel to another country too. That does not give me legitimate authority in that country. If carry a weapon that may allow me to impose my will on people, but I still have no authority



How could he claim an authority in front of Hinjo that Hinjo knows that he does not possess?


Hinjo agrees with Shojo the Gods give the Sapphire Guard authority to act anywhere in the world. Once again, their believe does not make it so.



How does Durkon gain spells in the south if Thor cannot operate in the south? What he cannot do is intervene divinely.

So Durkon has legitimate authority in Azur City? I can just see him chopping down all the trees.
If getting spells equals having authority, Redcloak is acting legitmiately when he attacks Azur City.

[Lord Zentei]

And you are the one claiming the the wilderness is open land ready for colonization. In the absence of a rule of law, anyone can decide what the law is. The OOTS actually has a better claim. There were six of them, vs. only one paladin. Moreover, they were minding their own business when they met the aforementioned paladin.

Meaningless argument. They are not operating under the orders of an authority with global jurisdiction.


If the gods decide so and as I just pointed out the Gods have vested interest in the Sapphire Guards actions.

It requires Lawful alignment to retain paladinhood. And moreover, who is to say that the gods may not intervene when the cosmic order is threatened? By the rules they imposed on each other they cannot intervene directly, but that does not mean that they cannot bestow such authority on their agents. You are essentially arguing that the gods were an illegitimate authority.


the druids living in the forest. The druids I mentioned in my earlier post.
The druids mentioned by Sams father in this http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0169.html
comic

So? They are not a recognized sovereign authority.


The new elven gods were granted autonomy in the elven lands. They were not part of the creator pantheons either.

So? They were not seeking to undermine the cosmic order.


Not if they give it up, which they did.

Oh? To what extent did they give it up? Apparently not to the extent that their paladins cannot go where they cannot.


Marvelous! By that argument Redcloak is quite legitimate too, when he attacks Azur City. After all, his spells still worked too.

The Dark One is seeking to undermine the cosmic order. The Twelve Gods represent that order. Apples and oranges.


No we are talking about their BELIEVE that they had authority. Some people believe the earth is flat.

Essentially that is theory #2 which I posted in the OP. That the Sapphire Guard does not know where their authority lies.


Which agents? The northern equivalent of the Sapphire Guard? Oh yeah, now I remember, that doesn't exist. These crusades don't have to be legitimate to be useful for the gods.

So you deem that the nonexistence of a northern Sapphire Guard means anything? On the contrary, it suggests that their authority extends to the north since a northern guard is apparently redundant.


I can travel to another country too. That does not give me legitimate authority in that country. If carry a weapon that may allow me to impose my will on people, but I still have no authority

Wow. Strawman, much?


Hinjo agrees with Shojo the Gods give the Sapphire Guard authority to act anywhere in the world. Once again, their believe does not make it so.

So: you are not only claiming that the gods acted illegitimately, but that the Sapphire Guard does not know the extent of their authority.


So Durkon has legitimate authority in Azur City? I can just see him chopping down all the trees.
If getting spells equals having authority, Redcloak is acting legitmiately when he attacks Azur City.

These points have been dealt with above.



Actually, as I pointed out above, Paladins only lose their power by commiting evil act, not un-lawful ones. By DnD RAW, a Paladin can commite many un-lawful acts, as long as he remains LG (by balancing it out with Lawful acts for instance) without ever falling.

I know. But continuously acting lawlessly can allow one to meander from the Lawful alignment. That was the argument, not that a single act was enough.


Just cause a person is LG doesn't mean they can't be wrong. Also as I pointed out above, the SG clearly things they have a world wide jurisdiction. Just because they think that doesn't make it so. There are people today who think the world is flat and honestly belive it. That doesn't mean they are right.

Theory #2 in the OP.

Seems rather far-fetched.


Oh boy. Prepare to be hounded.

LEGALITY is NOT the same as LAWFULNESS.

That is not my argument. But consistently claiming legality which you do not have, and acting with arbitrary force is not Lawfulness.

[lavidor10]

Meaningless argument. They are not operating under the orders of an authority with global jurisdiction.

So? They are not a recognized sovereign authority.

the Sapphire Guard isn't recognised, it's secret.



So you deem that the nonexistence of a northern Sapphire Guard means anything? On the contrary, it suggests that their authority extends to the north since a northern guard is apparently redundant.


The Sapphire Guard was formed fairly recently in the history of the Oots world, in secret, by a single paladin (not the gods), to protect their OWN gate. The other gates have different guarding mechanisms (Dorukan's sigils worked EXTREMELY well, they killed an epic lich). I don't see why Dorukan would feel the need for his own guard OR for Soon's jurisdiction to extend to Dorukan's gate. They whole point of the Sapphire oath was to separate the order of the rift.





Essentially that is theory #2 which I posted in the OP. That the Sapphire Guard does not know where their authority lies.

So: you are not only claiming that the gods acted illegitimately, but that the Sapphire Guard does not know the extent of their authority.

I know. But continuously acting lawlessly can allow one to meander from the Lawful alignment. That was the argument, not that a single act was enough.

It requires Lawful alignment to retain paladinhood. And moreover, who is to say that the gods may not intervene when the cosmic order is threatened? By the rules they imposed on each other they cannot intervene directly, but that does not mean that they cannot bestow such authority on their agents. You are essentially arguing that the gods were an illegitimate authority.

That is not my argument. But consistently claiming legality which you do not have, and acting with arbitrary force is not Lawfulness.



Maybe according to Sapphire Laws, it was legal. But those laws weren't actually recognised by the Northern countries, so it was illegal there. Probably no one in the Northern lands bothered to tell them, because after all, it was GOBLINS they were killing and who cares about goblins? :smallfrown:

They can keep their lawfulness.

[Lord Zentei]

the Sapphire Guard isn't recognised, it's secret.

True, though divine law trumps local law. They did create the planet, after all, and the autonomy of its people is by grant.


The Sapphire Guard was formed fairly recently in the history of the Oots world, in secret, by a single paladin (not the gods), to protect their OWN gate. The other gates have different guarding mechanisms (Dorukan's sigils worked EXTREMELY well, they killed an epic lich). I don't see why Dorukan would feel the need for his own guard OR for Soon's jurisdiction to extend to Dorukan's gate. They whole point of the Sapphire oath was to separate the order of the rift.

And therefore, they did nothing until Soon could convince them that there might be a threat to the other gates as well. In that case they may act, apparently.


Maybe according to Sapphire Laws, it was legal. But those laws weren't actually recognised by the Northern countries, so it was illegal there. Probably no one in the Northern lands bothered to tell them, because after all, it was GOBLINS they were killing and who cares about goblins? :smallfrown:

They can keep their lawfulness.

I never said that they were nice. :smallwink:

The argument stems from the interview with the lawful good deva in the comic, not other kinds of ethical justifications or argumentations.

[TheElfLord]

So? They are not a recognized sovereign authority.

Neither is the SG. You can't have it both ways, either both non sovereign groups have legitimacy, or neither do.



Essentially that is theory #2 which I posted in the OP. That the Sapphire Guard does not know where their authority lies.
So: you are not only claiming that the gods acted illegitimately, but that the Sapphire Guard does not know the extent of their authority.


Authority is jointly constructed. I can say I have total authority over the entire world, but no one else is going to support that. Authority is either taken by force or given by an agreement of people. The SG may well think that they should and do have authority over the entire world, however I think most of the nations of the world would disagree. In a similar vien, if there was no central authority, such as in the wilderness where the OotS was captured, then all parties would have equal claim to establish law, whether a band of northern advernturers or a representival of a secret southern order.

The gods haven't acted illigetimatly at all, because the gods haven't done anything. The only way I can think you could believe the gods have acted illigitiamtly if because they haven't abandoned the order. To this I can only restate what you have ignored twice before, that an unlawful act does not cause a paladin to fall.

[Lord Zentei]

Neither is the SG. You can't have it both ways, either both non sovereign groups have legitimacy, or neither do.

See point below.


Authority is jointly constructed. I can say I have total authority over the entire world, but no one else is going to support that. Authority is either taken by force or given by an agreement of people. The SG may well think that they should and do have authority over the entire world, however I think most of the nations of the world would disagree. In a similar vien, if there was no central authority, such as in the wilderness where the OotS was captured, then all parties would have equal claim to establish law, whether a band of northern advernturers or a representival of a secret southern order.

The authority of the local governments and powers on the face of the Stickworld are derived because the gods granted them that autonomy. In extremis, it can be withheld.


The gods haven't acted illigetimatly at all, because the gods haven't done anything. The only way I can think you could believe the gods have acted illigitiamtly if because they haven't abandoned the order. To this I can only restate what you have ignored twice before, that an unlawful act does not cause a paladin to fall.

I have not ignored it. You ignored my response: multiple unlawful acts do cause you to fall. Moreso if your entire order consistently acts unlawfully.

[lavidor10]

True, though divine law trumps local law. They did create the planet, after all, and the autonomy of its people is by grant.




I never said that they were nice. :smallwink:

The argument stems from the interview with the lawful good deva in the comic, not other kinds of ethical justifications or argumentations.




And therefore, they did nothing until Soon could convince them that there might be a threat to the other gates as well. In that case they may act, apparently.


No, they can't. They can't interfere with other gates and that includes protecting them. Shojo sent paladins to understand what happened to Lirian's gate because there was a danger it could happen to Soon's gate too. That was a legitimate and legal action (they didn't arrest or kill anybody, they just investigated.

The crusades that Soon sent them out on were (very indirectly in my opinion) to protect his own gate. There is no mention of clear orders or authorization from any pantheon, but the gods probably didn't care about the legitimacy or legality of the crusades because the victims are, after all, goblins :smallfrown: .

[Deathwisher]

Meaningless argument. They are not operating under the orders of an authority with global jurisdiction.


The fact that the Sapphire Guard claims such authority does not mean they have it. That is what I have been saying all along. You made a point of the fact that the forest was wilderness, therefore open to colonization and therefore a paladin can walk in there and enforce his concept of law. I now make a point that if the land is unclaimed ANYONE can do that.



It requires Lawful alignment to retain paladinhood. And moreover, who is to say that the gods may not intervene when the cosmic order is threatened? By the rules they imposed on each other they cannot intervene directly, but that does not mean that they cannot bestow such authority on their agents. You are essentially arguing that the gods were an illegitimate authority.


That is exactly what I am claiming. One could argue that an act is legitimate because it is commited by a god, but that raises new problems. What if two gods fight each other? Thor and Loki are about to have a battle in one of the comics. Both are creator gods, so which one's actions are the more legitimate?




So? They are not a recognized sovereign authority.


they are the ones currently inhabiting the forest. Soereign authority? You are the one arguing that jurisccition can be claimed on religious grounds. By that rule the druids, as servants of the gods have the local authority.



So? They were not seeking to undermine the cosmic order.


So now the legitimacy of a god would depend on his/her agenda



Oh? To what extent did they give it up? Apparently not to the extent that their paladins cannot go where they cannot.


the fact that they can go somewhere says nothing about their authority



Rubbish. The Dark One is seeking to undermine the cosmic order. The Twelve Gods represent that order. Apples and oranges.


But that does not stop the Dark One from giving his servant arcane spell power, so spell power is unrelated to legitimate authority.



Essentially that is theory #2 which I posted in the OP. That the Sapphire Guard does not know where their authority lies.


Or their opinion of what constitutes legal authority differs from that of other people. As a secret organization they can hardly go around asking for permission to carry out their assignments abroad.



So you deem that the nonexistence of a northern Sapphire Guard means anything? On the contrary, it suggests that their authority extends to the north since a northern guard is apparently redundant.


that would be the case if the gods had created the Sapphire Guard.
Instead, the Sapphire Guard was the creation of one man, who thought it was the best solution to protect the Azur City gate. The other members of his adventure party simply had different ideas. That doesn't mean that they gave Soon's followers authority to operate in other countries. That was not their decision to make in the first place.



Wow. Strawman, much?


You stated the fact that paladins can travel to other countries as proof that they had legitimate authority. I pointed out that it only means they had a mode of transportation.



So: you are not only claiming that the gods acted illegitimately, but that the Sapphire Guard does not know the extent of their authority.


I am claiming that the Sapphire Guard, being a religious organization, claims a legal authority that they don't have. As to the gods they are not acting, they are doing nothing while the Sapphire Guard acts.




Nonsense. These points have been dealt with above.


Same here.





I know. But continuously acting lawlessly can allow one to meander from the Lawful alignment. That was the argument, not that a single act was enough.


Which would not cause them to lose paladin status if they commited enough lawful actions to counter balance.



Theory #2 in the OP.

Seems rather far-fetched.


Why farfetched? Does being the Sapphire guard make them legal experts? Apparently not, since they didn't even notice that a trial was being fixed right under their noses. Besides, it doesn't have to mean they are stupid, merely that they have a different opinion. (See my comments above)




That is not my argument. But consistently claiming legality which you do not have, and acting with arbitrary force is not Lawfulness.

Lawfulness means strictly abiding by a set of rules. The Sapphire guard is being Lawful in that they follow the rules of their own organisation. That these rules cause them to break the laws of other countries does not make them unlawful. When two sets of regulations collide a lawful person has to choose which set he follows. Being ultmately religious in nature it is hardly surprising if they consider the religious laws to outweigh the secular laws of a country. However, that doesn't necessarity mean that everyone agrees.

[Lord Zentei]

No, they can't. They can't interfere with other gates and that includes protecting them. Shojo sent paladins to understand what happened to Lirian's gate because there was a danger it could happen to Soon's gate too. That was a legitimate and legal action (they didn't arrest or kill anybody, they just investigated.

Quite so: but that does not remove their right to arrest people that damage the other gates if they might be a threat to their own gate.

Otherwise, as you point out yourself, they could not have legitimately gone to see what had happened to Lirian's gate.


The crusades that Soon sent them out on were (very indirectly in my opinion) to protect his own gate. There is no mention of clear orders or authorization from any pantheon, but the gods probably didn't care about the legitimacy or legality of the crusades because the victims are, after all, goblins :smallfrown: .

Sniff. :smallfrown:

Perhaps the Dark One was after the gates for his own purposes.

[TheElfLord]

The authority of the local governments and powers on the face of the Stickworld are derived because the gods granted them that autonomy. In extremis, it can be withheld.

But it is not within the 12 god's power to remove that autonomy from the northern lands. This is the power of the northern gods.



I have not ignored it. You ignored my response: multiple unlawful acts do cause you to fall. Moreso if your entire order consistently acts unlawfully.



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

By RAW, evil actions cause a paladin to fall. Un-lawful actions don't, unless they are also considered a gross violation of the code. It is possible for a person and an order to commit large numbers of non-gross un-lawful acts over years or a lifetime even without falling.

[Deathwisher]

Sniff. :smallfrown:

Perhaps the Dark One was after the gates for his own purposes.

That is what Righteye suggests hen he says that the Dark One doesn't care about the goblins anymore than the other gods.

[Lord Zentei]

The fact that the Sapphire Guard claims such authority does not mean they have it. That is what I have been saying all along. You made a point of the fact that the forest was wilderness, therefore open to colonization and therefore a paladin can walk in there and enforce his concept of law. I now make a point that if the land is unclaimed ANYONE can do that.

Fair enough.


That is exactly what I am claiming. One could argue that an act is legitimate because it is commited by a god, but that raises new problems. What if two gods fight each other? Thor and Loki are about to have a battle in one of the comics. Both are creator gods, so which one's actions are the more legitimate?

The SG derive their authority from the entire pantheon of southern gods. If they cannot claim legitimacy, then who can?


they are the ones currently inhabiting the forest. Soereign authority? You are the one arguing that jurisdcition can be claimed on religious grounds. By that rule the druids, as servants of the gods have the local authority.

No: I am claiming that jurisdiction can be claimed by the creators of a planet who granted certain autonomy to their creations.


So now the legitimacy of a god would depend on his/her agenda

No, on his authority based on the fact that it is his damn planet.


the fact that they can go somewhere says nothing about their authority

Yes it does. The gods have placed restrictions on their own movements so as not to step on each others toes. Their agents are allowed to roam around. Moreover, it is one thing to be able to roam around, but another to be able to do that while simultaneously claiming you are working for a god who still deigns to grant you spells.


But that does not stop the Dark One from giving his servant arcane spell power, so spell power is unrelated to legitimate authority.

Not if the spell power is granted by the creator pantheons whose planet this is.


Or their opinion of what constitutes legal authority differs from that of other people. As a secret organization they can hardly go around sking for permission to carry out their asignments abroad.

The opinions of other people would weigh less than those of the creators of the planet. What do you think this is, a democracy?


that would be the case if the gods had created the Sapphre Guard.
Instead, the Sapphyre Guard was the creation of one man, who thought it was the best solution to protect the Azur City gate. the other members of his adventure party simply had different ideas. That doesn't mean that they gave Soon's followers authority to operate in other countries. that was not their decision to make in the first place.

Irrelevant. They retain their powers due to the gods, not due to Soon.


You stated the fact that paladins can travel to other countries as proof that they had legitimate authority. I pointed out that it only means they had a mode of transportation.

They are acting in the name of the gods as they travel, and the gods apparently accept this state of affairs.


I am claiming that the Sapphire Guard, being a religious organization, claims a legal authority that they don't have. As to the gods they are not acting, they are doing nothing while the Sapphire Guard acts.

Utterly false. They are granting the SG their powers to perform acts in their name. Therefore they are culpable in what the SG do with those powers.


Which would not cause them to lose paladin status if they commited enought lawful actions .

Unlawful actions, you mean to say. And yes, it would, since enough unlawful actions make you non-lawful. That causes you to fall.


Why farfetched? Does being the Sapphire guard make them legal experts? Apperently not, since they didn't even notice that a trial was being fixed right under their noses. besides, it doesn't have to mean they are stupid, merely that they have a different opinion. (See my coments above)

The fact that a trial was being fixed under their noses is not testament to their ignorance of their own authority.


Lawfulness means strictly abiding by a set of rules. The Sapphyre guard is being Lawful in that they follow the rules of their own organisation. That these rules cause them to break the laws of other countries does not make them unlawful. When two sets of regulations collide a lawful person has to chose which set he follows. being ultmately religious in nature it is hardly surprising if they consider the religious laws to outweigh the secular laws of a country. However, that doesn't necessarity mean that everyone agrees.

The gods, apparently, agree. They are the ones who granted autonomy to the peoples of the world. You cannot compare a setting where the gods are tangible with the real world where religion is a matter of opinion: it is simply not comparable.




But it is not within the 12 god's power to remove that autonomy from the northern lands. This is the power of the northern gods.

Evidence? They object to divine intervention of one another, not to each other's agents roaming around.


By RAW, evil actions cause a paladin to fall. Un-lawful actions don't, unless they are also considered a gross violation of the code. It is possible for a person and an order to commit large numbers of non-gross un-lawful acts over years or a lifetime even without falling.

Read the link you provided. In particular this: "a paladin who ceases to be lawful good".

Consistent non-lawful acts change your alignment to non-lawful. This causes you to fall.

ONE evil act does not change your alignment, but it does cause you to fall. Only that's not what is being spoken about here.

[TheElfLord]

Evidence? They object to divine intervention of one another, not to each other's agents roaming around. If a god deciedes that part of the world under the control of another god loses its right of autonomy, that sounds like divine intervention, or at least a divine decision.


Read the link you provided. In particular this: "a paladin who ceases to be lawful good".

Consistent non-lawful acts change your alignment to non-lawful. This causes you to fall.

All you have to do is commit as many lawful acts as un-lawful ones and you are fine. A paladin can commit a thousand un lawful acts over a lifetime, but as long as none of them grossly violate his code and he does at least a couple thousand lawful acts, he stays LG. Hence, no problem.

[Lord Zentei]

If a god deciedes that part of the world under the control of another god loses its right of autonomy, that sounds like divine intervention, or at least a divine decision.

No: divine intervention is where they break the rules. Such as Thor with the control lightning scroll.


All you have to do is commit as many lawful acts as un-lawful ones and you are fine. A paladin can commit a thousand un lawful acts over a lifetime, but as long as none of them grossly violate his code and he does at least a couple thousand lawful acts, he stays LG. Hence, no problem.

No, if you commit as many lawful acts as unlawful ones, you are Neutral on the Law-Chaos axis.

[lavidor10]

Read the link you provided. In particular this: "a paladin who ceases to be lawful good".

Consistent non-lawful acts change your alignment to non-lawful. This causes you to fall.

ONE evil act does not change your alignment, but it does cause you to fall. Only that's not what is being spoken about here.

I'll put my case to you again:

You are saying that if the crusades were illegal in the local countries, the paladins would have fallen for nonlawfulness. I put it to you that they were legal according to the Sapphire Guards's laws and codes (which you say are in agreement with the 12 Gods' laws by default), but not according to the Northern lands' local and religious laws. The SG, being a secret organization, didn't bother to check.

[Lord Zentei]

I'll put my case to you again:

You are saying that if the crusades were illegal in the local countries, the paladins would have fallen for nonlawfulness. I put it to you that they were legal according to the Sapphire Guards's laws and codes (which you say are in agreement with the 12 Gods' laws by default), but not according to the Northern lands' local and religious laws. The SG, being a secret organization, didn't bother to check.

No, I am saying that the laws of the creator pantheons override those of the locals in cases where threats to the world as a whole are concerned.

Much like federal laws outweigh state laws on matters of national security, see?

[lavidor10]

No, I am saying that the laws of the creator pantheons override those of the locals in cases where threats to the world as a whole are concerned.

Much like federal laws outweigh state laws on matters of national security, see?

Note I also mentioned Northern Religious laws.

[TheElfLord]

No, if you commit as many lawful acts as unlawful ones, you are Neutral on the Law-Chaos axis.

Which is why you will note upon reading my statement that I compared a thousand unlawful acts to a couple thousand lawful ones :)

[Lord Zentei]

Note I also mentioned Northern Religious laws.

Would the northern gods tolerate consistent infringements of their territory if this were not legitimate? The gods may have restricted their own movements, but that does not mean that their followers cannot legitimately act beyond their home turf -- that being a logical way around the restrictions they have placed on themselves and each other.

See my point in the "it doesn't make sense (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58924)" thread.


Which is why you will note upon reading my statement that I compared a thousand unlawful acts to a couple thousand lawful ones :)

Ah, my bad. :smallwink:

Given how seriously the gods seem to take such things, it would suggest that minions and agents are permitted where gods are not. That would also resolve the classical problem of "why are the gods not proactive in the face of evil" argument that bedevils so many fantasy worlds, vis a vis the Stickverse. See point above.

[lavidor10]

Would the northern gods tolerate consistent infringements of their territory if this were not legitimate? The gods may have restricted their own movements, but that does not mean that their followers cannot legitimately act beyond their home turf -- that being a logical way around the restrictions they have placed on themselves and each other.


Yes, they would, since it's goblins the SG are killing. But if the SG consistently goes around arresting (and, for that matter executing) people in the Northern Lands I don't think they would like it very much.

[Deathwisher]

The SG derive their authority from the entire pantheon of southern gods. If they cannot claim legitimacy, then who can?


In the Southern lands they can claim authority based on their affiliation with the Southern Gods. Not in the Northern lands, where authority derives from the Northern gods.



No: I am claiming that jurisdiction can be claimed by the creators of a planet who granted certain autonomy to their creations.


And the druids serve the same gods, which would negate the claim that the wilderness has no law. It may have no secular law, but it does have religious figures of authority.



The opinions of other people would weigh less than those of the creators of the planet. What do you think this is, a democracy?


So what are we going to do when two of the creators have a difference of opinion? The followers of both would have equal legitimacy.



Irrelevant. They retain their powers due to the gods, not due to Soon.


You claimed that the non-existence of a northern Sapphire Guard suggested that the southern Sapphire Guard had worldwide authority. My point is that it is merely a case of different people finding a different solution to the same problem.



Wow, you really don't get it, do you. They are acting in the name of the gods as they travel, and the gods apparently accept this state of affairs.


By that argument any paladin automatically has legal authority in any country. The same goes for clerics who are also carrying out actions in the name of their gods. If that is the case it basically obviates the need for secular law, since religous law would always override it.



Utterly false. They are granting the SG their powers to perform acts in their name. Therefore they are culpable in what the SG do with those powers.


They bear a certain responsibility for the actions of their followers, yes. As I said, the actions of the Sapphire Guard are very convenient for them. However, does the fact that the Southern Gods decided not to stop them automatically make their actions legitimate? Since the pantheon contains both good and evil gods I find that doubtful.




Unlawful actions, you mean to say. And yes, it would, since enough unlawful actions make you non-lawful. That causes you to fall.


No that is not what I mean to say. What I mean to say and what I in fact said is that as long as a paladin commits enough lawful actions he does not lose paladinstatus because of the unlawful ones.



The fact that a trial was being fixed under their noses is not testament to their ignorance of their own authority.


No, it is a testament to the fact that their opinion on legal matters does not automatically have to be correct



The gods, apparently, agree. They are the ones who granted autonomy to the peoples of the world. You cannot compare a setting where the gods are tangible with the real world where religion is a matter of opinion: it is simply not comparable.


Which comes down again to the argument whether religious authority automically means that you have the legal right to operate in another part of the world where people worship other gods.

[Porthos]

I commented that the paladins were probably breaking Northern jurisdiction laws but the Southern gods simply don't care. They are more concerned with the lawfulness of the paladins, not the legality.


But would the Sapphire Guard not meander away from Lawful alignment in that case? :smallconfused:

One Chaotic act is not enough to change your alignment, but consistent ones can.


Oh boy. Prepare to be hounded.

LEGALITY is NOT the same as LAWFULNESS.

Absolutely. See my sig, and the link within it, when it comes to the relationship between Laws and Lawful behavior.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh yeah, consider Lord Zentei hounded. :smalltongue:

[Lord Zentei]

In the Southern lands they can claim authority based on their affiliation with the Southern Gods. Not in the Northern lands, where authority derives from the Northern gods.

And you continue to assume that the gods cannot send missions into each other's lands when the planet as a whole is at risk, even though they have agreed not to manifest themselves in each others' lands.


And the druids serve the same gods, which would negate the claim that the wilderness has no law. It may have no secular law, but it does have religious figures of authority.

No, they do not worship the same gods.


So what are we going to do when two of the creators have a difference of opinion? The followers of both would have equal legitimacy.

Presumably, though that is irrelevant since the 12 stand united.


You claimed that the non-existence of a northern Sapphire Guard suggested that the southern Sapphire Guard had worldwide authority. My point is that it is merely a case of different people finding a different solution to the same problem.

Something you have not shown to be so.


By that argument any paladin automatically has legal authority in any country. The same goes for clerics who are also carrying out actions in the name of their gods. If that is the case it basically obviates the need for secular law, since religous law would always override it.

No. Not all paladins have authority from the creator pantheons. And the creator pantheons allow autonomy, except that can legitimately be withheld when the entire world is at risk.


They bear a certain responsibility for the actions of their followers, yes. As I said, the actions of the Sapphire Guard are very convenient for them. However, does the fact that the Southern Gods decided not to stop them automatically make their actions legitimate? Since the pantheon contains both good and evil gods I find that doubtful.

What has that got to do with anything? The gods created the planet. They grant autonomy to its inhabitants. They withhold that autonomy when their world is at risk. How is that not legitimate?


No that is not what I mean to say. What I mean to say and what I in fact said is that as long as a paladin commits enough lawful actions he does not lose paladinstatus because of the unlawful ones.

You should express yourself more clearly, then. Regardless, we are not talking about minor infringements here.


No, it is a testament to the fact that their opinion on legal matters does not automatically have to be correct

Ridiculous. Their opinion on legal matters has nothing to do with the manner in which the trial was fixed: Eugene used illusions to deceive them. That has no bearing on their own perception of their authority.


Which comes down again to the argument whether religious authority automically means that you have the legal right to operate in another part of the world where people worship other gods.

Strawman. Religious authority does not automatically mean that unless the creator gods grant it. It is their planet.


Oh yeah, consider Lord Zentei hounded. :smalltongue:

See my response to that point. :smalltongue:



Yes, they would, since it's goblins the SG are killing. But if the SG consistently goes around arresting (and, for that matter executing) people in the Northern Lands I don't think they would like it very much.

Not a given.

[lavidor10]

And you continue to assume that the gods cannot send missions into each other's lands when the planet as a whole is at risk, even though they have agreed not to manifest themselves in each others' lands.

To bring this back to a point: Roy had every reason to think that if they really did something wrong, the Northern Gods would send a Northern Paladin to bring them to court in a Northern city. Therefore, if they didn't, the Southern gods don't have the legitimacy to overstep their borders since the Oots didn't commit a crime. Or, Miko wasn't acting on Southern gods' authority but on someone else's, so: no legitimacy.



No, they do not worship the same gods.

What if some of the druids get their powers from the 12 gods? The SOUTHERN oracle got his powers from a western goddess.

Are you saying it a a 12 Gods religious law that all their followers should automatically submit to a small, secret order of paladins?



Presumably, though that is irrelevant since the 12 stand united.

Actually, they're not. In SoD: Rat, the EVIL southern god, disagreed with Dragon about whether or not to tell the Dark One about the Snarl.



Something you have not shown to be so.

I've shown this:

(Quote)
The Sapphire Guard was formed fairly recently in the history of the Oots world, in secret, by a single paladin (not the gods), to protect their OWN gate. The other gates have different guarding mechanisms (Dorukan's sigils worked EXTREMELY well, they killed an epic lich). I don't see why Dorukan would feel the need for his own guard OR for Soon's jurisdiction to extend to Dorukan's gate. They whole point of the Sapphire oath was to separate the order of the rift.


Not a given.

Considering Tiger was angry at Thor for trying to help Durkon SAVE HINJO'S LIFE, I think any Pantheon would be angry at any other pantheon for sending operatives to arrest and/or murder people based upon foreign laws.

[David Argall]

This is a bit of a puzzle: in his interview (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html) with the bureaucratic deva, Roy uses "it was an illegitimate authority" as an excuse for resisting arrest.

However, prior to the trial, Lord Shojo states (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0267.html) that the Sapphire Guard has jurisdiction that extends to the northern lands, since his status as Commander is not related to his status as Lord of Azure City.

Thus, even though the charges themselves were trumped up, the Sapphire Guard's authority to arrest was not really illegitimate. And in any case they were technically guilty as Haley pointed out here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0284.html) (you may need the translation thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4909)). A nitpick, granted, but then this is meant to be a bureaucratic deva.

So, theories:

1) They don't make bureaucratic devas like they used to. :smallwink: This is supported by the fact that she also accepts "would've been destroyed in the explosion anyway" as an excuse for what was basically theft (theft is still theft, after all).


This is more or less the correct idea. The deva seems to regard these issues as small issues, worthy of mention and of noting Roy's response, but not likely to be decisive once the big issues are decided. Thus we note her acceptance of Roy not remembering about the oracle. He is telling the truth, but that gives him no moral immunity.

Now as to the validity of Roy's defense.

As far as the Sapphire Guard is concerned, they have jurisdiction worldwide, and any prisoner they drag to their court will be treated accordingly.
Any legal system is, by definition, infinite in coverage, exempting only that which it says it exempts. Any other legal systems are either aspects of the legal system or just false. There is no escape. Yes, an American cop can arrest a Russian in Antartica about an El Savador event. If he can get him back to an American court, the Russian is not going to escape on any claim of lack of jurisdiction. Of course if he first lands in any other country, that country may well free the Russian, but that is much the same as if some bandits freed him in the US.

However the question here is whether Roy had to obey the demands of the Sapphire Guard, which shifts our view. Now the Guard is merely one of a possibly large number of rulers Roy might have to obey. So which one[s] Roy needs to obey is not a given.
On the face of it, Roy has a fine position during the first arrest. He is presumably a citizen of some Northern state and may not have even heard of Azure City or the Sapphire Guard. So he would have been in the clear there. However by the 2nd, he has both learned of the Southern authorities and has
pretty much accepted their authority. So his ability to resist at the 2nd is suspect at best.


On other matters...



All you have to do is commit as many lawful acts as un-lawful ones and you are fine. A paladin can commit a thousand un lawful acts over a lifetime, but as long as none of them grossly violate his code and he does at least a couple thousand lawful acts, he stays LG. Hence, no problem.

The paladin can do some chaotic acts and remain a paladin, but the number can be nothing close to equality with lawful. Simple math shows the problem. Enough of neutral or chaotic acts will push him into NG, and ex-paladinhood.
And the paladin is supposed to be The LG of LG. A marginal state is suspect at best. Even a clearly LG balance may not be good enough for a paladin.

[Lord Zentei]

To bring this back to a point: Roy had every reason to think that if they really did something wrong, the Northern Gods would send a Northern Paladin to bring them to court in a Northern city. Therefore, if they didn't, the Southern gods don't have the legitimacy to overstep their borders since the Oots didn't commit a crime. Or, Miko wasn't acting on Southern gods' authority but on someone else's, so: no legitimacy.

Not a given, if the paladins of the southern gods do in fact have legitimacy to act in the north.


What if some of the druids get their powers from the 12 gods? The SOUTHERN oracle got his powers from a western goddess.

Not been shown. We cannot simply assume that they receive their powers from the 12 or any of the other creator pantheons. In any case, it is logical that threats to the planet overall outweigh local authority.


Are you saying it a a 12 Gods religious law that all their followers should automatically submit to a small, secret order of paladins?

Only for the very specific issues pertaining to the gates. If they were acting on behalf of Azure city, that would be another matter.

And in any case, apparently paladins can go around smiting people.


Actually, they're not. In SoD: Rat, the EVIL southern god, disagreed with Dragon about whether or not to tell the Dark One about the Snarl.

The context of that statement was clearly with regards to the legitimate authority of the paladins, not to any and all specific policy decisions.


I've shown this:

(Quote)
The Sapphire Guard was formed fairly recently in the history of the Oots world, in secret, by a single paladin (not the gods), to protect their OWN gate. The other gates have different guarding mechanisms (Dorukan's sigils worked EXTREMELY well, they killed an epic lich). I don't see why Dorukan would feel the need for his own guard OR for Soon's jurisdiction to extend to Dorukan's gate. They whole point of the Sapphire oath was to separate the order of the rift.

And I've pointed out to counter that:
* They have legitimacy when confronted by threats which could concern their own gate as well
* The gods continue to support their actions in their actions.

Let's not go in circles.


Considering Tiger was angry at Thor for trying to help Durkon SAVE HINJO'S LIFE, I think any Pantheon would be angry at any other pantheon for sending operatives to arrest and/or murder people based upon foreign laws.

He was angry with him for breaking the rules, not for saving Hinjo's life. Note that he said nothing about all the other stuff Thor's cleric did.

If they were this agressive about each other's agents performing in each others lands the SG would never have been able to go outside their borders without Thor giving them a hard time.

[Deathwisher]

No, they do not worship the same gods.


In SOD one of the godesses speaks of HER druids. The same goddes is drawn as one of the gods of the west in the Crayons of Time. So at least some druids worship gods from the creator pantheon.




Presumably, though that is irrelevant since the 12 stand united.


The rat is presented as an evil god in SOD, but you are right, the twelve stand united, though that does not necessarily mean that all creator gods agree,



Something you have not shown to be so.


What, that it was created to solve a problem that other people solved differently? That was shown in the Crayons of time. I don't say that this automatically denies the SG legitimacy. All I say is that the absence of a Northern SG equivalent is merely the result of the different approaches of the members of the Order of the Scribble.
No. Not all paladins have authority from the creator pantheons. And the creator pantheons allow autonomy, except that can legitimately be withheld when the entire world is at risk.




What has that got to do with anything? The gods created the planet. They grant autonomy to its inhabitants. They withhold that autonomy when their world is at risk. How is that not legitimate?


Only if all the creatoor pantheons agree. That has not been shown



You should express yourself more clearly, then. Regardless, we are not talking about minor infringements here.


I am sorry, I guess i made my sentence too short. So they can commit two lawful acts to compensate for one unlawful one. Also, as was pointed out by me and others, breaking he law of a land is not automatically 'unlawful'. They obey the laws of their order.




Ridiculous. Their opinion on legal matters has nothing to do with the manner in which the trial was fixed: Eugene used illusions to deceive them. That has no bearing on their own perception of their authority.


Their own perception of their legal authority is probably that it is absolute. The reality is that they can be deceived, so mistakes are possible.



Strawman. Religious authority does not automatically mean that unless the creator gods grant it. It is their planet.


So to summarize: you propose that the OOTS divine world has two layers:
The creator gods and the secondary (for want of a better word) gods.
The creator god define what is legitimate due to their creation and therefor ultimate ownership of the world. The secondary gods can grant power to followers but ony as far as the creator gods allow it.

Personally I see legitimacy as a more abstract concept, but we can agree to disagree on that point. However, it still does not solve the question of what happens when the creator gods are not in agreement, or exactly what they are in agreement about.

In the case of the SG the Gods seem to have been in agreement when it came to hunting down goblins (after all, that is why they were created).

When it comes to arresting the OOTS, well, we don't actually know what the gods agreed with: The authority to make the arrest, or Shojo's plan to involve the OOTS in keeping the gates safe. (Assuming that, being gods, they knew he was doing that.) The fact that Miko fell for killing Shojo may be an indication, but can also have been an objective condemnation for the killing of a defenseless old man. The fact that the Northern gods did not object may indicate agreement with either, or that they were too busy throwing lightning bolts around while blindfolded :smallbiggrin: So, the question still stands: did the SG have the right to arrest the worshippers of the Northern gods, in the Northern Lands, for actions commited in the Northern lands.

[Lord Zentei]

In SOD one of the godesses speaks of HER druids. The same goddes is drawn as one of the gods of the west in the Crayons of Time. So at least some druids worship gods from the creator pantheon.

Well, that's reasonable, though the forest needn't be under that pantheon. In any case, the point that local authorities must yield when the world is at risk remains; see federal vs local government argument.


The rat is presented as an evil god in SOD, but you are right, the twelve stand united, though that does not necessarily mean that all creator gods agree

Not on all things, no. But on their collective authority, very probably. :smallwink:


What, that it was created to solve a problem that other people solved differently? That was shown in the Crayons of time. I don't say that this automatically denies the SG legitimacy. All I say is that the absence of a Northern SG equivalent is merely the result of the different approaches of the members of the Order of the Scribble.

Or that the SG performs the role of paladin order for the world at large, and the northern wandering heroes perform their (different) role for the world at large. This eliminates both northern and southern pantheons having to provide both kinds of goody-two-shoes brigade.


Only if all the creatoor pantheons agree. That has not been shown

The evidence points to the fact that they allow each other to use mortals as agents to undertake missions that they themselves have agreed not to.


I am sorry, I guess i made my sentence too short. So they can commit two lawful acts to compensate for one unlawful one. Also, as was pointed out by me and others, breaking he law of a land is not automatically 'unlawful'. They obey the laws of their order.

Yes I see. Disagreement as noted above by David Argall. :smalltongue:

And the laws of their order are derived from the creator gods who are also responsible for providing them with their powers.


Their own perception of their legal authority is probably that it is absolute. The reality is that they can be deceived, so mistakes are possible.

Not knowing that you can't take the law of the 12 into the northern lands for decades on end is a far cry from being fooled at one point by a cunning illusion during a single trial. One relies on a profound ignorance of your responsibilities while the other relies on failing your will save after having reason for disbelief.


So to summarize: you propose that the OOTS divine world has two layers:
The creator gods and the secondary (for want of a better word) gods.
The creator god define what is legitimate due to their creation and therefor ultimate ownership of the world. The secondary gods can grant power to followers but ony as far as the creator gods allow it.

Correct.


Personally I see legitimacy as a more abstract concept, but we can agree to disagree on that point. However, it still does not solve the question of what happens when the creator gods are not in agreement, or exactly what they are in agreement about.

Holy wars, presumably. :smalleek:


In the case of the SG the Gods seem to have been in agreement when it came to hunting down goblins (after all, that is why they were created).

When it comes to arresting the OOTS, well, we don't actually know what the gods agreed with: The authority to make the arrest, or Shojo's plan to involve the OOTS in keeping the gates safe. (Assuming that, being gods, they knew he was doing that.) The fact that Miko fell for killing Shojo may be an indication, but can also have been an objective condemnation for the killing of a defenseless old man. The fact that the Northern gods did not object may indicate agreement with either, or that they were too busy throwing lightning bolts around while blindfolded :smallbiggrin: So, the question still stands: did the SG have the right to arrest the worshippers of the Northern gods, in the Northern Lands, for actions commited in the Northern lands.

I would submit that given the prior points evidence weighs in favor of the SG being within their rights.

Particularly considering the alternatives:

A: The agents of the gods may not operate in lands where the gods have disallowed themselves to go. But the entire Sapphire Guard does not have a clue as to the extent of their rights and responsibilities, and has been thus in the dark for decades. Theory #2 in the OP.

B: Agents of the gods can operate where the gods have barred themselves (making such agents useful to the gods). The bureaucratic deva was simply letting minor points slide in her analysis of Roy's character, just wanting to see his answers as she enters data into the heavenly computer. Theory #1 in the OP, combined with theory #4 as explained later in the thread.

Which is more likely? :smallwink:

[TheElfLord]

I think part of our disagreement stems from differing ideas on the origin of the SG. There seem to be 2 ideas:

1). The SG was created and guided by the 12 gods. They act in all ways as their servants and are complelty informed of every little piece of necessary information by the 12 gods.

2). The SG was created by Kim Soon, a paladin. The order's rule is based on his ideas and views. The 12 gods act as the patrons of the SG, but are not its controllers, since Pallys don't need patrons to get their powers any more than clerics do.

The second option, which I clearly agree with, allows for the SG to over think their mandate. It also removes most of the divine boundry problems, because it is a mortal organization created and run by mortals worshiping the 12 gods, as opposed to being the embodyments of the gods themselves.

[Lord Zentei]

I think part of our disagreement stems from differing ideas on the origin of the SG. There seem to be 2 ideas:

1). The SG was created and guided by the 12 gods. They act in all ways as their servants and are complelty informed of every little piece of necessary information by the 12 gods.

2). The SG was created by Kim Soon, a paladin. The order's rule is based on his ideas and views. The 12 gods act as the patrons of the SG, but are not its controllers, since Pallys don't need patrons to get their powers any more than clerics do.

The second option, which I clearly agree with, allows for the SG to over think their mandate. It also removes most of the divine boundry problems, because it is a mortal organization created and run by mortals worshiping the 12 gods, as opposed to being the embodyments of the gods themselves.

The first scenario is rather too strong to reflect my position. Certainly the Sapphire Guard were created by Soon. However, I maintain that by continuing to act as their patrons the Twelve Gods certainly are condoning their actions, and quite possibly guide them in said actions (at least to an extent). The clerics of Azure City seem certainly to know of and cooperate with the Sapphire Guard. Could they all be so deluded?

There is also the point I raised above:


A: The agents of the gods may not operate in lands where the gods have disallowed themselves to go. But the entire Sapphire Guard does not have a clue as to the extent of their rights and responsibilities, and has been thus in the dark for decades. Theory #2 in the OP.

B: Agents of the gods can operate where the gods have barred themselves (making such agents useful to the gods). The bureaucratic deva was simply letting minor points slide in her analysis of Roy's character, just wanting to see his answers as she enters data into the heavenly computer. Theory #1 in the OP, combined with theory #4 as explained later in the thread.

Which is more likely?:smallwink:

[Rogue 7]

This is more or less the correct idea. The deva seems to regard these issues as small issues, worthy of mention and of noting Roy's response, but not likely to be decisive once the big issues are decided. Thus we note her acceptance of Roy not remembering about the oracle. He is telling the truth, but that gives him no moral immunity.

Now as to the validity of Roy's defense.

As far as the Sapphire Guard is concerned, they have jurisdiction worldwide, and any prisoner they drag to their court will be treated accordingly.
Any legal system is, by definition, infinite in coverage, exempting only that which it says it exempts. Any other legal systems are either aspects of the legal system or just false. There is no escape. Yes, an American cop can arrest a Russian in Antartica about an El Savador event. If he can get him back to an American court, the Russian is not going to escape on any claim of lack of jurisdiction. Of course if he first lands in any other country, that country may well free the Russian, but that is much the same as if some bandits freed him in the US.

For the last time (a continuation from the "Miko's Information" thread), It would be grounds for a dismissal of the trial. This is assuming a fair court, which given our current presidency we can't, but that's beside the point- we assume a fair court here. The case would be laughed out of court. The U.S. has no grounds on which to try the case because they acknowledge that they don't have legal authority to arrest the Russian. Therefore, arresting him is a violation of his rights, and because of that, he can go free. What is so difficult to grasp about that?



However the question here is whether Roy had to obey the demands of the Sapphire Guard, which shifts our view. Now the Guard is merely one of a possibly large number of rulers Roy might have to obey. So which one[s] Roy needs to obey is not a given.
On the face of it, Roy has a fine position during the first arrest. He is presumably a citizen of some Northern state and may not have even heard of Azure City or the Sapphire Guard. So he would have been in the clear there. However by the 2nd, he has both learned of the Southern authorities and has
pretty much accepted their authority. So his ability to resist at the 2nd is suspect at best.

Agreed. Roy was in error resisting arrest. However, there are extenuating circumstances that, while not excusing him, mitigate the damage to his alignment.


From reading the way this thread's taken off since I last looked, the crux of the issue is whether or not the Gods' tacit approval of paladin actions in other countries grant them legal jurisdiction there. Because religious and secular laws are two different things, it is unlikely that secular laws would allow this to occur. Does that mean that the paladins are acting with malice intent? Not to my view- merely that they're overstepping their bounds and resisting would not be inherently evil- extenuating circumstances still apply.

[Lord Zentei]

For the last time (a continuation from the "Miko's Information" thread), It would be grounds for a dismissal of the trial. This is assuming a fair court, which given our current presidency we can't, but that's beside the point- we assume a fair court here. The case would be laughed out of court. The U.S. has no grounds on which to try the case because they acknowledge that they don't have legal authority to arrest the Russian. Therefore, arresting him is a violation of his rights, and because of that, he can go free. What is so difficult to grasp about that?

The analogy would work if the court was an Azure City court. In that case, you would be absolutely correct that it should be dismissed. However, it was a SG court.


Agreed. Roy was in error resisting arrest. However, there are extenuating circumstances that, while not excusing him, mitigate the damage to his alignment.

Agreed.


From reading the way this thread's taken off since I last looked, the crux of the issue is whether or not the Gods' tacit approval of paladin actions in other countries grant them legal jurisdiction there. Because religious and secular laws are two different things, it is unlikely that secular laws would allow this to occur. Does that mean that the paladins are acting with malice intent? Not to my view- merely that they're overstepping their bounds and resisting would not be inherently evil- extenuating circumstances still apply.

But that also assumes that the secular laws take precedence in the case of conflict. See my earlier point regarding the gods being the ones who grant autonomy to their creations and can withdraw it in extreme cases.

[Rogue 7]

So your argument is that the Sapphire Guard, as a religious order, have jurisdiction everywhere? And that that jurisdiction trumps all other civil and religious jurisdictions?

[Lord Zentei]

So your argument is that the Sapphire Guard, as a religious order, have jurisdiction everywhere? And that that jurisdiction trumps all other civil and religious jurisdictions?

Er, no: I have explained the distinction earlier. They are an order that takes its authority from the twelve gods - one of the creator pantheons (as opposed to gods that appeared later), and only regarding a very narrowly defined issue (and one that concerns the fate of the world overall).

Why are you going in circles?

[Rogue 7]

I was merely trying to establish what you are saying, and it sounds like this- the Sapphire Guard's authority does trump anything else with regard to the gates. Correct?

[Deathwisher]

Well, that's reasonable, though the forest needn't be under that pantheon. In any case, the point that local authorities must yield when the world is at risk remains; see federal vs local government argument.


The D&D definition of druids doesn't really reflect real life anyway. The druids were simply priests in the Celtic society. While their religion was a bit different from what we are used too it did have godlike entities. they didn't just worship 'nature' in general.



Not on all things, no. But on their collective authority, very probably. :smallwink:


They'll probably agree that their authority is absolute, though they might well disagree on when their collective authority overrules the authority of each individual pantheon.:smallamused:




Or that the SG performs the role of paladin order for the world at large, and the northern wandering heroes perform their (different) role for the world at large. This eliminates both northern and southern pantheons having to provide both kinds of goody-two-shoes brigade.


Perhaps, although if the gods had wanted that sort of organization, I would have expected them to create it themselves, rather than wait until Soon came up with the idea. Still, you may be right. They might just have liked the idea when they saw it.



The evidence points to the fact that they allow each other to use mortals as agents to undertake missions that they themselves have agreed not to.


Certainly, though that would be a 'be default' permission: the agents of one pantheon may operate in the territory of another, unless their mission is in conflict with the interest of the local pantheon.



And the laws of their order are derived from the creator gods who are also responsible for providing them with their powers.


It would make the creator gods a bit dishonest though. To say that you grant someone autonomy means that you don't interfere at all. If the autonomy is withdrawn when the other acts against your interest, you haven't really granted autonomy; you've appointed a steward :smallannoyed:




I would submit that given the prior points evidence weighs in favor of the SG being within their rights.

Particularly considering the alternatives:

A: The agents of the gods may not operate in lands where the gods have disallowed themselves to go. But the entire Sapphire Guard does not have a clue as to the extent of their rights and responsibilities, and has been thus in the dark for decades. Theory #2 in the OP.

B: Agents of the gods can operate where the gods have barred themselves (making such agents useful to the gods). The bureaucratic deva was simply letting minor points slide in her analysis of Roy's character, just wanting to see his answers as she enters data into the heavenly computer. Theory #1 in the OP, combined with theory #4 as explained later in the thread.

Which is more likely? :smallwink:

Option B does not have to be without limits. All the gods (well, with one exception) seems to agree goblins are just target practice. That doesn't have to mean that they approve of sending agents into each other territory with a carte blanche to arrest people. In that case the SG may have grown so used to being able to do whatever they want that they didn't realize they were crossing a line. The gods may just have let it go, since gettig OOTS to Azur City was in their best interests anyway (It was certainly more helpful than the SG's Pavlov reflex about non-nterference with the other gates). In that sense it is a pity that Durkon didn't resist the arrest. If he, as a representative of the Northern Gods had refused to submit to Miko's authority, the gods would have been faced with a direct confrontation.

If the Deva thought that resisting arrest was wrong, but minor, I would have expected her to at least comment on the matter.

[Lord Zentei]

I was merely trying to establish what you are saying, and it sounds like this- the Sapphire Guard's authority does trump anything else with regard to the gates. Correct?

In that case, "yes".



The D&D definition of druids doesn't really reflect real life anyway. The druids were simply priests in the Celtic society. While their religion was a bit different from what we are used too it did have godlike entities. they didn't just worship 'nature' in general.

Indeed.


They'll probably agree that their authority is absolute, though they might well disagree on when their collective authority overrules the authority of each individual pantheon.:smallamused:

Perhaps. It remains to be seen whether that limits the Sapphire Guard, though. Thus far, there doesn't seem to be a problem in that field.

Note also the episode where Miko's powers got revoked: the 12 gods are in a circle and some of them are "facing the other way", so perhaps they have a "majority rule" system going or some such.


Perhaps, although if the gods had wanted that sort of organization, I would have expected them to create it themselves, rather than wait until Soon came up with the idea. Still, you may be right. They might just have liked the idea when they saw it.

Quite. They may not have thought such an organization as being necessary previously, of course.

Or perhaps they manipulated events to create the Sapphire Guard when it was needed. Tiamat's precognition seems pretty sharp, for instance, going by the Oracle's abilities.


Certainly, though that would be a 'be default' permission: the agents of one pantheon may operate in the territory of another, unless their mission is in conflict with the interest of the local pantheon.

It would make the creator gods a bit dishonest though. To say that you grant someone autonomy means that you don't interfere at all. If the autonomy is withdrawn when the other acts against your interest, you haven't really granted autonomy; you've appointed a steward :smallannoyed:

Well, not necessarily: autonomy does not mean full independence after all (consider an independent country versus an autonomous province when a foreign invader threatens the entire land). :smallconfused:


Option B does not have to be without limits. All the gods (well, with one exception) seems to agree goblins are just target practice. That doesn't have to mean that they approve of sending agents into each other territory with a carte blanche to arrest people. In that case the SG may have grown so used to being able to do whatever they want that they didn't realize they were crossing a line. The gods may just have let it go, since gettig OOTS to Azur City was in their best interests anyway (It was certainly more helpful than the SG's Pavlov reflex about non-nterference with the other gates). In that sense it is a pity that Durkon didn't resist the arrest. If he, as a representative of the Northern Gods had refused to submit to Miko's authority, the gods would have been faced with a direct confrontation.

If the Deva thought that resisting arrest was wrong, but minor, I would have expected her to at least comment on the matter.

Well, notice that the deva does not comment on the response she got when she challenged Roy about the gifts for the King of Nowhere. After all, theft is still theft, even if the items would have been destroyed later (and there is no way Roy could have known that would have happened anyway, so it's not really a legitimate excuse)...

[Rogue 7]

Alright then, I can't really argue there, seeing as there hasn't been an international ruling in the OOTS universe that sets up jurisdiction:smalltongue: Nah, not really- that interpretation seems correct, and it's one that I would understand. Note that that doesn't change anything about the Order's reactions- they're still in the right the first time, in the wrong with a bit of mitigation the second.

[Lord Zentei]

Alright then, I can't really argue there, seeing as there hasn't been an international ruling in the OOTS universe that sets up jurisdiction:smalltongue: Nah, not really- that interpretation seems correct, and it's one that I would understand. Note that that doesn't change anything about the Order's reactions- they're still in the right the first time, in the wrong with a bit of mitigation the second.

That seems reasonable enough. :smallwink:


EDIT:

And now I see that I was confusing you with TheElfLord when I accused you of going in circles (you boopheads have the same avatar :smalltongue: ).

[Deathwisher]

In Perhaps. It remains to be seen whether that limits the Sapphire Guard, though. Thus far, there doesn't seem to be a problem in that field.


Considering that the very existence of creation (and their own lives) is at stake the gods are probably willing to cooperate to large extent.



Note also the episode where Miko's powers got revoked: the 12 gods are in a circle and some of them are "facing the other way", so perhaps they have a "majority rule" system going or some such.


I know. It is actually rather funny, since it means that Evil and/or Chaotic gods have a say in the status of a lawful good paladin. :smallconfused: Of course, they would know an evil and chaotic act when they see it, but still... The Sapphyre guard claimed its authority from all twelve gods in any case, which is a bit weird for the same reason.




Or perhaps they manipulated events to create the Sapphire Guard when it was needed. Tiamat's precognition seems pretty sharp, for instance, going by the Oracle's abilities.


Oh man, that would mean an evil god had encouraged the creation of a paladin order! Not so much for the greater good as for the greater, well, everything. Talk about Machiavellan machinations. :smallbiggrin:



Well, not necessarily: autonomy does not mean full independence after all (consider an independent country versus an autonomous province when a foreign invader threatens the entire land). :smallconfused:


In which case the autonomous province has usually signed an agreement specifying cooperation with military forces. On the other hand, we don't know what agreements the gods made with each other. It is more a matter of semantics. I wouldn't have used autonomy to describe the situation.



Well, notice that the deva does not comment on the response she got when she challenged Roy about the gifts for the King of Nowhere. After all, theft is still theft, even if the items would have been destroyed later (and there is no way Roy could have known that would have happened anyway, so it's not really a legitimate excuse)...

I know, it is a weak point in my argument, while his actions were not really evil, this was pretty chaotic. In general though, the OOTS universe seems to judge actions more by the end result than the means taken. Celia's closing argument bears that out, when she quotes Elans achieved result as reason for aquital, despite the lack of itent. I know the whole trial was rigged, but sh didn't know that and the fact that she considered it a good argument means that 'results outweigh intent' has at least some validity. (Haley didn't agree, but then again, the opinion of a rogue on legal matters seems a bit subjective)

[Lord Zentei]

Considering that the very existence of creation (and their own lives) is at stake the gods are probably willing to cooperate to large extent.

That would be a reasonable assumption. :smallbiggrin:


I know. It is actually rather funny, since it means that Evil and/or Chaotic gods have a say in the status of a lawful good paladin. :smallconfused: Of course, they would know an evil and chaotic act when they see it, but still... The Sapphyre guard claimed its authority from all twelve gods in any case, which is a bit weird for the same reason.

It is, rather. Perhaps their actions are bound and limited by the agreements they had to accede to to join the pantheons in much the same way that the pantheons limit each other. :smallconfused:


Oh man, that would mean an evil god had encouraged the creation of a paladin order! Not so much for the greater good as for the greater, well, everything. Talk about Machiavellan machinations. :smallbiggrin:

For the greater survival of self, at least. :smallwink:


In which case the autonomous province has usually signed an agreement specifying cooperation with military forces. On the other hand, we don't know what agreements the gods made with each other. It is more a matter of semantics. I wouldn't have used autonomy to describe the situation.

Well, what then? Autonomy is when you are free to run your own affairs except in cases of national emergency after all...

And yes, we don't know what agreements they have signed, though it seems plausible that the creator gods would want at least to have some overarching authority over the planet they worked to create. That would be my default assumption, in any case.


I know, it is a weak point in my argument, while his actions were not really evil, this was pretty chaotic. In general though, the OOTS universe seems to judge actions more by the end result than the means taken. Celia's closing argument bears that out, when she quotes Elans achieved result as reason for aquital, despite the lack of itent. I know the whole trial was rigged, but sh didn't know that and the fact that she considered it a good argument means that 'results outweigh intent' has at least some validity. (Haley didn't agree, but then again, the opinion of a rogue on legal matters seems a bit subjective)

OTOH, Haley based her opinions on her own experiences with multiple fellow rogues being sent to jail, and Celia was a wet-behind-the-ears paralegal... paraelemental. :smallwink:

Consequences certainly seem to count for migitating factors, however.

[AngelicOne001]

err...this is where I say "I'm lost" after trying to read through this thread to find three of the same people debating with each other. :smallannoyed:

[thereaper]

A few pages back (man, this thread grew quickly) Zentei stated that a few of my assumptions were wrong. Now, I will admit that some of the later ones were a bit weak, but several of my points still apply, and all it takes is one.




Quote:
Originally Posted by thereaper
The SG's had no authority to arrest the OOTS.

1) The SG has taken an oath not to interfere with the gates. Trying someone for destroying one of them likely counts for that.

Not a given at all. They had no right to interfere with the gates, but that does not mean that they cannot react to threats to the gates as a whole -- Shojo even implied as much.


But that all falls apart unless they actually have jurisdiction in the area that the gate in question is in. If they do not, then they have no legal right to go there. More importantly, however, is that the gates as a whole were not being threatened by the Order. For the gates as a whole to be threatened, all of them must be being targetted. That would require the Order to be actively targetting the AC gate for destruction. The SG has no reason to believe this.



Quote:
Originally Posted by thereaper
2) There is no actual evidence that the SG has been given authority by the Gods. We know they get their powers as paladins from the Gods, but that does not equate to any form of governmental control.

This has nothing to do with government. It is only a matter of defending their gate.


Their gate is not being threatened.



Quote:
Originally Posted by thereaper
3) Assuming that the SG doesn't get authority from the Gods, then it's jurisdiction is limited to Azure City, which the Redmountain Gate was outside of.

False. The Lord of Azure City and Commander of the Sapphire Guard are two separate posts.


Then what is the SG, if not a governmental organization? If it is not one, then it must recieve it's authority from one, or else it does not have authority. And since AC's authority is limited to it's borders, the SG's authority by extension is also limited to those borders.



Quote:
Originally Posted by thereaper
4) Even if the SG did recieve governmental power from the Gods, they still would not have jurisdiction at the Redmountain gate because the Southern Gods themselves don't even have jurisdiction there.

Again, this has nothing to do with government, but defense of the gate.


And once again, their gate is not being threatened. They have no right to attempt to "defend" other gates (in fact, the oath the paladins take forbids it). And punishing someone for destroying a gate does not count as "defending a gate" unless they were going to destroy another one anyway. So what's the argument here? They're defending a gate that is not being targetted?



Quote:
Originally Posted by thereaper
5) Lawless areas by definition do not have laws. To claim that one has authority there is to claim that it is possible for a city to have authority outside it's territory. And since no form of government is innately superior to another (unless you bring in the Gods, which has other problems), it naturally follows that all laws of all lands in the world are valid everywhere. This doesn't work. <snip>

Weak. And incidentally, dependent on prior errors of assumption.


How is this weak? If it is possible for cities/governments/military organizations to have authority outside their borders, then it inevitably follows that all governments have authority everywhere, and all their laws are equally valid. And from that it necessarily follows that contradictions between these various laws would make certain things (such as the lawful good alignment) impossible. Let's look at the paladin example again. If the SG has authority outside of it's home base of AC, then there is absolutely no reason to think that Goblin Village X doesn't also have authority outside it's borders (after all, the Goblins have the Dark One just as the SG have the Southern Gods). So, if Goblin Village X has a law forcing humans to be killed on sight and a paladin refuses to kill the first human he sees, he has broken the law and must fall. This would make being a paladin impossible. And these kinds of contradictions are absolutely inevitable if we assume that authority can exist beyond the boundaries of the territory of the people giving the government said authority. So, the fact that we have seen paladins in the strip is experimental proof that things do not work like that. How much stronger can an argument get than that? :smallconfused:

[NikkTheTrick]

It was an illegitimate authority because:

- SG tended to (up to the moment AC fell) live up to their name. Meaning, they were Guarding the Saphire that sealed the AC gate. Their oath EXPLICITLY prohibits them from dealing with other gates. Which is exactly why Roy was summoned.

- If SG has authority given by 12 gods, that means that authority was illegitimate since arrest occured outside the 12 gods jurisdiction.

- If SG gets authority from the Asure City, then the arrrest would also be illegal since OOtS was not anywhere near AC when the arrest had occured.

In short, SG had as much right to arrest OOtS in Northen lands as CIA has right to arrest someone in, say, China. Does not mean that they do or don't do that. Does not mean that it is right or wrong to do that. Just that it is not ecatly based on legal authority (and more on coercion and force).

[Lord Zentei]

It was an illegitimate authority because:

- SG tended to (up to the moment AC fell) live up to their name. Meaning, they were Guarding the Saphire that sealed the AC gate. Their oath EXPLICITLY prohibits them from dealing with other gates. Which is exactly why Roy was summoned.

- If SG has authority given by 12 gods, that means that authority was illegitimate since arrest occured outside the 12 gods jurisdiction.

- If SG gets authority from the Asure City, then the arrrest would also be illegal since OOtS was not anywhere near AC when the arrest had occured.

In short, SG had as much right to arrest OOtS in Northen lands as CIA has right to arrest someone in, say, China. Does not mean that they do or don't do that. Does not mean that it is right or wrong to do that. Just that it is not ecatly based on legal authority (and more on coercion and force).

Er... all of these points have been raised already and responded to. :smallconfused:



A few pages back (man, this thread grew quickly) Zentei stated that a few of my assumptions were wrong. Now, I will admit that some of the later ones were a bit weak, but several of my points still apply, and all it takes is one.

Not really, since the burden of evidence must point to the authority being illegitimate, not just one point.


But that all falls apart unless they actually have jurisdiction in the area that the gate in question is in. If they do not, then they have no legal right to go there. More importantly, however, is that the gates as a whole were not being threatened by the Order. For the gates as a whole to be threatened, all of them must be being targetted. That would require the Order to be actively targetting the AC gate for destruction. The SG has no reason to believe this.

Not so, since the gates as a whole were being targeted. That it was not the Order who was targeting them is irrelevant to the point of whether or not the Sapphire Guard was a legitimate authority.


Their gate is not being threatened.

Yes, it is.


Then what is the SG, if not a governmental organization? If it is not one, then it must recieve it's authority from one, or else it does not have authority. And since AC's authority is limited to it's borders, the SG's authority by extension is also limited to those borders.

It has been said a million times. The SG's authority has nothing to do with Azure City. They derive their authority from one of the creator god pantheons.


And once again, their gate is not being threatened. They have no right to attempt to "defend" other gates (in fact, the oath the paladins take forbids it). And punishing someone for destroying a gate does not count as "defending a gate" unless they were going to destroy another one anyway. So what's the argument here? They're defending a gate that is not being targetted?

They do not defend the other gates, that does not mean that they cannot punish those who destroy them. And again, yes, their gate was under threat; only not from the Order.


How is this weak? If it is possible for cities/governments/military organizations to have authority outside their borders, then it inevitably follows that all governments have authority everywhere, and all their laws are equally valid. And from that it necessarily follows that contradictions between these various laws would make certain things (such as the lawful good alignment) impossible. Let's look at the paladin example again. If the SG has authority outside of it's home base of AC, then there is absolutely no reason to think that Goblin Village X doesn't also have authority outside it's borders (after all, the Goblins have the Dark One just as the SG have the Southern Gods). So, if Goblin Village X has a law forcing humans to be killed on sight and a paladin refuses to kill the first human he sees, he has broken the law and must fall. This would make being a paladin impossible. And these kinds of contradictions are absolutely inevitable if we assume that authority can exist beyond the boundaries of the territory of the people giving the government said authority. So, the fact that we have seen paladins in the strip is experimental proof that things do not work like that. How much stronger can an argument get than that? :smallconfused:

The Sapphire Guard does not derive its authority from Azure City. This is wholly irrelevant.

[Jasdoif]

I forgot that the Sapphire Guard is effectively a "secret" organization (although apparently its name is not unmentionable (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0204.html)).

That being the case, Miko could not have called upon the authority of the SG without violating its secrecy. So the only authority that could have been presented to Roy as of the times of his resisting arrest would be that of Shojo's authority as ruler of Azure City. Said authority would not extend outside the borders of Azure City's nation.

So Roy's behavior at the time would be that of resisting arrest from an illegitimate authority, as he was not presented any indication that she served an institution other then that of Azure City. His behavior couldn't be influenced by facts he did not have, after all.

[lavidor10]

Or that the SG performs the role of paladin order for the world at large, and the northern wandering heroes perform their (different) role for the world at large. This eliminates both northern and southern pantheons having to provide both kinds of goody-two-shoes brigade.

And the laws of their order are derived from the creator gods who are also responsible for providing them with their powers.


Where on Earth did you get the idea that the SG is the Oots world's policeman? There are obviously other paladin (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0415.html) orders.



I would submit that given the prior points evidence weighs in favor of the SG being within their rights.

Particularly considering the alternatives:

A: The agents of the gods may not operate in lands where the gods have disallowed themselves to go. But the entire Sapphire Guard does not have a clue as to the extent of their rights and responsibilities, and has been thus in the dark for decades. Theory #2 in the OP.

B: Agents of the gods can operate where the gods have barred themselves (making such agents useful to the gods). The bureaucratic deva was simply letting minor points slide in her analysis of Roy's character, just wanting to see his answers as she enters data into the heavenly computer. Theory #1 in the OP, combined with theory #4 as explained later in the thread.

Which is more likely? :smallwink:

I'd say A^: The agents of the gods may not randomly arrest or execute people (based upon the agents' foreign laws) in lands where the gods have disallowed themselves to go. But the entire Sapphire Guard does not have a clue as to the extent of their rights and responsibilities, and has been thus in the dark for decades as they are a secret organization and cannot go around revealing their existance to every little kingdom in the middle of nowhere, asking if they are allowed to operate there.

[Deathwisher]

It is, rather. Perhaps their actions are bound and limited by the agreements they had to accede to to join the pantheons in much the same way that the pantheons limit each other. :smallconfused:


I seem to be remember that there were some settings where the alignment of the followere did not have to match (or come close to) the alignment of the deity, so not lawful good gos dould have paladins too. Also, Elan states that you can be a cleric 'of cause', so maybe in the OOTS universe one can be a paladin 'of cause' as well




Well, what then? Autonomy is when you are free to run your own affairs except in cases of national emergency after all...


I'd have said they had permission to deal with certain matters rather than that they were granted autonomy, but that is amatter of semantics.



OTOH, Haley based her opinions on her own experiences with multiple fellow rogues being sent to jail, and Celia was a wet-behind-the-ears paralegal... paraelemental. :smallwink:


Untutored experience vs. inexperienced book knowledge. No definite answer either way.

[Lord Zentei]

Where on Earth did you get the idea that the SG is the Oots world's policeman? There are obviously other paladin (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0415.html) orders.

Oh, for the love of Bob, this has been covered already.


I'd say A^: The agents of the gods may not randomly arrest or execute people (based upon the agents' foreign laws) in lands where the gods have disallowed themselves to go. But the entire Sapphire Guard does not have a clue as to the extent of their rights and responsibilities, and has been thus in the dark for decades as they are a secret organization and cannot go around revealing their existance to every little kingdom in the middle of nowhere, asking if they are allowed to operate there.

False. See Start of Darkness. The gods limited themselves except through agents. Therefore, the agents may act where the gods may not.



I seem to be remember that there were some settings where the alignment of the followere did not have to match (or come close to) the alignment of the deity, so not lawful good gos dould have paladins too. Also, Elan states that you can be a cleric 'of cause', so maybe in the OOTS universe one can be a paladin 'of cause' as well

In general, maybe, though that's not relevant to the SG.

[Kai Maera]

...Why is it that everyone concludes that Good and Lawful equal Right?
Tyrants are lawful, and most people know that they're wrong (Unless you're talking about recent politics).

Vigilantes are good, and most people think that they're wrong.

The gods rule over their own, but even then it's become apparent that they do not matter as far as the alignment spectrum goes.

Then again, most of our thoughts on morality are entirely based on the idea that there has to be an embodiment to every belief. Well there's still Chaotic Good, even in OoTS, so maybe we should rethink this whole "right/wrong" thing.

[Lord Zentei]

...Why is it that everyone concludes that Good and Lawful equal Right?
Tyrants are lawful, and most people know that they're wrong (Unless you're talking about recent politics).

Vigilantes are good, and most people think that they're wrong.

The gods rule over their own, but even then it's become apparent that they do not matter as far as the alignment spectrum goes.

Then again, most of our thoughts on morality are entirely based on the idea that there has to be an embodiment to every belief. Well there's still Chaotic Good, even in OoTS, so maybe we should rethink this whole "right/wrong" thing.

I don't know if anyone is... this wasn't meant to be an ethics debate, beyond the issue of the legitimacy of the Sapphire Guard vis a vis Roy's excuse making during the interview.

Now, with this latest installment, it seems the deva has concluded that he is a little too Chaotic for her tastes, though "he tries", and apparently that's enough to overlook any foibles. Which reinforces my theory #1 + #4, though of course, it doesn't conclusively prove anything with regards to the question of the SG specifically.

[SmartAlec]

The Sapphire Guard is an illegitimate Order of Paladins, as it has its' powers granted by 12 Gods, not all of which are Good.

SoD shows Rat as being one of the Dark One's few allies among the creator gods; it can be inferred, therefore, that he is the Southern pantheon's counterpart to Tiamat and Loki. Yet he is shown as one of the Twelve Gods stripping Miko of her powers.

I think the Southern Gods are just letting it slide because they want their oriental-themed area of operations to have some Paladins and they're hampered by the flaw in their faith that no-one worships the Twelve Gods singly; only as a collective entity. But that still means they're fudging it.

[Lord Zentei]

The Sapphire Guard is an illegitimate Order of Paladins, as it has its' powers granted by 12 Gods, not all of which are Good.

SoD shows Rat as being one of the Dark One's few allies among the creator gods; it can be inferred, therefore, that he is the Southern pantheon's counterpart to Tiamat and Loki. Yet he is shown as one of the Twelve Gods stripping Miko of her powers.

I think the Southern Gods are just letting it slide because they want their oriental-themed area of operations to have some Paladins, but that still means they're fudging it.

Wait, what? You are in other words not only claiming that their authority to enforce the safety of their gate (which they are sworn to protect) with arrests of potential threats is illegitimate, but that the entire order itself is illegitimate? Wow that's harsh.

Incidentally, the paladins are required to be Lawful Good, that does not mean that everyone in the pantheon of southern gods must be. :smallconfused:

[SmartAlec]

Well, you did ask for something new.

There are precedents in DnD lore for Gods that aren't Lawful to have their own Paladin orders, and even some that aren't Good - Helm (Lawful Neutral god of Guardians) being a good example. But no Paladin should ever draw his powers or his title from an evil deity, even in part; that just invalidates the whole idea of the Paladin class.

It's possible Rat ISN'T evil, of course, but something about the animalist symbology, the circular representation of the Gods and their unity as a pantheon that is worshipped as a single entity makes me feel that the Twelve Gods are supposed to represent all nine alignments within themselves.

Edit: I know what you're thinking - 12 gods, 9 alignments. But hey, Planescape managed to squeeze 17 Planes out of those 9 alignments.

[Kai Maera]

Wait, what? You are in other words not only claiming that their authority to enforce the safety of their gate (which they are sworn to protect) with arrests of potential threats is illegitimate, but that the entire order itself is illegitimate? Wow.

Incidentally, the paladins are required to be Lawful Good, that does not mean that everyone in the pantheon of southern gods must be. :smallconfused:

But you have to be at least 1 step from your god's alignment to get spells from them, don't you? With a group of 12 gods of differing alignments, one can assume that the paladins are actually attached to their oaths more than the gods, though the gods supply the powers.

Or perhaps the 12 gods aren't actually effective as gods when separate, and thus must all act together to be one lawful good entity.

[Lord Zentei]

But you have to be at least 1 step from your god's alignment to get spells from them, don't you? With a group of 12 gods of differing alignments, one can assume that the paladins are actually attached to their oaths more than the gods, though the gods supply the powers.

Or perhaps the 12 gods aren't actually effective as gods when separate, and thus must all act together to be one lawful good entity.

It may be that the non-evil, non-chaotic gods are the ones granting spells (to the paladins, at least), but all of the gods are required to vote on policy issues (due to some deal or other they made when they formed the pantheon).

That might also be the way in which the evil gods are kept in check, incidentally.

[Kai Maera]

It may be that the non-evil, non-chaotic gods are the ones granting spells (to the paladins, at least), but all of the gods are required to vote on policy issues (due to some deal or other they made when they formed the pantheon).

That might also be the way in which the evil gods are kept in check, incidentally.

Oo that's a good one! Kinda like the theme seen in all the orders so far extends to the gods too... wait...

IT'S A TRAP!!!!

The whole universe is one giant allegory! Flee!

Also, the next few strips will be awesome, so be sure to come back "three days a week without warning".

[SmartAlec]

Does that mean the Sapphire Guard's claim that they serve the Twelve Gods invalidates them? Either the Guard's Gods are fudging it, or the Guard is very confused as to what power they're serving.

[Lord Zentei]

Does that mean the Sapphire Guard's claim that they serve the Twelve Gods invalidates them? Either the Guard's Gods are fudging it, or the Guard is very confused as to what power they're serving.

Well, not if the 12 vote on policy issues, even though the Lawful and Good gods are in the majority and spell granting business. I doubt that any of them would obey Rat alone, for instance. :smallconfused:

In any case, I would find it odd that they wouldn't even know about their own gods (being clueless as to your mandate is one thing, but that's taking it to a whole new level :smalleek: ).

[vbushido]

My view on the 12 Gods is akin to the "1 god in trinity" just extended to a greater number than 3. Part of many religions is God(s) is/are unknown and unknowable to the minds of mere man and believing in something we can't prove is a basic tenet of faith. If we can't understand how the 12 Gods work, we can merely say it is beyond us to know such things. (Heck, mankind has yet to figure out how humans work.)

-----
I have CDO. It's like OCD, but with the letters in alphabetical order as they should be.

[Jasdoif]

But you have to be at least 1 step from your god's alignment to get spells from them, don't you? With a group of 12 gods of differing alignments, one can assume that the paladins are actually attached to their oaths more than the gods, though the gods supply the powers.

Or perhaps the 12 gods aren't actually effective as gods when separate, and thus must all act together to be one lawful good entity.The "one step" rule only applies to clerics generally. Of course, paladins aren't tied to deities in the standard rules, so it may be different in the OotSverse.

And if the 12 gods act as a collective pantheon, instead of as 12 loosely affiliated deities, a cleric would only have to match the alignment of any one of its member deities.

[Firestar27]

The "illegitimate authority" bit wasn't referring to the fact that the Sapphire Guard didn't have authority to arrest them (it does,) but that the charge they were being arrested FOR was illegetimate.

Shojo had them deliberately arrested for a crime he knew they didn't commit, rigged a trial to ensure they wouldn't get found guilty, all because he wanted to meet them. Due to this, the Sapphire Guard's authority to arrest them was illegitimate because the crime they were charged with was invalid.

But the OOTS didn't know it at the time. Of course, they didn't even know they were being arrested at the time.

[Deathwisher]

My view on the 12 Gods is akin to the "1 god in trinity" just extended to a greater number than 3. Part of many religions is God(s) is/are unknown and unknowable to the minds of mere man and believing in something we can't prove is a basic tenet of faith. If we can't understand how the 12 Gods work, we can merely say it is beyond us to know such things. (Heck, mankind has yet to figure out how humans work.)

-----
I have CDO. It's like OCD, but with the letters in alphabetical order as they should be.

Just go the Hindu way: Multiple gods that are just personifications of different aspects of one deity. Ok, I know I am simplifying now, but it would work pretty well.

[thereaper]

Not really, since the burden of evidence must point to the authority being illegitimate, not just one point.

For a statement to be true, all parts of it must be true. For a government to be legitimate, the whole thing must be legitimate. Simple logic.


Not so, since the gates as a whole were being targeted. That it was not the Order who was targeting them is irrelevant to the point of whether or not the Sapphire Guard was a legitimate authority.

Not by the OOTS. The SG has no reason to believe the order has any desire to attack the other gates. Therefore, they have no authority to arrest them.


It has been said a million times. The SG's authority has nothing to do with Azure City. They derive their authority from one of the creator god pantheons.

If so, then it cannot arrest anyone outside the Southern Lands, because the deities from which they recieve power do not have authority there. You can't be more powerful than the guy giving you your powers.


They do not defend the other gates, that does not mean that they cannot punish those who destroy them. And again, yes, their gate was under threat; only not from the Order.

The "crime" took place outside their and the 12 Gods' jurisdiction. They cannot prosecute them for it. The 12 Gods themselves can't even prosecute them for it!


The Sapphire Guard does not derive its authority from Azure City. This is wholly irrelevant.

If it is not a government itself and does not derive it's authority from a government, then it has no authority. There is no evidence in the strip that the SG gets authority from the 12 Gods (and the fact that Soon, rather than the Gods, created it would imply the opposite). And even if they did, the 12 Gods don't have authority outside the Southern Lands. No matter how you slice it, the SG has no authority whatsoever outside the Southern Lands. A Florida state trooper cannot arrest a guy in Georgia for doing something in Georgia that happens to be against Florida law. Replace the words "Florida state trooper" with "Paladin", "Georgia" with "Northern Lands", and "Florida law" with "SG law", and you have exactly what happened with the SG and the OOTS.

[Lord Zentei]

Oh, for crying out loud. :smallsigh:


For a statement to be true, all parts of it must be true. For a government to be legitimate, the whole thing must be legitimate. Simple logic.

No. You present evidence for either position. The weight of evidence favors one side or the other.


Not by the OOTS. The SG has no reason to believe the order has any desire to attack the other gates. Therefore, they have no authority to arrest them.

False. The fact remains that two gates had already been destroyed. SG diviners determined that the OOTS was responsible for the destruction of the Redmountain gate, as stated by Saangwaan during her testimony. It is a perfectly valid precautionary act to arrest them, particularly given all the crusades the SG undertook simply to eliminate any mention or knowledge of the gates.


If so, then it cannot arrest anyone outside the Southern Lands, because the deities from which they recieve power do not have authority there. You can't be more powerful than the guy giving you your powers.

This has been covered already.


The "crime" took place outside their and the 12 Gods' jurisdiction. They cannot prosecute them for it. The 12 Gods themselves can't even prosecute them for it!

See above.


If it is not a government itself and does not derive it's authority from a government, then it has no authority. There is no evidence in the strip that the SG gets authority from the 12 Gods (and the fact that Soon, rather than the Gods, created it would imply the opposite). And even if they did, the 12 Gods don't have authority outside the Southern Lands. No matter how you slice it, the SG has no authority whatsoever outside the Southern Lands. A Florida state trooper cannot arrest a guy in Georgia for doing something in Georgia that happens to be against Florida law. Replace the words "Florida state trooper" with "Paladin", "Georgia" with "Northern Lands", and "Florida law" with "SG law", and you have exactly what happened with the SG and the OOTS.

This has ALSO been covered already. :smallsigh:

[thereaper]

Really? Where? I've looked and all I've seen are you baselessly saying that because the SG gets it's powers from the 12 Gods, they have authority everywhere. There is no proof anywhere in the strip that the 12 Gods have given the Sapphire Guard authority. And you have never once addressed the fact that the 12 Gods do not have authority in the Northern Lands. It has been specifically stated that the world was carved up and the different pantheons each chose a different region. If the 12 Gods could have authority in Northern Lands despite that, then Thor should have been able to push past them to help Durkon, since he would have as much of a claim to the Southern Lands as they do the Northern Lands. Since he could not, there is no reason whatsoever to think that the 12 Gods (and by extension, the SG) have authority in Northern Lands. Remember, being granted power by the Gods and being given authority by the Gods are two very different things.

[Lord Zentei]

Really? Where? I've looked and all I've seen are you baselessly saying that because the SG gets it's powers from the 12 Gods, they have authority everywhere. There is no proof anywhere in the strip that the 12 Gods have given the Sapphire Guard authority. And you have never once addressed the fact that the 12 Gods do not have authority in the Northern Lands.

I have pointed out repeatedly that the gods allow themselves to act through agents where they themselves cannot go. The proof that the gods allow the SG this authority is that they continue to patronize them as the SG act in their name and with their consent.


It has been specifically stated that the world was carved up and the different pantheons each chose a different region. If the 12 Gods could have authority in Northern Lands despite that, then Thor should have been able to push past them to help Durkon, since he would have as much of a claim to the Southern Lands as they do the Northern Lands. Since he could not, there is no reason whatsoever to think that the 12 Gods (and by extension, the SG) have authority in Northern Lands.

They objected to bending of the world rules and direct intervention, not to the fact that Durkon acts in Thor's name and performs Thor's will in the south. This has also been said.


Remember, being granted power by the Gods and being given authority by the Gods are two very different things.

Wrong. The gods continue to grant power to the SG even given their claims to authority in the gods name. This makes the gods culpable for such claims and implies their tacit approval of such claims. This has been covered as well.

This really is nothing new. I don't see much reason to continuing this dead horse beating.

[Jetrauben]

The Crusaders the Sapphire Guard underwent as part of their program to 'protect the gate' were wrong.

Or at least, illegitimate. Strictly speaking, they have no legal authority outside of the realm of the 12 Gods- not to arrest anyone, not to prosecute anyone, nothing. Once they leave the narrowly defined area in which they have jurisdiction, they are reduced to nothing more than a theoretically Lawful Good organization of vigilantes who decide to butcher anyone who registers as Evil. Kinda like most unfortunate misinterpretations of paladins, really.

In other words, legally, the crusaders were illegitimate insofar as it related to the mandate of the Sapphire Guard. However, because they are (presumably) targeting Evil creatures and organizations, they squeaked by on a technicality- they were violating their specific oath of protecting only the gate of Azure City, but their generic paladin oath of destroying evil still applied. Now, personally, I find that particular oath equally repugnant and potentially illegitimate, but apparently it was good enough for the 12 Gods and the Guard, probably because the varied evil organizations they targeted were going to destroy the Azure City gate eventually anyways. It's pure sophistry, but that's the sort of thing required when you turn loose an order of quasi-illegal fanatics with delusions of universal mandate on the world.

Not to mention, we don't really know anything about the circumstances of the crusades. To assume that because they took place outside of the realm of the 12 gods now and then means that the paladins of the Sapphire Guard have universal authority is a baseless assumption.

Face it. Miko's arrest of the OoTS, like most of her other actions, was completely illegitimate, bloodthirsty, and counterproductive, not to mention borderline evil in the worst Lawful Stupid tradition. Simply being a paladin does not give you authority over others, to order them around as you see fit- much less such a piss-poor paladin as Miko. Belonging to a particular class does not give you superior dominion, much less a secret organization from a foreign region serving Gods who have no authority in your own.

[Lord Zentei]

The Crusaders the Sapphire Guard underwent as part of their program to 'protect the gate' were wrong.

Or at least, illegitimate. Strictly speaking, they have no legal authority outside of the realm of the 12 Gods- not to arrest anyone, not to prosecute anyone, nothing. Once they leave the narrowly defined area in which they have jurisdiction, they are reduced to nothing more than a theoretically Lawful Good organization of vigilantes who decide to butcher anyone who registers as Evil. Kinda like most unfortunate misinterpretations of paladins, really.

Yet another claim that the Sapphire Guard have no authority outside the south. And with still no justification, even given the background that the gods operate through mortal agents specifically because they have restricted their own movements.


In other words, legally, the crusaders were illegitimate insofar as it related to the mandate of the Sapphire Guard. However, because they are (presumably) targeting Evil creatures and organizations, they squeaked by on a technicality- they were violating their specific oath of protecting only the gate of Azure City, but their generic paladin oath of destroying evil still applied. Now, personally, I find that particular oath equally repugnant and potentially illegitimate, but apparently it was good enough for the 12 Gods and the Guard, probably because the varied evil organizations they targeted were going to destroy the Azure City gate eventually anyways. It's pure sophistry, but that's the sort of thing required when you turn loose an order of quasi-illegal fanatics with delusions of universal mandate on the world.

It seems that you are placing your conclusion as a postulate here. :smallconfused:


Not to mention, we don't really know anything about the circumstances of the crusades. To assume that because they took place outside of the realm of the 12 gods now and then means that the paladins of the Sapphire Guard have universal authority is a baseless assumption.

It is not. Nor does anyone claim that the Sapphire Guard has "universal mandate", they have a very narrowly defined mandate, only one that is not restricted to the south.


Face it. Miko's arrest of the OoTS, like most of her other actions, was completely illegitimate, bloodthirsty, and counterproductive, not to mention borderline evil in the worst Lawful Stupid tradition.

This is not a Miko thread. Don't try to change it into one, if you please.


Simply being a paladin does not give you authority over others, to order them around as you see fit- much less such a piss-poor paladin as Miko. Belonging to a particular class does not give you superior dominion, much less a secret organization from a foreign region serving Gods who have no authority in your own.

That was not anyone's claim. And your premise regarding the authority of the gods is false, in any case: they have no authority to intervene directly; that does not mean they have no authority at all via agents.

[Jetrauben]

Yet another claim that the Sapphire Guard have no authority outside the south. And with still no justification, even given the background that the gods operate through mortal agents specifically because they have restricted their own movements.

The gods may operate through mortal agents, but still, the servants of the 12 Gods have no authority, religious or civil, over others who do NOT follow the 12 Gods. To assume otherwise is to assume that the 12 Gods are paramount, or that every other deity agrees implicitly with them- which has been shown in the past to be false.


It seems that you are placing your conclusion as a postulate here. :smallconfused:

Come again? If you mean that I'm assuming that the Sapphire Guard are fanatical vigilantes, that's because, as I pointed out, to the point of view of an outsider they are. They're a secret organization, who have no oversight or mandate beyond presumed divine mandate, who demand authority to do as they please in accordance with the dictates of a shadowy tradition and a faith not all of the world- not even all of the world of the same alignment- agrees with. In the real world, we'd call that a vigilante. Do not fall into the trap of assuming that simply because the SG are predominantly paladins they definitionally are incapable of doing wrong.

As for what I was saying, the paladins of the SG swear to protect the gate, but it's not part of their paladin oath. It's an earthly oath, not a class feature or restriction. They can technically go beyond the bounds of their dominion and not lose their paladin powers; by the same token as long as they're killing Evil creatures they're not in danger of losing their paladin powers. Don't mistake legalistic legitimacy for paladinhood.


It is not. Nor does anyone claim that the Sapphire Guard has "universal mandate", they have a very narrowly defined mandate, only one that is not restricted to the south.

There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case beyond a tacit assumption of yours that it is. The fact that the paladins of the Sapphire Guard did something does not make it right or ok. Consider that there's plenty of evidence of godly neglect, disagreement, and flaws in the Stickverse.


This is not a Miko thread. Don't try to change it into one, if you please.

Apologies, it wasn't intentional, but considering that the fundamental episode being dealt with essentially revolves around Miko, it's hard to avoid. Keep in mind that a lot of the reason the SG's legitimacy is even coming into question is because of the manner in which Miko chose to execute (read: completely ignore what Shojo said and leap to conclusions) it.


That was not anyone's claim. And your premise regarding the authority of the gods is false, in any case: they have no authority to intervene directly; that does not mean they have no authority at all via agents.

Correct, but again, divine authority is clearly parceled out in the Stickverse. Furthermore, the 12 Gods are deities of a specific region, people, and faith. Outsiders are under no obligation to follow their commands or pay their agents any special mind whatsoever.

[Lord Zentei]

The gods may operate through mortal agents, but still, the servants of the 12 Gods have no authority, religious or civil, over others who do NOT follow the 12 Gods. To assume otherwise is to assume that the 12 Gods are paramount, or that every other deity agrees implicitly with them- which has been shown in the past to be false.

That does not follow. The 12 gods are of the creator pantheons, they participated in the creation of the entire world, not just the part of the world they settled down in after the creation. There is nothing to suggest that a servant of the northern gods couldn't arrest a southerner, for instance.


Come again? If you mean that I'm assuming that the Sapphire Guard are fanatical vigilantes, that's because, as I pointed out, to the point of view of an outsider they are. They're a secret organization, who have no oversight or mandate beyond presumed divine mandate, who demand authority to do as they please in accordance with the dictates of a shadowy tradition and a faith not all of the world- not even all of the world of the same alignment- agrees with. In the real world, we'd call that a vigilante. Do not fall into the trap of assuming that simply because the SG are predominantly paladins they definitionally are incapable of doing wrong.

The point of view of the outsider isn't what determines their legitimacy. I wasn't making the assumption you are stating; obviously paladins are capable of doing wrong; see: fallen paladins.


There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case. The fact that the paladins of the Sapphire Guard did something does not make it right or ok. Consider that there's plenty of evidence of godly neglect, disagreement, and flaws in the Stickverse.

That the gods are flawed does not eliminate their legitimate authority. I'm not basing anything on the assumption of their perfection.


Apologies, it wasn't intentional, but considering that the fundamental episode being dealt with essentially revolves around Miko, it's hard to avoid. Keep in mind that a lot of the reason the SG's legitemacy is even coming into question is because of the manner in which Miko chose to execute (read: completely ignore what Shojo said and leap to conclusions) it.

That may be true of the initial confrontation when she failed to give them much of a chance to understand the situation, not the second one after her background was established.


Correct, but again, divine authority is clearly parceled out in the Stickverse. Furthermore, the 12 Gods are deities of a specific region, people, and faith. Outsiders are under no obligation to follow their commands or pay their agents any special mind whatsoever.

Divine authority was parceled out, that does not mean that the 12 cannot send their agents on missions beyond the south. Outsiders are required to give the 12 heed, just as they are required to give the gods of west and north heed and to the same extent; they are the creator pantheons whose planet the "outsider" in question is inhabiting.

[Jetrauben]

That does not follow. The 12 gods are of the creator pantheons, they participated in the creation of the entire world, not just the part of the world they settled down in after the creation. There is nothing to suggest that a servant of the northern gods couldn't arrest a southerner, for instance.

I don't agree. Just because a deity in question was a creator deity neither elevates them to superiority nor renders them inviolate to all mortals. Otherwise, why separate the pantheons at all?

Besides, strictly speaking, the 12 Gods only DID create things in their own little area. The other Gods were forced to accept it, but the 12 Gods set the plan. That, again, implies distinct separation of authority.

In any case, the SG clearly assumes, because they're southerners, that their Gods are paramount. That's their bias. You're assuming fundamentally that the SG are correct because they serve a creator god, and trying to come up for reasons why this is so.


The point of view of the outsider isn't what determines their legitimacy. I wasn't making the assumption you are stating; obviously paladins are capable of doing wrong; see: fallen paladins.

Sorry to use Miko as an example again, but she was guilty of plenty of borderline-evil actions long before she actually Fell. The callous killing of others, for example, showing no remorse for it, as well as acting not in the slightest like a paladin should, are all evidence that a paladin's adherence to the letter of the law while ignoring its spirit can keep them from Falling. Only when an absolute line is crossed- say, murdering a fellow Good-aligned individual in cold blood- did the Gods act.


That the gods are flawed does not eliminate their legitimate authority. I'm not basing anything on the assumption of their perfection.

No, but it does call the duty of a follower of one pantheon, even a creator pantheon, to follow the dictates of another pantheon outside their domain into question. Again, the SG have no eminence beyond the South. The Northern gods have not given them any evidence of support beyond your assumption that they must have. Based on all on-screen evidence, the SG's authority in the North is legally illegitimate.


That may be true of the initial confrontation when she failed to give them much of a chance to understand the situation, not the second one after her background was established.

Again, you're assuming that simply because she was a paladin of the SG the Order had some sort of legal or moral commandment to adhere to her authority. There's no evidence of this, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.


Divine authority was parceled out, that does not mean that the 12 cannot send their agents on missions beyond the south. Outsiders are required to give the 12 heed, just as they are required to give the gods of west and north heed and to the same extent; they are the creator pantheons whose planet the "outsider" in question is inhabiting.

Again, this is a premise I do not share. Because the Gods disagree- sometimes on major things- it stands to reason their dictates only apply to their own followers. Otherwise a Northerner could be arrested at any time by a Southerner for not adhering to laws the Southerner considers important. The simple fact that the strict Lawful Good ethos of the SG does not dominate the world renders this entire argument suspect.

[Lord Zentei]

I don't agree. Just because a deity in question was a creator deity neither elevates them to superiority nor renders them inviolate to all mortals. Otherwise, why separate the pantheons at all?

The creator gods are paramount because it is their planet.


Besides, strictly speaking, the 12 Gods only DID create things in their own little area. The other Gods were forced to accept it, but the 12 Gods set the plan. That, again, implies distinct separation of authority.

False: the gods wove their threads together, working together. You are making an unfounded assumption here.


In any case, the SG clearly assumes, because they're southerners, that their Gods are paramount. That's their bias. You're assuming fundamentally that the SG are correct because they serve a creator god, and trying to come up for reasons why this is so.

The SG are servants of creator gods. This is a fact; there is no need to come up with reasons for justifying it. Neither is this specific to the southern gods: if the SG were servants of the northern gods, the same principle would hold.


Sorry to use Miko as an example again, but she was guilty of plenty of borderline-evil actions long before she actually Fell. The callous killing of others, for example, showing no remorse for it, as well as acting not in the slightest like a paladin should, are all evidence that a paladin's adherence to the letter of the law while ignoring its spirit can keep them from Falling. Only when an absolute line is crossed- say, murdering a fellow Good-aligned individual in cold blood- did the Gods act.

We are discussing the letter of the law.

Incidentally I seem to remember Rich asserting that it is not evil to kill evil creatures or people, disagree if you will; that's a side issue in any case.


No, but it does call the duty of a follower of one pantheon, even a creator pantheon, to follow the dictates of another pantheon outside their domain into question. Again, the SG have no eminence beyond the South. The Northern gods have not given them any evidence of support beyond your assumption that they must have. Based on all on-screen evidence, the SG's authority in the North is legally illegitimate.

You are still assuming that the southern gods have no authority to send agents to the north. Even when it is established that the gods send agents where they themselves cannot go.


Again, you're assuming that simply because she was a paladin of the SG the Order had some sort of legal or moral commandment to adhere to her authority. There's no evidence of this, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Not to "her" authority, but to the authority she represented.


Again, this is a premise I do not share. Because the Gods disagree- sometimes on major things- it stands to reason their dictates only apply to their own followers. Otherwise a Northerner could be arrested at any time by a Southerner for not adhering to laws the Southerner considers important. The simple fact that the strict Lawful Good ethos of the SG does not dominate the world renders this entire argument suspect.

The fact that the gods do not always agree has no bearing on their legitimate authority, nor does it limit their authority to their own followers. To claim this is a non-sequitur. Consider: would the clerics of Thor not have the authority to arrest a southerner who defiles or plans to defile one of their temples?

[Jetrauben]

The creator gods are paramount because it is their planet.

Unfounded assumption. While the creator gods were the creators of the world, other gods are accepted, and likewise, the followers of said creator gods don't have to follow -other- creator gods. It isn't just the 12 Gods' planet.


False: the gods wove their threads together, working together. You are making an unfounded assumption here.

No, actually, I'm not. The gods' cooperation went primarily insofar as they didn't step on each others' toes.


The SG are servants of creator gods. This is a fact; there is no need to come up with reasons for justifying it. Neither is this specific to the southern gods: if the SG were servants of the northern gods, the same principle would hold.

No, it wouldn't. Again you presume that simply because a creator god is a creator god, all mortals are forced to acknowledge the authority of all creator gods. Do you obey the orders of the man who built your house, if you own the place now?


We are discussing the letter of the law.

Incidentally I seem to remember Rich asserting that it is not evil to kill evil creatures or people, disagree if you will; that's a side issue in any case.

Whether it's evil or not to kill evil people is besides the point. My point was the reason the SG got away with their illegitimate crusades without losing their paladinhood is because they were still killing Evil creatures and thus not violating their paladinhood. The paladinhood of the SG- or for that matter any paladin is by definition completely detached from political legitimacy; they claim an exalted position without any mandate or oversight beyond divine. Paladins can and occasionally do break laws they see as unjust or not Good. Essentially, the SG is -fundamentally- illegitimate in political terms, and thus little more than a Lawful Good organization of heavily armed, fanatical vigilantes when it comes to any domain outside their own.


You are still assuming that the southern gods have no authority to send agents to the north. Even when it is established that the gods send agents where they themselves cannot go.

That may be, but again, considering that the SG essentially took it upon themselves to go fetch the OoTS for presumed 'crimes against existence,' this is not a divine mission. Likewise, again, it's simply a matter of clashing pantheons- the followers of a Northern deity do not have to adhere to Southern deities and their commandments.


Not to "her" authority, but to the authority she represented.

Which, again, was illegitimate.


The fact that the gods do not always agree has no bearing on their legitimate authority, nor does it limit their authority to their own followers. To claim this is a non-sequitur. Consider: would the clerics of Thor not have the authority to arrest a southerner who defiles or plans to defile one of their temples?

The analogy is poor. The OoTS had nothing whatsoever to do with the lands or charges of the SG, which are, again, specifically restricted to the Azure City Gate. Again the SG overextended its authority in a move that Shojo HIMSELF all but admitted was completely illegitimate.

As for the question: They would, but only if the act was done in their own lands and domain.

[Lord Zentei]

Unfounded assumption. While the creator gods were the creators of the world, other gods are accepted, and likewise, the followers of said creator gods don't have to follow -other- creator gods. It isn't just the 12 Gods' planet.

Irrelevant. The 12 have legitimate authority over their spheres of interest and concern. Whether a mortal worships such and such a god or no god at all has no bearing on anything. If that were so, all the pantheons combined could not enforce authority on a mortal who worshipped none of them, even if it is their planet; which is absurd.


No, actually, I'm not. The gods' cooperation went primarily insofar as they didn't step on each others' toes.

Evidence.


No, it wouldn't. Again you presume that simply because a creator god is a creator god, all mortals are forced to acknowledge the authority of all creator gods. Do you obey the orders of the man who built your house, if you own the place now?

If he is the landlord, yes. The gods never relinquished authority of their creation.


Whether it's evil or not to kill evil people is besides the point. My point was the reason the SG got away with their illegitimate crusades without losing their paladinhood is because they were still killing Evil creatures and thus not violating their paladinhood. The paladinhood of the SG- or for that matter any paladin is by definition completely detached from political legitimacy; they claim an exalted position without any mandate or oversight beyond divine. Paladins can and occasionally do break laws they see as unjust or not Good. Essentially, the SG is -fundamentally- illegitimate in political terms, and thus little more than a Lawful Good organization of heavily armed, fanatical vigilantes when it comes to any domain outside their own.

So you claim: but by this you assert that the gods themselves are acting illegitimately in continuing to patronize the SG.


That may be, but again, considering that the SG essentially took it upon themselves to go fetch the OoTS for presumed 'crimes against existence,' this is not a divine mission. Likewise, again, it's simply a matter of clashing pantheons- the followers of a Northern deity do not have to adhere to Southern deities and their commandments.

You appear to be basing your argumentation on notions relevant to the real world and religions thereof: this is an entirely different situation where gods are tangible forces with an objective existence, not social and cultural icons and constructs. Anyway, on what grounds do you assert that it wasn't a divine mission to attempt to arrest whoever they thought responsible for the destruction of Redmountain?


Which, again, was illegitimate.

Begging the question.


The analogy is poor. The OoTS had nothing whatsoever to do with the lands or charges of the SG, which are, again, specifically restricted to the Azure City Gate. Again the SG overextended its authority in a move that Shojo HIMSELF all but admitted was completely illegitimate.

The analogy is perfectly sound. You are basing your argument on the guilt or innocence of th OOTS, not the authority of the SG per se.


As for the question: They would, but only if the act was done in their own lands and domain.

Why? It is their portfolio; their sphere of interest. It has nothing to do with terrain.

[Jetrauben]

Irrelevant. The 12 have legitimate authority over their spheres of interest and concern. Whether a mortal worships such and such a god or no god at all has no bearing on anything. If that were so, all the pantheons combined could not enforce authority on a mortal who worshipped none of them, even if it is their planet; which is absurd.

No, it's actually perfectly sound. When a paladin kills an evil-aligned creature who does not follow his or her God, it's not because they've violated their god, but rather because they didn't follow the generalized ethos that God espouses- usually one of the most basic commandments intrinsic to Good. Furthermore, again, you're assuming that everyone on the planet must obey the doctrines every creator god, if not EVERY god, no matter what their actual doctrines claim, which is completely laughable.


Evidence.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0274.html

Provided.


If he is the landlord, yes. The gods never relinquished authority of their creation.

Actually, strictly speaking, the gods don't claim authority, but rather made the world more or less for a lark- and later to imprison the Snarl and save themselves. If the creator gods demanded absolute sovereignty they wouldn't have permitted the new gods raised up by mortal races as explicitly described here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0275.html


So you claim: but by this you assert that the gods themselves are acting illegitimately in continuing to patronize the SG.

You're confusing the issue. What I'm saying is the 12 Gods will continue to patronize the SG so long as they don't violate their Paladin oaths, NOT their 'We restrict ourselves to the Azure City gate' oath. Seeing as the paladins still presumably slew evil creatures they did not violate their paladin oath and thus didn't lose divine sponsorship.


Ridiculous. You appear to be basing your argumentation on notions relevant to the real world and religions thereof: this is an entirely different situation where gods are tangible forces with an objective existence, not social and cultural icons and constructs. Anyway, on what grounds do you assert that it wasn't a divine mission to attempt to arrest whoever they thought responsible for the destruction of Redmountain?

Setting aside a long debate as to legitimacy...

On what grounds do YOU assume that it -was-? There's no evidence of it being anything beyond Shojo's plan to grab the OoTS. Again, you cannot assume that everything a paladin does is divinely sponsored from on high. They sponsor organizations and individuals, not every single little decision a paladin chooses to make.


Begging the question.

Actually, not. I'm speaking in political terms here. Again, considering that the world of the Stickverse does not have a single monolithic system of belief on which the universe was founded, the only commonality in which we can judge legitimacy is political. Do the Northern monarchs need to seek the approval of the 12 Gods to do their thing? No evidence to that effect.


The analogy is perfectly sound. You are basing your argument on the guilt or innocence of th OOTS, not the authority of the SG per se.

No, the analogy isn't sound. Even drawing upon the most broad definition of the SG's oath, their oath is not to preserve creation or protect the gates. It is to protect ONE gate- the Azure City gate. That's all they have authority over. They have, in fact, explicitly sworn in the main comic to -not- interfere with other gates unless there is an explicit threat to all of them.


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

That's why the OoTS had to be dragged to Azure City on trumped-up charges to begin with, the entire underlying purpose of the subject of the discussion. This was NOT a divine command and NOT something the paladins did. Keep in mind that Lord Shojo, the one who actually put the plan into effect, was not a paladin even though he acted as commander of the Sapphire Guard, and thus HAS no divine mandate. Nor does he have to adhere to the oath.


Why? It is their portfolio; their sphere of interest. It has nothing to do with terrain.

Because they're stepping in on the authority of the Northern gods.

Look, you obviously are of the opinion that the SG have some sort of cosmic mandate. We are extremely unlikely to agree. I don't believe that the 12 Gods have any claim to any part of the world not their own; you do. I believe the paladins of the SG have no authority beyond the Azure City gate that doesn't apply to their generalized paladin oath (and thus they have no legitimate way to compel others except with threat of violence); you do.

Rich has clearly written the entirety of OoTS to correspond with the OoTS's viewpoints. They're the protagonists- NOT the Sapphire Guard. The Sapphire Guard has been portrayed as a flawed and often-ineffective or hidebound organization who have long since overstepped their bounds in a classic 'lawful good has flaws' scenario. Just because the SG are paladins, overzealous posters keep desperately wanting them to be more important, more correct, than they actually are, and it's really beginning to kinda annoy me.

[Lord Zentei]

No, it's actually perfectly sound. When a paladin kills an evil-aligned creature who does not follow his or her God, it's not because they've violated their god, but rather because they didn't follow the generalized ethos that God espouses- usually one of the most basic commandments intrinsic to Good. Furthermore, again, you're assuming that everyone on the planet must obey the doctrines every creator god, if not EVERY god, no matter what their actual doctrines claim, which is completely laughable.

False. I am claiming that the gods have jurisdiction over their own damned planet, which they created. Why is that laughable?


http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0274.html

Provided.

And poorly, at that. They are weaving their threads together. Monkey simply gets to decide what gets created next. This is just as easily evidence against your position.


Actually, strictly speaking, the gods don't claim authority, but rather made the world more or less for a lark- and later to imprison the Snarl and save themselves. If the creator gods demanded absolute sovereignty they wouldn't have permitted the new gods raised up by mortal races as explicitly described here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0275.html

I have covered this angle earlier in the thread. That they allow other gods to arise doesn't mean they don't hold sovereign authority.


You're confusing the issue. What I'm saying is the 12 Gods will continue to patronize the SG so long as they don't violate their Paladin oaths, NOT their 'We restrict ourselves to the Azure City gate' oath. Seeing as the paladins still presumably slew evil creatures they did not violate their paladin oath and thus didn't lose divine sponsorship.

Meaningless. If they make a false oath and continue to follow it in the gods name for decades, the gods are making themselves liable for that.


Setting aside a long debate as to legitimacy...

On what grounds do YOU assume that it -was-? There's no evidence of it being anything beyond Shojo's plan to grab the OoTS. Again, you cannot assume that everything a paladin does is divinely sponsored from on high. They sponsor organizations and individuals, not every single little decision a paladin chooses to make.

No indeed, but they would know that they were acting outside their legitimate authority were Shojo to order them to do something that did not conform to their legitimate rights. The vast amount of trouble Shojo had to go through behind his paladins' backs doesn't exactly support your idea that the paladins would go beyond their lawfully mandated authority simply if Shojo told them to do so.


Actually, not. I'm speaking in political terms here. Again, considering that the world of the Stickverse does not have a single monolithic system of belief on which the universe was founded, the only commonality in which we can judge legitimacy is political. Do the Northern monarchs need to seek the approval of the 12 Gods to do their thing? No evidence to that effect.

You have not heard of the phrase "by the grace of the gods"? And where the gods are tangible objectively existent entities, this is more than just a medieval philosophical position. What do you think this is, a democracy?


No, the analogy isn't sound. Even drawing upon the most broad definition of the SG's oath, their oath is not to preserve creation or protect the gates. It is to protect ONE gate- the Azure City gate. That's all they have authority over. They have, in fact, explicitly sworn in the main comic to -not- interfere with other gates unless there is an explicit threat to all of them.

Indeed. And with two gates destroyed, they could legitimately consider their own gate at risk. It would be the height of irresponsibility not to.


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

That's why the OoTS had to be dragged to Azure City on trumped-up charges to begin with, the entire underlying purpose of the subject of the discussion. This was NOT a divine command and NOT something the paladins did. Keep in mind that Lord Shojo, the one who actually put the plan into effect, was not a paladin even though he acted as commander of the Sapphire Guard, and thus HAS no divine mandate. Nor does he have to adhere to the oath.

Irrelevant. The mandate to protect their gate can be on divine authority, that doesn't mean that each and every mission a paladin undertakes has to be micromanaged by divine decree. And Shojo's paladinhood or lack thereof has no bearing on the SG as an institution.


Because they're stepping in on the authority of the Northern gods.

No, they are not.


Look, you obviously are of the opinion that the SG have some sort of cosmic mandate. We are extremely unlikely to agree. I don't believe that the 12 Gods have any claim to any part of the world not their own; you do.

I have not claimed the SG have a cosmic mandate. They have a mandate, indeed a responsibility to defend their gate against all potential threats. If that means they have a mandate to attack people who know of the gates, it certainly means they have a mandate to seek out and arrest those that have destroyed one or more of them.


I believe the paladins of the SG have no authority beyond the Azure City gate that doesn't apply to their generalized paladin oath (and thus they have no legitimate way to compel others except with threat of violence); you do.

Your claims of my position are completely false. Please quit the strawman distortions. The legitimacy you cite is all the legitimacy that is required.


Rich has clearly written the entirety of OoTS to correspond with the OoTS's viewpoints. They're the protagonists- NOT the Sapphire Guard. The Sapphire Guard has been portrayed as a flawed and often-ineffective or hidebound organization who have long since overstepped their bounds in a classic 'lawful good has flaws' scenario. Just because the SG are paladins, overzealous posters keep desperately wanting them to be more important, more correct, than they actually are, and it's really beginning to kinda annoy me.

Overzealous posters? Ad hominem, much?

Their flaws have nothing to do with their legitimate authority. A flawed cop is still a cop.

[thereaper]

I have pointed out repeatedly that the gods allow themselves to act through agents where they themselves cannot go. The proof that the gods allow the SG this authority is that they continue to patronize them as the SG act in their name and with their consent.

So then, if one is carrying out the will of the Gods, they also carry said God's authority?

Ok, well, there's one problem with that theory; it undermines the entire "separate the world and each control one part of it" thing. If Durkon has Thor's authority, that means he can go into the Southern Lands and say "hey, I want such-and-such", and it would be as if the Southern Gods had decreed it. Legally speaking, he would have as much authority as the Southern Gods, since Thor's self-imposed limits on his authority don't extend to Durkon (or else the SG's Southern Gods-given authority would not extend to Northern Lands).

Essentially, you're arguing that a mortal can have as much legal authority as a God. That's ridiculous.

Oh, and this gets better. It also follows that Hilgya and the Oracle would also have this same authority, since they're also carrying out their Gods' will. Oh, and one other person would have this authority too: Redcloak. There is absolutely no arguing that he isn't carrying out the will of the Dark One. Now, the Dark One doesn't rule the Southern Lands, so we can compare Redcloak's assault on AC to the SG's arrest of the OOTS in Northern Lands.

The Dark One may be evil and out to destroy the natural order of things, but he is still a God. Being evil does not make your authority any less legitimate, especially when dealing with innate, godlike authority. So, if the SG can go into Northern Lands where their Gods have no authority and say, "In the name of the Southern Gods, I arrest you", Redcloak can go to AC and say "In the name of the Dark One, I attack you". It's the exact same thing. If the SG is justified in arresting people outside the Southern Lands, then Redcloak is justified in everything he's doing, because he has been given authority by the Dark One.

The Dark One may not rule a particular region of the Earth, but if the Southern Gods can give their servants authority in places they themselves do not rule, then the Dark One can give authority to his servants in places where he does not rule.


Wrong. The gods continue to grant power to the SG even given their claims to authority in the gods name. This makes the gods culpable for such claims and implies their tacit approval of such claims. This has been covered as well.

So if a person does something and their God does not take away their powers, the God must agree with it?

I guess that must mean that Thor and Loki supported Durkon and Hilgya getting it on, since neither of them lost their powers, despite the clear disgust both Thor and Loki expressed over it.

And I guess that must also mean that the Gods supported Miko's assertions that Shojo was trying to sabotage the SG and was helping Xykon, since they didn't take away her powers until she killed him. And they must have also supported O'Chul's attempt at destroying the gate, since he didn't lose his powers (the fact that he didn't know about the ghost-martyrs doesn't change the fact that it would have been a bad idea had it worked). This is the same line of logic Miko followed when she broke out of jail. "This happened and this did not happen, therefore the Gods must support this!".

And that's not even the end of this faulty line of logic. It also follows that if something bad happens, the Gods will do something unless they like it (they certainly have the power, being Gods and all). This means that they must have supported Miko's destruction of the gate, since they didn't smite her with a bolt of lightning. Even if we ignore examples like that one, it's clear that the Gods won't take away one's powers for doing one thing they don't support. That destroys the whole argument that the Gods must support the SG because they haven't taken away their powers.

[Lord Zentei]

So then, if one is carrying out the will of the Gods, they also carry said God's authority?

Ok, well, there's one problem with that theory; it undermines the entire "separate the world and each control one part of it" thing. If Durkon has Thor's authority, that means he can go into the Southern Lands and say "hey, I want such-and-such", and it would be as if the Southern Gods had decreed it. Legally speaking, he would have as much authority as the Southern Gods, since Thor's self-imposed limits on his authority don't extend to Durkon (or else the SG's Southern Gods-given authority would not extend to Northern Lands).

Essentially, you're arguing that a mortal can have as much legal authority as a God. That's ridiculous.

Utter and complete strawman. The issue at hand is the SG following an oath to their gods, claiming a mandate for an extended period of time and in their name. Where do I claim that a mortal can have as much authority as a god in each and every act he undertakes? That is entirely contrary to the argument.


Oh, and this gets better. It also follows that Hilgya and the Oracle would also have this same authority, since they're also carrying out their Gods' will. Oh, and one other person would have this authority too: Redcloak. There is absolutely no arguing that he isn't carrying out the will of the Dark One. Now, the Dark One doesn't rule the Southern Lands, so we can compare Redcloak's assault on AC to the SG's arrest of the OOTS in Northern Lands.

The Dark One is not one of the creator pantheons.


The Dark One may not rule a particular region of the Earth, but if the Southern Gods can give their servants authority in places they themselves do not rule, then the Dark One can give authority to his servants in places where he does not rule.

No. See previous point.


So if a person does something and their God does not take away their powers, the God must agree with it?

I guess that must mean that Thor and Loki supported Durkon and Hilgya getting it on, since neither of them lost their powers, despite the clear disgust both Thor and Loki expressed over it.

Strawman, again. See first point.


And I guess that must also mean that the Gods supported Miko's assertions that Shojo was trying to sabotage the SG and was helping Xykon, since they didn't take away her powers until she killed him.

That has got to be the silliest argument I have read in a long, long time. :smallsigh:


<snip>

And that's not even the end of this faulty line of logic. It also follows that if something bad happens, the Gods will do something unless they like it (they certainly have the power, being Gods and all). This means that they must have supported Miko's destruction of the gate, since they didn't smite her with a bolt of lightning. Even if we ignore examples like that one, it's clear that the Gods won't take away one's powers for doing one thing they don't support. That destroys the whole argument that the Gods must support the SG because they haven't taken away their powers.

You are completely missing the entire line of reasoning.

Moreover, the fact that Miko's powers were in fact revoked undermines this claim no end. Of course, you have come to the bizarre argumentation above.

[thereaper]

Utter and complete strawman. The issue at hand is the SG following an oath to their gods, claiming a mandate for an extended period of time and in their name. Where do I claim that a mortal can have as much authority as a god in each and every act he undertakes? That is entirely contrary to the argument.

Oh, so claiming an oath in the God's name somehow has an effect on this? That's odd, because I don't recall the SG ever making such an oath to their Gods. And once again, we know RC to be working in the name of the Dark One and with his blessing. The Dark One is a God just like any other; he just wasn't around when the world was being divided up, so he didn't get a region to rule.

And you are claiming that a mortal can have the authority of a God in everything he does, so long as he has a God's blessing.


The Dark One is not one of the creator pantheons.

Which matters how? He doesn't have authority in Southern Lands, but he's a God. What you're saying is that a God can give his/her followers authority in areas where they themselves do not have it. The Dark One does not have authority in AC. If the Southern Gods can give the SG authority in Northern Lands, the Dark One can give RC authority in AC.


Strawman, again. See first point.

If we assume their oath was "Protect the gates", then the SG had no authority to arrest the OOTS, because they are not threatening the other gates. An oath to "Protect the gates" would not extend to arresting people who had already destroyed one (punishing is not the same as protecting).


That has got to be the silliest argument I have read in a long, long time. :smallsigh:

It exactly follows your line of reasoning to it's inevitable end. That's why it's silly.


You are completely missing the entire line of reasoning.

Moreover, the fact that Miko's powers were in fact revoked undermines this claim no end. Of course, you have come to the bizarre argumentation above.

But she did not lose them until after she killed Shojo. By your reasoning, that means the Gods must have supported all her actions until she killed him, which include accusing him of conspiring against the SG.

You also completely failed to acknowledge that no matter how you fudge things, a God being able to give his followers divine authority in places the God in question cannot go (no matter what the method) still undermines the whole "separate the world and each rule a separate region" thing. You're basically giving every God equal control over the whole world so long as the messengers have made some kind of oath. That's in almost direct contradiction with the idea of the Gods each only ruling one region.

[Lord Zentei]

Oh, so claiming an oath in the God's name somehow has an effect on this? That's odd, because I don't recall the SG ever making such an oath to their Gods. And once again, we know RC to be working in the name of the Dark One and with his blessing. The Dark One is a God just like any other; he just wasn't around when the world was being divided up, so he didn't get a region to rule.

The paladins of the Sapphire Guard are paladins of the 12 gods.... and you are assuming that they haven't made the oath in their name.... wow, just... wow.


And you are claiming that a mortal can have the authority of a God in everything he does, so long as he has a God's blessing.

I grow tired of you misrepresenting what I am saying.


Which matters how? He doesn't have authority in Southern Lands, but he's a God. What you're saying is that a God can give his/her followers authority in areas where they themselves do not have it. The Dark One does not have authority in AC. If the Southern Gods can give the SG authority in Northern Lands, the Dark One can give RC authority in AC.

It is canon fact that the agents of the gods can go where the gods have agreed not to go. Just accept it.


If we assume their oath was "Protect the gates", then the SG had no authority to arrest the OOTS, because they are not threatening the other gates. An oath to "Protect the gates" would not extend to arresting people who had already destroyed one (punishing is not the same as protecting).

You are going in circles. Again.


It exactly follows your line of reasoning to it's inevitable end. That's why it's silly.

No. It is utterly contrary to my line of reasoning. The whole point is that the Sapphire Guard have not fallen despite claiming legitimacy beyond the south. The fact is that a paladin must respect legitimate authority: it's in the paladin code. Look it up. A paladin is not the same thing as any other mortal. Not, at least, if he wishes to remain a paladin. Why do you think that the point I made is the gods continued to patronize the Sapphire Guard, if not because of the paladin's code?


But she did not lose them until after she killed Shojo. By your reasoning, that means the Gods must have supported all her actions until she killed him, which include accusing him of conspiring against the SG.

No. She fell because she violated her oath as a paladin. I have already asserted that the gods don't micromanage the actions of their agents, yet you trot out this strawman again and again.


You also completely failed to acknowledge that no matter how you fudge things, a God being able to give his followers divine authority in places the God in question cannot go (no matter what the method) still undermines the whole "separate the world and each rule a separate region" thing. You're basically giving every God equal control over the whole world so long as the messengers have made some kind of oath. That's in almost direct contradiction with the idea of the Gods each only ruling one region.

You don't understand the manner of the division. The gods agreed not to intervene in the other domains, that does not mean their agents cannot move around the world they created in collaboration.

[thereaper]

The paladins of the Sapphire Guard are paladins of the 12 gods.... and you are assuming that they haven't made the oath in their name.... wow, just... wow.

They claim to be serving the 12 Gods. That's all we know for sure regarding the matter. But even if they have made an oath to the Gods, it doesn't actually mean anything. It's whether or not the Gods want to give them power that matters.


I grow tired of you misrepresenting what I am saying. Don't you know that it is rude to do this?

You are saying that the paladins, in making an oath to the Southern Gods, can go into Northern Lands and arrest people for stuff that doesn't actually have anything to do with the fulfillment of their stated goal (protecting the gates).


Look, I'll quote something else:


Wrong. The gods continue to grant power to the SG even given their claims to authority in the gods name. This makes the gods culpable for such claims and implies their tacit approval of such claims. This has been covered as well.

You stated here that in not removing the SG's power, the Gods must approve of the SG's actions. Yet you also stated that the Gods don't micromanage their agents' actions. Therefore, they are doing things that the Gods didn't explicitly tell them to do. But they haven't fallen because of any of it. Therefore, according to your logic, the Gods must support it, because otherwise the paladins would have fallen.

Therefore, the Gods must support everything the paladins do.

But claiming to have the authority of the Gods does not make the Gods responsible for your actions unless they have actually given you that authority. And even then it's debatable, because the Gods have not told them explicitly what to do. Not taking away the SG's power is not a sign that the Gods support their actions; only a sign that the Gods don't deem them bad enough to warrant a fall. Otherwise, Miko would have fallen long before she did.


It is canon fact that the agents of the gods can go where the gods have agreed not to go. Just deal with it.

Oh, I'm not arguing that they can't go where the Gods can't, only that they don't carry said God's authority with them.


You are going in circles. Again.

Only because you refuse to address it.


No. It is utterly contrary to my line of reasoning. The whole point is that the Sapphire Guard have not fallen despite claiming legitimacy beyond the south. The fact is that a paladin must respect legitimate authority: it's in the paladin code. Look it up. A paladin is not the same thing as any other mortal. Not, at least, if he wishes to remain a paladin. Why do you think that the point I made is the gods continued to patronize the Sapphire Guard, if not because of the paladin's code?

First of all, the Paladin Code varies greatly depending on your DM (and Rich has used houserules more than once already in the comic, such as how LG Durkon can serve a clearly CG Thor). Also, in commiting genocide against the Goblin people (who were not harming or threatening innocents), they have already broken the paladin code as it is written in the SRD. Therefore, we can conclude that the paladin code doesn't work the same way in the comic as it does in the official rules.


No. She fell because she violated her oath as a paladin. I have already asserted that the gods don't micromanage the actions of their agents, yet you trot out this strawman again and again.

Yet they were clearly watching when she killed Shojo. And by the way, Shojo is the legitimate head of the SG until such time as he is convicted. Remember, being evil (or in Shojo's case, chaotic) does not make you any less legitimate. You only lose your legitimacy as a ruler when it is taken from you by a court or some other such thing. Miko's behavior towards Shojo immediately before killing him is a clear example of disrespecting legitimate authority. Under the strict, by-the-books interpretation of the paladin code, she should have fallen just for that.


You don't understand the manner of the division. The gods agreed not to intervene in the other domains, that does not mean their agents cannot move around the world they created in collaboration.

But having one's agents move around some place is not the same as giving them authority in said place. Giving them power is one thing. Giving them authority is another, because authority is legitimate power.

Does the SG have power in the Northern Lands? Yes. Do they have authority in Northern Lands? I'm saying that they don't, because under that principle any God could extend their authority to any part of the world, which would make the separation of the world pointless to begin with.

[Lord Zentei]

They claim to be serving the 12 Gods. That's all we know for sure regarding the matter. But even if they have made an oath to the Gods, it doesn't actually mean anything. It's whether or not the Gods want to give them power that matters.

....

Did you miss the part where the 12 gods revoked Miko's powers? Or are you just trolling?


You are saying that the paladins, in making an oath to the Southern Gods, can go into Northern Lands and arrest people for stuff that doesn't actually have anything to do with the fulfillment of their stated goal (protecting the gates).

No, I am not. I am saying that the fact that they remain paladins in the pursuit of their oath in the northern lands. I have said repeatedly that your assertion is a misrepresentation.


You stated here that in not removing the SG's power, the Gods must approve of the SG's actions. Yet you also stated that the Gods don't micromanage their agents' actions. Therefore, they are doing things that the Gods didn't explicitly tell them to do. But they haven't fallen because of any of it. Therefore, according to your logic, the Gods must support it, because otherwise the paladins would have fallen.

Therefore, the Gods must support everything the paladins do.

But claiming to have the authority of the Gods does not make the Gods responsible for your actions unless they have actually given you that authority. And even then it's debatable, because the Gods have not told them explicitly what to do. Not taking away the SG's power is not a sign that the Gods support their actions; only a sign that the Gods don't deem them bad enough to warrant a fall. Otherwise, Miko would have fallen long before she did.

Wow.

The paladins must respect legitimate authority. This is in the paladin's code.

Gross violations of the code lead to a paladin's fall. This does not mean that every action is micromanaged by divine decree; it means that it is axiomatic that a paladin is within his code if he hasn't fallen yet.

Therefore, the Sapphire Guard have respected the legitimate authority. QED.


Oh, I'm not arguing that they can't go where the Gods can't, only that they don't carry said God's authority with them.

That is what is meant in the context. :smallsigh:


Only because you refuse to address it.

False allegation. I have pointed out that given that two gates are destroyed, it is a legitimate concern that their own gate is at risk.


First of all, the Paladin Code varies greatly depending on your DM (and Rich has used houserules more than once already in the comic, such as how LG Durkon can serve a clearly CG Thor). Also, in commiting genocide against the Goblin people (who were not harming or threatening innocents), they have already broken the paladin code as it is written in the SRD. Therefore, we can conclude that the paladin code doesn't work the same way in the comic as it does in the official rules.

No, we cannot conclude that at all. In the absence of specifically demonstrated variations, D&D rules hold on a point by point basis.


Yet they were clearly watching when she killed Shojo.

Yes, so? :smallconfused:


And by the way, Shojo is the legitimate head of the SG until such time as he is convicted. Remember, being evil (or in Shojo's case, chaotic) does not make you any less legitimate. You only lose your legitimacy as a ruler when it is taken from you by a court or some other such thing. Miko's behavior towards Shojo immediately before killing him is a clear example of disrespecting legitimate authority. Under the strict, by-the-books interpretation of the paladin code, she should have fallen just for that.

No, Shojo's actions could have him removed from the leadership post he held; legitimate authority demanded that he be removed from his post and tried, as opposed to executed on the spot. As Hinjo intended to do.


But having one's agents move around some place is not the same as giving them authority in said place. Giving them power is one thing. Giving them authority is another, because authority is legitimate power.

That is what "allowing agents to move around" implies. The gods act through their agents.


Does the SG have power in the Northern Lands? Yes. Do they have authority in Northern Lands? I'm saying that they don't, because under that principle any God could extend their authority to any part of the world, which would make the separation of the world pointless to begin with.

No, it would not. And you are rejecting something that is canon fact. :smallsigh:

[thereaper]

....

Did you miss the part where the 12 gods revoked Miko's powers? Or are you just trolling?

I'm not referring to the oath required to be a paladin. I'm referring to the (unconfirmed) oath that the Sapphire Guard made with the Gods to protect the gate. They are clearly two different things (the paladin code has nothing to do with protecting the gate).


No, I am not. I am saying that the fact that they remain paladins in the pursuit of their oath in the northern lands. I have said repeatedly that your assertion is a misrepresentation.

Which proves nothing except that they didn't do anything bad enough for the Southern Gods to take away their powers.


Wow.

The paladins must respect legitimate authority. This is in the paladin's code.

Gross violations of the code lead to a paladin's fall. This does not mean that every action is micromanaged by divine decree; it means that it is axiomatic that a paladin is within his code if he hasn't fallen yet.

Therefore, the Sapphire Guard have respected the legitimate authority. QED.

"Gross violations", huh? Then what defines a "gross" violation?

For one thing, whether something is even a violation or not is determined by the deity that grants the paladins their powers.

It also brings up the question, "just what is legitimate?". Considering that all of this is up to the Gods, it may well be that their definition of legitimate is different than ours. The Southern Gods may not consider their agents to be under the jurisdiction of the Northern Gods when in Northern Lands. In that instance, the SG would be able to say "FU!" to the Northern Gods if asked to leave without falling.


False allegation. I have pointed out that given that two gates are destroyed, it is a legitimate concern that their own gate is at risk.

But it does not follow that the OOTS is threatening their gate. Especially since they have no reason to believe the OOTS destroyed the first gate (in fact, if they can use diviners to determine that the order destroyed the second gate, they should have been able to use diviners to tell that the order did NOT destroy the first gate).

And if we go by a strict interpretation of the oath, the paladins "failed" their oath the moment they sent Miko out to arrest the OOTS. That's one less paladin there to protect the gate (their definite mission), and they sent her out to arrest someone who MIGHT in the future threaten the gate. That also demonstrates that there is clearly some wiggle room here.


No, we cannot conclude that at all. In the absence of specifically demonstrated variations, D&D rules hold on a point by point basis.

If statement X says Y and Z, and Y is false, then guess what? X is false. It may be more practical to assume that Z is still true, but that doesn't prove it is. On the contrary, it brings it's authenticity into question. So, because we cannot prove one way or the other which it is, it is of no consequence to this argument.

Your statement that in the absence of demonstrated variations the paladin code is still the same holds just as much water as me saying that this IS a demonstrated variation.


Yes, so? :smallconfused:


No, Shojo's actions could have him removed from the leadership post he held; legitimate authority demanded that he be removed from his post and tried, as opposed to executed on the spot. As Hinjo intended to do.

So, they saw all the claims she made about him and the kicking him into the throne and everything. All of which is disrespecting his authority. He hasn't been arrested yet, remember? Until they say he's under arrest, he's the legitimate leader of the SG.


That is what "allowing agents to move around" implies. The gods act through their agents.

Acting through one's agents does not mean they have your authority. It just means they're doing what you want them to. A soldier on a battlefield is there because the president wants them to be. It does not mean that said soldier has the president's authority.


No, it would not. And you are rejecting something that is canon fact. :smallsigh:

How so? What's to stop Durkon from making an oath with Thor to stop Xykon at all costs, and then going to some random city and wiping out every person there because they MIGHT be associates of Xykon? What did the paladins do? They (supposedly) made an oath to the Gods that they would protect the gate, and then went out into Northern Lands and arrested some people simply because they MIGHT try to destroy their gate.

There is nothing to stop this from occuring. If the Southern Gods were willing or able to extend their authority in such a way, why on Earth would the other Gods hesitate to do the same? The effects that would be had on the comic from this completely contradict what has actually been seen in the comic.

And I don't see where any of this is shown to be canon. If it was canon we wouldn't be having this argument, now would we?

[Lord Zentei]

I'm not referring to the oath required to be a paladin. I'm referring to the (unconfirmed) oath that the Sapphire Guard made with the Gods to protect the gate. They are clearly two different things (the paladin code has nothing to do with protecting the gate).

Hahahaha!!! :smallbiggrin: Yes, of course, the fact that they have sworn a paladin's oath, and that the gods revoke their powers when this oath is violated has nothing to do with making false oaths in their gods name and getting away with it for decades.


Which proves nothing except that they didn't do anything bad enough for the Southern Gods to take away their powers.

Hahahaha!!! :smallbiggrin: Naturally, that's the point that keeps flying over your head.


"Gross violations", huh? Then what defines a "gross" violation?

For one thing, whether something is even a violation or not is determined by the deity that grants the paladins their powers.

Hahahaha!!! Because claiming global mandate, to be able to arrest people regardless of geographical location and doing so repeatedly is not a "gross violation" if the gods really had disallowed anyone to invoke their authority outside their territory. Wow, you really are reaching for straws. Hahahaha!!!


It also brings up the question, "just what is legitimate?". Considering that all of this is up to the Gods, it may well be that their definition of legitimate is different than ours. The Southern Gods may not consider their agents to be under the jurisdiction of the Northern Gods when in Northern Lands. In that instance, the SG would be able to say "FU!" to the Northern Gods if asked to leave without falling.

Hahahaha!!! If so, concession accepted. Wow, just wow. :smallbiggrin:


But it does not follow that the OOTS is threatening their gate. Especially since they have no reason to believe the OOTS destroyed the first gate (in fact, if they can use diviners to determine that the order destroyed the second gate, they should have been able to use diviners to tell that the order did NOT destroy the first gate).

In case you had missed it, the Sapphire Guard kills people simply for knowing about the gates. You really seem intent on embarrassing yourself, hahahaha!


And if we go by a strict interpretation of the oath, the paladins "failed" their oath the moment they sent Miko out to arrest the OOTS. That's one less paladin there to protect the gate (their definite mission), and they sent her out to arrest someone who MIGHT in the future threaten the gate. That also demonstrates that there is clearly some wiggle room here.

Wow, not it doesn't, hahaha! If they sent someone who might threaten their gate, they haven't violated their oath.


If statement X says Y and Z, and Y is false, then guess what? X is false. It may be more practical to assume that Z is still true, but that doesn't prove it is. On the contrary, it brings it's authenticity into question. So, because we cannot prove one way or the other which it is, it is of no consequence to this argument.

Your statement that in the absence of demonstrated variations the paladin code is still the same holds just as much water as me saying that this IS a demonstrated variation.

No it isn't sherlock. :smallbiggrin: In case you hadn't noticed, this happens to be a D&D comic, chock full of metagaming references. Have you ever heard of the Burden of Proof fallacy? It's what you are committing here.


So, they saw all the claims she made about him and the kicking him into the throne and everything. All of which is disrespecting his authority. He hasn't been arrested yet, remember? Until they say he's under arrest, he's the legitimate leader of the SG.

Hello? Hinjo was about to arrest the man, perhaps that was "disrespect" too? Guess what, Cindy: Shojo had abused his position and arresting him and kicking him around wasn't a violation at that point. Killing him was.


Acting through one's agents does not mean they have your authority. It just means they're doing what you want them to. A soldier on a battlefield is there because the president wants them to be. It does not mean that said soldier has the president's authority.

Actually, yes, a soldier does act on the presidents authority, within the context of his mission, as long as he doesn't violate his oaths. Hahahaha! Self ownage is for the win.


How so? What's to stop Durkon from making an oath with Thor to stop Xykon at all costs, and then going to some random city and wiping out every person there because they MIGHT be associates of Xykon? What did the paladins do? They (supposedly) made an oath to the Gods that they would protect the gate, and then went out into Northern Lands and arrested some people simply because they MIGHT try to destroy their gate.

There is nothing to stop this from occuring. If the Southern Gods were willing or able to extend their authority in such a way, why on Earth would the other Gods hesitate to do the same? The effects that would be had on the comic from this completely contradict what has actually been seen in the comic.

Yeah, because Durkon totally doesn't act in the name of Thor and "Thors will this, Thor's Will that" while he is in the south. Noooo, of course not.


And I don't see where any of this is shown to be canon. If it was canon we wouldn't be having this argument, now would we?

Because you would never be clueless about the canon, eh? Thanks for playing.

[thereaper]

Hahahaha!!! :smallbiggrin: Yes, of course, the fact that they have sworn a paladin's oath, and that the gods revoke their powers when this oath is violated has nothing to do with making false oaths in their gods name and getting away with it for decades.

What false oath? When did they claim to have made an oath with the Gods to protect the gate?


Hahahaha!!! :smallbiggrin: Naturally, that's the point that keeps flying over your head.

And yours. The Southern Gods are clearly willing to overlook certain transgressions (a couple of examples have been mentioned already). So this can be reconciled. But what cannot be reconciled is the claim you're making.


Hahahaha!!! Because claiming global mandate, to be able to arrest people regardless of geographical location and doing so repeatedly is not a "gross violation" if the gods really had disallowed anyone to invoke their authority outside their territory. Wow, you really are reaching for straws. Hahahaha!!!

If you are a God who believes themselves to be the legitimate authority of the world (even if you actually aren't and have agreed to not have control over certain parts of it), then yes.


Hahahaha!!! If so, concession accepted. Wow, just wow. :smallbiggrin:

Concession? That's a demonstration of how they could disrespect what is technically legitimate authority without falling based on the strict interpretation of the Paladin code.


In case you had missed it, the Sapphire Guard kills people simply for knowing about the gates. You really seem intent on embarrassing yourself, hahahaha!

Really? Then how come the OOTS is still alive? Shouldn't they have killed them for knowing about the gates? I also don't recall it ever being said that the SG kills people for knowing about the gates, only that they destroy records of them.


Wow, not it doesn't, hahaha! If they sent someone who might threaten their gate, they haven't violated their oath.

Under that line of logic, then their oath requires them to kill literally every living thing, because any living thing can potentially be a threat to the gate. Yet they haven't, and have not fallen. Well, guess the oath doesn't mean that. Hey, wait a minute! We don't actually even know what the oath actually says, do we? So how can we even make arguments on this basis? :smallconfused:


Hello? Hinjo was about to arrest the man, perhaps that was "disrespect" too? Guess what, Cindy: Shojo had abused his position and arresting him and kicking him around wasn't a violation at that point. Killing him was.

He had not arrested him yet, though. And if you really want an example of Paladins disrespecting authority, then look at when Miko used Detect Evil on Belkar while trying to apprehend him. That was after the cease and desist order, mind you, so in using detect evil, Miko disrespected the authority of the court. Unless you wish to argue that the court was not legitimate, then the fact that Miko did not fall then and there is proof that Paladins do not necessarily have to always respect legitimate authority (at least as far as the comic is concerned).


Actually, yes, a soldier does act on the presidents authority, within the context of his mission, as long as he doesn't violate his oaths. Hahahaha! Self ownage is for the win.

So, you're saying a soldier in a foreign country has the authority to order some guys on strike to stop (an ability Ronald Reagan demonstrated). No, he doesn't. A soldier in a foreign country has no authority whatsoever. Authority comes from either someone above you (in authority) or by the people in an area giving you the right to make decisions for them. A soldier is not given authority by people in the area he's fighting in. And he isn't being given authority by the president either because the president has not been given authority by the people in said area. So there is no authority there. The soldier has the power to force people to do what he says, but that power is not legitimate. It is not authority.

The only difference in this argument is that instead of authority coming from people, it comes from the Gods. But just as each God's authority only extends to certain areas, so too does the authority they can give you. In short, you can not give what you don't have. The Southern Gods do not have authority in Northern Lands, therefore they cannot give it to the SG.


Yeah, because Durkon totally doesn't act in the name of Thor and "Thors will this, Thor's Will that" while he is in the south. Noooo, of course not.

When was the last time Durkon ordered someone to do something or pretended to have any kind of authority over anyone? He acts in Thor's name, but does not carry his authority. I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of the word "authority" here.


Because you would never be clueless about the canon, eh? Thanks for playing.

And you accuse me of making a burden of proof fallacy. You made the claim that this is canon. Back it up.

What you can't seem to wrap your head around is that it isn't possible for the Gods to have equal authority everywhere (which would be the inevitable result if Gods could legitimately have power in a place through their followers) and still only be ruling one region of it. It's either one or the other, not both. And it's already been stated in the comic that they each rule one region of it. So where does that leave your theory?

[David Argall]

He had not arrested him yet, though.
Well, technically that depends on the exact rules of the local law code. However, all involved act on the assumption that Shojo is under arrest and has been removed from office. It is only Miko who thinks he might get back in office some way. The formalities may still need to be done, but the fact of arrest is over.



look at when Miko used Detect Evil on Belkar while trying to apprehend him. That was after the cease and desist order, mind you, so in using detect evil, Miko disrespected the authority of the court.
Using real world cease and desist orders as a model, there are several answers here. You can get a temporary order very easily. You just file for it and unless the case is outrageously bad, you get it. But that is only the temporary order. There has to be a fuller hearing later, generally 30 days. Since it was more than 30 days from inn to Azure City jail, the order had either expired or had been dealt with off camera. And in a full hearing, we would assume that Miko would prevail and the order would be vacated, particularly if the case came before an Azure City court.
228 was simply a one shot gag with the benefit of not making it necessary to overdo use of Detect Evil. It is not a valid guide to OOTS legal theory.



A soldier in a foreign country has no authority whatsoever. Authority comes from either someone above you (in authority) or by the people in an area giving you the right to make decisions for them.
Authority comes from the barrel of a gun. If that soldier has the gun and the local government doesn't, the soldier has the authority. You can yell all you want about it not being legitimate, but you had better do what that soldier wants. His courts will be making the decisions and they will assume he has the authority.

[Rogue 7]

Authority comes from the barrel of a gun. If that soldier has the gun and the local government doesn't, the soldier has the authority. You can yell all you want about it not being legitimate, but you had better do what that soldier wants. His courts will be making the decisions and they will assume he has the authority.

If that's the case, then I, as a law-abiding citizen who just happens to have a fifty-calibre sniper rifle in my attic, have the right to sit on my roof picking off cops.:smalltongue: After all, my court (my own head) is making the decisions and assuming I'm right.

Authority and Legitimacy come from consent. Guns, or other threats can force consent, to be sure, but they aren't the best way (they also tend to encourage revolution). If a citizenry gives consent because they believe that the system is fair and just, and that they will not be harmed, they are giving the government legitimacy.

Also note that the courts don't always assume that soldiers are in the right- look at My Lai, Haifa (I think) in Iraq, and Abu Grahib. If the system is committed to justice, the courts don't assume that soldiers are always right.

[sihnfahl]

Also note that the courts don't always assume that soldiers are in the right- look at My Lai
Vietnam War. US Soldiers. They fell back on the SS defense (I was only following orders).


Haifa (I think) in Iraq
Haifa is a port city in Israel. You're thinking Fallujah.


Abu Grahib.
Abu Ghraib, yes. Rather sordid affair, that.


If the system is committed to justice, the courts don't assume that soldiers are always right.
But then, in a wartime situation, the courts give soldiers a lot of leeway.

[David Argall]

If that's the case, then I, as a law-abiding citizen who just happens to have a fifty-calibre sniper rifle in my attic, have the right to sit on my roof picking off cops
Which you do, until they bring out a dozen rifles and shoot you down.


Authority and Legitimacy come from consent. Guns, or other threats can force consent, to be sure, but they aren't the best way
They are, in some degree, the only way. Governments simply do not exist without force. They can do without the love of their slaves, but not without their fear. Now it can be better for all parties if the gun stays on the mantle and isn't used much, but without the gun, the government ends.


Also note that the courts don't always assume that soldiers are in the right.
Of course not. They limit that to themselves. But they do rule that the soldier has jurisdiction, and your lack of consent is of no interest.

[Lord Zentei]

What false oath? When did they claim to have made an oath with the Gods to protect the gate?

Hahaha! Who else would they swear their oaths to, smart guy? Ronald McDonald? :smallbiggrin: Did you miss the part where Shojo explicitly stated that it was by the authority of the 12 they acted?


And yours. The Southern Gods are clearly willing to overlook certain transgressions (a couple of examples have been mentioned already). So this can be reconciled. But what cannot be reconciled is the claim you're making.

You fail to understand that grossly violating the legitimate authority of the other pantheons on the planet for generations is far weightier than those half-assed "examples" you mentioned. Which were hardly any examples at all for that matter "Miko should have fallen for pushing Shojo around"? Pathetic. Not that I haven't already pointed out that the creator pantheons have a higher legitimacy than any mortal kingdom for the simple reason that they created said kingdoms and granted them their autonomy by their grace.


If you are a God who believes themselves to be the legitimate authority of the world (even if you actually aren't and have agreed to not have control over certain parts of it), then yes.

Except we have already seen the gods enforce their authority against one another. Yet, the Sapphire Guard got away with their operations for generations. Whoops. Not that you've acknowledged the fact that ordained agents can operate outside the gods borders.


Concession? That's a demonstration of how they could disrespect what is technically legitimate authority without falling based on the strict interpretation of the Paladin code.

The paladin's oath requires them to respect the legitimate authority. The seperation of the pantheons are part of the lore of the Sapphire Guard. Both of these are fact. "Techincal interpretations", puh-leeze.

Anyway, the southern gods cannot in practice disrespect the northern gods authority any more than the reverse, because as we have already seen, the gods tend to be pretty protective of such things.


Really? Then how come the OOTS is still alive? Shouldn't they have killed them for knowing about the gates? I also don't recall it ever being said that the SG kills people for knowing about the gates, only that they destroy records of them.

Once again, I have to ask: are you deliberately trolling?

Or did you miss the life or death trial the OOTS went through? Did you miss the destruction of the goblin village in Start of Darkness.

And how do you get the idea they would destroy records and not kill those in the know? Did you miss the fact that they went on numerous crusades in order to eliminate knowledge of the gates as shown in the crayons of time?


Under that line of logic, then their oath requires them to kill literally every living thing, because any living thing can potentially be a threat to the gate. Yet they haven't, and have not fallen. Well, guess the oath doesn't mean that. Hey, wait a minute! We don't actually even know what the oath actually says, do we? So how can we even make arguments on this basis? :smallconfused:

Never mind that the destruction of an existing gate is a clear indication of threat, as opposed to some random schmucks. Hahaha! :smallbiggrin:


He had not arrested him yet, though. And if you really want an example of Paladins disrespecting authority, then look at when Miko used Detect Evil on Belkar while trying to apprehend him. That was after the cease and desist order, mind you, so in using detect evil, Miko disrespected the authority of the court. Unless you wish to argue that the court was not legitimate, then the fact that Miko did not fall then and there is proof that Paladins do not necessarily have to always respect legitimate authority (at least as far as the comic is concerned).

Grasping at straws still? Seems you refuse to distinguish gags from plot points, eh?


So, you're saying a soldier in a foreign country has the authority to order some guys on strike to stop (an ability Ronald Reagan demonstrated). No, he doesn't. A soldier in a foreign country has no authority whatsoever. Authority comes from either someone above you (in authority) or by the people in an area giving you the right to make decisions for them. A soldier is not given authority by people in the area he's fighting in. And he isn't being given authority by the president either because the president has not been given authority by the people in said area. So there is no authority there. The soldier has the power to force people to do what he says, but that power is not legitimate. It is not authority.

Yes, it is. :smallsigh: He acts on the president's authority. The extent to which the act was legitimate is the extent to which the president can legally give that order.

Anyway, your argument is a colossal red herring: "the people of the area" are irrelevant in this instance since we are talking about divine mandates from gods with a tangible existence in a fantasy world setting.


The only difference in this argument is that instead of authority coming from people, it comes from the Gods. But just as each God's authority only extends to certain areas, so too does the authority they can give you. In short, you can not give what you don't have. The Southern Gods do not have authority in Northern Lands, therefore they cannot give it to the SG.

You keep trotting out this nonsense postulate. The gods can legitimately order their followers to other lands. The fact they cannot go there themselves is not relevant.


When was the last time Durkon ordered someone to do something or pretended to have any kind of authority over anyone? He acts in Thor's name, but does not carry his authority. I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of the word "authority" here.

No. He went to the southern lands to act in accordance with Thors will for him to go there and undertake the quest. No one objected. Therefore, Thor can legitimately send him to the southern lands to undertake quests.


And you accuse me of making a burden of proof fallacy. You made the claim that this is canon. Back it up.

Read the damn books, already. :smallsigh:

And you still fail at burden of proof, incidentally.


What you can't seem to wrap your head around is that it isn't possible for the Gods to have equal authority everywhere (which would be the inevitable result if Gods could legitimately have power in a place through their followers) and still only be ruling one region of it. It's either one or the other, not both. And it's already been stated in the comic that they each rule one region of it. So where does that leave your theory?

What you fail to understand is that you are spouting nonsense. The fact that each of the pantheons have their own regions to preside over has no bearing on the fact that they can legitimately send their followers on errands in other lands.

Nevermind that we have the Giant's own word on the matter:


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. Generally, paladins and clerics can be following a divine law that is, in their eyes, superior to any law written by Man and still be 100% Lawful.

Whoops.

[Rogue 7]

Vietnam War. US Soldiers. They fell back on the SS defense (I was only following orders).

My Vietnam history is shaky. I wasn't aware if there were convictions or not.


Haifa is a port city in Israel. You're thinking Fallujah.

Not exactly. It definitely started with an "H", and it was much later than Fallujah. Something about a rape and family killing was involved.



But then, in a wartime situation, the courts give soldiers a lot of leeway.
My point was that it's not absolute, citing examples to prove this. It's true that leeway is involved, but only to a point.



They are, in some degree, the only way. Governments simply do not exist without force. They can do without the love of their slaves, but not without their fear. Now it can be better for all parties if the gun stays on the mantle and isn't used much, but without the gun, the government ends.

And here sir, is where we must agree to disagree. I cannot recall an instance of the US government utilizing force against its own people for the purpose of preserving its own power. The last instance of this was back in the 60's (I'm thinking of, what, Kent College- Neil Young's "4 Dead in Ohio" song specifically). To me, that indicates that the system is self-sufficient, and does not need arms to function. I'm not going to bother trying to debate with you, because there's no hope of changing opinion through reasoned argument- it's a fundamental perceptive difference we're looking at.

[Alex Warlorn]

Rather like Polar-shift vs. Global Warming.

[sihnfahl]

My Vietnam history is shaky. I wasn't aware if there were convictions or not.
Of all the people involved, a single Lieutenant was convicted of premeditated murder (convicted in '71, sentenced to life, but he ended up spending only 3 years before being released in '74). A Captain was charged with 102 counts of murder, which was reduced to 1 count, and he was acquitted. In the end, of all the superior officers who knew and covered it up, and all the soldiers involved, only one (a lieutenant) was ever jailed for it.


Not exactly. It definitely started with an "H", and it was much later than Fallujah. Something about a rape and family killing was involved.
Haditha.

[thereaper]

Hahaha! Who else would they swear their oaths to, smart guy? Ronald McDonald? :smallbiggrin: Did you miss the part where Shojo explicitly stated that it was by the authority of the 12 they acted?

As a matter of fact, yes, I did miss that part. Of course, simply making an oath is not enough. They have to go "ok, works for me, here's your powers". But even if the SG does act under the authority of the 12 Gods, the whole point of my argument is that said authority does not apply outside of Southern Lands. The Southern Gods cannot give the SG authority that they do not possess.


What a ridiculous argument. You fail to understand the simple fact that grossly violating the legitimate authority of the other pantheons on the planet for generations is far weightier than those half-assed "examples" you mentioned. Which were hardly any examples at all for that matter "Miko should have fallen for pushing Shojo around"? Pathetic. Not that I haven't already pointed out that the creator pantheons have a higher legitimacy than any mortal kingdom for the simple reason that they created said kingdoms and granted them their autonomy by their grace.

I never even mentioned mortal kingdoms. I'm talking about the Gods themselves. Just as I cannot have equal or more authority in my friend's house than he does, the Southern Gods cannot have equal or more authority than the Northern Gods in their house.


Except we have already seen the gods enforce their authority against one another. Yet, the Sapphire Guard got away with their operations for generations. Whoops. Not that you've acknowledged the fact that ordained agents can operate outside the gods borders.

I have never said or even implied that an agent of the Gods can't act in whatever place they want. I'm not even arguing that they don't have power in those places. I'm arguing that they do not have authority. The difference between power and authority is that authority is legitimate. It is given to you by either the people or a higher power. Either way, you can't gain authority from someone unless they themselves have it. The US president has authority over the US because the country as a whole has decided to give him that authority. But the Southern Gods do not have authority in Northern Lands; the Northern Gods do. Therefore, the Southern Gods cannot give people authority in Northern Lands, any more than I can give you a trillion dollars.


Rubbish. The paladin's oath requires them to respect the legitimate authority. The seperation of the pantheons are part of the lore of the Sapphire Guard. Both of these are fact. "Techincal interpretations", puh-leeze.

No, they only have to follow the paladin code as the Gods they serve see it. There's no objective force that takes away a paladin's powers, it's their Gods. Heck, from a real-world perspective, even the authority of the Gods themselves is debatable.


Anyway, the southern gods cannot in practice disrespect the northern gods authority any more than the reverse, because as we have already seen, the gods tend to be pretty protective of such things.

Sure they can, as long as the God(s) they are serving don't revoke their powers for it. Thor can't take away the SG's power. Only the 12 Gods can do that. So if the 12 Gods don't see Thor as being legitimate (even if they treat him as such), then the paladins get off scott-free.


Once again, I have to ask: are you deliberately trolling?

No. Are you? I don't appreciate your constant accusations. If you think my ideas are terrible, that's one thing. However, there is no need to accuse me of trolling.


you miss the life or death trial the OOTS went through? Did you miss the destruction of the goblin village in Start of Darkness.

But they are still alive, aren't they? The fact that they know about the gates but have been allowed to live is one big hole in that theory. Oh, and it's funny how you should mention the goblin massacre. Is killing children allowed in the paladin code? Or killing people who haven't done anything? Or killing people without ordering them to surrender and making sure they're ready for a fight? Somehow I don't think so. The paladins didn't fall for that, so clearly it's not the paladin code itself that must be followed, but the Gods' interpretation of it. Otherwise all of those paladins would have fallen.


And how do you get the idea they would destroy records and not kill those in the know? Did you miss the fact that they went on numerous crusades in order to eliminate knowledge of the gates as shown in the crayons of time?

Oh, maybe because going around killing people simply for hearing about something would shift your alignment so fast you'd be evil before sundown? Unless you want to argue that the SG is actually evil by DnD alignment standards?

There are ways to shut people up about the gates that do not require killing them. Imprisonment is one (though that's still a bit on the evil side of the street). Memory manipulation through magic is another. Bribery is always nice. Or, you could just try to get them to swear to secrecy. Considering that they destroyed libraries and the like, I wouldn't be surprised if people shut up about it willingly out of fear. And those who didn't probably wouldn't be listened to much, since such a thing would no longer be in any archives and would therefore have about as much credibility as a drunken pirate's tale of sea monsters (though in a world based on DnD, that might not be the best example).


Wow, just wow. Never mind that the destruction of an existing gate is a clear indication of threat, as opposed to some random schmucks. Hahaha! :smallbiggrin:

The destruction of a gate means just that, the destruction of a gate. Countless people are murdered every day. Does that mean that you are being threatened? Does that mean that the same guy who killed such-and-such person is coming after you?

The fact that the order destroyed one gate is not proof that they will try (or even want) to destroy another one.


Grasping at straws still? Seems you fail to distinguish gags from plot points, eh?

Being a joke doesn't make it any less true. Now, Argall did bring up a good counterpoint in that it may have only been a temporary order, but there's no denying that whether something is a joke doesn't lessen it's truth. After all, the horses did still disappear after the order realized they were gone, and that had a very real effect on them. Same with the 3.5 ed upgrade and the shadow jump.


Yes, it is, Einstein. :smallsigh: He acts on the president's authority. The extent to which the act was legitimate is the extent to which the president can legally give that order.

Legitimacy requires that the people (or in this case, the Gods) of the area have given you this power. Otherwise, it's not authority; just power. Having a gun does not give you authority; it gives you power. That's what I'm arguing. The SG does not have authority in Northern lands, because the Northern Gods (the only people who have authority there) have not given it to them. But not having authority does not mean you don't have power.

Let's use another real-world example. Was it legitimate for America to invade western lands and steal it from Native Americans? Most would say no. But the government of the US approved it. So why do the invaders not have authority there? Because they were not given power by the people that actually lived there.


Anyway, your argument is a colossal red herring: "the people of the area" are irrelevant in this instance since we are talking about divine mandates from gods with a tangible existence in a fantasy world setting.

You'll notice that whenever I said that I usually also included in parenthesis "(or the higher powers)". In a world where the Gods each rule one region, they can each be compared to a national government, as each have the final say (legally) in what happens on their turf. The US government cannot give someone authority in the UK. Nor can the UK government give someone authority in Saudi Arabia. That doesn't mean an American can't travel to the UK or Saudi Arabia or whatnot and do stuff that the US government wants them to do. However, it does mean that they can't say "Yeah, well I'm the boss and I say you have to do this", because they have no authority there. This is exactly the situation we are discussing.


Durkon went to the southern lands to act in accordance with Thors will for him to go there and undertake the quest. No one objected. Therefore, Thor can legitimately send him to the southern lands to undertake quests.

But where does it follow that Durkon has authority in that area? All that means is that Durkon is doing something in the Southern Lands that Thor wants. Thor can't order people in Southern Lands to do things, so his followers can't either.


What you fail to understand is that you are spouting nonsense. The fact that each of the pantheons have their own regions to preside over has no bearing on the fact that they can legitimately send their followers on errands in other lands.

Nonsense is better than skirting around the issue and never addressing what I'm actually saying. The 12 Gods can tell the SG to do whatever they want, wherever they want. But if that place happens to be outside the 12 Gods' jurisdiction, then the power being given is no longer legitimate and hence is not authority.

[Rogue 7]

Of all the people involved, a single Lieutenant was convicted of premeditated murder (convicted in '71, sentenced to life, but he ended up spending only 3 years before being released in '74). A Captain was charged with 102 counts of murder, which was reduced to 1 count, and he was acquitted. In the end, of all the superior officers who knew and covered it up, and all the soldiers involved, only one (a lieutenant) was ever jailed for it.

OK, so that was a bad example.:smalleek: I thought the army was better than that.


Haditha.

Cheers.

[sihnfahl]

OK, so that was a bad example.:smalleek: I thought the army was better than that.
It has its moments. But, yes, My Lai wasn't exactly a shining example of justice. (Needless to say, the North Vietnamese government had a field day with My Lai...)

Just like the insurgency had a field day with Abu Ghraib...


Cheers.
No problem. (My memory for this stuff is nasty).

[Lord Zentei]

I never even mentioned mortal kingdoms. I'm talking about the Gods themselves. Just as I cannot have equal or more authority in my friend's house than he does, the Southern Gods cannot have equal or more authority than the Northern Gods in their house.

They don't need equal or more authority than the northern gods. They only need more authority than the mortal kingdoms (unless the northern gods raise a hissy fit about it, and that's assuming that they don't have equal authority to the northern gods in the north vis-a-vis life or death issues for themselves or both).


I have never said or even implied that an agent of the Gods can't act in whatever place they want. I'm not even arguing that they don't have power in those places. I'm arguing that they do not have authority. The difference between power and authority is that authority is legitimate. It is given to you by either the people or a higher power. Either way, you can't gain authority from someone unless they themselves have it. The US president has authority over the US because the country as a whole has decided to give him that authority. But the Southern Gods do not have authority in Northern Lands; the Northern Gods do. Therefore, the Southern Gods cannot give people authority in Northern Lands, any more than I can give you a trillion dollars.

Black/white fallacy. Even assuming that the northern gods have more authority than the southern gods in the north doesn't mean that the southern gods don't have any authority at all (an example was made earlier about CIA agents: they can in fact operate legally outside of the US in allied countries).


No, they only have to follow the paladin code as the Gods they serve see it. There's no objective force that takes away a paladin's powers, it's their Gods. Heck, from a real-world perspective, even the authority of the Gods themselves is debatable.

The real world is utterly irrelevant, so kindly don't bring it up.


Sure they can, as long as the God(s) they are serving don't revoke their powers for it. Thor can't take away the SG's power. Only the 12 Gods can do that. So if the 12 Gods don't see Thor as being legitimate (even if they treat him as such), then the paladins get off scott-free.

The northern gods can prevent the southern gods from encroaching on their "territory" just as the southern gods can prevent the northern gods in the same way. Yet they did not.


No. Are you? I don't appreciate your constant accusations. If you think my ideas are terrible, that's one thing. However, there is no need to accuse me of trolling.

Your arguments have genuinely bordered on silliness sufficient that I was uncertain as to whether you actually meant any of it or whether you were simply trying to annoy people.


But they are still alive, aren't they? The fact that they know about the gates but have been allowed to live is one big hole in that theory. Oh, and it's funny how you should mention the goblin massacre. Is killing children allowed in the paladin code? Or killing people who haven't done anything? Or killing people without ordering them to surrender and making sure they're ready for a fight? Somehow I don't think so. The paladins didn't fall for that, so clearly it's not the paladin code itself that must be followed, but the Gods' interpretation of it. Otherwise all of those paladins would have fallen.

Oh, maybe because going around killing people simply for hearing about something would shift your alignment so fast you'd be evil before sundown? Unless you want to argue that the SG is actually evil by DnD alignment standards?

Though required to do no evil, paladins being mortals (and not omnipotent), are obligated to choose the least evil path. Allowing the possibility of universal destruction is far more evil than anything the Sapphire Guard have ever done, given that they can prevent it. As for instance, allowing someone to die in a burning building is evil through inaction; that does not mean the paladin is evil for having allowed this to happen, if he saved as many as possible. Lawful Good is not Lawful Stupid.


There are ways to shut people up about the gates that do not require killing them. Imprisonment is one (though that's still a bit on the evil side of the street). Memory manipulation through magic is another. Bribery is always nice. Or, you could just try to get them to swear to secrecy. Considering that they destroyed libraries and the like, I wouldn't be surprised if people shut up about it willingly out of fear. And those who didn't probably wouldn't be listened to much, since such a thing would no longer be in any archives and would therefore have about as much credibility as a drunken pirate's tale of sea monsters (though in a world based on DnD, that might not be the best example).

None of these are adequate in the face of potential universal destruction. Bribery? And how are you going to prevent someone else from bribing the people in question more? :smallsigh:


The destruction of a gate means just that, the destruction of a gate. Countless people are murdered every day. Does that mean that you are being threatened? Does that mean that the same guy who killed such-and-such person is coming after you?

The fact that the order destroyed one gate is not proof that they will try (or even want) to destroy another one.

Now you are going silly again. :smallsigh:

Two gates were destroyed. The possibility of the OOTS going after the Azure gate was plausible enough. In such an event, the SG have an obligation to intervene.


Being a joke doesn't make it any less true. Now, Argall did bring up a good counterpoint in that it may have only been a temporary order, but there's no denying that whether something is a joke doesn't lessen it's truth. After all, the horses did still disappear after the order realized they were gone, and that had a very real effect on them. Same with the 3.5 ed upgrade and the shadow jump.

This is a gag-a-day (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfFunny) strip as well as a ongoing story strip, in case you hadn't noticed. Regardless since you seem to have accepted David Argall's argument, I really don't see any reason to waste more time on this point.


Legitimacy requires that the people (or in this case, the Gods) of the area have given you this power. Otherwise, it's not authority; just power. Having a gun does not give you authority; it gives you power. That's what I'm arguing. The SG does not have authority in Northern lands, because the Northern Gods (the only people who have authority there) have not given it to them. But not having authority does not mean you don't have power.

Let's use another real-world example. Was it legitimate for America to invade western lands and steal it from Native Americans? Most would say no. But the government of the US approved it. So why do the invaders not have authority there? Because they were not given power by the people that actually lived there.

Read my point again. This is not an argument against it. :smallmad:


You'll notice that whenever I said that I usually also included in parenthesis "(or the higher powers)". In a world where the Gods each rule one region, they can each be compared to a national government, as each have the final say (legally) in what happens on their turf. The US government cannot give someone authority in the UK. Nor can the UK government give someone authority in Saudi Arabia. That doesn't mean an American can't travel to the UK or Saudi Arabia or whatnot and do stuff that the US government wants them to do. However, it does mean that they can't say "Yeah, well I'm the boss and I say you have to do this", because they have no authority there. This is exactly the situation we are discussing.

No, it is not. That you are using your conclusion as a postulate is becoming increasingly irritating, and this thread is in consequence increasingly becoming a waste of time. :smallmad:


But where does it follow that Durkon has authority in that area? All that means is that Durkon is doing something in the Southern Lands that Thor wants. Thor can't order people in Southern Lands to do things, so his followers can't either.

Begging the question.


Nonsense is better than skirting around the issue and never addressing what I'm actually saying. The 12 Gods can tell the SG to do whatever they want, wherever they want. But if that place happens to be outside the 12 Gods' jurisdiction, then the power being given is no longer legitimate and hence is not authority.

Pointing out that what you are saying is nonsense is not "skirting around" anything, genius. It's stating a simple fact: that you are wasting my time and Rich's bandwidth with non-arguments.

Also, it seems you ignored my admonition to go read the books. Seeing as you simply snipped it and didn't respond to it, and going by the above. :smallannoyed:

AND you snipped the Giant's post I quoted. :smallmad:

[David Argall]

I cannot recall an instance of the US government utilizing force against its own people for the purpose of preserving its own power.

Look up something called the Civil War. Or if you want earlier history, the Whiskey Rebellion, or.. the latest case of income tax evasion.

[Rogue 7]

Did you really miss what I meant? I mean in terms of recent history, and trying to avoid biting sarcasm is really hard right now. Someone declining to pay income tax is a police matter, not a case of the government mowing down its own people with machine guns.

[thereaper]

They don't need equal or more authority than the northern gods. They only need more authority than the mortal kingdoms (unless the northern gods raise a hissy fit about it, and that's assuming that they don't have equal authority to the northern gods in the north vis-a-vis life or death issues for themselves or both).

Ok, now you have an argument. Unfortunately, there is no evidence given in the comic that any Gods have authority outside their designated areas.

Unfortunately, if this was possible, then it would once again bring up the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of RC's invasion of AC. If the Gods can have more authority outside the areas they rule than the mortal kingdoms there (and only have a problem if the Gods of said area make a fuss) then that means that RC's invasion was justified, so long as the 12 Gods didn't speak up (which as far as we know, they didn't).



Black/white fallacy. Even assuming that the northern gods have more authority than the southern gods in the north doesn't mean that the southern gods don't have any authority at all (an example was made earlier about CIA agents: they can in fact operate legally outside of the US in allied countries).

See above.




The real world is utterly irrelevant, so kindly don't bring it up.

Are you sure about that? We are arguing the point from the legal POV of this universe, right? If we're not, then the entire discussion is moot, because we would have no way of knowing what is and is not legitimate.


The northern gods can prevent the southern gods from encroaching on their "territory" just as the southern gods can prevent the northern gods in the same way. Yet they did not.

Failing to act does not indicate anything other than a failure to act.


Your arguments have genuinely bordered on silliness sufficient that I was uncertain as to whether you actually meant any of it or whether you were simply trying to annoy people.

No offense, but most of what you were saying at the beginning (and much of the middle) has looked that way to me.


Though required to do no evil, paladins being mortals (and not omnipotent), are obligated to choose the least evil path. Allowing the possibility of universal destruction is far more evil than anything the Sapphire Guard have ever done, given that they can prevent it. As for instance, allowing someone to die in a burning building is evil through inaction; that does not mean the paladin is evil for having allowed this to happen, if he saved as many as possible. Lawful Good is not Lawful Stupid.

But allowing anyone to live at all is to allow the possbility of the gate's destruction, because anyone is physically capable of threatening the gate (including the SG itself). So we are forced to accept the fact that there are limits to what can be considered "necessary". Arresting someone who has shown no desire to attack the AC gate does not fall under this category.


None of these are adequate in the face of potential universal destruction. Bribery? And how are you going to prevent someone else from bribing the people in question more? :smallsigh:

It's one possibility. But how can killing people simply for having knowledge of something qualify as Lawful Good, especially if there are other alternatives (which may or may not work as well)? The "ends justify the means" is how someone with an evil alignment (or at best neutral) sees things, not someone with a good alignment.


Two gates were destroyed. The possibility of the OOTS going after the Azure gate was plausible enough. In such an event, the SG have an obligation to intervene.

Only one of which was destroyed by the order (which they should be aware of thanks to diviners). There is no other evidence whatsoever against them.

If a person kills someone else, that alone is not enough to conclude that said person is going to kill someone else. Now, if they say they're going to kill someone else or do something threatening, then it may be another story. But the OOTS had done neither.


Read my point again. This is not an argument against it. :smallmad:

That's how legitimacy is defined in this universe. If we're not going to use this definition, then we have nothing to discuss, because there is no way to determine within the context of the strip what is considered legitimate.


No, it is not. That you are using your conclusion as a postulate is becoming increasingly irritating, and this thread is in consequence increasingly becoming a waste of time. :smallmad:

Then what are we discussing? If you haven't been given power by the people or by a higher authority, then you don't have it. You can't give someone something you don't have. These are simple concepts. If we throw these out, we throw out everything that we can use as a guideline for what is "legitimate".


Also, it seems you ignored my admonition to go read the books. Seeing as you simply snipped it and didn't respond to it, and going by the above. :smallannoyed:

Oh. if I could find the books, I'd have read them already. But I can't. So, why don't you quote me exactly where it says that the followers of the Gods carry said God's authority? Oh, and while you're at it, you might want to craft an explanation for how this could co-exist with the whole "separate the world and each control one part of it" thing, because even if it was said, if it is inconsistent, then one or the other must still be false. If they say in the comic that 1+1=2 and then say that 1+1=3 in the next comic, one of the two is wrong. Now, if the idea that the Gods do not each rule one part of the world is wrong, then the whole argument becomes pointless, because legitimacy becomes relativistic, so anyone who has a God on their side becomes justified. But, if the idea that the followers of a God carries the God's authority is wrong, then there's still an argument to be had.


AND you snipped the Giant's post I quoted. :smallmad:

Wait, what? :smallconfused:

*goes back*

Damn, you're right. I doubt you'll believe me, but I missed that. Either I'm going nuts, or that was edited in after I started typing my response (probably the former). Hmm...Well, if there are indeed no borders, then that leaves 3 possibilities:

1) It has no legitimate borders from the point of view of them/their Gods, which is not necessarily objectively legitimate.

2) Legitimacy is relativistic in the comic, in which case the whole argument is moot because everyone is right.

3) The SG have been given authority not just by the Southern Gods, but by all of the Creator Gods that rule over the world.

#3 is the only way your theory works, and #1 is the only way mine does. #2 just makes the whole argument seem silly. Watch, I'll bet that one's actually the right answer. :smallbiggrin:

Either way, my position isn't quite as secure as it was before. Unfortunately, this also brings up a lot of questions that we may not have a way of answering.

[Lord Zentei]

Ok, now you have an argument. Unfortunately, there is no evidence given in the comic that any Gods have authority outside their designated areas.

Unfortunately, if this was possible, then it would once again bring up the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of RC's invasion of AC. If the Gods can have more authority outside the areas they rule than the mortal kingdoms there (and only have a problem if the Gods of said area make a fuss) then that means that RC's invasion was justified, so long as the 12 Gods didn't speak up (which as far as we know, they didn't).

I have had an argument from the get go, only you have perpetrated your question begging for your entire stay in this thread.

And your counterpoint has been raised before, and addressed before. This point is a waste of time.


Are you sure about that? We are arguing the point from the legal POV of this universe, right? If we're not, then the entire discussion is moot, because we would have no way of knowing what is and is not legitimate.

You raised the issue of real world religion, an issue that has also been covered already (Hint: in the real world, god(s) do not have a tangible, objective existence). More waste of time.


Failing to act does not indicate anything other than a failure to act.

The gods are highly protective of their respective regions. That the northern gods have not acted at all is strongly indicative of their compliance.


No offense, but most of what you were saying at the beginning (and much of the middle) has looked that way to me.

Ah, the good old "you too" line. Good grief. :smallsigh:


But allowing anyone to live at all is to allow the possbility of the gate's destruction, because anyone is physically capable of threatening the gate (including the SG itself). So we are forced to accept the fact that there are limits to what can be considered "necessary". Arresting someone who has shown no desire to attack the AC gate does not fall under this category.

The OOTS had destroyed a gate. This is a fact. Whether "anyone" is theoretically capable of destroying a gate is irrelevant if they don't know of the gate's existence.


It's one possibility. But how can killing people simply for having knowledge of something qualify as Lawful Good, especially if there are other alternatives (which may or may not work as well)? The "ends justify the means" is how someone with an evil alignment (or at best neutral) sees things, not someone with a good alignment.

Wrong. It's not a case of "the ends justify the means" its a case of "there is no other plausible way available".


Only one of which was destroyed by the order (which they should be aware of thanks to diviners). There is no other evidence whatsoever against them.

So? The fact that two gates were destroyed was ample reason for the SG to be very concerned indeed and preemptively go after the OOTS. And incidentally, this is a red herring: it has no bearing on whether the SG can legitimately go after the OOTS. Another point that is a waste of time.


If a person kills someone else, that alone is not enough to conclude that said person is going to kill someone else. Now, if they say they're going to kill someone else or do something threatening, then it may be another story. But the OOTS had done neither.

We are not talking about killing people, we are talking about destroying gates. Incidentally, you are full of it: capturing a murderer to prevent said murderer from killing again is a perfectly valid reasoning (more so if a person in your charge is one of only three people in existence who might be next). Another point that is a waste of time.


That's how legitimacy is defined in this universe. If we're not going to use this definition, then we have nothing to discuss, because there is no way to determine within the context of the strip what is considered legitimate.

Then what are we discussing? If you haven't been given power by the people or by a higher authority, then you don't have it. You can't give someone something you don't have. These are simple concepts. If we throw these out, we throw out everything that we can use as a guideline for what is "legitimate".

Right: time to break out the old copy paste. You asserted that a soldier cannot act on the president's orders in a foreign country. My response:


Yes, it is, Einstein. He acts on the president's authority. The extent to which the act was legitimate is the extent to which the president can legally give that order.

Now: re-read your response and try to figure out why it is nonsense.


Oh. if I could find the books, I'd have read them already. But I can't. So, why don't you quote me exactly where it says that the followers of the Gods carry said God's authority? Oh, and while you're at it, you might want to craft an explanation for how this could co-exist with the whole "separate the world and each control one part of it" thing, because even if it was said, if it is inconsistent, then one or the other must still be false. If they say in the comic that 1+1=2 and then say that 1+1=3 in the next comic, one of the two is wrong. Now, if the idea that the Gods do not each rule one part of the world is wrong, then the whole argument becomes pointless, because legitimacy becomes relativistic, so anyone who has a God on their side becomes justified. But, if the idea that the followers of a God carries the God's authority is wrong, then there's still an argument to be had.

Suggestion: buy the books, read the books, then return.

And I have already offered explanations as to how the pantheons can coexist even while giving their agents authority outside their territories. Namely: they are allies, the ability to send agents around is the manner in which they circumvent their deal not to manifest in each other's territory, the legalisms of agent-sending is part and parcel of the deal they made when they divided the planet.


Wait, what? :smallconfused:

*goes back*

Damn, you're right. I doubt you'll believe me, but I missed that.Either I'm going nuts, or that was edited in after I started typing my response (probably the former).

Your doubts are well founded, for a change. And no, I edited it before you posted: there is a "last edited" time-stamp an all posts that have been edited.

[EDIT (as of 26/10): It has changed now, since I'm going back and toning down my flamage. Sorry about all that. ]



Hmm...Well, if there are indeed no borders, then that leaves 3 possibilities:

1) It has no legitimate borders from the point of view of them/their Gods, which is not necessarily objectively legitimate.

The creator pantheons have the highest authority since they never surrendered their suzerain authority over the world. Another point raised already.

And "not necessarily objectively legitimate"... what does that even mean?


2) Legitimacy is relativistic in the comic, in which case the whole argument is moot because everyone is right.

Not so. If everyone is right, the SG did have the right to send Miko to the north.

Regardless, the phrase "relativistic legitimacy" does not make any sense: for one thing "relativistic" means "moving at speeds near that of light"; you probably meant that legitimacy was "relative". Only that makes no sense either.


3) The SG have been given authority not just by the Southern Gods, but by all of the Creator Gods that rule over the world.

#3 is the only way your theory works, and #1 is the only way mine does. #2 just makes the whole argument seem silly. Watch, I'll bet that one's actually the right answer. :smallbiggrin:

Either way, my position isn't quite as secure as it was before. Unfortunately, this also brings up a lot of questions that we may not have a way of answering.

There is also the simple possibility that the pantheons of north and south are in fact entitled to send their agents to each other's regions on legitimate missions, seeing as they cooperated with one another in the creation of the world -- as I have been arguing all along. Seems to stand to reason, particularly considering the import of the SG's function, as well as what function the damn planet has in the first place. :smallsigh:


Incidentally, here is more from the Giant:


It's also interesting that everyone thinks Miko captured the OOTSers in another nation, rather than the lawless region just outside Wooden Forest, and that she is somehow breaking the law of the Kingdom of Somewhere when she just personally saved the king from a burning building. Generally, in an absolute monarchy, saving the king's life gives you a free pass to do whatever you want. The fact that the only thing Miko does with that freedom is enforce her Lord's will is about as Lawful as you can get.

[thereaper]

I have had an argument from the get go, only you have perpetrated your question begging for your entire stay in this thread.

And your counterpoint has been raised before, and addressed before. This point is a waste of time.

Actually, all you said on the matter is that the Dark One is not one of the Creator Gods. Of course, that has no effect on the fact that he is a God.


Bull. You raised the issue of real world religion, an issue that has also been covered already (Hint: in the real world, god(s) do not have a tangible, objective existence). More waste of time.

No, I did not. I raised the issue of real-world government. Big difference there.


Bull. The gods are highly protective of their respective regions. That the northern gods have not acted at all is strongly indicative of their compliance.

Since when? If they are so highly protective, why hasn't one of them just stepped up and smashed Xykon into the ground? It's not like the Dark One can stop them. He's afraid of their wrath, remember?There hasn't been any evidence in the comic that the Gods are especially protective of their given regions.


Ridiculous sophistry. The OOTS had destroyed a gate. This is a fact. Whether "anyone" is theoretically capable of destroying a gate is irrelevant if they don't know of the gate's existence.

They can theoretically destroy it by accident (heck, that's how Elan did it). You're saying that just because they MIGHT threaten a gate it is justifiable to do whatever it takes to stop them. But any person MIGHT threaten a gate.


Wrong. It's not a case of "the ends justify the means" its a case of "there is no other plausible way available".

Here's one: Sit at the gate and guard it, and don't make said gate more vulnerable by sending troops away from it. In fact, sending people to arrest someone who MIGHT threaten the gate is actually counterproductive, because it definitely leaves the gate less defended and only might result in the arrest of people who might at some unspecified point in the future threaten the gate.


So? The fact that two gates were destroyed was ample reason for the SG to be very concerned indeed and preemptively go after the OOTS. And incidentally, this is a red herring: it has no bearing on whether the SG can legitimately go after the OOTS. Another point that is a waste of time.

They can't legitimately arrest the OOTS assuming that A) Their oath is to protect the gates (rather than punish people for destroying them), B) That said oath does not extend to arresting or attacking people for whom there is no evidence of a threat from, and C) That they do not have sufficient evidence that there is an imminent threat to the gate by the OOTS.


More sophistry. We are not talking about killing people, we are talking about destroying gates. Incidentally, you are full of it: capturing a murderer to prevent said murderer from killing again is a perfectly valid reasoning (more so if a person in your charge is one of only three people in existence who might be next). Another point that is a waste of time.

You can capture a murderer to bring him to justice, yes, but that does not fall within the paladin's oath to "protect the gates", which is the principle by which they can supposedly operate anywhere. Once a gate is gone, arresting the people who did it has no meaning in and of itself. But the SG has no basis for assuming that the OOTS would threaten another gate. They are in a faraway land, minding their own business. If one house in a neighborhood gets burnt down, and I burn down another one, and you are somehow able to know that I burnt down the second and not the first (the SG has diviners that can tell who destroyed which gate), and there are only three houses left, it does not follow that I am going to burn down your house. There is no court on Earth that would convict me of conspiring to burn down your house with that evidence (or lack thereof).

Now replace the word "house" in that last paragraph with "gate". The SG has no evidence whatsoever that the OOTS is going to try to destroy another gate, any more than I have evidence that Average Joe is going to eat pizza tonight because he had it last night and there's a few more in his freezer.



Right: time to break out the old copy paste. You asserted that a soldier cannot act on the president's orders in a foreign country. My response:

No, I asserted that he does not have authority in said foreign country. Unless he has been given authority by the government of that nation, anything he does in that foreign country has no legal backing behind it. He can still do what he wants (or has been ordered to do), but it is not legitimate.


Now: re-read your response and try to figure out why it is nonsense.

It's not nonsense, just not necessarily accurate now because of what the Giant has said. I still don't see it said anywhere in the comic that the SG has been given even an indirect "ok" from the Northern Gods for this. And since you seem to be utterly against the idea of quoting from the books a statement made to that effect, what do you expect?


And I have already offered explanations as to how the pantheons can coexist even while giving their agents authority outside their territories. Namely: they are allies, the ability to send agents around is the manner in which they circumvent their deal not to manifest in each other's territory, the legalisms of agent-sending is part and parcel of the deal they made when they divided the planet.

Yet have completely failed to include an explanation as to how this could be done without allowing the Gods to indirectly rule territories that don't belong to them.


Your doubts are well founded, for a change. And no, I edited it before you posted: there is a "last edited" time-stamp an all posts that have been edited.

Actually, what I was saying was that perhaps I had begun typing (but not posted) my response before you added that part. But looking back at the times, that cannot be correct, so I did indeed miss it somehow.


The creator pantheons have the highest authority since they never surrendered their suzerain authority over the world. Another point raised already.

And "not necessarily objectively legitimate"... what does that even mean?

It means The 12 Gods might consider themselves legitimate but might not consider the other Gods to be.

If we're assuming that there is one objective legitimacy (as in, such-and-such is legitimate and anything contradicting it is not), it is not necessarily true that each of the Gods is objective (and they must not be if those views contradict one another).


Not so. If everyone is right, the SG did have the right to send Miko to the north.

Only by their point of view. By some other God's point of view, maybe not.


Regardless, the phrase "relativistic legitimacy" does not make any sense: for one thing "relativistic" means "moving at speeds near that of light"; you probably meant that legitimacy was "relative". Only that makes no sense either.

Yes, I did mean relative. In my experience with the word, people have used them interchangeably. I'll try to fix that from now on.


There is also the simple possibility that the pantheons of north and south are in fact entitled to send their agents to each other's regions on legitimate missions, seeing as they cooperated with one another in the creation of the world -- as I have been arguing all along. Seems to stand to reason, particularly considering the import of the SG's function, as well as what function the damn planet has in the first place. :smallsigh:

Well, that is a possibility considering what the Giant said. However, that falls under theory #3, because that authority would have been given to the SG by the Northern Gods. That's not what you were arguing as far as I can tell. You seemed to be arguing that they were given that authority by the Southern Gods, which made no sense.


Incidentally, here is more from the Giant:

And here's more from that same post, which would support either theory #1 or #2 and makes theory #3 look a bit fishy:



Most lawful characters, though, will pick a certain set of authorities that they respect and ignore all others as &quot;illegitimate&quot;. An LG cleric of Pelor doesn't obey the authority of the High Priest of Vecna, for example. That doesn't make the cleric not Lawful.

[David Argall]

Did you really miss what I meant? I mean in terms of recent history,
Given your reference to the 60's, the limit to recent history is a bit open. However, have you considered Waco in 93?


Someone declining to pay income tax is a police matter, not a case of the government mowing down its own people with machine guns.
That the robbery has become entirely routine does not make it any less robbery, with the government taking the money at the point of a gun.

[Rogue 7]

Once again, I'm not debating with you. Case closed, good day to you, sir.

[Lord Zentei]

Actually, all you said on the matter is that the Dark One is not one of the Creator Gods. Of course, that has no effect on the fact that he is a God.

Then you are ignoring the point that the creator gods have sovereign authority over the world they created, as opposed to the pantheons that arose afterwards.

See: this is you deliberately ignoring a point that has been raised.


No, I did not. I raised the issue of real-world government. Big difference there.

Oh?


No, they only have to follow the paladin code as the Gods they serve see it. There's no objective force that takes away a paladin's powers, it's their Gods. Heck, from a real-world perspective, even the authority of the Gods themselves is debatable.

That was yours, yes?


Since when? If they are so highly protective, why hasn't one of them just stepped up and smashed Xykon into the ground? It's not like the Dark One can stop them. He's afraid of their wrath, remember?There hasn't been any evidence in the comic that the Gods are especially protective of their given regions.

Because they have agreed to a pact wherein they limit their manifestations and act through agents. And not protective of their given regions? I seem to remember someone basing his argument that the gods have entirely segregated regional domains on the fact that Tiger prevented Thor from intervening to aid Hinjo...


They can theoretically destroy it by accident (heck, that's how Elan did it). You're saying that just because they MIGHT threaten a gate it is justifiable to do whatever it takes to stop them. But any person MIGHT threaten a gate.

Do you seriously need to have the fact that someone who has destroyed a gate is more of a potential threat than a random person explained to you?


Here's one: Sit at the gate and guard it, and don't make said gate more vulnerable by sending troops away from it. In fact, sending people to arrest someone who MIGHT threaten the gate is actually counterproductive, because it definitely leaves the gate less defended and only might result in the arrest of people who might at some unspecified point in the future threaten the gate.

No. Apprehending someone before they have put their plans into motion is a sound course of action.


They can't legitimately arrest the OOTS assuming that A) Their oath is to protect the gates (rather than punish people for destroying them), B) That said oath does not extend to arresting or attacking people for whom there is no evidence of a threat from, and C) That they do not have sufficient evidence that there is an imminent threat to the gate by the OOTS.

Again: the Sapphire Guard defend their gate not only by garrisoning Azure City, but by eliminating potential threats preemptively. Someone who has destroyed a gate is a potential threat. It is their obligation to nullify that threat.


You can capture a murderer to bring him to justice, yes, but that does not fall within the paladin's oath to "protect the gates", which is the principle by which they can supposedly operate anywhere. Once a gate is gone, arresting the people who did it has no meaning in and of itself.

A person who has destroyed a gate clearly is in a position to destroy more by knowledge and ability, and has shown the willingness (or cluelessness) to do so.


But the SG has no basis for assuming that the OOTS would threaten another gate. They are in a faraway land, minding their own business.

No, they are not. They represent a potential threat to the Sapphire Guard's charge. Did you miss the Crusades I have mentioned again and again?


If one house in a neighborhood gets burnt down, and I burn down another one, and you are somehow able to know that I burnt down the second and not the first (the SG has diviners that can tell who destroyed which gate), and there are only three houses left, it does not follow that I am going to burn down your house. There is no court on Earth that would convict me of conspiring to burn down your house with that evidence (or lack thereof).

They have an oath to protect their gate, which entails preemptively eliminating plausible threats.


Now replace the word "house" in that last paragraph with "gate". The SG has no evidence whatsoever that the OOTS is going to try to destroy another gate, any more than I have evidence that Average Joe is going to eat pizza tonight because he had it last night and there's a few more in his freezer.

This deserves no response beyond the above point.


No, I asserted that he does not have authority in said foreign country. Unless he has been given authority by the government of that nation, anything he does in that foreign country has no legal backing behind it. He can still do what he wants (or has been ordered to do), but it is not legitimate.

The legitimacy of the soldier's action is contingent on the legality of the order. That is the counterargument. And you trot out this? :smallsigh:


It's not nonsense, just not necessarily accurate now because of what the Giant has said. I still don't see it said anywhere in the comic that the SG has been given even an indirect "ok" from the Northern Gods for this. And since you seem to be utterly against the idea of quoting from the books a statement made to that effect, what do you expect?

How about if you follow my suggestion I raised earlier? So that I'm actually debating with someone who knows what he's talking about?


Yet have completely failed to include an explanation as to how this could be done without allowing the Gods to indirectly rule territories that don't belong to them.

Wrong.


Actually, what I was saying was that perhaps I had begun typing (but not posted) my response before you added that part. But looking back at the times, that cannot be correct, so I did indeed miss it somehow.

Whatever.


It means The 12 Gods might consider themselves legitimate but might not consider the other Gods to be.

If we're assuming that there is one objective legitimacy (as in, such-and-such is legitimate and anything contradicting it is not), it is not necessarily true that each of the Gods is objective (and they must not be if those views contradict one another).

Which is a silly idea, seeing as they formed a pact with the northern gods; and the western gods, for that matter.


Well, that is a possibility considering what the Giant said. However, that falls under theory #3, because that authority would have been given to the SG by the Northern Gods. That's not what you were arguing as far as I can tell. You seemed to be arguing that they were given that authority by the Southern Gods, which made no sense.

Then your ability to "tell" what people argue is evidently sorely lacking. :smallmad:


And here's more from that same post, which would support either theory #1 or #2 and makes theory #3 look a bit fishy:

He is arguing about LAWFULNESS. This is not relevant to the issue of legitimacy. The thread I linked to concerned itself with the ridiculous idea that Miko somehow wasn't a Lawful character. The points I raised from that post were relevant to the issue of Legitimacy, and unlike the ones you pasted above don't invoke non-OOTS pantheons who have nothing to do with the OOTS gods' agreements.

[hamishspence]

Can we keep a little closer to topic please? And while it may be standard I find LONG quotes which need a lot of scrolling for very little content to be difficult to read. Short, succicent posts which are difficult to misunderstand, and don't spend ages going on about how someone else misread their statement are the way to go.

With hindsight, how legal was Miko's mission to arrest the Stick? As it stands, Hinjo has declared that since shojo sent her down on false pretences (knowing how and why the order broke the gate and faking the charges to get them down to the city) the whole arrest was illegal and Belkar's actions cut to manslaughter rather than murder. Though I suspect Roy's eloquent arguments might have something to do with that.

Would aforesaid mission have been legal if Shojo sent her forth in good faith? Hard to say. Do Paladins count s international law enforcement agents? Going by both the Scribble and Start of Darkness, Soon couldn't have gotten into too much legal trouble sending out his crusades or he wouldn't have still been a paladin at the end of them. And the acts against Redcloak's village were carried out on Shojo's orders (47 year rule, 34 years ago).

If Shojo knows about previous attempt by Wearer of the Redcloak to open gate, and has declared Redcloak Wearers and all who harbour or aid them in any way a threat to the safety of the world, he has his justification. Even so, if it was my campaign, I would rule that every slaying of a non-combatant goblin by a paladin requires said paladin to atone to get their powers back. The attack was justifiable, even in Lawful Good terms. The murder of genuine non-combatants was not.

[Lord Zentei]

With hindsight, how legal was Miko's mission to arrest the Stick? As it stands, Hinjo has declared that since shojo sent her down on false pretences (knowing how and why the order broke the gate and faking the charges to get them down to the city) the whole arrest was illegal and Belkar's actions cut to manslaughter rather than murder. Though I suspect Roy's eloquent arguments might have something to do with that.

That the arrest was not in good faith is a given, the question was whether the authority itself was legitimate. As for Hinjo's leniency: killing a guard is still murder, so I'd say he was simply cutting the OOTS some slack. May be that he is more levelheaded than some other members of the Sapphire Guard, and that he is considering his need for reinforcements. As to that: witness his willingness to cut the sentences of other incarcerated persons also.


If Shojo knows about previous attempt by Wearer of the Redcloak to open gate, and has declared Redcloak Wearers and all who harbour or aid them in any way a threat to the safety of the world, he has his justification. Even so, if it was my campaign, I would rule that every slaying of a non-combatant goblin by a paladin requires said paladin to atone to get their powers back. The attack was justifiable, even in Lawful Good terms. The murder of genuine non-combatants was not.

The only viable justification that has been mentioned to my knowledge was that they must suppress knowledge of the power the gates hold from spreading, or they'll be in the same situation further down the line. Of course, this is a bit off topic.

[thereaper]

Then you are ignoring the point that the creator gods have sovereign authority over the world they created, as opposed to the pantheons that arose afterwards.

By definition, a God is a being that has no authority over them. If the Creator Gods have authority over the Dark One, then the Dark One is not a God.


That was yours, yes?

Yes, it was. But as you've argued, there's a big difference between real-world religion and religion in D&D.


Because they have agreed to a pact wherein they limit their manifestations and act through agents. And not protective of their given regions? I seem to remember someone basing his argument that the gods have entirely segregated regional domains on the fact that Tiger prevented Thor from intervening to aid Hinjo...

Considering that these are Gods we are talking about, yes, that is not very protective at all. Gods can always do more. And since Thor was willing to bend the rules, then why weren't the other Gods? Why weren't they willing to do it more often? Or better yet, why couldn't they say to the others "Hey guys, the fate of the universe is at stake here; so would you mind if I bent the rules a little just this once to prevent the destruction of the world?"

But I didn't base my argument on that, I based it on the Crayons of Time strips stating that the Gods divided up the world.


This is ridiculous. Do you seriously need to have the fact that someone who has destroyed a gate is more of a potential threat than a random person explained to you?

More of a threat, perhaps. However, this assumes that the person in question has some desire to destroy another gate. In fact, I could make the argument that the OOTS is less likely to destroy another gate than a random person because they've been through it once and know what not to do.


No. Apprehending someone before they have put their plans into motion is a sound course of action.

Legally speaking, that is only true if you can demonstrate that they did indeed have said plans.


Again: the Sapphire Guard defend their gate not only by garrisoning Azure City, but by eliminating potential threats preemptively. Someone who has destroyed a gate is a potential threat. It is their obligation to nullify that threat.

Potential threats? Then why are they all still alive? Let's think about this for a moment. The OOTS has expressed no desire to destroy another gate. Neither has random paladin #12. But if the order somehow decided to do so, they'd have to find one and go through defenses the gate had. What does random paladn #12 have to do? Find a way to get into the throne room (which on it's own is probably MUCH less defended than the average gate) and attack the jewel on the throne.

Who's more likely to destroy a gate? Random Paladin #12, simply because he has the ability to do it so much more easily. If he can destroy a gate, then he's a potential threat. And the same goes for every other paladin. So, if we are to assume that their oath requires them to wipe out all potential threats, then they must kill themselves, since they could potentially destroy the gate. And they must also kill every living thing on the planet that has any kind of combat capacity, since any one of them is capable to destroying the gate (and is therefore a potential threat). And the SG must also work on preventing natural disasters such as earthquakes (which could also destroy the gates). Oh, and then there's the Gods. The Gods are capable of destroying the gates, aren't they? Sure, they probably aren't so big on commiting suicide, but who's to say they won't get tired of life and/or go insane? They can potentially destroy the gates, so that makes them a potential threat to them. Therefore, if the paladin's oath requires them to neutralize all potential threats, then the SG needs to try to kill the Gods themselves.

Most of those examples are a bit far-fetched, but that's what would happen if the SG's oath extended to dealing with all "potential" threats. Clearly, there must be a line somewhere. But like I said above, Random Paladin #12 is a lot more likely to destroy a gate in the future simply because he has much easier access to it. Therefore, if arresting the OOTS (who have expressed no desire to attack another gate, don't know where the others are, and are not even close to any) falls under dealing with potential threats, then arresting Random Paladin #12 should also be a priority, because while he has also not expressed an interest in destroying the gates, he at least knows where one is and has relatively (compared to the order) easy access to it.

The SG is not arresting themselves. So, that leaves us with two conclusions:

A) The SG has failed their oath (and is therefore not legitimate)
B) There must be a clear and present danger to qualify as a "potential threat"

The OOTS is not a clear and present threat. They were right before they destroyed the redmountain gate, but at that time they were only so for that particular gate. Once that gate was destroyed, there is nothing being threatened by them.


Ridiculous. A person who has destroyed a gate clearly is in a position to destroy more by knowledge and ability, and has shown the willingness (or cluelessness) to do so.

They've shown the ability to destroy one gate. If I have a gun and I've shot someone before, I am in that position. But if I go to jail (assuming I'm not in there for life), it's not because I'm threatening more people, it's because I need to be punished.

But punishing people for destroying the gates is not protecting the gates. The very fact that they arrest the OOTS for "destroying a gate" rather than "to keep them from destroying another gate" invalidates the arrest, because they have not been given authority to punish people.


No, they are not. They represent a potential threat to the Sapphire Guard's charge. Did you miss the Crusades I have mentioned again and again?

The SG's paladins themselves also present a "potential threat". They aren't arresting themselves. And Miko did end up destroying a gate. She ended up being a much more plausible threat than the OOTS could have hoped to be. And O'Chul almost destroyed the gate. He's about as trust-worthy as paladins can get, and he proved to be more of a potential threat to the gate than the OOTS.

How can you argue that the SG can arrest the OOTS because they are a "potential threat" as defined within their oath and yet not define the people who actually DID threaten the gates as also being "potential threats" that their oath requires them to neutralize?


Hello, genius: they have an oath to protect their gate, which entails preemptively eliminating plausible threats.

Miko was a plausible threat, and she wasn't arrested.


More sophistry. This deserves no response beyond the above point.

See my above two points. The line must be drawn somewhere, and the fact that the SG is not arresting themselves for being potential threats (even though they pose a MUCH bigger threat to the gates then the OOTS) indicates that the line does not extend far enough to justify arresting the OOTS.


How about if you follow my suggestion I raised earlier? So that I'm actually debating with someone who knows what he's talking about?

I would if I could get a hold of the books. But I can't, so if you're so sure that it's been officially stated, then quote the line where they say that. Do that, and I'll be forced to acknowledge that I was wrong in my assertion that the SG has no authority outside Southern Lands.

But it doesn't really matter either way, because the fact that the SG's oath does not extend to trying or punishing people invalidates their arrest of the OOTS. Plus there's also the little detail of there being no evidence that the OOTS was going to threaten another gate. If the OOTS is a "potential threat", then so was Miko and O'Chul (they actually DID threaten a gate). The fact that they were never arrested and prevented from threatening the gate is a violation of the SG's oath to protect the gates, which would render them illegitimate. If Miko and O'Chul were not "potential threats", then there's no way in the nine levels of Hell that the OOTS could be considered "potential threats". Either way arresting them proves to be illegitimate.


Which is a stupid idea, seeing as they formed a pact with the northern gods; and the western gods, for that matter.

There have been several instances in history where a country has had relations (and made agreements) with an "authority" they do not consider legitimate. China and Taiwan for example. Cease-fires in civil wars. In fact, any kind of official surrender made during a civila war requires at least one side to not consider the other legitimate. Otherwise there would be no conflict.


He is arguing about LAWFULNESS, Sherlock. This is not relevant to the issue of legitimacy. The thread I linked to concerned itself with the ridiculous idea that Miko somehow wasn't a Lawful character. The points I raised from that post were relevant to the issue of Legitimacy, and unlike the ones you pasted above don't invoke non-OOTS pantheons who have nothing to do with the OOTS gods' agreements.

Ah, so you've noticed how we're both taking the Giant's comments out of context, then? :smallwink:

The point I was making with that one is that it suggests that legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder.

[Eriol]

You know, I didn't bother reading this entire thread, but couldn't the resisting arrest have simply been from something not in the comic? Roy's been a fighter for years after all, isn't it just as probable that he was somewhere "less than good" at some point and resisted arrest then? In that scene, that's what I first thought, so I don't see the problem with that explanation.


Now back to your regularly scheduled rantfest.

[Lord Zentei]

By definition, a God is a being that has no authority over them. If the Creator Gods have authority over the Dark One, then the Dark One is not a God.

No. That is not the definition of a god. :smallsigh:


Yes, it was. But as you've argued, there's a big difference between real-world religion and religion in D&D.

You were full of it about what you have posted. You specifically referenced real world religions, and then claimed not to have mentioned them. :smallfurious:


Considering that these are Gods we are talking about, yes, that is not very protective at all. Gods can always do more. And since Thor was willing to bend the rules, then why weren't the other Gods? Why weren't they willing to do it more often? Or better yet, why couldn't they say to the others "Hey guys, the fate of the universe is at stake here; so would you mind if I bent the rules a little just this once to prevent the destruction of the world?"

But I didn't base my argument on that, I based it on the Crayons of Time strips stating that the Gods divided up the world.

That is why they act through agents. As has been said already again and again and again. :smallmad:


More of a threat, perhaps. However, this assumes that the person in question has some desire to destroy another gate. In fact, I could make the argument that the OOTS is less likely to destroy another gate than a random person because they've been through it once and know what not to do.

They have the ability to destroy a gate, which is not within the power of a random person. To claim that they should not be scrutinized very thoroughly (such as through a trial) or eliminated is frankly stupid.


Legally speaking, that is only true if you can demonstrate that they did indeed have said plans.

No.


Potential threats? Then why are they all still alive? Let's think about this for a moment. The OOTS has expressed no desire to destroy another gate. Neither has random paladin #12. But if the order somehow decided to do so, they'd have to find one and go through defenses the gate had. What does random paladn #12 have to do? Find a way to get into the throne room (which on it's own is probably MUCH less defended than the average gate) and attack the jewel on the throne.

<snip>

So, you deem that the paladins of the SG who have sworn an oath to protect them should be considered more of a danger to the gates by the SG than a group of unknown adventurers who have already destroyed a gate?

Perhaps policemen should be considered more of a threat to specific people they are protecting than a killer?

Wow. Just... wow.

Not that this isn't a red bloody herring, as it has no bearing on their legitimate authority itself perse.


They've shown the ability to destroy one gate. If I have a gun and I've shot someone before, I am in that position. But if I go to jail (assuming I'm not in there for life), it's not because I'm threatening more people, it's because I need to be punished.

But punishing people for destroying the gates is not protecting the gates. The very fact that they arrest the OOTS for "destroying a gate" rather than "to keep them from destroying another gate" invalidates the arrest, because they have not been given authority to punish people.

Yes, punishing people for destroying the gates is protecting the gates since not everyone is able or inclined to do so, and they routinely eliminate people who represent threats to the gates in general, since by extension, that may include their own gate.


The SG's paladins themselves also present a "potential threat"

<snip>

More of the same. How dull.


Miko was a plausible threat, and she wasn't arrested.

And still more.


See my above two points. The line must be drawn somewhere, and the fact that the SG is not arresting themselves for being potential threats (even though they pose a MUCH bigger threat to the gates then the OOTS) indicates that the line does not extend far enough to justify arresting the OOTS.

Your above points are sophistic.


<snip>

If Miko and O'Chul were not "potential threats", then there's no way in the nine levels of Hell that the OOTS could be considered "potential threats". Either way arresting them proves to be illegitimate.

Yeah, the SG might as well arrest themselves before known gate destroyers.

Jesus.


There have been several instances in history where a country has had relations (and made agreements) with an "authority" they do not consider legitimate. China and Taiwan for example. Cease-fires in civil wars. In fact, any kind of official surrender made during a civila war requires at least one side to not consider the other legitimate. Otherwise there would be no conflict.

Irrelevant.


Ah, so you've noticed how we're both taking the Giant's comments out of context, then? :smallwink:

Wrong. The point I quoted was very much relevant, as it pertained specifically to the divinely granted authority being border-less. That the Giant was speaking of Lawfulness does not invalidate the quoted point in the context of our discussion.


The point I was making with that one is that it suggests that legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder.

And that is a nonsensical point.

And which compounded with your previous examples of nonsense arguments, I find that I have very little interest in debating with you any further. I suggest you reflect carefully on what you put in to your next post.

[Lamech]

First off I belive there were a few misconceptions that haven't been corrected. When Miko captured the Oots in 200 they were not in the Wooden Forset. Also if one looks at 171 you will see that redmountain is part off a kingdom. Also according to Roy one has to be in a kingdom to break laws.

Now Lord Zentei your main point is that the Sapphire gaurd has there authority given to them by the twelve gods, correct? Also you claim that the 12 gods have that power because they created a part of the world? Well here is what; I think being the creators of part of the prime material plane doesn't prove much at all. They have no more power over the intelligent races than say Eugene and Roy's mom have over Roy. I would also assume that the part of the world the southern gods made was in the south, so that shouldn't give them jurisdiction over everything in the north. Worse the gods don't have a very good track record with protecting the world. They are responsible for creating the snarl and they are responsible for for the rifts. Mortals made the gates not the gods. That would therefore seem to give mortal jurisdiction in protecting the world from snarl.
Of course even if the 12 gods somehow do have jurisdiction over the Order of the Stick because of the gate, wouldn't the Dark One have jurisdiction to because
(SoD)
The dark one was given the destanies of the goblinoids by the elder gods. And the gate would have a pretty big impact on the goblinoids
If the dark one has jurisdiction too wouldn't someone like Redcloak be just as legitiment.

[Lord Zentei]

First off I belive there were a few misconceptions that haven't been corrected. When Miko captured the Oots in 200 they were not in the Wooden Forset. Also if one looks at 171 you will see that redmountain is part off a kingdom. Also according to Roy one has to be in a kingdom to break laws.

This has been addressed already. By a quotation from the Giant, no less.


Now Lord Zentei your main point is that the Sapphire gaurd has there authority given to them by the twelve gods, correct? Also you claim that the 12 gods have that power because they created a part of the world? Well here is what; I think being the creators of part of the prime material plane doesn't prove much at all. They have no more power over the intelligent races than say Eugene and Roy's mom have over Roy.

Why do you think something so silly? And what does authority over a planet due to being the creators thereof have to do with parenthood? We are talking about more than that, it's a matter of territory.


I would also assume that the part of the world the southern gods made was in the south, so that shouldn't give them jurisdiction over everything in the north.

Good grief, another poster that strawmans and ignores points.


Worse the gods don't have a very good track record with protecting the world. They are responsible for creating the snarl and they are responsible for for the rifts. Mortals made the gates not the gods. That would therefore seem to give mortal jurisdiction in protecting the world from snarl.

The fact that the gods created the Snarl is irrelevant.

And no, it does not seem to do any such thing as give mortals jurisdiction. In any case, if it did, the Sapphire Guard are a legitimate authority anyway.


Of course even if the 12 gods somehow do have jurisdiction over the Order of the Stick because of the gate, wouldn't the Dark One have jurisdiction to because
(SoD)
The dark one was given the destanies of the goblinoids by the elder gods. And the gate would have a pretty big impact on the goblinoids
If the dark one has jurisdiction too wouldn't someone like Redcloak be just as legitiment.

That's "destinies" and "legitimate". And no: the Dark One does not have sovereign authority over the planet. Nor does his portfolio of the goblinoids give him legitimate claim to the gates, that's utterly irrelevant.

[Lamech]

This has been addressed already. By a quotation from the Giant, no less. Ok but leading them in chains through all the lands between somewhere and Azure city?

And what does authority over a planet due to being the creators thereof have to do with parenthood?
I was talking about power over ones intelligent creation. Parents create a child that doesn't give them power over it after it becomes an adult.

We are talking about more than that, it's a matter of territory.
I wonder who created those strings and the outer planes. Who says those gods had any right to the strings than any one else in the first place? If the strings were not theirs neither would be anything they made with them.

And no, it does not seem to do any such thing as give mortals jurisdiction. In any case, if it did, the Sapphire Guard are a legitimate authority anyway.
But as Roy pointed out in 171 one has to be in a kingdom to break laws. Strongly implying that laws don't extend past a kingdoms borders. So mortal power would be limited to Azure city.

That's "destinies" and "legitimate". And no: the Dark One does not have sovereign authority over the planet. Nor does his portfolio of the goblinoids give him legitimate claim to the gates, that's utterly irrelevant.
Actually its "destinys" (says so in SoD). Anyway how are those gates not pivitol to the destinys of the goblinoids. If they get one they will become the PC races equals or reverse the situation. Those gates have the power to radically effect the lives of every single goblinoid. The fact that the gates could be used to keep them from facing any more slaughters could make those gates as important as say a stable food supply.

[Lord Zentei]

Ok but leading them in chains through all the lands between somewhere and Azure city?

Extradition allows you to transport prisoners. It is not illegitimate to do so through international territory, once the extradition and arrest order have both been established.


I was talking about power over ones intelligent creation. Parents create a child that doesn't give them power over it after it becomes an adult.

The mortal races have not reached the mental maturity of the gods, see: enlightenment coming from ascending Mount Celestia.

Regardless, a sovereign has legitimate authority over his subjects even if they are mature adults: the child and parent analogy is false.


I wonder who created those strings and the outer planes. Who says those gods had any right to the strings than any one else in the first place? If the strings were not theirs neither would be anything they made with them.

Meaningless speculation.


But as Roy pointed out in 171 one has to be in a kingdom to break laws. Strongly implying that laws don't extend past a kingdoms borders. So mortal power would be limited to Azure city.

As the Giant has stated, Shojo is not (merely) a secular ruler. He did not have the OOTS arrested on the authority of his city. This point is old news.


Actually its "destinys" (says so in SoD). Anyway how are those gates not pivitol to the destinys of the goblinoids. If they get one they will become the PC races equals or reverse the situation. Those gates have the power to radically effect the lives of every single goblinoid. The fact that the gates could be used to keep them from facing any more slaughters could make those gates as important as say a stable food supply.

Destinies is the correct spelling, "destinys" is a typo.

That the Dark One has the goblinoids as his portfolio does not entitle him to the gates, regardless of what he might gain from it. Say I have a number of people in my charge. Does that entitle me to conspire to overthrow the government and steal a bundle of cash for their benefit? Of course not. Certainly not if the means by which I attempt to do so risks universal destruction.

[Lamech]

Extradition allows you to transport prisoners. It is not illegitimate to do so through international territory, once the extradition and arrest order have both been established.
Are you assumeing that between Somewhere and Azure City was international territory? Also I doubt that the sapphire gaurd has treaties allowing transport of prisioners through any other countries' land, or would be recognized as agents of Azure City.

The mortal races have not reached the mental maturity of the gods, see: enlightenment coming from ascending Mount Celestia.
Umm... Thor,
You mean the gods that created the snarl with their arguments, failed to make a working prision, and had to really on mortals to fix the prision. Do you have significant evidence pointing to all the gods being mature.

Regardless, a sovereign has legitimate authority over his subjects even if they are mature adults: the child and parent analogy is false.
The 12 gods are not the sovereign over the Order of the Stick any more than the western gods. I doubt the northern gods are either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lamech
I wonder who created those strings and the outer planes. Who says those gods had any right to the strings than any one else in the first place? If the strings were not theirs neither would be anything they made with them.

Meaningless speculation.
The gods didn't make the strings they found them. That means the strings are artificial and don't belong to the gods or natural in which case they are only the gods' if the gods can legitimately claim them, and I don't know why the gods claim would be anymore valid than a mortal goverment claiming a chunk of land for itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lamech
But as Roy pointed out in 171 one has to be in a kingdom to break laws. Strongly implying that laws don't extend past a kingdoms borders. So mortal power would be limited to Azure city.

As the Giant has stated, Shojo is not (merely) a secular ruler. He did not have the OOTS arrested on the authority of his city. This point is old news.
I was responding to this point

In any case, if it did, the Sapphire Guard are a legitimate authority anyway.
The limits of mortal power would be important here. If you can't remember exactly what posted last post please don't say things like I have already responded to that.


That the Dark One has the goblinoids as his portfolio does not entitle him to the gates, regardless of what he might gain from it. Say I have a number of people in my charge. Does that entitle me to conspire to overthrow the government and steal a bundle of cash for their benefit? Of course not. Certainly not if the means by which I attempt to do so risks universal destruction.
Is the dark one is now part of a goverment ran by other gods? If having control over the goblinoids destinies doesn't entitle him to control over a gate despite the fact that a gate would be more important than any thing to the goblinoids what does it entitle him to? Control over the food supply and water supply? Control over the getting the goblins good land to live on? Obtaining good shelter? If it does what is the difference between taking a gate and taking something else?

[Lord Zentei]

Are you assumeing that between Somewhere and Azure City was international territory? Also I doubt that the sapphire gaurd has treaties allowing transport of prisioners through any other countries' land, or would be recognized as agents of Azure City.

If you want to claim that Miko violated some nation's laws or other by transporting the Order through their territory, the onus is on you to prove it.


Umm... Thor,
You mean the gods that created the snarl with their arguments, failed to make a working prision, and had to really on mortals to fix the prision. Do you have significant evidence pointing to all the gods being mature.

So what? That does not mean that the mortals are more enlightened or even equally enlightened.

In any case, this is ultimately a red herring: we are discussing the legitimacy of the Sapphire Guard, not the maturity and perfection of the gods.


The 12 gods are not the sovereign over the Order of the Stick any more than the western gods. I doubt the northern gods are either.

Yes they are. They participated in creating the world: it is their planet, along with the other pantheons. They are sovereign over it.

As an aside, should the gates fail, the southern and western gods are toast just as much as the northern gods: their legitimate interests are very much at risk.


The gods didn't make the strings they found them. That means the strings are artificial and don't belong to the gods or natural in which case they are only the gods' if the gods can legitimately claim them, and I don't know why the gods claim would be anymore valid than a mortal goverment claiming a chunk of land for itself.

The fact that the strings were not made by the gods means they are artificial now? Does not follow. And is utterly irrelevant in any case: the builder of a house owns it unless he sells it, not the maker of the goddamn raw materials. And guess what: governments CAN claim empty land and unowned resources for themselves. This is something called "colonization".


The limits of mortal power would be important here. If you can't remember exactly what posted last post please don't say things like I have already responded to that.

The assertion that Lord Shojo is not merely a secular ruler is not necessarily equivalent to saying that he is an agent of the gods. It means that the post of Lord of Azure City (secular ruler) and Commander of the Sapphire Guard (not a secular ruler) are two separate posts and the limits of power of the one has no bearing on the limits of power of the other.

Regardless of that, your point was immaterial, because the Sapphire Guard ARE agents of the gods.


Is the dark one is now part of a goverment ran by other gods? If having control over the goblinoids destinies doesn't entitle him to control over a gate despite the fact that a gate would be more important than any thing to the goblinoids what does it entitle him to?

No. He is not part of any government. What gave you the idea that I was insinuating that? He is specifically NOT part of the creator pantheons, that was the goddamned point. :smallsigh:


Control over the food supply and water supply? Control over the getting the goblins good land to live on? Obtaining good shelter? If it does what is the difference between taking a gate and taking something else?

I have already expressed myself on what may not be done: and that includes risking universal destruction. Last I checked gaining water and land doesn't do any such thing.

[Lamech]

This is silly. If you want to claim that Miko violated some nation's laws or other by transporting the Order through their territory, the onus is on you to prove it.
This is silly. If you want to claim that the sapphire gaurd is The legitimate, the onus is on you to prove it.


In any case, this is ultimately a red herring: we are discussing the legitimacy of the Sapphire Guard, not the maturity and perfection of the gods.
Do you even remember your past points? Look you brought the mental maturity of the gods up.

The mortal races have not reached the mental maturity of the gods, see: enlightenment coming from ascending Mount Celestia.

So what? That does not mean that the mortals are more enlightened or even equally enlightened.
What do you have to point to them being more mature?


Nonsense. The fact that the strings were not made by the gods means they are artificial now? Umm.. it means they are artificial and not made by the gods or natural.


Does not follow. And is utterly irrelevant in any case: the builder of a house owns it unless he sells it, not the maker of the goddamn raw materials. Umm... no. If its not his raw materials and its not his land guess what is not his house.


And guess what: governments CAN claim empty land and unowned resources for themselves. This is something called "colonization".
I don't think the southern gods are recoginzed as a legitimate goverment by worshippers of the northern or western gods or the elvish gods or the dark one. Or any OotS Athar equivilent.


No. He is not part of any government. What gave you the idea that I was insinuating that? He is specifically NOT part of the creator pantheons, that was the goddamned point.
Right here

Does that entitle me to conspire to overthrow the government and steal a bundle of cash for their benefit?
Mabey I should have phrased that differently. So the Dark one is a subject of a goverment of the other gods now?

I have already expressed myself on what may not be done: and that includes risking universal destruction. Last I checked gaining water and land doesn't do any such thing.
Redcloak didn't seem to worried about the rituals failing and back firing. And Shojo said that if the prision deteriorated to much the gods would deystroy the world and remake it. The land could simply be remade. And while alot of people could die if the gods had to destroy the world, a war for land or water kills goblins. Worse goblins are dying for xp everyday. The gate could stop this a lot of goblins from dying. The bigger the benifit the bigger the risk.

[Lord Zentei]

This is silly. If you want to claim that the sapphire gaurd is The legitimate, the onus is on you to prove it.

What do you think this thread is for? You made yourself guilty of a burden of proof fallacy. Smarmy comebacks don't change that one iota.


Do you even remember your past points? Look you brought the mental maturity of the gods up.

You made the argument that a parent does not hold authority over a child after it grows up. The maturity of the gods followed from that. This doesn't change the fact that your initial point was a red herring.


What do you have to point to them being more mature?

The fact that they are in charge of mount Celestia where the spirits of dead mortals are allowed to ascend to higher enlightenment than they possessed before. Therefore, the gods are in a position to grant such enlightenment.


Umm.. it means they are artificial and not made by the gods or natural.

Ridiculous; it means no such thing. The fact that something is not made by the gods doesn't make it artificial by any measure: it could just as easily be a natural feature of the pre-creation multiverse. All it means is that it wasn't made by the gods.


Umm... no. If its not his raw materials and its not his land guess what is not his house.

Irrelevant. If no-one owns the land or raw materials, he does indeed own the house.


I don't think the southern gods are recoginzed as a legitimate goverment by worshippers of the northern or western gods or the elvish gods or the dark one. Or any OotS Athar equivilent.

What the hell is this? The governments and worshipers of the north didn't bloody exist before the gods commandeered the threads. :smallconfused:


Mabey I should have phrased that differently. So the Dark one is a subject of a goverment of the other gods now?

Having entered a world created by other gods he is indeed, as stated earlier in the thread.


Redcloak didn't seem to worried about the rituals failing and back firing. And Shojo said that if the prision deteriorated to much the gods would deystroy the world and remake it. The land could simply be remade. And while alot of people could die if the gods had to destroy the world, a war for land or water kills goblins. Worse goblins are dying for xp everyday. The gate could stop this a lot of goblins from dying. The bigger the benifit the bigger the risk.

All irrelevant. He is still seizing control of something that is not his, he is still overthrowing the authority of the creator pantheons and he is still tampering with forces that can undo creation.

[thereaper]

No. That is not the definition of a god. :smallsigh:

Really? Then what is?


You were full of crap about what you have posted. You specifically referenced real world religions, and then claimed not to have mentioned them. Either you were being too daft to remember what you posted or you were being outright and blatantly dishonest. :smallfurious:

Quote where I referenced real-world religion, rather than real-world government.


Ridiculous. They have the ability to destroy a gate, which is not within the power of a random person. To claim that they should not be scrutinized very thoroughly (such as through a trial) or eliminated is frankly stupid.

The SG does not have the authority to punish people according to their oath; only the authority to stop people from destroying a gate. The only thing that their oath permits them to try anyone for is attempting/planning to destroy a gate. And even then, the only reason they can do it is because imprisoning or executing them for such an offense prevents them from attacking the gate.


No.

So then the FBI can legitimately break down your door and arrest you without having any evidence whatsoever?


So, you deem that the paladins of the SG who have sworn an oath to protect them should be considered more of a danger to the gates by the SG than a group of unknown adventurers who have already destroyed a gate?

Perhaps policemen should be considered more of a threat to specific people they are protecting than a killer?

Wow. Just... wow.

You have just eliminated any lingering respect I might have had for you.

Not that this isn't a red bloody herring, as it has no bearing on their legitimate authority itself perse.

The SG was more of a potential threat. Elan destroyed one gate. Miko destroyed one gate (after O'Chul had already tried). OOTS: 1 gate destroyed. SG: 1 gate destroyed + 1 failed attempt to do the same. Who was more of a threat?

Policemen are potential threats. But so are roofs caving in on you. Yet we still live in houses. Why? Because the threat isn't reasonable. A policeman is not a reasonable threat. A killer is only a reasonable threat if he or she is likely to kill again.


Yes, punishing people for destroying the gates is protecting the gates since not everyone is able or inclined to do so, and they routinely eliminate people who represent threats to the gates in general, since by extension, that may include their own gate. Yet another point you have already ignored multiple times. :smallmad:

Huh? What does any of that paragraph have to do with the first sentence of it?

"Not everyone is inclined to do so" and "they routinely eliminate people who represent threats to the gates in general"? Punishing is protecting because the SG eliminates threats to the gates? What kind of screwy reasoning is that?


More of the same. How dull.



And still more. Bloody ridiculous.

Yet you can't deny that she was a threat. She did destroy the gate, which the OOTS has not tried to do. Therefore, she was much more of a threat than the OOTS.


All your above points are worthless sophistry.

Miko destroyed the AC gate. The OOTS did not. Therefore, Miko was more of a threat to it than they were. Therefore, the SG arrested the wrong party. Sure, they couldn't have known, but that doesn't change the fact that Miko did end up being more of a threat. See, that's why I bring up "reasonable threat" rather than "potential threat". A potential threat can be anything, and as a result there's really no way you can stop them. But reasonable threats are much fewer, and you can know and stop them.


And again, this implausible level of silliness. Yeah, the SG might as well arrest themselves before known gate destroyers.

Jesus.

If they're going after potential threats rather than reasonable ones, then yes, theys should go after themselves first, since they're closer and have easier access to the gate. It's ridiculous, yes, but only because dealing with a threat simply because it could potentially happen (rather than being likely to happen) is ridiculous. That's why real-life law enforcement goes for the reasonable ones. It's impossible to go after potential threats because everything is a potential threat. I'm a potential threat to myself because I could trip and crack my head open on a sidewalk. This computer is a potential threat to me because it could explode for no apparent reason. The air molecules around me are a potential threat because they could quantum tunnel through my skin and form bubbles in my blood vessels and kill me. But none of those are reasonable threats, so I don't worry about them.


Irrelevant.

Um...How is that not relevant? An authority has relations with an authority it does not consider legitimate. Isn't that idea what we're considering with this part of the argument?


Wrong. The point I quoted was very much relevant, as it pertained specifically to the divinely granted authority being border-less. That the Giant was speaking of Lawfulness does not invalidate the quoted point in the context of our discussion.

Much like how it doesn't invalidate my point either, as it did imply that lawfullness towards a specific deity does not require one to consider other deities legitimate. If other deities are not necessarily legitimate, then it all stands to reason that legitimacy is relative in OOTS.


And that is a nonsensical point.

And which compounded with your previous examples of nonsense arguments, your ignoring of points, your rehashing of points already raised earlier in the thread, your consistent question begging and other forms of sophistry, I find that I have very little interest in debating with you any further. I suggest you reflect carefully on what you put in to your next post.

You know, I'm really getting tired of your high-and-mighty demeanor. I keep pointing out holes in your arguments, and examples of how your conclusions fail to hold water when applied to actual situations, and yet all you do is continue making assertions with few examples or arguments behind them except accusations that mine are red herrings and sophistry. The reason my examples seem so ridiculous is that I'm following the natural conclusions of your assertions and demonstrating how they contradict reality. For my examples to be absurd, then the effects must not follow the assertion I'm analyzing. That means you need to demonstrate how my examples contradict your conclusions if you want to claim that they're absurd.

[Lord Zentei]

Really? Then what is?

In D&D it is any creature with divine ranks. In general, a supernatural being that is worshiped. Otherwise, a atheistic dictator is a "god" by your reasoning.

And incidentally, in polytheistic religions, there are ranks among the gods.


Quote where I referenced real-world religion, rather than real-world government.

I already have. Here it is again:


No, they only have to follow the paladin code as the Gods they serve see it. There's no objective force that takes away a paladin's powers, it's their Gods. Heck, from a real-world perspective, even the authority of the Gods themselves is debatable.

Are you going to deny that speaking of the "authority of the Gods" from a "real world perspective" is referencing real world religions?


The SG does not have the authority to punish people according to their oath; only the authority to stop people from destroying a gate. The only thing that their oath permits them to try anyone for is attempting/planning to destroy a gate. And even then, the only reason they can do it is because imprisoning or executing them for such an offense prevents them from attacking the gate.

They have the authority to kill people they deem to be threats to their charge. That they allowed the OOTS the benefit of a trial to prove they were not a threat is their benevolence.


So then the FBI can legitimately break down your door and arrest you without having any evidence whatsoever?

That is an irrelevant analogy: the diviners of the SG had determined that the OOTS had destroyed the gate. What's with this "no evidence" nonsense? See, this is exactly the sort of thing that causes me to find your posts less-than-honest.

And yes, if the FBI has one of only five people that most people don't even know exist under their protection and have had this person under their protection for decades -- and two of the five have been killed very recently, that is ample reason for them to deem the killers of one of these two as a credible threat. Particularly if the consequences of failure are universal destruction, and they already have a license to kill people they deem to be threats.


The SG was more of a potential threat. Elan destroyed one gate. Miko destroyed one gate (after O'Chul had already tried). OOTS: 1 gate destroyed. SG: 1 gate destroyed + 1 failed attempt to do the same. Who was more of a threat?

Policemen are potential threats. But so are roofs caving in on you. Yet we still live in houses. Why? Because the threat isn't reasonable. A policeman is not a reasonable threat. A killer is only a reasonable threat if he or she is likely to kill again.

So: all of this is essentially semantics wrangling about "potential" versus "reasonable"? And presumably, you deem that it is not "reasonable" to view someone as a threat to the SG gate if they have already destroyed another one. Wow.

Moreover, O'Chul had a valid reason to do what he did. The OOTS were given the chance to demonstrate that they had the same.


Huh? What does any of that paragraph have to do with the first sentence of it?

"Not everyone is inclined to do so" and "they routinely eliminate people who represent threats to the gates in general"? Punishing is protecting because the SG eliminates threats to the gates? What kind of screwy reasoning is that?

It is the reasoning the SG have used since their founding. Protection by pre-emptive elimination of threats.


Yet you can't deny that she was a threat. She did destroy the gate, which the OOTS has not tried to do. Therefore, she was much more of a threat than the OOTS.

And she was placed under arrest after killing Shojo, genius.


Miko destroyed the AC gate. The OOTS did not. Therefore, Miko was more of a threat to it than they were. Therefore, the SG arrested the wrong party. Sure, they couldn't have known, but that doesn't change the fact that Miko did end up being more of a threat. See, that's why I bring up "reasonable threat" rather than "potential threat". A potential threat can be anything, and as a result there's really no way you can stop them. But reasonable threats are much fewer, and you can know and stop them.


If they're going after potential threats rather than reasonable ones, then yes, theys should go after themselves first, since they're closer and have easier access to the gate. It's ridiculous, yes, but only because dealing with a threat simply because it could potentially happen (rather than being likely to happen) is ridiculous. That's why real-life law enforcement goes for the reasonable ones. It's impossible to go after potential threats because everything is a potential threat. I'm a potential threat to myself because I could trip and crack my head open on a sidewalk. This computer is a potential threat to me because it could explode for no apparent reason. The air molecules around me are a potential threat because they could quantum tunnel through my skin and form bubbles in my blood vessels and kill me. But none of those are reasonable threats, so I don't worry about them.

Again with the semantics wrangling. Ho hum.


Um...How is that not relevant? An authority has relations with an authority it does not consider legitimate. Isn't that idea what we're considering with this part of the argument?

Because they cannot consider each other illegitimate if they formed an explicit pact that defines their respective authorities. China considers Taiwan a rebel province, for instance; there is no similar division of authority between the two Chinas by explicit treaty. That might be a valid analogy for the relationship between the 12 gods and the Dark One, not the creator pantheons among one another.


Much like how it doesn't invalidate my point either, as it did imply that lawfullness towards a specific deity does not require one to consider other deities legitimate. If other deities are not necessarily legitimate, then it all stands to reason that legitimacy is relative in OOTS.

No. The other deities mentioned in that post were not a part of the pact of the creator pantheons of the OOTS world.


You know, I'm really getting tired of your high-and-mighty demeanor. I keep pointing out holes in your arguments, and examples of how your conclusions fail to hold water when applied to actual situations, and yet all you do is continue making assertions with few examples or arguments behind them except accusations that mine are red herrings and sophistry. The reason my examples seem so ridiculous is that I'm following the natural conclusions of your assertions and demonstrating how they contradict reality. For my examples to be absurd, then the effects must not follow the assertion I'm analyzing. That means you need to demonstrate how my examples contradict your conclusions if you want to claim that they're absurd.

My "high and mighty demeanor" is a consequence of the fact that I find dishonesty rude. If you don't like it and genuinely were not attempting to be dishonest, try taking more care in composing your posts.

[Lamech]

What the hell is this?
The swearing doesn't help anything.

The fact that they are in charge of mount Celestia where the spirits of dead mortals are allowed to ascend to higher enlightenment than they possessed before. Therefore, the gods are in a position to grant such enlightenment.
Actually it looked to me like Angels and Archons were running the show. We have not seen evidence to point to those angels following the gods. Also mount celestia seems to grant enlightenment or the trip up it, not the gods. Also mount celestia is an outer plane and there is no evidence to point to the gods having created the outerplanes or even being able to.


Ridiculous; it means no such thing. The fact that something is not made by the gods doesn't make it artificial by any measure: it could just as easily be a natural feature of the pre-creation multiverse. All it means is that it wasn't made by the gods.
Umm... Wow... just Wow... You quote something call it ridiculous, but you fail to comprehend it. If you haven't read something don't quote it. If you don't know what "or" means... I give up there is not any point to debating someone who fails to comprehend such a common english word.


Having entered a world created by other gods he is indeed, as stated earlier in the thread.
Umm... looked to me like the dark one is hanging out in what ever plane the gods hang out. Which isn't the world the gods created. Also if we take the point of view of say Thomas Hobbes or John Locke the gods wouldn't have been the Dark Ones sovergien when he was still a mortal.

The governments and worshipers of the north didn't bloody exist before the gods commandeered the threads.
So what if they were created by the gods. It doesn't matter according to you; the fact the gods are like the parents of the mortal races is a red hearring.

All irrelevant. He is still seizing control of something that is not his, he is still overthrowing the authority of the creator pantheons and he is still tampering with forces that can undo creation.
No, he is changing the goblins destinys. By taking something that is valuable, like food or water on a much larger scale. Food and water are nessacary to live. So is being kept safe from adventurer attacks which the gate is nessecary for.

Irrelevant. If no-one owns the land or raw materials, he does indeed own the house. Not unless he can legitamately claim the land and the raw materials

Your arguments are red herrings and sophistry. Your assertions are not following natural conclusions at all, and you have been deceptive. I am merely calling a spade a spade. My "high and mighty demeanor" is a consequence of the fact that I find dishonesty rude. If you don't like it and genuinely were not attempting to be dishonest, try taking more care in composing your posts.
Calling someone deceptive is extremely rude. Ditto the unnessacary swearing. So is claiming thats already been dealt without at least showing where its been dealt with.

[Lord Zentei]

The swearing doesn't help anything.

You have no idea how much it helps.


Actually it looked to me like Angels and Archons were running the show. We have not seen evidence to point to those angels following the gods. Also mount celestia seems to grant enlightenment or the trip up it, not the gods. Also mount celestia is an outer plane and there is no evidence to point to the gods having created the outerplanes or even being able to.

We have seen archons taking their marching orders (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0353.html) from the gods.


Umm... Wow... just Wow... You quote something call it ridiculous, but you fail to comprehend it. If you haven't read something don't quote it. If you don't know what "or" means... I give up there is not any point to debating someone who fails to comprehend such a common english word.

Compose your posts with proper and unambiguous sentence structure, then you have the right to post this kind of rant.


Umm... looked to me like the dark one is hanging out in what ever plane the gods hang out. Which isn't the world the gods created. Also if we take the point of view of say Thomas Hobbes or John Locke the gods wouldn't have been the Dark Ones sovergien when he was still a mortal.

What does that have to do with the legitimate authority and who is in charge vis a vis the Stickverse? Obviously the Dark One is not under their government as long as he is not on their world, but to the extent that he is there and/or asserts influence there, then he very much is under their authority.


So what if they were created by the gods. It doesn't matter according to you; the fact the gods are like the parents of the mortal races is a red hearring.

You raised the issue of the gods, like other governments, being legitimately able to claim natural resources only if the mortal realms had recognized them. This is ridiculous, because they did not exist at that time, because they were created by the gods.

This point had no bearing on the parents and children angle. You are misrepresenting that particular argument.


No, he is changing the goblins destinys. By taking something that is valuable, like food or water on a much larger scale. Food and water are nessacary to live. So is being kept safe from adventurer attacks which the gate is nessecary for.

He cannot legitimately do so while simultaneously attempting to overthrow the existing authority. Lest we forget, that's the issue at hand.


Not unless he can legitamately claim the land and the raw materials

I have already pointed out that a government can claim unowned land an materials through a process called "colonization".


Calling someone deceptive is extremely rude. Ditto the unnessacary swearing. So is claiming thats already been dealt without at least showing where its been dealt with.

Not as much as being deceptive, and ignoring points is. And with the above rant about comprehension, you have not much of a leg to stand on with this.

[Lamech]

I dont have time to make a long response but
Heres me

Umm.. it means they are artificial and not made by the gods or natural.
Heres your response, Zentei.

Ridiculous; it means no such thing. The fact that something is not made by the gods doesn't make it artificial by any measure: it could just as easily be a natural feature of the pre-creation multiverse. All it means is that it wasn't made by the gods.

Just to help you I added some bold.


Compose your posts with proper and unambiguous sentence structure, then you have the right to post this kind of rant.
I was obviously taking about the above quote. That is implied. Kind of like you, Zentei did here

Not as much as being deceptive, and ignoring points is.



And with the above rant about comprehension, you have not much of a leg to stand on with this.
Other than the lack of comprehension on your part your right I don't have a leg to stand on with my "rant" on your comprehension.


We have seen archons taking their marching orders from the gods.
So? We see humanoids taking there marching orders from the gods in Start of Darkness.

[Lord Zentei]

I dont have time to make a long response but
Heres me

I was obviously taking about the above quote. That is implied. Kind of like you, Zentei did here

I know what quote you were talking about.


Other than the lack of comprehension on your part your right I don't have a leg to stand on with my "rant" on your comprehension.

I take it you don't grok what "unambiguous sentence structure" meant in the above. Hint: your "or" should have been "or it is", as "nor" could have been the interpretation.

And with "the above" I referred to your complaints about perceived rudeness.


So? We see humanoids taking there marching orders from the gods in Start of Darkness.

And this is a counterpoint to the fact that the gods hold legitimate authority how?

[Covenantwgw]

I know what quote you were talking about.



I take it you don't grok what "unambiguous sentence structure" meant in the above. Hint: your "or" should have been "or it is", as "nor" could have been the interpretation.

And with "the above" I referred to your complaints about perceived rudeness.



And this is a counterpoint to the fact that the gods hold legitimate authority how?

I find it rather ironic that you would tell someone you "perceived rudeness" as I've just read this entire thread and you started out making well-reasoned articulate and intellegent arguments, and then decended to the level of "troll". I don't have an opinion about the topic of this thread that hasn't already been made by someone much smarter and more elequent then myself. I just felt that someone should point out that the kettle is just as black as the pot.

[Lord Zentei]

I find it rather ironic that you would tell someone you "perceived rudeness" as I've just read this entire thread and you started out making well-reasoned articulate and intellegent arguments, and then decended to the level of "troll". I don't have an opinion about the topic of this thread that hasn't already been made by someone much smarter and more elequent then myself. I just felt that someone should point out that the kettle is just as black as the pot.

I accept your admonishment, as it is coming from a neutral source. I tend to get very pissed off when I feel that people are being dishonest and/or disingenuous. I'll try and cut back on that.


EDIT: though to be fair, a "troll" is someone who posts stuff he doesn't genuinely believe just to see people getting riled up. I have not been doing that, though I admittedly have been too aggressive in the latter half of the thread.

[Spiky]

I don't understand. The original question was answered with two points on page 1. First, post 5 which mentioned that Shojo admitted no legitimacy in the arrest (note also Eugene was behind this, which fact the Deva knows, all shown in #290), in addition to the understanding that Miko originally stated no cause for arrest. As Shojo IS the top authority of the Sapphire Guard/Miko, his statements should be considered gospel.

What did you make 6 pages out of?

[Lamech]

And this is a counterpoint to the fact that the gods hold legitimate authority how?
Opps... hehehe mistyped something there. I meant "Dark One" not "gods". It was a supposed to be a snarky (whatever that means) counter-point to the gods ruling all the Archons. I feel stupid now.

I have a question for you Zentei. Does the Dark One have authority over adventures who run around killing goblins and their allies? Can he try to stop them, or would stopping them be overstepping his authority?

Zentei consider this
Lets say some people make a place. This place is as a fraction of everything is infinitesimally small. They also make intelligent people, but these people are often a lot weaker than the creators of this place and only a small fraction of them have the power to leave. Also some of the people don't have what is necessary to sustain them and therefore this place contains constant deadly conflict. In addition to that this place is slowly failing apart, and when it fails apart completely, everyone trapped in it will die. The creaters can't do anything about it, but some people living in this place, of there own free will, fix it. Now Zentei would the creators of this place be the sovereigns? And if they are why?

[Lord Zentei]

I don't understand. The original question was answered with two points on page 1. First, post 5 which mentioned that Shojo admitted no legitimacy in the arrest (note also Eugene was behind this, which fact the Deva knows, all shown in #290), in addition to the understanding that Miko originally stated no cause for arrest. As Shojo IS the top authority of the Sapphire Guard/Miko, his statements should be considered gospel.

What did you make 6 pages out of?

We were speaking of the authority of the Sapphire Guard to arrest people, not the issue of whether the particular charges against the Order of the Stick itself were legitimate.

As for that, I pointed out on the first page that the paladins were supremely anal-retentive about what they could and could not do (hence Shojo's need for deception in the first place), why would they be more lax on the issue of the whole trial being legitimate then? It does not compute. That suggests that they did in principle possess legitimate authority within the scope of their oaths.


Opps... hehehe mistyped something there. I meant "Dark One" not "gods". It was a supposed to be a snarky (whatever that means) counter-point to the gods ruling all the Archons. I feel stupid now.

I have a question for you Zentei. Does the Dark One have authority over adventures who run around killing goblins and their allies? Can he try to stop them, or would stopping them be overstepping his authority?

Zentei consider this
Lets say some people make a place. This place is as a fraction of everything is infinitesimally small. They also make intelligent people, but these people are often a lot weaker than the creators of this place and only a small fraction of them have the power to leave. Also some of the people don't have what is necessary to sustain them and therefore this place contains constant deadly conflict. In addition to that this place is slowly failing apart, and when it fails apart completely, everyone trapped in it will die. The creaters can't do anything about it, but some people living in this place, of there own free will, fix it. Now Zentei would the creators of this place be the sovereigns? And if they are why?

I'll answer your second question first: "yes, they would". A sovereign is still just that, regardless of his competence or ability. We are discussing legitimacy, not whether the gods are ideal rulers or not. And as to that: an authority is still "legitimate" even though some may have the inclination to rebel against it. And with that, the first question is answered also.

[Covenantwgw]

I accept your admonishment, as it is coming from a neutral source. I tend to get very pissed off when I feel that people are being dishonest and/or disingenuous. I'll try and cut back on that.


EDIT: though to be fair, a "troll" is someone who posts stuff he doesn't genuinely believe just to see people getting riled up. I have not been doing that, though I admittedly have been too aggressive in the latter half of the thread.

Ah...my apologies then. I didn't know the exact definition. For the record I've been enjoying the debate eminsely. You're rather well spoken and your points have merit.

[Lamech]

I'll answer your second question first: "yes, they would". A sovereign is still just that, regardless of his competence or ability. We are discussing legitimacy, not whether the gods are ideal rulers or not. And as to that: an authority is still "legitimate" even though some may have the inclination to rebel against it. And with that, the first question is answered also.
I assume by second you mean third (if you don't someone is really confused). So then the Dark One's agents could legitimately arrest adventures who kill goblins, like say the Order of the Stick? They killing goblins well before they new anything about the gate. If the Dark One's agents have legitimacy like the Sapphire gaurd, then would the Order of the Stick have to surrender to Redcloak?

Also Zentei are you saying that a sovergein can't lose its authority even if it intentionaly ensures it subjects deaths, when those subjects haven't done anything wrong? Is rebellion always wrong?

[fractal]

I assume by second you mean third (if you don't someone is really confused). So then the Dark One's agents could legitimately arrest adventures who kill goblins, like say the Order of the Stick? They killing goblins well before they new anything about the gate. If the Dark One's agents have legitimacy like the Sapphire gaurd, then would the Order of the Stick have to surrender to Redcloak?

Also Zentei are you saying that a sovergein can't lose its authority even if it intentionaly ensures it subjects deaths, when those subjects haven't done anything wrong? Is rebellion always wrong?
Presumably "legitimacy" simply means the actions can be considered Lawful. That doesn't obligate anyone else to obey; the Order of the Stick need surrender to neither Miko nor Redcloak. Other Lawful people should probably be more inclined to give them a fair hearing, but to a Chaotic person, legitimacy is irrelevant. Elan, Haley, and Belkar are as likely to listen to Samantha as either Miko or Redcloak.

Of course, being high level PCs, they'll basically ignore all NPCs whenever they can possibly get away with it.

[Lord Zentei]

I assume by second you mean third (if you don't someone is really confused). So then the Dark One's agents could legitimately arrest adventures who kill goblins, like say the Order of the Stick? They killing goblins well before they new anything about the gate. If the Dark One's agents have legitimacy like the Sapphire gaurd, then would the Order of the Stick have to surrender to Redcloak?

I took your first paragraph of questions to be one question (albeit in two parts). The answer to this further question depends on the scope of the Dark One's power; the scope of the creator pantheons is less unclear. But where were you trying to go with this point?


Also Zentei are you saying that a sovergein can't lose its authority even if it intentionaly ensures it subjects deaths, when those subjects haven't done anything wrong? Is rebellion always wrong?

No, rebellion against a sovereign is not always morally wrong, but that's not what legitimacy entails (particularly when you are speaking to a bureaucratic deva in the employ of that very sovereign). In any case, this is getting rather academic and off-topic.

[Lamech]

The answer to this further question depends on the scope of the Dark One's power; the scope of the creator pantheons is less unclear. But where were you trying to go with this point?
The Dark One's power is no more unclear than any of the creator pantheons (assuming of course they have legitimate power). The Dark One was given power by the creator gods. Any power that he has they now lack.

I'm trying to show that if we assume the sapphire guard can arrest the OotS, and it would be unlawful (alignment wise) to resist the sapphire guard, then it would be unlawful to resist an arrest attempt by Redcloak. Which would be non-sense (to me) and disprove the assumption that the sapphire guard can legitimately arrest the OotS. The only laws that the OotS violated by resisting was of course the sapphire guards.

No, rebellion against a sovereign is not always morally wrong, but that's not what legitimacy entails (particularly when you are speaking to a bureaucratic Deva in the employ of that very sovereign). In any case, this is getting rather academic and off-topic.
Umm... first off we haven't seen any evidence to show that the angels who judge mortals work for the deities. The angels don't care how religious one is, but deities would as that decides how strong they are. Plus, I don't think we have ever seen the deities on mount Celestia they usually shown floating on the clouds. The only thing that correlates to is the celestial waiting room.
Anyway would you consider the American revolution, a rebellion against a legitimate authority? Or any colony that tried to rebel against the European country ruling it?

[wowy319]

I say no, based on their so-called "good" actions. In all honesty, I think that the sapphire guard's "crusaders" would have lost lost their paladin powers the moment they started butchering every man, woman and child in Redcloak's village. They have no right, nor any authority, to mess with the affairs of other nations and people, if you ask me. Their authority is about as worthless as their so-called "honor."

[Lamech]

I say no, based on their so-called "good" actions. In all honesty, I think that the sapphire guard's "crusaders" would have lost lost their paladin powers the moment they started butchering every man, woman and child in Redcloak's village. They have no right, nor any authority, to mess with the affairs of other nations and people, if you ask me. Their authority is about as worthless as their so-called "honor."
Nope they wouldn't lose there powers. Thats why the gods the goblins there. Of course, that might come back to bite them when they get judged, by the angels. Also might be why we have never seen the gods on Celestia

[Lord Zentei]

The Dark One's power is no more unclear than any of the creator pantheons (assuming of course they have legitimate power). The Dark One was given power by the creator gods. Any power that he has they now lack.

No, that does not follow. For instance, if a president grants such and such a person a cabinet level position over such and such a sphere of interest, his word is still higher. The fact that the creator gods grant authority doesn't mean that they cannot withdraw it or override it.


I'm trying to show that if we assume the sapphire guard can arrest the OotS, and it would be unlawful (alignment wise) to resist the sapphire guard, then it would be unlawful to resist an arrest attempt by Redcloak. Which would be non-sense (to me) and disprove the assumption that the sapphire guard can legitimately arrest the OotS. The only laws that the OotS violated by resisting was of course the sapphire guards.

Well, the Dark One is essentially a rebel power in that he, through Redcloak, is attempting to overthrow the established order. And the OOTS killed said goblins who were participating in said action. If the Dark One were not attempting this (and, just as importantly, the higher authority of the creator gods didn't apparently proclaim the goblins to be XP fodder) then yes, presumably he could.

That is, assuming that Redcloak's order had established protocols in their god's name to that effect, and the god had at least tacitly OK'd it (which seems a perfectly reasonable assumtion). This would presumably be the kind of world order Redcloak dreams of.


Umm... first off we haven't seen any evidence to show that the angels who judge mortals work for the deities. The angels don't care how religious one is, but deities would as that decides how strong they are. Plus, I don't think we have ever seen the deities on mount Celestia they usually shown floating on the clouds. The only thing that correlates to is the celestial waiting room.
Anyway would you consider the American revolution, a rebellion against a legitimate authority? Or any colony that tried to rebel against the European country ruling it?

It seems a bit of a stretch to assume that the angels who judge mortals are any different from the other angels we have seen. Are we to take the default position that any angel we see is independent now unless confirmed otherwise? And to assume that the gods don't reside in Celestia? :smallconfused:

And of course the American Revolution was a rebellion against a legitimate authority. After the revolution, the Treaty of Paris in 1783 formally established the independence of the former colonies. That does not mean that the colonists didn't have a moral leg to stand on, of course -- that's a separate matter entirely.

In any case: I pointed out earlier that this was getting rather academic and off-topic -- is there a connection here with the particular legitimate authority under discussion?


Nope they wouldn't lose there powers. Thats why the gods the goblins there. Of course, that might come back to bite them when they get judged, by the angels. Also might be why we have never seen the gods on Celestia

We have seen Blue Bandana Guy climb the mountain next to Roy. So yes, apparently they can get in.

[Lamech]

We have seen Blue Bandana Guy climb the mountain next to Roy. So yes, apparently they can get in.
I don't recall blue bandana participating in any crusades that happened decades ago. Was he even alive then?


It seems a bit of a stretch to assume that the angels who judge mortals are any different from the other angels we have seen. Are we to take the default position that any angel we see is independent now unless confirmed otherwise? And to assume that the gods don't reside in Celestia?
Okay we see an evil outersider was following Nale. We see a good outsider takings taking orders from a Deity. We see humans taking orders from deities but not all humans do. There is no reason to assume the angels are all part of the same group. In fact that would probably be impossible unless they all followed on Pantheon due too all the arguments the deities have. If you looked closely at SoD Thor's throne is on a rock apparently floating on clouds. I don't think that is Celestia.


No, that does not follow. For instance, if a president grants such and such a person a cabinet level position over such and such a sphere of interest, his word is still higher. The fact that the creator gods grant authority doesn't mean that they cannot withdraw it or override it.
It looked to me like he was being accepted as an equal. Kind of like the Treaty of Paris got America recognized. That treaty couldn't be revoked now could it?


Well, the Dark One is essentially a rebel power in that he, through Redcloak, is attempting to overthrow the established order. And the OOTS killed said goblins who were participating in said action. If the Dark One were not attempting this (and, just as importantly, the higher authority of the creator gods didn't apparently proclaim the goblins to be XP fodder) then yes, presumably he could. The fact that the goblins were tampering with the gate has no bearing. The OotS didn't know therefore that is not a valid defense.

[Lord Zentei]

I don't recall blue bandana participating in any crusades that happened decades ago. Was he even alive then?

The SG have been active since then, you know; and there is no suggestion that they have changed their outlook or modus operandi in the interim.


Okay we see an evil outersider was following Nale. We see a good outsider takings taking orders from a Deity. We see humans taking orders from deities but not all humans do. There is no reason to assume the angels are all part of the same group. In fact that would probably be impossible unless they all followed on Pantheon due too all the arguments the deities have. If you looked closely at SoD Thor's throne is on a rock apparently floating on clouds. I don't think that is Celestia.

The fact that the pantheons have their arguments has no bearing on whether angels are independent or not. Note that the worshipers of the different pantheons got processed in different entrances: that doesn't exactly suggest that the angels who judge the mortals are an independent bunch.

Also, the fact that some mortals refuse to obey the gods is irrelevant to the independence of the judge-angels.


It looked to me like he was being accepted as an equal. Kind of like the Treaty of Paris got America recognized. That treaty couldn't be revoked now could it?

That was not the impression I got at all. More to the point, goblins are still XP fodder. If the Dark One were really an equal, would that be the case?


The fact that the goblins were tampering with the gate has no bearing. The OotS didn't know therefore that is not a valid defense.

Regardless of that, the Dark One is still a rebel power, making his legitimate authority to arrest people who kill goblins (and in the process undermine his rebellion) rather dubious.

More importantly, the higher authority of the creator pantheons declaring the goblins XP fodder remains, which undermines the Dark One's agent's claims to such authority.

Finally, even assuming that Redcloak did possess the authority to arrest the OOTS, what does that have to do with the topic on hand (whether the SG can arrest them)?

[Lamech]

The SG have been active since then, you know; and there is no suggestion that they have changed their outlook or modus operandi in the interim.
There also isn't anything to suggest they have continued them. Shojo said crusade. Also both times we have seen the sapphire guard attacking it has been the bearer of the crimson mantle. The crusades could have dropped off. While Redcloak said crusades he has almost certainly witnessed only one that succeeded. He was also evil and really ticked off when he said it. On top of that one member of the sapphire guard entering doesn't show anything about the likely hood of the rest of the paladins getting in (other than its greater than 0). And of course the judges may forgive them if the paladins were deceived.


The fact that the pantheons have their arguments has no bearing on whether angels are independent or not. Note that the worshipers of the different pantheons got processed in different entrances: that doesn't exactly suggest that the angels who judge the mortals are an independent bunch. Just because the gods move there worshipers to different entrances doesn't show that the angels aren't independent. It could be the angels don't want religious arguments breaking out or that the gods are petty and set up the prime that way. Even if that was the case the bureaucratic Deva would work for the northern ones not the south. So I'm guessing she wouldn't necessarily consider a arrest order from the SG valid.


That was not the impression I got at all. More to the point, goblins are still XP fodder. If the Dark One were really an equal, would that be the case?
If he can't change the situation what can he change. Part of being fodder was lack of resources and all of the disadvantages the goblins had. Any attempt to help the goblins would change that fodder status. So he can't help the goblins, but he controls their destinies. I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.
Another thing that doesn't make any sense if the Dark One doesn't have equal power why haven't the other deities intervened to protect the gates.


Regardless of that, the Dark One is still a rebel power, making his legitimate authority to arrest people who kill goblins (and in the process undermine his rebellion) rather dubious.
If he really is a rebel why hasn't he been stopped?

Edit:

Finally, even assuming that Redcloak did possess the authority to arrest the OOTS, what does that have to do with the topic on hand (whether the SG can arrest them)?
Because it would seem to me that if servants of the Dark One could arrest adventures like say paladins and resisting would be unlawful (alignment wise), there would be very few lawful adventures. Of course thats not the case so then the assumption, gods have authority to arrest, is wrong. Proof by contradiction

[Lord Zentei]

There also isn't anything to suggest they have continued them. Shojo said crusade. Also both times we have seen the sapphire guard attacking it has been the bearer of the crimson mantle. The crusades could have dropped off. While Redcloak said crusades he has almost certainly witnessed only one that succeeded. He was also evil and really ticked off when he said it. On top of that one member of the sapphire guard entering doesn't show anything about the likely hood of the rest of the paladins getting in (other than its greater than 0). And of course the judges may forgive them if the paladins were deceived.

This is speculation that is not likely to get anywhere.


Just because the gods move there worshipers to different entrances doesn't show that the angels aren't independent. It could be the angels don't want religious arguments breaking out or that the gods are petty and set up the prime that way. Even if that was the case the bureaucratic Deva would work for the northern ones not the south. So I'm guessing she wouldn't necessarily consider a arrest order from the SG valid.

If the gods "set it up that way", and the devas have to accept that, they are not independent after all. And she certainly seemed concerned about Roy having worked with Shojo to deceive the Sapphire Guard, so even being independent they are not indifferent to one another's concerns.


If he can't change the situation what can he change. Part of being fodder was lack of resources and all of the disadvantages the goblins had. Any attempt to help the goblins would change that fodder status. So he can't help the goblins, but he controls their destinies. I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.
Another thing that doesn't make any sense if the Dark One doesn't have equal power why haven't the other deities intervened to protect the gates.

It makes perfect sense. Controlling their destinies doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants. He controls their destinies within the scope that was decided for them. He's trying to go beyond that scope by gaining control of the gates to blackmail the other gods or failing that, force them to recreate the planet, for goodness sakes. If he really had the authority you describe, that wouldn't be necessary. He could simply tell the other gods "you know guys, I feel the goblins should be equals of the humans now".


If he really is a rebel why hasn't he been stopped?

Ask the gods, eh? :smallsigh:


Because it would seem to me that if servants of the Dark One could arrest adventures like say paladins and resisting would be unlawful (alignment wise), there would be very few lawful adventures. Of course thats not the case so then the assumption, gods have authority to arrest, is wrong. Proof by contradiction

Only it is not proof by contradiction, for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it is based on a flawed assumption. As has been said, the goblins are by declaration of the creator gods lowest on the metaphorical food chain. Were that not the case, the scenario you describe would be valid: again that's the world Redcloak is gunning for. Moreover, agents of a higher ranking god can very reasonably outrank those of a lower ranking one.

[hamishspence]

This is getting complicated. And irrelevances are creeping in.
Whats the first big Issue? SG sending a pre-emptive strike at the goblins?

You're all looking at it a different way. Try this:

We KNOW they are not commiting Evil Acts because otherwise they would all have Fallen.
We KNOW that there is a justification, because Rich has SAID so. Its His Universe. "In all that the Rules leaveth open, the Word of the GM is Law"
(to parody Kipling's Laws of the Jungle)

"Now these are the Laws of the Gamer, and who knows how they come about?"
"For the Gamer that keeps them may prosper, but the Gamer that breaks them is OUT"

Now what we have to do is FIND the justification, and determine if it is satisfactory to the majority of people interested.

I always use in justifications the assumption that its normal humans with a SCARY culture doing it. If its justifiable for the Guard to act against a very evil Culture, with the vast majority of members doing evil deeds, AND aiding, abetting and harbouring a guy who wants to use the Force of Ultimate Destruction as a blackmailing agent against the gods, then it is equally justifiable (no more, no less) if its Goblins doing it.

[hamishspence]

Now try a harder question: is it ALWAYS evil to create Usually Evil or Often Evil beings?

Vile Darkness says its Always Evil to create Always Evil beings. But if just a few (Right Eye's peaceful goblin village, near human towns which let goblins walk around without requiring Passes) manage to co-exist peacefully with Everyone Else, the idea that their existing is evil, is falsified. so we can say it might not be evil to create Sometimes Evil beings.

Given humans are Sometimes Evil, you might end up saying that creating ANY potential for evil, is evil. Gods Creating Man and giving him Free Will, means that they are increasing the potential for Evil Acts to be done. Does that make the Gods evil?

Technically, the gods (being at best lukewarm good guys, good alignment sometimes but a LONG way from Exalted) saw creating goblins orcs etc as a simple answer to the problem: How to Get High Level Clerics.

Goblins get a pretty raw deal. However it is unfair to say they have only two choices: banditry, or near-starvation level farming (Right Eye managed to make a go of it for a while)

There is a third choice: Civilization. To give up a certain amount of freedom, to make other peoples nations keep running, by labour manual and mental, and reap the limited rewards. To start at the bottom and work your way up the scale.
Now some will say this will fail because humans etc will refuce to let the goblins ion, suspecting them of being Fifth Columnists, sent to bring down human society from within. I doubt somehow, that most nations in the OOTS world, are quite that paranoid. Once again, the fact that Right Eye and his family appear to be able to come down from their new village and walk the streets of a human town without too much hassle, falsifies this. Humans and goblins CAN co-exist, it's just that neither side is willing to put in the effort.

And before you cite the Dark One "Please hand over some of your land, we cannot give you anything in return except a promise not to raid you any more"
is not ENTIRELY an easy request to answer. Who is going to give up their land?

[Lamech]

I always use in justifications the assumption that its normal humans with a SCARY culture doing it. If its justifiable for the Guard to act against a very evil Culture, with the vast majority of members doing evil deeds, AND aiding, abetting and harbouring a guy who wants to use the Force of Ultimate Destruction as a blackmailing agent against the gods, then it is equally justifiable (no more, no less) if its Goblins doing it.
They were attempting to kill right-eye he was unarmed and fleeing. Completely unjustified. I doubt two rounds passed before the paladin gave chase so there was no way for the paladin to know if Right-eye was evil.


There is a third choice: Civilization. To give up a certain amount of freedom, to make other peoples nations keep running, by labour manual and mental, and reap the limited rewards. To start at the bottom and work your way up the scale.
Please read the SoD second panel of page 41. I don't think that becoming settled and organized would work.


This is speculation that is not likely to get anywhere.
Yes it doesn't matter to the point at hand.


If the gods "set it up that way", and the devas have to accept that, they are not independent after all. And she certainly seemed concerned about Roy having worked with Shojo to deceive the Sapphire Guard, so even being independent they are not indifferent to one another's concerns.
So if the gods set up demi-planes that don't touch what would have independent devas done? Or even if they did touch would have independent Deva's told Roy to walk all the way around the Infinite plane of celestia?
The deva was also concerned that Roy was tricking his friends, in the same sentence (at least no captilized letters between the two points) as she complained about the tricking of the paladins. I think it would be logical to conclude that deciving people is non-lawful and the deva was concerned about that.


It makes perfect sense. Controlling their destinies doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants. He controls their destinies within the scope that was decided for them. He's trying to go beyond that scope by gaining control of the gates to blackmail the other gods or failing that, force them to recreate the planet, for goodness sakes. If he really had the authority you describe, that wouldn't be necessary. He could simply tell the other gods "you know guys, I feel the goblins should be equals of the humans now".
If they were equals and the creater gods still wanted the goblins to be XP fodder the Dark One didn't their athourity would probably just cancel and niether could directly act. Otherwise why didn't the gods stop there gate from falling, unless of course they don't care about it. Even if they didn't know the dark one's plan's they couldn't have assumed that the goblins wouldn't move or break the sapphire. Again would you mind laying out what can the Dark One do?

Ask the gods, eh?
Can you even give a possiblity as to why the creator gods haven't stopped the Dark One if he is a rebel?


Only it is not proof by contradiction, for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it is based on a flawed assumption. As has been said, the goblins are by declaration of the creator gods lowest on the metaphorical food chain. Were that not the case, the scenario you describe would be valid: again that's the world Redcloak is gunning for. Moreover, agents of a higher ranking god can very reasonably outrank those of a lower ranking one.
Again it looked to me like the Dark One was being accepted as an equal. It has been said nowhere that the Dark One is subbordinate and he seems to have just as much power as the other pantheons or the 12 gods would have saved the gate. By the way "a flawed assumption" is ambigious.

[Lord Zentei]

They were attempting to kill right-eye he was unarmed and fleeing. Completely unjustified. I doubt two rounds passed before the paladin gave chase so there was no way for the paladin to know if Right-eye was evil.

As has been covered already, knowledge of the gates had to be suppressed in order to protect the gates -- which keep safe creation. Greatest good for the greatest number; least of wrongs, all that.


So if the gods set up demi-planes that don't touch what would have independent devas done? Or even if they did touch would have independent Deva's told Roy to walk all the way around the Infinite plane of celestia?

What independent devas? You're the one postulating their existence, not I.


The deva was also concerned that Roy was tricking his friends, in the same sentence (at least no captilized letters between the two points) as she complained about the tricking of the paladins. I think it would be logical to conclude that deciving people is non-lawful and the deva was concerned about that.

If deceiving people in general is a no-no, how about defying authority in general?


If they were equals and the creater gods still wanted the goblins to be XP fodder the Dark One didn't their athourity would probably just cancel and niether could directly act. Otherwise why didn't the gods stop there gate from falling, unless of course they don't care about it. Even if they didn't know the dark one's plan's they couldn't have assumed that the goblins wouldn't move or break the sapphire. Again would you mind laying out what can the Dark One do?

Old.

I have pointed out repeatedly that the fact the fact the creator pantheons granted the Dark One his power doesn't mean that their authority isn't greater, and that they cannot overrule him. I have pointed out that simply having responsibility for the goblins doesn't automatically give the Dark One carte blanche to do whatever he wants or feels he needs to achieve that. I have pointed out also that the integrity of the gates falls within their vested interests of the creator pantheons.

For all of these three, see the analogy of an existing country granting autonomy to a province, but retaining sovereign authority, particularly in matters of national defense. Even if the Dark One is assumed to be an "equal" -- which I don't grant, by the way -- he is most certainly outvoted.

And I have pointed out also that the gods agreed to act through agents, limiting their direct intervention in the world. Which is what they are doing even now.


The idea that the other gods don't care about the gates? That's about the silliest idea that has been thrown around here, and that's saying a lot.

What can the Dark One do? He can provide divine guidance to the goblins and help them achieve as much as they can within the scope laid down by the gods who granted him that authority, i.e. (i.e. within their role as defined during the creation process). What he cannot do is attempt to usurp the power of the other gods, which is what he is in fact doing.


Can you even give a possiblity as to why the creator gods haven't stopped the Dark One if he is a rebel?

Because they are not omnipotent? Because they are restricted by some sort of due process? On the other hand, can you provide any reason the creator gods would simply accept the Dark One attempting to seize control of the Snarl prison they have constructed in order to blackmail them with destruction unless they change the set-up of the world they created specifically to contain the Snarl and only allowed the Dark One a role in later? Are these some sort of self-hating gods?


Again it looked to me like the Dark One was being accepted as an equal. It has been said nowhere that the Dark One is subbordinate and he seems to have just as much power as the other pantheons or the 12 gods would have saved the gate. By the way "a flawed assumption" is ambigious.

I named two flawed assumptions already.

You are forgetting the implicit purpose of the World of the Stick: keeping the wider multiverse safe from the Snarl. It stands to reason that anything else is secondary (and by the observation that the gods are willing to destroy the world and start over should that become necessary. Greatest good for the greatest number, all that).

[thereaper]

In D&D it is any creature with divine ranks. In general, a supernatural being that is worshiped. Otherwise, a atheistic dictator is a "god" by your reasoning.

And incidentally, in polytheistic religions, there are ranks among the gods.

All right, I disagree with the first point, but I have to conceed that I did not consider the second.


Are you going to deny that speaking of the "authority of the Gods" from a "real world perspective" is referencing real world religions?

Considering that I'm talking about the OOTS Gods, yes, I can deny that I'm referring to real world religions.


They have the authority to kill people they deem to be threats to their charge. That they allowed the OOTS the benefit of a trial to prove they were not a threat is their benevolence.

The burden of proof is on the state, not on the defendants. They're the ones who need to prove that the OOTS is a threat to other gates.


That is an irrelevant analogy: the diviners of the SG had determined that the OOTS had destroyed the gate. What's with this "no evidence" nonsense? See, this is exactly the sort of thing that causes me to find your posts less-than-honest.

So? Once again, I pose to you the question of "How does this prove that they will attempt to do it again?". They fail utterly to demonstrate any sort of connection. Just because a murderer kills one person does not mean they will do it again, otherwise Guy-who-kills-his-wife-in-fit-of-passion would go on to try and kill every person he ever lays eyes on. The fact that this is utterly untrue shows that a connection must be demonstrated in order for one to be considered a threat to others.


And yes, if the FBI has one of only five people that most people don't even know exist under their protection and have had this person under their protection for decades -- and two of the five have been killed very recently, that is ample reason for them to deem the killers of one of these two as a credible threat. Particularly if the consequences of failure are universal destruction, and they already have a license to kill people they deem to be threats.

No, they have authority to kill people who are actually threats. Nowhere in their oath does it say they can kill people they deem as threats; only those who are threats.

Besides, the SG should know that the OOTS didn't destroy the first one. And in the case of the FBI, no they would not have the authority to break down your door and arrest you without evidence for the purpose of preventing you from potentially killing someone. They would be able to do it for the crime of killing the first person, but the SG does not have the authority to punish people, so it doesn't get this benefit.


So: all of this is essentially semantics wrangling about "potential" versus "reasonable"? And presumably, you deem that it is not "reasonable" to view someone as a threat to the SG gate if they have already destroyed another one. Wow.

We're talking about legitimacy here. Legitimacy is legality. Legality is ALL about semantics. That's why legal terminology is so specific.

There is no innate connection between destroying one gate and destroying another, any more than there is one between commiting arson at one Ben and Jerry's store when there is another across the street. Would police consider that one to be at risk, when the arsonist in question has not destroyed any others?


Moreover, O'Chul had a valid reason to do what he did. The OOTS were given the chance to demonstrate that they had the same.

O'Chul destroying the gate had the very same justification as the OOTS destroying the Redmountain Gate; it would prevent Xykon from getting a hold of the gate and carrying out his plans. If O'Chul was justified, then the OOTS also was.


It is the reasoning the SG have used since their founding. Protection by pre-emptive elimination of threats.

Except that they cannot prove the OOTS to be threats to any more gates, so they cannot justify arresting them.


And she was placed under arrest after killing Shojo, genius.

But not because she was a threat to the gate, genius. Come to think of it, how can they justify arresting Miko, either? That had nothing to do with the gate. Their authority does not extend to punishment, only to protecting the gates. Killing Shojo has nothing to do with the gates. Hmm...That makes the SG's legitimacy seem even more fishy...


Because they cannot consider each other illegitimate if they formed an explicit pact that defines their respective authorities. China considers Taiwan a rebel province, for instance; there is no similar division of authority between the two Chinas by explicit treaty. That might be a valid analogy for the relationship between the 12 gods and the Dark One, not the creator pantheons among one another.

To consider Taiwan a rebel province is to say that Taiwan is not the legitimate authority of China, which is what Taiwain claims to be. So with your own example you have proven that it is possible to have diplomatic relations with an authority you do not consider legitimate.

[Lord Zentei]

Considering that I'm talking about the OOTS Gods, yes, I can deny that I'm referring to real world religions.

False. You specifically specified "from a real world perspective".


The burden of proof is on the state, not on the defendants. They're the ones who need to prove that the OOTS is a threat to other gates.

No. When national security is at risk, all bets are off.


So? Once again, I pose to you the question of "How does this prove that they will attempt to do it again?". They fail utterly to demonstrate any sort of connection. Just because a murderer kills one person does not mean they will do it again, otherwise Guy-who-kills-his-wife-in-fit-of-passion would go on to try and kill every person he ever lays eyes on. The fact that this is utterly untrue shows that a connection must be demonstrated in order for one to be considered a threat to others.

There is no need for the Sapphire Guard to prove that they will do so again if they can credibly consider them a threat to their gate. Someone who has destroyed a gate is indeed such a threat, and it would be the height of irresponsibility to act otherwise.

Why do you think they went after the Crimson Order for all those years? Because the Crimson Order threatened the SG's gate specifically? No, because they threatened the gates in general, of which the SG gate was one.


No, they have authority to kill people who are actually threats. Nowhere in their oath does it say they can kill people they deem as threats; only those who are threats.

This is silly. How will they identify such individuals beyond their own ability to judge such things?


Besides, the SG should know that the OOTS didn't destroy the first one. And in the case of the FBI, no they would not have the authority to break down your door and arrest you without evidence for the purpose of preventing you from potentially killing someone. They would be able to do it for the crime of killing the first person, but the SG does not have the authority to punish people, so it doesn't get this benefit.

You are making a blatantly false assumption; if the death of a target would lead to catastrophe you are not talking about regular murder anymore. And no, protection of prospective targets is indeed part of the reason you arrest a killer. We have been over this.


We're talking about legitimacy here. Legitimacy is legality. Legality is ALL about semantics. That's why legal terminology is so specific.

So: you openly admit that you are wrangling through semantics. That is sophistry, in case you didn't know.


There is no innate connection between destroying one gate and destroying another, any more than there is one between commiting arson at one Ben and Jerry's store when there is another across the street. Would police consider that one to be at risk, when the arsonist in question has not destroyed any others?

We are not talking about Ben and Jerry's store. We are talking about the risk of universal destruction.


O'Chul destroying the gate had the very same justification as the OOTS destroying the Redmountain Gate; it would prevent Xykon from getting a hold of the gate and carrying out his plans. If O'Chul was justified, then the OOTS also was.

And they got a trial to demonstrate that. As I pointed out already.


Except that they cannot prove the OOTS to be threats to any more gates, so they cannot justify arresting them.

More Disingenuousness, and broken record style, at that. :smallmad:


But not because she was a threat to the gate, genius. Come to think of it, how can they justify arresting Miko, either? That had nothing to do with the gate. Their authority does not extend to punishment, only to protecting the gates. Killing Shojo has nothing to do with the gates. Hmm...That makes the SG's legitimacy seem even more fishy...

She just killed her commanding officer. And you deem that this makes the SG's authority seem "fishy". Good grief.


To consider Taiwan a rebel province is to say that Taiwan is not the legitimate authority of China, which is what Taiwain claims to be. So with your own example you have proven that it is possible to have diplomatic relations with an authority you do not consider legitimate.

China does not recognize Taiwan's independence. :smallsigh:

[Lamech]

No. When national security is at risk, all bets are off.
No.
Anyway that line of argument will lead into real world issues if we discuses it any further.


This is silly. How will they identify such individuals beyond their own ability to judge such things?
Correct. Although a commune spell could clear that up pretty easily.


And they got a trial to demonstrate that. As I pointed out already.
But the Order of the Stick was guilty and would have been found such if the trial wasn't rigged. Despite the fact that if the Order of the Stick did not destroy the gates the Dark One would have controlled it by the time the trial began. (Atonement or Helm of opposite Alignment on a hobo shove him into the gate.)


As has been covered already, knowledge of the gates had to be suppressed in order to protect the gates -- which keep safe creation. Greatest good for the greatest number; least of wrongs, all that.
I find it doubt full that Right eye even knew of the gates. Even if he did they could have just shoved some water from Styx down his throat and handed him over to a monastery. Not the least number of wrongs.


What independent devas? You're the one postulating their existence, not I.
You are the one who is trying to generalize a few angels that all look the same to all angels.


What can the Dark One do? He can provide divine guidance to the goblins and help them achieve as much as they can within the scope laid down by the gods who granted him that authority, i.e. (i.e. within their role as defined during the creation process). What he cannot do is attempt to usurp the power of the other gods, which is what he is in fact doing.
He is providing guidance to his followers and telling him to take the gate. He was also able to hand one an artifact and the sapphire guard seems to understand its significance. The other gods haven't tried to stop him directly, but only acted through agents. They seem to have equal power to change things.


Because they are not omnipotent? Because they are restricted by some sort of due process? On the other hand, can you provide any reason the creator gods would simply accept the Dark One attempting to seize control of the Snarl prison they have constructed in order to blackmail them with destruction unless they change the set-up of the world they created specifically to contain the Snarl and only allowed the Dark One a role in later? Are these some sort of self-hating gods?
In DnD the gods are not omni-potent, in fact they have to put up with being told what to do by people like the Lady of Pain. Although if they were weaker than the Dark One the Dark One wouldn't need Snarl. What sort of due process would restrict them from self-defense against the servant, specifically Xykon, of a lesser god? Not even the Dark One's worshipers just Xykon? And yeah I can they are equals and all they know is that the Dark One is trying to use the gates to get power for his worshipers or the Dark One wants the world to be destroyed so he gets a say in the new one. I also think that the gods know whatever their worshipers know as they almost certainly would have picked that up in prayers.


I named two flawed assumptions already.
Wouldn't that make "a flawed assumption" non-specific?
Also when you refer back to something and I ask about it one of us is misremembering so it would be nice if you at least point me in the right direction.


You are forgetting the implicit purpose of the World of the Stick: keeping the wider multiverse safe from the Snarl. It stands to reason that anything else is secondary (and by the observation that the gods are willing to destroy the world and start over should that become necessary. Greatest good for the greatest number, all that).
The snarl doesn't threaten the multiverse at large the gods were able to flee to the outer planes. The reason the gods are willing to destroy the world and start over is so the snarl doesn't destroy the souls of every creature on the prime. Even if all 5 gates are wrecked that is still possible. Even if the Dark One wins he can still do that.

[Senko]

Okay I just read through this thread and I want to insert my two cents. First off I'd like to say I don't have either on the origin of PC's or start of darkness laking the money to purchase them although I'd like to in the future so if something I say is contradicted in one of those please let me know POLITELY. You don't have to say what it is as those are not free for public consumption just let me know it exists okay?

Right now I'd also like to point out on the subject of divine power and authority Faerun provides a good example with the time of troubles where Ao I believe strippped almost all the gods of their powers (except Helm if I remember right) and made them walk the earth as mortals and Ao has been known to report to someone even higher in power structure than him. So it does seem that just because you grant someone authority over a specific area it doesn't mean you can't take it back at a later date although I'm not sure if this applies to Rich's world.

Now I'm not going to touch the tree mulcher of an argument about the legitimacy of the Saphire Guard especially as there's so much we simply don't know about them and their situation. Me especially as I lack the books so I'll focus on what happens in the online comic to show that legitimate authority or not Roy and the others were well within their rights to resist going with her at least in the first encounter.

We open on a stormy day that Elan believes indicates something bad is about to happen when along comes a mysterious cloaked stranger. Cue comic http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html to see what happens word for word. From this we can see the mysterious cloaked stranger has not only not said what crimes they are going to die for (there was only a choice of when not if) but they've not said who or what it is. Roy's response was to apparently try and talk about it "We're not surrendering without a little....". We don't know for sure what he was about to say but information seems like a good option as in "We're not about to surrender without a little more information." A not unreasonable request surely and the mysterious strangers response was to attack.

During the opening rounds of combat we see Roy continuing to try and find out how this stranger is and why they've been attacked and stranger telling him to shut up and die. As the fight progresses the stranger continues trying to kill them without considering other options. Eventually as the fight continues Roy and the others finally realize there was mistake MOMENTS after the stranger talks about lawfull execution and call them evil (for the first time in the entire discussion) while the stranger finally reveals a part of what they are well as why they're attacking with "In the name of the just lord Shojo, master of the Saphire Guard, I execute you for crimes against existence." Note they still don't say what those crimes are or that they're a paladin and they go ahead with striking down a now unarmed man trying to call a truce.

Now we move our analysis on to comic http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0201.html through to http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0204.html were Roy's interesting Miko aside the following actions take place. First off the opening panel see's the stranger finally start talking rather than fighting as they're smite evil attack has failed and we also learn they're a paladin from the only person who had the free time to figure it out because he wasn't engaged in combat. The rest of the strip is dedicated to Durkon mis-analyzing the actions of the gods to explain why the combat worked out the way it did. As they debate amongst themselves what to do next it eventually reaches (without combat) the stage of Roy saying that as a paladin (what he didn't know when intially fighting her) she's an agent of good and that Elan did do what they're accused off (which again he didn't know when intially fighting her) and so they will go along and try to explain extenuating circumstances to her lord.

So all jurisdiction debates aside it seems that Roy did not in fact resist arrest by an authority (legitimate or otherwise) but rather did try to protect himself from an unprovoked attack by a cloaked stranger who was threatening him with death and could frankly be working for anyone and just trying to get him unarmed. Once he was informed that (a) the person was a force of good and law (paladin) and (b) what the charges were he went along quietly and in fact do so knowing full well that they were guily of the crime they were accused of. So all in all I don't think you could honestly say he resisted arrest in the first encounter unless your going to argue that anyone, anywhere can arrest anyone else without explaining why or even who they are and in addition define resisting arrest as asking for an explanation of who's arresting you and for what.

Now I'm not going to bother with the second instance because I fully agree that in that one he was resisting arrest regardless of the fact that it was Miko's behaviour which brought it on. You don't have to like a particular police officer (insert law enforcement official) to respect the fact that they are within their rights to arrest you and we don't know what the Saphire Guards rule for the treatment of prisoners are.

[Lord Zentei]

No.
Anyway that line of argument will lead into real world issues if we discuses it any further.


This is rather dishonorable: you answer the point and then argue that the point should not be answered further. And incidentally the answer is "yes, of course all bloody bets are off". This is a lot more serious than potential nuclear terrorism, even.


Correct. Although a commune spell could clear that up pretty easily.

When I say "they deem", obviously that entails any and all resources that can be brought to bear to do so: including Diviners, for instance.


But the Order of the Stick was guilty and would have been found such if the trial wasn't rigged. Despite the fact that if the Order of the Stick did not destroy the gates the Dark One would have controlled it by the time the trial began. (Atonement or Helm of opposite Alignment on a hobo shove him into the gate.)

What is your argument here? Are you agreeing or disagreeing?


I find it doubt full that Right eye even knew of the gates. Even if he did they could have just shoved some water from Styx down his throat and handed him over to a monastery. Not the least number of wrongs.

Ah, of course. Just nip off to the supermarket and get some, then.


You are the one who is trying to generalize a few angels that all look the same to all angels.

You asked a question that presupposed the existence of independent devas. In that I can simply dismiss the question as I reject the implicit premise.


He is providing guidance to his followers and telling him to take the gate. He was also able to hand one an artifact and the sapphire guard seems to understand its significance. The other gods haven't tried to stop him directly, but only acted through agents. They seem to have equal power to change things.

That doesn't follow at all. The gods had agreed to act through agents rather than direct manifestation: the ability to change things has no bearing on legitimacy: this is a red herring.


In DnD the gods are not omni-potent, in fact they have to put up with being told what to do by people like the Lady of Pain. Although if they were weaker than the Dark One the Dark One wouldn't need Snarl. What sort of due process would restrict them from self-defense against the servant, specifically Xykon, of a lesser god? Not even the Dark One's worshipers just Xykon? And yeah I can they are equals and all they know is that the Dark One is trying to use the gates to get power for his worshipers or the Dark One wants the world to be destroyed so he gets a say in the new one. I also think that the gods know whatever their worshipers know as they almost certainly would have picked that up in prayers.

Legitimacy != power. In any case, this is a question that can be asked of most religious cosmologies that involve both a legitimate authority and antagonism to it.


Wouldn't that make "a flawed assumption" non-specific?
Also when you refer back to something and I ask about it one of us is misremembering so it would be nice if you at least point me in the right direction.

I named them in the very post to which you responded, saying that flawed assumption was ambiguous :smallconfused: :


Only it is not proof by contradiction, for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it is based on a flawed assumption. As has been said, the goblins are by declaration of the creator gods lowest on the metaphorical food chain. Were that not the case, the scenario you describe would be valid: again that's the world Redcloak is gunning for. Moreover, agents of a higher ranking god can very reasonably outrank those of a lower ranking one.

See them?


The snarl doesn't threaten the multiverse at large the gods were able to flee to the outer planes. The reason the gods are willing to destroy the world and start over is so the snarl doesn't destroy the souls of every creature on the prime. Even if all 5 gates are wrecked that is still possible. Even if the Dark One wins he can still do that.

Not necessarily so: Xykon hypothesized that the power of the Snarl could extend to the multiverse. Moreover, the Snarl was an infant during the flashback: in this case absence of proof is not proof of absence.


------------------------------------------------------
<concatination to avoid double post>



Right now I'd also like to point out on the subject of divine power and authority Faerun provides a good example with the time of troubles where Ao I believe strippped almost all the gods of their powers (except Helm if I remember right) and made them walk the earth as mortals and Ao has been known to report to someone even higher in power structure than him. So it does seem that just because you grant someone authority over a specific area it doesn't mean you can't take it back at a later date although I'm not sure if this applies to Rich's world.

Precisely.


<SNIPPA>

So all jurisdiction debates aside it seems that Roy did not in fact resist arrest by an authority (legitimate or otherwise) but rather did try to protect himself from an unprovoked attack by a cloaked stranger who was threatening him with death and could frankly be working for anyone and just trying to get him unarmed. Once he was informed that (a) the person was a force of good and law (paladin) and (b) what the charges were he went along quietly and in fact do so knowing full well that they were guily of the crime they were accused of. So all in all I don't think you could honestly say he resisted arrest in the first encounter unless your going to argue that anyone, anywhere can arrest anyone else without explaining why or even who they are and in addition define resisting arrest as asking for an explanation of who's arresting you and for what.

Yes, I agreed to that much on page 1. Though that wasn't the excuse Roy used: he said "it was an illegitimate authority", not "I didn't know the authority was legitimate". Wherein lies the conundrum.

Of course, as I also pointed out on page 1 that he used the excuse "it would have been destroyed in the explosion anyway" when asked about the royal gifts he basically stole, which isn't much of an excuse for theft. :smallwink: Hence my theory that the deva was merely interrogating him to see what his responses were in order to classify him better. And she did point out later in the interview that he was a little too chaotic for her tastes. Thus the "illegitimate authority" bit was just one of those things she let slide in the face of Roy's really trying to be Lawful Good.


Now I'm not going to bother with the second instance because I fully agree that in that one he was resisting arrest regardless of the fact that it was Miko's behaviour which brought it on. You don't have to like a particular police officer (insert law enforcement official) to respect the fact that they are within their rights to arrest you and we don't know what the Saphire Guards rule for the treatment of prisoners are.

Agreed.

[Lamech]

This is rather dishonorable: you answer the point and then argue that the point should not be answered further. And incidentally the answer is "yes, of course all bloody bets are off". This is a lot more serious than potential nuclear terrorism, even.
Like I said this would lead into real world issues, thank you for vindicating me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is me realizing a mistake, and not part of my other arguments

When I say "they deem", obviously that entails any and all resources that can be brought to bear to do so: including Diviners, for instance.
Ohh... wait a second I just realized the point I made was specific to the Order of the Stick. In this case Shojo just wanted an answer that would bring the Order of the Stick to him, and the clerics probably wouldn't dissobey a direct order, and in doing so waste XP. That would explain why dinvintations didn't clear up what happened. Let me change my response


This is silly. How will they identify such individuals beyond their own ability to judge such things?
Correct.


What is your argument here? Are you agreeing or disagreeing?
My argument was that the Sapphire gaurd didn't use their diviners effectivly, and if they had they would have learned it was nessacary to destroy the gate. Of course, Shojo most likely prevented that from happening. Anyway I'm agreeing here now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, of course. Just nip off to the supermarket and get some, then.
Plane shift, it was cast in the battle with Redcloak.


You asked a question that presupposed the existence of independent devas. In that I can simply dismiss the question as I reject the implicit premise.
No it seemed to me that you implied that the fact that worshippers were proccesed in different enterances was evidence for the Devas being non-independent, here:

The fact that the pantheons have their arguments has no bearing on whether angels are independent or not. Note that the worshipers of the different pantheons got processed in different entrances: that doesn't exactly suggest that the angels who judge the mortals are an independent bunch.
I was wondering how an independent deva would act differently than the one Roy talked to. I don't think they would have Roy walk around the infinite mountain of Celestia. My questions were supposed to show that being proccesed on different enterances did not point to the Angels being non-independent.


That doesn't follow at all. The gods had agreed to act through agents rather than direct manifestation: the ability to change things has no bearing on legitimacy: this is a red herring.
The gods only act through agents and don't directly intervene!!!! I never knew that! Holy... look in page 40 Durkon was praying to an imposter! Durkon must be evil and waiting to eat the Order's soul's! The Order of the Stick is DOOMED!!!!!!!


Legitimacy != power. In any case, this is a question that can be asked of most religious cosmologies that involve both a legitimate authority and antagonism to it.
So gods who can directly intervine are content to risk the destruction of one of there gates. If the gods have both the legitimacy to decide how the Dark One acts with regard to the prime, and are more powerful than the Dark One, why haven't they stopped him? (By that I mean remove Xykon, not kill a worshipper or harm the Dark One directly.)


Not necessarily so: Xykon hypothesized that the power of the Snarl could extend to the multiverse. Moreover, the Snarl was an infant during the flashback: in this case absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Xykon isn't really an acurate source of info with regards to the Snarl.
See them?
I'm showing that the Dark One is equal to the other gods, and therefore has the power to protect his charges with the same legitimacy of the other gods. That of course would mean goblins could arrest adventures, which would be non-sense. Assuming that the Dark One is equal would be very close to begging the question.

[Lord Zentei]

Like I said this would lead into real world issues, thank you for vindicating me.

If you don't want me to respond to your point, don't bring it up. Especially if you think it will bring up such issues. :smallmad:


Plane shift, it was cast in the battle with Redcloak.

Yeah, and we know that the option to take water from the Styx exists here?


No it seemed to me that you implied that the fact that worshippers were proccesed in different enterances was evidence for the Devas being non-independent, here:

I was wondering how an independent deva would act differently than the one Roy talked to. I don't think they would have Roy walk around the infinite mountain of Celestia. My questions were supposed to show that being proccesed on different enterances did not point to the Angels being non-independent.

Seeing as they acknowledge the pantheons sufficiently that they classify souls in accordance with them, that is strong indication. If the deva were independent -- and seeing as piety doesn't matter for entering the Mount, apparently -- why bother with that sort of division?


The gods only act through agents and don't directly intervene!!!! I never knew that! Holy... look in page 40 Durkon was praying to an imposter! Durkon must be evil and waiting to eat the Order's soul's! The Order of the Stick is DOOMED!!!!!!!

<sigh> Appearing to a follower at prayer does not mean that they allow themselves the luxury of intervening to fix anything that needs fixing. On the contrary, it means that Thor is acting through Durkon, his agent.


So gods who can directly intervine are content to risk the destruction of one of there gates. If the gods have both the legitimacy to decide how the Dark One acts with regard to the prime, and are more powerful than the Dark One, why haven't they stopped him? (By that I mean remove Xykon, not kill a worshipper or harm the Dark One directly.)

They haven't stopped Xykon, because doing so would violate the terms and conditions they placed upon their own powers by the agreements put in place when they divided the world. Perhaps they'll intervene when all else has failed.


Xykon isn't really an acurate source of info with regards to the Snarl.

Oh? I really got the impression that he knew what he was going after.


I'm showing that the Dark One is equal to the other gods, and therefore has the power to protect his charges with the same legitimacy of the other gods. That of course would mean goblins could arrest adventures, which would be non-sense.

Only you have not shown that. Again:

Just because the creator pantheons granted him his authority doesn't mean that they are not higher ranking.
Since they granted him his authority, they defined the scope of same. And seeing as they wanted the goblins to be cannon fodder from the get go implies that they would restrict the scope of his authority to that effect.
The fact that the goblins are still cannon fodder against the Dark One's wishes indicates that his desires are contrary to those of the creator pantheons.
Even if he were equal to them, he is outvoted.

And do you know why it would it be nonsense for goblins to arrest adventurers who go around killing them?

EDIT: fixed poor wording (power != authority) to prevent further misunderstandings - see: the two posts below this one.


Assuming that the Dark One is equal would be very close to begging the question.

I trust you are aware that begging the question is a logical fallacy. :smallconfused:

[Kish]

Oh? I really got the impression that he knew what he was going after.
Start of Darkness spoiler.
He knows very little about the Snarl. The whole reason he's going after it is that Redcloak tricked him into thinking he can control it when, in fact, controlling the Snarl is quite impossible and the ritual Redcloak knows will give control over the rifts to the Dark One.

More spoilers, as I look at your post more and get the impression you haven't read the book. The creator pantheons did not give the Dark One his powers. He was raised to divinity by the goblins' worship. The existing gods argued over whether to permit a goblin deity to continue to exist (meaning whether to attack him en masse and kill him, not whether to will him out of existence because they were inherently more powerful than him), and a few of the evil gods--Loki, Tiamat, Rat, unspecified others--spoke for him. He is outnumbered still; he has few allies. This prevents him from simply declaring goblins an equal PC race, but he appears to be individually as powerful as the average god, and he doesn't seem to feel any need to hide his contempt and dislike for most pre-existing gods.

[Lord Zentei]

Start of Darkness spoiler.
He knows very little about the Snarl. The whole reason he's going after it is that Redcloak tricked him into thinking he can control it when, in fact, controlling the Snarl is quite impossible and the ritual Redcloak knows will give control over the rifts to the Dark One.

More spoilers, as I look at your post more and get the impression you haven't read the book. The creator pantheons did not give the Dark One his powers. He was raised to divinity by the goblins' worship. The existing gods argued over whether to permit a goblin deity to continue to exist (meaning whether to attack him en masse and kill him, not whether to will him out of existence because they were inherently more powerful than him), and a few of the evil gods--Loki, Tiamat, Rat, unspecified others--spoke for him. He is outnumbered still; he has few allies. This prevents him from simply declaring goblins an equal PC race, but he appears to be individually as powerful as the average god, and he doesn't seem to feel any need to hide his contempt and dislike for most pre-existing gods.

I meant that Xykon knows what he is going after with respect to the Snarl's power, not his ability to control it.

And the Dark One was raised by the goblin's worship, that is true: nor need this be a SoD spoiler since it is also stated in the flashback Shojo provided. We are not talking about power as in "divine ranks", but legitimacy -- see the title of the thread, so kindly don't misrepresent me. :smallannoyed:

In fact, you have just agreed to the point of my argument that the Dark One does not have the authority to change the status of the goblins.


EDIT: Ah, you refer to where I say: "Just because the creator pantheons granted him his powers doesn't mean that they are not higher ranking." in the bullet list above?

I see how that can be misunderstood; though in the context of the lengthy debate that has already been going on around here, what I meant should have been pretty obvious. The point was for lamech in any case. I'll fix it to prevent further misunderstanding.

[Lamech]

Yeah, and we know that the option to take water from the Styx exists here?
Its DnD it so it should, it might not though.


Seeing as they acknowledge the pantheons sufficiently that they classify souls in accordance with them, that is strong indication. If the deva were independent -- and seeing as piety doesn't matter for entering the Mount, apparently -- why bother with that sort of division?
Are you sure they don't just classify them as the worshippers of different pantheons because that effects were the petetioners first arrive. Just because the gods have the power to affect where souls arrive doesn't show anything. In fact, in normal DnD worship affects which plane one arrives at overridding aligment. So if the gods can only affect which demi-plane a soul arrives at they in fact have less power than a generic DnD god has.


<sigh> Appearing to a follower at prayer does not mean that they allow themselves the luxury of intervening to fix anything that needs fixing. On the contrary, it means that Thor is acting through Durkon, his agent.
Umm... you didn't look at 40 did you?


They haven't stopped Xykon, because doing so would violate the terms and conditions they placed upon their own powers by the agreements put in place when they divided the world. Perhaps they'll intervene when all else has failed.
You have flawed information. Last time I checked the gods only placed that restiction of not directly interveneing in the other gods jurisdictions.


Oh? I really got the impression that he knew what he was going after.
Sod
Xykon belives that the Snarl can be controled and that he will be world ruler when he does. This is of course contradicted in Sod 35-48. I got the impression that Xykon only knows what Redcloak told him. Which is exactly what Xykon wanted to hear.


Just because the creator pantheons granted him his powers doesn't mean that they are not higher ranking.
Ugg... if they were of higher ranking Xykon would be removed.


Since they granted him his power and authority, they defined the scope of same. And seeing as they wanted the goblins to be cannon fodder from the get go implies that they would restrict the scope of his authority to that effect. If the Dark One can't try to improve the land or migate any of the disadvantages of the goblins or try to protect them what can he do? Also it looked to me like he was given broad rights with the whole destanies of the goblins.


The fact that the goblins are still cannon fodder against the Dark One's wishes indicates that his desires are contrary to those of the creator pantheons. Just because his agents haven't been able to fix that doesn't mean they are not allowed to keep trying.


Even if he were equal to them, he is outvoted. To bad it isn't really a democracy. I haven't read any refrance to voting other than the unanimous ones.


And do you know why it would it be nonsense for goblins to arrest adventurers who go around killing them? If the goblins could do it legitimatly those adventures couldn't be lawful. So very few paladins, monks and other lawful adventures.


I trust you are aware that begging the question is a logical fallacy.
Yes. I'm am trying to show the Dark One is equal, not simply assuming it. (I thought that there was some official name other than "begging the question" for the logical fallicy that happens when one begs the question.)

[Kish]

If the goblins could do it legitimatly those adventures couldn't be lawful.
:smallsigh: No. The Lawful alignment does not mean "obeys the law."

[Lord Zentei]

Its DnD it so it should, it might not though.

Impossible to say. Unless that capability is shown, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.


Are you sure they don't just classify them as the worshippers of different pantheons because that effects were the petetioners first arrive. Just because the gods have the power to affect where souls arrive doesn't show anything. In fact, in normal DnD worship affects which plane one arrives at overridding aligment. So if the gods can only affect which demi-plane a soul arrives at they in fact have less power than a generic DnD god has.

This is a bit of a stretch, and makes too many assumptions. Again, speculation that isn't likely to get anywhere.


-------------------------------------------------
The following is all about the Dark One's authority:
-------------------------------------------------


You have flawed information. Last time I checked the gods only placed that restiction of not directly interveneing in the other gods jurisdictions.

There is a reason they aren't all stomping around overtly, you know.


Sod
Xykon belives that the Snarl can be controled and that he will be world ruler when he does. This is of course contradicted in Sod 35-48. I got the impression that Xykon only knows what Redcloak told him. Which is exactly what Xykon wanted to hear.

I know. See my above post. Information with regards to ability to control != information with regards to power.


Ugg... if they were of higher ranking Xykon would be removed.

No, not necessarily. :smallconfused:


If the Dark One can't try to improve the land or migate any of the disadvantages of the goblins or try to protect them what can he do? Also it looked to me like he was given broad rights with the whole destanies of the goblins.

If that were true, the goblins would not be XP fodder anymore, since he could simply nix such a situation.


Just because his agents haven't been able to fix that doesn't mean they are not allowed to keep trying.

That they have to keep trying at all rather implies that the condition they are attempting to achieve doesn't exist, at least not yet. :smallsigh:


To bad it isn't really a democracy. I haven't read any refrance to voting other than the unanimous ones.

He still cannot get what he wants.


If the goblins could do it legitimatly those adventures couldn't be lawful. So very few paladins, monks and other lawful adventures.

And yet, they are lawful.


Yes. I'm am trying to show the Dark One is equal, not simply assuming it. (I thought that there was some official name other than "begging the question" for the logical fallicy that happens when one begs the question.)

It's "cyclic logic". Though "begging the question" is the name of the fallacy.

The goblins do not have the same status as humans in the Stickverse. The Dark One, whatever authority he may have been granted by the gods who preceded him cannot change that within the framework of the existing pacts among the gods. If it were, the entire story would be pointless. Just accept it.

[Lamech]

There is a reason they aren't all stomping around overtly, you know.
...........
Look at 40
here is a link (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0040.html):smallfurious:
I distincatly see someone who looks like Thor stomping around.


I know. See my above post. Information with regards to ability to control != information with regards to power.
But Xykon didn't know about Snarl before he talked to Redcloak and we haven't seen any other source of info for Xykon. It would seem that Redcloak has no compuntions about giving misinformation so guess what Xykon has been told only what would manipulate him. Therefore Xykon is not a good source of info.


If that were true, the goblins would not be XP fodder anymore, since he could simply nix such a situation. Thats what he is trying to through agents. If he did that directly he would be intervening in an area where another equal god has jurisdiction along with the Dark One. The same reason why the 12 gods didn't directly intervene to protect their gate.

That they have to keep trying at all rather implies that the condition they are attempting to achieve doesn't exist, at least not yet.
Again it shows that a god can't grant legitimate authority to there followers to arrest other because the assumption, gods can grant athourity to there followers to arrest others, is wrong.


And yet, they are lawful.
Yes, thats were the non-sense part of the proof by contradiction comes in.

If it were, the entire story would be pointless. Just accept it.
What! No Roy would still be trying to stop Xykon; he thinks that Xykon would rule the world if Xykon gets a gate. We know this is untrue. Xykon is not motivated by the goblins, but by misinformation. Redcloak would still be motivated to keep goblins safe. The story isn't pointless just becuase the goblins are equal.


No. The Lawful alignment does not mean "obeys the law."
Then what does legitimate mean? The only country on the prime that recognizes the sapphire gaurd is Azure City.

By the way Zentei you still haven't said what you think the scope of the Dark Ones powers is. And don't claim that it is what the other gods limited the Dark One to; say explicitly what you think he can do not what he can't do.