SOD Spoilers: Is the Dark One Lying?

[pendell]

I say yes. Let me explain.

Just got the book. .. my wife brought it home from the local game palace *sniff*. I love her so much.

Anyway ... the book is AWESOME! I've read a lot of fantasy/sf in my day, and Rich Burlew is a good author, but Start of Darkness is a cut above. It's supurb storytelling and a wonderful bit of tragedy. I daresay it's a potential classic.

Anyway ... about the Dark One.

There's a lot of talk about how RC had a great plan for the world and how he isn't as bad as all that... but there's one point we're missing in all this.

IMO, the Dark One is lying, at least a little bit.

About facts, and about his goals and intentions.

Rationale: First, he's Evil. Redcloak admits as much on page 86, panel 7. He is allied with other evil gods (page 40, panel 3). Finally, Right-eye himself hits it out of the park page 103 ..

" You don't even know what it is you're trying to better, because you don't know what it's like not to serve an undead overlord, or a petty spiteful god.
...
Come on. You have to realize the Dark One doesn't care about us. Why else would he let you throw goblin lives away on this plan?"

...

Right-eye calls it. Redcloak admits it. The Dark One isn't misunderstood. .. the good gods recognize him as Evil, too (page 40 again). He is Evil, with a capital E.

And Evil isn't typically interested in a 'level playing field', in making a goblin civilization where everyone is happy and living in utopia.

And that means that the vision he gave Redcloak is a lie, a cheat. The Dark One has no intention whatever of making life better for the goblins.

I also think he's lying about other things too. I don't believe that an evil being armed with a great big axe riding a dire wolf united all his people by 'encouraging them to treat each other as brothers and sisters ... to build a lasting goblinoid civilization'. *I* think he was a brutal warlord, and his goal was the subjugation of the entire world. Under goblins, of course.

And I suspect that the incident at the negotiation did not happen quite the way The Dark One revealed it to RC. Asking for a 'fair distribution of land' is not typically an evil action. Lying is. I don't know what happened at that interview, and I'm willing to believe the Dark One was killed there ... but I'd like to hear from other witnesses. I'll wager there was more to the story than just what the Dark One revealed.

And I also don't think he has any intention of holding the other gods hostage and demanding 'fairness'.

Since when does evil care about fairness?

No ... I'll wager that, when the Dark One gains control of the Snarl, he will not bargain with the other gods. He will use the snarl to kill them all, and rule the world unchallenged as its only deity, forever.

I bet that at some point RC is going to have to face up to the fact that everything he has believed in all his life was a lie. That his brother, right-eye, by settling down and making a living, came closer to realizing his dream than the Dark One's Plan ever could.

What will RC do then?

I'm anxious to see. The RC at the end of SoD is totally pwned by Xykon, so spineless he's willing to animate his brother's dead corpse at Xykon's command.

But he hasn't stayed there.

Throughout the main story he has been growing in courage. He first stood up to Xykon when they were escaping from Dorukon's dungeon, to the point Xykon asked 'are you growing a spine, Redcloak?'

Then again, at the battle of Azure City, he made the choice to stop expending hobgoblins and treat their lives as if they had dignity. This was also an act of moral courage, a step away from darkness into light.

Only a step, mind you. But the RC we have now is not the RC at the end of SOD. He is growing, changing, developing. Into what? Will he be a sidekick villain, or a tragic hero, at the end of all the books?

I guess we'll find out at the end of the books.

That is why I read these books. Mr. Burlew has created characters that develop, change, grow. Sometimes better, sometimes worse. They are two-dimensional only in the most literal sense.

I don't know how the story will turn out. I could be totally wrong. But I do know one thing: I suspect I'm going to enjoy the story all the way through to the end. Thank you, Giant!

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[factotum]

There's been a lot of argument already about the truth or otherwise of what the Dark One said. I personally agree with you--I don't think he showed Redcloak the whole truth, or even a major part of it. However, there will assuredly be someone along in two ticks to disagree vocally, no matter how well-reasoned the arguments you've put forward!

[Irbis]

Except, as Rich already wrote in this site, Evil, even with a capital E, can have friend, families, dreams, etc. And, frankly, I can easier picture DO killed by someone that regarded him only as XP, than someone with so risky plan.

And, by the way, he is a Goblin. He has no love of humans. Making Goblins stronger will make him stronger through worship, so he has pretty much all the reasons go with this plan, and no reasons to do as you say.

[verloren]

That is why I read these books. Mr. Burlew has created characters that develop, change, grow. Sometimes better, sometimes worse. They are two-dimensional only in the most literal sense.

Ok. First off I try to stay out of topics that are obviously going to turn out to be long and articulate, I weren't burdened with an overabundance's of schooling.
But I will say I'm not sure. I do think the Dark One is trying to make things better for goblin-kind, but when have you ever known a god to actually tell him followers the whole truth?

but the main reason I'm replying is the quote above. That I do agree with you 100%. I've been reading webcomics for over 8 years now. I'll rarely see a comic go past gag-a-day, or obvious stereotyped characters that never evolved.
Redcloak was a prime example. He started out a simple 'yes man' and changed so much. And reading his history in SoD just threw more light on his character. And he's not the only one. I've seen comics that would go for 5 years and a character like Hayley would continue to steal for no explained reason.
I started reading oots back when there was little-to-no plot but it was the evolving characters, and ongoing plots that kept me.
Sorry to hijack this a little, just saying thanks for saying the thanks I ain't smart enough to ;)

In summary: All gods lie, even the holiest.

[Kish]

I agree and I disagree.

Evil doesn't mean "one-dimensional Snidely Whiplash caricature." I believe the Dark One, as a living goblin, was, if not quite as saintly as Redcloak thinks, not as monstrous as you're suggesting either. (There is, for that matter, no indication that he was an evil mortal, only that, after being sacrificed and empowered by mass slaughter, he rose as an evil god.)

So why is he evil (now)? Well, first, he's willing to let everyone--goblinoids, the occasional adventurer like Roy who rejects the idea of genocide, the worshipers of his allies Tiamat, Rat, and Loki--be destroyed, down to their souls, and treat it as a win because the group that comprises his precious worshipers could be a PC race in the next world. "No humanoid race will get the shaft," Redcloak said; what about intelligent nonhumanoids? XP fodder for the new goblin adventurers, apparently.

Second, his Plan apparently takes no issue with the mass slaughter of his people by Xykon. Redcloak's Crimson Mantle has given him information before, including the whole plan; if the Dark One cared about the individual lives of goblins beyond the power they give him as his worship, then by now, it would have given Redcloak the message, "SMASH THE PHYLACTERY."

[factotum]

if the Dark One cared about the individual lives of goblins beyond the power they give him as his worship, then by now, it would have given Redcloak the message, "SMASH THE PHYLACTERY."

Not to play devil's advocate, but that would be REALLY bad advice. Redcloak smashes the phylactery, he has a very p-ed off epic level lich on his case; safer to destroy it AFTER he's figured out a way to kill Xykon. (Having said that, the fact the Dark One already failed to give that message back when Xykon was destroyed in the Dungeon of Dorukan supports your theory...).

[Studoku]

Not to play devil's advocate, but that would be REALLY bad advice. Redcloak smashes the phylactery, he has a very p-ed off epic level lich on his case; safer to destroy it AFTER he's figured out a way to kill Xykon. (Having said that, the fact the Dark One already failed to give that message back when Xykon was destroyed in the Dungeon of Dorukan supports your theory...).

It's also his holy symbol.

[David Argall]

a-Quite possibly. We know that Redcloak did lie during that conversation and he could have been lied to as well. So every part of that conversation is suspect.
But we can't start with the idea he lied on any given point. We do know that the alternate source confirms much of the tale and thus we need reasons to challenge any point.

b-The idea that Redcloak is going to do anything except what Exkon wants is simply a version of "I like Belkar/Redcloak, and so he can't possibly be evil despite all the evidence." He's the evil cleric of an evil god and dedicated to an evil goal. Learn to live with it.

[pendell]

He's the evil cleric of an evil god and dedicated to an evil goal. Learn to live with it.

Nitpick:

I don't believe Redcloak's goal of a lasting goblin civilization where people are judged not by the pointiness of their teeth but the content of their character sheets is an evil goal.

Which is precisely my point: The Dark One is an evil god. You would expect an evil god to be working towards an evil goal. The goal Redcloak has expressed is not evil. Ergo, it is not the Dark One's true goal. Redcloak is being lied to.

As towards Redcloak being evil ... yes, but as Xykon himself says in the last 3 pages ,RC is evil with a small 'e'. His approach is 'evil, but for a good cause'. Xykon, by contrast, is Evil .. he doesn't bother trying to justify his actions. He knows he is Evil with a capital E and revels in it. And that, he tells Redcloak, is why Xykon is the butch in this relationship. Because RC lies to himself. He tells himself that he has a good motive and he has no choice in the evil deeds that he does. In fact, he does have a choice .. as his brother did ... but unlike Right-eye, he's too chicken to make it. Xykon gives him an excuse for his inexcusable behavior.

For now.

As to the Dark One. .. the question really is whether he's Evil with a capital E like Xykon, or evil with a small "e" like Redcloak. Whether he's Evil pure and simple, out for his own gain at whatever cost to anyone else, even his own followers, or whether he's been forced into evil in order to accomplish a good end.

We haven't actually seen enough of the Dark One to know the answer to that question ... but my money says The Dark One is much more like Xykon than like Redcloak. You don't get to be a god by being a pansy.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[FujinAkari]

Which is precisely my point: The Dark One is an evil god. You would expect an evil god to be working towards an evil goal. The goal Redcloak has expressed is not evil. Ergo, it is not the Dark One's true goal..

While the end goal is not evil, the means to attain it are. The Dark One is literally willing to destroy the entire universe to get his way, which ic clearly Evil :P. Even ignoring that, he thinks nothing about invading and subjugating entire kingdoms merely because they are an inconvenience.

The Dark One, like Redcloak, is "evil for a good cause." I would note that wanting to control the world isn't an inherently evil goal either, but is the end objective of pretty much every evil God that has ever existed.

[Chronos]

Actually, I don't think that any of what the Dark One told Redcloak is a lie, per se. I'm absolutely certain that it's not the whole truth, and the whole truth, when we get it, may well be very damning for the Dark One's case. But remember, he's lawful evil. Negotiating with enemy monarchs for a level playing field for his people may not be a particularly evil action, but it is a very lawful one. Where the evil comes in is what he's willing to do to accomplish his goals.

Note also that telling the exact truth, but omitting to mention those parts of the story which badly hurt your case is also very typical for Lawful Evil.

[Caractacus]

b-The idea that Redcloak is going to do anything except what Exkon wants is simply a version of "I like Belkar/Redcloak, and so he can't possibly be evil despite all the evidence." He's the evil cleric of an evil god and dedicated to an evil goal. Learn to live with it.

I think that that is an unwarranted assertion. I believe that it could be more defensible to say that 'the idea that RC is going to do anything except what Xykon wants is probably nothing more than a version of...'.

That's because it would otherwise remove all of the possibilities that two evil forces which do NOT have identical goals [I doubt Xykon will be happy to hand over to the Dark One] would have a serious divergence of views. They are also evil, and thus there is a wider scope for betrayal and selfishness than amongst good characters.

What I am NOT doing here is claiming that RC will turn good or that he will turn on Xykon. I just mean that it seems a bit much to say that just because someone claimed that his character was developing the person in question is an 'evil-denier' or some such.

Mind you, I have to say that that happens SO often on this forum that I can quite understand: Thog is Chaotic Neutral! Belkar is Chaotic Neutral! :smalltongue:

[BlackMageJ]

Unless I misread somewhere along the line, The Dark One isn't actually planning to destroy the gods/universe, just use the threat of doing so to convince them to change the existing one.

The gate can't control the Snarl, just unleash it. If it is released, there's a good chance it could kill The Dark One along with the other gods. True, if he did escape from it, he could get his way in World 3.0, but that would be more of a last resort. He may be WILLING to do it, but he probably doesn't WANT to.

It's like a nuke- no (sane) leader builds nukes in the hopes of firing them at another country, they get built as a deterrent- they're influence, hopefully nothing more. If they get used, Plan A has gone severely wrong (in fact, as far as plan's go you're probably somewhere at the arse-end of the alphabet).

[Caractacus]

Plan A has gone severely wrong (in fact, as far as plan's [sic] go you're probably somewhere at the arse-end of the alphabet).

I so absolutely love this that I intend to use it as often as possible in the coming weeks... Beautiful. :smallcool:

Thanks, BlackMageJ!

[King of Nowhere]

Evil doesn't mean "one-dimensional Snidely Whiplash caricature." I believe the Dark One, as a living goblin, was, if not quite as saintly as Redcloak thinks, not as monstrous as you're suggesting either. (There is, for that matter, no indication that he was an evil mortal, only that, after being sacrificed and empowered by mass slaughter, he rose as an evil god.)

I totally concur. As I already said in SoD thread, I think the Dark One was not evil in life and turned evil because very pissed for the way the gods treated goblinhood. If he was evil, he would have said "We can crush your pathetic nations under our heels, but we will not do it in excange of...", he instead said "I came for peace, it's not fair that we have no good lands". But we don't know enough about him as a living goblin to be sure.


when have you ever known a god to actually tell him followers the whole truth?
Yes, probably what he said to Redcloak is true, but it's not all the truth. For what we know, all the crayons are truth (nothing in them was ever proved wrong, and the two stories match.), but are only a part of the story. The good gods never told their followers of their misdeeds in creating evil humanoids. The Dark One probably has some skeleton in his armchair. Probably we will know about it by keep reading.

[The Wanderer]

First off, I just want to say that I concur with what others have already about the nature of evil, particularly in The Giant's narratives. Secondly I have just about no doubt that there is a major whitewashing going on somewhere in the Dark One's story. Probably not an outright lie, but certainly a whitewashing and covering up something either distasteful or damaging to him. (The same way we here in the States like to forget that a great many of the early settlers of the American colonies were criminals who got the boot right out of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_transportation). Wave your hand and they all become good honest folks looking for freedom instead :smallwink: ). Exactly what it may be is up in the air, because there are a couple of points where I think such a thing could be hidden.

As has also been said, the Dark One's methods and what he's willing to risk and sacrifice are more than evil enough. Evil in pursuit of a good goal is still evil, although it's evil that is more likely that you can reason with and turn aside from doing evil on a few occasions.

All that having been said, I wouldn't be surprised if the Dark One intends to do more than just get a level playing field now. (Or if he never really intended the playing field to be level at all). After all, when he has the god killing abomination on his side, what's to stop him from asking for more than that? Or to keep making demands after getting the playing field? Or just going ahead and killing all the gods anyway as a bit of payback for what they did to him and his people?

Even if his intentions are good, no one should that sort of power, especially not if it's a soul that possess hatred, jealousy, and vengeance. It's just a recipe for disaster.

[Alfryd]

..."No humanoid race will get the shaft," Redcloak said; what about intelligent nonhumanoids? XP fodder for the new goblin adventurers, apparently.
Kish, as I have pointed out repeatedly, there is exactly no evidence for this. Secondly, destroying the planet is not exactly Plan A. Thirdly, bringing up TDO's failure to stop Xykon is a prime example of Miko Logic- "The Gods don't actually stop me, therefore they must approve."

Kindly stop using these discredited arguments.

Back on the main topic. Yes, in essence Redcloak was probably being a little naive to suppose that his Deity would use absolute dictatorial power over the multiverse solely for the noblest and most egalitarian of purposes when he first set out on this project of his. (Whether he really cares and/or gives critical consideration to the problem at this point is an open question.)

It is entirely likely that TDO is being very conservative with the truth when it comes to his own exploits, but we have no other source which contradicts the essential points of the narrative. Until there is, I tend to give TDO's explanation of the evil races' general plight a fair amount of credit, since it makes a deal of sense. I also have very little faith in arguments about what evil characters can or cannot consistently aspire to, given Mr. Burlewe's extremely generous treatment of what constitutes non-evil behaviour within this same tale.

*cough* Sapphire Guard *cough* slaughter of infants and pensioners *cough*

[Kish]

Kish, as I have pointed out repeatedly, there is exactly no evidence for this.

I see compelling evidence; you see no evidence. Other people can make their own judgments.


Secondly, destroying the planet is not exactly Plan A.

And "not exactly Plan A" alters what I said by a fraction of a letter how, exactly, Alfryd?

Thirdly, bringing up TDO's failure to stop Xykon is a prime example of Miko Logic- "The Gods don't actually stop me, therefore they must approve."

If Miko had not Fallen when she killed Shojo, she would, in fact, have had good evidence that the gods did not classify doing so as an evil act. When she fell, she had good evidence, which she chose to ignore, that killing Lord Shojo was an evil act (in the eyes of her gods).

Additionally...Miko was the most powerful paladin of the Sapphire Guard. She was not the high priest of the Twelve Gods' religion worldwide. She did not, to our knowledge, possess the most powerful artifact of her religion or any artifact which demonstrably enabled her gods to speak directly to her. There is not the slightest indication that any of the Twelve Gods ever spoke to her, by contrast to Redcloak's having gotten the entire Plan directly from the Dark One. Waving something away with "that's Miko-logic" is unworthy of you, and has been each time you did it. Priests do Fall in D&D when they go against the will of their deities, whether or not they do in OotS, and we've seen Thor talking directly to Durkon. (Incidentally, I only realized upon rereading this post that you sidestepped from, "The Dark One's failure to tell Redcloak to stop helping Xykon" to "the Dark One's failure to stop Xykon." That is not a meaningless difference.) If you wish me to stop using an argument, you'll need to convince me it's invalid. I recognize that you consider them invalid; I am not writing primarily for you and do not consider your opinion sufficient reason to stop using them.

[FujinAkari]

Kish, as I have pointed out repeatedly, there is exactly no evidence for this.

This is a blatent falsehood. When someone says that he intends to ensure that "No humanoid race will get the shaft." then that DOES mean that he is not explicitly aiming to improve the lot of non-humanoids.

While yes, you can claim that we are reading too much into this, or claim that the argument is too dependant on a single line, but what you cannot claim is that there is no evidence for it.

Please stop basing your rebuttals in intellectual dishonesty.


Secondly, destroying the planet is not exactly Plan A.

This seems utterly and completely irrelevant. That he doesn't -want- to destroy the world unless he has too, but is quite willing to do so, doesn't make him non-evil, it just makes him sane.


Thirdly, bringing up TDO's failure to stop Xykon is a prime example of Miko Logic- "The Gods don't actually stop me, therefore they must approve."

Kish already did a good job of debunking this tripe, but I thought I would note that Miko did actually receive immediate feedback and criticism every time she did something that was against the will of the 12 gods. (Granted, it only happened twice.)

When you are in communication with a God on a daily basis, the presumption that you will be informed if you are going down the wrong path becomes even more reliable.


I also have very little faith in arguments about what evil characters can or cannot consistently aspire to, given Mr. Burlewe's extremely generous treatment of what constitutes non-evil behaviour within this same tale.

*cough* Sapphire Guard *cough* slaughter of infants and pensioners *cough*

Yeah, who knew he would use the SRD as a guildline? :-P

[Alfryd]

I see compelling evidence...
Where? Where, exactly is it stated that TDO plans to use intelligent nonhumanoids for sword-fodder? Failure to explicitly deny this possibility does not constitute reasonable evidence for it's truth.

And "not exactly Plan A" alters what I said by a fraction of a letter how, exactly, Alfryd?
Because TDO's plan is not, to our knowledge, to destroy the world. Redcloak states it would be 'a win' for him, not that he hopes, plans, or has taken no precautions against this happening.

If Miko had not Fallen when she killed Shojo...
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about when she breaks out of prison and takes the God's failure to intervene as further confirmation of Her Divine Destiny(tm). (And yes, the Gods could very easily have either stopped Miko directly or simply taken a moment to send her a strongly-worded letter of complaint.)

There is not the slightest indication that any of the Twelve Gods ever spoke to her, by contrast to Redcloak's having gotten the entire Plan directly from the Dark One.
But there is also exactly no evidence that the Dark One communicates with his followers- even Redcloak- on a regular or even irregular basis. None whatsoever. (Downloading the Plan seems to be an inherent side-effect to donning the Mantle, rather than TDO actively going out of his way to send a memo. As we have already seen (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0040.html), direct divine intervention tends to raise complications in the OOTSverse.)

You are basing your entire argument on supposition and conjecture without a scrap of positive evidence in your favour. That is simply not a valid position to take.

[Alfryd]

When someone says that he intends to ensure that "No humanoid race will get the shaft." then that DOES mean that he is not explicitly aiming to improve the lot of non-humanoids.
Quite correct. It means there is no evidence he is planning to improve the lot of non-humanoids, absolutely. Where to you go from this to assuming he plans to use non-humanoids as disposable sword-fodder? It doesn't follow.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

Oh, they must be planning to systematically enslave women and molest children.

This seems utterly and completely irrelevant. That he doesn't -want- to destroy the world unless he has too, but is quite willing to do so, doesn't make him non-evil, it just makes him sane.
I'm not arguing he's non-evil. I'm arguing that it's misleading to suggest that this is his principle motive, and then use that as evidence for evilness.

Kish already did a good job of debunking this tripe, but I thought I would note that Miko did actually receive immediate feedback and criticism every time she did something that was against the will of the 12 gods. (Granted, it only happened twice.)
If you're trying to claim that the Gods went out of their way to slice her in two after she smashed the sapphire, there is, again, exactly no evidence for this. (I've also touched on the subject in my prior post above.)

Yeah, who knew he would use the SRD as a guildline? :-P
Where in the SRD does it say that killing defenceless children and pensioners is a non-evil act? Because I have some fairly compelling evidence it falls under 'hurting, killing, or oppressing others.'

[FujinAkari]

Quite correct. It means there is no evidence he is planning to improve the lot of non-humanoids, absolutely. Where to you go from this to assuming he plans to use non-humanoids as disposable sword-fodder? It doesn't follow.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

Oh, they must be planning to systematically enslave women and molest children.

Only if women are already enslaved and children are already being mollested. Currently non-humanoid sentinent creatures, as well as Goblinkin, are being used as XP-fodder. Since TDO wants to alter the system to give equal rights to all humanoids, it stands to reason that he is not intending to alter the status quo in regards to non-humanoids.

Thus, yes, he is intending to leave them in the sword-fodder role they currently occupy.


I'm not arguing he's non-evil. I'm arguing that it's misleading to suggest that this is his principle motive, and then use that as evidence for evilness.

No one is suggesting that it is his principle motive, it is being argue that it is his allowable means. Since he does not balk at destroying the entire world, if it should come to that, he is considered to be evil.


If you're trying to claim that the Gods went out of their way to slice her in two after she smashed the sapphire, there is, again, exactly no evidence for this. (I've also touched on the subject in my prior post above.)

I was actually more talking about Soon Kim, who talked to Miko about the rashness of her decision the moment she made it and, apparently, is able to bypass the Deva's judgement, seeing as he said he would escort Miko to her afterlife.


Where in the SRD does it say that killing defenceless children and pensioners is a non-evil act? Because I have some fairly compelling evidence it falls under 'hurting, killing, or oppressing others.'

The definition of Lawful Good states that a LG Paladin can "fight evil without mercy."

If the defenseless children and pensioners were evil, then the SRD gives explicit permission to kill them to a man.

[monty]

The definition of Lawful Good states that a LG Paladin can "fight evil without mercy."

If the defenseless children and pensioners were evil, then the SRD gives explicit permission to kill them to a man.

I think you just opened a few thousand cans of worms.

[Angafirith]

If the defenseless children and pensioners were evil, then the SRD gives explicit permission to kill them to a man.

And I suppose that children are considered evil just because they're goblins? I'll grant that the elderly may have killed people in the past, but what about those too young to be guilty?

[Alfryd]

I think you just opened a few thousand cans of worms.
No, that would suggest the issue is contentious. It isn't. Slaughtering defenceless toddlers and geriatrics for no particular, specific purpose, regardless of their supposed alignment, is unequivocally Evil behaviour.

I would also think it highly unlikely that young children can be considered evil at all.

Only if women are already enslaved and children are already being mollested. ...it stands to reason that he is not intending to alter the status quo in regards to non-humanoids.
Let me run down on your logic so far.

Redcloak states desire to protect humanoids => Redcloak does not desire to protect non-humanoids => TDO intends to screw over non-humanoids => TDO plans to have future goblin adventurers butcher non-humanoids for fun and profit.

Does this chain of inference not strike you as a little tenuous? Because you're at least 3 steps removed from what you wanted to demonstrate. Not that Redcloak makes any mention of goblin adventurers butchering much of anything in his ideal world- or goblin adventurers for that matter- it's all about a golden age of art and science. But no. Let's take Redcloak's momentary ommision and spin that into a fully-fledged divine conspiracy against everything sentient that doesn't walk on 2 legs.

Cripes, some people here remind me of Miko in all the worst ways.

Since he does not balk at destroying the entire world, if it should come to that, he is considered to be evil.
That was not the sense I felt to be implied from Kish's original post, and frankly, we don't know this. That the world's destruction would be an acceptable outcome is given as Redcloak's opinion, not TDO's. We don't how significant the risk might be, and we don't know if the alternatives- such as centuries upon centuries of rampant misery for most of the planet's sentient population- wouldn't, in a certain sense, be worse.

(Now, I will say that Redcloak had certainly run out of excuses for pursuing The Plan by the time he seized control of Azure City. He now has control of an entire goblinoid nation, substantial and disciplined armed forces, a large area of productive territory and an artifact that will extend his personal lifespan for centuries. He has all the materials, resources, and time he needs in order to forge and guide to prosperity a lasting goblinoid civilisation on a more-or-less equal footing with the humans, dwarves, and elves. Or at least have a decent shot at it. But, again, that's not the same as saying TDO is of a similar mind.)

I was actually more talking about Soon Kim...
Soon Kim is not a God.

[FujinAkari]

And I suppose that children are considered evil just because they're goblins? I'll grant that the elderly may have killed people in the past, but what about those too young to be guilty?

Well, if they -aren't- evil, then I think we can all agree that the Paladins should have fallen. Since they didn't, its rather obvious that, yes, Goblin Children can be considered evil. There is a reason Paladins can Detect Evil at will.

Keep in mind I am not -endorsing- this, I don't like it any more than you do, I just disagree with Alfryd in that the Giant is giving the Paladins a lot of leeway, when the SRD explicitly allows them to kill any evil creature.


No, that would suggest the issue is contentious. It isn't. Slaughtering defenceless toddlers and geriatrics for no particular, specific purpose, regardless of their supposed alignment, is unequivocally Evil behaviour.

There is absolutely no evidence that the Saphire Guard did this for no particular, specific purpose. Indeed, it is made abundantly clear that the attack was for a very specific purpose.


I would also think it highly unlikely that young children can be considered evil at all.

According to what we have seen, a child is considered whatever alignment their parents are by default.


Redcloak states desire to protect humanoids => Redcloak does not desire to protect non-humanoids => TDO intends to screw over non-humanoids => TDO plans to have future goblin adventurers butcher non-humanoids for fun and profit.

I am ashamed of you Alfryd. You aren't this stupid, quit pretending.

Non-humanoids and Goblinoids are butcheded by adventurers. => TDO wants to promote Goblins to equal status as adventurers. => Goblinoids will be butchering non-humanoids just like the other adventurers currently do.


Cripes, some people here remind me of Miko in all the worst ways.

Ad Hominem Logical Fallacies do not help your argument.


That was not the sense I felt to be implied from Kish's original post, and frankly, we don't know this. That the world's destruction would be an acceptable outcome is given as Redcloak's opinion, not TDO's.

Except that Redcloak has touched TDO's mind and is the authoritive expert on him.


Soon Kim is not a God.

Neither is a crack in a bar of a prison, what's your point? The argument is that Miko immediately learned of her error each time she did something not in line with the Twelve Gods' plan. Do you actually have a counterargument, or are you hoping fierce nitpicking will somehow hide the utter lack-of-evidence supporting your claim?

[Angafirith]

Well, if they -aren't- evil, then I think we can all agree that the Paladins should have fallen. Since they didn't, its rather obvious that, yes, Goblin Children can be considered evil. There is a reason Paladins can Detect Evil at will.

Keep in mind I am not -endorsing- this, I don't like it any more than you do, I just disagree with Alfryd in that the Giant is giving the Paladins a lot of leeway, when the SRD explicitly allows them to kill any evil creature.
Well, I'd say that there are some significant differences on who the gods say are evil and who I say are evil. I believe that, in this case, the gods might have a rather subjective view on who is evil. I suppose my point is that it's the gods that decide who falls and who doesn't.

[FujinAkari]

Well, I'd say that there are some significant differences on who the gods say are evil and who I say are evil. I believe that, in this case, the gods might have a rather subjective view on who is evil. I suppose my point is that it's the gods that decide who falls and who doesn't.

I'd agree with that. My guess is that the Gods have deigned the entirety of Redcloak's tribe to be "evil" due to the inherent threat they present to the Fabric of the Universe. As it may be unclear just how much knowledge the average goblin knows about the gates (we do know the Gods have some territory-eque guildlines, so it is possible that none of them are sure about specifics here) then they -may- have simply declared the whole clan evil to prevent said knowledge from spreading to the entire Goblin race.

Right thing to do? No, wanton slaughter is never as righteous as those who commit it like to think, but it seems a fairly probable explanation.

[The Wanderer]

Well, I'd say that there are some significant differences on who the gods say are evil and who I say are evil. I believe that, in this case, the gods might have a rather subjective view on who is evil. I suppose my point is that it's the gods that decide who falls and who doesn't.

This is my feeling as well. Regardless of how it works in standard D&D, (I believe I remember reading something about the positive energy plane) in OOTS land it is from their gods that paladins draw their powers, and it is those gods that decide if they fall. To the 12 Gods, what happened to the children and peaceful folks in Redcloak's village was acceptable casualties. The same way in a modern military if a bomb or two is dropped off target in the midst of an otherwise successful ordered mission, (which is why the Sapphire Guard was there in the first place), that pilot's military is not going to dishonorably discharge or execute him.

That's my intrepretation, and to me it makes a lot more sense than anything else that's been proposed.


According to what we have seen, a child is considered whatever alignment their parents are by default.

...

Please tell me that's a joke argument. The fact that every person has two parents, which often results in having two alignments to choose from is the least of the problems with that argument.


Except that Redcloak has touched TDO's mind and is the authoritive expert on him.

My interpretation is more like all that Redcloak has touched is the Crimson Mantle, which has information on it that the Dark One has chosen to place in it. Not the same as touching his mind, any more than touching a disc with schoolwork on it is touching that person's mind. (Can you maybe get a sense of how it works with enough information to analyze? Sure. Touching their mind directly, however, it is surely not).

Furthermore, I think it's safe to say that Right Eye nailed the DO far better than Redcloak did. The DO was born into being a god from the vengeance of his followers, and vengeance is the main trait we have seen of him. I'd venture to say it might well be his defining trait, but Redcloak is oblivious to that.


I am ashamed of you Alfryd. You aren't this stupid, quit pretending.

Non-humanoids and Goblinoids are butcheded by adventurers. => TDO wants to promote Goblins to equal status as adventurers. => Goblinoids will be butchering non-humanoids just like the other adventurers currently do.

Here though I agree with you. Assuming for a moment that all the DO is after is to improve the lot of goblin kind, (and not any sinister hidden plan beyond that) why would he care about improving the of, say, hydras in the world? Or whatever other monster you may pick. So far as I can see his intention is to make his people players in the big game, not make the lion lay down with the lamb.

[FujinAkari]

Please tell me that's a joke argument. The fact that every person has two parents, which often results in having two alignments to choose from is the least of the problems with that argument.

It wasn't a joke argument, and I -know- it has problems, but we have seen exactly one case of a child in the afterlife, and he was simply placed with his mother. If you don't think that means that the Heavens simply consider a child to be of the same alignment as the parents until they are old enough to make their own decisions, then I would love to hear your theory (with supporting evidence).


My interpretation is more like all that Redcloak has touched is the Crimson Mantle, which has information on it that the Dark One has chosen to place in it. Not the same as touching his mind, any more than touching a disc with schoolwork on it is touching that person's mind. (Can you maybe get a sense of how it works with enough information to analyze? Sure. Touching their mind directly, however, it is surely not).

I disagree. For starters, the "LEARN." seems intentionally misleading if it -isn't- supposed to be a message from the Dark One, and Red Cloak starts talking to the Dark One immediately after it happens, which is very unusual if TDO hadn't been involved. You'll notice that neither Durkon nor Redcloak ever speak to their god outside of prayer, except for right there.

[hamishspence]

Dragon Magazine has published a number of articules providing rules clarifications, as well as expanded rules.

Clarifications, however, should be considered pretty official and are not new rules, they are answers to questions asked.

Specifically, in Dragon 358, Paladin Guide, the section on the code goes:

Lawful Good Alignment:
A paladin cannot willingly commit an evil act. A paladin might unwittingly commit an evil act, or do so under magical compulsion. In this instance, performing an atonement spell on the paladin incurs no XP cost to the caster. The paladin must attempt to rectify the situation and put right whatever harm her deeds caused. Magical compulsion or ignorance do not offer a paladin carte blanche to commit evil acts she secretly thinks are justified and get away with it.

Respect Legitimate Authority:
A paladin may not break the law simply because she feels the law is inappropiate or hinders her pursuit of justice. Individuals who pose as agents of the law while supporting the cause of evil- such as a corrupt lord who orders a paladin to commit an evil action- do not support the legitimate authority. A paladin is under no obligation to obey their commands, so long as she continues to serve the cause of good and takes steps to expose the corruption.

Act With Honor:
A paladin many not lie, cheat, double-cross, or take advantage of anyone. She may not use poison, although she may make use of ravages (holy substances that deal damage only to evil creatures, see Book Of Exalted Deeds, for mature audiences only). A paladin must uphold any promises she makes, to the best of her ability. Any violent act the paladin undertakes must be motivated by good intentions and undertaken in such a way to minimize damage (a paladin may not slay every evil creature she sees in hopes of preventing future violence). She cannot levy violence against noncombatants, children, or helpless creatures, even evil ones.

Refuse to Associate with Evil Creatures:
A paladin may only accept nonevil henchmen, followers and cohorts. She may associate with an evil creature on a limited basis for the purposes of redeeming that creature.

So, by this detailed clarification of the code, the Sapphire Guard were in breach by killing children, even evil ones.

[factotum]

I don't see anything in those clarifications that says killing children is an inherently evil act. We obviously consider it that way in the real world, but we don't have goblinoids to worry about! Also, it doesn't get round the argument that the Twelve Gods decide what counts as evil with regard to the behaviour of the Sapphire Guard.

(Technically, I'm sure that Paladins worshipping the Twelve Gods would cause an instant fall in the standard D&D ruleset, because not all the Twelve are good...we know at least one is Evil).

[Kish]

That was not the sense I felt to be implied from Kish's original post,
Hey? Alfryd? I'm right here. "The sense you felt to be implied" might be a basis for arguing against something a character in Start of Darkness says, but I'm not a character and you aren't entitled to an equally-valid opinion on what I "really" meant.

You know I agree with you about the morality of killing goblinoid children. I hope you've let go of the idea that therefore, the Sapphire Guard didn't actually do that, or that they are not as close as OotS gets to D&D paladins. FujinAkari maintains that it was not an evil act; I maintain that it was an evil act which for some reason, likely related to being given a pass by the Twelve Gods, they did not Fall for. And I couldn't take arguments which hinge on "the Dark One can't talk directly to Redcloak" seriously if I tried.

[King of Nowhere]

I don't see anything in those clarifications that says killing children is an inherently evil act.


I think you just rolled a natural 1 on your spot:


(a paladin may not slay every evil creature she sees in hopes of preventing future violence). She cannot levy violence against noncombatants, children, or helpless creatures, even evil ones.



According to what we have seen, a child is considered whatever alignment their parents are by default.


So what, if there is an evil murderer you kill him, and the you kill his son because he was supposed to be the same alignment? Will you approve a law that states that when someone commits a crime, his children are to be punished for that same crime because they're supposed to be like him?
I don't know why Roy's brother was in th LG afterlife, but we can't use this as a proof.

The idea that the 12 gods consiered them civilian casualties of war amkes sense, even if I still prefere thinking that the gods that created the goblins as cannon fodder don't care about their children being needlessy killed.

About what the DO has in mind for non humanoid sentient creatures, we really have no conclusive proofs, we may argue but we cannot be sure. Anyway, even if the DO wants to use other races as XP, it would still be better than what the so-called good gods did - using everyone except humans, elfs, dwarfs, half-orcs, half-elfs, gnomes and halflings as XP - Recognizing the rights of other humanoids might be a first step in the right direction (of course it's not sure that the DO will not oppress other races).

And about lying, the paladins tought that the goblins were trying to undo the universe. I'm pretty sure the 12 gods lied to them, for if the paladins knew the truth about goblins, they would have tryed to talk to them and help goblin people to create, peacefully, a civilization.
So, is the DO lying? probably yes, but he's really not doing anything that the other gods already did.

[Kish]

(a paladin may not slay every evil creature she sees in hopes of preventing future violence). She cannot levy violence against noncombatants, children, or helpless creatures, even evil ones.

Score!

...You know, it's really sad that they actually needed to spell that out and couldn't count on people to realize it from "may not commit any evil act."

[monty]

No, that would suggest the issue is contentious. It isn't. Slaughtering defenceless toddlers and geriatrics for no particular, specific purpose, regardless of their supposed alignment, is unequivocally Evil behaviour.

As much as I agree with your position, I disagree with your first point. Regardless of how obvious it SHOULD be, it nevertheless remains that people still try to argue that it is otherwise, as I have seen from posts like

I don't see anything in those clarifications that says killing children is an inherently evil act.
People won't agree with you just because you're right.

[FujinAkari]

Dragon Magazine has published a number of articules providing rules clarifications, as well as expanded rules.

Clarifications, however, should be considered pretty official and are not new rules, they are answers to questions asked.

Specifically, in Dragon 358, Paladin Guide, the section on the code goes:

When the argument is whether or not Paladins are allowed to do something according to the SRD... why are you citing rules that aren't in the SRD?

Edit: I would also argue that the Dragon Article isn't an "official clairification" since, if it were, it would be errata.

[batsofchaos]

I'm playing devil's advocate here. I don't agree with this take on the rules BUT they are a valid take on the rules. The reason that this should be considered at all is because no one can reasonably claim that the ruleset the Sapphire Guard is following is NOT corrupt. Viewing the world through a crooked lens does not make someone a rule-breaker.

By RAW goblins are usually neutral evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/goblin.htm). The rules on "always," "often," and "usually" break down as thus:

Always: Every instance of this creature encountered MUST be this alignment. Usually reserved for Demons, Devils, Angels, etc.

Often: The overwhelming majority of instances of this creature are of this alignment. Instances of others exist, but are rare.

Usually: In a given group of these creatures, roughly 50% of them are of this alignment. The other half are a mixture of other alignments.

At first glance this would suggest that there is a 50% chance that the goblin they attack is actually good, but in reality the variations are one or two steps away from the common alignment. Most of the other 50% are either lawful evil or chaotic evil, with a handful of neutral individuals and maybe a couple instances of good individuals.

Now, as to whether or not killing them is a good or evil act. The rules are open to interpretation, but the basics are Paladins can kill evil creatures. What they're doing, how old they are, what they look like, none of it matters because their alignment designates them as a fair target. Goblins are mostly going to be evil, so killing a clan of goblins is not an evil act.

[pendell]

A couple things we are missing.

As I understand it, a paladin may kill any 'evil' creature without a qualm.

'Evil' -- at least in OOTS -- has no age limit. See : Xykon at age 4, age 12. He was 'just a child'. Would the universe have been a better or worse place if he had run into a Miko-equivalent who did a detect-evil+smite routine?

By that logic, the earlier you kill an evil creature, the better. The earlier you get them, the easier the win (level 1 Sorcerer Xykon at age 12 vs. epic-level Lich Xykon at age 103) and the fewer people get hurt along the way.

By that logic, Paladins need have no qualms -- in OOTS -- about killing 'evil' children.

Second thing to keep in mind: Unlike the real world there is an actual spell called 'Detect Evil'. Evil is an objective reality in OOTS, which can be tested for just like radiation. The Paladins did a 'detect evil' on the Goblin village, and the entire village registered as 'evil' on their radar.

Since the creatures within registered as evil, the paladins need have no qualms about slaughtering evil creatures, even children or infant evil creatures. What else are they supposed to do? Wait until those children grow up into a level-appropriate encounter? And how many innocents will they kill or harm during that time?

There are a couple of reasons this logic falls short. I'll mention just one.

It discounts the possibility that evil creatures can change alignment -- become redeemed. This is the Miko fallacy. An evil creature is always evil and cannot change, therefore the sooner they are killed the better. The problem is, that means you kill right-eye and his kids as well as all the 'evil' goblins. Disregarding spark of either good or potential good means that you will, sooner or later, start killing innocents. Or even worse, sacrifice a race's potential for redemption for generations.

And that's all the more true for kids. So a kid registers as evil ... does it mean they will be evil when they grow up?

Evidently the OOTS gods don't care about redemption. All they care about is your current state. And if you are evil at the time you are killed by a paladin, the paladin will not fall.

I must say: That is one reason I'm glad OOTS is not real life.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[FujinAkari]

There are a couple of reasons this logic falls short. I'll mention just one.

You are treating this as a logic problem when it isn't one. No one is saying that this is how a Paladin should act, or that this is acceptable behavior. The simple question is one of "Do the rules penalize a Paladin for killing evil innocents."

By the SRD, no. The rules are very explicit that a Paladin can strike down evil without mercy, without exception.

Yes, it is better not too, especially when there is a great chance of Redemption, but the -only- thing being discussed is whether Rich was "overly lenient" in what the Paladins were allowed to do, or if that is a valid action by the rules.

:smallsmile:

[David Argall]

Dragon Magazine has published a number of articules providing rules clarifications, as well as expanded rules.

Clarifications, however, should be considered pretty official and are not new rules, they are answers to questions asked.
Articles in Dragon, with limited exceptions, are purely the opinion of the author and are not binding rules. Since they were often written by pretty senior people who had quite a bit to do with setting the rules, they are not to be dismissed out of hand, but they are definitely not the final authority.


Specifically, in Dragon 358, Paladin Guide, the section on the code goes:

Act With Honor:
A paladin ... may not use poison, although she may make use of ravages (holy substances that deal damage only to evil creatures, see Book Of Exalted Deeds, for mature audiences only).
Now BED is definitely down on the use of poison, but its explanation of why rapidly runs into logic problems, and effectively says the paladin [or other good PC] is not allowed to do what he clearly is allowed to do. The principles cited are valid, but there are valid exceptions the paladin routinely uses. But the text simply refuses to see these same exceptions apply to poison.
So we have here proof that following these sources blindly will lead us to some bad conclusions.

Moral principles have exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions, and exceptions to ... And our game books are just that, game books, not detailed discussions of morality. They don't really get into even the basic exceptions, much less deeper.


Any violent act the paladin undertakes must be motivated by good intentions and undertaken in such a way to minimize damage (a paladin may not slay every evil creature she sees in hopes of preventing future violence). She cannot levy violence against noncombatants, children, or helpless creatures, even evil ones.
Now here we see an example. Why can't the paladin levy violence again X? The listed cases are those where violence is rarely necessary. And since it is not necessary, it shouldn't be resorted to. But this principle applies to everybody. It is not limited to the classes mentioned. The most heavily armed and trained individual is just as protected as the newest baby. There are just a great many more cases where violence would be legitimate. Nor are these classes completely immune. Rarely is not never. These are simply classes where the chance of legitimate violence is much lower, but not zero. There are cases where violence is properly used against each class listed and any others that might be proposed. An obvious case is a lawful execution. The criminal is, for obvious reasons, kept helpless, but this merits him no mercy.

Now the claim is often made that the child has no understanding of the situation, but children show an understanding of morals at an early age. [We note the kid in LG Heaven in the strip which means he has an alignment.] And their understanding is not important from our view. Someone is about to shoot. You do not ask about their understanding of what will happen. You ask the practical question of how much danger is there of someone being hurt?, is there a practical nonviolent way to prevent the shooting? ... If you get the right answers, the gun holder is shot, and whether his age was 5, 25, or 105 is not a consideration.
In some cases, a lack of understanding increases the legitimacy of violence. You lack one of the means to resolve the situation without violence because the other party can not understand.




The same way in a modern military if a bomb or two is dropped off target in the midst of an otherwise successful ordered mission, that pilot's military is not going to dishonorably discharge or execute him.

That depends on how off target and what he did hit, etc. Pilots have been punished for such errors.



have a rather subjective view on who is evil. I suppose my point is that it's the gods that decide who falls and who doesn't.
Quite wrong. The paladin falls for an evil deed, not for one the gods object to.



Slaughtering defenceless toddlers and geriatrics for no particular, specific purpose, regardless of their supposed alignment, is unequivocally Evil behaviour.
Which leads us to the conclusion that the situation does not fit this definition.
The paladins made this attack. They did not fall. Therefore it was not an evil deed. Quite simple and clear.
The problem for us is determining why it is not evil. The easiest answer that details that do not appear in the picture alter the situation. [The view given is not unbiased, but reflects what Redcloak deemed important. In essence we have the view of a Nazi officer about the Allied attack.]

[FujinAkari]

Quite wrong. The paladin falls for an evil deed, not for one the gods object to.

We have discussed this before, The gods (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html) choose when a Paladin falls, it isn't some mystical process in which they have no hand.

It is possible that there is some cosmic agreement between the gods that forces them to strip their paladins after specific acts, but absolutely no evidence that the processes occurs without their consent.

[King of Nowhere]

The paladin falls for an evil deed, not for one the gods object to.

I disagree: the Gods grants powers to the paladins, so it's up to the Gods to decide if a paladin fall. The pattern is not "A paladin commit an evil act -> he falls" but "A paladin commit an evil act -> the gods are really pissed -> they make him fall".
We also saw when Miko fell, she didn't fell after killing Sojo: she killed Sojo, then the 12 gods appeared in the sky and kicked her self-righteous butt.
We must also take into account that OOTSverse don't follow all dnd rules to the letter. Rich made significant differences. In fact, bringing rule books to these discussion is useless, since they can be considered nothing but guidelines and have no real autority in this comic.

The detect evil is all but perfect. We already saw Roy and Durkon register as evil because of a stupid nonmagical crown, not to talk of all the spells that can fake or shield a detect alignment. And an evil alignment is not enough proof to execute someone.

As of children's alignment, they are to be considered neutral until they understand moral consequences. The understanding that your actions will affect other people and that this may not be a nice thing comes between 5 to 10 years. Young Xykon at 4 years was neutral, because he had no idea of what he was doing. He turned evil when he understood that he was making other people suffer, and he decided to don't care about them. And yes, if you are sure that a child will grow and do really bad things, you should kill him, but how can you know? Could you predict that Xykon would have grown like this? There are thousand of evil children. If you kill all evil children, you should kill about 20% of all children. And what additional proof did you have for that goblin village to slaughter them for good? The fact that they had green skin and fangs? It's not a good reason. Plus, people doing it is what push the mass of goblins to evil.

[FujinAkari]

Young Xykon at 4 years was neutral, because he had no idea of what he was doing.

Not according to Rich. See his Introduction in SoD

[Kish]

Not according to Rich. See his Introduction in SoD
Rich does not say Xykon was born evil or that Xykon was evil at 4 years old. The closest he comes is saying that Xykon is (in the present) both evil and a ****, and wasn't made evil by what his life made him endure. It's not hard at all to speculate that Xykon ultimately turned into the monster he is today because, when he was young, he suddenly had far too much power for a child. What is definite is that Xykon showed enough humanity to weep for his dead pet, exactly once onstage, when he was the youngest we've known him.

[FujinAkari]

Rich does not say Xykon was born evil or that Xykon was evil at 4 years old. The closest he comes is saying that Xykon is (in the present) both evil and a ****, and wasn't made evil by what his life made him endure. It's not hard at all to speculate that Xykon ultimately turned into the monster he is today because, when he was young, he suddenly had far too much power for a child. What is definite is that Xykon showed enough humanity to weep for his dead pet, exactly once onstage, when he was the youngest we've known him.

Actually, what he says is "Xykon is wholly and unapoligetically evil ... and I like to think I've done a good job showing all the different ways he's been evil up to the point we met him."

That says, to me, that Xykon is and has always been evil. And it explicitly says to me that each time Xykon is featured, he is featured being evil. Keep in mind the first time we see Xykon, he is like 6 years old :).

Thus the "Neutral until they know the difference" argument doesn't hold in my book.

[The Wanderer]

Children are one of the places where I think 4th Edition's idea of unaligned characters could be pretty accurate and handy. In real life most kids really don't know yet how to act, what is acceptable, and most of what is there is a result of biologically hardwired and some of what they've learned from what they've been taught, what they've seen, and what pops into their head at that particular moment. There may be some trends for future good or badness there, but nearly every kid does some stuff that seems ridiculously good and sweet, and some that makes you think they're a demon child.

Anyway, I'd probably put myself into the group that says that children, until a certain age, are automatically considered neutral or good. (And probably chaotic :smallwink: ). As for why Roy's brother is in LG Heaven: maybe because the gods actually try to be decent to dead kids instead of being sticklers for the rules. Maybe he wasn't in LG Heaven but was in some other afterlife until mom arrived, and her heaven wouldn't exactly be complete without her long lost son.

As for kid Xykon, we see him consider an evil act cool, which, frankly, tons of perfectly normal kids do. Even if we count it against him, it's one act, and we can't say that he's evil at the moment, (any more than one evil act would make Roy or Miko or anyone else automatically evil), but we can see that he was probably on his way there. However, the main thing that's always struck me about sorcerers in OOTS world is that they're somewhat analogous with child prodigies. They have tremendous talent at an early age, but that talent also causes them problems, feeds their ego, sets them apart, and to some degree even warps the personality of some. We saw that with Samantha, and we saw the same in teenage Xykon in SOD. (No, that's not an attempt in the slightest to excuse Xykon from anything, so please don't try to call it such in response :P ).

[David Argall]

We have discussed this before, The gods (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html) choose when a Paladin falls, it isn't some mystical process in which they have no hand.
The case shows the gods involved with the fall. It does not specify how they are involved. That can include their simply being witnesses.
If we go by the rules, there is no particular involvement by the gods. You do evil, you fall. Entirely automatic. No godly discretion.

[/QUOTE]It is possible that there is some cosmic agreement between the gods that forces them to strip their paladins after specific acts, but absolutely no evidence that the processes occurs without their consent. [/QUOTE]
This is true in the sense we have very little in the way of evidence, but the evidence we do have rejects the idea of the paladin as the slave of the gods. He is devoted to the principles of LG and what the gods want is entirely secondary.



the Gods grants powers to the paladins,
Where is the evidence to support this? The official text makes paladins born, not made. They need no divine connection at all. In the strip, we have Shojo starting a ceremony for new paladins, a ceremony that would be carried out by the gods if they were the ones responsible.


The pattern is not "A paladin commit an evil act -> he falls" but "A paladin commit an evil act -> the gods are really pissed -> they make him fall".
The involvement of the gods is not a necessary step. We might note here that the rumble starts before we see the gods, which would mean the fall was under weigh before we can be sure the gods were involved.


We also saw when Miko fell, she didn't fell after killing Sojo: she killed Sojo, then the 12 gods appeared in the sky and kicked her self-righteous butt.
You are taking drama as fact here.


We must also take into account that OOTSverse don't follow all dnd rules to the letter.
True enough, but the direction is the opposite of what you want.

The official rules are the default rules except where it benefits the story to ignore them. Having the gods dramatically present in the fall is great drama, and thus has no particular meaning beyond being drama.

[FujinAkari]

The case shows the gods involved with the fall. It does not specify how they are involved. That can include their simply being witnesses.

No, it shows that they caused the fall. Shojo confirms this, by saying "It seems not everyone agrees with your analysis" just before he dies. Shojo's statement proves that Miko's fall was the will of the gods, not an automatic process, as an automatic process would occur regardless of divine approval.

We have the comic directly showing a lightning bolt striking Miko from the twelve gods and Miko losing her paladin powers. Then we have Shojo confirming that the Gods disapproved of Miko's action. These all support the conclusion that the Gods cause Paladins to fall.

Where is your evidence?


If we go by the rules, there is no particular involvement by the gods. You do evil, you fall. Entirely automatic. No godly discretion.

While true, this is utterly immaterial. What the rules say is only definitive where the comic is silent, when the comic directly diverges from the rules, the comic is a higher source of canon.



It is possible that there is some cosmic agreement between the gods that forces them to strip their paladins after specific acts, but absolutely no evidence that the processes occurs without their consent.
This is true in the sense we have very little in the way of evidence, but the evidence we do have rejects the idea of the paladin as the slave of the gods. He is devoted to the principles of LG and what the gods want is entirely secondary.

Please find one comic where ANY paladin has ever prayed to the principles of LG and not the twelve gods.


Where is the evidence to support this?

Pot, meet Kettle. You can't demand evidence unless you pony up some.


The official text makes paladins born, not made. They need no divine connection at all. In the strip, we have Shojo starting a ceremony for new paladins, a ceremony that would be carried out by the gods if they were the ones responsible.

Since the Gods are forbidden from directly influencing the world, having destroyed the first world through their rampant manipulation, this statement seems ludicrous.


You are taking drama as fact here.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can brush it away as "just drama." Since Shojo responds to the presence of the 12-gods, it is intellectually dishonest to doubt their presence.


True enough, but the direction is the opposite of what you want.

The official rules are the default rules except where it benefits the story to ignore them. Having the gods dramatically present in the fall is great drama, and thus has no particular meaning beyond being drama.

Does not follow. Just because something is dramatic doesn't make it untrue. A court hearing can be very dramatic, but you're still under arrest when the guilty verdict is read.

[King of Nowhere]

The official text makes paladins born, not made. They need no divine connection at all.

In SoD, one of the gods says "We may choose certain mortals and give them cool magic powers" and so born clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers.
And Miko states many times that her detect evil is granted by the gods.
And every paladin in the strip pray the gods to grant him power.
And, last time I read a rulebook there was still 3.0 edition, but I clearly remember that it was stated that divine casters received their spells from the gods, and paladins are divine casters; and I don't think they changed the rules on such things.
Plus, we have all the other evidece other people already show. And we have absolutely no direct evidence for the opposite. If it's not enough evidence for you, then I don't know what can convince you

[ChaoticEvilGuy]

when i saw the title i was thinking "man this guys crazy, but I'll check it out"
yet now I'm starting to see your side
hope you put up more theories soon

[Deathwisher]

It seems to me that one major problem with this whole discussion is that we never actually see what the Dark One said. All the information about his plans comes through Redcloak's interpretation, and, let's face it, Redcloak tends to be a bit naive.
E.g. the whole 'new era of arts and sciences' idea is Redcloak's fantasy of the future as he describes it to his brother; not necessarily a direct view of the Dark One's plans.
On top of that, Redcloak has already lied to Xykon about the exact nature of the Snarl and admits it when his brother calls him on it. It is quite possible, that he is deceiving his brother too, for similar reasons.

That said, the general idea seems to be fairly consistent: during his life, the Dark One tried to promote the welfare of the goblinoids using negotiation, backed up by military might and now that he is a god, he tries the same thing, but on a larger scale. Whether these impressions of the Dark One's life are accurate is a bit difficult to say, since we don't actually know where that story comes from. I may just have been passed on through the Crimson mantle, but it is also quite possible that the goblins already knew the tale. (After all, since the Dark One used to be a living person, stories of his exploits may have been passed on by storytellers as well). The whole 'Snarl' situation has to be passed on through the cloack, of course, since it post-dates the Dark One's death, but for all we know, Redcloack was actually mixing existing tales with his special knowledge, when he explained the scheme to Xykon. (The fact that XYkon didn't know anything about the Dark One doesn't mean a thing. he is not exactly a fountain of knowledge :smallbiggrin: )

[David Argall]

No, it shows that they caused the fall. Shojo confirms this, by saying "It seems not everyone agrees with your analysis" just before he dies.
This is more than a small jump in logic. "Not everybody" is not the same as "the gods". Miko acted, and fell, within Shojo's sight. His statement makes sense whether the gods acted or not or whether there were any gods at all.
His statement is the same type as "Not all would agree" by one of your critics after you had announced there were no traps ahead and then proceeded to set a trap off.


We have the comic directly showing a lightning bolt striking Miko from the twelve gods
No, we do not have that. We have a picture of the clouds rumbling, a picture of the gods, and then a picture of lightning coming from the clouds. Strictly, we do not have proof here that the gods were in the slightest involved. That is the easy way to read it, but it is far from the forced way.

More important is that the incident does not distinguish between our theories here. Miko did an evil deed and fell. This is consistent with the process being automatic or with the decision being completely at the option of the gods. Either way, the same thing happened and so the case is not proof either way.



Where is your evidence?
Player's Handbook, among other places. As already noted, the rules do not require any godly involvement in the creation or ending of paladin status.


While true, this is utterly immaterial. What the rules say is only definitive where the comic is silent, when the comic directly diverges from the rules, the comic is a higher source of canon.
a-you contradict yourself. If something is immaterial, it is not definitive whether or not the comic is silent, or in any other case.
b-The comic is silent on this point, particularly with regard to the Miko incident. We have a much "noiser" case in SoD, but even there we have only a theory of godly discretion, which is no more than one of several competing explanations.


Please find one comic where ANY paladin has ever prayed to the principles of LG and not the twelve gods.
This is another case of asking for excessively precise evidence. We don't really expect to see a paladin dedicated to the principles to be praying at all, much less to particular gods. We also assume that most paladins, particularly those in Azure City, are devoted to the gods in the very large percentage of cases. Add in that there is only the limited number of pages to judge from and we simply can not draw a conclusion from the lack of such evidence.


Pot, meet Kettle. You can't demand evidence unless you pony up some.
Which I do. And I point out that for many points there is no evidence, but here we are discussing a point that could be covered in many rule books. Yet they simply do not have the supporting statements. They have comments that the paladin must do good, and must not do evil. Statements of paladins as no more than agents of their gods are simply absent. Instead we have things like Divided Loyalties in BED where the loyalty to any superior, god or not, is relegated to lower than that of Good.


Since the Gods are forbidden from directly influencing the world, having destroyed the first world through their rampant manipulation, this statement seems ludicrous.
We have Thor playing around with a spell, and of course since your claim is that the gods did directly influence the world in the case of Miko, you seem to contradict yourself.
There are clearly limits on their influence, direct or otherwise, but a flat denial does not exist.

And of course, the gods did not destroy the first world at all, and their manipulation, as used here, was simply not a factor. What we are told is the cause is the arguing between the gods.


Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can brush it away as "just drama." Since Shojo responds to the presence of the 12-gods, it is intellectually dishonest to doubt their presence.
Their presence is not in dispute. The question is what role they played, spectator, agent, or ruler being the prime options.



Just because something is dramatic doesn't make it untrue.
Neither does it make it true. What it does do is give a reason for it being in the comic besides being true in any sense. That in turn means we can not rely on the dramatic element being true.



In SoD, one of the gods says "We may choose certain mortals and give them cool magic powers" and so born clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers.
Now we are in fact quoting Redcloak here, which makes it rather doubtful proof when our original question is whether the Dark One, and Redcloak thru him, was a reliable source. Redcloak is in particular a questionable source for paladin powers since he is an evil cleric whose knowledge, or interest in knowing, of the exact source of paladin powers is not obvious. [Oh yes, rangers don't seem to be mentioned and the direct quote only refers to clerics.]

Still, the reference gives more trouble to my case than most of the other arguments presented. A minor point is that the text is "gained from the gods" rather than "granted by the gods". Your typical flea gains its food from your or your pet. Neither of you grants it.
Another point would be that the gods are more allowing classes than creating classes, just as a DM might ban all half-orcs, but is less likely to tinker with the benefits and costs of being one.


And Miko states many times that her detect evil is granted by the gods.
a-I can't seem to find those many times.
b-This is likely just a manner of speech.


And every paladin in the strip pray the gods to grant him power.
Well, we don't have every paladin praying for starters, and again, I have trouble finding any paladin except Miko doing any praying. [I probably have missed a point where Hinjo says he prays to the gods for this or that reason, but I doubt this is more than the statement that might be made by any commoner.


And, last time I read a rulebook there was still 3.0 edition, but I clearly remember that it was stated that divine casters received their spells from the gods, and paladins are divine casters; and I don't think they changed the rules on such things.
I don't think they have either, but PH3.5 p. 179 says "Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces...The divine forces of law and good power paladin spells." So Gods are not absolutely necessary for even clerics, and are not even mentioned for paladins.


Plus, we have all the other evidece other people already show. And we have absolutely no direct evidence for the opposite.
Again, I'm going to need for you to make your statement, and the "evidence" you cite, somewhat clearer.

[Remirach]

This is more than a small jump in logic. "Not everybody" is not the same as "the gods".

The gods are beings, which it would make sense to refer back to as "everybody." What you're asserting exists is something else entirely.


His statement makes sense whether the gods acted or not or whether there were any gods at all.
Read what you just wrote. Look what's missing there: the possibility that what he said would make sense if there were gods and ALSO something above the gods that actually runs the show, at least as far as Paladin powers go. His statement makes sense if there are gods -- which there are -- and in using the word "everybody" he's much more clearly referring to them and not some depersonalized force of pure goodness.

And, actually, I don't think it would make any sense at all to say "not everyone agrees with your analysis" if there were NO gods and Shojo had just witnessed some purely magical force at work.


His statement is the same type as "Not all would agree" by one of your critics after you had announced there were no traps ahead and then proceeded to set a trap off.

The only way your friend's statement makes sense is if he's personifying the trap -- obviously IT "disagreed." Ha, ha. Say instead you declare that the coast is clear and then walk head-first into some kind of invisible barrier. Your friend smirks and says "not all would agree." The rest of your party stares at him in bafflement.


No, we do not have that. We have a picture of the clouds rumbling, a picture of the gods, and then a picture of lightning coming from the clouds. Strictly, we do not have proof here that the gods were in the slightest involved. That is the easy way to read it, but it is far from the forced way.
That's a very high level of proof you're demanding, it is indeed "easier" to apply Occam's Razor here and say it was the gods, because that's what the strip implies and there has been nothing said within the strip that hints at any other possibility. If that should change, maybe that "simple" explanation would undergo a re-examination, but everything you suggest is just speculation.

[FujinAkari]

*rolls her eyes*

David, are losing another argument due to your absolute refusal to actually MAKE your argument. This seems to be a running pattern with you.

Once -again- I asked you for any evidence supporting your theory and -again- you weren't able to produce a -single piece-.

Here is what we have:

Theory that Paladins get their powers from the gods:
- Supported by the comic where the gods strike Miko with lightning and take away her powers.
- Supported by Miko herself, who explicitly states that her powers are granted by the Gods when confronted by Belkar's attorney
- Supported by Redcloak in Start of Darkness
- Supported by Shojo making reference to the Gods just after they strike down Miko.

Theory that the Gods have nothing to do with it:
- Supported by absolutely nothing. All you seem to be able to do is wave your hands and cry that the evidence against you isn't good enough and that through rampant, baseless speculation, there is some arbitrarily confused reason that still justifies the facts.

While, yes, your explanation COULD work, there is absolutely nothing supporting it. You repeatedly cry that my interpretation is only one of many, but mine actually has a basis. Yours is based on nothing but sophistry and speculation.

Once again, though I've already asked twice, please cite some ACTUAL evidence that supports your theory.

And no, proving that something doesn't necessarily negate your theory isn't good enough, it has to actively support it, and to compete it has to explicitly support it, kinda like "My Detect Evil power is granted by the Gods! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html).

Put up or shut up David. :smallsmile:

[hamishspence]

gods and Paladin powers.

Borderline. The argument would fail badly in the Forgotten Realms, the campaign guide says clearly that divine casters must worship deities to get their powers, and abide by tenets of the deity as well. So realms paladins have the god's code to stick to in addition to the basic paladin code, which can make for minor conflicts. A good rule to go by is if paladin breaks god's code but not the paladin code (could happen, especially if god is unusually divergent, like the CG Sune, the one exception to the 1 step alignment rule) he might lose spellcasting, but not the other features. in Realms terms, he has Sinned even if paladin code wasn't broken.

In greyhawk and Eberron, it would be the reverse, since it is possible to be devoted to an ideal, and I think this is what Argyll is saying is the default setting for determining what takes powers away, not a god, but a "Universal force"

However, OOTS is a setting all to itself. Going by most previous strips, ALL divine casters receive power from gods, even druids, as was suggested in SoD. Therefore there is no good reason to exclude paladins from that list. OOTS is more god-centric than Greyhawk, which fits with a realms-ish approach.

I would say that given everything else we have seen in the comic, the default assumption should be that paladins are fully tied to deities, and, like in the Realms, power comes from deities not "universal forces" so deities determine power loss, as the strip graphically seems to illustrate.

[hamishspence]

Concerning magazine content, Sage Advice is a very, very official collumn, published on main site, etc. they are rules updates, not content you can choose to reject as unofficial.

Similarly, the guide articles, while few in number, are designed to bring existing rules together and clarify their use. The druid one, for example, had the errata to Wildshape, which is needed to fairly play a druid in late 3.5 ed. The scout one claries that scouts have disable device, which was missed in the book.

In short, i'd say the guide ones are clarifications, not new rules, therefore as official as Sage Advice.

Poison rule is pretty clear in PH. Paladins cannot use them. Guide article mereely reiterates this.

Noncombatant rule is in Exalted deeds, the article and Exalted deeds both say killing non-combatants, even evil ones, is evil. so, by both of these, the Sapphire Guard have broken the rules, which makes OOTS a homebrew world with slightly looser rules on paladins.

Exalted deeds does say it is not evil to execute a lawfully condemned person. So that is not strictly a non-combatant. However the key word is execute, which means person must have commited a crime, and its clear that aside from the previous wearer of the Crimson Mantle, none of the other goblins have actually committed anything. Even if they were accessories, the goblin children could fairly be exempt.

Children can be combatants in the real world, but the ons in SoD were clearly unarmed, so not combatants until proved otherwise.

[tbarrie]

By RAW goblins are usually neutral evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/goblin.htm). The rules on "always," "often," and "usually" break down as thus:

Always: Every instance of this creature encountered MUST be this alignment. Usually reserved for Demons, Devils, Angels, etc.

Often: The overwhelming majority of instances of this creature are of this alignment. Instances of others exist, but are rare.

Usually: In a given group of these creatures, roughly 50% of them are of this alignment. The other half are a mixture of other alignments.


That's not the way it works, unless they changed it between third edition and 3.5. (And I can't imagine they would have changed it so much that "often" became stronger than "usually"; that just contradicts the English meaning of those words.)

From the 3rd edition Monster Manual:

Always - The creature is born with this alignment. These creatures are not immune to character development, and hence can change alignment, but such cases will be extremely rare.
Usually - More than half the creatures will have this alignment. It doesn't specify how much more.
Often - This alignment is more common than any of the other eight. 40-50% is listed, but it's not clear whether this is part of the definition or just a guideline.

It doesn't actually state that alignments are distributed in anything like a bell curve for "usually" or "often" creatures, though I agree that this just makes sense unless there's a specific reason for this not to be the case (like drow, where 49% of the population is now Chaotic Good rebels).

Note that the "always" description explicitly states that the creature is born with the alignment and the others do not, which pretty clearly implies that "usually Neutral Evil" goblins are not, in fact, born Neutral Evil. Baby fiends are probably fair game for paladins, but killing baby goblins is right out.

[tbarrie]

And, last time I read a rulebook there was still 3.0 edition, but I clearly remember that it was stated that divine casters received their spells from the gods, and paladins are divine casters; and I don't think they changed the rules on such things.


You remember incorrectly, actually. The 3.0 glossary on divine casters merely states that they get their power from gods or from faith. Looking at the write-ups for the individual divine spellcasting classes:


The Cleric, unsurprisingly, is clearly written with the assumption that, by default, he gets his powers from a deity, but even in this case they mention that you can in fact choose to have your Cleric get their powers from a cause or ideal if you like.
The Druid states in the "Religion" section that she either gets power from a nature deity or from nature as an impersonal force. The write-up goes on to say that while Druids who respect or at least revere nature deities aren't rare, but that most don't.
The Ranger, curiously, is more specific than the Druid; the "Religion" section of the write-up explicitly states that he gets his spells from nature as an impersonal force, though of course Rangers are free to worship a god just like any other character. (Nature deities are stated to be the most popular choices, followed by martial deities.)
The Paladin doesn't explicitly address where she gets her spells or other powers at all. The very first thing the "Religion" section says, however, is that a Paladin doesn't have to have one. And unlike the Cleric, the game mechanical part of the Paladin write-up doesn't mention gods at all.


The bottom line is that nothing in the 3.0 rules suggests that deities have anything at all with the granting or revoking of Paladin powers. A pious character, of course, might argue that all of a character's impressive abilities are "gifts of the gods". But a Paladin who regards her divine powers as a gift from Heironeous is on the same footing as a Barbarian who regards his inhuman rage as a gift from Erythnul: it's a neat bit of characterization if you want to use it, but it's not required or even particularly encouraged by the rules.

...all of which is kind of tangential to a discussion of Order of the Stick, since I think it's pretty clear that said strip operates under a house rule stating that paladins do get their powers from gods. But hey.:)

[David Argall]

The gods are beings, which it would make sense to refer back to as "everybody." What you're asserting exists is something else entirely.
Certainly "not everybody" can refer to the gods. The point is that it does not have to.
Note here that Shojo does not, on the available evidence, know there was any action by the gods at all. All we know he knows is that there is some unusual reaction as a result of Miko attacking him. To assume he knows it was the gods, as opposed to making a guess, we have to assume several past events that are not in evidence and not particularly likely either. We have to assume past fallen paladins and that the gods came down to inflict the fall [Miko was the top paladin, and thus a target for special attention, while we would assume it is the low level paladin who would be most likely to fall, and to be dealt with in a less dramatic fashion.] and that this fall was reported in considerable detail back to Shojo.



Read what you just wrote. Look what's missing there: the possibility that what he said would make sense if there were gods and ALSO something above the gods that actually runs the show, at least as far as Paladin powers go. His statement makes sense if there are gods -- which there are -- and in using the word "everybody" he's much more clearly referring to them and not some depersonalized force of pure goodness.
Now I am not sure what you are saying here. But you don't seem to be really disagreeing with me. The example here gains force only when he must be refering to the gods. That he is more likely than not is refering to the gods reduces the argument to a trivial level of evidence.


The only way your friend's statement makes sense is if he's personifying the trap -- obviously IT "disagreed." Ha, ha.
Well, we do rather routinely personify things that are not persons.


Say instead you declare that the coast is clear and then walk head-first into some kind of invisible barrier. Your friend smirks and says "not all would agree." The rest of your party stares at him in bafflement.
No, they are most likely laughing at the comment, or rather at me, the butt of the joke, as I get back to my feet.
Why do you think they will be baffled?



That's a very high level of proof you're demanding,
True enough, but we are discussing a matter of how proven a point is. I pointed out that not only was the claimed level of proof absent, it is not present even for more basic points.


everything you suggest is just speculation.
Well, part of my "speculation" is pointing out that the incident does not distinguish between the theories under dispute. Either way, Milo fell. So why does the incident provide proof of anything?



Once -again- I asked you for any evidence supporting your theory and -again- you weren't able to produce a -single piece-.
Excuse me, but I cited both PH and BED.



Here is what we have:

Theory that Paladins get their powers from the gods:
- Supported by the comic where the gods strike Miko with lightning and take away her powers.
As noted, we have no such proof the gods were active players in the situation as opposed to witnesses or simply carrying out orders of higher authorities.



- Supported by Miko herself, who explicitly states that her powers are granted by the Gods when confronted by Belkar's attorney
Actually she refers only to detect evil. However, the statement seems to reflect an attitude to credit everything to the gods.



- Supported by Redcloak in Start of Darkness
- Supported by Shojo making reference to the Gods just after they strike down Miko.
Shojo obviously could not see the gods and his reference needs no such limit.



Theory that the Gods have nothing to do with it:
- Supported by absolutely nothing.
Once again, though I've already asked twice, please cite some ACTUAL evidence that supports your theory.
And again, I cite PH, BED, and the rest of the core rules. You do seem to have this habit of ignoring cited evidence and then declaring there is absolutely nothing in opposition.



The argument would fail badly in the Forgotten Realms, the campaign guide says clearly that divine casters must worship deities to get their powers, and abide by tenets of the deity as well.
I wonder if you are quoting a campaign rule, not a D&D setting rule [which Living Greyhawk has too]. The player notes that the cleric who does not select a god can select whatever domains he desires. Since this reduces campaign flavor and gives the player an inducement to do so yet, it is banned by the campaign. [I suspect you may also be misquoting in saying "divine casters" as PH says most druids get their spells directly from nature rather than any god.]


So realms paladins have the god's code to stick to in addition to the basic paladin code, which can make for minor conflicts.
Now it is entirely possible for paladins, or anybody else, to be under conflicting codes. And he can be punished for violating either. This is not Realms specific. But our question here is whether the god can in effect ignore violations of the paladin code.


OOTS is more god-centric than Greyhawk, which fits with a realms-ish approach.
We do not have here a Realms vs Greyhawk consideration [tho Greyhawk would win that] Rather we have the basic rules which rule both. FR, being just one case of the basic rules, is the inferior source here. Indeed, where we find it differs from the basic, we can use that difference as an argument against that rule in a different setting.


Concerning magazine content, Sage Advice is a very, very official collumn,
As the Living Greyhawk rules put it "GMs are allowed to use both Sage Advice and Wizards of the Coast Customer Service to help clairify rules; however, these sources are not binding on the campaign."

By comparison..

"LG uses the official FAQs and errata for any books that are used in the campaign."

So no. Sage Advice is just that, advice. Very respected advice in many cases, but only advice.


Similarly, the guide articles, while few in number, are designed to bring existing rules together and clarify their use. The druid one, for example, had the errata to Wildshape, which is needed to fairly play a druid in late 3.5 ed. The scout one claries that scouts have disable device, which was missed in the book.

In short, i'd say the guide ones are clarifications, not new rules, therefore as official as Sage Advice.
Well, in the sense that Sage Advice is not official...
But no. They are even less official. They are good advice in most cases, but not binding.



Noncombatant rule is in Exalted deeds, the article and Exalted deeds both say killing non-combatants, even evil ones, is evil. so, by both of these, the Sapphire Guard have broken the rules, which makes OOTS a homebrew world with slightly looser rules on paladins.
SoDits clear that aside from the previous wearer of the Crimson Mantle, none of the other goblins have actually committed anything.

It is not in the least clear [& we do not have evidence that the previous wearer of the Crimson Mantle is guilty of a particular crime either]. What we have is a lack of direct evidence on the point. We don't see them doing any crime, but we see them only for a period of a few minutes. Effectively we have zero evidence of their innocence.

On the other side, we have
They are an evil race
Those of the village are judged in particular as evil
The presence of the Crimson Mantle
Our presumption is that they are guilty.


Exalted deeds does say it is not evil to execute a lawfully condemned person. So that is not strictly a non-combatant. However the key word is execute, which means person must have commited a crime,
He was not a non-combatant, but by the time of execution, he very much can be. That the person had commited a crime merely limits our one example. There are a number of others.
To take a child case, a kid has a disease that he will recover from, but which is lethal to the several adults present. You can kill him and toss his body out onto the snow, or let the adults die painfully. All are non-combatants under some definition. [As a paladin, you have the duty to make this decision. You do not have the right to let somebody else make it.]



Even if they were accessories, the goblin children could fairly be exempt.

Children can be combatants in the real world, but the ons in SoD were clearly unarmed, so not combatants until proved otherwise.
Unarmed is not a sufficient defense here. Most soldiers are unarmed most of the time. This does not prevent opposing soldiers from not just shooting them, but actively seeking times when they are not armed to make it safer and easier to shoot them.
In essence, if you have grounds to shoot me, my possession of a weapon is merely a practical consideration. Now my lack of a weapon may mean it is easier to take me prisoner or use other nonfatal tactics, but it doesn't change the moral situation.
We have an escaping prisoner. We do not ask if he is armed before we try to shoot him. Rather we ask if his crime merits our shooting, whether there is danger to innocent bystanders, etc. [Now the possession of a weapon can make the prisoner more dangerous to those innocent bystanders, and so justify his shooting, but it is the danger, not the possession of the weapon that decides if we shoot.]

The goblin children could be exempt, but the term is "could". The term "could be not exempt" also is present.

[FujinAkari]

And again, I cite PH, BED, and the rest of the core rules. You do seem to have this habit of ignoring cited evidence and then declaring there is absolutely nothing in opposition.

I believe I already covered this point.


this is utterly immaterial. What the rules say is only definitive where the comic is silent, when the comic directly diverges from the rules, the comic is a higher source of canon.

Thus, yes, you continue to cite evidence which doesn't matter. NO ONE is arguing how the base-rules of D&D operate, we are taking issue with OOTS, and despite being asked three times now (twice in my first post, once in the second) you continue to be unable to provide a single comic which supports your theory, despite being opposed by no less than four.

Thus, your theory is untenable. You have been utterly unable to support your claim and the premise that Paladin Powers come from somewhere other than the gods seems untrue.

Thank you for your contribution, and it has been a pleasure discussing the issue.

[Remirach]

Certainly "not everybody" can refer to the gods. The point is that it does not have to.
Well, among other things what I'm saying is I don't agree with this because, again, "everybody" suggests people, personalities, entities. Forces of nature or pure morality not so much.


Note here that Shojo does not, on the available evidence, know there was any action by the gods at all. All we know he knows is that there is some unusual reaction as a result of Miko attacking him. To assume he knows it was the gods, as opposed to making a guess, we have to assume several past events that are not in evidence and not particularly likely either.
Shojo doesn't need to have witnessed any other Paladins falling in order to have an idea of what happens. He needs to know about Paladins, and under what conditions they fall, and what the consequences of falling are. And he would certainly know all of those things, as he is the rightful liege lord of a whole army of Paladins.


We have to assume past fallen paladins
Why would we have to assume past fallen Paladins? They probably exist, but if you know under what conditions a Paladin falls and what happens as a result, you don't need to have had a prior example to be able to figure out what's going on when Miko screams and goes beige after cutting down an unarmed old man.


and that the gods came down to inflict the fall
Did the gods "come down" to inflict the fall this time around? It seemed like they gathered in heaven, I don't think anyone on earth saw their formation.


[Miko was the top paladin, and thus a target for special attention, while we would assume it is the low level paladin who would be most likely to fall, and to be dealt with in a less dramatic fashion.]
Well it's basically totally irrelevant to the argument by this point because I don't agree we'd have had to see any fallen paladins at all in order to spot one when it does at last happen. BUT just to play devil's advocate: why would we assume a low-level falling paladin wouldn't get the 360-degree smackdown in a similar grandiose fashion? Aren't paladins supposed to be all kinds of special and holy just to begin with, never mind additional levels?


Now I am not sure what you are saying here. But you don't seem to be really disagreeing with me. The example here gains force only when he must be refering to the gods. That he is more likely than not is refering to the gods reduces the argument to a trivial level of evidence.
What I was trying to say, and I hope am more clear this time around, is that you were asserting Shojo's last words make sense whether or not there are gods. But that has never been of any doubt within the strip. What you were proposing was some force in ADDITION to the gods, and that Shojo could have been referring back to IT when he spoke of "everybody." What I was saying is that if we already have gods, who are much more easily understood as "everybody," why would he hark to the OTHER power with the use of that word? It seems needlessly confusing.


No, they are most likely laughing at the comment, or rather at me, the butt of the joke, as I get back to my feet.
Why do you think they will be baffled?
To me it sounds like utter nonsense. If the careless person walked off a cliff saying how safe it was, and the sarcastic person quipped that "not everyone agrees with that statement," there's no clear person or personifiable object around that would be the obvious "disagreer." It's the same with invisible walls or such, to me. "Not everyone agrees?" Who are you talking about, man?


True enough, but we are discussing a matter of how proven a point is. I pointed out that not only was the claimed level of proof absent, it is not present even for more basic points.

Well, part of my "speculation" is pointing out that the incident does not distinguish between the theories under dispute. Either way, Milo fell. So why does the incident provide proof of anything?
No offense, but speculation doesn't warrant quotes there. You're asserting something else besides the gods determines if and when Paladins fall, which makes the scene of the 12 gathered gods downright deceptive in its presentation. If we're just caught on the point that it's not 100% definitive proof with the Word of God backing it up, then I guess we're done because we can both agree on that point.

[David Argall]

Thus, yes, you continue to cite evidence which doesn't matter. NO ONE is arguing how the base-rules of D&D operate, we are taking issue with OOTS,

And the default, as you have acknowledged, is that OOTS operates like the base-rules of D&D.

OOTS is a parody, which means the meaning of anything within it is dependant on something[s] outside it. That is by no means limited to D&D. Any part of "reality", including OOTS itself, can be parodied in the comic and that in turn means that any evidence from anywhere on anything may be evidence on a given point in OOTS. We can not limit ourselves to evidence in the comic itself.
We can not even take as more than a general rule that OOTS overrules outside sources. More than enough errors in OOTS have been acknowledged, and often corrected on the basis of outside opinion. More to the point here is that long chains of reasoning based on inferences from the comics are by their nature suspect.

Originally Posted by David Argall
Certainly "not everybody" can refer to the gods. The point is that it does not have to.


Well, among other things what I'm saying is I don't agree with this because, again, "everybody" suggests people, personalities, entities. Forces of nature or pure morality not so much.
Not so much does not mean not at all, certainly not within a system where such things exist.



Shojo doesn't need to have witnessed any other Paladins falling in order to have an idea of what happens. He needs to know about Paladins, and under what conditions they fall, and what the consequences of falling are. And he would certainly know all of those things, as he is the rightful liege lord of a whole army of Paladins.
He would seem to learn each of these things on the job so to speak. He learns about paladins by having led them. He would also learn about when paladins fall and how they fall largely by seeing the events happen. But how often do paladins fall? In particular under conditions where Shojo can really learn about it in detail? This seems a small number at best, and quite possibly zero.


Why would we have to assume past fallen Paladins? They probably exist, but if you know under what conditions a Paladin falls and what happens as a result, you don't need to have had a prior example to be able to figure out what's going on when Miko screams and goes beige after cutting down an unarmed old man.
But again, how does he know these things? He is not a paladin and we can not assume any instructions from the gods or anything. And if no paladin has fallen in 50 years, why would we think he remembers such ancient history enough to identify it this time? He's got a lot of work to do, and has to do it in a devious way. That doesn't give him much chance to read up on very rare events.

Quote:
and that the gods came down to inflict the fall


Did the gods "come down" to inflict the fall this time around? It seemed like they gathered in heaven, I don't think anyone on earth saw their formation.
If we assume that, we get an even weaker case that Shojo was referring to the gods.

Quote:
[Miko was the top paladin, and thus a target for special attention, while we would assume it is the low level paladin who would be most likely to fall, and to be dealt with in a less dramatic fashion.]


why would we assume a low-level falling paladin wouldn't get the 360-degree smackdown in a similar grandiose fashion? Aren't paladins supposed to be all kinds of special and holy just to begin with, never mind additional levels?
There is special and there is special. A major league baseball player is special. The stars of the game are special even to them. They are the ones we see in the headlines during scandals. Miko was arguably the top of about 200 paladins and possibly the best in the world. She might well rate direct treatment as a result.




What I was trying to say, and I hope am more clear this time around, is that you were asserting Shojo's last words make sense whether or not there are gods. But that has never been of any doubt within the strip.
Which is the point, or is irrelevant depending on how you wish to view it. To use a real world sort of example, I might say "This proves there is a conspiracy between Congress and the Secretary of State." You might look at my "evidence" and say "This doesn't even prove there is a Congress or Secretary of State." The fact that we both know there is a Congress and Secretary of State doesn't make your statement flawed.
The same applies to Shojo's statement. If it is consistent with their being no OOTS gods at all, it is consistent with most anything and can not be used to prove the god did a particular thing.

Quote:
No, they are most likely laughing at the comment, or rather at me, the butt of the joke, as I get back to my feet.
Why do you think they will be baffled?


To me it sounds like utter nonsense. If the careless person walked off a cliff saying how safe it was, and the sarcastic person quipped that "not everyone agrees with that statement," there's no clear person or personifiable object around that would be the obvious "disagreer." It's the same with invisible walls or such, to me. "Not everyone agrees?" Who are you talking about, man?
You are assuming here that all statements are utterly logical, which is utterly wrong. "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less" are used interchangably despite logically having opposite meanings.
In the case at hand, Shojo doesn't need to know who, or even if, any other viewers are. Miko has been shown wrong, even if nobody has seen, and Shojo can make a statement as if she were on view to the entire world.


speculation doesn't warrant quotes there.
But it does. It is not speculation to say "2+2=4" [or "2+2=5" for that matter.] It is [often] speculation to say "A+B may equal 4". Your statement is "everything you suggest is just speculation." which is a rather wide net. If you work at it, you may be able to limit that statement to statements that are speculation, but it is easier to read as covering a lot of statements that are not speculation. Thus we say "speculation", not speculation.


You're asserting something else besides the gods determines if and when Paladins fall, which makes the scene of the 12 gathered gods downright deceptive in its presentation.
You have been reading these comics, right? You may recall our author's confession to a desire to make sure we don't guess what is coming, right? To say something is deceptive can be an argument in its favor in OOTS.
However my main theory has been that the scene is dramatic. Therefore it appears. Whether or not it makes any sense or fits is just not important. It's like the naked lady in the movie. It is there because it is there and no conclusions can be drawn from it.

[turkishproverb]

guys, your forgetting, as Per the TRUTH (IE: DAVID) anything that happens in the comic only happens unless it is contradicted by him.

[FujinAkari]

More to the point here is that long chains of reasoning based on inferences from the comics are by their nature suspect.

Only you could see Miko's statement of "My Detect Evil is granted by the Gods themselves!" as a long chain of reasoning.

However, we're done. I'm not going to debate with you, as there is nothing left to debate. You are invited to ACTUALLY argue something, but until you can actually find something resembling evidence to back your claim, the fact (yes, fact) will remain that your position is untenable.

[King of Nowhere]

Exalted deeds does say it is not evil to execute a lawfully condemned person. So that is not strictly a non-combatant. However the key word is execute, which means person must have commited a crime

I think the key concept here is that the executed person should haven received a fair trial. If a paladin found an evil non-combatant, he has to capture him so that he can try him and eventually execute, or incarcerate, or found not guilty.
However, it woulod have been quite difficult to give to a group of goblin a fair trial in a human courthouse.


Originally Posted by King of Nowere View Post
And, last time I read a rulebook there was still 3.0 edition, but I clearly remember that it was stated that divine casters received their spells from the gods, and paladins are divine casters; and I don't think they changed the rules on such things.
You remember incorrectly, actually. The 3.0 glossary on divine casters merely states that they get their power from gods or from faith. Looking at the write-ups for the individual divine spellcasting classes:

You're right, my memory failed

[Remirach]

Not so much does not mean not at all, certainly not within a system where such things exist.
Wait. Yes, yes it does mean that if I say it means that, since we're no longer talking about the comic but about my sentence. "Not so much" means "not under any circumstances I've foreseen." Which includes your theory, and specifically is in disagreement with your assertion that Shojo referring to "everyone" could as well refer to some force of totally objective Good that holds dominion over the fate of Paladins.


He would seem to learn each of these things on the job so to speak. He learns about paladins by having led them.
He was groomed to rule by his father, as well.

He would also learn about when paladins fall and how they fall largely by seeing the events happen.
What, they don't have books in Azure city?

But how often do paladins fall? In particular under conditions where Shojo can really learn about it in detail? This seems a small number at best, and quite possibly zero.
This is basically a number you're making up because it supports your position. "Quite possibly" it could be 5000. A Paladin Falling is guaranteed to be a good story, historians would scrupulously record any, and writers and poets would make tales and songs out of them. EVERYBODY knows what happens to Paladins when they Fall. Note the prisoners clapping at Miko when Belkar explains her situation. Oh, look, my number is exactly as unprovable as yours and I actually have something which better supports it than you do -- basically your position on this entire matter seems to be if there is enough absence of proof against your position, even if the standard for that proof is outrageously high, than it is at least equally valid to any other theory, despite the fact that you have no evidence.

But again, how does he know these things?
Again, what, books? This isn't rocket science.

He is not a paladin and we can not assume any instructions from the gods or anything.
How about instructions from his father, the previous head of the Sapphire Guard?

And if no paladin has fallen in 50 years,
Which is never said anywhere, there might have been dozens of Fallen Paladins during this time period

why would we think he remembers such ancient history enough to identify it this time?
If he had learned it at some time in the past, he stands a good chance of remembering it.

He's got a lot of work to do, and has to do it in a devious way. That doesn't give him much chance to read up on very rare events.
Who says they are rare, he's never complained of a lack of time, and why couldn't he have learned about them sometime before assuming his senile facade? Or even before he'd ascended the throne?

If we assume that [the gods did not come down to inflict Miko's fall], we get an even weaker case that Shojo was referring to the gods.
Not if there is no one else he could reasonably have been referring to. You have an unproven conjecture that he might have been referring to something else as of yet undefined, but is pure speculation and not an idea the comic itself has entertained. The only people he could have been referring to were the gods based on what we know.


There is special and there is special. A major league baseball player is special. The stars of the game are special even to them. They are the ones we see in the headlines during scandals. Miko was arguably the top of about 200 paladins and possibly the best in the world. She might well rate direct treatment as a result.
"Might" and "arguably" do not make for a case that should be automatically assumed which was the word you used earlier.

You are assuming here that all statements are utterly logical, which is utterly wrong. "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less" are used interchangably despite logically having opposite meanings.
They are used interchangeably by SOME people. A lot of people are bothered by that exact abuse of logic. Even to a careless person, "everybody" in this case shouldn't come up. If there's an objective force of good, and someone falls afoul of it and pays the price, it does not sound natural to speak of this force as "disagreeing" with the fallen person. Objectivity does not have OPINIONS. It has the TRUTH, period. If you fall because you did something objectively evil, I'd expect a comment like, "it would appear you are not as aligned with righteousness as you thought you were."


In the case at hand, Shojo doesn't need to know who, or even if, any other viewers are. Miko has been shown wrong, even if nobody has seen, and Shojo can make a statement as if she were on view to the entire world.
Wait, what? When he says "everyone" he's clearly referring to the beings who stripped Miko of her powers, not some "other viewers."


But it does. It is not speculation to say "2+2=4" [or "2+2=5" for that matter.] It is [often] speculation to say "A+B may equal 4". Your statement is "everything you suggest is just speculation." which is a rather wide net. If you work at it, you may be able to limit that statement to statements that are speculation, but it is easier to read as covering a lot of statements that are not speculation. Thus we say "speculation", not speculation.
That was needlessly tortured. Not every single sentence you have written has been speculation. Your theories in general have nothing but speculation backing them up.

You have been reading these comics, right? You may recall our author's confession to a desire to make sure we don't guess what is coming, right? To say something is deceptive can be an argument in its favor in OOTS.
Alright, perhaps deceptive wasn't a strong enough term. It's one thing to be misleading, and quite another to pull something out of thin air. Misdirection is good when you can go back and see how things really were ambiguous the whole time, but the scene with the 12 gods? It's not ambiguous or suggestive of anything other than the 12 gods being the forces in play. Undercutting that would be sloppy, not to mention it would make unimportant many of the storylines introduced by the foibles of the gods.

However my main theory has been that the scene is dramatic. Therefore it appears. Whether or not it makes any sense or fits is just not important.
It doesn't have to have any meaning at all, it's just there to look cool and everything else is irrelevant.

It's like the naked lady in the movie.
It's FANSERVICE!

It is there because it is there and no conclusions can be drawn from it.Nice handwaving, but no sale. It's there for a number of reasons besides "because," and the conclusions we can draw from it clear. Not up to YOUR level of "proof" perhaps, but that doesn't make the scene mere eye candy.

[Syraider]

this is cool xD

[David Argall]

Only you could see Miko's statement of "My Detect Evil is granted by the Gods themselves!" as a long chain of reasoning.

You are jumping from the general to the particular. Rather like going from "A lot of women like sex" to "Jane was sleeping with Billy last night."

However, we can see several links in this chain of reasoning here, including...

Miko, a fighter type without need to know, knows the correct source of her abilities.

In identifying them as from the gods, she is speaking precisely, rather than loosely.

And post-statement that the grant is conditional with the gods having the ability to revoke it. [An owner can grant/sell you a house and may or may not be able to take it back from you later depending on terms. And you can also lose it by such things as burning it down. So in OOTS terms, there is an assumption that that the grant is revokable, and that the grant is not lost in other ways.]



I think the key concept here is that the executed person should haven received a fair trial.
As a practical matter, a fair trial is extremely important in showing the accused is guilty. There are simply too many wrongly accused to trust much in the way of alternatives.
However, in theory you execute someone who is guilty of a crime and the trial, fair or not, is optional.

For our paladin, this means he has the right and duty to execute guilty prisoners. He has several limits on this, including the knowledge that he is [or should be] not Sure of many things he is sure of, and that allowing others to see that justice is being carried out is an important value even when he is Sure. But the trial is not a requirement, merely something desirable.
Our paladin has a much greater problem in the reverse case, where the criminal walks free due to an error in that fair trial. Being lawful and for other reasons, he normally has to suck it up, but there are times when he should be executing the fellow despite his fair trial.



Wait. Yes, yes it does mean that if I say it means that, since we're no longer talking about the comic but about my sentence.
You are trying to communicate, which means your words are not defined purely by you. The definitions of your audience are the more important.


He was groomed to rule by his father, as well.
Possibly, tho a number of princes received very little in the way of grooming. However, at most, this just gives us a little longer long ago. So it does not change our conclusions.

Quote:
He would also learn about when paladins fall and how they fall largely by seeing the events happen.


What, they don't have books in Azure city?
Of course. See 306. But the idea that the book experience does not prepare you for the actual experience is a cliche, and like most cliches, it got that status by being right a very large number of times. We can't assume Shojo was able to recognize the event because he might have read a book.


This is basically a number you're making up because it supports your position. "Quite possibly" it could be 5000. A Paladin Falling is guaranteed to be a good story, historians would scrupulously record any, and writers and poets would make tales and songs out of them.
you are arguing against yourself here. A paladin falling would be a good story if it did not happen very often. 5000 times? It isn't even a footnote.
Now we are looking at a total number of paladins that seems to be way below 5000. Azure City, surely the biggest collection of paladins in the South and quite possibly in the world, had about 200. That could put the worldwide population of paladins at under 1000. And the number who fall seems to be way below the total. So the recorded incidents of falls may be under 100, most of which happened well away from Azure City.
Nor can we expect historians, much less other writers, to scrupulously record the details. It sounds like the sort of event that just begs for "augmentation", for "correction" to "how it should have happened".


EVERYBODY knows what happens to Paladins when they Fall. Note the prisoners clapping at Miko when Belkar explains her situation.
Everybody knows that paladins can fall. The exact events is another story. Indeed, the strip in question argues the reverse. There was this massive lightning bolt, apparently visible to the entire city and especially visible to the prisoners. Yet the prisoners, don't seem to be aware that this means a paladin has fallen. Sabine says "you are a fallen paladin?", not "You are the fallen paladin?".
It would seem the signs of a fallen paladin are not at all widely known [or that this fall was different, which is the same thing for our purposes].


basically your position on this entire matter seems to be if there is enough absence of proof against your position, even if the standard for that proof is outrageously high, than it is at least equally valid to any other theory,
I am trying to prove the superiority of my position, not its equality.


despite the fact that you have no evidence.
You keep on saying this and I keep on repeating that the official rules of D&D do reject the idea that the gods have any authority in the area. The paladin does evil, he falls, with or without holy action.



How about instructions from his father, the previous head of the Sapphire Guard?
Instructions from 50 years ago? When it is not something father may have ever seen, and didn't need to either?

Quote:
And if no paladin has fallen in 50 years,


Which is never said anywhere, there might have been dozens of Fallen Paladins during this time period
OK, let's work with 25. Now how many have happened within Shojo's view? He doesn't leave the city much, if at all, and the paladins do. That makes it entirely possible that Miko's fall is the only one he has ever witnessed.


Sometimes, when you learn things, you remember them. It's one of the many advantages of learning things.
Sometimes. And of course sometimes not. We remain with no assurance that Shojo had had any experience with the fall of a paladin before.


Who says they are rare,
You have suggested dozens of fallen paladins, which works out to maybe 1 a year, and quite possibly 1 every several years. That's not exactly common.


he's never complained of a lack of time, and why couldn't he have learned about them sometime before assuming his senile facade? Or even before he'd ascended the throne?
He has also never claimed to have a lot of free time. And top rulers have large numbers of people wanting their ear, meaning they have a distinct shortage of free time.
As to learning it earlier, you are saying more and more it must have been a rare event, which he really didn't have a need to know, the more you put that learning in the distant past.


Not if there is no one else he could reasonably have been referring to. You have an unproven conjecture that he might have been referring to something else as of yet undefined,
You are simply saying that people speak with a precision they don't. Shojo's statement doesn't have meaning beyond "See, you are wrong." The language is common English whether or not there are any other viewers.


"Might" and "arguably" do not make for a case that should be automatically assumed which was the word you used earlier.
I did? Where? I don't seem to find the phrase. You may have misunderstood a statement as I have several times said an argument assumes something.

Quote:
You are assuming here that all statements are utterly logical, which is utterly wrong. "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less" are used interchangably despite logically having opposite meanings.


They are used interchangeably by SOME people.
Which is quite sufficient for our purposes. Shojo may be SOME people.


A lot of people are bothered by that exact abuse of logic.
Which doesn't seem to stop them from understanding the statement, and from knowing people do not speak with the precision your claim is based on.


it does not sound natural to speak of this force as "disagreeing" with the fallen person.
Look at a few cop shows. "The evidence says you are lying." "This says otherwise." The evidence or other object doesn't say a blasted thing. It may not seem logical to you, and may not be, but it is the way people speak.

In the current comic, we have Haley saying "What did you do?" Her meaning is more "Why did you kill that gnome?" and that is how Belkar answers, but it is not what she said. Yet we do not assume she had any different meaning in mind. Again we find that language is just not as logical as you would have it. [Minor side point: A logical deduction from the German language is that a lass of 20 does not have a sex, but a turnip does.]



When he says "everyone" he's clearly referring to the beings who stripped Miko of her powers, not some "other viewers."
Logically, he might be. But the simple point is that language is often not logical, as you have already acknowledged.



Not every single sentence you have written has been speculation. Your theories in general have nothing but speculation backing them up.
So speculation in the given case was properly written as "speculation".


the very premise undercuts the very good plotlines established by the foibles of the gods.
I don't see this. I am not sure there are any intended plotlines involving the foibles of the gods, at least that would be threatened by this. What ones do you have in mind?



So, what, it's basically gratuitous? Fanservice? I'd like to give it a little more credit.
What you would like is not necessarily what is.

[FujinAkari]

Miko, a fighter type without need to know, knows the correct source of her abilities.

This from the man who argued that a rogue should be able to understand the specifics of magical communication enough to intuit that Cloister was in existence and that leaving the city would correct it. Why is it that, when you say a character should understand specifics from a completely unrelated class, its fine, but when someone else says that a character should understand their own abilities, it is a "long chain of reasoning"?

Seriously, David.

This is now my fifth time asking you to provide support for your claim. There are no less that -four comics- that support the idea that the Gods empower their paladins, and despite being asked numerous times you continue to be utterly unable to provide even circumstantial evidence to back your position.

It seems almost as if you believe that, as long as you don't present evidence, then you can't be proven wrong. While technically true, it also means you can never be considered correct.

In any contest between evidence and speculation, evidence wins. Your current tactic of nitpicking and critiquing evidence is only a valid one when your own argument can stand to profit from it. At the moment, no matter how much you attack my evidence it is still the only evidence available.

Last chance, either present evidence, or concede defeat.

I'm done playing with you, if you can't support your claim, then it isn't worth discussing.

[hamishspence]

Getting back to the subject of the Dark one, the question is, is the rather Utopian live and let live, Goblin Civilization thing presented by Redcloak really what the Dark one is after? Is the story Redcloak presents, about the Dark One being assassinated when he tried to come to peaceful terms with the human nations, true?

How evil are goblins? We have seen that their occupation of Azure City is not pleasant, but considering Goblins have a reputation for eating sentient beings, including one another, when food runs short, it could be much worse. It is not clear whether "You will drink the blood of innocents and LIKE it" applies to mainstream goblins, the teenage goblin said his father was the high priest of a demon prince, NOT the Dark One. Plus cloak does not match any of goblin or hobgoblin priests of the Dark one seen.

Is it OK to kill goblin children, even if evil? Exalted Deeds says NO. Class Acts, Paladin guide in dragon Magazine says No. Even in 1st ed D&D, it is suggested that killing orc children is Evil, and orcs were nastier then.

Is the Dark one Evil. Yes, strips confirm this. Was he evil before he died? Unknown.

Is the creation story Redcloak gives true? It is consistent with the strip as seen, full of monsters which seem to exist mainly to be killed by adventurers. However Redcloak has his own biases which may colour his accounts.

[turkishproverb]

David, I'm saying this as calmly as i can

THE COMIC IS TOP LEVEL CANNON. DEAL WITH IT.

I'm sorry if you think the comic doesn't count towards the purpose of determining events in the comic, but that's just screwy.

It'd be like me arguing that a Tape of Mishima's death didn't show him committing seppuku.

False. I'd only be able to support it by saing "Well, major figured don't commit suicide. (And, as that statement is not true, its a good analog for the fact the books don't explain {as you say} that the gods specifically have NOTHING to do with a paladin falling.)

[David Argall]

This from the man who argued that a rogue should be able to understand the specifics of magical communication enough to intuit that Cloister was in existence and that leaving the city would correct it.
As noted in that discussion several times, there was no need for specifics. It merely required knowledge easily visible to the entire city and knowledge we knew her to have. Nor did it require her to know anything about Cloister. She just needed to know that something that should be happening wasn't, and that something she could do might correct that. Not would work, merely could work.
As noted, Miko had no need to know if the ultimate source of her abilities was the gods or something impersonal. The requirements on her were the same either way. The farmer acts the same way whether he believes or is an atheist.


Why is it that, when you say a character should understand specifics from a completely unrelated class, its fine, but when someone else says that a character should understand their own abilities, it is a "long chain of reasoning"?
I note you do not try to show that the steps I pointed out were definitely done or were not needed. You haven't shown any evidence that it is not a long chain of reasoning.


This is now my fifth time asking you to provide support for your claim.
And this is about the fifth time I have pointed to the Core rules and I expect you to simply ignore them again.


Your current tactic of nitpicking and critiquing evidence is only a valid one when your own argument can stand to profit from it.
Does not follow. Weaknesses in your argument are still weaknesses in your argument. If your theory is based on 2+2=5, it is wrong whether or not I have a theory.


At the moment, no matter how much you attack my evidence it is still the only evidence available.
And if it is insufficient, it is still insufficient.


I'm done playing with you, if you can't support your claim, then it isn't worth discussing.
You seem to have said this a couple of times before. Does this translate to "I want the last word, so you should stop talking"?



Getting back to the subject of the Dark one, the question is, is the rather Utopian live and let live, Goblin Civilization thing presented by Redcloak really what the Dark one is after?
It doesn't really matter, but there is a good chance it is merely a propaganda piece.

We can note the strip is almost purely good vs evil. Our goblins and hobgoblins consistently do evil things. That makes it difficult to think we are talking about some oppressed race. It does make it easy to think SoD is more or less Redcloak's biased picture.
SoD is definitely lesser canon. We have the statement that nothing in SoD will be needed to understand the strip. But the Goblin Civilization idea is SoD based, and greatly changes the view of the strip. So it makes more sense to deem it false here.


Is the story Redcloak presents, about the Dark One being assassinated when he tried to come to peaceful terms with the human nations, true?
50-50 A goblin surrounded by evil forces should be well aware of the danger of assassination. And no matter what happened, it would be natural for his army to blame the humans. But it might have happened.


How evil are goblins? We have seen that their occupation of Azure City is not pleasant, but considering Goblins have a reputation for eating sentient beings, including one another, when food runs short, it could be much worse.
Could be worse is not an endorsement. And what we see is evil.



It is not clear whether "You will drink the blood of innocents and LIKE it" applies to mainstream goblins,
We can find reasons it could in theory not apply, but we have no solid reason to assume it does not.


Is it OK to kill goblin children, even if evil? Exalted Deeds says NO. Class Acts, Paladin guide in dragon Magazine says No. Even in 1st ed D&D, it is suggested that killing orc children is Evil, and orcs were nastier then.
Most moral positions have exceptions and it seems easier to classify this under the exceptions than to go around saying we have evil paladins. A-what is the age of a child? Right-eye is old enough notice sex appeal and its basic effects, and is pretty much a full adult 4 years later. B-The child's exemption is based on its obvious classification as non-combatant. So if we find it's actually a combatant, it loses this moral protection.


Is the Dark one Evil. Yes, strips confirm this. Was he evil before he died? Unknown.
Almost certainly. The master of evil races is almost guaranteed to be evil.


Is the creation story Redcloak gives true? It is consistent with the strip as seen, full of monsters which seem to exist mainly to be killed by adventurers. However Redcloak has his own biases which may colour his accounts.
The story has some flaws. For example, all classes need low level monsters to fight, not just clerics. And if they had plans to make the world sort of a tv series for them to watch, they would have planned to have the low and mid level monsters from the start.


However the question for us is whether they tried to give the humanoids a raw deal. This sounds more like excuse than explanation.
Evil is a lousy way to run a society. Everybody is trying to rob the others, while nobody is trying to produce anything. So our evil society falls apart unless it can rob outsiders, and eventually it runs short of outsiders and falls apart anyway. That means our evil humanoids don't need unfair treatment to be poor and backward. Their own efforts make them that.
But of course, few of us want to accept that our bad results are our own fault. So it's not at all surprising they blame the gods [who may well have given their favorites some advantages anyway. But head starts don't last. Those on the bottom make their way to the top, and vice-versa.]

[factotum]

And this is about the fifth time I have pointed to the Core rules and I expect you to simply ignore them again.


The Core rules state that goblins are Small, not Medium-sized. Yet Rich draws them as the same size as humans in the strip. Now, by your logic, this is clearly a mistake on his part and has been since the very first strip, since the rules are more important than the actual evidence of what happens in the strip! Frankly, that's nonsense, so we're forced back onto the other possible conclusion--namely, that the world of OotS works the way that Rich intends it to, EVEN IF THAT CONTRADICTS THE CORE RULES.

In short--you can't use a contradiction with the core rules to prove your point. Try harder.

[The Wanderer]

My only contribution to any argument with David in it, as it's about as effective as arguing with a brick wall:


And this is about the fifth time I have pointed to the Core rules and I expect you to simply ignore them again.

Core rules don't mean a damn thing if Rich chooses to ignore them, alter them, or say it doesn't work that way in this setting, something he has done hundreds of times in the comic's run.

OOTS is not a campaign being run out of a core rule book, it is a story about a world that runs partially on D&D rules. And ignores and violates them all the time. At this point in the comic, the story has long since become far more important than the rules of D&D, to the extent that I'd say the strip owes no more to core rules than a random book in the fantasy section at your local book store.

Therefore, in arguing or conjecturing about something from this story, you don't have a whole lot to stand on if you can't cite something from the comic. At most, if we're talking about something that has not come up in the story yet, it can be assumed it's done by the rules until the story contradicts that. If the story says or does something that is against core rules, the rules might as well not exist.

[turkishproverb]

Erm...david? I'm trying to use your logic, and while doing the closest I could, I noticed that there is no mention of the gods NOT being involved when you read the D&D core books

[FujinAkari]

I note you do not try to show that the steps I pointed out were definitely done or were not needed. You haven't shown any evidence that it is not a long chain of reasoning.

I believe I already noted that there was nothing to discuss until you actually presented an argument. That I choose not to discuss this drivel should come as no surprise.


And this is about the fifth time I have pointed to the Core rules and I expect you to simply ignore them again.

For the third time, the Core Rules are utterly irrelevant when directly contradicted by a higher source of canon, in this case the comic.


You seem to have said this a couple of times before. Does this translate to "I want the last word, so you should stop talking"?

No, it translates too "I would like to discuss this, please post your evidence so we can determine which interpretation is more likely."

At the moment, I see absolutely no reason to assume that Rich has purposely lied about the source of a Paladin's power on four separate occasions. Your lack-of-evidence is less than convincing.

I don't know why you are so adament about this idea, but I would posit that if you are unable to find a single indication within the comic that you are correct, it is possible that you aren't.

If, rather than merely being unable to find support for your idea, you instead find multiple instances where your idea is directly challenged, then the possibility becomes increasingly probable. At this point, it is near certainty.

[Alex Warlorn]

What Soon's nephew told the OoTS wasn't the whole story.
What Redcloak told Xykon wasn't the whole story.

There is no such THING as the unbias opinion!

And something about Paladins killing unarmed elderly, and unarmed cub goblins SCREAMS to me as Out of Character. Mostly cause Miko, the paladin even the other paladins couldn't stand, has seemed like the only one who could have carried out such orders.

Redcloak calls humans a morally bankrupt race, and Xykon concedes this, but Roy and Elan clearly contradict this, just as much as Right-Eye contradicts Miko's stereo type.

And Right-Eye was right about the Dark One treating his race individually as expendable. And Right-Eye DID do more for the goblin race than Redcloak ever has.

And what makes Redcloak THINK they'll be any gods to create a new world if the Snarl breaks free again? He's an idiot. That thing took out a patheon last time it was free. This time I'm betting there will be no survivors.

And... if a God was that driven by revenge... that might be what the Dark One wants... it would explain why one of Redcloak's domains is Destruction.

[David Argall]

In short--you can't use a contradiction with the core rules to prove your point.
That assumes there is a contradiction.
The core rules are the default rules, the ones we assume apply lacking other information.
Notably, where there is contradiction, there is often attention drawn to it. That even more tells us that we have to be suspicious of reasoning that tells us we should assume the core rules are being violated.
On the same point, the standard rules of logic tell us to resolve contradictions in ways that do not make either statement false. A reading that finds that the comic did not contradict the core rules is to be prefered.



I'm saying this as calmly as i can
Rather obviously not.


I'm sorry if you think the comic doesn't count towards the purpose of determining events in the comic,
But I have not said that. Rather I have said it does not say what my critics wish to claim it said.


there is no mention of the gods NOT being involved when you read the D&D core books
Which here is the same as saying they are not involved, at least in the sense that their involvement is important.
You are told your pay at your new job will be $$$. They don't mention any pension. That lack of mention is quite sufficient for you to conclude you are not getting one. You are told if your paladin does an evil deed, he falls and there is no mention of godly intervention, you conclude there is no godly intervention worth worrying about.
We might assume the gods might be involved, either as witnesses or administering the punishment already decided, but we don't assume they have any choice in the matter. They are definitely not judges who decide the sentence, tho they might be the cops who carry it out.



I believe I already noted that there was nothing to discuss until you actually presented an argument. That I choose not to discuss this drivel should come as no surprise.
Now that is rather obviously a fallacy. You decide there is no argument presented and thus declare yourself without a need to refute it.


the Core Rules are utterly irrelevant when directly contradicted by a higher source of canon, in this case the comic.
a-Rules do not become utterly irrelevant no matter how directly contradicted by higher rules. They are over ruled, but still are a consideration.
b-We do not have a direct contradiction, certainly not in the throne room event, on which you are arguing inferences.


Quote:
You seem to have said this a couple of times before. Does this translate to "I want the last word, so you should stop talking"?


No, it translates too "I would like to discuss this, please post your evidence so we can determine which interpretation is more likely."
But I seem to have posted no new evidence, at least that you discuss this time. So your posting this time seems more consistent with a simple desire to get the last word. Still, I suppose I should be happy you are at least looking at the core rules.


At the moment, I see absolutely no reason to assume that Rich has purposely lied about the source of a Paladin's power on four separate occasions.
There is no claim he has. The claim is merely that you misunderstand what was said, in particular by trying to read into statements what is not there.


Your lack-of-evidence is less than convincing.
Over the years, I have been less than convincing on a number of points that are extremely established facts. I of course like to think this is due to thickheaded listeners [not without some justice. The saying goes "It is almost impossible to make someone understand something when his job depends on his not understanding it."], but I have to worry it is a flaw in my ability to argue. However, my inability to prove 2+2=4 does not mean it is false.


I don't know why you are so adament about this idea, but I would posit that if you are unable to find a single indication within the comic that you are correct, it is possible that you aren't.

If, rather than merely being unable to find support for your idea, you instead find multiple instances where your idea is directly challenged, then the possibility becomes increasingly probable. At this point, it is near certainty.
But I do not see these "direct" challenges. However I have seen all sorts of false ideas in all sorts of fields supported by all sorts of evidence.

[turkishproverb]

WOw. cannibalizing a total of 3 lines of mine from 2 posts. nice.

Seriously, is there any way we can just start a new thread on a topic when DA shows up? I don't mind disagreements, but when logic is alien to someone, it's kind've annoying.


That assumes there is a contradiction.
The core rules are the default rules, the ones we assume apply lacking other information.
Notably, where there is contradiction, there is often attention drawn to it. That even more tells us that we have to be suspicious of reasoning that tells us we should assume the core rules are being violated.
On the same point, the standard rules of logic tell us to resolve contradictions in ways that do not make either statement false. A reading that finds that the comic did not contradict the core rules is to be prefered.

Ok, so, where is the attention drawn to the confusing stats of the sylph? Furthermore, things that are normally less than obvious according to the rules tend to not be as pronounced, unless a part of an existing joke.



Rather obviously not.

Oh, trust me, I am.


But I have not said that. Rather I have said it does not say what my critics wish to claim it said.


When you say you are right in DIRECT confict with comics evidence, or say the comic is WRONG (See: ROY was wrong threads you posted in) you are saying that, whether or not you use the words


Which here is the same as saying they are not involved, at least in the sense that their involvement is important.
You are told your pay at your new job will be $$$. They don't mention any pension. That lack of mention is quite sufficient for you to conclude you are not getting one. You are told if your paladin does an evil deed, he falls and there is no mention of godly intervention, you conclude there is no godly intervention worth worrying about.


Ok, so if I read in a book that if you commit murder, you will be arrested, I am to assume the police have nothing to do with it because there is no mention of the police?

OR if it says You will be executed, but doesn't mention an executioner, that automatically means there isnt' one?


OR a book says if you commit murder you will be executed automatically means that anyone accused, or anyone who causes a death will be executed without trial, because the judicial process (unimportant for the purpose of that book_ is not mentioned explicitly?

that is just loony.



We might assume the gods might be involved, either as witnesses or administering the punishment already decided, but we don't assume they have any choice in the matter. They are definitely not judges who decide the sentence, tho they might be the cops who carry it out.
So now the gods don't control the universe? Or at the very least don't decide things like what qualifies as a good action within the context of people THEY empower for being good?

Your getting screwier by the minute.


But I do not see these "direct" challenges. However I have seen all sorts of false ideas in all sorts of fields supported by all sorts of evidence.

If you don't see statements by the characters and visual events in the comic as direct challenges, you really can't be helped.

[David Argall]

so, where is the attention drawn to the confusing stats of the sylph? Furthermore, things that are normally less than obvious according to the rules tend to not be as pronounced, unless a part of an existing joke.
I have not said always, only often. So the existance of one exception is of little importance.


When you say you are right in DIRECT confict with comics evidence, or say the comic is WRONG (See: ROY was wrong threads you posted in) you are saying that, whether or not you use the words
The Roy was wrong threads? Now presumably these were long and long ago, which means you need to give us a more precise reference if we are to take the claim seriously.

As to saying the comic is wrong, I will refer you to recent claims by others that a] 539-the rope leading a donkey is attached to a bridle on its head, not around its neck and b] 481-Ships do not have ropes wrapped around the mast [That one at least made for a more dramatic picture.] The simple fact is the comic is made by a mortal and contains well known errors.


Ok, so if I read in a book that if you commit murder, you will be arrested, I am to assume the police have nothing to do with it because there is no mention of the police?
What you would assume is that the police have no discretion in the matter. The police are going to arrest you no matter what their opinions on the subject.
But note you draw this conclusion because you assume that police arrest people. So it follows that the police do the arresting. But if the statement was if you commit murder, you will be punished, we do not have this direct connection and we are far less sure the police will be involved.


OR if it says You will be executed, but doesn't mention an executioner, that automatically means there isnt' one?
I would not assume from that a particular individual or group is the executioner. And thus I would not assume the gods are to be executioners in our case.


OR a book says if you commit murder you will be executed automatically means that anyone accused, or anyone who causes a death will be executed without trial, because the judicial process (unimportant for the purpose of that book_ is not mentioned explicitly?

that is just loony.
Well yes, because we recognize that "commit murder" is not the same as "accursed of..." or "..causes a death..".
Now without trial? That is what the statement says. We know there are trials and therefore conclude the statement is defective on that point.
However, when we turn to D&D rules, we find no such reference to trials anywhere. Rather, we consistently find automatic results. A paladin changes alignment, he loses abilities and can't advance as a paladin. A paladin or monk can't take levels of other classes without losing the ability to advance. Barbarians and Bards get penalized for becoming lawful. .... No discretion, no trial.


So now the gods don't control the universe?
It would seem not in OOTS, and definitely not in D&D. The D&D god is routinely treated as merely the greatest monster of the moment, the ruler, not the creator.
In OOTS, we had 4 sets of gods, and have had several other sets, mostly vaguely described. They are killable. They work with the threads of reality, which predate the gods. They thus follow the standard pattern of D&D gods, really big and tough monsters. They are world builders, not universe builders.

Or at the very least don't decide things like what qualifies as a good action within the context of people THEY empower for being good?[/QUOTE]
And they don't. Indeed, where do you see evidence that they do? We have no pictures of the gods as lawgivers or moral authorities. Clerics are simply their agents. They do not come forward as defining good at all.
Now we have not had a showing that they empower anybody for being good, but we need to keep in mind here that the act of empowering is not always revokable. You graduate from a college, there is very little, if any, ability of the college to ungraduate you.


If you don't see statements by the characters and visual events in the comic as direct challenges, you really can't be helped.
Now again you are arguing fallacy. Whether I can be helped does not change the facts of the case. You have a duty to show that X is a direct challenge. So what is the statement? How is it a direct challenge? [And not just a challenge? I note a tendency in this debate to add absolutes in the mistaken idea this makes the claim stronger. Generally it make the claim weaker, and more suspect. It may seem odd, but when somebody says his claim is very true, in practice this means it is less true than if he said it was true.]

[Kish]

So now the gods don't control the universe? Or at the very least don't decide things like what qualifies as a good action within the context of people THEY empower for being good?
To be fair, the fact that there are evil gods strikes me as pretty strong evidence that, in fact, the gods are not the final authority on "what is good." If they were, all the gods' alignments would be listed as Something Good, with clarifications like, "Neutral Good, which means she believes in peace and harmony...Chaotic Good, which means he believes in honor in war...Lawful Good, which means he wants the living eradicated to make way for the undead..."

That said, only Argall could deny that the Twelve Gods decreed Miko's fall and that all the evidence points to the gods deciding when paladins fall in OotS.

[turkishproverb]

To be fair, the fact that there are evil gods strikes me as pretty strong evidence that, in fact, the gods are not the final authority on "what is good." If they were, all the gods' alignments would be listed as Something Good, with clarifications like, "Neutral Good, which means she believes in peace and harmony...Chaotic Good, which means he believes in honor in war...Lawful Good, which means he wants the living eradicated to make way for the undead..."

That said, only Argall could deny that the Twelve Gods decreed Miko's fall and that all the evidence points to the gods deciding when paladins fall in OotS.

I honestly think some gods would classify themselves as EVIL in OOTS, in the same way Redcloak or Xykon do.

But yea, argall attitude towards the strip is...troubling.

[FujinAkari]

But yea, argall attitude towards the strip is...troubling.

David has some very strange ideas about logic. What seems to occur is that David declares his theory as fact, occasionally correcting other posters who say things he disagrees with. When inevitably someone challenges his theory with actual evidence, he goes off on a tangent of speculation and presents some improbable and ridiculous sequence of events which allow established fact to co-exist with his theory. ((For examples of this, note is current stance: That the gods were merely executing the judgement of some higher being which the comic has made absolutely no reference, that Miko, Redcloak, and Shojo were all incorrect when they talked about the Gods role in providing powers to their followers, and that Rich himself was misrepresenting the facts when he drew the comic.))

While, yes, if all of these assumptions are true, David might actually have a case, the trouble is that they are all merely that - assumptions. When pressed (and I have pressed repeatedly) David is utterly incapable of providing any evidence to back his speculation from the comic.

Instead, he makes the rather rediculous move of demanding that his assumptions be disproven. I can't even begin to describe how foolish this is. It would be like me speculating that V's mate was actually a kobald, and then demanding that someone cite the comic proving that (s)he wasn't.

Well, -of course- such evidence won't exist. If I assert something completely out of left field which the comic hasn't ever addressed (and, seriously, my faux-example is less insane than David's theory, since V actually DOES have a mate, whereas David's overpower is a work of complete fiction) then the comic won't be able to disprove it.

The mistake that I would be making in such an example is that I am ignoring the fact that I have to prove my claim, I can't just sit back and demand my critics prove me wrong.

Thus is why I've stopped responding to David's arguments. He has no argument, so it is foolish to discuss his speculation with him.

[hamishspence]

yes, i noticed that tendency.

The original question concerned the Dark one, and whether he was genuinely out for "a level playing field" or simply wanting the goblins to rule the world.

SOD's portrayal of Redcloak leads me to suspect that he himself was sincere, at the time, about his hopes for the future, and that he was not merely malevolent. He accepts the label put on him, refererring to their "wicked schemes" and of the Dark One "technically an Evil god" but his speeches concerning the goblins being driven into the swamps do make sense.

Right Eye and family strongly suggest that the goblins are not just enemies of other races, they can co-exist.

as said before, every edition of D&D has tended to regard the killing the young of sentient races as Evil. 1st ed for orcs, 3rd ed for Exalted Deeds, its a long established theme.

[David Argall]

((For examples of this, note is current stance: That the gods were merely executing the judgement of some higher being which the comic has made absolutely no reference,
It is interesting how often you present your strawman as my ideas. You are the one who suggested the idea of a higher being here. It is not important to my position.
D&D routinely takes the position that Law, Good, Evil, & Chaos are forces, only mildly different from poles of magnets or gravity or... The gods merely ride these forces. They do not rule or create them. An act is evil, not because the gods say so. The gods say so because it is evil.
These forces are not portrayed as sentient. They might be, but it makes no difference for player purposes. They simply are, and impose their limits on PC, NPC, and gods alike.


that Miko, Redcloak, and Shojo were all incorrect when they talked about the Gods role in providing powers to their followers,
Well of course the gods are granting powers to their followers, but we are talking about particular powers to particular types, a much more complex question that makes general statements often wrong. And these individuals have reasons for us to suspect error or lies.


and that Rich himself was misrepresenting the facts when he drew the comic.
We know he has. Deliberate misrepresentations for the purpose of surprising us are rife. However more likely to be of immediate concern is the cases of indifference or honest error.
Take 481 where Captain Axe cuts the rope tied to the mast. You just don't tie ropes to masts. At the least, it gets in your way. So that picture is a misrepresentation. However, cutting the rope this way is more dramatic and so the minor fact this is not what should be happening is simply ignored. But we do not conclude from this that any other ships will have ropes tied anywhere but the normal spots.
The same logic applies to 407. We have a great dramatic picture. Does it make any sense? Who cares? Can we draw any conclusions from it? No. It's there for drama, not for explaining the world.


David is utterly incapable of providing any evidence to back his speculation from the comic.
"Utterly incapable" is a double absolute, which in practice is less absolute than a single. The writer, having some doubts about the position, tries to hide that doubt by piling on words.
We note too "from the comic". This just leaps out as an attempt at dishonest argument, in this case by trying to ignore evidence presented.


Instead, he makes the rather rediculous move of demanding that his assumptions be disproven.
Where? I can't find where I used the word "disproved". I have demanded evidence on particular points of course, but these are particular points. The burdern of proof does shift from point to point.

[The Wanderer]

Instead, he makes the rather rediculous move of demanding that his assumptions be disproven. I can't even begin to describe how foolish this is. It would be like me speculating that V's mate was actually a kobald, and then demanding that someone cite the comic proving that (s)he wasn't.

Not to mention that it's impossible to prove a negative in the first place. If I were to ask you to prove that pink unicorns or rainbow colored dragons with mushroom like bellies don't and never have existed on Earth in the real world, it would be technically impossible.

For example, you could cite that there was no evidence of it in fossil records, to which I could simply say that fossil records are massively incomplete and new discoveries in them are being made all the time. You could say that no one has seen them, I could merely say that no one has looked in the right places. (And come back with how the myths of them cross countries and mythological traditions, which means someone must have seen something to base it on).

There's not much, no matter how far out there, can be proven not to exist, because someone can always come up with some circumstance or technicality or whatever. So, staying away from those sort of arguments with people determined to only see things their way, (as David is, something we should remember from his arguments that Hinjo and the Deva chewed Roy out between comics for smacking down Miko) is probably the best thing you can do.

[FujinAkari]

(as David is, something we should remember from his arguments that Hinjo and the Deva chewed Roy out between comics for smacking down Miko)

Indeed! I had forgotten that. In David's brand of logic, he "doesn't have to prove something happened, he just has to prove that it didn't not happen."

Or, he apparently thinks it is sufficient to leave enough doubt for his position to be true and then simply assumes it is true.

[David Argall]

Not to mention that it's impossible to prove a negative in the first place.
Incorrect. It can be durn difficult, often to the point of practicaly impossibility, but negatives can be proved. That is how they proved the 4 color theorm.

Now our standard rule of logic is that those wanting to disprove a negative are under the gun. They need only provide the one case. However, it is quite easy for such a burden to switch sides, and often what we want to discuss is not a full negative, but more of a tendency, which means the burden can fall on either, or both.


his arguments that Hinjo and the Deva chewed Roy out between comics for smacking down Miko)
In both of those cases, people were asserting possibilities as certainities, and trying to use them as evidence for other issues. Pointing out that their evidence is flawed is not demanding they prove a negative, merely that they accept they don't have the evidence they wish to claim.

[hamishspence]

Belkar. Evil character allied with the Order.

Roy's "Not everything is about good and evil" comment when defending Belkar.

Origin of PC's Orcs: Roy disagrees with the principle that randomly killing evil creatures is what adventures do

In general, the comic strip is more complex than straight Good vs Evil.

Concerning arguments, any argument based on conjecture about what happens between strips should be considered dubious. Conjecture is not evidence. The strip automatically trumps core D&D and should be regarded as a homebrew world.

Burden of Proof: is on the arguer. Arguments should be based on evidence which can be cited, specific strips OOTS books, specific pages in PH, DMG, MM, 3.5 ed. Previous D&D sources can be citied as corroborating evidence, but 3.5 trumps previous sources where there is direct contradiction.

Expanded rules and supplementary sources: should be considered valid if WOTC published this is due to the limitations of the "core" books which provide very little detail on certain subjects 3.5 trumps expanded sources if there is direct contradiction. Late sources trump earrly ones. 3rd party sources are of dubious merit and should not be regarded as D&D canon.

I would like to see arguments based on direct evidence rather than speculation, and for people to make it clear when their view has limited evidence.

[Lamech]

That assumes there is a contradiction.
The core rules are the default rules, the ones we assume apply lacking other information.
Notably, where there is contradiction, there is often attention drawn to it. That even more tells us that we have to be suspicious of reasoning that tells us we should assume the core rules are being violated.
On the same point, the standard rules of logic tell us to resolve contradictions in ways that do not make either statement false. A reading that finds that the comic did not contradict the core rules is to be prefered.
Umm... no Rich don't often draw attention to rule-comic differences, unless he makes a joke of it.
Lets look at the height the ring of jumping gives (looks to be a bit more than 5 feet), how Durkon must rest to get his spells back, the medium height of goblins, the stats of a sylph, the existence of TNT, or how the smoke coated V. (Actually I'm not overly sure about the last one that might be how smoke works.) So Argall could you please provide some evidence for attention being drawn to contradictions.

Now on the Dark One's honesty. I think that the world Redcloak created in Azure City will probably be the model. If it wasn't the Dark One probably would have mentioned something to him about not enslaving the humans.

[David Argall]

Umm... no Rich don't often draw attention to rule-comic differences, unless he makes a joke of it.
Our writer is making a joke of most everything, so we can't eliminate the cases where he makes jokes.


the existence of TNT,
While explosives are not particularly core, they are a common enough element in the rules and most versions of D&D feature them as suppliments. Since TNT is widely recognized, it becomes an easy image to use and no conflict.


or how the smoke coated V.
The smoke was highly efficient, but otherwise standard. It is assumed that a tactic of throwing flour or such into a square will reveal an invisible person, who must actively remove it in order to recover invisibility. The smoke would definitely reveal an outline, and a coat of ash would make the invisible visible.


could you please provide some evidence for attention being drawn to contradictions.

Too much work for the most part, but...
See Redcloak in 459 and Roy & V in 175,



any argument based on conjecture about what happens between strips should be considered dubious. Conjecture is not evidence.
Conjecture is the analysis of evidence, and to the extent it is reasonable and explains what is going on, it is a major part of our reasoning process. Despite a number of sayings, the evidence tells us nothing. It needs to be explained, and conjecture is part of that explanation.



The strip automatically trumps core D&D and should be regarded as a homebrew world.
The word "trumps" is excessive. While the strip has in general the highest authority, it can, and has been, overruled by just about anything at all. This is most obvious in the case of language and artistic errors. We spot them and come to the immediate conclusion the comic is wrong. We do not cite any backup for that conclusion at all.
As to homebrew, most such are based heavily on a given set of rules, and those playing in it routinely consult those rules. In our case, that is 3.5, whose rules rule except where overruled.



Arguments should be based on ...
A variety of pieces of good advice, but considering them hard and fast rules just leads to invalid conclusions.

[FujinAkari]

Too much work for the most part, but...
See Redcloak in 459 and Roy & V in 175,

Somehow I am not surprised that you consider proving your opinion to be too much work. I also fail to see anything in 175 or 459 which is a rules violation.


The word "trumps" is excessive. While the strip has in general the highest authority, it can, and has been, overruled by just about anything at all.

Please cite evidence beyond your opinion if you wish to claim things like this

[turkishproverb]

The word "trumps" is excessive. While the strip has in general the highest authority, it can, and has been, overruled by just about anything at all.


And, I think we've seen why it's fruitless to argue with David.

goodbye.

[David Argall]

I fail to see anything in 175 or 459 which is a rules violation.

175- D&D 3.5 is done on squares, not hexes [which have been used in some earlier versions]

459- panel 7 is a statement these paladin spirits are not standard D&D.

DCA Quote:
The word "trumps" is excessive. While the strip has in general the highest authority, it can, and has been, overruled by just about anything at all.


Please cite evidence beyond your opinion if you wish to claim things like this
When I am pointing out what should be entirely obvious, if possibly quibbling, fact?

In the last panel of comic 1, Haley's arm is excessively long, sliding into the floor. We of course do not conclude that Haley can vary the length of her arms, nor that she can pass thru solid objects.
In 531, we see Haley's boot floating in the air. Also she puts the other boot on the left foot, but it somehow is on the right thereafter. We do not conclude she has boots of levitation, nor that she has found a new way to dress.
In a number of the threads about individual strips, we have comments that there is this or that error in wordage or other things, and often enough the acknowledgement of this by way of announcement that it has been fixed.

All of these amount to the same thing. The strip is not the final authority. We reject that position casually and correctly. When someone says "the strip says", it is a valid [if generally incorrect] counter to say "it should say otherwise because.."

[FujinAkari]

175- D&D 3.5 is done on squares, not hexes [which have been used in some earlier versions]

This is a quibble, not a rule violation. Though squares are the standard, there is no rule against using hexes, and thus using hexes are not a rule violation.


459- panel 7 is a statement these paladin spirits are not standard D&D.

Which is not a rule violation. See Rule Zero.


In the last panel of comic 1, Haley's arm is excessively long, sliding into the floor. We of course do not conclude that Haley can vary the length of her arms, nor that she can pass thru solid objects.

This isn't something the comic is asserting, it is an art error. There is a difference. To say the comic asserts something is the equivalent of saying that Rich Burlew says it is so. Rich is very obviously not asserting that Haley can levitate, or that she can vary the length of her arms, and so the comic is not taking that stand.

While yes, we use common sense to deturmine the truth, we are really deturmining what the comic actually stipulates, and what is merely an art issue.

[The Wanderer]

459- panel 7 is a statement these paladin spirits are not standard D&D.

Thanks for catching up with this, David. :smallwink: So now that we've established this fact, I presume that you agree that it was in fact the gods that are the source of the paladin powers, and that whatever the rulebook says is irrelevant to what is going on in Rich's story? :smallwink: :smallbiggrin:

[brilliantlight]

I think you just rolled a natural 1 on your spot:






So what, if there is an evil murderer you kill him, and the you kill his son because he was supposed to be the same alignment? Will you approve a law that states that when someone commits a crime, his children are to be punished for that same crime because they're supposed to be like him?
I don't know why Roy's brother was in th LG afterlife, but we can't use this as a proof.

The idea that the 12 gods consiered them civilian casualties of war amkes sense, even if I still prefere thinking that the gods that created the goblins as cannon fodder don't care about their children being needlessy killed.

About what the DO has in mind for non humanoid sentient creatures, we really have no conclusive proofs, we may argue but we cannot be sure. Anyway, even if the DO wants to use other races as XP, it would still be better than what the so-called good gods did - using everyone except humans, elfs, dwarfs, half-orcs, half-elfs, gnomes and halflings as XP - Recognizing the rights of other humanoids might be a first step in the right direction (of course it's not sure that the DO will not oppress other races).

And about lying, the paladins tought that the goblins were trying to undo the universe. I'm pretty sure the 12 gods lied to them, for if the paladins knew the truth about goblins, they would have tryed to talk to them and help goblin people to create, peacefully, a civilization.
So, is the DO lying? probably yes, but he's really not doing anything that the other gods already did.

Agreed, good can't just kill people just because they are evil but only in response to deadly force. After all a greedy thief is evil but he may also be a nonviolent cat burgler.

[David Argall]

This is a quibble, not a rule violation. Though squares are the standard, there is no rule against using hexes, and thus using hexes are not a rule violation.
Rules violation, clear and simple. The use of squares and discussion of how to deal with the problems of squares are splashed all over the rules.
Now it may well be a quibble that this is a serious violation of the rules. One can at least argue that the effective difference is pretty trivial. But the violation is definite.


Which is not a rule violation. See Rule Zero.
Rule zero in this sense means there can't be any rules violations.


This isn't something the comic is asserting, it is an art error. There is a difference. To say the comic asserts something is the equivalent of saying that Rich Burlew says it is so. Rich is very obviously not asserting that Haley can levitate, or that she can vary the length of her arms, and so the comic is not taking that stand.
But you have no acknowledgement by our artist that these are errors. You are overruling the comic based on your judgement. Case A is an oddly placed object or body part. Case B is a picture of the gods. It is your judgement which has meaning.


While yes, we use common sense to deturmine the truth, we are really deturmining what the comic actually stipulates, and what is merely an art issue.
And when you are making this judgement, you are saying the comic is not the final authority.



So now that we've established this fact, I presume that you agree that it was in fact the gods that are the source of the paladin powers, and that whatever the rulebook says is irrelevant to what is going on in Rich's story?
Why? What we have established is that what is in the comic is challengable and subject to intrepretation. So we have a reason to question any idea the gods are the source of paladin powers.
And when we have a strip based on 3.5 rules, what 3.5 rules say is clearly highly relevant. Without these rules, a great number of jokes are simply meaningless.

[The Wanderer]

Why? What we have established is that what is in the comic is challengable and subject to intrepretation. So we have a reason to question any idea the gods are the source of paladin powers.

And when we have a strip based on 3.5 rules, what 3.5 rules say is clearly highly relevant. Without these rules, a great number of jokes are simply meaningless.

David, even you have said that the paladins are not D&D standard. For all that the world is based on D&D gameplay, there is very little that is actually standard. The rules have been stretched, bent, twisted, and outright broken far more often than they have actually been observed in at least the last couple of hundred strips, if not longer. And the reason why, ultimately, is because that's what Rich decided to do in order to tell the story.

So, the paladins are just another version of that. Rich wanted to tell a story with a different sort of paladin. So he is. And I have no problem with that in the slightest.

[David Argall]

even you have said that the paladins are not D&D standard.
You might mention where. I suspect a misunderstanding here.


For all that the world is based on D&D gameplay, there is very little that is actually standard.
Observe the discussion of the current strip. See all the posts speculating on how many hp O'Chul has, etc. And see how it is regarded as a flaw if this discovers a rule violation. The rules are not faithfully followed, but they are still followed.

[The Wanderer]

As I quoted you in the post before my last one:


Originally Posted by David Argall
459- panel 7 is a statement these paladin spirits are not standard D&D.

So you have agreed that something that has been done with the paladins does not fall into standard D&D. In that strip, Redcloak referred to it as probably being a homebrewed idea.

Being that we have one thing right there being done with paladins that is not D&D standard, (and arguably many more throughout the course of the strip and the books). is it really such a stretch that there might be more as well? :smallconfused: Also, when there are discrepancies between Giant's paladins and the D&D standard paladins, it makes much more sense to me to say "In this story, despite how it has a foundation on D&D rules, the author has chosen to have a different sort of paladin that is only somewhat similar to the D&D paladin. Therefore trying to judge one by the standards of the other is futile and pointless".

To go into a bit of analogy, it's like someone who knows about dogs but refuses to believe in the idea of separate breeds. Rather than accept there are different breeds of dogs with wildly different characteristics, (but are still dogs nonetheless) when confronted by a great dane and a pug standing next to each other, he either argues that they are both the same, (and maybe that one is some sort of weird mutant offspring from the other) or that one is not a dog because it's not like the other. Rather than trying to bend one's logic that way, it makes more sense to admit they're both dogs, just ones that happen to be very different from each other.


Observe the discussion of the current strip. See all the posts speculating on how many hp O'Chul has, etc. And see how it is regarded as a flaw if this discovers a rule violation. The rules are not faithfully followed, but they are still followed.

For myself, I don't care in the slightest about D&D rules. On its morality axis I'm probably borderline chaotic, (so I don't really give a damn about rules anyway) and I've participated in a grand total of maybe 5 D&D sessions. Also, since OOTS moved past its initial gag a day format, (which one could argue it did almost immediately) I've approached it first and foremost as being a story, (as much as any you'd find on a fantasy shelf in a book store) rather than a D&D commentary. To me OOTS has no more need to obey D&D rules than, say, a book in the Dragonlance series does, and I would count it as being a far greater flaw on the part of the comic if it did limit itself to D&D rules than in choosing to break them.

Nor do I care in the slightest about how other people regard attitudes towards the rules. Also, ultimately considering how many liberties the Giant is willing to take with the rules (does anyone remember Weather Control) the various attempts to reconcile the rules with the more outlandish things in the comic has always struck me as so much pointless fan wankery.

[David Argall]

So you have agreed that something that has been done with the paladins does not fall into standard D&D.
We are getting technical here. The example is not a change to paladins, but to the spirits of the dead. While all involved are paladins, the principles involved could apply to any class or race. Nor does it happen to all paladins, merely to members of the Sapphire Guard, and maybe not to all of them.
So what we have here is a supplement to the rules rather than a change to them. The paladin still functions as per the core rules, but there are additional rules for some of them when they die.


Being that we have one thing right there being done with paladins that is not D&D standard, (and arguably many more throughout the course of the strip and the books). is it really such a stretch that there might be more as well? :smallconfused:
It is easily demonstrated that there are a variety of other variances from standard rules. However, the existance of difference A is not positive evidence that B exists. Rather it is merely evidence that we can't be sure B does not exist.


Also, when there are discrepancies between Giant's paladins and the D&D standard paladins, it makes much more sense to me to say "In this story, despite how it has a foundation on D&D rules, the author has chosen to have a different sort of paladin that is only somewhat similar to the D&D paladin. Therefore trying to judge one by the standards of the other is futile and pointless".
Does not follow. This sort of argument can lead to "He's a redhead while he has brown hair. Therefore we can only charge one of them with murder. The two of them are different and thus can't be judged by the same standards."
Now it can be difficult deciding what are important differences and what are not, but in the last analysis we do have to judge everything and compare it to everything else. Otherwise your trip to the store becomes an impossibility.
The comic is a D&D comic and the D&D rules are basic. We follow them unless there is reason not to. When we say O'Chul is a paladin, we are saying 3.5 D&D paladin unless there is reason to think otherwise. The presence of cases where we should think otherwise does not mean we do not start with 3.5 rules when considering other cases.


to me OOTS has no more need to obey D&D rules than, say, a book in the Dragonlance series does,
Dragonlance books did have to work with Dragonlance rules. As with our own comic, they played loose with them at times, but those rules were followed in the main.


Nor do I care in the slightest about how other people regard attitudes towards the rules.
Back in the days when Dragonlance was popular, I noted its books sold at about a 20% premium over generic fantasy. Same with Forgotten Realms. So following the rules of those worlds was worth quite a bit of money.


the various attempts to reconcile the rules with the more outlandish things in the comic has always struck me as so much pointless fan wankery.
Quite possibly, but it means there is value in following the rules. The comic serves more people better when this is done. One can argue there are other values to consider too, but we still have the default position that we are to use D&D rules for best results.

[hamishspence]

hmm, supplement to core rules.

If rules mechanic change is acceptable, why isn't flavour modification (power is derived from 12 gods, and when you Fall, its them that made the decision) unacceptable? Same actual rules (paladin falls when code breached) but different flavour text, to be consistent with the dramatic visual image, and various NPC references to the 12 gods.

And there is precedent too: 3rd ed and 3.5 ed Forgotten realms, where it is impossible to be a paladin without a divine patron, and the patron god or gods can choose to remove your spellcasting.

it seems more consistant with the comic as written, that this flavour change has been made.

Which is not to say errors do not exist (only 1 AOO for given opportunity, moving through multiple squares in one round is same opportunity, so half ogre with chain should get 1 AOO not 2) but I do not think that this is one of them, since it goes through multiple strips, not like that one which was 1 rules joke strip.

[David Argall]

hmm, supplement to core rules.

If rules mechanic change is acceptable, why isn't flavour modification (power is derived from 12 gods, and when you Fall, its them that made the decision) unacceptable?
For starters, it is not merely flavor modification. We are talking mechanic as well. The rules say the paladin falls, not that he will fall if the god does not like it. The rules also contrast authority vs good, and say the paladin has the greater duty to good, which means a duty to defy the gods in certain circustances.


Same actual rules (paladin falls when code breached)
The paladin doesn't fall when the code is breached [assuming the breach is not too gross.] He falls when he does an evil deed, whether or not that violates the code.



And there is precedent too: 3rd ed and 3.5 ed Forgotten realms, where it is impossible to be a paladin without a divine patron, and the patron god or gods can choose to remove your spellcasting.
I assume you are referring to Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. I find nothing there that allows the god to prevent a paladin from falling, nor that says the paladin does not fall automatically. What I find is also more closely flavor than what you want to label flavor.


it seems more consistant with the comic as written, that this flavour change has been made.

And as noted before, a variation in the rules in one of the sub types is a strike against the variation being valid in other sub types. Each sub types copies from the core and each makes their own, somewhat random changes. Forgotten Realms influence on 3rd parties is thus distinctly suspect.

[hamishspence]

Check FRCS, Faiths and Pantheons, etc, makes it clear gods have a say in the powers of any divine caster.

It is possible to breach the code without committing an evil act. 3rd ed rules are pretty clear, paladin can Fall for breaching code. 3 things listed. Commiting an evil act, grossly violating the code, ceasing to be Lawful good.

the game does not in fact explicitly say what causes powers to leave paladin. Or how its done. saying simply "the forces of Law and Good" doesn't give a definition. A D&D deity can reasonably be called a force of Law and Good, in some cases.

[David Argall]

Check FRCS, Faiths and Pantheons, etc, makes it clear gods have a say in the powers of any divine caster.
A say is not the same as control. Indeed, it amounts to little more than can be assumed from the Atonement spell.


the game does not in fact explicitly say what causes powers to leave paladin. Or how its done.
Which is the point. The rules make it an automatic process, not one some god or other things has control over. We have a couple of comics on the granting of spells here. The process has godly imput, but it is treated as a very automatic process. Thor makes little actual imput and wants to make less. The fall of a paladin is even more an automatic event, one not subject to godly discretion.