The goblin slaughter: why is it every time I hear of it .. (SoD spoilers all)

[Alex Warlorn]

Every time I hear the mention of the slaughter of Redcloak's clan that indeed did happen at the beginning of the Start of Darkness book I STILL can't help but thinking: "What kind of crazy crude is this?!" (thank you Yu Yu Hakusho)

Redcloak said in plain goblin that those who killed his clan were from Azure City, and he in the comic directly pointed out the guard as being the killers of his fellow. And at least ONE of them used their Smite Evil (in the most tactically stupid waste of a limited use per-day attacks I've ever seen).

I know the 'will of the gods blah blah' but why waste HP, lives, and X Per-Day abilities on freakin' non-combatants and low level garbage when you KNOW the big fish is right there?

You DON'T use Smite Evil on a goblin guard when you KNOW this encounter is going to bring you toe to toe with the most powerful goblin cleric in existence!

Either the most absolutely stupid paladins in history came after Redcloak's predecessor, (again stupid when you consider this is the goblin whose out either to remake the world or plan B: blow it up and some of the gods in the process you send your BEST in!), or something is very very screwy about all this!

All lampshades shall be shot!

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Actually, they "Smited" the Edler pretty throughly!

There were quite a few paladins on the raid, the "smite at random" was actually used to open a direct path to the Senior Priest so the Azure City Paladins could open an extra large case of whoop-azz! Using conventional methods might have delayed the paladins for a critical round or two (not likely, but why hold back when you have plenty to spare), thus allowing the Elder to slip away.

Yeah, it's a big ole lampshade on why the paladins didn't destroy the bodies by burning, thus either destroying the cloak (not likely), or discovering from its lack of scorch marks that the cloak was protected by Someone.

"Kill the one with the red cloak" doesn't always translate into "Make sure you bring back any valuable Artifacts from the battlefield."

[Talyn]

Obviously Redcloak is not an unbiased observer, and is, as point of interest, EVIL in every sense of the word - either one of these would be enough to cast his recollection of events into doubt, and the two combined is a very strong argument that what Redcloak "remembers" is almost certainly not what actually happened... at least in the details. He is, unlike Xykon, almost certainly sane, so I imagine we can take the broad strokes (village destroyed by the forces of Good) as true.

The youthful Redcloak had only a very limited understanding of who was important, who was powerful, etc... the goblin guard who was "smite evil"d could very well have been a champion for all that we know.

Furthermore, low-tier paladins might have been assigned the "take out the guards as quickly as possible" duty, so smiting evil for them makes tactical sense - you don't want your heavy hitters hurt by a lucky shot or forced to waste their per day powers on yard trash.

Denied a broader context or a less biased source, I don't think we can pass judgement on the tactical decisions made by the Sapphire Guard unit that destroyed Redcloaks home (and quite possibly postponed the apocalypse).

[Alex Warlorn]

Exactly. Why WASTE your time or units on hunting down non-combatants when you'll have the fights of your lives possibly on your hands any minute?

This is like wasting a round chopping the head off the evil overlord's maid in one level in common when within his throne room and he's sitting right there in front of you!

[SnowballMan]

I'm not sure I'm getting your point. The only use of Smite Evil shown was after they had killed the head goblin. And the one she used it on was fairly skilled, having easily picked off two people on mounts.

er... okay, its been awhile since I've played D&D and don't know if it adds to the difficulty, but in theory, hitting someone charging on a horse is more difficult.

So using an ability to take down a more-skilled-than-your-average-mook goblin quickly isn't a waste.

[Alex Warlorn]

The point is, why is the only Smite Evil we saw used, was on a grunt? And why wash it mindless 'slash slash slash' on Redcloaks' predecessor and nobody was calling out Smite Evil to smite him into the afterlife?

[SPoD]

The point is, why is the only Smite Evil we saw used, was on a grunt? And why wash it mindless 'slash slash slash' on Redcloaks' predecessor and nobody was calling out Smite Evil to smite him into the afterlife?

Is this really that important a question? Maybe it is just something as simple as the fact that the panel was really crowded with paladins already, and adding in the magical Smite Evil effect would have made the picture too hard to understand. Or maybe because Rich didn't want the paladins speaking during that scene for dramatic purposes, and he'd already established that they shout "Smite Evil!" when they smite.

Not everything that happens in this comic is a big conspiracy of plot that needs to be unraveled.

[Alex Warlorn]

But it just often enough is.

[FujinAkari]

But it just often enough is.

Actually, it pretty much never is.

[Paladin29]

Paladins never, NEVER, will kill defenceless women and children even if they are goblins, but I know the Giant wants to give Redcloack some moral reasons to do what he does... but I insist a Paladin is the paragon of GOOD, BRAVERY and HONOR.. killing children is EVIL, COWARD and DISHONORABLE.. there´s no compassion in that.

[FujinAkari]

Paladins never, NEVER, will kill defenceless women and children even if they are goblins, but I know the Giant wants to give Redcloack some moral reasons to do what he does... but I insist a Paladin is the paragon of GOOD, BRAVERY and HONOR.. killing children is EVIL, COWARD and DISHONORABLE.. there´s no compassion in that.

*rolls her eyes*

Why does this get brought up every time? IT HAPPENED. Deal with it.

Lol... its been argued again and again, and yes, you're usually right. There were exceptional circumstances involved here or it wouldn't have occured but... seriously... arguing that it didn't occur?

Ummm... no.

[Closet_Skeleton]

The Paladins won, so they must have been doing something right.

Anyway, once all the dangerous targets are being dealt with you might as well use up your smite evils if you're only having one encounter that day.

[teratorn]

Paladins never, NEVER, will kill defenceless women and children even if they are goblins,
Never say never. It's very easy to find a situation where it could happen. Let's suppose an oracle had said something like: "if a single goblin in this group escapes all creation shall be undone and the souls of the living will be consumed."

These paladins live in a world where this kind of certainty is possible.

[Paladin29]

*rolls her eyes*

Why does this get brought up every time? IT HAPPENED. Deal with it.

Lol... its been argued again and again, and yes, you're usually right. There were exceptional circumstances involved here or it wouldn't have occured but... seriously... arguing that it didn't occur?

Ummm... no.

I´m not saying that it didn´t happen, it´s the Giant story, but i don´t want that people gets a false image of paladins. I´m not trying to annoy you or anyone. And no, there´s no exceptional circumstances that allow a paladin to kill children, sorry.

[Paladin29]

Never say never. It's very easy to find a situation where it could happen. Let's suppose an oracle had said something like: "if a single goblin in this group escapes all creation shall be undone and the souls of the living will be consumed."

These paladins live in a world where this kind of certainty is possible.

Send someone that it´s not a paladin... very easy.

[Kish]

Send someone that it´s not a paladin... very easy.
So "Out of sight, out of mind" works for paladins? :smallyuk:

Rich's paladins aren't by-the-book D&D paladins. That's just the way it is.

[hamishspence]

It seems there are differing views.

View 1: (coincides with Exalted Deeds) Slaying non-combatants (children, women, the aged, civilians) even evil ones, is evil. Paladins should have fallen.

View 2: evil acts to save world aren't evil enough to cause paladins to fall.

View 3: slaying evil goblins is never evil, even if they include non-combatants in their number. Worshipping evil beings makes them evil enough to be killed freely.

There may be others. I default to view 1. Previous editions have also suggested that killing orc children is evil, even when orcs were portayed as more evil than they are now. And answer to worshipping evil beings: non-evil clerics of evil gods exist, therefore the worship doesn't make character irredeemably evil.

[Paladin29]

So "Out of sight, out of mind" works for paladins? :smallyuk:

Rich's paladins aren't by-the-book D&D paladins. That's just the way it is.

No, the one who send the mission (the king, the high priest, whatever you want) usually is not a paladin.

Yeah, it is what i am saying, Mr. Burlew paladins aren´t by-the-book paladins (at least those of the goblin village). I haven´t any complain about OotS story.

[Kish]

No, the one who send the mission (the king, the high priest, whatever you want) usually is not a paladin.
"Usually" doesn't matter. "In this case" matters, and in this case it was Soon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html).

[hamishspence]

Soon can't be blamed for SoD though. Shojo says he's been ruling for 47 years, massacre takes place 33 years before present.

on the other hand, suppression of info and attacking of gate-threateners "no matter how far removed geographically" was ordered by Soon, and shojo could be said to be merely continuing this.

[SPoD]

I´m not saying that it didn´t happen, it´s the Giant story, but i don´t want that people gets a false image of paladins.

It's impossible for anyone to get a false image of paladins, because paladins are a fictional concept. They do not exist in reality at all. Therefore, every fictional work that uses the word "paladin" defines it in its own way, and none of those definitions are any more "false" than the others.

It's the same as how vampires in one book can turn into bats, and in another, can't. Neither is false, because vampires (like paladins) are made up.

Rich's definition of paladin may be slightly different from how you define them in your game, but they are no more "false" than any other view.

[hamishspence]

OOTS is a D&D parody, and at least one 3.5 supplement (Exalted Deeds) explicitly forbids strongly good aligned characters from doing that sort of thing. Which, i think, is his point, that people reading it may extrapolate to D&D and conclude paladins in D&D act exactly like that.

On the other hand, some people keep saying BoED is invalid, and Paladins reaaly ARE supposed to do that. Which is annoying.

[Twisted Otaku]

I´m not saying that it didn´t happen, it´s the Giant story, but i don´t want that people gets a false image of paladins. I´m not trying to annoy you or anyone. And no, there´s no exceptional circumstances that allow a paladin to kill children, sorry.

Hey. remember who used to be a paladin? Miko! : p seriously how did she ever make it...

[hamishspence]

the Grim and Ruthless archetype that Miko starts off as is rather consistant with SoD.

[Dark Matter]

the Grim and Ruthless archetype that Miko starts off as is rather consistant with SoD.The other paladins can't stand her to the point where she's constantly being given missions that take her away from them. In SoD we presumably have the order in general, acting as a whole, doing their thing.

As for the goblins, they're evil, and by design and definition killing them is a good act. The paladins didn't fall, so they must have been doing something right.

And yes, that sounds harsh, Red Cloak is right, they got the short end of the stick... but just because they're the designated victims doesn't make them less evil. They were designed to deserve it, so they do.

[hamishspence]

once again, 3.5 ed D&D, especially with the advent of Exalted Deeds, has tended to stress that Being a Goblin is not a justification for instantly killing them. and that killing goblin children has no excuse.

Similarly, there are novels which suggest that the paladin, as described in early D&D, is a bit prone to ride roughshod over the rights of others (Thornhold, by Elaine Cunningham, is one example)

[Laurentio]

OOTS is a D&D parody, and at least one 3.5 supplement (Exalted Deeds) explicitly forbids strongly good aligned characters from doing that sort of thing. Which, i think, is his point, that people reading it may extrapolate to D&D and conclude paladins in D&D act exactly like that.
I'm sure that every single Paladin of the real world is really pissed. That make at least zero Paladins pissed, with a top score of zero.

The fact that it's a "parody", as you properly stated, makes pointless to digress about Paladins' accurate picture in Oots. Because, you see, it's a parody.
Or we want to digress on the doubt role of special corps in a medieval fantasy setting (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0350.html)? Who want to open a thread on SWATs?

This is OotS. D&D, next door to the left.

Laurentio

[hamishspence]

most of the parody comes from the verbalization of rules. "I GOT A 4" when moving silently, etc. And its less a parody now than a full fledged story, a bit like a visual D&D novel, but a lot funnier.

That said, a lot of people on these forums keep insisting that OOTS paladin = D&D paladin, and that if a paladin wouldn't fall for killing young goblins in OOTS, then they wouldn't fall in D&D. which can be irritating.

while some of us are willing to stress that this is the Giants version of a D&D paladin, and differs a little from the standard one, others keep insisting they are the same.

So, when people get annoyed at some of the behaviour of the sapphire guard, the argument "They're just the Giant's version" might not always convince them.

[Aevii]

It's impossible for anyone to get a false image of paladins, because paladins are a fictional concept. They do not exist in reality at all. Therefore, every fictional work that uses the word "paladin" defines it in its own way, and none of those definitions are any more "false" than the others.

It's the same as how vampires in one book can turn into bats, and in another, can't. Neither is false, because vampires (like paladins) are made up.

Rich's definition of paladin may be slightly different from how you define them in your game, but they are no more "false" than any other view.

Charlemagne would have a word with you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin)

[teratorn]

Send someone that it´s not a paladin... very easy.
The problem here is that the information should not leak. You can not trust this to non-paladins. Paladins will do the job even if it is hard for them, and they will keep it to themselves.

This is not a simple situation where evil may triumph over good, in this case nothingness may triumph over both good and evil. DnD paladins in general should not kill inocents even for the greater good, but this is something very different. The goblins plan will risk even the planes where the afterlifes are located.

[The Extinguisher]

once again, 3.5 ed D&D, especially with the advent of Exalted Deeds, has tended to stress that Being a Goblin is not a justification for instantly killing them. and that killing goblin children has no excuse.

Sorry, Exalted Deeds (and Vile Darkness as well) are horrible books. There is no cookie cutter good way to act in any situation. Exalted Deeds make it seem that it's better to let the world be destroyed than to lose your exalted status. Sometimes you need to kill children and defenseless people. What if some death cult was being run by a particulaly ruthless child. Do you let him be?

This wasn't just any run of the mill goblin village. This was a ceremony for a evil god who is known to expressed desire to destroy all of creation. It can be assumed that any survivor would continue that goal, as we can clearly see.

[hamishspence]

going by SoD, he doesn't want to destoy it, he wants to Rule it. At least, thats plan A

Main danger came from the bearer of th Crimso Mantle. It looked like none of the other goblins had any idea about it. Unwitting tools? Yes. Willing accomplices? Certainly not at the low end.

The exalted deeds justification is that an evil act leads to a big shift in the balance: its not the players status thats at stake, but the alignment balance through the universe. Still, not the best part of the book. However the focus on forgiveness and redemption makes it most interesting than the usual Kill Evil Creatures theme.

[Paladin29]

The problem here is that the information should not leak. You can not trust this to non-paladins. Paladins will do the job even if it is hard for them, and they will keep it to themselves.

This is not a simple situation where evil may triumph over good, in this case nothingness may triumph over both good and evil. DnD paladins in general should not kill inocents even for the greater good, but this is something very different. The goblins plan will risk even the planes where the afterlifes are located.

You can´t trust in anyone who isn´t a paladin... wow, ¿there is no fighter LN or TN in the army of Azure City?. An by the way... in the mission of kill the bearer of the crimson mantle I don´t see the need of kill all the members of the village.

On the "paladins in the real world" thing... well, when i ´m talking about the "false image of paladins" i´m talking for the new players of D&D, i think that i shouldn´t to explain that...

[hanzo66]

Paladins never, NEVER, will kill defenceless women and children even if they are goblins, but I know the Giant wants to give Redcloack some moral reasons to do what he does... but I insist a Paladin is the paragon of GOOD, BRAVERY and HONOR.. killing children is EVIL, COWARD and DISHONORABLE.. there´s no compassion in that.
Goblins are the exception to all rules. Killing them will not bring bad karma.


Pretty much they're fair game as far as the gods and it is accepted in human society that all Goblins are evil no matter what, so that's too bad.

[Paladin29]

A children, no matter if hi is goblin or human, is not evil. And a paladin cannot slaughter defenceless commoners, it is coward.

[Alex Warlorn]

A children, no matter if hi is goblin or human, is not evil. And a paladin cannot slaughter defenceless commoners, it is coward.

A paladin killing a child whose too young to understand good or evil without falling is like a dragon giving away their horde to a bunch of random people happily and eagerly without asking a thing about them and never attempting to collect treasure again because they aren't interested in ANY kind of treasure, it's not the nature of the beast.

[teratorn]

You can´t trust in anyone who isn´t a paladin... wow, ¿there is no fighter LN or TN in the army of Azure City?
Using other people to do it would be as evil as doing it yourself, and way more cowardly. Questions would be asked, besides the gate is a paladin thing, they would not hire LN or TN characters. But even if they hired Good characters those would not kill women and children without knowing what is at stake. Information would spread. Too dangerous, look at what happened when Shojo decided to break the vows. Now OOTS knows about the gates, Celia knows about the gates, Nale knows about the gates, Sabine's bosses know about the gates.


An by the way... in the mission of kill the bearer of the crimson mantle I don´t see the need of kill all the members of the village.
And because they failed to kill all members of the village the plan goes on. If they had been warned that one of those goblins would be the one destroying AC's gate they would need to finish all of them.


A children, no matter if hi is goblin or human, is not evil. And a paladin cannot slaughter defenceless commoners, it is coward.
Yes, but it had to be done. I understand your point. If it were simply a lich or some evil warlord plotting to conquer the world, these guys would fall -- conquering the world is very different from undoing the world. I had never before seen a campaign where this kind of stuff would be justified.

[warmachine]

As the gods created the goblins, orcs, bugbears and other evil races for the divine classes to kill, killing them, even children, cannot be evil. As it's the gods that grant and can take away divine powers, they define what is evil, good and all the aspects of them in relation to divine powers. Indeed, as they created the world, they define good, evil and the rest. If there is a moral philosophy that says killing any child is evil, it is wrong because the gods say so.

That the divine morality creates needless, endless cycles of violence is a not a problem because needless, endless cycles of violence is the purpose of the morality. If that seems monstrous, better make sure the gods don't notice this subversive humanism.

[Kai Maera]

I would just like to chime in that, while it is evil to kill innocents, if the children and women in the goblin village were really evil, it should be a good act to kill them.

Because people who do horrible things to non-human lifeforms are still sick and should be eliminated.

Children aren't born evil, but by the time they're big enough to be seen in non-mini form, they could be well on their way to becoming the scourges of the civilized world.

So my stance: Just because they're women and children doesn't mean they're necessarily innocent. They might have been, but they may not have been.

[Solara]

I really can't wait until the Giant gets around to addressing the SoD events in the main comic so that this poor horse can finally rest in peace...

Personally I don't buy the 'they were eeevil defenseless non-combatants so it was a Good act to massacre them' argument for a second, mainly because it's horrific, but also because that whole scene was written to be horrific. Did anyone honestly come away from reading it with a big smile and a warm unconflicted feeling about how awesome the paladins were? Rich is an amazing writer - if that's the effect he wanted he wouldn't have written it the way he did. The slaughter was disturbing because it was meant to be.

IMO, if after reading it you're left with a strong impression that the paragons of Good weren't acting like paragons of Good, there's no need to turn a blind eye and bend over backwards trying to justify their actions, or get angry at Rich because you think he 'hates paladins' or temporarily forgot he was writing a story that constantly turns accepted D&D stereotypes about alignments and things like 'goblins exist to be easy XP' on their heads and makes readers look at them from a fresh perspective - instead maybe just have a little faith that he knows what he's doing and give him a chance to work that particular dangling plot thread into the tapestry in his own good time.

[Lamech]

Never say never. It's very easy to find a situation where it could happen. Let's suppose an oracle had said something like: "if a single goblin in this group escapes all creation shall be undone and the souls of the living will be consumed."

If that was the case the paladin's would have got a cleric to cast commune or a wizard to cast legend lore, or maybe plane shift and talk to a celestial, and made sure no goblin escaped. Of course a goblin did escape, so the paladins weren't complete enough to make sure. And if the paladins wouldn't be complete, it obviously wasn't as important as you claim.

And regardless of any possible justifications in extreme circumstances, they don't apply here. The circumstances of the slaughter of Redcloak's village didn't even merit powerful divinations.

[Paladin29]

Ok... this thread can be unending, this topic can be very subjective and i´ve not the absolute truth... i can only speak for myself and say: yes if I was playing a paladin in that situation the world sadly will be undone because i can´t kill a children even in a RPG.

Once I said this I repeat: that is the Giant story and i understand that the slaughter scene was created to give a deeper personality and moral reasons to Redcloack and to shock the reader. Ah! if I don´t say it yet: ¡I love this comic!!! :smallsmile:

[Revlid]

The Goblin leaders were trying to do something that would unmake reality, with an artifact that would use any Goblin that escaped to continue the plan. There was little choice but to wipe the entire tribe out, regrettable though it might have been, as evidenced by the plan's continuing when Redcloak managed to escape.
Note that none of the Paladins enjoy the killing - they are emotionless warriors doing their duty. They didn't fall because the evil they did (wiping out a Goblin tribe) was outbalanced by the good they did (protecting the very fabric of reality and the souls of everything that ever has or ever will live).

[Renegade Paladin]

It's impossible for anyone to get a false image of paladins, because paladins are a fictional concept. They do not exist in reality at all. Therefore, every fictional work that uses the word "paladin" defines it in its own way, and none of those definitions are any more "false" than the others.
What a load of horse-puckey.[/Eugene Greenhilt]

If the word's definition were totally subjective, then before very long nobody would know what an author was talking about when he used it. There are certain conventions regarding the word use of fictional concepts. For your vampire example, for instance, whether they turn into bats or not, the reader expects them to be blood-sucking undead, because that's what the word means; it's the essential characteristic. For paladin, it's a knightly champion of the right and the good. Specific powers don't matter within reason; it's the core concept that makes the word what it is.

[Kish]

If the word's definition were totally subjective, then before very long nobody would know what an author was talking about when he used it.
Just like no one would know what Mercedes Lackey meant when she said "Heralds," if she hadn't described them in the novels.

Just like no one would know what Lois McMaster Bujold's Imperial Auditors are, if she didn't describe them.

In my experience, in fact, assuming you know what "paladin" means in an unfamiliar setting before the author has told you is an excellent way to get confused.

[Renegade Paladin]

There's an important difference; the phrase "Imperial Auditors" doesn't have any preexisting conventional definition in the literature, and due to the capitalization is quite clearly a proper noun anyway. There would be no preconceived idea of what they are to change. I have no idea who Mercedes Lackey is, so if you could kindly elaborate, it would be helpful.

[Darakonis]

If an author wishes to take a preexisting term, such as Vampire or Paladin, but put his own spin on it, then that author should make clear, from the beginning, what differentiates his Paladin/Vampire from the commonly perceived notion of the Paladin/Vampire.

You don't tell your readers, midway through the story, that in this world, Vampires are, in fact, robot ninjas.

Killing an innocent is an act of evil - there is no way around it. However, I believe the question here is: were those women and children innocent? They may have been defenseless, but were they innocent?

The only way I can envision it being acceptable to kill goblin children would be if goblins were always portrayed as being vile, despicable beings that are constantly performing acts of evil, even as children. I once heard a story, in real life, of two young children drowning a kitten in a bucket of water, and then repeatedly throwing the body against the ceiling, with gory results. You can blame the parents, you can blame the upbringing - I don't care; those kids are damned evil. Evil.

The problem is that because of the humorous nature of OOTS, Rich can't exactly portray goblins this way. I don't get the feeling that goblins in OOTS are inherently evil. I wonder why the paladins couldn't simply knock out the goblin women and children, or otherwise incapacitate them, then take them prisoner later...

[Remirach]

Note that none of the Paladins enjoy the killing - they are emotionless warriors doing their duty.
"Check it out: three in a row. I'll get to use my Great Cleave feat!"

When two of the three were both immature and UNARMED, even!

Yes, they did enjoy smashing goblin hills. Why wouldn't they? They were good guys, killing a bad threat as far as they knew or CARED to know.


They didn't fall because the evil they did (wiping out a Goblin tribe) was outbalanced by the good they did (protecting the very fabric of reality and the souls of everything that ever has or ever will live).
Or perhaps they didn't fall because the gods are specifically linked to the divine powers and the gods made the goblins as cannon fodder to be killed for EXP. It's not evil to kill things that were made to be killed.

[Oxymoron]

I say: Blame the Gods.

Why did the paladins attack the goblin village? Because the bearer of the Crimson Mantle was a threat to the very fabric of the universe. However, not only did they kill armed adults, they killed helpless children and elderly with no mercy and regret. How did they get away with it? The Gods approved. The Gods feared the Dark Ones revenge to such an extent that they overlooked the paladins less honorable acts. It seems that in the Oots-verse the Gods grant paladinhood and take it away, while in the D&D the multiverse does.

The problem with the Gods being subjective is of course that it easily creates paladin zealots that feel "justified" in slaying anything with green skin and fangs. Miko is a good example. Earlier I just thought she was crazy, but after reading the SOD I felt she was more of a product of her training and upbringing.

[David Argall]

Just like no one would know what Mercedes Lackey meant when she said "Heralds," if she hadn't described them in the novels.

assuming you know what "paladin" means in an unfamiliar setting before the author has told you is an excellent way to get confused.
But with "Herald" [a series involving magical horses and their riders], the reader is effectively warned that this is something new, and no presumptions should be made.
Using the term "paladin" means presumptions will be made, in particular assumptions drawn from D&D 3.5. So if the writer is not going to follow those assumptions, there is a duty to warn the reader.



I say: Blame the Gods.

It seems that in the Oots-verse the Gods grant paladinhood and take it away, while in the D&D the multiverse does.
The existance of evil gods challenges this. The category means the gods do not define evil and good, but conform to the definition.
And the actions of Haley and Belkar both show an understanding that the paladin falls for an evil deed, not for displeasing some god.

The most likely conclusion here is that there is some evil present that we can not easily see from the view we are given. There are several versions of what this might be, and we can hardly insist a particular one is correct, but the idea we just do see everything is much more reasonable than that we are looking at a gross violation of the rules about paladins.

[NENAD]

I skipped the last couple of posts, so forgive me if someone else already mentioned this, but the goblin village massacre occurred several years before the 3.5 Edition was released, which was in the first strip. Thus, BoED rules don't apply, nor do any 3.5 updates. It's all Edition 3, and while I don't have a copy of Players Handbook or the DMs Guide for that edition, I'm pretty sure I recall goblins being considered evil incarnate with no mention of any exceptions for non-combatants.

[Kish]

It's all Edition 3, and while I don't have a copy of Players Handbook or the DMs Guide for that edition, I'm pretty sure I recall goblins being considered evil incarnate with no mention of any exceptions for non-combatants.
No race which was "Usually" rather than "Always" an evil alignment would be that.

[pendell]

If we accept Redcloak's story as true that Goblins were created by the gods solely as XP fodder, it can never be -- from the perspective of the gods who give the Paladins they're powers -- an evil act to kill one. That's what they're *for!* Kill cattle for meat, goblins for XP. Killing goblin children is no different than slaughtering lamb or veal for meat.

Which would imply that RC and the Dark One have a good reason to be ticked at the 'good' gods. And why they don't accept the definition of 'good' as put forth by the beings who make the detect evil spells etc.

It raises an interesting question: We are viewing the comic through the lens of our real-world morality and our understanding of standard D&D morality. But morality in OOTS is house-ruled and mandated by the gods. Their idea of good and evil is not ours.

What power is greater than the gods, in the OOTSverse, to call them to account tell them that they're wrong?

If there is no such varmint, then it falls to the mortals and worshippers themselves to rub the gods' noses in their mistakes. Much as RC and the Dark One are doing.

And it makes sense that RC doesn't care about the 'good' or 'evil' of an action. Because in his POV, the same people who tell him that it is wrong to enslave others also tell him it's right to kill his unarmed women and children. It makes perfect sense that he would refuse their definition of good and evil and make up his own ... which, not surprisingly, makes out every action of his to be good, even when it's not.

This is assuming, of course, that the Dark One told the truth to RC, and RC told the truth to us in the crayons arc. And we know he was lying at least in part, because Right-Eye called him on it not three panels later.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamishspence]

3rd to 3.5 ed write gods using same principles as characters. A god have have wizard levels, sorcerer levels, paladin levels, etc.

If rules are applied strictly, a paladin god who commits an evil act falls. So, in core D&D, despite lack of a visible presence to call the gods to account, their behaviour have still have negative consequences for them.

Now, what causes a D&D deitys powers to be lost? A greater power? Or could it be, that the powers themselves cannot function in the prescence of evil behaviour- that the loss of power comes from within, rather than without? And could it be the same for D&D mortal paladins?

As for the SoD scene, there is some precedent for argument. Drow in 3rd ed are Usually neutral evil, but an early 3rd ed Dragon Magazine issue described their society as utterly malevolent, even very young drow can be powerful in the sense of having character levels, and exceptions were one in a million, and were always those drow who has fled their society, and THEN changed.

However, this was inconsistant with core rules. Maybe same rule applies: rich has created homebrew goblins. Still, they seem to be affectionate, and not as OTT as the dragon magazine drow.

Vile darkness is late 3rd ed, but book was actually written long after then, so it may simply be that the Giant is using his own alignment rules, intended to represent the way the game was played early on, rather than present day 3.5 editon.

[David Argall]

I skipped the last couple of posts, so forgive me if someone else already mentioned this, but the goblin village massacre occurred several years before the 3.5 Edition was released, which was in the first strip. Thus, BoED rules don't apply, nor do any 3.5 updates. It's all Edition 3, and while I don't have a copy of Players Handbook or the DMs Guide for that edition, I'm pretty sure I recall goblins being considered evil incarnate with no mention of any exceptions for non-combatants.
a-3.0 rules only apply when they make a joke.
b-3.0 goblins were also "usually evil", same as 3.5, so the difference in editions makes no difference here.



If we accept Redcloak's story as true that Goblins were created by the gods solely as XP fodder, it can never be -- from the perspective of the gods who give the Paladins they're powers -- an evil act to kill one.
Does not follow. Even if we accept the premise that it is routinely moral, it would be routine to have some exceptions. To use the model of game laws, it is no crime to shoot a duck, but you may be required to get a license, and you may not shoot just any duck in any manner.
Since our model here is XP harvest, we can easily see exceptions where the XP value is quite low. The XP value of the child is far smaller than that of the adult. [The system is not developed enough for us to give solid figures, but the variation in the XP value of a baby dragon vs an ancient shows us the baby goblin may be worth zero XP.] So a prohibition against killing children becomes a matter of proper harvesting methods. He should not be killed before he is a "ripe" crop. We might also exceptions for females as necessary to produce the next crop, and ...
Getting deeper into how XP is actually generated, we might find that a goblin is not worth the same value as a goblin with a weapon, meaning that there can be prohibitions against killing unarmed goblins, again with the idea of maximizing the yield of the crop.
So no, we can not make the blanket statement, it is never a sin to kill a goblin.


It raises an interesting question: We are viewing the comic through the lens of our real-world morality and our understanding of standard D&D morality. But morality in OOTS is house-ruled and mandated by the gods.
The gods appear to be agents of morality, not creators of it. They are merely super-powerful creatures, not the be-all and end-all. Note here the XP system. The gods do not set this system up. Instead they have to work with the system to reach their goals.


What power is greater than the gods, in the OOTSverse, to call them to account tell them that they're wrong?
To start with, the Snarl.
Beyond that, the gods seem to be the local kings, which makes them durn dangerous to the peasant, but means they conform to the "mountains" and not the other way around. In D&D, Good and Evil [& Law and Chaos] are "mountains", beyond the power of the gods.

We might note we start out with four sets of gods, each quite different from the others. It would seem they came from four different areas, all unknown to us. But the idea definitely comes to mind that there are more gods out there.
One idea might be that the gods are a form of homesteader. They are roving bands looking for good places to create a "farm", or world [which are likely rare or not all of these sets of gods would have stayed here]. They can do a fantastic amount from a mortal view, but they are quite limited from their view.

[Darakonis]

+ 1 to what David Argall said.

People are always using the argument that Gods decide what is good, evil, etc... That is not the case. Many deities are meant to be avatars of a particular alignment.

Furthermore, there are Paladins and Clerics that do not worship any deities. If a Paladin has no deity, but is simply committed to Lawful Goodness itself, then nothing can make him "fall" other than the nature of Law and Goodness itself. No deity would have the right to take away his powers, as there is no single LG deity.

[pendell]

Does not follow. Even if we accept the premise that it is routinely moral, it would be routine to have some exceptions. To use the model of game laws, it is no crime to shoot a duck, but you may be required to get a license, and you may not shoot just any duck in any manner.


That is true, but at this point I have not yet seen any such model being demonstrated in OOTS world. I have never seen rules of goblin harvest on the model of game laws in any strip. OTOH, we have seen indiscriminate slaughter ... which is less like the model of hunting game than it is of slaughtering beef cattle or exterminating vermin such as roaches or mice.



Beyond that, the gods seem to be the local kings, which makes them durn dangerous to the peasant, but means they conform to the "mountains" and not the other way around. In D&D, Good and Evil [& Law and Chaos] are "mountains", beyond the power of the gods.


If that is so, why did the paladins not fall for killing unarmed children? Because by the 'mountain' you describe, D&D morality in all extant revisions indicates that this is an evil act. If they committed an evil act and the gods do not have the authority to change the meaning of 'good' and 'evil', then they should have fallen. They did not. How do you explain this?

Respectfully,

Biran P.

[Darakonis]

If they committed an evil act and the gods do not have the authority to change the meaning of 'good' and 'evil', then they should have fallen. They did not. How do you explain this?
It could be explained by arguing that in the OOTS-verse, the act was not evil (for whatever reason - be it because of their intentions, the fact that the universe was at stake, because morality is different, etc.). That's the simplest explanation. People (like myself) may not want to accept that it was not evil, but we don't make the rules of the OOTs-verse. My disagreement with one aspect of OOTS is not going to make me appreciate this excellent comic any less.

[David Argall]

That is true, but at this point I have not yet seen any such model being demonstrated in OOTS world.
The point is that you said "never", which is simply incorrect. Even when we regard the goblins as mere bags of XP, there can be restrictions on when it is proper and improper to kill them. That a particular restriction is or is not present in our OOTS world doesn't matter. Never is still wrong.


why did the paladins not fall for killing unarmed children? Because by the 'mountain' you describe, D&D morality in all extant revisions indicates that this is an evil act. If they committed an evil act and the gods do not have the authority to change the meaning of 'good' and 'evil', then they should have fallen. They did not. How do you explain this?

There are several possible ways. The basic one is we are looking at this attack essentially thru Redcloak's eyes, and thus important distinctions are ignored or not even known.

Now our writer may be switching basic morality a bit here and may be deeming that the killing of any evil is not evil. There is no clear statement of that in the comic, and it is bad morals, but it can make for some good jokes about the bloodthirsty attitude of many players. So it is not impossible that is the rule we, and the gods, play under here.
If so, the evil unarmed child becomes a legitimate target. Its current inability to harm you is of merely tactical concern. It may be a danger later and thus can be destroyed now.

More realistically, we have to keep in mind that moral rules like not harming children are rules of thumb, not morale principles. It is not any more immoral to kill a child than it is immoral to kill an adult. However, in 99%+ of the cases, the excuses that allow killing of adults do not apply to kids. [This kid a 5th of your mass is threatening you? You want to claim self defense??] So it saves time to just say one can't kill a kid rather than ask if there are legitimate grounds. There almost never will be grounds.
But there will be the rare exception [Our little brat has gotten hold of a machine gun and is shooting up every thing in sight and is now aiming at you. He is now a genuine threat and it doesn't matter if he is 5 or 25 or
105. You can shoot.] So if we can find grounds, the mere fact of childhood is not a barrier.

Now we do have several pieces of evidence the goblins in question are evil. The claim the kids are not of any alignment suggests a lack of having been a parent, or having been one and having a selective memory about the little monster. What the child lacks is more the ability to express its alignment.
We can note that we do not see the deaths of any actual children of the ages where non-alignment would apply. While we are dealing with the limits of the art style, those we see attacked are apparently of the same age as those of #93, who are described as aligned.
Of course goblins are only "usually evil", and it seems odd at least that this random village would be evil down to the last brat. One at least partial solution here is that the village isn't random, but is the base for the Redcloak and thus is purged of the non-evil goblins. This is still a stretch when we extend it to the last child, but it might work. Combined with the previous idea, this could mean the village is effectively a war camp and the young children are elsewhere.

But even with good children, there are times when it is morally acceptable to kill. These are cases when the alternative is worse and of course are quite rare. But they can happen, and it is quite possible this is one. The paladins are from maybe a thousand miles away and so may be short of supplies or other ability to care for the children. If the choice is the child dying miserably or dying a good deal less painfully, the idea of killing it now can not be rejected out of hand.

[Kish]

It could be explained by arguing that in the OOTS-verse, the act was not evil (for whatever reason - be it because of their intentions, the fact that the universe was at stake, because morality is different, etc.). That's the simplest explanation. People (like myself) may not want to accept that it was not evil, but we don't make the rules of the OOTs-verse. My disagreement with one aspect of OOTS is not going to make me appreciate this excellent comic any less.
I think that's unfair to Rich. I see no ambiguity about his condemnation of those paladins' actions in the prologue to OtOoPCs. They committed an evil act. They didn't Fall. Why? "Because the gods decide when paladins Fall in the OotS universe and can override the Player's Handbook if they choose" is a real possibility. "For a reason yet to be revealed" is a real possibility. "Because it wasn't an evil act" is not a real possibility.

[Darakonis]

"Because the gods decide when paladins Fall in the OotS universe and can override the Player's Handbook if they choose" is a real possibility.
If a God decides when a paladin should fall, then why are there no Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral paladins?

Just as players can change alignments, so can deities. In fact, there are many deities associated with more than just one alignment. So surely deities that are not lawful or good would allow more slack from their paladins. Yet we don't see any neutral paladins, regardless of what the deities do or do not allow.

If Gods decided when a paladin should fall, we would see non-lawful or non-good paladins. The fact that we don't implies there is a power greater than the gods themselves that decides when a paladin should fall - a force of the universe itself.

[reignofevil]

I will be honest, im in the boat that when the entire multiverse is at stake, that will lead to the painful and horrible moment before complete nonexistance of all things, good neutral and evil, well the gods are willing to grant a bit of leeway.

[Paragon Badger]

I´m not saying that it didn´t happen, it´s the Giant story, but i don´t want that people gets a false image of paladins. I´m not trying to annoy you or anyone. And no, there´s no exceptional circumstances that allow a paladin to kill children, sorry.

I could think of a few, and arguabbly 'right' decisions, as well.

[The Extinguisher]

I even named one! And it was pretty good.

Okay, want one in context of the comic? What if Redcloak happened to be a child, instead of however old he is?

I forgot, you can't kill any children ever, even if they become the high priest of an evil god who's backup plan is the destruction of creation.

[Paladin29]

I even named one! And it was pretty good.

Okay, want one in context of the comic? What if Redcloak happened to be a child, instead of however old he is?

I forgot, you can't kill any children ever, even if they become the high priest of an evil god who's backup plan is the destruction of creation.

You cannot know that this children will be the bearer of the crimson mantle until he takes that decision...kill him when he is a children is evil for two reasons: first because.. well, he is an innocent children and second you don´t give him "the benefit of the doubt", he could take other decision or redeem himself.

[Kish]

Yes, I think "you can kill children if they do things children couldn't actually do because goblin children are really monsters and not children" is evading the issue, not addressing it. Goblins are not supernatural embodiments of pure evil. Their mental capacity develops as they grow, as real-world humans' does.

[pendell]

There are several possible ways. The basic one is we are looking at this attack essentially thru Redcloak's eyes, and thus important distinctions are ignored or not even known.

[quote]
Now our writer may be switching basic morality a bit here and may be deeming that the killing of any evil is not evil.


That definitely is the approach the Paladins take, and the gods of OOTS apparently support them in this, is that it is always right to kill an evil creature. Witness that Miko in earlier strips admitted that she had killed a number of creatures whose sole offense had been to ping as evil on her detect evil ability.

I think the Giant speaks against this attitude when he has Roy stand up to her when she is about to kill Belkar a couple of strips ago. Roy pretty much says that "not everything is about good or evil", and is determined to prevent Miko killing Belkar. Not only Roy, but Durkon, V, Elan, and Haley all stand with him.

Because ... in the view of Roy .. having a person register as 'evil' isn't enough reason to kill them. That shows up in Origin of the PCs as well ...


When he successfully negotiates with a band of orcs rather than killing them, and orcs are 'usually evil' too.


Given the unsympathetic light Miko is painted in, I think that Roy is speaking for the author at this point.





Now we do have several pieces of evidence the goblins in question are evil. The claim the kids are not of any alignment suggests a lack of having been a parent, or having been one and having a selective memory about the little monster. What the child lacks is more the ability to express its alignment.


Another assumption we're making is that alignment is fully formed at birth. I'm reasonably certain my natural alignment is chaotic evil, but I was raised by Lawful Good parents and so I myself (IRL) tend towards neutral good .

It's a common assumption that adults are fully formed in their moral worldview and are fully accountable for their actions, while children are young inexperienced and thus have a potential to grow into something better even if they're currently little monsters. That's why we don't simply lock schoolyard bullies up in prison for life. The hope is that today's terror of the playground will be tomorrow's successful, productive citizen. Sometimes it works out that way.




Of course goblins are only "usually evil", and it seems odd at least that this random village would be evil down to the last brat.


I honestly wonder whether Right-Eye and his children would have detected as evil. Whether 'detect evil' is at least partly species-based and not based on the actions or the heart at all. Green + fangs = evil, regardless of whether you're trying to live peaceably with humans or actively trying to kill them all.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[David Argall]

That definitely is the approach the Paladins take, and the gods of OOTS apparently support them in this, is that it is always right to kill an evil creature.
This is based on distinctly limited evidence. Absent SoD, we have no case of a paladin attacking an "innocent" evil creature. Basing a "principle" on one case is more than a little suspect.


Witness that Miko in earlier strips admitted that she had killed a number of creatures whose sole offense had been to ping as evil on her detect evil ability.
That is their sole offense known to us. However, it would seem that most or all of these have at least some other offense on their record. We do not see Miko going around randomly Detecting Evil. The cases where we see her use the ability are cases where she has good reason to suspect the targets are suitable for killing on the spot [which would make Detect evil more of an attempt to avoid killing the non-evil]. Thus we would assume the normal case involves someone already accused of a crime or crimes, not some random individual about whose past record Miko knew nothing.
We do not have enough of a record to make a blanket statement here, but the idea that her victims were innocent of any crime except detecting as evil is highly suspect.



I think the Giant speaks against this attitude when he has Roy stand up to her when she is about to kill Belkar a couple of strips ago. Roy pretty much says that "not everything is about good or evil", and is determined to prevent Miko killing Belkar. Not only Roy, but Durkon, V, Elan, and Haley all stand with him.
But look at the statement again. "not everything is about good or evil" In other words, it is not evil to kill Belkar in that case. They back Belkar because he is their companion, not because he doesn't deserve killing.


Because ... in the view of Roy .. having a person register as 'evil' isn't enough reason to kill them.
No. Roy says that his troops deserve his support no matter how much they deserve killing.


Given the unsympathetic light Miko is painted in, I think that Roy is speaking for the author at this point.
It seems more like it was just a way to end the current arc. Belkar could not be killed, and so the party must be involved in an active manner rather than as mere witnesses as he is turned in to the law. So Roy and the others are made to spout whatever excuses that seem halfway reasonable to fight on Belkar's side.


I honestly wonder whether Right-Eye and his children would have detected as evil. Whether 'detect evil' is at least partly species-based and not based on the actions or the heart at all. Green + fangs = evil, regardless of whether you're trying to live peaceably with humans or actively trying to kill them all.

See strip 13. This rejects this sort of reasoning.

[NENAD]

Strip 13 says only that Belkar thinks it is common practice to kill sentient creatures because they have green skin and fangs. Belkar is not a definitive source on any kind of morality because he's so horribly biased towards Chaotic Evil. Also, any brief comments by characters about their morality is probably meaningless that early in the strip. Back when it was gag-a-day, Rich wasn't worried about deep philosophical issues.

And yes, Rich is trying to get D&D players to question the merciless slaughter of goblins solely because of their anatomy and not their actions into question with that statement, but he isn't making a big deal about it and he isn't saying anything about the beliefs of the Paladin-ifiers of the universe.

[Alex Warlorn]

It IS indeed strange that the law of averages would have allowed for EVERY goblin there to be evil aligned and no Neutrals in the bunch.

[Remirach]

I think that's unfair to Rich. I see no ambiguity about his condemnation of those paladins' actions in the prologue to OtOoPCs. They committed an evil act. They didn't Fall. Why? "Because the gods decide when paladins Fall in the OotS universe and can override the Player's Handbook if they choose" is a real possibility. "For a reason yet to be revealed" is a real possibility. "Because it wasn't an evil act" is not a real possibility.
Actually I think it works, if you emphasize that the OOTS universe is one where it wouldn't be labeled an evil act for whatever reason. The universe itself might have been deliberately set up in a way that Rich personally thought was unfair and hypocritical.

I think you'd still have to blame the gods, though, for creating those "evil races" in the first place.

[David Argall]

Strip 13 says only that Belkar thinks it is common practice to kill sentient creatures because they have green skin and fangs.
And we note the other members of the party are then shown as disgusted by his position. So we have four testimonies that Good does not mean that green skin and fangs means evil alignment.


Back when it was gag-a-day, Rich wasn't worried about deep philosophical issues.
It is distinctly unlikely he is now either. Nor should he be.


And yes, Rich is trying to get D&D players to question the merciless slaughter of goblins solely because of their anatomy and not their actions into question with that statement, but he isn't making a big deal about it and he isn't saying anything about the beliefs of the Paladin-ifiers of the universe.
Quite unlikely. We have the 549 strips now in which we have a distinct lack of Redcloak acting in any but an evil way. Green and Orange are constantly doing evil things, the only obvious exception being the teenagers who were being good because that was double evil when they rebelled against their parents.

SoD has a plot need to explain Redcloak's evil and a tie-in with Azure City works very nicely here. It makes for a poor story if we say that the paladin were in fact clearly and completely justified in what they are doing and Redcloak is being a poor sport about the whole thing. So we do not get the paladin justification, merely Redcloak's anger.
Taking SoD as the true explanation, and not merely a lesser story, is a mistake.

[Charles Phipps]

Paladins never, NEVER, will kill defenceless women and children even if they are goblins, but I know the Giant wants to give Redcloack some moral reasons to do what he does... but I insist a Paladin is the paragon of GOOD, BRAVERY and HONOR.. killing children is EVIL, COWARD and DISHONORABLE.. there´s no compassion in that.

I maintain those were Paladins of Tyranny under the command of Lord Kubata.

;-)

[Dark Matter]

Another assumption we're making is that alignment is fully formed at birth. I'm reasonably certain my natural alignment is chaotic evil, but I was raised by Lawful Good parents and so I myself (IRL) tend towards neutral good .

It's a common assumption that adults are fully formed in their moral worldview and are fully accountable for their actions, while children are young inexperienced and thus have a potential to grow into something better even if they're currently little monsters. That's why we don't simply lock schoolyard bullies up in prison for life. The hope is that today's terror of the playground will be tomorrow's successful, productive citizen. Sometimes it works out that way. This is a very RL argument. Problem is applied to D&D, it'd *only* apply to humans and their children. Applying it to goblins is a problem of a different order. How many examples in the strip do we have of a member of an evil race being raised by good creatures and thus turning out good? None?

There's a big tenancy for us to try to apply our rules to other species because we view them as natural. Natural for us isn't the same as natural for everyone.

In RL, I can kill a baby rattlesnake because it's a baby rattlesnake.

[Faramir]

I'd just like to propose yet another possibility. Bearing in mind when one is watching one's family and home destroyed one might not be the most acute observer of details and that's the situation that Redcloak was in.

Is it possible that while the attack was led by the paladins, that many (or even the majority) of the troops that attacked Redcloak's village were ordinary soldiers? Or even that the paladins were not leading the attack but were sent along with the main force to specifically to act as a first strike force and deal with the clerics or any other evil threat?

We already know that not all of the attackers were paladins (at least one was a cleric who cast Hold Person). And if Shojo was the one who ordered the attack he may have felt that the greater good would be served by ensuring that there would be no one left who might know of the ceremony to control the Snarl.

[SPoD]

If a God decides when a paladin should fall, then why are there no Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral paladins?

Just as players can change alignments, so can deities. In fact, there are many deities associated with more than just one alignment. So surely deities that are not lawful or good would allow more slack from their paladins. Yet we don't see any neutral paladins, regardless of what the deities do or do not allow.

If Gods decided when a paladin should fall, we would see non-lawful or non-good paladins. The fact that we don't implies there is a power greater than the gods themselves that decides when a paladin should fall - a force of the universe itself.

Just because we do not see something within the very limited scope of the comic's narrative does not mean it does not exist. We haven't seen a blue dragon in this comic, but that doesn't mean the OOTS world is categorically without blue dragons and that we can use that as a point to support an argument.

Rich doesn't have space to show us everything that COULD be. He showed us what was important: the gods personally taking the action to strip Miko of her powers. From this, we can infer that it is the gods that make that decision, since they're the ones that carry it out.


It seems more like it was just a way to end the current arc. Belkar could not be killed, and so the party must be involved in an active manner rather than as mere witnesses as he is turned in to the law. So Roy and the others are made to spout whatever excuses that seem halfway reasonable to fight on Belkar's side.

It is intellectually dishonest to dismiss any scene that disputes your conclusions as simply being the author not knowing what he's doing. Unless he states such himself, we have no choice but to assume that if he put sufficient thought into the scenes that support your view, he must also have put thought into the scenes that refute it. You don't have the insight into Rich's mind to pick and choose which words he meant and which he didn't.

Especially since his commentary in No Cure for the Paladin Blues describes how he specifically set this scene up to show Roy's growth as a leader, giving us evidence that he wrote this scene with a deliberate intent.


See strip 13. This rejects this sort of reasoning.

Roy (and all of the OOTS) come from a radically different culture than the Sapphire Guard, and follow different gods. It is entirely possible (even probable) that the Twelve Gods view these issues differently than the Northern gods. Therefore, no conclusion about the possible cultural acceptability of the Sapphire Guard killing goblins can be drawn from Roy's reactions.

[NENAD]

It is distinctly unlikely he is now either. Nor should he be.

Oh, come on. SoD has Rich trying to get people to question the Goblins=Evil D&D mindset on every page. And in my opinion the comic is better for it. Although I guess it could be argued that philosophical issues concerning a gamers mentality aren't "deep," that, to me, sounds a bit like accusing D&D players of being sub-human or otherwise more inconsequential to philosophy than other human beings.



Quite unlikely. We have the 549 strips now in which we have a distinct lack of Redcloak acting in any but an evil way. Green and Orange are constantly doing evil things, the only obvious exception being the teenagers who were being good because that was double evil when they rebelled against their parents.

We had Right-Eye in SoD. And yes, we have green and orange doing lots of evil things, but that's because this IS a D&D strip, and it does need bad guys of some kind. We also had humans doing evil (or at least dubiously neutral) things in the bandits plot-arc.


SoD has a plot need to explain Redcloak's evil and a tie-in with Azure City works very nicely here. It makes for a poor story if we say that the paladin were in fact clearly and completely justified in what they are doing and Redcloak is being a poor sport about the whole thing. So we do not get the paladin justification, merely Redcloak's anger.
Taking SoD as the true explanation, and not merely a lesser story, is a mistake.

I don't take SoD as the true explanation, I take it as Redcloak's perspective. But one thing is more or less clear; Goblin women and children were ruthlessly hewn down by supposedly "good" warriors, and whether or not the paladins did it themselves, they at the very least stood by and let it happen.

Rich obviously wants us to think at least a little bit when we're reading OotS.

[David Argall]

Just because we do not see something within the very limited scope of the comic's narrative does not mean it does not exist. We haven't seen a blue dragon in this comic, but that doesn't mean the OOTS world is categorically without blue dragons and that we can use that as a point to support an argument.
Not untrue, but not as strong as you would like it.

We have not seen a blue dragon, but we have seen black and silver, and we have blue dragons in the Monster Manual. So we have a presumption there are blue dragons around. We will not make any objections should one show up.

We have not seen any non-LG paladins and the rules tell us paladins are LG only. So when someone wants to suggest there may be alternate types of paladins, we have a presumption they do not exist. Should our writer introduce one, he needs to say something more than "I'm a weird type of paladin."


Rich doesn't have space to show us everything that COULD be. He showed us what was important: the gods personally taking the action to strip Miko of her powers. From this, we can infer that it is the gods that make that decision, since they're the ones that carry it out.
Now we know from reality that the ones who carry out the decision are frequently not the ones who made it. They generally approve of the decision, but they don't make it. So we can not draw such a conclusion.


It is intellectually dishonest to dismiss any scene that disputes your conclusions as simply being the author not knowing what he's doing. Unless he states such himself, we have no choice but to assume that if he put sufficient thought into the scenes that support your view, he must also have put thought into the scenes that refute it.
It would be intellectually dishonest to insist on such a theory. It is intellectually mandatory that such a theory be considered at all times. Quite simply the writer is a mortal, and subject to error, and there will be times when the result is clearly faulted.


Especially since his commentary in [i]No Cure for the Paladin Blues describes how he specifically set this scene up to show Roy's growth as a leader, giving us evidence that he wrote this scene with a deliberate intent.
This point attacks the basic argument. "I think the Giant speaks against this attitude [ it is always right to kill an evil creature.] when he has Roy stand up..." Since it posits a different reason for the action, it becomes harder to maintain it serves both purposes.


Roy (and all of the OOTS) come from a radically different culture than the Sapphire Guard, and follow different gods. It is entirely possible (even probable) that the Twelve Gods view these issues differently than the Northern gods. Therefore, no conclusion about the possible cultural acceptability of the Sapphire Guard killing goblins can be drawn from Roy's reactions.
D&D morals are objective facts, not personal whim. There will be matters of flavor and minor issues, but the moral rules about killing goblins are the same for both Roy and the Sapphire Guard.
Note your position amounts to much the same thing as you denounce earlier. You are accusing the writer of error since we are not aware of this
2nd code of ethics and do not know how to react to it.



SoD has Rich trying to get people to question the Goblins=Evil D&D mindset on every page.
Trying? Or is that just an incidental effect of looking at thing thru goblin eyes? Notice this "attempt" seems to be entirely limited to SoD. The strip, which has much the larger readership, and which challenges all sorts of D&D ideas, is practically free of such questions.

Quote:
We have the 549 strips now in which we have a distinct lack of Redcloak acting in any but an evil way. Green and Orange are constantly doing evil things, the only obvious exception being the teenagers who were being good because that was double evil when they rebelled against their parents.


We had Right-Eye in SoD. And yes, we have green and orange doing lots of evil things, but that's because this IS a D&D strip, and it does need bad guys of some kind. We also had humans doing evil (or at least dubiously neutral) things in the bandits plot-arc.
In other words, we have acknowledgement that the strip consistently shows green and orange as evil. We then have some degree of conflict between strip and book, and there is no good reason to deem the book the superior version. In fact, we deem the strip the superior.

SoD

I don't take SoD as the true explanation, I take it as Redcloak's perspective. But one thing is more or less clear; Goblin women and children were ruthlessly hewn down by supposedly "good" warriors, and whether or not the paladins did it themselves, they at the very least stood by and let it happen.
Which does not allow us to overrule the strip. We are clearly better off looking for explanations that don't require us to posit violations of D&D rules or do not reflect the values of the strip.

[hamishspence]

and exactly why must we deem the strip as superior. after all the Giant has said that just because they aren't needed to understand the main strip doesn't mean the events never happened, quite the contrary. So, if they happened, they happened, it not a case of one being "superior" to the other.

[Darakonis]

Just because we do not see something within the very limited scope of the comic's narrative does not mean it does not exist. We haven't seen a blue dragon in this comic, but that doesn't mean the OOTS world is categorically without blue dragons and that we can use that as a point to support an argument.
Again, David took the words out of my mouth...

Not untrue, but not as strong as you would like it.

We have not seen a blue dragon, but we have seen black and silver, and we have blue dragons in the Monster Manual. So we have a presumption there are blue dragons around. We will not make any objections should one show up.

We have not seen any non-LG paladins and the rules tell us paladins are LG only. So when someone wants to suggest there may be alternate types of paladins, we have a presumption they do not exist. Should our writer introduce one, he needs to say something more than "I'm a weird type of paladin."

[FujinAkari]

Now we know from reality that the ones who carry out the decision are frequently not the ones who made it. They generally approve of the decision, but they don't make it. So we can not draw such a conclusion.

While true, in reality decisions are carried out either by those who made it, or those who serve (directly or indirectly) those who made it. Since there is no power higher than the Gods, then it stands to follow that the Gods made the decision themselves.

[The Extinguisher]

For the record, the SRD says nothing of paladins being only lawful good.
We are treated to three different types of paladins in core material.

Just wanted to point that out.

[FujinAkari]

For the record, the SRD says nothing of paladins being only lawful good.
We are treated to three different types of paladins in core material.

Just wanted to point that out.


Ex-Paladins

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies).

No, the core is pretty specific about Paladins only being Lawful Good...

[The Extinguisher]

Rah (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVariantsFreedom SlaughterAndTyranny).

Point for me.

[David Argall]

Rah (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVariantsFreedom SlaughterAndTyranny).

Point for me.

Point for you for being able to hunt well.
No point for not being able to understand what you found.

A variant is by definition not part of the core rules. It is simply a rules change that the author is warranting won't cause your game extreme damage.

[The Extinguisher]

Given that they are part of the SRD, and are generally not used as a variant, but as extra classes, most people I know consider them core.

I get it if you don't, but you can't say that the rules don't allow for non-lawful good paladins.