OOTS #1227 - The Discussion Thread

[Dion]

Authority only rests in the office that people are willing to recognize. This is the most fundamental basis of governance and authority.

Agreed.

Serini made a choice to guard a gate that exists outside of any reasonable definition of “lawful jurisdiction”. She didn’t build an entire city and paladin order under it, or build a ziggurat and blood cult above it.

Instead, she stuck a bunch of monsters in it and left it to do it’s own thing. She chose to abstain from all governance and authority by avoiding people entirely.

As a result, “her” gate sits outside of any lawful jurisdiction. That was intentional; she chose to do that. She’s clearly about as far from lawful as you can reasonably get.

But I’d point out that D&D does make a distinction between chaotic and evil. Saying “she isn’t using the dwarven or bugbear legal authority to detain adventurers who threaten the gate” certainly makes her chaotic, but by itself it doesn’t make her evil.

Saying “any detention without legal authority is kidnap, and kidnap is evil, therefore any detention outside of a legally established jurisdiction is evil” seems like sophistry to me.

Bonking paladins on the head sure does seem evil though. I can’t begin to imagine what an absolute jerk soon must have been to lead to anyone hating paladins that much... she needs to learn to let that go.

[snowblizz]

Bonking paladins on the head sure does seem evil though. I can’t begin to imagine what an absolute jerk soon must have been to lead to anyone hating paladins that much... she needs to learn to let that go.

Based on what I've seen of paladins in OOTS, *not* bonking them over the head at every opportunity (and twice on Sundays) seems like an inherently evil act.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Considering what I've seen of paladins pretty much anywhere Beings of Pure Law and Goodness are lining up to dopeslap the stuffing out of them.

[bunsen_h]

Again, would it have been better for Serini to reveal her presence and negotiate with the paladins? Possibly. Would that option have been much more Lawful Good? Yes. Was it the only Good option? I would argue no. What Serini did was immensely rude. But as others have pointed out, there are far "less Good" ways of removing people who know too much from the equation. The fact that she went the extra mile to bring them in nonlethally and release them with amnesia just doesn't fit at all with Evil action-taking framework. This is a fantasy world, and not every single real-world law is going to be applicable or even be a good barometer for their morality.

Another factor is the proximity of the bugbears. She has to do whatever-she's-doing without getting their attention. Out in the open, on a ledge, is probably not conducive to that.

[Peelee]

Based on what I've seen of paladins in OOTS, *not* bonking them over the head at every opportunity (and twice on Sundays) seems like an inherently evil act.

Seems like all but one of the objectionable paladins has been drummed out of their order, lost their powers, is likely dead by now and in the appropriate afterlife, or changed. So I'd disagree with your assertion.

[Fyraltari]

Seems like all but one of the objectionable paladins has been drummed out of their order, lost their powers, is likely dead by now and in the appropriate afterlife, or changed. So I'd disagree with your assertion.

Are you calling Lien objectionnable?

[hroþila]

Are you calling Lien objectionnable?

He means Miko, who was secretly raised as a blackguard. We're about to find out.

[Fyraltari]

He means Miko, who was secretly raised as a blackguard. We're about to find out.

Ah, yes, Blackguard Miko is the previously-only-appeared-one-page major ally! It all makes sense now!

[Peelee]

Are you calling Lien objectionnable?

Spoiler: On the Origin of PCs

Show

No.

Why yes, I do think I'm funny!

He means Miko, who was secretly raised as a blackguard. We're about to find out.

Ah, yes, Blackguard Miko is the previously-only-appeared-one-page major ally! It all makes sense now!

I stand corrected. Two.

[Schroeswald]

Are you calling Lien objectionnable?

I think he means

Spoiler: OtOoPCs

Show

The Paladin from OtOoPCs who sent Durkon into dangerous situations to get him killed because he was annoying.

EDIT: and looks like Peelee Ninja’d me in a much more concise way

[Peelee]

I think he means

Spoiler: OtOoPCs

Show

The Paladin from OtOoPCs who sent Durkon into dangerous situations to get him killed because he was annoying.

EDIT: and looks like Peelee Ninja’d me in a much more concise way

Imean yours was still good.

[Fyraltari]

Spoiler: On the Origin of PCs

Show

No.

Why yes, I do think I'm funny!

Who did you mean then? Miko? Because getting bisected and having X's for eyes seems like a solid qualifyer for the "probably dead" category.

I stand corrected. Two.

Two?

I think he means

Spoiler: OtOoPCs

Show

The Paladin from OtOoPCs who sent Durkon into dangerous situations to get him killed because he was annoying.

EDIT: and looks like Peelee Ninja’d me in a much more concise way

Oh, I forgot that one.

[danielxcutter]

Who did you mean then? Miko? Because getting bisected and having X's for eyes seems like a solid qualifyer for the "probably dead" category?

Because Tsukiko saying that she'd need a whole corpse is somewhat undermined by her completely blowing her Spot check and not seeing the other half behind her.(Remember, Haley said her Listen and Spot scores suck.)

Depending on the type of undead you make her into you might not even need to exploit her screwy state of mind, and at that point getting the "friendly contact with an evil outsider" probably won't be that hard either. Plus she probably fills the other qualifications.

I mean I know people will say it's not likely, but they said the same thing when I suggested the possibility of Hilgya being sent by Loki to smash Durkon*'s face in.

[Ionathus]

Because Tsukiko saying that she'd need a whole corpse is somewhat undermined by her completely blowing her Spot check and not seeing the other half behind her.(Remember, Haley said her Listen and Spot scores suck.)

Depending on the type of undead you make her into you might not even need to exploit her screwy state of mind, and at that point getting the "friendly contact with an evil outsider" probably won't be that hard either. Plus she probably fills the other qualifications.

I mean I know people will say it's not likely, but they said the same thing when I suggested the possibility of Hilgya being sent by Loki to smash Durkon*'s face in.

Well, I think Miko's situation is different from Hilgya's. Narratively, Miko's arc got pretty well-and-truly wrapped up. She was a failed paladin, and specifically the kind of failed paladin Rich wanted to put under a microscope. Her shattering of Soon's Gate was a fitting final act for her character, and a great example of how a well-intentioned extremist be blind to reality and thus get in the way of Good triumphing.

Hilgya was a surprise to be sure, and a welcome one, but given the scene with Tsukiko not bringing her back as an undead, and how much it was leaning on the "ooooooh Miko might come baaaaack!" joke, actually bringing her back would be sort of confusing story-wise.

My thoughts are very similar to the "Nale is coming back!" predictions: the protagonists have outgrown antagonists like Miko, Crystal, and Nale. Now is the time for the A-listers.

[Peelee]

Who did you mean then? Miko? Because getting bisected and having X's for eyes seems like a solid qualifyer for the "probably dead" category.

Schroeswald gave a more detailed, if less pithy, explanation. And then I jumped on the blackguard bandwagon.

[Goblin_Priest]

Rigging trials is.

The evidence to back this up is rather weak, given all the evidence to the contrary.

It does seem a bit of a puzzler, how it would be worse for your ruler to feign incompetence than to be incompetent. (^_^)°

A couple of points:
~ Technically, Hinjo doesn't say he's going to have the magistrates depose Shojo (except perhaps in the punny sense). He says it'll be up to the magistrates what'll happen next. At the time I thought of it as "Uh oh, he's in trouble" - but now that you've brought this to mind, I wonder what the heck that statement was supposed to mean. Because...
~ The "offenses" Hinjo probably heard about were lying to paladins / hiding things from them, staging a trial on behalf of "the gods" in the name of the Sapphire Guard, and using SG resources to get the Order down there to do a quest that's a de-facto violation of Soon's oath. None of those have more than a trivial bearing on his position as ruler of Azure City, only on his position on commander of the SG. I don't know why an Azure City magistrate would have (or want) jurisdiction.

This page is relevant to the discussion of Shojo's authority.

Indeed, that has been linked before in this discussion and rebuttals to it have been made (for example, my rebuttal was something similar to "that sounds like an entirely self-serving statement with no ability to back up or prove it, made by someone who was already in the middle of abusing his own actual authority left right and center. Or in other words, most likely hogwash.")

After all, Shojo was killed by someone claiming divine authority to do so, and we all saw how that worked out. Shojo has zero credibility.

Actually, all of this is giving me some ideas.

What if, indeed as he said it in 267, he has two distinct titles that follow different rules. Title 1: secular monarch of Azure City. Title 2: ecclesiastical leader of the Saphire Guard. Title 1 is inherited, determined by bloodline. Title 2... perhaps a bit more flexible.

There are multiple occurrence of Shojo and various paladins stating that they serve the twelve gods. It's therefore a religious order. Its leadership may therefore have more rules to deal with than simply "be born King". As an order of mostly paladins, there might be a code of conduct which he has possibly broken. Feigning senility is far from honorable behavior, after all.

Perhaps more gravely, though, is his mock trial. Not because he rigged the trial per say, but because he had an agent of the twelve gods impersonated. For a religious order, usurping divine authority, is basically sacrilege, heresy. He illegitimately claimed to speak for the Twelve Gods, when he had an outsider (pun intended) pretend to be their emissary.

The magistrates and the trial, thus, might not have been secular, but might have belonged to the Sapphire Guard. And so it's possible that only his Sapphire Guard titles were in jeopordy, and not his rulership of Azure City.

Though 410 muddies this theory a little, with the claim that he would face prison. Seems doubtful a religious order could arrest a King. It is, however, uttered by Belkar, who might not really know much of what's really at stake. On the other hand, nobody contradicts him.

[arimareiji]

Spoiler: collapsed for space

Show

Actually, all of this is giving me some ideas.

What if, indeed as he said it in 267, he has two distinct titles that follow different rules. Title 1: secular monarch of Azure City. Title 2: ecclesiastical leader of the Saphire Guard. Title 1 is inherited, determined by bloodline. Title 2... perhaps a bit more flexible.

There are multiple occurrence of Shojo and various paladins stating that they serve the twelve gods. It's therefore a religious order. Its leadership may therefore have more rules to deal with than simply "be born King". As an order of mostly paladins, there might be a code of conduct which he has possibly broken. Feigning senility is far from honorable behavior, after all.

Perhaps more gravely, though, is his mock trial. Not because he rigged the trial per say, but because he had an agent of the twelve gods impersonated. For a religious order, usurping divine authority, is basically sacrilege, heresy. He illegitimately claimed to speak for the Twelve Gods, when he had an outsider (pun intended) pretend to be their emissary.

The magistrates and the trial, thus, might not have been secular, but might have belonged to the Sapphire Guard. And so it's possible that only his Sapphire Guard titles were in jeopordy, and not his rulership of Azure City.

Though 410 muddies this theory a little, with the claim that he would face prison. Seems doubtful a religious order could arrest a King. It is, however, uttered by Belkar, who might not really know much of what's really at stake. On the other hand, nobody contradicts him.

There's at least one reference to a magistrate weighing in on an issue that's purely a matter of Azure City law (arresting Kubota for being a bad guy), but FSM knows it's not implausible for a quasi-secular society to pass laws and judge people based on both secular and non-secular reasons.

I hope I'm not overstating someone else's case, but I think Belkar's utterance weighs more heavily than we'd normally attribute to Belkar. It might be that "Hinjo is feeling guilty and self-deprecating", "Hinjo hasn't thought through the fact 'Lying to me isn't in fact a crime in the legal sense'", "Hinjo thinks that's what Shojo would believe", or some other possibility - but Belkar asserts it to Hinjo's face, and Hinjo responds with qualified agreement.

[The MunchKING]

Because Tsukiko saying that she'd need a whole corpse is somewhat undermined by her completely blowing her Spot check and not seeing the other half behind her.(Remember, Haley said her Listen and Spot scores suck.)

Which is odd if you think about it, because the Divine Caster is clearly Cleric, and yet as the Old Man pointed out, Wisdom is the stat that effects Spot and Listen checks. So if she was good enough to cast decent Clerical spells, she'd be good enough to not be COMPLETE Garbage at Spot checks.

Still nowhere good enough to Spot a high-level rogue, but still not garbage.

[Ionathus]

I managed to track down The Giant's comment on "taking advantage of someone" and the reason that "Chaotic" doesn't necessarily mean "Evil." I think it's very helpful for both the original Serini one and the Shojo tangent as well. Specifically the crack about the "Terms and Conditions"!

Taking advantage of someone is neither Good nor Evil, inherently. What matters is what you take advantage of them for. Communicating clearly enough for Crystal to be 100% aware that Haley was about to trick her into walking into a pit of lava would have resulted in an immediate resumption of hostilities and, probably, more gnomish deaths. Haley is not under a moral obligation to sacrifice lives so that she can be sure Crystal understands the Terms and Conditions. Therefore, taking advantage of Crystal's tendency to follow and her inability to grasp complex rhetorical points in order to save lives is a Good action. If Haley pulled the same exact stunt in order to kill an innocent person and steal their gold, it would be an Evil action.

Maybe you can argue that it was a Chaotic action rather than a Lawful one, due to the aforementioned advantage-taking. Although the fact that she was willing to spell out her reasoning for no longer being truthful to Crystal sort of places this in the Neutral category. Because frankly, a Chaotic Good character is not under a moral obligation to tell Crystal the truth at all in this scenario. Haley never agreed to a truce, she simply delayed her attack when told that Crystal would try to kill her "later." It would have been entirely within her alignment to say, "Hey, check it out, the gnomish wizards came up with a way that you won't hurt anymore. Just follow me and I'll bring you to their workshop." And then dumped her in the lava. That she did tell her the truth (even while nonverbally tricking her) is more a testament to Haley's state of mind than any responsibility to Crystal. Haley went above and beyond the requirements of her own alignment here.

Unless people are arguing that being Chaotic Good is morally wrong, in which case that is treading on the forum's rules.

[Goblin_Priest]

There's at least one reference to a magistrate weighing in on an issue that's purely a matter of Azure City law (arresting Kubota for being a bad guy), but FSM knows it's not implausible for a quasi-secular society to pass laws and judge people based on both secular and non-secular reasons.

I hope I'm not overstating someone else's case, but I think Belkar's utterance weighs more heavily than we'd normally attribute to Belkar. It might be that "Hinjo is feeling guilty and self-deprecating", "Hinjo hasn't thought through the fact 'Lying to me isn't in fact a crime in the legal sense'", "Hinjo thinks that's what Shojo would believe", or some other possibility - but Belkar asserts it to Hinjo's face, and Hinjo responds with qualified agreement.

They might have distinct magistrates for secular affairs and divine affairs. Or they might have a same class of magistrates but who still act in two quite distinct systems. For example, military courts here have civilian judges, though they also have their own special rules. Another example would be trials of heresy, in whatever place or time they were common, was often in a parallel system to the ecclesiastic judicial branches.

As for Hinjo, he says "he's probably right... looks like I'm on my own, then". Remember, though, that Belkar is explaining to them why the resurrection spell isn't working. He's making them realize that Shojo doesn't *want* to return. So saying "he's probably right... looks like I'm on my own, then" is most simply explained as "he's probably right that Shojo is unwilling to be raised and thus we can't bring him back and then I'll have to fix everything myself instead of deferring to him". It could be interpreted as "he's probably right that he knows he'd end up in prison", but I don't think that this statement alone is very strong proof of a prison verdict being what was really coming. After all, if Sohjo was going to prison, Hinjo would be again pretty much left on his own, which would make this comment a bit off. Let's not forget that Xykon is at the gates with a huge army, and that explaining the inner details of the judicial system to an outsider that was just revealed to be part of a dupe against you is probably not what he's feeling like doing right now.

[bunsen_h]

Off-topic for a moment... I just learned that doing a Google search for something like "roll 4d8+4" brings up a graphical display with just that dice roll.

[Skull the Troll]

Seems like all but one of the objectionable paladins has been drummed out of their order, lost their powers, is likely dead by now and in the appropriate afterlife, or changed. So I'd disagree with your assertion.

Which "objectionable" paladin is left out of curiosity?

[Peelee]

Which "objectionable" paladin is left out of curiosity?

I think he means

Spoiler: OtOoPCs

Show

The Paladin from OtOoPCs who sent Durkon into dangerous situations to get him killed because he was annoying.

I do not expect we will get a resolution on that (nor do I really think we need one).

[Skull the Troll]

I do not expect we will get a resolution on that (nor do I really think we need one).

Sorry I just saw that you answered that one above. Teach me to post on the fly.

[whitehelm]

We're referencing Fate/Stay Night; "People die when they are killed" is a meme from there due to bad translation and "I am the blade of my sword" is part of the chant for one of the most iconic spells, Unlimited Blade Works.

Hold up! The lines you're trying to reference are "People die if they are killed" and "I am the bone of my sword". You may resume the morality discussion now.

[Liquor Box]

Yeah, you're pretty much right, so, fair enough, I'll give you my fuller analysis.

My stance here is more or less that of the things we have seen Serini done, the worst of them is the kidnapping, which is fairly justifiable given the circumstances and the information from her perspective; and the rest of her actions are essentially so minor that we can't determine anything about her alignment from them. (Or, perhaps, that her treatment of the trolls is more indicator of Good than lying to paladins and bonking them on the head is of Evil.) Based on the reason we know who she is in the first place and the way she came across in those strips, I would lean more toward Good than Evil, and there's been nothing significant enough in these new strips that moves the needle for me yet.

That's a pretty reasonable perspective, in my opinion.

I don't really agree that the kidnapping was justifiable. I think to be able to say that something like a kidnapping was justified you'd have to be able to say firstly that the paladin's posed a real risk to the gate, and secondly that the kidnapping was the least intrusive option reasonably available to her.

I don't think either of those things are true. I don't see any good reason to think that the paladins were a threat to the gate (either from Serini's perspective or the reader's). Nor do I think that kidnapping them was the least intrusive way to deal with it (the fact that she taunted and smacked them after she kidnapped them is just the icing in the cake).

In terms of the trolls, all it says she did for them was purchase from them. They did something nice for her, but all she did for them was trade with them (which they apparently appreciated greatly).

No, "she happens to live there" was NOT the reason I put forward. Your example of "if I'm just walking through the countryside and you tranquilize me because you happen to live nearby" also misses the point entirely.

It wasn't the reason? Where you said "Kraagor's gate and the ravine that encloses it, for all intents and purposes, is Serini's territory...." I took you to be suggesting that it was her territory was relevant. Ok, since you set out your real objection below, I will address that.

She is defending the Gate. The paladins are clearly meddling with the Gate. She does not just happen to live there. She is defending reality & existence itself.

How were that "clearly meddling with the gate"? All they were doing was watching some other people who were clearly meddling with the gate. I mean if you read what they were talking about just before Serini threw a dart at them, they were discussing how they hoped Xykon wouldn't figure out. She also knew they were paladins, so good and therefore unlikely to be looking to end the world. Without the comic providing more explanation, you'd be stretching to say that she was taking anything other than a scorched earth policy of attacking everyone who entered her territory.

I mean we are talking about kidnapping the paladins on the context of a bugbear village having been in the valley with this 'kill switch' for some time. We are talking about kidnapping the paladins when they are opposing the very obvious and imminent threat of Xykon and his allies.

We are clearly talking ourselves in circles, and will continue to do so, because it seems you don't draw any distinction between real-world behavior and fantasy world behavior -- especially the fact that this fantasy world has a single, unambiguous "kill switch" lurking in Kraagor's Tomb. That factor will, by necessity, change some of the equation.

If the existence of that fantastical, existential threat and the necessity to protect it doesn't affect any of the conclusions you draw about Serini, and get you to accept that a 1-for-1 perfect equivalent to real-world morality is therefore impossible, I can't see any way you will ever accept Serini's actions as not-Evil. It all kind of hinges on that difference.

I do draw such a distinction. In real life good and evil aren;t really definable things, but in fantasy they often are - in DnD in particular they are defined.

I don't think it's true though morality is wholly different in fantasy worlds are different because there are existential threats. There are things in the real world that are threats to society as we know it.

If what you are saying is that the presence of such a dangerous thing as the last gate justified extreme measures, I agree. If the paladins were a real threat, and if kidnapping was the only way to mitigate that thread. I thnk she fail on both of those.

Capturing paladins and lying to them isn’t a nice thing to do.

But most adventurers, if they needed to get rid of martial combatants, would have killed the martial combatants.

So we know she avoids killing Trolls AND paladins.

Is she good? Certainly not! If she were good, she’d have to be all murder murder on the trolls! You have to commit a LOT of murders to be good in D&D.

If she killed them it would have been more evil that kidnapping them. If she had opened a dialogue with them to establish their intent it would have been not evil at all.

Her actions with the trolls was neutral. Refraining from killing beings who are no threat to you is neither good nor evil. Trading with beings for something you need is neither good nor evil. If she'd managed to refrain from killing or kidnapping the paladins too she'd have done not evil at all.

I didn't read their post as pointing out the bugbears were there first, which is an incorrect assertion anyway; the bugbears live there because of Monster Hollow, which Serini built, so she by necessity predates the bugbears village.

You are right about this.

A slight quibble is that she went of adventuring after she made the gate, and then came back relatively recently (after the events of SoD), so the bugbears may have moved in then. But that is only a minor quibble.

And the law is fiat rests on the belief that the authority is present. If nobody listens to the legitimate king, that person is no longer the king. Doesn't matter that they have the law decreeing them the king, the person who everyone listens to and obeys is the actual king. Authority only rests in the office that people are willing to recognize. This is the most fundamental basis of governance and authority.

Yes, but that is not accomplished by agreement. In most cases it's simply the status quo. Sometimes it is accomplished by force. Even following a revolution the overwhelming majority of the population is not involved in appointing the new monarch or authority. I suppose you could argue that the population is tacitly endorsing their kingdom's authority by not revolting, but that would seem to be a stretch.

[Ruck]

That's a pretty reasonable perspective, in my opinion.

I don't really agree that the kidnapping was justifiable. I think to be able to say that something like a kidnapping was justified you'd have to be able to say firstly that the paladin's posed a real risk to the gate, and secondly that the kidnapping was the least intrusive option reasonably available to her.

I don't think either of those things are true. I don't see any good reason to think that the paladins were a threat to the gate (either from Serini's perspective or the reader's). Nor do I think that kidnapping them was the least intrusive way to deal with it (the fact that she taunted and smacked them after she kidnapped them is just the icing in the cake).

I'm just going to quote this again:

** - As has been repeatedly said before, despite false claims that no rationale has been given:

Spoiler: collapsed for space

Show

Serini gets notified that paladins' gate has blown up. Then she gets a (false) notification that the paladins are mucking around Girard's gate despite their oath to stay away. Shortly after, she's notified that Girard's gate has blown up. Then two paladins show up to muck around her gate, again despite their oath to stay away. She has good reason to believe that if they leave well enough alone instead of trying to find the gate, Xykon will keep spinning his wheels.
I think she's very likely to change her mind in light of new information, but at this time she has no reason to think of the paladins as anything but well-intentioned bunglers likely to get another gate destroyed if left to their own devices.

And if you don't buy that as reasonable, you don't, but I think that's just an impasse, because I think it's very reasonable, and you don't say why you don't think it is. And as far as dealing with them, if you think it's reasonable to think they're a threat to the gate, intentionally or not, then kidnapping and memory-wiping is a lot more reasonable than a number of other available options. Like killing them, for starters.

In terms of the trolls, all it says she did for them was purchase from them. They did something nice for her, but all she did for them was trade with them (which they apparently appreciated greatly).

In her own words, they were friends.

[Peelee]

I'm just going to quote this again:



And if you don't buy that as reasonable, you don't, but I think that's just an impasse, because I think it's very reasonable, and you don't say why you don't think it is. And as far as dealing with them, if you think it's reasonable to think they're a threat to the gate, intentionally or not, then kidnapping and memory-wiping is a lot more reasonable than a number of other available options. Like killing them, for starters.



In her own words, they were friends.

Plus, didn't Durkon's outing just show why it's a bad idea to give up the element of surprise?

[Liquor Box]

I'm just going to quote this again:



And if you don't buy that as reasonable, you don't, but I think that's just an impasse, because I think it's very reasonable, and you don't say why you don't think it is. And as far as dealing with them, if you think it's reasonable to think they're a threat to the gate, intentionally or not, then kidnapping and memory-wiping is a lot more reasonable than a number of other available options. Like killing them, for starters.

I hadn't seen that. You point out that I hadn;t said why I don;t think it's reasonable, so I will now do so:

• Why would Serini get an incorrect notification that the paladins had been to Girard's gate? Did I miss a strip? None of the people at Girard's gate was a paladin.
• The paladins are not 'mucking around' with her gate. They are observing those who are 'mucking around' with it. If she had overheard their conversation before getting darted (and its reasonable to think she would have) she'd know the paladins opposed those who are 'mucking around' with it.
• What is her good reason to believe that Xykon would keep spinning his wheels, and the paladins are likely to interrupt that wheel spinning.

Her context is that three gates had blown up, one of which was being guarded by paladins. She probably knows Xykon was involved (given her prior dealings with him) and he's here now. The paladins are also here, hiding from Xykon while observing him.

Kidnapping them and wiping their memory is more reasonable than other options, yes. But robbing some is more reasonable than robbing them and killing them too. The question is whether there were any less intrusive options.

What about talking to them, ascertaining their intentions, warning them of any blunders they might make which would upset her defences etc. Aremareiji's post that you quoted acknowledges that might be fruitful where she says "I think she's very likely to change her mind in light of new information". The worst case scenario would be that it doesn't work, in which case Serini can revert to her plan B of kidnapping them - which would be a lot more reasonable if Serini had exhausted other options.

In her own words, they were friends.

Yes, but she also endorsed O-Chul's explanation for the reason for that friendship - "While anyone else might thing of purchasing something as a unremarkable interaction, for them it was likely the nicest anyone from one of our races had treated them...". That suggests that she did nothing more kind than trading with them to obtain their friendship. But even taking friendship at face value, is being friends with something inherently good?

[Ruck]

Why would Serini get an incorrect notification that the paladins had been to Girard's gate? Did I miss a strip? None of the people at Girard's gate was a paladin.

"Serini has the true coordinates, but good luck getting her to tell them to you. This spell is set to notify both her and us that you couldn't leave well enough alone."

The paladins are not 'mucking around' with her gate. They are observing those who are 'mucking around' with it. If she had overheard their conversation before getting darted (and its reasonable to think she would have) she'd know the paladins opposed those who are 'mucking around' with it.

Note that she doesn't do anything until O-Chul starts talking about opening doors and trying to determine where the Gate is.

What is her good reason to believe that Xykon would keep spinning his wheels, and the paladins are likely to interrupt that wheel spinning.

The fact that he continues to go in and out of dungeons daily, a pretty clear sign that he has not figured out her teleport trap nor even seems to be aware of it.

Her context is that three gates had blown up, one of which was being guarded by paladins. She probably knows Xykon was involved (given her prior dealings with him) and he's here now. The paladins are also here, hiding from Xykon while observing him.

Four gates. Hers is the very last one holding together the entire existence of the material plane.

Kidnapping them and wiping their memory is more reasonable than other options, yes. But robbing some is more reasonable than robbing them and killing them too. The question is whether there were any less intrusive options.

What about talking to them, ascertaining their intentions, warning them of any blunders they might make which would upset her defences etc.

I think Peelee just covered that one.

Yes, but she also endorsed O-Chul's explanation for the reason for that friendship - "While anyone else might thing of purchasing something as a unremarkable interaction, for them it was likely the nicest anyone from one of our races had treated them...". That suggests that she did nothing more kind than trading with them to obtain their friendship. But even taking friendship at face value, is being friends with something inherently good?

"Is being friends with something inherently good" - no. "Is making friends and treating with respect those who are generally marginalized and shunned by humanoid society or often killed without a second thought because of their species Good" - I'd say yes.