OOTS #1227 - The Discussion Thread

[arimareiji]

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

Thank you. I noticed this earlier while describing why I thought her best chance for success* was to use the element of surprise (and it would be paladin-level-idealistic-bordering-on-foolhardy to give it away), but I was afraid it would invite someone accusing me of comparing O-Chul and Lien to Xykon and Redcloak.

* - Keeping in mind that she's a rogue and all. Or to quote Haley, "OK, I know a fight my class wasn't designed for when I see one."

_{Edit: Adding a response to something I belatedly noticed:}

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.

Please don't misleadingly paraphrase me, even if it's unintentional.

I chose the words "muck around her gate" because I wanted to convey that their simple presence in the area of the gate was (logically) worrisome to Serini - without falsely implying they were a direct, immediate threat to the gate. Adding your own "with" (three times, although to be fair I do note that you didn't directly add that word inside the quotation marks) substantially changes my intended meaning.

[Liquor Box]

"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."

Gotcha

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

So the same thing Xykon is already doing, which you (or Arereiji described as spinning his wheels)?

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.

Yes, the spinning his wheels part was obvious. What I asked was why she might think the paladin's presence would stop that from happening when they are clearly opposing Xykon.

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

Yes, the catastrophe part of the context has always been clear. I hadn't realised that she might think the paladins were present at the fall of Girard's gate though.

I think Peelee just covered that one.

By referring to Durkon?

Durkon approached Redcloack who was evil, whose goals opposed Durkon's and whose party had attacked Durkon's party last time they met. Redcloak attacked Durkon.

From Serini's perspective, she knows the paladins are good, as far as she knows they have no personal vendetta against her, they appear to have similar goals to her (preventing Xykon destroying the gate. Arimereiji's post concluded that Serini might have seen them as well intentioned bunglers. Are you really saying that Serini didn't talk to the Paladins because she feared that if she approached them and spoke to them they might attack her?

It seems to me that if she had spoken to them and beseeched them not to do whatever thing she fears them doing, they might have said either yes or no. If they said no, Serini could have politely withdrawn. The paladins would have no reason to think she might attack them (unless she detected as evil), so wouldn't take extra precautions even if they could.

"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.

I'd see it the other way round - shunning marginalised people is bad, but making friends with them (at no apparent sacrifice to themself, and to their financial benefit mind you) is neutral. I find the idea that someone should see making friends with a minority ethnicity as deserving of praise a bit patronising and cringeworthy.

That may not be something we are able to agree on though

Thank you. I noticed this earlier while describing why I thought her best chance for success* was to use the element of surprise (and it would be paladin-level-idealistic-bordering-on-foolhardy to give it away), but I was afraid it would invite someone accusing me of comparing O-Chul and Lien to Xykon and Redcloak.

_{Edit: Adding a response to something I belatedly noticed:}

I addressed the Durkon comparison above.

You say it's foolish to give up the element of surprise, but that's how you might treat enemies who you are already at war against. It's not usually wise to make a surprise attack against someone who may be your ally.

Serini had very little to lose by talking to the paladins. If they'd had a conversation, but hadn't reached agreement they'd hardly be expecting her to attack them, so the element of surprise wouldn't have been lost anyway.

Serini did have a lot to lose by attacking them. First, it makes it much less likely that they will assist her willingly. Second, her attack might have failed Her dart might have missed (like it did with Lien) or O-Chul might have made his save, like a high level paladin often would. If that had happened they might have attacked her and killed her (if they have a means of detecting invisible, which Serini wouldn't know), They would certainly be much more alert than they would have been following a conversation.

* - Keeping in mind that she's a rogue and all. Or to quote Haley, "OK, I know a fight my class wasn't designed for when I see one."

Rogues are designed for negotiating (Hayley being the Order's negotiator is an example), they have speech skills as class skills. They are not designed for brewing potions - Serini must have multi classed or picked that skill up by some unorthodox means.

Please don't misleadingly paraphrase me, even if it's unintentional.

I chose the words "muck around her gate" because I wanted to convey that their simple presence in the area of the gate was (logically) worrisome to Serini - without falsely implying they were a direct, immediate threat to the gate. Adding your own "with" (three times, although to be fair I do note that you didn't directly add that word inside the quotation marks) substantially changes my intended meaning.

To me, using the words "mucking around her gate" overstated what they were doing. They were watching from a distance. I think that to say they were "mucking around her gate" does imply a direct immediate threat, and I don't think the paladins posed such a threat. I accept that I editorialised the word 'with' though, so might have exagerated your words, apologies for that.

[Goblin_Priest]

"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."

Ooooh, that line is looking quite a lot like foreshadowing right now.

[hamishspence]

Add in the monitoring device,

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0844.html

And it'll look to Serini a lot like:


"The paladins lose their gate. Nearly a year later, they start interfering with Girard's Gate. Only a week or so after that, Girard's gate is destroyed. Must have been them."

[The MunchKING]

Then again, she DOES already know about Xykon, and how he's got her diary and is going around wrecking stuff. So it might be that she knows he's the one causing the Gates to get busted, and thinks the Paladins are a separate threat.

[One Skunk Todd]

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

Not for nothing though. He did get a chance to sow confusion and doubt among the enemy leadership, which may be helpful later. Especially when RC next communes with the Dark One.

[Peelee]

From Serini's perspective, she knows the paladins are good

[citation needed]

She knows the paladins are nominally good, but considering the Sapphire Guard pre-O-Chul and the first paladin Durkon and Roy knew, that's no reason to assume paladins are actually Good or would have any reason to be peaceful with her.

And, regardless, she can talk to them under terms she can't control at all or she can talk to them on terms she has entirely dictated herself and has full control over. She opted for the second. You, it appears, would not. That does not make her Evil. That makes her not-you.

Not for nothing though. He did get a chance to sow confusion and doubt among the enemy leadership, which may be helpful later. Especially when RC next communes with the Dark One.

Redcloak himself says the only feedback he gets is that he still has spells the next day.

[bunsen_h]

And, regardless, she can talk to them under terms she can't control at all or she can talk to them on terms she has entirely dictated herself and has full control over. She opted for the second. You, it appears, would not. That does not make her Evil. That makes her not-you.

"And, regardless, she can talk to them under terms she can't control at all" which are dangerously exposed to the attention of the bugbear village plus Team Evil. Even worse.

[Deathhappens]

Is there some ability I'm forgetting that would make lying to Paladins special compared to lying to...just about everyone else? Sure, you could say "ranks in Sense Motive", but Paladins tend to be too MAD to actually invest enough points in WIS to matter.

[Dr.Zero]

"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.

So um... Tsukiko was actually good, too?

(Mind you, I know the author want to show befriending trolls as act of goodness, here. It's just that your affirmation was an irresistible bait, remembering her whole delusional speech about "they are opposite to us, we are monsters, so they must be good".)

[Deathhappens]

[citation needed]

She knows the paladins are nominally good, but considering the Sapphire Guard pre-O-Chul and the first paladin Durkon and Roy knew, that's no reason to assume paladins are actually Good or would have any reason to be peaceful with her.

And, regardless, she can talk to them under terms she can't control at all or she can talk to them on terms she has entirely dictated herself and has full control over. She opted for the second. You, it appears, would not. That does not make her Evil. That makes her not-you.


Redcloak himself says the only feedback he gets is that he still has spells the next day.

The fact that, de facto, you cannot be a Paladin without a Lawful Good alignment (which as Miko exemplary proved, does not neccesarily make you a nice person) isn't reason enough to assume anyone you factually know (or at least acknowledge) is a Paladin is also Lawful Good?

[arimareiji]

Not for nothing though. He did get a chance to sow confusion and doubt among the enemy leadership, which may be helpful later. Especially when RC next communes with the Dark One.

The last sentence is a particularly-interesting angle I hadn't considered. Looking forward to seeing where it goes.

On the original topic: While it's true that RC is probably even harder to "sow confusion and doubt" with than your average paladin (let alone O-Chul), even Durkon made a solid backup plan in case things went south. As soon as they were aware of Serini, Lien was able to start swatting darts away.... if Serini hadn't had the leverage she gained by making the first strike, ymmv on how effective any backup plan would have been.

Redcloak himself says the only feedback he gets is that he still has spells the next day.

Good point. Personally I'm intrigued by the notion that it will give TDO the information (even if he doesn't respond), but that's very up in the air.

(I think Thor's comment to Minrah about "That thing you've been worried about for a while" suggests it, but 1) it only suggests it and 2) Thor is Thor, TDO is TDO. Not everyone has the patience to listen to a bunch of whiny supplicants every waking moment. (^_~))

Rogues are designed for negotiating (Hayley being the Order's negotiator is an example), they have speech skills as class skills. They are not designed for brewing potions - Serini must have multi classed or picked that skill up by some unorthodox means.

Spoiler: collapsing for space et al

Show

Rogues are designed for negotiating? That's an interesting take. I thought their primary defining trait was "accomplishing things by stealth (which they have much less chance of, if they walk up and announce themselves as if they were paladins)", but that's my take.

~~~~~

To me, using the words "mucking around her gate" overstated what they were doing. They were watching from a distance. I think that to say they were "mucking around her gate" does imply a direct immediate threat, and I don't think the paladins posed such a threat. I accept that I editorialised the word 'with' though, so might have exagerated your words, apologies for that.

Editorializing implies you're solely expressing your own opinion. Please feel free to do that, including to express your opinion of what I actually meant, as long as it's clear that it's your opinion on the matter.

But in the future, please do not feel free to portray <the exaggerated version that you think I actually meant> as being <what I said> -- then go on to spend over twice as long explaining why you have the right to keep doing so -- before offering half-hearted "apologies" for what you "might have" had the right to do. If that was already clear, then all is well and that's that.

_{Edit: Refactored a sentence for clarity.}

[Grey_Wolf_c]

So um... Tsukiko was actually good, too?

Ghouls and the under undead she turned into her babies are not sentient. You cannot befriend them.

GW

[hamishspence]

Ghouls and Wights are intelligent - they just hate the living. And are easy for clerics to control.

The average Ghoul is Int 13. The average Wight is Int 11.

[bunsen_h]

(I think Thor's comment to Minrah about "That thing you've been worried about for a while" suggests it, but 1) it only suggests it and 2) Thor is Thor, TDO is TDO. Not everyone has the patience to listen to a bunch of whiny supplicants every waking moment. (^_~))

We know that for a time, Thor was using an automated system and intermediaries to respond to his clerics. But we also have: "I remember everyone who's ever worshipped me."

[Peelee]

The fact that, de facto, you cannot be a Paladin without a Lawful Good alignment (which as Miko exemplary proved, does not neccesarily make you a nice person) isn't reason enough to assume anyone you factually know (or at least acknowledge) is a Paladin is also Lawful Good?

Again, considering what we have seen paladins do in the paid books, no. And given that the Lawful Good afterlife, at the very least, conducts a thorough review to determine if someone is actually Lawful Good means that what is claimed in life is not nearly so clear-cut as you are presenting it, and that was is apparently good enough for class requirements is not strictly the absolute truth of what is or is not.

I, for one, theorize that in life the universe simply eyeballs things and takes one's character sheet declaration as sufficient, but that after death when it actually matters, makes a more thorough investigation to determine what the reality actually is. YMMV, you may have a different way to rationalize it, but regardless, we see paladins do horrible acts and act as if they are fully Evil or Neutral at best while still being paladins, so the mere state of being a paladin is clearly not enough to make a determination as to alignment (and even if one insists that it is, then said alignment has no bearing whatsoever on how adversarial said paladins may be, which would render the whole thing moot to start with).

[Dr.Zero]

I, for one, theorize that in life the universe simply eyeballs things and takes one's character sheet declaration as sufficient,

Then no paladin who believes to be in the right should fall, if not after they die.
And the fact that some paladins fall (and we know for sure one has fallen in the comic) proves that the Gods keep an eye on them and if they fail to respect some of the rules of their class, they fall, even if their character sheet tells she shouldn't.

(On a side note, in-universe always chaotic evil races like goblins -and trolls- were created to be source of XPs, a simple way to make the PC grow. So, killing them is almost the fantastic equivalent of eating, at least level-wise. Which is kinda the whole reason RC has such a grudge against the universe he lives in.)

[Liquor Box]

[citation needed]

She knows the paladins are nominally good, but considering the Sapphire Guard pre-O-Chul and the first paladin Durkon and Roy knew, that's no reason to assume paladins are actually Good or would have any reason to be peaceful with her.

Paladins are not only nominally good. By the game rules they are good in action as well. Who from the Saphire Guard before O-Chul do you think was not good?

And, regardless, she can talk to them under terms she can't control at all or she can talk to them on terms she has entirely dictated herself and has full control over. She opted for the second. You, it appears, would not. That does not make her Evil. That makes her not-you.

This summarises it well. She had two (or more options). There are advantages and disadvantages to each. I think one would have been the better option, she obviously thought the other was.

The question then becomes, if you have two (or more) options for dealing with something, and one involves drugging and kidnapping someone and the other does not, is there anything morally wrong with going with the drug and kidnap option? I tend to think so. It's not as bad as murder, not an alignment switch if she;s firmly good, but it is to my mind an option that she was not morally entitled to take given there were other reasonable options.

[ebarde]

Paladins are not only nominally good. By the game rules they are good in action as well. Who from the Saphire Guard before O-Chul do you think was not good?



This summarises it well. She had two (or more options). There are advantages and disadvantages to each. I think one would have been the better option, she obviously thought the other was.

The question then becomes, if you have two (or more) options for dealing with something, and one involves drugging and kidnapping someone and the other does not, is there anything morally wrong with going with the drug and kidnap option? I tend to think so. It's not as bad as murder, not an alignment switch if she;s firmly good, but it is to my mind an option that she was not morally entitled to take given there were other reasonable options.

While I certainly agree that Rich took a few liberties with the paladin rules(which to be fair, everyone does cause they make little to no sense). It's undeniable that in the canon of the comic numerous paladins have been obstructive and authoritarian in the pursuit of their goals, to the extent of actively hurting and killing innocents. You can argue all you want that they shouldn't be able to do that by the rules, but at the end of the day we know for a fact that in the comic they are capable of that.

Miko and pretty much everyone in how the paladin got his scar were certainly not the kind of folks I'd want snooping around my super secret gate that is defending all of reality. But to be fair, what are the odds a paladin of the sapphire guard takes out a ga...oh wait

[hamishspence]

Who from the Saphire Guard before O-Chul do you think was not good?

From How the Paladin Got His Scar

Spoiler

Show

Gin-Jun. He was telling Miko basically that "killing goblin children is OK, because they will grow up to be evil adults."

[Dion]

And the fact that some paladins fall (and we know for sure one has fallen in the comic) proves that the Gods keep an eye on them and if they fail to respect some of the rules of their class, they fall, even if their character sheet tells she shouldn't

Sure. If they don’t follow the rule “don’t murder a helpless 80 year old adoptive father in cold blood in the throne rooms next to the word ending monster that every god is actively observing right now”, they do fall.

Otherwise, the gods seem ok with letting them get away with whatever they can justify. Kind of like every dnd game I’ve ever played with a paladin.

It definitely sounds like Soon was hated by everyone for being absolutely horrible.

[Argis13]

Add in the monitoring device,

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0844.html

And it'll look to Serini a lot like:


"The paladins lose their gate. Nearly a year later, they start interfering with Girard's Gate. Only a week or so after that, Girard's gate is destroyed. Must have been them."

Except that we know that V has Has contacted Serini, so she has some information about what's going on. We don't know was said, but she shouldn't assume the paladins are entirely responsible, the gates are supposed to be secret-there's clearly something else going on.

Unless, of course, the sending spell discriminates between Serini and half-troll Serini, or she discounts it as a pure bluff. But I think that she understands paladins better than Girard did, and I don't think that the sending spell would discriminate like that. I think she's playing some other game right now.

[Dr.Zero]

It definitely sounds like Soon was hated by everyone for being absolutely horrible.

Keep in mind that "everyone", in this case, is mostly a guy who created a newborn kidnapping net to satisfy his own paranoia.
I'm not sure about Serini's feelings for now, but the fact she drew little hearts around Girard's head might indicate some bias.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Ghouls and Wights are intelligent - they just hate the living. And are easy for clerics to control.

The average Ghoul is Int 13. The average Wight is Int 11.

Intelligent is not the same thing as sentient. And in OotS, it has been explicitly established that ghouls/wights are not sentient.

GW

[arimareiji]

The "He's True Neutral" perspective isn't "he deserves to go to hell" but "he deserves to go to the Outlands instead of Celestia".

His daughter Julia self-identifies as True Neutral too - maybe he'd actually end up being happier there, especially when she arrives.

Ghouls and Wights are intelligent - they just hate the living. And are easy for clerics to control.

The average Ghoul is Int 13. The average Wight is Int 11.

From How the Paladin Got His Scar

Spoiler

Show

Gin-Jun. He was telling Miko basically that "killing goblin children is OK, because they will grow up to be evil adults."

Between "wading into the practical issues of multiple afterlife destinations", "making comparisons that would expose my jadedly-cynical view of humanity", and "spending money that should be kept in reserve", you're a veritable font of temptations. I'm starting to think your posts should come with a warning label. (^_~)b
(/tongue in cheek)

Except that we know that V has Has contacted Serini,

Spoiler: collapsed for space

Show

so she has some information about what's going on. We don't know was said, but she shouldn't assume the paladins are entirely responsible, the gates are supposed to be secret-there's clearly something else going on.

Unless, of course, the sending spell discriminates between Serini and half-troll Serini, or she discounts it as a pure bluff. But I think that she understands paladins better than Girard did, and I don't think that the sending spell would discriminate like that. I think she's playing some other game right now.

But all we know for sure is that V contacted her "vis à vis impending world-shattering doom" and that she didn't respond. It doesn't seem likely that V's 25-word voicemail would prioritize nuances like "Btw, those two paladins are there to help and you should trust them because we blew up the gate not them."

_{Edit: Ack! Pasted wrong link for OotS shop.}

[Peelee]

Then no paladin who believes to be in the right should fall, if not after they die.

Why? At no point did I say the universe believes what is written on the character sheet absolutely until death. I said the universe eyeballs it. If one is close to the blurry line and you're not squinting, the universe can say "eh, they claim to be on the right side, so sure, why not". If one strays enough over the blurry line for there to be a sliver of daylight in between, the universe can say "welp, they claim what they want but what I see is good enough for me to disbelieve".

This is really straining the analogy at this point, but unless you're prepared to say that all of the shenanigans we have seen in-comic barring regicide are perfectly within Lawful Good behavior as well as the paladin code of honor, you must admit that something's rotten in Denmark. My pet theory handily addresses that quite well.

Spoiler: SOD

Show

Or, for example, the author said that some of the paladins who went too far in the massacre of Redcloak's village fell offscreen. Which ones would you say went too far? Or were they offscreen? Does killing the defenseless child count as going too far? What about the defenseless mother? Please, tell me where the demarcation line is. I'm interested in which specific atrocities you deem perfectly Lawful Good.

Paladins are not only nominally good. By the game rules they are good in action as well. Who from the Saphire Guard before O-Chul do you think was not good?

And by the author, the comic follows game rules until it doesn't.

Spoiler: Paid books

Show

We have seen paladins murder, conspire to murder, attempt to kill allies by intentional gross negligence, and have plans be completely spurned by a Lawful Good divine being specifically because they were morally abhorrent to her.

So you'll forgive me if I don't think for one second that the game rules strictly apply in this specific situation.

[Good Coyote]

I suspect Miko's fall might have had more to do with her oath than any alignment shift.

If a paladin had ever chosen to break the oath to interfere with other Gates, that might not have been enough to lose their Lawful status in itself (certainly not their Good status), but maybe they still would have fallen since they made a specific promise and probably swore by or to the gods. They get their powers in exchange for living by their vows. Breaking those vows should be enough to lose powers regardless of if they are still a more Roy-style, adaptable Lawful Good in alignment.

Paladins who play fast and loose with the Lawful Good part (as Miko was already doing by not "showing a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" as Roy put it, and as seems to fit many of the extra-material paladins as well) but follow the specific promises made in their oaths may be less likely to fall.

Presumably, Miko swore to abide by the rules of the Sapphire Guard, including those indicating that she should have let the magistrate be called rather than murder Shojo where he sat.

I'm not 100% on this, but I think it fits with the depiction of the gods and celestials in OotS-verse who are not necessarily all-knowing all of the time, and prize "trying."

[hamishspence]

Intelligent is not the same thing as sentient.

In the context of D&D, it is. "Sentient" in fantasy and sci-fi in particular simply means "above animal intelligence". Some D&D sources suggest animals aren't sentient but can be "awakened to humanlike sentience"

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/di...mindOfTheBeast

The deity can grant humanlike sentience to trees or animals. This sentience lasts a maximum of one day, and the sentient tree or animal obeys the deity’s commands to the best of its ability

with "humanlike sentience" having 3d6 INT (so a minimum of 3) if this is any guide:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/seeds/life.htm

The caster can give inanimate plants and animals a soul, personality, and humanlike sentience.

The newly living object, intelligent animal, or sentient plant is friendly toward the caster. An object or plant has characteristics as if it were an animated object, except that its Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores are all 3d6. Animated objects and plants gain the ability to move their limbs, projections, roots, carved legs and arms, or other appendages, and have senses similar to a human’s. A newly intelligent animal gets 3d6 Intelligence

And in OotS, it has been explicitly established that ghouls/wights are not sentient.

All that strip establishes is that Redcloak is able to absolutely control those particular undead, (including making them destroy themselves) and that he thinks the undead are tools - "complex weapons".

Same principle could apply to other subtyped beings which are established as people - a powerful Water cleric can use their ability to Rebuke and Command Water subtype creatures on a black dragon, and if the dragon is weak enough, they will be able to absolutely control it - but that doesn't change the fact that dragons "are creatures with free will".

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0866.html

A wight that a cleric or senior wight no longer controls (or never rose thanks to a cleric in the first place) is just as much a "creature with free will" - even if that free will can be overridden.

Plus, the word "sentient" isn't even used in the strip you provided.



Heck, there are D&D sources that suggest "sentient" begins at INT 1:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/p...rsOverview.htm

Psionic powers spring from sentient minds. Even an undead creature or a being that has no physical form can create a reserve of inner strength necessary to manifest powers, as long as it has an Intelligence score of at least 1. Vermin possessed of a hive mind ability are an exception to this rule.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/m...icCreature.htm
“Phrenic” is an inherited template that can be added to any nonmindless creature that does not already have the psionic subtype (referred to hereafter as the “base creature”). A phrenic creature uses all the base creature’s statistics and special abilities except as noted here.

The creature’s type does not change, unless it is an animal (in which case it becomes a magical beast [augmented animal]). It gains the psionic subtype.

Abilities
Increase from the base creature as follows: Int +2 (if Int is 3 or greater), Wis +2, Cha +4.


So a Phrenic Animal can be Int 2 or Int 1 and have powers, and, by definition, have a sentient mind. So could a Phrenic undead that is Int 2 or Int 1.


The Magic Jar spell also makes it clear that sentient undead exist, and have souls:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicJar.htm

While in the magic jar, you can sense and attack any life force within 10 feet per caster level (and on the same plane of existence). You do need line of effect from the jar to the creatures. You cannot determine the exact creature types or positions of these creatures. In a group of life forces, you can sense a difference of 4 or more Hit Dice between one creature and another and can determine whether a life force is powered by positive or negative energy. (Undead creatures are powered by negative energy. Only sentient undead creatures have, or are, souls.)

leaving the question only as "what is a sentient undead".


Using Psionics as a guideline "Sentient mind" begins at Int 1. Using the Life seed as a guideline "Humanlike sentience" begins at Int 3.

So a zombie or skeleton does not "have a sentient mind" but a ghoul or a wight could reasonably be described as "having humanlike sentience" and "having (or being) a soul" - thus being a valid target for Magic Jar's soul swap ability, and similar spells.

[Liquor Box]

While I certainly agree that Rich took a few liberties with the paladin rules(which to be fair, everyone does cause they make little to no sense). It's undeniable that in the canon of the comic numerous paladins have been obstructive and authoritarian in the pursuit of their goals, to the extent of actively hurting and killing innocents. You can argue all you want that they shouldn't be able to do that by the rules, but at the end of the day we know for a fact that in the comic they are capable of that.

Miko and pretty much everyone in how the paladin got his scar were certainly not the kind of folks I'd want snooping around my super secret gate that is defending all of reality. But to be fair, what are the odds a paladin of the sapphire guard takes out a ga...oh wait

From How the Paladin Got His Scar

Spoiler

Show

Gin-Jun. He was telling Miko basically that "killing goblin children is OK, because they will grow up to be evil adults."

And by the author, the comic follows game rules until it doesn't.

Spoiler: Paid books

Show

We have seen paladins murder, conspire to murder, attempt to kill allies by intentional gross negligence, and have plans be completely spurned by a Lawful Good divine being specifically because they were morally abhorrent to her.

So you'll forgive me if I don't think for one second that the game rules strictly apply in this specific situation.

I'll have to concede the point, given I have not read the paladin prequel. Seems odd though, given Miko fell when she stopped being good.

Why? At no point did I say the universe believes what is written on the character sheet absolutely until death. I said the universe eyeballs it. If one is close to the blurry line and you're not squinting, the universe can say "eh, they claim to be on the right side, so sure, why not". If one strays enough over the blurry line for there to be a sliver of daylight in between, the universe can say "welp, they claim what they want but what I see is good enough for me to disbelieve".

This is really straining the analogy at this point, but unless you're prepared to say that all of the shenanigans we have seen in-comic barring regicide are perfectly within Lawful Good behavior as well as the paladin code of honor, you must admit that something's rotten in Denmark. My pet theory handily addresses that quite well.

Spoiler: SOD

Show

Or, for example, the author said that some of the paladins who went too far in the massacre of Redcloak's village fell offscreen. Which ones would you say went too far? Or were they offscreen? Does killing the defenseless child count as going too far? What about the defenseless mother? Please, tell me where the demarcation line is. I'm interested in which specific atrocities you deem perfectly Lawful Good.

I don't think this is right. You could believe that paladins did something evil, but that it was not sufficient for them to stop being good. We got a steer about how goodness/evilness/neutrality is judged after Roy died. It's not one bad act and your out, they look at everything in the round. So some shenanigans may not have been lawful good (or might even have been evil) but the paladins themselves remained good.

[arimareiji]

Spoiler: collapsed for space

Show

Why? At no point did I say the universe believes what is written on the character sheet absolutely until death. I said the universe eyeballs it. If one is close to the blurry line and you're not squinting, the universe can say "eh, they claim to be on the right side, so sure, why not". If one strays enough over the blurry line for there to be a sliver of daylight in between, the universe can say "welp, they claim what they want but what I see is good enough for me to disbelieve".

This is really straining the analogy at this point, but unless you're prepared to say that all of the shenanigans we have seen in-comic barring regicide are perfectly within Lawful Good behavior as well as the paladin code of honor, you must admit that something's rotten in Denmark. My pet theory handily addresses that quite well.

Spoiler: SOD

Show

Or, for example, the author said that some of the paladins who went too far in the massacre of Redcloak's village fell offscreen. Which ones would you say went too far? Or were they offscreen? Does killing the defenseless child count as going too far? What about the defenseless mother? Please, tell me where the demarcation line is. I'm interested in which specific atrocities you deem perfectly Lawful Good.

And by the author, the comic follows game rules until it doesn't.

Spoiler: Paid books

Show

We have seen paladins murder, conspire to murder, attempt to kill allies by intentional gross negligence, and have plans be completely spurned by a Lawful Good divine being specifically because they were morally abhorrent to her.

So you'll forgive me if I don't think for one second that the game rules strictly apply in this specific situation.

You guys are a terrible influence wrt spending money I'm not sure I have to spare. (^_~)

More seriously I do hope to buy SoD et al soon, but until then I'm curious - has any paladin other than Miko ever been grey-shirted onscreen, and if so then what was the final straw?