The Problem with Paladin Villains (spoilers for SoD/GDGU)

[Shadowknight12]

True, where exactly the line is crossed is open to some debate, but at some point the rules are being broken.

Well I would argue that the paladin rules are not so devoid of context that they are quite that ambiguous. It my be presumptuous to say so, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

I think that if the crux of the matter lies within the alignment system and its derived subsystems (like class-specific codes that hinge on morality), there ought to be a lot of leeway for individual interpretation before declaring that the rules have been broken, given how common it is for every DM to interpret or implement alignment differently at their table.

[Worldsong]

The Giant is saying "a paladin shouldn't act like this." My response is "a paladin can't act like that, not and stay a paladin."

But the reason why Rich is making that statement is because there are people who have paladins act like that, both while roleplaying and when writing their own stories.

The difference with the dragon/duck example is that we have a clearcut definition of a duck. The exact attributes of a paladin are more open to personal interpretation, in the same way that multiple ideas exist for what a dragon exactly is.

For me, the default definition of a paladin is 'holy warrior'. The idea that a paladin cannot be wrong in their motivations and actions to the point of being a villain is but one of many possible interpretations for me.

In the case of 3.5e, the rules clearly state that the paladin must be Lawful Good. And I agree that this means you can't just pretend to be Lawful Good. But I don't think what's written down can only be read in such a way that it makes it impossible for a paladin to simply be wrong while remaining a paladin. And by wrong, I mean wrong to the point that other Good characters think the paladin's actions are at odds with the forces of Good, while the paladin thinks their actions make perfect sense given what they know about the situation.

Of course, there are limits to how far a paladin could push this. If a paladin is clearly just rationalizing their actions to themselves, like Miko, then I'd say that if they don't turn away from that path quickly they're heading for Lawful Neutral, even if they were completely genuine and not just making stuff up to get away with bad behaviour.

Also, from a more game-oriented perspective, this stricter interpretation of paladins seems like it would be a pain to deal with, both as the paladin and the rest of the party.

EDIT:
All of that said I'm strongly in favour of Chaotic Good so I don't consider paladins inspirational in the first place, which might be why I've got no attachment to the idea that they have to be right.

[Morty]

This argument does seem odd, because OotS is using a version of the paladin class that has since been replaced by other, better ones which avoid the inherent conflict of the old Lawful Good-only minefield. I kind of wonder what it looks like to people who read the comic but have only played 4E and/or 5E.

[Dion]

True, where exactly the line is crossed is open to some debate, but at some point the rules are being broken.

Let’s agree that the rules say that paladins fall if they commit evil acts.

Let’s also agree that some paladins killed goblin non-combatants.

Then there are three possibilities:

1) killing goblin non-combatants is evil, rules were followed, and the paladins fell,

2) killing goblin non-combatants is evil, rules were broken, and the paladins did not fall,

-or-

3) killing goblin non-combatants is not evil.

Since I’ve started reading the Drizzt novels a few days ago, I argue that (3) is the most likely case in the default D&D world as constructed by the TSR marketing committees in the late 80’s and early 90’s.

[Jason]

Since I’ve started reading the Drizzt novels a few days ago, I argue that (3) is the most likely case in the default D&D world as constructed by the TSR marketing committees in the late 80’s and early 90’s.

Well, Stickworld is not the default D&D world, and The Giant has been pretty clear that he did not intend killing goblin children to be a non-evil action.

The "orc baby" debate is as old as D&D, and the consensus of the gaming community has almost always been "paladins who slaughter non-combatants of any species are going to be in trouble." I was a D&D gamer all through the '80s and '90s. I remember seeing debates on this issue in the letter columns of Dragon Magazine (no internet back then, you young whippersnappers), and I don't remember any support from TSR of killing non-combarants as "The right thing to do." Quite the opposite, especially when 2nd edition was trying to clean up the game's image by removing things like assassins and fiends and half-orcs from the game,
I admit I've only read a few of the Drizzt novels (not really my thing), but I don't remember any scenes where Drizzt kills a bunch of helpless orc kids either.

[Ionathus]

If I say "I'm going to tell you a story about a dragon, but this dragon is no bigger than a breadbox, it has feathers instead of scales, it has a bill instead of sharp teeth, it has webbed feet instead of talons, it doesn't breathe fire, and it quacks instead of roaring," at some point my readers are going to say "this isn't a story about a dragon - it's a duck."

If I say "I'm going to tell you a story about a bachelor," and then my protagonist is a man who was married before the story begins, and he's still married to his same wife at the end of the story, at some point my readers are going to say "that wasn't actually a story about a bachelor."

"I'm going to tell a story about D&D paladins, but in my story some paladins are self-righteous bigoted oppressors of the weak who don't really care about doing good as long as they think they are within the letter of their code; who betray their team mates and who regularly massacre defenseless goblin women and children without loosing any of their paladin abilities."
Same principle. Readers are at some point going to say "that wasn't really a story about paladins."

I mean, I get the point you're making, and kudos for making it humorous, but your first two examples are really extreme compared to the paladin one.

The simple fact of the matter is that numerous people read the comics, saw the unsavory paladin characters, were reminded of self-righteous authority figures from their own lives or other media, and said "yeah, that tracks." A large swath of the audience, probably even the majority, did not reject the story's version of paladins.

You're framing this discussion as if the bad paladins were some ludicrous obvious bait-and-switch, like pretending a duck is physically a dragon. But the OotS paladins walk and talk like paladins, they Smite Evil, they have class features, they're called Paladins within the story. The only difference between the OotS paladins and your personal definition of 3.5e paladins are a bunch of moral and philosophical questions.

"Can a paladin be a bully?"
"Can a paladin be insensitive?"
"Can a paladin be merciless?"
"Can a paladin abuse loopholes and technicalities?"
"Can a paladin be quick to violence?"
"Can a paladin be Evil?"

Deconstructing a concept is about asking questions like that, disassembling the topic within the story and looking at how it functions. It's about questioning the baseline assumptions of the topic.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fact that you don't like or agree with Rich's portrayal of paladins is kind of the damn point.

[Shadowknight12]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fact that you don't like or agree with Rich's portrayal of paladins is kind of the damn point.

Additionally, people who say "yeah that's how most paladins I've seen were played even back in 3.5e" shouldn't be dismissed because "oh those players were playing the class wrong." Maybe if an author is depicting paladins like this, and a significant portion of the readership says "yeah that matches my experiences," there is a reason for that.

[Jason]

Additionally, people who say "yeah that's how most paladins I've seen were played even back in 3.5e" shouldn't be dismissed because "oh those players were playing the class wrong." Maybe if an author is depicting paladins like this, and a significant portion of the readership says "yeah that matches my experiences," there is a reason for that.

What if the reason really is "a significant portion of the gamers were in fact doing it wrong?"

[Ionathus]

What if the reason really is "a significant portion of the gamers were in fact doing it wrong?"

Congratulations: that's literally the point.

[Shadowknight12]

What if the reason really is "a significant portion of the gamers were in fact doing it wrong?"

Okay, but how does that impact anything? If someone is saying "I'm being mugged!" and you say "Wait, they can't do that, that's illegal!" does that change the fact that the person is being mugged?

How does saying "everyone you met played a paladin wrong" help anybody? Or do you think so poorly of those people that you believe that by saying those words you will be causing a magical revelation in their brains that will help them in some way?

[Jason]

How does saying "everyone you met played a paladin wrong" help anybody? Or do you think so poorly of those people that you believe that by saying those words you will be causing a magical revelation in their brains that will help them in some way?

How does The Giant depicting that play style as wrong-headed in an online comic help anybody?

Am I trying to help anybody? I'm discussing a web comic that ostensibly runs on the 3.5 edition D&D rules. I think it's fair for me to point out and discuss when the rules aren't being followed and explore why.

It has helped me to understand why I reacted the way I did to rules-impossible paladin villains and possibly given me insight into why The Giant chose to include said villainous paladins. So I at least feel I have been helped by saying "this didn't follow the rules."

[MoiMagnus]

What if the reason really is "a significant portion of the gamers were in fact doing it wrong?"

I mean, I don't think the Giant's message is targetted toward the 3.5 game designers. So whether or not the game designers intended for paladin to be playable like this is kind of irrelevant, as long as a significant part of his target audience did played them like that (or witnessed them be played like that).

And the Giant doesn't seems to be the kind of person to say "it's wrong because it is written in the rulebook that it's wrong", he seems to prefer "it's wrong because look at what happens if you do it like you do".

[Shadowknight12]

How does The Giant depicting that play style as wrong-headed in an online comic help anybody?

The Giant is writing, drawing and publishing a story for free, in a website he hosts, where these issues are addressed and the paladins being played "wrong" are shown to be in the wrong and punished by the narrative. Furthermore, he adds examples of good paladins to have as a counterpoint (Hinjo, Lien and O-Chul) and explores the consequences of a lot of the implicit assumptions in D&D's "objective alignment" system and takes a stab at the "orc baby" question that as you said yourself, has been a debate in the community for ages.

All of these are things the Giant is doing while crafting a narrative with both characters and a plot to become invested on. The reason why saying "those people were playing paladins wrong" does nothing is because it's a contextless affirmation, whereas weaving examples into a compelling narrative actually allows people to see a believable way those paladins would bring about their own demise, and being presented with good examples of paladinhood also allows people to contrast both cases. It's the difference between telling vs. showing.

EDIT:

And the Giant doesn't seems to be the kind of person to say "it's wrong because it is written in the rulebook that it's wrong", he seems to prefer "it's wrong because look at what happens if you do it like you do".

Also this, yes. The reason why something is wrong also matters! "This is wrong because a highly strict and inflexible reading of the rules does not allow for this behaviour" will be completely meaningless and utterly irrelevant for a great deal of people (myself included), whereas a story that shows the negative consequences of this behaviour will actually have a much greater impact for a wider audience.

[Dion]

I think I there’s one thing we all agree on: everybody plays a paladin wrong except for me.

[Mariele]

I think I there’s one thing we all agree on: everybody plays a paladin wrong except for me.

I believe it.

[arimareiji]

The Giant is writing, drawing and publishing a story for free, in a website he hosts, where these issues are addressed and the paladins being played "wrong" are shown to be in the wrong and punished by the narrative. Furthermore, he adds examples of good paladins to have as a counterpoint (Hinjo, Lien and O-Chul) and explores the consequences of a lot of the implicit assumptions in D&D's "objective alignment" system and takes a stab at the "orc baby" question that as you said yourself, has been a debate in the community for ages.

All of these are things the Giant is doing while crafting a narrative with both characters and a plot to become invested on. The reason why saying "those people were playing paladins wrong" does nothing is because it's a contextless affirmation, whereas weaving examples into a compelling narrative actually allows people to see a believable way those paladins would bring about their own demise, and being presented with good examples of paladinhood also allows people to contrast both cases. It's the difference between telling vs. showing.

I recently asked a friend who's a skilled DM and respected member of the rules-crafting community what he thought of the argument that keeps cropping up like mushrooms: '[The Giant] is telling the story wrong because <D&D rules, personal ethos, etc>'. I gave a couple of examples. He raised an eyebrow at one, then laughed a little and shrugged.

I asked how he would respond if he were the Giant^*.

_{* - To eliminate even the possibility of confusion, his answer was premised on this. He's not the Giant, nor would he pretend to understand how the Giant thinks. He was just responding based on the hypothetical.}

(Loosely paraphrased, weak memory) He initially laughed and said "I'd tell them that the checks that keep coming in, from the people who do enjoy the story, say otherwise." Then he looked a little more serious and said, "If they don't want to support my story, they're free to do so. Literally. But it's my story to tell, not theirs. If they don't like it and they can tell a better story, they should give it a try and maybe they will."

[pearl jam]

I'm not gonna attempt to pull a banana, but I'm pretty confident the Giant, himself, has given an answer expressing basically the same sentiment on more than one occasion.

[Worldsong]

I'm pretty sure he has, but finding the exact quote would be a pain.

Of course, most of the people arguing here aren't actually trying to push Rich into writing the story differently. We're all just discussing our perspective on the story.

Unfortunately, the kind of person who does try to interfere with an author's work tends to react poorly to being told their input is irrelevant. After all, their complaint is completely reasonable and important and needs to be addressed.

[Jasdoif]

pull a banana

Should I be offended by that? No; but typing that amused me.

I'm pretty sure he has, but finding the exact quote would be a pain.

There's a reason the Index of the Giant's Comments has that "Real World Intent" category....

Spoiler: It's a Three-fer!

Show

Two, D&D is a world of black and white morality, in most cases. Even the concept of shades of grey was codified in neutrality, really an idea that's just as simple and straightforward (albeit annoyingly hard to actually implement) as good and evil. Trying to apply your real world morals to it (often resulting i the self-inflicted discomfort you're feeling) is like trying to determine the morality of a lion eating a gazelle; they're just not compatible.

The primary purpose of Redcloak's characterization is to specifically prove that this point is completely and utterly wrong. That D&D cannot and should not begin and end at black-and-white, and indeed already doesn't, if everyone would just learn to look at things a little more complexly.

Obviously, I still have work to do on that point.

Further, your definition of "what the comic is about" is also wrong. You seem to think it should be about me regurgitating an accurate portrayal of how the game should ideally be played. Nothing could be further from my mind. The comic is criticizing not how the game is intended to be played, but how the game is actually played and has been for 35+ years. And how it is actually played 9 times out of 10 is that goblins are slaughtered because they are goblins, and the book says that goblins are Evil so it's OK. If you've never played in a game with people like that, then congratulations! You've had an exceptionally lucky D&D career, and that whole portion of the comic's subtext is Not For You. But there are plenty of people who maybe have never given it a second thought. Just because you've already learned some of the lessons of a work of fiction does not mean that there's no point to including them.

Now, if you want to rail on me because the first time Redcloak walked on screen, I didn't know everything I would later write in Start of Darkness, go right ahead. It would be a grossly unfair criticism being that it's common knowledge that I started this comic strip with no idea that it was going to last more than a dozen strips, but at least it would be an accurate one instead of one built entirely on one's own personal biases about the D&D game and how I'm not reading your mind so that I might live up to them.

Oh, and I will continue to veer back and forth from obeying D&D conventions to ignoring them when and as I see fit, so if that's going to bug you, you should probably stop reading now. Because I simply do not care about the level of consistency that you seem to find important.

Ooh, Giant, since you're here anyway, I'd been wanting to ask: you have seem to become more direct in taking a stance on morality and making other points in-comic - to be honest, it sometimes feels like you're talking through the characters directly to the audience and not primarily to the other characters. Is this an intentional change in writing, or am I just reading too much into it?

At a certain point, when you're pushing 40 and have spent one-quarter of your life drawing a stick figure comic about D&D, you start to ask yourself whether what you are doing is really important and what impact, if any, your work will have on the world beyond momentary distractions.

Or maybe it's just that at a certain level of success, you stop worrying about whether a public stance you take on something that actually matters to you might alienate readers because there are things that are more important than sales numbers.

Probably a mixture of the two.

Rich, is it okay if I ask you how you gained your - for lack of a better word - proficiency in talking about and tackling the subject of marginalised groups? Most people don't just stumble on something social justice-ey and keep reading, not with the kind of ingrained bias we're all brought up with, and a lot of people in your position - men with a runaway successful project in a male-oriented genre - tend to get blinded by hubris and become resistant to any and all criticism, never mind that on the subject of representation.

I don't think I have any special proficiency in tackling this, but I also think that you have it a bit backwards (or sideways, at least). Being a successful man in a historically male-oriented genre is what gives me the freedom to tackle an issue like representation. It's why anyone is listening in the first place, sadly. If I was not a man, people wouldn't believe me; if I was unsuccessful, they wouldn't care; and if I was pursuing a more traditionally woman- or LGBT-friendly genre, I would be preaching to the choir.

But I'm in the unique position of having an audience comprised of a large percentage of people that may be somewhat unaccustomed to this message at the exact time in history when there are also enough people who already support the message to cushion any financial fallout from speaking my mind. I can afford to lose the readers who would ragequit over it, to be blunt, and better to lose them because of something I really believe in than because of my crappy update frequency. Frankly, I'll never notice the difference between a lost reader because I included queer representation and a lost reader because I didn't deliver their calendar on time, so why not say what needs to be said? Plus, I mean, people totally lost their **** when I suggested maybe we shouldn't have stats for baby dragons in the Monster Manual, and this is way more important an issue than that.

Basically, I have the social privilege that allows me to be heard and now I have the commercial success to weather the consequences thereof, so therefore I have a responsibility to say something. To do otherwise would be self-serving cowardice.

[Worldsong]

Should I be offended by that? No; but typing that amused me.

There's a reason the Index of the Giant's Comments has that "Real World Intent" category....

Not going to lie, I just keep forgetting that thread exists.

[pearl jam]

Should I be offended by that? No; but typing that amused me.

There's a reason the Index of the Giant's Comments has that "Real World Intent" category....

Spoiler: It's a Three-fer!

Show

No offense was intended, though as I typed it I realized that wording is open to about as many interpretations as the rules regarding paladins and was fine with letting anyone just choose their favorite.

[Jason]

Of course, most of the people arguing here aren't actually trying to push Rich into writing the story differently. We're all just discussing our perspective on the story.

I haven't said "It was a mistake to have paladin villains," or "boy, having paladin villains really ruined this comic for me, because by the rules they can't do things like that." I mean, Miko first appeared in what, 2004? About 16 years and 1,000 comics ago? Start of Darkness has been out since 2007. Obviously I'm still reading and buying the books and discussing the comic on an internet forum.

[Kish]

I find it fascinating that you paint this disagreement as "this is what the rules say and dissenters are trying to modify them!" and not as simply people having different interpretations and priorities.

Given that your "interpretations and priorities" include declaring anyone who observes that what you're saying is incorrect is "to be fair" using a No True Scotsman fallacy, I am afraid I find that post utterly rich.

[Shadowknight12]

Given that your "interpretations and priorities" include declaring anyone who observes that what you're saying is incorrect is "to be fair" using a No True Scotsman fallacy, I am afraid I find that post utterly rich.

I don't know why you felt the need to post in a thread that had remained silent for a week, only to make an observation about me, but uhhh, thank you? I'm flattered?

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: Thread closed.