New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 16 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 475
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Utah...
    Gender
    Male

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

    Acres of virtual forum space have been taken up. Threads have been locked. Warnings have been issued to forum posters when they started comparing it to real-world history and politics. And yet the topic keeps coming up again and again: "What was the deal with the Sapphire Guard massacring Redcloak's village during Start of Darkness?" Or more accurately, "How did they do that and keep paladin status?"

    This post is a little spoiler-y, but I've tried to be vague enough to avoid completely spoiling the plots of Start of Darkness and How the Paladin Got His Scar. They are both well worth a read.

    The Rules:
    Quote Originally Posted by The 3.5 Player's Handbook
    Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
    Ex-Paladins
    A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description, page 201), as appropriate.
    In other words, a paladin can't do anything evil and remain a paladin. This gives a storyteller obvious problems if he tries to use paladins as his villains.

    Who decides when a paladin "willfully commits an evil act"? Not the paladin's gods, because "A paladin need not devote herself to a single deity—devotion to righteousness is enough," and the rule about "no evil actions" still applies to non-religious paladins.

    That means it's ultimately up to the Dungeon Master. Or, if we're reading a webcomic that runs on D&D rules, the author of the webcomic.

    In the case of Redcloak's village, we have a problem. As presented, the goblins were minding their own business when a raiding party of the Sapphire Guard, made up of mostly paladins with some clerics, charged in and started killing them all, including obvious non-combatants like the older goblins, the women, and the children. The paladins' stated reason for attacking is that the twelve gods had judged the goblins as evil and one of them threatened the existence of the world (obviously a reference to the goblin high priest, who was in the village, and "The Plan"). The paladins were without mercy, killing every goblin they could find, and some of them appeared to be enjoying the experience.
    Most importantly, no paladin is shown to "fall" from paladinhood and lose their paladin abilities from participating in the massacre.

    So, given that:
    1. Killing defenseless children is an evil act.
    2. Paladins cannot commit an evil act without falling from Paladin status.
    3. NONE of the paladins shown killing goblin children are shown to have fallen.
    This paradox is what has driven the arguments.
    We are left with three possibilities:
    A) It wasn't an evil action to kill those goblin children.
    B) the paladins who killed the goblin children did all fall, we just didn't see it.
    C) These paladins don't fall if they commit evil acts. In other words, they don't follow the normal paladin rules.
    Some forum members have argued A). Other forum members have immediatly called them monsters for trying to find ways to call children "evil". Some forum members have argued B). I have seen very few forum members arguing C).

    The Giant has stated in forum posts that the goblin children were innocents and that killing them was an evil act, which means he didn't intend A) to be a possibility. He has also said that he could have shown the paladins falling, but it would have de-railed the narrative to show it. He said that he's leaving it up to the readers to decide which paladins fell. As far as I know, he has not said anything that supports C).
    So the Giant's answer is essentially B).

    There is, however, a problem with the "they fell, we just didn't see it" theory:

    How The Paladin Got His Scar is a prequel to the main comic, but also a partial sequel to Start of Darkness. The villain is a paladin, and he reveals that he participated in the massacre of Redcloak's village and other attacks on goblins afterwards. In the course of the story it becomes obvious that he is motivated mostly by anti-goblin racism. There is no sign that he or any of the other paladins with him had to atone for the massacre of Redcloak's village. Or any of the off-panel attacks on goblins they mention.

    Spoiler
    Show
    In the end he is defeated when his followers see what his motivations really are, but notably he never falls from paladinhood on-panel. The only paladin we've ever seen fall on-panel is Miko.


    So, should we conclude that this villain didn't kill any of the goblin children personally and therefore wasn't evil enough to fall when he participated in the massacre of Redcloak's village? Or that he did fall but successfully atoned without actually changing his hatred of goblins?
    Or is C) the correct answer after all? Paladins in the comic don't always fall when they commit evil actions?
    Last edited by Jason; 2021-05-19 at 10:18 AM.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    It might be better to just spoiler the title of the thread, because the entire discussion will probably center around SoD & GDGU material.

    Spoiler: Books material
    Show
    Basically, I think he didn't happen to kill any of the goblin children personally, since he also doesn't seem to talk about that day with anything even approaching remorse.

    My thoughts on this are best summed up in our prior discussion about this: I think the paladins basically told themselves it was just a few rotten apples (individuals), rather than a spoiled bunch (organization/system).

    "Gosh, I can't believe Kwang-Sun crossed the line like that in the battle. Killing a child, even a goblin one? What a bloodthirsty maniac. I'm glad that the Twelve Gods have blessed me with the wisdom to only kill adult goblins, even those who are deceitfully pretending to not be fighters so they can strike while my back is turned. Had we merely slaughtered the whole adult population, perhaps the orphans would have learned to reject the ways of wickedness. Alas, due to Kwang-Sun and the other Fallen Paladins, that chance at redemption has been spoiled."

    Obviously that's an internalized thought, not one that's actually articulated with any amount of self-awareness. But I wouldn't question it for a second if the remaining un-fallen paladins immediately pulled a No True Scotsman-Paladin to tell themselves that the problem was with those specific paladins, not the entire organization being rotten to various degrees.
    Depending on how fiddly you want to get with the rules, it's also possible that some of them committed Evil acts but didn't willfully commit them: in the thick of a battle, they couldn't tell combatants from noncombatants unerringly. In The Two Towers, Eomer says "we left none alive" in reference to "possibly killing Merry & Pippin, oopsie" and the heroes are sad but they don't doubt him: battle can be chaotic, after all.

    This of course doesn't apply to children, or to individual noncombatants who were clearly not a threat. Most of the scene in SoD is a vile massacre, and the paladins involved wholly to blame. But in a crowd of fighters and non-fighters, you don't always have the time to distinguish with perfect accuracy who is a threat and who isn't.

    You could argue that a truly Good person would then refuse to even attack if it put "innocents" at risk, and I wouldn't completely disagree.
    Last edited by Ionathus; 2021-05-07 at 03:46 PM.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason View Post

    The Giant has stated in forum posts that the goblin children were innocents and that killing them was an evil act, which means he didn't intend A) to be a possibility. He has also said that he could have shown the paladins falling, but it would have de-railed the narrative to show it. He said that he's leaving it up to the readers to decide which paladins fell. As far as I know, he has not said anything that supports C).
    So the Giant's answer is essentially B).

    There is, however, a problem with the "they fell, we just didn't see it" theory:

    How The Paladin Got His Scar is a prequel to the main comic, but also a partial sequel to Start of Darkness. The villain is a paladin, and he reveals that he participated in the massacre of Redcloak's village and other attacks on goblins afterwards. In the course of the story it becomes obvious that he is motivated mostly by anti-goblin racism. There is no sign that he or any of the other paladins with him had to atone for the massacre of Redcloak's village. Or any of the off-panel attacks on goblins they mention.

    Spoiler
    Show
    In the end he is defeated when his followers see what his motivations really are, but notably he never falls from paladinhoopd on-panel. The only paladin we've ever seen fall on-panel is Miko.


    So, should we conclude that this villain didn't kill any of the goblin children personally and therefore wasn't evil enough to fall when he participated in the massacre of Redcloak's village? Or that he did fall but successfully atoned without actually changing his hatred of goblins?
    Based on what the Giant said:

    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    Suffice to say that the Twelve Gods are not beholden to put on the same visual display they did for Miko for every paladin who transgresses, and that all transgressions are not created equal. It is possible that some of the paladins who participated in the attack crossed the line. It is also possible that most did not. A paladin who slips up in the execution of their god-given orders does not warrant the same level of personal attention by the gods as one who executes the legal ruler of their nation on a glorified hunch. Think of Miko's Fall as being the equivalent of the CEO of your multinational company showing up in your cubicle to fire you, because you screwed up THAT much.

    Of course, while Redcloak is not narrating the scene, it is shown mostly from his perspective; we don't see how many Detect Evils were used before the attack started, and we don't see how many paladins afterwards try to heal their wounds and can't, because these things are not important to Redcloak's story. Whether or not some of the paladins Fell does not bring Redcloak's family back to life. Indeed, if we transplant the scene to real life, he would think it cold comfort that some of the police officers who gunned down his family had to turn in their badge afterward (but were otherwise given no punishment by their bosses at City Hall).

    Dramatically, showing no-name paladins Falling at that point in the story would confuse the narrative by making it unclear whether or not Redcloak had already earned a form of retribution against them. To be clear, he had not: Whether or not some of them lost a few class abilities does not change the fact that Redcloak suffered an injustice at their hands, one that shaped his entire adult life. That was the point of the scene. Showing them Fall or not simply was not important to Redcloak's story, so it was omitted.

    Further, it would have cheapened Miko's fall to show the same thing over and over--and Miko, as a major character in the series, deserved the emotional weight that her Fall carried (or at least that I hope it carried).


    I hope that clears this issue up. I hope in vain, largely, but there you have it.

    (Oh, and I leave it up to the readers to form their own opinions on which paladins may have Fallen and which didn't.)


    showing any falls - and atonements - was unnecessary - (because it would have cheapened Miko's fall) - so it simply wasn't mentioned.
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2021-05-07 at 11:47 AM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Paladins make excellent villains, actually, by the very thing that they are: A Lawful "Good" martial class that is based around delivering violence unto "Evil". The paladin code (and any subsequent Fall it generates) is meaningless on a class whose entire purpose is to be violent and see itself as either a lofty protector or a judge, jury and executioner.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Feb 2010

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason View Post
    There is, however, a problem with the "they fell, we just didn't see it" theory:

    How The Paladin Got His Scar is a prequel to the main comic, but also a partial sequel to Start of Darkness. The villain is a paladin, and he reveals that he participated in the massacre of Redcloak's village and other attacks on goblins afterwards. In the course of the story it becomes obvious that he is motivated mostly by anti-goblin racism. There is no sign that he or any of the other paladins with him had to atone for the massacre of Redcloak's village.
    Wasn't the villain equivalent to a private when they attacked RC's village? Wouldn't surprise me if he was idealistic and easily influenced back then.
    Then we have him now as the equivalent of a general, now set in his way, most likely influenced by those before him and well... grumpy is the best word I can come up with.

    I don't find said transition difficult to believe, just look at Miko, what bothers me more is if any of those paladins fell, which they should, unless there is something completely off about RC's perspective, then would these paladins not link their falling with their actions and realize what they did was not in accordance of being a Paladin?
    Is it difficult to know when you fall or to realize what actions caused it?
    Would those paladins who didn't fall even see you as lawful good anymore, or would they simply treat you as any other noble, so there actually be no consequences apart from having to change profession?
    My impression is that the Sapphire Guard improved greatly after acquiring O-Chul, which also culminates with the requirement of nobility to be removed from the S-Guard. Perhaps the fact that if a commoner turned paladin fell he had no backup, hence the rest of the S-Guard would finally realize the consequences of their misbehaviour?
    I guess it is an interpretation, but not one I think is likely to be true.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Utah...
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by BaronOfHell View Post
    Wasn't the villain equivalent to a private when they attacked RC's village? Wouldn't surprise me if he was idealistic and easily influenced back then.
    Yes. But the rule isn't "the paladin doesn't fall if he was just following orders." It's "willful evil action=fall." Again, it is up to the DM/author when that line has been crossed.

    I think we are meant to see the character as having grown more racist over time, yes. So it is possible that he wasn't evil enough to fall during the massacre and didn't participate in killing any goblin children. It's impossible to identify him with any specific paladin in the scenes in Start of Darkness.

    I don't find said transition difficult to believe, just look at Miko, what bothers me more is if any of those paladins fell, which they should, unless there is something completely off about RC's perspective, then would these paladins not link their falling with their actions and realize what they did was not in accordance of being a Paladin?
    Exactly the problem. If many paladins fell because of the massacre you would expect that the Sapphire Guard as a whole would realize the massacre had been a bad idea and change their strategy, yet we find them about to do it again in How The Paladin Got His Scar.

    Is it difficult to know when you fall or to realize what actions caused it?
    The rules don't say. I would think the paladin would be able to determine the cause of his fall with sufficient time spent in self-reflection and meditation.

    Edit to avoid double post:
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowknight12 View Post
    Paladins make excellent villains, actually, by the very thing that they are: A Lawful "Good" martial class that is based around delivering violence unto "Evil". The paladin code (and any subsequent Fall it generates) is meaningless on a class whose entire purpose is to be violent and see itself as either a lofty protector or a judge, jury and executioner.
    The quotation marks around "good" and "evil" imply that you think the paladin can get away with evil actions so long as he is personally convinced he's doing good. That's not the way the rules work. Evil actions are objectively evil in D&D. They have measurable game effects independent of in-game perceptions. The paladin's perception of the morality of his actions is largely irrelevant to whether they can cause him to fall.
    Last edited by Jason; 2021-05-07 at 01:03 PM.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason View Post
    Yes. But the rule isn't "the paladin doesn't fall if he was just following orders." It's "willful evil action=fall." Again, it is up to the DM/author when that line has been crossed.

    I think we are meant to see the character as having grown more racist over time, yes. So it is possible that he wasn't evil enough to fall during the massacre and didn't participate in killing any goblin children. It's impossible to identify him with any specific paladin in the scenes in Start of Darkness.

    Exactly the problem. If many paladins fell because of the massacre you would expect that the Sapphire Guard as a whole would realize the massacre had been a bad idea and change their strategy, yet we find them about to do it again in How The Paladin Got His Scar.

    The rules don't say. I would think the paladin would be able to determine the cause of his fall with sufficient time spent in self-reflection and meditation.

    Edit to avoid double post:

    The quotation marks around "good" and "evil" imply that you think the paladin can get away with evil actions so long as he is personally convinced he's doing good. That's not the way the rules work. Evil actions are objectively evil in D&D. They have measurable game effects independent of in-game perceptions. The paladin's perception of the morality of his actions is largely irrelevant to whether they can cause him to fall.
    People are very good at rationalization. "Oh, yes, Kim fell because he murdered goblin children. A terrible error. I shall endeavor to only kill the adult soldiers. And, of course, any soldiers trying to deceive me into thinking they're civilians. And, even if they're civilians, well, what's a few dead gobbos? Less for us to deal with in the future, right?"

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    And for fallen paladins "The gods are testing me, not because I did anything wrong, but because they have some sort of holy plan for me" is a common rationalisation.

    https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    hroþila's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    We don't need to posit that many paladins fell. Only a few of them killed children or obvious non-combatants, and the other paladins might well have thought those went too far without questioning the overall righteousness of their cause. Some other paladins that killed non-combatants may have been excused because of the fog of war. Their cause was misguided and the attack was morally wrong, and "just following orders" doesn't absolve anyone, but when your orders aren't "kill those civilians" but "attack that village and kill all combatants", mistakes are inevitable and moral responsibility for them ultimately falls on the commander or whoever greenlighted the mission in the first place.

    The commander did give the order to "exterminate the rest", though. Perhaps in context most paladins would naturally assume that referred only to enemy combatants, but given the prevailing racist attitudes within the Sapphire Guard at the time and Azurite nobility as a whole, some took that order literally, and a few would get the chance to kill an obvious non-combatant and fall for it. Many of their companions would probably think they slipped, not that they were monsters who had committed an unforgivable evil, again due to the prevailing attitudes within the ranks of the Sapphire Guard. But even before the reforms after O-Chul joined, what we saw in HtPGHS was that while most paladins were willing to follow Gin-Jun's orders, there was still enough dissension for Sato to break ranks and for the paladins to turn on their commander at the end, and the summoned planetar refused to cooperate with Gin-Jun and unambiguously censored his orders. Taken together, this might suggest that Gin-Jun's ideas about exterminating settlements down to the last goblin because they helped prop up an Evil society or worshipped an Evil god weren't necessarily shared by the Sapphire Guard as a whole at the time. While in practice whole settlements would have been decimated by the Sapphire Guard, including non-combatants, in theory his ideas wouldn't be representative, only a few paladins would have glaringly killed non-combatants in each raid and the remaining ones would have been able both to rationalize that as mistakes in the heat of battle and to keep pursuing the same general strategy without falling themselves. Gin-Jun might have spoken more openly to Miko because he sensed he could win her over, as his ideas resonated with her. Also, bear in mind that many goblins would fight back. Would those count as combatants? Would it be ok to kill them? Again, I think moral responsibility in those cases falls with the commander, but it's not the kind of thing for which the OotS world uses the Evil tag.

    This does require the gods to be lenient about what constitutes an Evil act, because killing non-combatants just because you didn't give a damn about proper target acquisition (to use a modern term) is likely Evil according to most people here. But we know for a fact that's the case in the OotS universe, as illustrated by Roy's paladin pal.

    The alternative that the paladins simply kept falling after each raid and never made the connection is too far-fetched for me. Even the theory that the gods (or at least the Twelve) tacitly approved of what they were doing so they bent the rules works better than that, in my opinion, but the planetar does represent a slight difficulty for that interpretation I think.
    Last edited by hroþila; 2021-05-07 at 01:16 PM.
    ungelic is us

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Orc in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Milwaukee

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    My view on this is that none of the members of the Sapphire Guard in the attack on Redcloak's village were really paladins. Members of the Sapphire Guard, yes, but not actually paladins.

    The Giant has gone through a lot of effort to show that characters aren't necessarily pigeonholed into what people expect. He went through a lot of effort to show that the leader of the Sapphire Guard when they were introduced was a Chaotic Neutral Aristocrat...

    So my opinion is, before O-Chul joined to start reforming it, the Sapphire Guard had significantly fewer actual paladins.
    Remember: It doesn't matter if you win or lose - as long as you look really cool doing it!

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by chiefwaha View Post
    My view on this is that none of the members of the Sapphire Guard in the attack on Redcloak's village were really paladins. Members of the Sapphire Guard, yes, but not actually paladins.

    The Giant has gone through a lot of effort to show that characters aren't necessarily pigeonholed into what people expect. He went through a lot of effort to show that the leader of the Sapphire Guard when they were introduced was a Chaotic Neutral Aristocrat...

    So my opinion is, before O-Chul joined to start reforming it, the Sapphire Guard had significantly fewer actual paladins.
    Shojo's CG, not CN.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    I would also point out that using a series of actions to try to forensically justify Shojo's alignment is backwards. Shojo is not Chaotic Good because he took certain actions within the narrative. He was born Chaotic Good, and as a result of that worldview, took certain actions. Not all of those actions are required to be Chaotic, not all are required to be Good, but we can assume that they more often were than not. That's why I said temperament and self-image matter: that's how he viewed himself, that's how he tried to act, so barring some drastic disqualifying situation like murdering a bunch of people, that's what he is.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    No, of course he wasn't literally popped out of his mother's womb Chaotic Good. I meant that the character was created that way, and that I then had him take the actions that I had him take because I had already determined his alignment. Or, that he came into adulthood already CG due to events in his childhood, and lived his life that way.
    While they might not all be paladins, any that aren't paladins, are clerics.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    All members of the Sapphire Guard are clerics or paladins of the Twelve Gods, but not all paladins of the Twelve Gods were members of the Sapphire Guard. Only those who could be trusted with the secret of the Gate would be inducted.
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2021-05-07 at 01:32 PM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Chicago area
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    And for fallen paladins "The gods are testing me, not because I did anything wrong, but because they have some sort of holy plan for me" is a common rationalisation.

    https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html
    I do not think it is fair at all to point to Miko’s behavior and identify her as being the average around the SG, original guard or not. There’s a reason (or ten) why they send her on long distance journeys after all.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    I said that it's fairly typical for a fallen paladin to rationalise their fall with "I'm being tested".

    Michael Ambrose in Tome of Magie (3.5 splatbook) is another good example of exactly this.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason View Post
    If many paladins fell because of the massacre you would expect that the Sapphire Guard as a whole would realize the massacre had been a bad idea and change their strategy, yet we find them about to do it again in How The Paladin Got His Scar.
    Why? The ability of people to act and rationalize against their own self-interest and against what would otherwise be seen as the obvious reason is remarkably prevalent. Ask any group that is at odds with any other group.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason View Post
    The quotation marks around "good" and "evil" imply that you think the paladin can get away with evil actions so long as he is personally convinced he's doing good. That's not the way the rules work. Evil actions are objectively evil in D&D.
    But this isn't D&D. This is a world based on D&D where the author has repeatedly and explicitly stated that it works like D&D until it doesn't, to not expect moment-to-moment rules accuracy because he does not care about that at all, and that the rules only apply in service to the story. I've gone on the record numerous times over the past several years explaining my theory of how the universe works with regards to alignment in life as it affects characters, which I think is pretty workable as to what we see in the story. That it is in black and white in the PHB does not mean the same in OOTS.

    Also, since this whole thread is discussing broad plot points from prequel books, OP, please note that spoilers are prevalent in the thread title. And all users, please keep specific spoilers in spoiler tags regardless.
    Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.

    Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Orc in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Milwaukee

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    Shojo's CG, not CN.
    Regardless, it proves they all aren't paladins or clerics.

    Again, it's my interpretation of the story, because my opinion is paladins are truly rare individuals and someone that could wantonly slaughter couldn't have even become one in the first place.
    Remember: It doesn't matter if you win or lose - as long as you look really cool doing it!

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Shojo's unique.

    https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0289.html

    "I command the paladins, I have never claimed to be one".
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Utah...
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by chiefwaha View Post
    My view on this is that none of the members of the Sapphire Guard in the attack on Redcloak's village were really paladins. Members of the Sapphire Guard, yes, but not actually paladins.

    The Giant has gone through a lot of effort to show that characters aren't necessarily pigeonholed into what people expect. He went through a lot of effort to show that the leader of the Sapphire Guard when they were introduced was a Chaotic Neutral Aristocrat...

    So my opinion is, before O-Chul joined to start reforming it, the Sapphire Guard had significantly fewer actual paladins.
    It doesn't appear that this is the case. They are always referred to as paladins, and anyone who wants to join has to become a paladin.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    There might be a few exceptions who only have cleric levels and not paladin levels - but they are consistently portrayed as a paladin order, yes.

    https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html

    There's a reason why it says "selected the noblest samurai to join him as his paladins" not "as his clerics with the occasional paladin".
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2021-05-07 at 02:15 PM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Metastachydium's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2020

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason View Post
    C) These paladins don't fall if they commit evil acts. In other words, they don't follow the normal paladin rules.
    This might be an anomaly specific to how paladinhood works in the South. To quote myself,
    1. (…) the Twelve are worshipped as a pantheon and therefore Southern paladins are paladins of the Twelve – a collection of deities who are guaranteed not to all be Lawful Good;
    2. and they appear to decide on which paladins are to fall as a pantheon rather than delegating that task to a LG member (case in point: Miko).
    Is it possible that Southern paladins are just not always and necessarily held up to the same quality standards as non-Southern paladins (because non-LG members of the Twelve can block motions to make paladins fall) and the other pantheons just don't interfere with this to avoid interpantheonic conflict?
    […]
    Even if supervising paladins is generally the job of a few LG Blues, if they need a nod from the rest to do something about misbehaving ones, the others might on occasion decide to respectfully disagree and block the verdict of the LG one(s). In Miko's case it (presumably) wasn't against the interests of any member of the Twelve to make her pay for her crimes but the raid on Redcloak's village might have been a different matter altogether if a sufficient number of Blues were sufficiently afraid of the Plan.
    Falling in the Stickverse does not appear to happen automatically: the gods enforce the code personally. This might mean that in an anomalous situation where a character is the paladin of a pantheon, the non-LG members might interfere with how and when the code is enforced.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Utah...
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    But this isn't D&D. This is a world based on D&D where the author has repeatedly and explicitly stated that it works like D&D until it doesn't, to not expect moment-to-moment rules accuracy because he does not care about that at all, and that the rules only apply in service to the story. I've gone on the record numerous times over the past several years explaining my theory of how the universe works with regards to alignment in life as it affects characters, which I think is pretty workable as to what we see in the story. That it is in black and white in the PHB does not mean the same in OOTS.
    Which is why I think possibility C) is probably the correct answer: the rules are simply different for Stickworld paladins.

    But then it's no longer a commentary on paladins in D&D, is it?

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Jasdoif's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Oregon, USA

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    There might be a few exceptions who only have cleric levels and not paladin levels - but they are consistently portrayed as a paladin order, yes.

    https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html

    There's a reason why it says "selected the noblest samurai to join him as his paladins" not "as his clerics with the occasional paladin".
    I had kind of guessed it was because samurai already had martial inclinations, thus an easy transition to paladin....And/Or that accepting clerics was a change alongside, or at least related to, extending the scope of membership beyond nobility.
    Feytouched Banana eldritch disciple avatar by...me!

    The Index of the Giant's Comments VI―Making Dogma from Zapped Bananas

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason View Post
    Which is why I think possibility C) is probably the correct answer: the rules are simply different for Stickworld paladins.

    But then it's no longer a commentary on paladins in D&D, is it?
    Well, it's less a commentary on paladins than it is on how people tend to play paladins, so I think it still holds up fairly well in that regard. Other than that, I agree with you. And if I wasn't on my phone I wouldn't be shy at all about shooting forth my theory yet again because I think it's a really good theory but it's way too long and detailed for me to type up on this keyboard.
    Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.

    Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Orc in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Milwaukee

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    There might be a few exceptions who only have cleric levels and not paladin levels - but they are consistently portrayed as a paladin order, yes.

    https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html

    There's a reason why it says "selected the noblest samurai to join him as his paladins" not "as his clerics with the occasional paladin".
    Paladin order does not necessarily mean paladin class.

    Similar to how being a samurai in OotS doesn't mean having having any sort of samurai class, subclass, or prestige class.

    Again, I'm just pointing out how I interpret things and isn't meant to say that's how everyone needs to.
    Remember: It doesn't matter if you win or lose - as long as you look really cool doing it!

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by chiefwaha View Post
    Paladin order does not necessarily mean paladin class.

    Similar to how being a samurai in OotS doesn't mean having having any sort of samurai class, subclass, or prestige class.

    Again, I'm just pointing out how I interpret things and isn't meant to say that's how everyone needs to.
    They're clearly Paladins. They have Paladin powers, they're called Paladins, yeah, they're Paladins.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Riding a steed which disappears when hit sufficiently hard by magic or mundane weaponry, being banished back to the Upper Planes, tends to be a giveaway.
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2021-05-07 at 02:42 PM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Jasdoif's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Oregon, USA

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    Riding a steed which disappears when hit sufficiently hard by magic or mundane weaponry, being banished back to the Upper Planes, tends to be a giveaway.
    Durkon is a proponent of duck typing in this instance, too.
    Feytouched Banana eldritch disciple avatar by...me!

    The Index of the Giant's Comments VI―Making Dogma from Zapped Bananas

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason View Post
    The quotation marks around "good" and "evil" imply that you think the paladin can get away with evil actions so long as he is personally convinced he's doing good. That's not the way the rules work. Evil actions are objectively evil in D&D. They have measurable game effects independent of in-game perceptions. The paladin's perception of the morality of his actions is largely irrelevant to whether they can cause him to fall.
    The rules work the way the DM says the rules work. Each world has a different way of handling alignment/divinity (you literally have to worship a god as a divine class in Faerun if you want divine powers, for example, and that deity is the one that personally judges your actions) and every DM has a different way of ruling things within those worlds.
    Last edited by Shadowknight12; 2021-05-07 at 06:33 PM.

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Right behind you

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    One rather chilling thought is that, as paladins continued to fall whenever they carelessly slaughtered goblins in their fruitless search for the Crimson Mantle, the pre-reform Guard started rationalizing it as punishment for failing to find and seize/destroy the artefact. Considering their arrogance and general prejudice, I have an easier time believing they thought "we're not pushing ourselves hard enough against the goblin menace to creation" rather than "we're going too far in the execution of our holy mission".

    Something like "The gods are clearly displeased with our lack of success: these fallen, growing ever more after every fruitless raid, must be those who were not dedicated enough to the search for the Crimson Mantle, brought low to motivate us to hasten our search. We must do whatever it takes to fulfill our goal swiftly, once and for all!"

    It could explain why, once they started falling, they didn't all start thinking "wait, we may have been doing evil stuff without realizing it". Some would likely have, but others who are more set in their ways or less inclined to consider goblins as anything more than monsters would easily rationalize it as "those former paladins were simply not dedicated enough to ending the menace, like I am."

    And I wouldn't be surprised if the fallen were still allowed to aid in the Guard's mission: you don't throw away troops after all. Hell, considering the leadership at the time, it wouldn't be surprising if they were encouraged to do whatever it takes in service of the Guard's mission so they can "redeem themselves in the eyes of the gods", digging the moral hole ever deeper.
    Last edited by Taevyr; 2021-05-07 at 07:24 PM.

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    massachusetts
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    The thing is, even paladins that didn't kill children could still fall for failing to punish those who harm the innocent: their own comrades that murdered children. It's hard to see how the Sapphire Guard could do this more than once without realizing what was going on or losing every paladin.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    arimareiji's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    I don't see how people can get past one of the Giant's core themes:

    Within every group there are exceptions is variation.

    The Giant explicitly said that killing black dragons just because they're black dragons, whether it's one or a thousand, is wrong. The scale (no pun intended) of familicide was meant to make it more obvious, not as a divider between 1000 is evil and 1 is good.

    If that is true, how can anyone stake their flag to the hill of "All paladins are good -or- evil", and fight to die on it?

    Some paladins are villains. Period.

    Not all paladins are villains. Period.

    Edit: Reworded because on reflection, I don't want to make it as narrow as "exceptions". 1) I don't know that. 2) In some circles, it becomes part of an apologetic a la some wacky magic of "the exception proves the rule"
    Last edited by arimareiji; 2021-05-07 at 07:49 PM.
    "Just a Sec Mate" avatar courtesy of Gengy. I'm often somewhere between it, and this gif. (^_~)
    Founding (and so far, only) member of the Greyview Appreciation Society
    "Only certainty in life: When icy jaws of death come, you will not have had enough treats. Nod. Get treat."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •