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

[pearl jam]

Perhaps my definition of the requirements is stricter than most, but particularly since there was an oath to keep the secret, I would expect a paladin to be trusted to keep an oath. If there were legitimate questions about an individual's ability to do so, I would expect such a person not to succeed at being a paladin for very long and probably wonder how they achieved it in the first place.

[hamishspence]

The point The Giant is making is that "being the kind of person who can trusted with the secret of the Gates" and "being a paladin" don't overlap perfectly.

Perhaps my definition of the requirements is stricter than most, but particularly since there was an oath to keep the secret, I would expect a paladin to be trusted to keep an oath.

Some paladins might be the sort of person who is unwilling to swear the oath in the first place - so, if the person assessing the paladin believes that this paladin is inappropriate for recruitment, they wouldn't make them any offers.

[pearl jam]

Unwillingness to take an oath is a possibility I hadn't considered, yeah.

And, now that we're going down these kinds of paths, I suppose with some there could be a concern of divided allegiance where the paladin might feel compelled to reveal the secret to an authority they perceived to supersede that of the one for whom they were keeping the secret.

Also, I guess, there are certain secrets it would probably be best not to share with a paladin.

"Don't tell my wife I was out with so and so. I told her I had to work late."

[Jason]

Were all of the Sapphire Guards characters with paladin class levels? Or were many of them paladins in the way that Miko was a samurai? If some number of the paladins were, by class, cleric/fighters, for example, they would not have fallen, and might not have done enough evil to get an alignment shift..

Some of the Guard members involved in the massacre are clearly clerics rather than paladins. The majority appear to be paladins, though we don't see many using smite evil or other paladin-specific abilities.

It seems to me that The Giant has already explained this situation in commentary: he didn't show the paladins falling, but that doesn't mean they didn't fall.

For narrative and artistic reasons he chose to accent Miko's fall, but avoided showing the ones who fell because of their acts in RCs village.

Those are solid reasons to not have shown any paladins fall during Start of Darkness, yes.

The problem is that The Giant then went on to write a partial sequel to SoD - How the Paladin Got His Scar.

Spoiler

Show

In which the primary villain is a paladin, the commander of the Sapphire Guard. He confirms that he was present at the massacre of Redcloak's village, and as the story progresses it becomes obvious that he is motivated primarily by anti-goblinoid racism.
In other words, there is no sign that he fell from paladinhood by participating in the massacre or that he saw any other paladins have any negative consequences (like falling) from participating in the massacre. Years later his only regret about the massacre is that they didn't destroy the Crimson Mantle after they killed the bearer.

[hamishspence]

Those are solid reasons to not have shown any paladins fall during Start of Darkness, yes.

The problem is that The Giant then went on to write a partial sequel to SoD - How the Paladin Got His Scar.

Spoiler

Show

In which the primary villain is a paladin, the commander of the Sapphire Guard. He confirms that he was present at the massacre of Redcloak's village, and as the story progresses it becomes obvious that he is motivated primarily by anti-goblinoid racism.
In other words, there is no sign that he fell from paladinhood by participating in the massacre or that he saw any other paladins have any negative consequences (like falling) from participating in the massacre. Years later his only regret about the massacre is that they didn't destroy the Crimson Mantle after they killed the bearer.

I tend to look at it this way:

Spoiler

Show

all the ones who outright Fell, ended up dying - and the others never found out that those paladins Fell before they died, so they had no reason to change their behaviour.

[Precure]

Their commander gave an explicit order to exterminate the rest. I don't see how that makes sense if only few bad apples do the evil acts. I'll go with C, Azurite paladins just don't work like normal paladins due to serving a pantheon made out of both good and evil gods.

[Ionathus]

Those are solid reasons to not have shown any paladins fall during Start of Darkness, yes.

The problem is that The Giant then went on to write a partial sequel to SoD - How the Paladin Got His Scar.

Spoiler

Show

In which the primary villain is a paladin, the commander of the Sapphire Guard. He confirms that he was present at the massacre of Redcloak's village, and as the story progresses it becomes obvious that he is motivated primarily by anti-goblinoid racism.
In other words, there is no sign that he fell from paladinhood by participating in the massacre or that he saw any other paladins have any negative consequences (like falling) from participating in the massacre. Years later his only regret about the massacre is that they didn't destroy the Crimson Mantle after they killed the bearer.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it would've been quite easy for those paladins who didn't fall to pull a No True Scotsman and decide that the ones who fell (probably the ones who attacked children or clearly-unthreatening civilians) were the problem, rather than the organization itself. "Bad apples" and all that.

Given what we know about Paladin self-justifications in this comic (Miko, Roy's original party leader), I don't doubt for a second Gin-Jun would be capable of such a rationalization.

[The MunchKING]

Their commander gave an explicit order to exterminate the rest. I don't see how that makes sense if only few bad apples do the evil acts.

The idea would be that a truly Lawful Good Paladin would hear that order as "Exterminate the Rest of the Evil Cultists who are Trying to Blow Up The World" and would kill all the Goblins that were fighting and trying to help the previous Redcloaked guy with his Evil Plan, not any children or noncombatants. The argument being that as a LG commander of a LG Task Force, of COURSE he was just being brief and not REALLY ordering a massacre of noncombatants. The idea that those other guys who Fell interpreted it as "Exterminate all goblins" is just a case of why they were not fit to be Paladins.

[Jason]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it would've been quite easy for those paladins who didn't fall to pull a No True Scotsman and decide that the ones who fell (probably the ones who attacked children or clearly-unthreatening civilians) were the problem, rather than the organization itself. "Bad apples" and all that.

Given what we know about Paladin self-justifications in this comic (Miko, Roy's original party leader), I don't doubt for a second Gin-Jun would be capable of such a rationalization.

Yeah, well I'm not sure the self-justifications we've seen paladins use in the comic are in keeping with the D&D paladin class either.

Spoiler

Show

Take the un-named paladin who leads Roy's first party in OtOoPCs (please). He sets Durkon up for a suicide mission basically because Durkon is grumpy and has an accent, and when Roy tells him about it Durkon says "again", so this wasn't the first time. The party leader admits that he would kill Durkon himself "but I have to maintain a Lawful Good alignment to keep the paladin class."
At my table this joker would have received a warning that he was in danger of falling the first time he openly discussed setting Durkon up with his party members, and he would have fallen immediatly after their first actual attempt.

In this storyline The Giant is obviously criticizing the players and DMs who do this sort of thing at their tables. But in order to show an example of bad players enabled by bad DMs in the comic, he has to be a bad DM, at least for this scene.

We're left with the conclusion that in Stickworld no, paladins don't always have to obey the rules. Because to make the point that paladins shouldn't be played like this The Giant had to allow them to be played like this.

[Ionathus]

Yeah, well I'm not sure the self-justifications we've seen paladins use in the comic are in keeping with the D&D paladin class either.

Spoiler

Show

Take the un-named paladin who leads Roy's first party in OtOoPCs (please). He sets Durkon up for a suicide mission basically because Durkon is grumpy and has an accent, and when Roy tells him about it Durkon says "again", so this wasn't the first time. The party leader admits that he would kill Durkon himself "but I have to maintain a Lawful Good alignment to keep the paladin class."
At my table this joker would have received a warning that he was in danger of falling the first time he openly discussed setting Durkon up with his party members, and he would have fallen immediatly after their first actual attempt.

In this storyline The Giant is obviously criticizing the players and DMs who do this sort of thing at their tables. But in order to show an example of bad players enabled by bad DMs in the comic, he has to be a bad DM, at least for this scene.

We're left with the conclusion that in Stickworld no, paladins don't always have to obey the rules. Because to make the point that paladins shouldn't be played like this The Giant had to allow them to be played like this.

I mean, yes? I'm starting to think we just actually agree completely.

[Empiar93]

I mean, yes? I'm starting to think we just actually agree completely.

I’m pretty sure everyone in this thread agrees more or less and that the entire argument is pointless. It’s obvious that the OotS paladins do not play by D&D paladin rules. The “problem” is that many, myself included, find this annoying because then these paladins are not paladins by any common understanding. Paladins in name only, as it were; they have all the class abilities, social class nobility, and crusader tendencies, but beyond this these guys have little in common with the actual Paladin that we all know, love, and would hope to aspire towards.

Why anyone gets mad at the accusation that these “aren’t paladins” is beyond me.

[Shadowknight12]

I’m pretty sure everyone in this thread agrees more or less and that the entire argument is pointless. It’s obvious that the OotS paladins do not play by D&D paladin rules.

I agree the argument is pointless, because I don't expect anybody I'm talking to, to be convinced, but I think the rules allow for paladins to be villains and remain paladins, because the point of the rules is that they are to be interpreted by the DM. It's fine to not agree with someone's interpretation and say "that's not how I would do it at my table" but personally I find it incredibly rude to show up at someone's table and say "ugh, you're not playing by the rules" with the implication that your interpretation of the rules is the only valid and true interpretation, and anybody who disagrees is completely disregarding the rules entirely.

You're reading the Giant's comic and in the Giant's forum. This is the equivalent of being at the Giant's house, watching him DM a game, and then loudly declaring that the Giant isn't following the rules because you don't agree with the way he's interpreting them.

beyond this these guys have little in common with the actual Paladin that we all know, love, and would hope to aspire towards.

Why anyone gets mad at the accusation that these “aren’t paladins” is beyond me.

Because not everyone likes paladins or aspires to be like them, and many see them as reminiscent of certain oppressive/harmful figures they've seen, and wish to tell stories where paladins are stand-ins for said figures. And having people say "those are not paladins" is the equivalent of saying "you are not allowed to use these in your stories unless you use them the way we approve of".

[Xlsfd]

I don't know if this point has already been said, but in 5th edition, a paladin does not need to be Lawful Good. Rather, it's centered around an "oath"... and the sourcebook "Xanathar's Guide to Everything" introduces the "Oath of Conquest", which fits quite well for a Lawful Evil paladin.

[Jason]

I don't know if this point has already been said, but in 5th edition, a paladin does not need to be Lawful Good. Rather, it's centered around an "oath"... and the sourcebook "Xanathar's Guide to Everything" introduces the "Oath of Conquest", which fits quite well for a Lawful Evil paladin.

It's been mentioned. Personally I don't like the idea.
It's not especially relevant to how paladins act in Stickworld, because they're still running under 3.5 rules. Sort of.

[MoiMagnus]

The “problem” is that many, myself included, find this annoying because then these paladins are not paladins by any common understanding.

While it's orthogonal to this thread (since OOTS is 3.5), 5e paladin can be of any alignment, and some of the oaths (like Oath of Conquest) are clearly evil. Paladin still need to be devoted to something, but this thing doesn't need to be LG any more. And even when the thing they are devoted to is technically LG, they can still do evil acts (and even be evil-aligned) as long as they don't directly break their oath.
Admittedly, the standard oath include things like "protect the weak" and "show mercy to your foes", so murdering children still make you fall under the standard oath.

EDIT: oh, someone said it earlier.

[Jason]

Because not everyone likes paladins or aspires to be like them, and many see them as reminiscent of certain oppressive/harmful figures they've seen, and wish to tell stories where paladins are stand-ins for said figures. And having people say "those are not paladins" is the equivalent of saying "you are not allowed to use these in your stories unless you use them the way we approve of".

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."

[Dion]

The only paladins I’m aware of outside of D&D are from T H White’s “The Once and Future King.”

And they were very, very silly.

But not quite as silly as D&D paladins.

[Shadowknight12]

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 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."

Eastern dragons are very different from Western dragons. I could tell you that this is a story about dragons and you come in expecting to see Western dragons, but you see Eastern dragons instead. That doesn't mean the story deceived you because it didn't meet your specific expectations of what a dragon looks like.

Bachelor was once used as an euphemism for men who were attracted to other men. Some of these men married women for diverse reasons, and stopped meeting the literal definition of the term bachelor, but if a character in the story says "He's... a bachelor..." that doesn't mean the writer of the story doesn't know what the term means, it means they're using the term to communicate a subtext to you, the reader, and complaining that "the character is married! he can't be a bachelor!" is missing the point.

And likewise, sometimes people who act with virtue and kindness to one group, and present an image of courage and knightly honour can do evil to another group, and saying "that's not a real paladin!" is missing the point of what the story is trying to tell you.

[arimareiji]

As others have observed, although more seriously: The biggest problem is that no true paladin would do anything bad, even unintentionally. Because then they wouldn't be a true paladin, no matter what the rules or logic say. Therefore paladins can never be villains. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

But please feel free to change my mind, I'm very open-minded on the subject. *shrug*

[Doug Lampert]

The only paladins I’m aware of outside of D&D are from T H White’s “The Once and Future King.”

And they were very, very silly.

But not quite as silly as D&D paladins.

Three Hearts Three Lions would be the ur example of a paladin character not from D&D. Since that's where both the alignment system and the paladin class ultimately come from*. Although Holger is only a Paladin in that he's in some sense one of the original paladins come again (paladins are Charlemagne's equivalents of round table knights in the matter of France).

*(Note) According to Wikipedia Moorcock has said he got his law-chaos alignment system from Three Hearts Three Lions and the D&D troll is plainly from the book and original D&D alignment was only law-chaos without good-evil, so THTL is the source of the alignment system even if you somehow insist that Gygax and company got it from Moorcock.

[Jason]

Eastern dragons are very different from Western dragons. I could tell you that this is a story about dragons and you come in expecting to see Western dragons, but you see Eastern dragons instead. That doesn't mean the story deceived you because it didn't meet your specific expectations of what a dragon looks like.

True, but Eastern dragons aren't much like a duck. If I'm telling a story about a duck it's just going to confuse my readers if I continue to call it a dragon.

"I'm going to tell a Star Wars story, only my story takes place on modern day Earth and there aren't any starships or aliens or droids or Jedi or lightsabers or the Force and nobody is at war with anyone."
"Uh, that doesn't sound very much like Star Wars."
"Hey! You can't tell me I can't tell a Star Wars story this way! Your way of telling a Star Wars story isn't the only way to do it, you know! It's pretty rude to come to my house and ask me for a story and then get upset that you think I'm not doing it right!"

[arimareiji]

Three Hearts Three Lions would be the ur example of a paladin character not from D&D. Since that's where both the alignment system and the paladin class ultimately come from*. Although Holger is only a Paladin in that he's in some sense one of the original paladins come again (paladins are Charlemagne's equivalents of round table knights in the matter of France).

*(Note) According to Wikipedia Moorcock has said he got his law-chaos alignment system from Three Hearts Three Lions and the D&D troll is plainly from the book and original D&D alignment was only law-chaos without good-evil, so THTL is the source of the alignment system even if you somehow insist that Gygax and company got it from Moorcock.

I continue to be impressed by, and glad for, how well people in these forums know the underpinnings of D&D. A system that bounced around in the collective stream of consciousness until a few key minds helped crystallize it is far more interesting than one uber-DM snapping their fingers to create it all and then resting on the seventh day. (^_~)b

[MoiMagnus]

"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. Maybe that's my circle of friends, but "good" aligned divine servant (angels, paladin or cleric) doing evil stuff in the name of "the greater good" without losing their powers are a pretty common trope in the stories I've heard / played in.

[And I'm not even counting my anarchist friend who used to say that Lawful and Good were contradictory by nature, and that no character could ever truly be both at once. Though that was willingly a provocative statement from him.]

[Jason]

Three Hearts Three Lions would be the ur example of a paladin character not from D&D. Since that's where both the alignment system and the paladin class ultimately come from*. Although Holger is only a Paladin in that he's in some sense one of the original paladins come again (paladins are Charlemagne's equivalents of round table knights in the matter of France).

*(Note) According to Wikipedia Moorcock has said he got his law-chaos alignment system from Three Hearts Three Lions and the D&D troll is plainly from the book and original D&D alignment was only law-chaos without good-evil, so THTL is the source of the alignment system even if you somehow insist that Gygax and company got it from Moorcock.

I've read it. Yeah, that's pretty much where D&D paladins and trolls came from. Why do D&D trolls regenerate? Because thats how the troll in Three Hearts and Three Lions worked. It's also the source of more obscure things in D&D like the swanmay. It's maybe not the ur example of a paladin in all of literature, but it's definitely what Gygax and Arneson were thinking of when they wrote up the paladin.

[Shadowknight12]

True, but Eastern dragons aren't much like a duck. If I'm telling a story about a duck it's just going to confuse my readers if I continue to call it a dragon.

My problem is that you're more concerned with "correctness" (to the point where you think two people disagreeing on whether paladins can willingly commit an evil act and remain a paladin but are otherwise 99.9999% in agreement of what makes a paladin is exactly the same as comparing a dragon to a duck) than trying to understand how the author is using that word/term in the story.

You are so convinced that the author is wrong that you don't want to entertain the idea that the author may be using the term to make a specific point, and what's worse, you think that the author doing things "correctly" is more important than their actual message.

"I'm going to tell a Star Wars story, only my story takes place on modern day Earth and there aren't any starships or aliens or droids or Jedi or lightsabers or the Force and nobody is at war with anyone."
"Uh, that doesn't sound very much like Star Wars."
"Hey! You can't tell me I can't tell a Star Wars story this way! Your way of telling a Star Wars story isn't the only way to do it, you know! It's pretty rude to come to my house and ask me for a story and then get upset that you think I'm not doing it right!"

If the story is about someone in modern day Earth whose entire life is shaped by being a lifelong fan of Star Wars, and we are repeatedly shown how they incorporate their passion into their work, I am going to roll my eyes very hard if I hear someone say that "this isn't a Star Wars story" when Star Wars is interwoven at every step of the story and applies the same themes, but it just happens to not take place in the Star Wars universe.

EDIT:

[And I'm not even counting my anarchist friend who used to say that Lawful and Good were contradictory by nature, and that no character could ever truly be both at once. Though that was willingly a provocative statement from him.]

To be fair, your friend does have a point, to a certain degree.

[Empiar93]

I mean. Maybe that's my circle of friends, but "good" aligned divine servant (angels, paladin or cleric) doing evil stuff in the name of "the greater good" without losing their powers are a pretty common trope in the stories I've heard / played in.

[And I'm not even counting my anarchist friend who used to say that Lawful and Good were contradictory by nature, and that no character could ever truly be both at once. Though that was willingly a provocative statement from him.]

I was considering this point of view too, and I’ve gotta say the “religious group is actually evil all along” is extremely played out. Beyond being a trope, it’s more along the lines of a cliché by this point. And I think that might be the other frustration regarding Rich’s faux-paladins: Of course the righteous people serving their Gods’ will is corrupt and bad. Couple this with the idea that these are paladins, which has a very clear concept owing to the ideas set forth by the original source material, but that these paladins aren’t even quite the same beyond the superficial sharing of class features - notes and numbers on paper, but there is a lack of philosophical similarities.

But we can thank O-Chul for at least partially fixing the problem of Paladin-Incongruence, even if he couldn’t stave off all of its consequences.

Spoiler

Show

Your anarchist friend either misunderstands what is meant by the D&D lawful alignment (it’s more to do with orderly society), or misunderstands anarchism on a deeper level (STATELESS society, not lawless) but this subject is far removed from the forum altogether so I shall hereby shut my trap on the matter.

[Jason]

My problem is that you're more concerned with "correctness" (to the point where you think two people disagreeing on whether paladins can willingly commit an evil act and remain a paladin but are otherwise 99.9999% in agreement of what makes a paladin is exactly the same as comparing a dragon to a duck) than trying to understand how the author is using that word/term in the story.

I wasn't saying that is exactly the same. I was saying it was the same principle. Obviously there is a difference of degree.

You are so convinced that the author is wrong that you don't want to entertain the idea that the author may be using the term to make a specific point, and what's worse, you think that the author doing things "correctly" is more important than their actual message.

I suppose I'm pointing out that you can't make the point the author is making in the way the author is making it without breaking the rules.
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."
The fact that some players in D&D do act like that and their DMs let them get away with it means The Giant's point might be a point worth making, and can justify breaking the rules for the sake of making the point. For those of us who already know that paladins can't do that, we wonder what the in-universe rationale is for having allowed them to do it. There doesn't appear to be one - the paladins in the comic simply don't follow the rules.
I wouldn't care and talk about it for 15 pages if I didn't like the comic.

If the story is about someone in modern day Earth whose entire life is shaped by being a lifelong fan of Star Wars, and we are repeatedly shown how they incorporate their passion into their work, I am going to roll my eyes very hard if I hear someone say that "this isn't a Star Wars story" when Star Wars is interwoven at every step of the story and applies the same themes, but it just happens to not take place in the Star Wars universe.

That would be a clever way to do it, yes. Although you could argue then that it's a story about how the phenomenon of Star Wars affected this person, not really a Star Wars story.

[arimareiji]

I was considering this point of view too, and I’ve gotta say the “religious group is actually evil all along” is extremely played out. Beyond being a trope, it’s more along the lines of a cliché by this point. And I think that might be the other frustration regarding Rich’s faux-paladins: Of course the righteous people serving their Gods’ will is corrupt and bad.

I can see this point and even agree with a couple of the component elements, although I would counter with "We've had literally millennia of drowning in morality plays where 'Evildoers meet their inevitable justified Bad End because they didn't obey Religious Authority'. We've only had a couple of decades, apparently coming to a close, where 'Authority can do great evil when it forgets that Law is not the definition of Good' has been frequently allowed alongside the former. Personally, I prefer a mix of both and I hate to see it returning toward nonstop Authority Is Always Right."

But either way, this doesn't seem to coexist well with "All the stories have always agreed that paladins are incapable of even crapping something less than Pure And True Good, and they always should so anything less is Not A True Paladin."

[Shadowknight12]

I suppose I'm pointing out that you can't make the point the author is making in the way the author is making it without breaking the rules.
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."
The fact that some players in D&D do act like that and their DMs let them get away with it means The Giant's point might be a point worth making, and can justify breaking the rules for the sake of making the point. For those of us who already know that paladins can't do that, we wonder what the in-universe rationale is for having allowed them to do it. There doesn't appear to be one - the paladins in the comic simply don't follow the rules.
I wouldn't care and talk about it for 15 pages if I didn't like the comic.

At what point does "this is how I run things at my table" or "this is how I interpret these rules" become "you are breaking the rules"? Because you need to allow for the diversity of human thinking, surely you know we do not all think the same way.

Two people can read the sentence "She took him out" and one can interpret it as "she took him out to dinner" while another can interpret it as "she assassinated him". With no further context, both interpretations are equally valid. That's how the rules operate. We see sentences that can have multiple meanings (some are very similar meanings that are only slightly different but those minor differences end up being quite crucial), and in the absence of further clarification, it's presumptuous to say that your interpretation is how the rules work and someone else's is incorrect.

That would be a clever way to do it, yes. Although you could argue then that it's a story about how the phenomenon of Star Wars effected this person, not really a Star Wars story.

If the story presents itself as "Title: A Star Wars story" this can mean that this is a story that takes place in the Star Wars universe or a story about Star Wars. The story isn't wrong and deceiving you because it went with a different interpretation than the one you had when you read the subtitle.

[Jason]

At what point does "this is how I run things at my table" or "this is how I interpret these rules" become "you are breaking the rules"? Because you need to allow for the diversity of human thinking, surely you know we do not all think the same way.

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

We see sentences that can have multiple meanings (some are very similar meanings that are only slightly different but those minor differences end up being quite crucial), and in the absence of further clarification, it's presumptuous to say that your interpretation is how the rules work and someone else's is incorrect.

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.