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

[dancrilis]

They're clearly Paladins. They have Paladin powers, they're called Paladins, yeah, they're Paladins.

They could be blackguards who mistakenly believe that they are paladins - they have much the same powers at least.

Seperately:
My personal take is that the Sapphire Guard did improve between SOD and HTPGHS.

Spoiler: Theory Time

Show

In SOD some fell - they did a lot of soul searching as to why and realised that senseless slaughter of The Dark One's forces was not the right approach and did some more questing and found out that The Crimson Mantle was what they were looking for.
In HTPGHS they Gin-Jun was desperate (and got more desperate as the story went on) to correct the mistake of the Guard (both for himself but also for The Guard as a whole - possibly including fallen members) and that desperation lead him to derangement - and ultimately to his own fall.

But most of the other Paladins in HTPGHS were not that desperate and so were able to walk away reasonably when it seems they were on the wrong path - something that would not have occured in SOD.

As for the topic - flawed Paladin's are fine villains for the right story, however non-flawed paladins (just like all other good aligned people) are pretty bad villains in general.

[The Pilgrim]

You are all assuming that the Paladins could tell an adult goblin from a goblin child. Or a goblin civilian from a goblin warrior. Or would bother to pay attention to such details in the middle of battle. For them, they were just evil vermin.

Sure, some went too far and murdered children in cold blood, and may have fallen. And later, when they realized they had to return home on foot, they made a bit of reflection, understood that killing children, even goblin ones, was not kosher, got an atonement spell, and recovered their paladin powers.

The rest, probably didn't notice children were slaughtered at all.

That conflicts with your notion of what constitutes Good and Evil? Congratulations. Objecting to the general understanding of what constitutes Good and Evil on gaming morality is one of Mr. Burlew's recurring themes on this webcomic.

[pearl jam]

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.

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

This seems plausible to me. There is also the fact that, regardless of whether or not they have access to their class features due to falling, there is still the matter of the secret that they are sworn to keep and they would likely not want to risk allowing them the opportunity to spill the secret by driving them out of the guard altogether.

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"}

I think we ought to say some paladins become villains (and in doing so cease to be paladins).

[KorvinStarmast]

None of this would have happened if Anakin Skywalker hadn't killed the Younglings.

[hungrycrow]

You are all assuming that the Paladins could tell an adult goblin from a goblin child. Or a goblin civilian from a goblin warrior. Or would bother to pay attention to such details. For them, they were just evil vermin.

Sure, some went too far and murdered children in cold blood, and may have fallen. And later, when they realized they had to return home on foot, they made a bit of reflection, understood that killing children, even goblin ones, was not kosher, got an atonement spell, and recovered their paladin powers.

The rest, probably didn't notice children were slaughtered at all.

That conflicts with your notion of what constitutes Good and Evil? Congratulations. Objecting to the general notions of what constitutes Good and Evil on gaming morality is one of Mr. Burlew's recurring themes on this webcomic.

Maybe someone could assume civilian goblins were carrying hidden weapons, thats a terrible excuse that'd justify any murder but whatever. But it's really easy to tell a goblin child apart from an adult, they're different sizes in OotSworld.

[Shadowknight12]

I think we ought to say some paladins become villains (and in doing so cease to be paladins).

No, a paladin can be a villain while staying Lawful Good and never committing any Fall-worthy acts.

OOTS aside, a paladin that grows up in a society where oppression is normalized but is born into nobility and therefore spared from most of it, that acts with kindness towards their fellow nobles (and rarely if ever interacts with those below their station) and genuinely believes in knightly virtues of goodness (making them easily manipulated by the corrupt royalty above them) can choose to give their life to defend this corrupt, oppressive system and the royals and fellow nobles at the top, from the rebels that seek to bring it down. It's possible that the paladin could Fall after the fight, if they survive, but when the protagonist rebels face the Lawful Good paladin, that paladin is a villain.

[arimareiji]

No, a paladin can be a villain while staying Lawful Good and never committing any Fall-worthy acts.

OOTS aside, a paladin that grows up in a society where oppression is normalized but is born into nobility and therefore spared from most of it, that acts with kindness towards their fellow nobles (and rarely if ever interacts with those below their station) and genuinely believes in knightly virtues of goodness (making them easily manipulated by the corrupt royalty above them) can choose to give their life to defend this corrupt, oppressive system and the royals and fellow nobles at the top, from the rebels that seek to bring it down. It's possible that the paladin could Fall after the fight, if they survive, but when the protagonist rebels face the Lawful Good paladin, that paladin is a villain.

A not-completely-unrelated question I've wondered about for a while: In the areas controlled by Tarquin and Friends, can paladins even exist?

[Shadowknight12]

A not-completely-unrelated question I've wondered about for a while: In the areas controlled by Tarquin and Friends, can paladins even exist?

Certainly, since the whole point of Tarquin and co is to keep their shared plot a secret, which means manipulate, deceive and misdirect. I could easily imagine one of the future countries being "led" by a foolish but inspiring paladin that is being manipulated by Tarquin and whose speeches about cleansing the evil from the Western continent embolden others to follow a similar path and join the national paladin corps.

Of course, that will only last until they Fall as a consequence of their own actions, but the countries are meant to be temporary anyway.

[ebarde]

Tbh, I didn't like Miko's whole deal. I feel that her character seemed weirdly self indulgent, as a take that to a specific type of problem player. It just sorta ruined a lot of the nuance the character could have had, and it felt like she was just there so literally every other character in the comic, including Xykon got to tell her how much she sucked and was the worst. Not that she wasn't a pretty bad person, but I feel that she was bad in a sorta strawman way if that makes sense? Her death was the only scene that I felt gave her a bit more depth, and I feel that her character could have been more interesting if they had gone more in depth in what had made her be that way.

[arimareiji]

Tbh, I didn't like Miko's whole deal. I feel that her character seemed weirdly self indulgent, as a take that to a specific type of problem player. It just sorta ruined a lot of the nuance the character could have had, and it felt like she was just there so literally every other character in the comic, including Xykon got to tell her how much she sucked and was the worst. Not that she wasn't a pretty bad person, but I feel that she was bad in a sorta strawman way if that makes sense? Her death was the only scene that I felt gave her a bit more depth, and I feel that her character could have been more interesting if they had gone more in depth in what had made her be that way.

I think you could make a good case that the Giant had no choice but to make her so incredibly obvious... anything less, and you'd have a LOT of people arguing that paladins are utterly incapable of being in the wrong.

[Jason]

No, a paladin can be a villain while staying Lawful Good and never committing any Fall-worthy acts.

It depends on what you consider the qualifications for "villain" to be. A paladin can be an adversary of another good-aligned group, but he can't do anything actually evil and remain a paladin.
If your criteria for villain is "does evil things" then a paladin can't be a villain, and a fallen paladin is a villain by definition, because he has done at least one willful evil act.

[arimareiji]

It depends on what you consider the qualifications for "villain" to be. A paladin can be an adversary of another good-aligned group, but he can't do anything actually evil and remain a paladin.
If your criteria for villain is "does evil things" then a paladin can't be a villain, and a fallen paladin is a villain by definition, because he has done at least one willful evil act.

With a couple of possible exceptions, Javert from Les Miserables would be an admirable paladin. But his utter failure to question that Law must always be right has at least neutral, possibly evil results.

Lawful is not inherently Good. If the two come into conflict, leaning heavily toward the one compromises the other.

_{Edit: Fixing poor wording}

[Shadowknight12]

It depends on what you consider the qualifications for "villain" to be. A paladin can be an adversary of another good-aligned group, but he can't do anything actually evil and remain a paladin.
If your criteria for villain is "does evil things" then a paladin can't be a villain, and a fallen paladin is a villain by definition, because he has done at least one willful evil act.

There is a very important part of the rules you are not taking into consideration:

Code of Conduct

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Associates

While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters,

Ex-Paladins

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act...

Emphasis mine.

Paladins can commit evil acts and remain paladins if they do not commit them willfully, and they can associate with evil people so long as they don't know that they are evil.

Ignorance, naivete and foolishness can allow a paladin to be part of a corrupt, evil system that oppresses and commits evil, so long as the system is decent enough at deception and prevents the paladin from associating with the victims of the system.

[Worldsong]

Tbh, I didn't like Miko's whole deal. I feel that her character seemed weirdly self indulgent, as a take that to a specific type of problem player. It just sorta ruined a lot of the nuance the character could have had, and it felt like she was just there so literally every other character in the comic, including Xykon got to tell her how much she sucked and was the worst. Not that she wasn't a pretty bad person, but I feel that she was bad in a sorta strawman way if that makes sense? Her death was the only scene that I felt gave her a bit more depth, and I feel that her character could have been more interesting if they had gone more in depth in what had made her be that way.

I think you could make a good case that the Giant had no choice but to make her so incredibly obvious... anything less, and you'd have a LOT of people arguing that paladins are utterly incapable of being in the wrong.

I'm pretty sure that even with Miko as crazy as she was we've still had to deal with people defending her. Granted, some of them defended her by saying that she was fine until Rich began to turn up the crazy to unbelievable levels, but still.

[The Pilgrim]

Maybe someone could assume civilian goblins were carrying hidden weapons, thats a terrible excuse that'd justify any murder but whatever. But it's really easy to tell a goblin child apart from an adult, they're different sizes in OotSworld.

You would be suprised to know how often, in the middle of battle, human combatants fail to tell human enemy combatants from human civilians or human children. Or from the combatants in their own side. So go figure if the people in question belong to another species.

Sure, the comic shown some paladins killing goblin children in a situation where they should have been able to tell the difference. Some of those Paladins were killed in combat soon after. Others weren't, and probably fell. After the battle, the rest of the Paladins probably didn't bother to notice the presence of underage corpses, or just assumed they were collateral damage.

I'm not excusing the Paladins. I'm simply noting that such lack of concern by supposedly "Good" people, is precisely a thing that Mr. Burlew criticizes in gaming morality.

[arimareiji]

Paladins can commit evil acts and remain paladins if they do not commit them willfully, and they can associate with evil people so long as they don't know that they are evil.

Ignorance, naivete and foolishness can allow a paladin to be part of a corrupt, evil system that oppresses and commits evil, so long as the system is decent enough at deception and prevents the paladin from associating with the victims of the system.

Hanlon's Razor is much needed for more than one reason.

On the one side, it's needed to remind us that it's painfully easy for people to innocently commit acts (through stupidity, ignorance, incompetence. etc) that have the same results as overt malice.

On the other side, it's needed because the results of innocent stupidity, ignorance, incompetence, etc are often identical to those of overt malice.

If the gods were blessed with perfect ability to understand the intent and thought process of a paladin, they might immediately agree on the Fall of a paladin who "accidentally" bisects both an adult and a child with the same swing. But in the Stickverse things are less clear, and the gods are anything but omniscient about people's thoughts or even words -- Thor knows nothing about the world inside the rift until Durkon says something about it (and even then, he almost misses noticing). With that being the case it's only logical that paladins can fall into grey areas and not immediately Fall, even when their intent was unambiguously evil (if one could perfectly read their mind), if it's plausible that their intent might have been neutral or perhaps even good.

[pearl jam]

To me, at least, a villain is definitionally not good. In order to be a paladin, one must definitionally be good. Therefore, it's not possible to be both at once.

With a couple of possible exceptions, Javert from Les Miserables would be an admirable paladin. But his utter failure to question that Law must always be right has at least neutral, possibly evil results.

Lawful is not inherently Good. If the two come into conflict, leaning heavily toward the one compromises the other.

_{Edit: Fixing poor wording}

Indeed. To remain a paladin you need to achieve them both. Personally, I would think if you have to choose you should err toward good over lawful. Failing the lawful part can still leave you as good. Failing the good part can make you a villain. You're still no longer a paladin either way.

[SavageWombat]

To me, at least, a villain is definitionally not good. In order to be a paladin, one must definitionally be good.

Villainy is defined by opposition to the hero. If the author defines the goals of the hero interestingly, the villain can still be a good person.

[Yirggzmb]

Villainy is defined by opposition to the hero. If the author defines the goals of the hero interestingly, the villain can still be a good person.

I would, possibly, argue that there is a distinction between "villain" and "antagonist", even if both often get used interchangeably.

To me, a "villain" is always a "bad guy". They need not necessarily be Xykon level evil, but the term implies a certain level of "not a good person" to me.

To contrast, an "antagonist" is a character that opposes the protagonist. They may also be a villain, but they could just as easily be a good person whose goals counter the main character's.

There's often enough overlap that the terms get confused, but you could just easily have a story where your protagonist is the villain and the antagonist is the hero.

[Spartan360]

Yeah a villain and an antagonist aren't the same thing.

A villain is a "bad guy" while an antagonist is simply someone that opposes the main character/protagonist. They can be evil like Hel or Xykon or they can be good like the Order of the Scribble during the prequel story.

[arimareiji]

Indeed. To remain a paladin you need to achieve them both. Personally, I would think if you have to choose you should err toward good over lawful. Failing the lawful part can still leave you as good. Failing the good part can make you a villain. You're still no longer a paladin either way.

I know that an Evil act gets you Fallen, but I wasn't aware that a non-Lawful act would make you Fall as well. This would seem to indicate that it's virtually impossible for paladins to exist anywhere near Tarquin and his buddies, if so.

I would, possibly, argue that there is a distinction between "villain" and "antagonist", even if both often get used interchangeably.

To me, a "villain" is always a "bad guy". They need not necessarily be Xykon level evil, but the term implies a certain level of "not a good person" to me.

To contrast, an "antagonist" is a character that opposes the protagonist. They may also be a villain, but they could just as easily be a good person whose goals counter the main character's.

There's often enough overlap that the terms get confused, but you could just easily have a story where your protagonist is the villain and the antagonist is the hero.

YMMV: I would love a story where it initially seems like it's vice versa, but the author slowly twists things around so that the reader gradually realizes the truth.

(It would be a devilishly tight rope to walk, though. Even if done right, I imagine lots of readers would harrumph and declare that the author has "derailed" their story, it isn't believable, etc... no matter how much time they give the reader to process the fact that it's painfully easy to be fooled into rooting for the bad guy if you're not careful.)

[hamishspence]

To fall for a non-lawful, yet non-evil, act requires quite a lot though.

The act needs to be "enough to change the character's alignment from LG to Something Else".

That, or the act needs to be "a gross violation of the paladin's code" despite being non-evil. Telling a really spectacular lie might count - since lying in general, breaches the code, and lying is not always evil according to BoVD.

[Shadowknight12]

To me, at least, a villain is definitionally not good. In order to be a paladin, one must definitionally be good. Therefore, it's not possible to be both at once.

There is a difference between being evil and doing evil. The audience may not always be told what a character is, but they can always see what they do.

A villain, then, requires the doing of evil, not the being of evil, which I have proved above paladins can do and remain paladins.

[pearl jam]

If you are committing enough evil acts or evil enough acts to be a villain, rather than simply a fallible human doing your best to be "good," then I'm going to say the distinction is not that relevant and you still can't be a paladin either way.

But I will concede that my standard for disqualification is quite likely not the same as Rich's or yours or perhaps anyone else's at all.

I think that I tend to agree with at least the title of the thread in that regard. While someone succeeding at being both a paladin and an antagonist is no problem at all, I do think there are just inherent difficulties with presenting them as succeeding at being both a paladin and a villain at the same time. To my personal definition, it's not possible, but that doesn't mean it's true in this setting or any other that I didn't author.

And then there's the issue that we aren't just dealing with a single paladin in question, like Miko's situation, but a multitude where some may be meeting the challenge of being a paladin and others may be failing and some may even fail to the point of becoming villains. How much collective responsibility is there, etc? It becomes even more complicated.

[arimareiji]

If you are committing enough evil acts or evil enough acts to be a villain, rather than simply a fallible human doing your best to be "good," then I'm going to say the distinction is not that relevant and you still can't be a paladin either way.

But I will concede that my standard for disqualification is quite likely not the same as Rich's or yours or perhaps anyone else's at all.

I think that I tend to agree with at least the title of the thread in that regard. While someone succeeding at being both a paladin and an antagonist is no problem at all, I do think there are just inherent difficulties with presenting them as succeeding at being both a paladin and a villain at the same time. To my personal definition, it's not possible, but that doesn't mean it's true in this setting or any other that I didn't author.

And then there's the issue that we aren't just dealing with a single paladin in question, like Miko's situation, but a multitude where some may be meeting the challenge of being a paladin and others may be failing and some may even fail to the point of becoming villains. How much collective responsibility is there, etc? It becomes even more complicated.

It could just be my take, but the context plus your mention of Miko put me in mind of something... remember when she refers to being a samurai and they decide she means the character class? I wonder if that was the Giant already tweaking our nose, i.e. "you can call yourself any label you want but it doesn't mean you live up to all the expectations people associate with it".

[Shadowknight12]

If you are committing enough evil acts or evil enough acts to be a villain, rather than simply a fallible human doing your best to be "good," then I'm going to say the distinction is not that relevant and you still can't be a paladin either way.

Do you think a character's alignment should be changed even if they don't know that the actions they're committing are evil?

If a wealthy person finances an evil merchant who obtains their goods through slavery and exploitation, but the financier is unaware, is that an evil act? If a guard simply protects someone that does evil, but she is kept ignorant of this, does the guard's ongoing protection of an evil person slowly turn her evil? If a farmer is convinced to take up arms to defend their homeland against a rebel uprising, but because they are from the countryside, had no idea that the rebels were fighting against the king's cruel conquest of a foreign land, does that instantly turn the farmer evil, even though they don't know that they are defending a cruel, conquering nation?

All of these three people can be villains for the heroes, the financier backing the evil merchant can be a string they need to cut before they can face their final enemy, and both the guard and the farmer can stand between the heroes and the final boss. These are all examples of minor villains who are deceived/manipulated by a greater villain, but in the right story you can conceive of similar characters as the major villains of the story, too.

[pearl jam]

This has been brought up already, but, again, I feel like you're using hero/villain as a synonym for protagonist/antagonist when they are not perfect synonyms.

My answer is if you want to make the case that those examples are not evil, then I will argue they aren't villains. If you want to make the case that they are evil, then I will allow that they can be villains.

Now, the use of "to the heroes" is also very relevant because people frequently perceive the actions of people opposed to them as being malicious, evil, etc when that may not be case. Redcloak can certainly perceive the paladins as villains without that being so and the reverse may also be true for the Sapphire Guard with regard to the goblins, which is why Gandalf's advice to Frodo regarding Gollum is always so important to remember if one is attempting to be good and the paladins would have done well to follow it as I think we are seeing Durkon and Roy come to realize that they can do better in that regard as well.


*edit*
I realize there is some complication to that advice when the availability of on-demand resurrection makes giving life back to someone whose life you took a conceivable notion, but I think his point still stands if you want to be good.

[Shadowknight12]

This has been brought up already, but, again, I feel like you're using hero/villain as a synonym for protagonist/antagonist when they are not perfect synonyms.

My answer is if you want to make the case that those examples are not evil, then I will argue they aren't villains. If you want to make the case that they are evil, then I will allow that they can be villains.

I chose my examples very specifically, precisely because I want to illustrate that Good people can do Evil ongoingly to others without realizing, and this does not change their alignment to Evil. They are still villains because they do Evil (not because they are Evil), and therefore this can be applied to paladins or good clerics or any other example.

The reason I am invoking systems in my examples is because if you are a cog in a machine that does Evil, then you can be a Good person that participates unwittingly in the constant doing of Evil unto others. The victims of said Evil would see you as a villain because you are the one doing Evil unto them, even though you do not realize the Evil you are doing.

Edit: if this helps illustrate, alignment is about volition. You are Good because you choose Good, because you actively pursue and support the cause of Good, and you try to do as much Good as you can. Alignment is not an external entity constantly judging your behaviour and grading you, because otherwise your alignment would be constantly changing, since consequences are unforeseeable and the average person does not have the full information on the actions they undertake.

[pearl jam]

Ignorance is not considered a valid defense for legal infractions, to my knowledge, so I'm not sure it would be accepted for moral infractions either. Depends on the standard of whomever is in position to pass those judgments. Again, all the more reason to tread lightly when considering taking it upon yourself to carry out such judgments against others.

I think it's fairly clear that the OOTSverse does not operate on this kind of principle, however, so it's not really relevant to the question of the thread.

[hamishspence]

"Good intentions" plus "took reasonable precautions" typically combine to make actions nonevil.

http://archive.wizards.com/default.a...d/sg/20050325a

Though a paladin must always strive to bring about a just and righteous outcome, she is not omnipotent. If someone tricks her into acting in a way that harms the innocent, or if an action of hers accidentally brings about a calamity, she may rightly feel that she is at fault. But although she should by all means attempt to redress the wrong, she should not lose her paladinhood for it. Intent is not always easy to judge, but as long as a paladin's heart was in the right place and she took reasonable precautions, she cannot be blamed for a poor result.