New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 475
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by pearl jam View Post
    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.
    Except that is literally how the paladin code works. I posted the relevant excerpts in this thread:

    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.

    Edit:

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "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.
    This does not state the action was non-evil. It states it does not cause paladins to Fall, which is what I have been saying all along. Paladins can cause harm to the innocent and commit evil without falling. This does not make the action non-evil, it simply means they do not Fall because they were not aware that the action was evil at the time.
    Last edited by Shadowknight12; 2021-05-08 at 04:21 AM.

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    pearl jam's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Tokyo
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Yes, but the other examples you gave were not paladins. I was speaking generally, without regard to D&D or alignment rules or anything, there in pointing out that the answer would depend on the standards of the judging party. By many common interpretations the answer may likely be, "No, they are not evil," but different standards that rule, "Yes, this is still evil," are also possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowknight12 View Post
    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.
    Ok, so someone chooses good, actively pursues good and tries to do as much good as they can and that, by the rules of the setting, qualifies them as objectively good.

    This person is viewed as a villain by someone who's been harmed by evil that this person has unknowingly helped enable, but they know to be associated with them somehow.

    One is judging by intent and the other by the outcomes with conflict of interest as well.

    The other party is judging based on a subjective and incomplete picture of the situation.

    Is this person a villain?

    "Yes," according to the other party; "No," according to the cosmos.

    Which is again why it's important not to rush to judgment, to make genuine effort to understand the motivations of parties with whom there is conflict, and to seek peaceful resolutions whenever possible, as I think is being argued in the comic at the moment.
    Last edited by pearl jam; 2021-05-08 at 05:01 AM.

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowknight12 View Post
    This does not state the action was non-evil. It states it does not cause paladins to Fall, which is what I have been saying all along. Paladins can cause harm to the innocent and commit evil without falling. This does not make the action non-evil, it simply means they do not Fall because they were not aware that the action was evil at the time.
    The Atonement spell suggests that an "unwitting evil act" can still need atonement-for.

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

    This spell removes the burden of evil acts or misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds and acts of a knowing and willful nature, you must intercede with your deity (requiring you to expend 500 XP) in order to expunge the subject’s burden.

    But "accidentally harming the innocent though your intentions were good and you took reasonable precautions" might not even qualify as an "unwitting evil act".
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2021-05-08 at 05:15 AM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by pearl jam View Post
    Yes, but the other examples you gave were not paladins. I was speaking generally, without regard to D&D or alignment rules or anything, there in pointing out that the answer would depend on the standards of the judging party. By many common interpretations the answer may likely be, "No, they are not evil," but different standards that rule, "Yes, this is still evil," are also possible.
    You are fixated on whether the people in question are evil and not whether they do evil. By the rules, you cannot have evil paladins. We all know this. But you can have paladins that do evil without falling and still remain good. This does not retroactively make their actions non-evil, nor does it mean they should Fall for their ignorance. It means good people (paladins included) can do evil and still be good.

    Quote Originally Posted by pearl jam View Post
    The other party is judging based on a subjective and incomplete picture of the situation.

    Is this person a villain?

    "Yes," according to the other party; "No," according to the cosmos.
    Why does it matter if the other party has an incomplete picture of the situation? Does being punched hurt less if the person who punched you did it by accident? Does it cause less harm?

    A villain who does evil is still a villain even if they are good-aligned. Being a genuinely good person does not erase the damage you cause.

    Also, the cosmos does not judge whether you are a villain or not. That is not a thing that exists. In-universe, people judge you a villain based on the evil you do, and out of universe, the author and the audience do the same.

    There is no such thing as "well, you may think this poor ignorant paladin a villain for defending the corrupt evil king, but as you can see here, the cosmos has signed a decree declaring him not-a-villain, sorry!"

    Edit:

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    The Atonement spell suggests that an "unwitting evil act" can still need atonement-for.

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

    This spell removes the burden of evil acts or misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds and acts of a knowing and willful nature, you must intercede with your deity (requiring you to expend 500 XP) in order to expunge the subject’s burden.

    But "accidentally harming the innocent though your intentions were good and you took reasonable precautions" might not even qualify as an "unwitting evil act".
    Clerics and druids lack the "unwitting" part and also make use of the atonement spell, so we cannot say that part is meant for paladins.
    Last edited by Shadowknight12; 2021-05-08 at 05:17 AM.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    BOVD's "Zophas" example:

    Spoiler
    Show
    Consider the paladin Zophas. When climbing to the top of a hill of loose rocks to get away from some owlbears, he triggers a rockslide that buries the owlbears and continues down the hill, crushing a hut full of commoners. Is Zophas an evil murderer who must suddenly lose his lawful good alignment? No, although Zophas might still feel guilt and responsibility. He might attempt to right the inadvertent wrong as best he can.

    But what if Zophas’s friend Shurrin said, “Don’t climb up there, Zophas! You might start a rockslide that will crush the hut!” Zophas goes anyway. Now is it evil? Probably. Zophas was either carelessly endangering the commoners or so overconfident of his climbing prowess that he acted out of hubris. At this point, Zophas isn’t exactly a murderer, but he should probably lose his paladin abilities until he receives an atonement spell or otherwise makes amends.

    If Zophas can clearly see the danger of the rockslide but climbs up anyway because he wants to get away from the owlbears, that’s clearly evil. In a world of black-and-white distinctions between good and evil, killing innocents to save yourself is an evil act. Sacrificing yourself for the good of others is a good act. It’s a high standard, but that’s the way it is.


    may be of interest.

    It says "Is that evil? not "Is that willing evil" vs "Is that unwitting evil".
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowknight12 View Post

    Clerics and druids lack the "unwitting" part and also make use of the atonement spell, so we cannot say that part is meant for paladins.
    There may be a carry-over from 3.0 as well. 3.0's Atonement spell was unambiguous about the fact that paladins fell for unwitting evil deeds, but only fell permanently for willing/wilful evil deeds. 2e had something similar in the paladin class itself.

    3.5 removed the concept of the irrevocable Fall - something that it was impossible to return to full Paladinhood after doing.
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2021-05-08 at 05:19 AM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    BOVD's "Zophas" example:

    Spoiler
    Show
    Consider the paladin Zophas. When climbing to the top of a hill of loose rocks to get away from some owlbears, he triggers a rockslide that buries the owlbears and continues down the hill, crushing a hut full of commoners. Is Zophas an evil murderer who must suddenly lose his lawful good alignment? No, although Zophas might still feel guilt and responsibility. He might attempt to right the inadvertent wrong as best he can.

    But what if Zophas’s friend Shurrin said, “Don’t climb up there, Zophas! You might start a rockslide that will crush the hut!” Zophas goes anyway. Now is it evil? Probably. Zophas was either carelessly endangering the commoners or so overconfident of his climbing prowess that he acted out of hubris. At this point, Zophas isn’t exactly a murderer, but he should probably lose his paladin abilities until he receives an atonement spell or otherwise makes amends.

    If Zophas can clearly see the danger of the rockslide but climbs up anyway because he wants to get away from the owlbears, that’s clearly evil. In a world of black-and-white distinctions between good and evil, killing innocents to save yourself is an evil act. Sacrificing yourself for the good of others is a good act. It’s a high standard, but that’s the way it is.


    may be of interest.

    It says "Is that evil? not "Is that willing evil" vs "Is that unwitting evil".
    The first paragraph does not, in fact, ask you if the act is evil, merely asks if the paladin is an evil murderer, which he isn't. He is guilty of manslaughter, certainly, but his alignment is not evil due to being sheltered by his ignorance.

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    The second paragraph's "now is it evil" refers back to the first paragraph - the question in the first paragraph can be summarised as "has the paladin committed an evil act" as well as "is the paladin an evil murderer".

    Same principle would apply to any character with an Exalted feat (which is lost for any evil act, without any "willing" proviso) - they would not fall for "crossing the rockslide" as per the first paragraph - only for the extra endangerment factor in the second paragraph.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowknight12 View Post
    He is guilty of manslaughter, certainly, but his alignment is not evil due to being sheltered by his ignorance.
    In the second paragraph example, he might be guilty of manslaughter, but not necessarily the first paragraph example.

    First paragraph version may not have any moral culpability.
    Second paragraph version may be manslaughter.
    Third paragraph version may be murder.
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2021-05-08 at 05:27 AM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    The second paragraph's "now is it evil" refers back to the first paragraph - the question in the first paragraph can be summarised as "has the paladin committed an evil act" as well as "is the paladin an evil murderer".

    Same principle would apply to any character with an Exalted feat (which is lost for any evil act, without any "willing" proviso) - they would not fall for "crossing the rockslide" as per the first paragraph - only for the extra endangerment factor in the second paragraph.

    In the second paragraph example, he might be guilty of manslaughter, but not necessarily the first paragraph example.
    The first paragraph doesn't address the morality of the act itself, only the paladin. The second paragraph seems to imply the first act is not evil by asking "now is it evil?" but also introduces the fact that the paladin was made aware of the consequences, so it becomes a willing act (even if the text doesn't spell it out). I would argue causing the death of innocents, even accidentally, is an evil act. Again, doesn't make you fall as a paladin (as per the code), but killing innocents is still killing innocents regardless of whether there is malicious intent or not.

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    It isn't just intent - it's intent plus context.

    The paladin in the second paragraph example had no intent to kill innocents - but because the danger was visible, and they knew it but took the risks anyway, then the act may become "manslaughter" rather than "accidental death".
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    It isn't just intent - it's intent plus context.

    The paladin in the second paragraph example had no intent to kill innocents - but because the danger was visible, and they knew it but took the risks anyway, then the act may become "manslaughter" rather than "accidental death".
    Yes, and my argument is that all three are evil acts because they all have the same results in the world. Whether you have an intention to do Evil or not can affect your alignment, and the context surrounding the action can affect things like the atonement spell or whether you lose class features, but if you hurt a person, that person is hurt regardless.

    The idea that a kingdom that conquers and oppresses is mostly good and/or neutral because only a minority of its population are fully aware of the true consequences of its actions and have malicious intent is ridiculous to me. A nation can have a dramatic impact upon the world while the majority of its population is blissfully unaware of the horrors they inflict elsewhere and giving your life to defend that kingdom is as evil as it is noble and misguided.

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    There's a very good reason why 4E and 5E both dropped the paladin code in favor of serving deities (in 4E) and having a variety of oaths (in 5E). Precisely because a minefield of a code of conduct that means a paladin can't do anything wrong ever while staying a paladin is harmful to roleplaying and storytelling on multiple levels.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
    Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    While the paladin's code demands that they "punish those who harm innocents"

    https://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm


    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.


    I think it's safe to say that's what's meant is those who harm innocents on purpose or through culpable negligence.

    A genuine accident, with no carelessness involved, is not the sort of thing that paladins are licensed to punish.

    Nor is it something that will trigger anything tied to "committing an evil act" (willingly or unwillingly or unwittingly.)

    True accidents have no "moral value".


    Telling the player "you have now unwittingly committed an evil act" in those circumstances, IMO, will create a lot of conflict between the player and the DM, whether it has mechanical consequences or not.
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2021-05-08 at 05:58 AM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    Telling the player "you have now unwittingly committed an evil act" in those circumstances, IMO, will create a lot of conflict between the player and the DM, whether it has mechanical consequences or not.
    If you were going to confront the player with the consequences of their mistakes, providing a reason why that happens is generally helpful. Otherwise yes, I agree that if you had no intentions of confronting the consequences of the act, passing judgment on it is purely academic.

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    "Passing moral judgement" on genuine accidents and seeking to punish the person involved in the accident, is something only done by villains in fiction, normally.
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2021-05-08 at 06:24 AM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "Passing moral judgement" on genuine accidents and seeking to punish the person involved in the accident, is something only done by villains in fiction, normally.
    Again, harm is done unto people regardless of intent, and victims rarely get to know if those who harmed them did so on purpose or by accident. And if the perpetrator of the harm tries to excuse the damage they have caused as an accident to avoid having to make amends or admit wrongdoing, that is pretty unfair for the victims.

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    hroþila's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    The state can indemnify or otherwise compensate the victims if necessary. The presence or absence of negligence is key here.
    ungelic is us

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Problem is, to count as "wrongdoing" at all, requires more than just "harm".
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    Problem is, to count as "wrongdoing" at all, requires more than just "harm".
    The problem with that logic is that it allows characters to claim that, because they have committed no wrongdoing, they do not feel morally obligated to make amends for the harm they caused (and if the world worked under this logic, it would back them up), which leaves the victims of said harm suffering under further injustice in addition to the harm they already suffered.

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    The world's an unjust place. But punishing those who are neither malicious nor negligent, but just unlucky, is unjust too.

    "Making amends" is only something characters who are actually guilty of wrongdoing are required to do, if they are to "remove the taint of wrongdoing" - because only wrongdoing leaves a "taint" in the first place.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    hroþila's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Why is that relevant? A character can also do an unambiguously Evil act and claim it wasn't.
    ungelic is us

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    pearl jam's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Tokyo
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    You keep saying I'm fixated on whether or not someone is good or is evil, but then also saying alignment is based on intent so that someone with good intentions can remain good despite committing evil acts. I have accepted your premise that a person with good intentions maintains good alignment even if their actions lead to evil outcomes for other people that are unknown to them. People in this situation are good, by your premise.

    I'm saying if intent is what counts and they are good, then they are not villains. Villains have evil intentions.

    If the other party, unaware of their intentions, views them as a villain because of the outcome of which they aren't even aware, then they are ascribing to them evil intentions which they do not have.

    They are wrong, even if they are also victims of wrongdoing themselves.

    It's quite likely that they judge their own actions differently than they judged the actions of the other person in this situation at least in part due to the fact that they have more awareness of and sympathy for their own motivations and are thus able to justify their own actions that lead to bad consequences for others in a way that they may not do when the roles are reversed and the intentions up for interpretation.

    Which is why I keep saying that if intent is what matters and one intends to be good, then conflict should be approached carefully, even when there's just cause for grievance.

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    One of the last 3.5 books, Exemplars of Evil, discusses the rare "nonevil villains" (and gives as an example a good-aligned character).

    However this particular character's villainy consists of breaking criminals out of jail (because they believe all executions are murder) - and as a result letting evildoers (as well as the occasional genuine innocent) loose on the community.

    Here, there's no evil intent towards members of the community - but the harmful consequences are foreseeable and predictable, and the Good villain simply carries on because they believe that allowing executions to happen, is worse.

    The good villain has no intent to harm, but harm is happening anyway, but at one remove.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    pearl jam's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Tokyo
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    One of the last 3.5 books, Exemplars of Evil, discusses the rare "nonevil villains" (and gives as an example a good-aligned character).

    However this particular character's villainy consists of breaking criminals out of jail (because they believe all executions are murder) - and as a result letting evildoers (as well as the occasional genuine innocent) loose on the community.

    Here, there's no evil intent towards members of the community - but the harmful consequences are foreseeable and predictable, and the Good villain simply carries on because they believe that allowing executions to happen, is worse.

    The good villain has no intent to harm, but harm is happening anyway, but at one remove.
    That's a very particular definition of villain based around rules lawyering the alignment grid of D&D. I don't think it has much to do with the standard meaning of what it is to be a villain and is more like the proverbial exception that proves the rule.

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    In the context of OOTS, "Villain as antagonist" may be more important than "Villain as malicious" - because of the way The Giant used the term "villain" for Miko, even pre-fall.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by pearl jam View Post
    I'm saying if intent is what counts and they are good, then they are not villains. Villains have evil intentions.
    Again: I do not believe that villains are only those with evil intentions. I believe villains are those who either consistently do evil, or who do an evil of tremendous scale, regardless of intention.

    This is clearly a problem with our definitions of villain. Yours precludes paladins. Mine does not.
    Last edited by Shadowknight12; 2021-05-08 at 07:11 AM.

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    pearl jam's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Tokyo
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowknight12 View Post
    Again: I do not believe that villains are only those with evil intentions. I believe villains are those who either consistently do evil, or who do an evil of tremendous scale, regardless of intention.

    This is clearly a problem with our definitions of villain. Yours precludes paladins. Mine does not.
    Consistently do evil or do evil on a tremendous scale precludes paladins in my book, yes.


    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    In the context of OOTS, "Villain as antagonist" may be more important than "Villain as malicious" - because of the way The Giant used the term "villain" for Miko, even pre-fall.
    Perhaps, but he also was aware of where her arc would leave her in the end as well.
    Last edited by pearl jam; 2021-05-08 at 07:24 AM.

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by pearl jam View Post
    Consistently do evil or do evil on a tremendous scale precludes paladins in my book, yes.
    All this for the fact that noone's opened a thesaurus and spotted the word "Antagonist".

    (Not picking on you specifically, PJ, you're just the last answer in the chain so far.)

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Quote Originally Posted by pearl jam View Post
    Perhaps, but he also was aware of where her arc would leave her in the end as well.
    True, but, at least in Paladin Blues, the idea was "Miko is a Paladin villain" rather than "Miko will turn into a villain."



    Quote Originally Posted by pearl jam View Post
    Consistently do evil or do evil on a tremendous scale precludes paladins in my book, yes.
    The name TV Tropes chooses for characters notable causing huge amounts of unintentional harm (culpably or otherwise):

    https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...troyerOfWorlds
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2021-05-08 at 07:42 AM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    pearl jam's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Tokyo
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    Then I guess I would just go back to my belief that villain and antagonist are not perfect synonyms and that antagonist would have been the more appropriate for Miko at that stage.



    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    True, but, at least in Paladin Blues, the idea was "Miko is a Paladin villain" rather than "Miko will turn into a villain."

    The name TV Tropes chooses for characters notable causing huge amounts of unintentional harm (culpably or otherwise):

    https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...troyerOfWorlds
    Using an situation deliberately as absurd as possible played for comedy as evidence that "the sort of fellow who goes around destroying worlds isn't actively evil," seems flawed to the point of disregarding to me. I think clicking that link probably still leaves me at a number of visits to tv tropes that would be countable on two hands almost certainly, and likely one hand.
    Last edited by pearl jam; 2021-05-08 at 08:00 AM.

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Jul 2018

    Default Re: The Problem with Paladin Villains

    It could also be a matter of perspective.

    A paladin could be dedicated to maintaining the peace, protecting the innocent and enforcing the code of law as decreed by the state. Clearly Lawful Good (assuming that the code of law isn't blatantly Evil).

    Another character might meanwhile believe that the current rulers are corrupt and need to be replaced, by force if necessary. A Chaotic Good character, because they are motivated by the damage caused by the corrupt rulers.

    The Chaotic Good character might consider the paladin a villain not because the paladin is doing anything Evil, but because they think the paladin has the wrong priorities.

    You could say that this makes the paladin an antagonist, not a villain, but I'd say the paladin qualifies as a villain for the Chaotic Good character because it's not just that they happen to be on opposing success but that their views on what's right are fundamentally opposed.

    The paladin thinks tthat even with the rulers corrupt, the system itself is worth protecting and any attempts to deal with the corruption should fall within the code of law.

    The Chaotic Character thinks the system doesn't matter if the people at the top are twisted and that the law should be no barrier in trying to get rid of those people.

    And of course the paladin thinks the Chaotic Good character is a villain because they disregard the code of law and threaten to destabilize the peace.

Posting Permissions

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