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

[Snails]

There weren't any point buy systems in 1st edition.

You didn't "give up" any attribute scores to play a Paladin. You rolled lucky in the first place.

1st edition paladins were obviously more powerful than the other classes, at low levels at least. That's why they had the most stringent requirements for entry (except for the bard). They had restrictions on the number of magic items and the wealth they could retain too.

You are making a number of assumptions about how those stats were rolled, aren't you?

4d6 six times and arrange as you please was a pretty common method, based on...well...everyone I have ever met that ever played D&D. (Not that those players did not sometimes do other things, but what they usually did is as I described.). So if you rolled 17, 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, you most certainly are giving up a lot to be a paladin, just like I said.

Unless you are rolling 3d6 in order, or similar, the paladin is definitely weaker than the other classes. There is zero ambiguity here.

[Keltest]

You are making a number of assumptions about how those stats were rolled, aren't you?

4d6 six times and arrange as you please was a pretty common method, based on...well...everyone I have ever met that ever played D&D. (Not that those players did not sometimes do other things, but what they usually did is as I described.). So if you rolled 17, 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, you most certainly are giving up a lot to be a paladin, just like I said.

Unless you are rolling 3d6 in order, or similar, the paladin is definitely weaker than the other classes. There is zero ambiguity here.

Having actually played a paladin in 1E from level 1 to about 12 (equivalent in AD&D to a 1-epic levels campaign from 3.5) a paladin is one of the strongest classes there is. Good hit dice, good saves, immune to disease, evil outsiders flat out cannot attack them (protection from evil is a great spell, and they just have it passively all the time), turn undead, healing, spellcasting... they get all the best toys.

[Empiar93]

There's sort of the opposite problem in AD&D. Cleric spells tend to take half a round to a round to cast and if someone hits you before you get it off the whole thing is ruined so during combat I find as a cleric you're mostly a discount fighter (forgive me if I'm telling you things you already know). Paladins on the other hand are rocking around with everything fighters get and a lot of bonuses too. I'm actually a bit fond of AD&D paladins, because they seem to me like arguably the most powerful class at most levels, yet they pay for it with this onerous RP duty.

Don’t forget they also pay for it with high XP requirements - much higher than most (if not all) other classes.
Paladins without the code of conduct were just better fighters. So nowadays... paladins are basically just better fighters. I know fighters get other toys to play with these days but their advantage used to be a lower XP curve, equipment proficiencies (magic swords were a class feature), and simplicity. Now? Not so much. But maybe I’m just a grognard.

In 1e/2e, you are giving up +3 AC or +3 HP/level to be a paladin because of the Cha 17 prereq. That is huge.

You’re not exactly wrong, although we always preferred 4d6 down the line. However, I think a lot of people underestimate how valuable charisma was back in the day, probably cuz few people played by the books. Reaction rolls were a big deal, and while 17 charisma is a steep requirement, it means that another, unnoted class feature of the paladin is that you’d NEVER be attacked on sight as a paladin. Reaction rolls are kind of a big deal, and the worst results mean that parley isn’t possible. But with that 17 charisma, it was impossible for a wandering monster group to be immediately hostile; such is the nature of a paladin, and on average they’d be willing to talk things over without going straight to combat.

[Some]

Good-aligned gods don't need to prioritize, as you claim, the most exemplary of their followers above all others, if the less exemplary ones are the ones advancing their causes. Especially when the vast majority of Neutral and Evil gods hold themselves to no such standards, it would be actively counterproductive to favour followers who are simply "good" over those who are more useful.

And if we remember that you can *be* good but still do things that are not good, Good gods don't even have to pick if they don't want to. They can instead use propaganda and encourage naivete so that their good followers remain ignorant and misinformed, and can therefore be effective tools against the followers of other gods without becoming non-good.

That'd seem to fall into what I was saying about a faithless narrator: if the narrator claims that it's a story about a villainous paladin of a Good god, then I'd feel disappointed because I wouldn't consider such a god to be Good, nor the paladin to be a paladin.

It'd be like buying tickets to see a magician pull a brand new car out of their hat.. and then they pull out a little toy car. I mean, sure, they can insist that they did exactly what they claimed and that they did, in fact, pull a car out of their hat.. and then they can keep arguing that position until no one cares to debate it anymore... but it'd be really disappointing.

If a good author's going to write a good story about a villainous paladin, then it'd have to be a paladin who is, very convincingly, truly and genuinely a paladin in every sense, embodying good in the sight of their god, where the god would also have to be truly Good. And then for them to be a villain, they'd have to be a character who a hero would campaign against, despite a truly intelligent, well-informed, Good god believing in the paladin's virtues and wanting to empower them against the hero for the purpose of Good.

But if it's just a story about a "paladin" that's "Good", then that'd be like the magician pulling out a little toy car.

[Shadowknight12]

That'd seem to fall into what I was saying about a faithless narrator: if the narrator claims that it's a story about a villainous paladin of a Good god, then I'd feel disappointed because I wouldn't consider such a god to be Good, nor the paladin to be a paladin.

Then the problem is that you have a very specific definition of Good and paladin, and anything that doesn't fit into that definition cannot be either, so it becomes a neat binary of "do I agree with this? if yes, then it is Good and paladin-like, if not, then I declare them not to be."

By all means, you do you, but not everyone does that.

[Snails]

Having actually played a paladin in 1E from level 1 to about 12 (equivalent in AD&D to a 1-epic levels campaign from 3.5) a paladin is one of the strongest classes there is. Good hit dice, good saves, immune to disease, evil outsiders flat out cannot attack them (protection from evil is a great spell, and they just have it passively all the time), turn undead, healing, spellcasting... they get all the best toys.

In a vacuum, that sounds great, and I do not doubt your PC felt like he carried his weight. But compared to what a cleric or cleric/fighter could do in your paladin's place, it isn't impressive at all.

These other options also have good saves, good AC, and vastly better healing/spellcasting. Heck, the pure cleric hit 12th level and started playing with many super high level spells per day while your paladin was still 9th.

And, no, your paladin's +2 saving throw bonus was not worth mentioning once you get past low levels, because a fighter, cleric, fighter/cleric will be higher level than your paladin. The pure fighter in the party probably had better saves than your paladin, owing to being 2 levels higher and having a 17 in Dex or Con.

[Snails]

You’re not exactly wrong, although we always preferred 4d6 down the line. However, I think a lot of people underestimate how valuable charisma was back in the day, probably cuz few people played by the books. Reaction rolls were a big deal, and while 17 charisma is a steep requirement, it means that another, unnoted class feature of the paladin is that you’d NEVER be attacked on sight as a paladin. Reaction rolls are kind of a big deal, and the worst results mean that parley isn’t possible. But with that 17 charisma, it was impossible for a wandering monster group to be immediately hostile; such is the nature of a paladin, and on average they’d be willing to talk things over without going straight to combat.

That is a fair point. In a certain kind of dungeon crawl or open adventure, that high Cha may be a real benefit. No, I did not see these rolls used much.

I went on a lot of adventures where there was a clear mission. For some reason, for example, the Drow with the higher Charisma did not seem to care about my high Charisma. That they could guess that both we needed them dead and their boss would kill them for not fighting us were probably also factors.

[Hurkyl]

Then the problem is that you have a very specific definition of Good and paladin, and anything that doesn't fit into that definition cannot be either, so it becomes a neat binary of "do I agree with this? if yes, then it is Good and paladin-like, if not, then I declare them not to be."

By all means, you do you, but not everyone does that.

But on the flip side, if an author wants to write "paladin" of a "good" god that isn't about a paladin or a good god, sure they can do what they like, but they need to accept losing/driving away the part of their potential audience that expects words to have meaning, and are upset to find they were just being used as window dressing rather than being descriptive.

Often it comes off as extremely offensive. I'm actually rather put off by the trend I've seen in fiction lately where there's no moral or ethical content at all in the terms "good" and "evil".

[Keltest]

In a vacuum, that sounds great, and I do not doubt your PC felt like he carried his weight. But compared to what a cleric or cleric/fighter could do in your paladin's place, it isn't impressive at all.

These other options also have good saves, good AC, and vastly better healing/spellcasting. Heck, the pure cleric hit 12th level and started playing with many super high level spells per day while your paladin was still 9th.

And, no, your paladin's +2 saving throw bonus was not worth mentioning once you get past low levels, because a fighter, cleric, fighter/cleric will be higher level than your paladin. The pure fighter in the party probably had better saves than your paladin, owing to being 2 levels higher and having a 17 in Dex or Con.

You are wildly misremembering then. I have the XP tables in front of me right now. The start of Paladin level 10 is at 700,000 XP, while the end of fighter level 10 is 750,000 XP. Youre looking at a 1 level advantage, if that, for most of the game.

ETA: I checked for cleric as well. Theyre in the same 1-or-less level difference as the fighter, but with different values.

[Hurkyl]

Not to mention, sometimes dreadfully specific -- such as "can never run from a battle", which is not far afield of the wording of some flaws and can actually be contrary to the interests of Law and Good in some circumstances. The burdens imposed by vague generalities like "do good things" and "promote the interests of your deity" are nowhere near the same level.

Maybe this is a bit of an aside, but it's a little picture vs big picture thing.

This is the Lawful side of the union of Law and Good shining through. While permitting individual discretion on some matter like this might do more Good in a specific story... the god is looking at all stories there will ever be, and can judge that the benefits of having order and consistency are greater over the course of history than leaving it up to individual discretion. E.g. it means potential allies and enemies can know what to expect from the god's paladins, the god is weighing the wrong judgements that paladins might make using their discretion, et cetera.

One can disagree with the judgement that consistency in some aspect is better than leaving it open to individual discretion, and disagreements of that sort are, I think, one of the easier ways that people of good alignments can come into genuine conflict.

[Shadowknight12]

But on the flip side, if an author wants to write "paladin" of a "good" god that isn't about a paladin or a good god, sure they can do what they like, but they need to accept losing/driving away the part of their potential audience that expects words to have meaning, and are upset to find they were just being used as window dressing rather than being descriptive.

Often it comes off as extremely offensive. I'm actually rather put off by the trend I've seen in fiction lately where there's no moral or ethical content at all in the terms "good" and "evil".

Ah, yes, the greatest philosophers in history couldn't come to an agreement on what good or evil actually mean, and instead spawned dozens of different schools of thought and ethics, but yes, we all know what Good and Evil are (because we all share the same cultural backgrounds no matter where we are around the world) and any deviation is a deliberate attempt to deceive and offend and not, say, different people defining the same words in different ways and holding different beliefs and these differences being equally valid.

[Snails]

You are wildly misremembering then. I have the XP tables in front of me right now. The start of Paladin level 10 is at 700,000 XP, while the end of fighter level 10 is 750,000 XP. Youre looking at a 1 level advantage, if that, for most of the game.

ETA: I checked for cleric as well. Theyre in the same 1-or-less level difference as the fighter, but with different values.

I may be misreading the tables, as I am digging for sources online. You are right that the level difference is typical ~1 during the You did mention "doubling progression" period. Later on, though, the other classes will pull away.

We should factor in the +10% xp that a fighter, cleric, and (probably) a fighter/cleric will likely earn. Paladins need a Str 15 and Wis 15 on top of the Cha 17 to get that 10%, which is pretty rare as the need for Dex/Con is very great.

Most likely, just before your paladin turned 12th (1,400,001xp) the fighter would have turned 14th (1,500,001xp)
Of course, the cleric would have turned 14th level (1,350,001xp), a while ago, when your paladin had approximately 1,250,000 xp (still 11th level). So there was a brief period when there was a 3 level gap.

[Hurkyl]

Ah, yes, the greatest philosophers in history couldn't come to an agreement on what good or evil actually mean, and instead spawned dozens of different schools of thought and ethics, but yes, we all know what Good and Evil are (because we all share the same cultural backgrounds no matter where we are around the world) and any deviation is a deliberate attempt to deceive and offend and not, say, different people defining the same words in different ways and holding different beliefs and these differences being equally valid.

It's almost like there's a long-running theme in fiction of acknowledging different schools of thought and exploring their pros and cons and limits, but nowadays it's fashionable to pretend these concepts don't even exist.

And worse, it seems to be fashionable to be deliberately offensive, such as in the manner of your reply.

[Shadowknight12]

And worse, it seems to be fashionable to be deliberately offensive, such as in the manner of your reply.

Being mildly sarcastic isn't being deliberately offensive, and neither is people having opinions and exploring them in their works.

[Vahnavoi]

My interpretation of OotS situation since reading Start of Darkness has been that gods of the setting bend rules of Alignment for their own survival; this is a synthesis of A and C presented in the original post.

More generally:

Paladin antagonists are just fine. The only thing required for perfect to be the enemy of good is for good to not be perfect, "good" in this case referring to the protagonist(s) and "perfect" to the paladin.

"Villain" is a different thing. In common speech, it typically means both antagonist and "opposite of hero", and because audience members often are biased in favor of the protagonist, considering any protagonist a hero, any antagonist will be argued to be "opposite of a hero" AKA "a villain" AKA "a bad guy".

This is not useful.

To get useful analysis out of this, we must acknowledge that degree of protagonism and degree of heroism can be separated to some extent and combined in different ways.

Protagonism and antagonism are fairly simple. Protagonist is the primary actor of a story, typically also being the primary viewpoint character. The antagonist is their opponent, the primary personified challenge and obstacle for them to overcome.

Heroism is more complex. I define hero as someone who does great deeds while espousing virtues of a society. The opposite of a hero, an anti-hero, hence is either someone who does great deeds while espousing vices, or someone who fails to do great deeds despite espousing virtues.

But which society are we talking about? When discussing a work of fiction, at least three matter: society of the author, society of the audience and society described in the work. None of these need to be harmonious with each other, nor are they ever guaranteed to be so, so even in case of a fairly simple work there can be three different evaluations of heroism of a single character.

So, Saphire Guard can be perfectly heroic from the viewpoint of the setting, while being anti-heroic in opinion of Rich Burlew. But you, as a reader, are neither. You can disagree with one or both. This isn't the problem. The problem is failure to acknowledge this.

Failure to acknowledge this is, in general, the problem in using and interpreting works with specific moral frameworks, such as AD&D's alignment system. To give an example: belief in importance of the individual over groups while denying existence of objective good and evil? That's fairly common existential mindset in contemporary readers, but it is also textbook chaotic neutral in terms of AD&D alignment. If a reader with this mindset starts arguing that a lawful good game character can't be lawful or good because that character is acting in violation of that reader's real beliefs, they are committing an error. They are conflating "I disagree with this character" with "this character isn't lawful good", because they failed or refused to acknowledge that the work does not consider their mindset lawful good.

[arimareiji]

Failure to acknowledge this is, in general, the problem in using and interpreting works with specific moral frameworks, such as AD&D's alignment system. To give an example: belief in importance of the individual over groups while denying existence of objective good and evil? That's fairly common existential mindset in contemporary readers, but it is also textbook chaotic neutral in terms of AD&D alignment. If a reader with this mindset starts arguing that a lawful good game character can't be lawful or good because that character is acting in violation of that reader's real beliefs, they are committing an error. They are conflating "I disagree with this character" with "this character isn't lawful good", because they failed or refused to acknowledge that the work does not consider their mindset lawful good.

Neither is meant as an inherent contradiction, just worth note:

If X disagrees with Y's definition of good, that doesn't necessarily make them neutral. Tarquin might say that he believes he's acting for the greater good, and that idealists who oppose him cause greater death and suffering. Miko might also say the same.

Also, the absolutes of lawful and good can absolutely be in conflict. Again, viz. Tarquin (or more specifically, life in his confederation/empire). That doesn't mean no one can be lawful good -- it just means that unless you're omnipotent, in some situations it's impossible for your actions to be both at the same time.

[Vahnavoi]

You aren't talking about the same thing as I am. I was talking about readers, you are talking about characters.

[Keltest]

I may be misreading the tables, as I am digging for sources online. You are right that the level difference is typical ~1 during the You did mention "doubling progression" period. Later on, though, the other classes will pull away.

We should factor in the +10% xp that a fighter, cleric, and (probably) a fighter/cleric will likely earn. Paladins need a Str 15 and Wis 15 on top of the Cha 17 to get that 10%, which is pretty rare as the need for Dex/Con is very great.

Most likely, just before your paladin turned 12th (1,400,001xp) the fighter would have turned 14th (1,500,001xp)
Of course, the cleric would have turned 14th level (1,350,001xp), a while ago, when your paladin had approximately 1,250,000 xp (still 11th level). So there was a brief period when there was a 3 level gap.

Levels past about 10 are pretty meaningless though. You stop gaining new class features and hit dice, and the entire game changes to be one of kingdom management if you stick with a campaign that long. It took us something like 4 years of regular play to even get that far.

[Jason]

Levels past about 10 are pretty meaningless though. You stop gaining new class features and hit dice, and the entire game changes to be one of kingdom management if you stick with a campaign that long. It took us something like 4 years of regular play to even get that far.

Yep. High level 1st ed AD&D games were pretty rare. For one thing, just getting to 9th level represented years of weekly play. The published adventures reflect this, with very few going above 8th as their minimum level. Classic high-level modules Queen of the Demonweb Pits and Tomb of Horros both recommended 10th through 14th.

For another, nearly every demi-human class combination was capped well below 12th level. If you were a dwarf fighter you were capped at 9th level. Eleven mage? 11th. Gnome illusionist? 7th. For some strange reason most races only had unlimited progression as thieves. Pity the half-orc cleric, who can never reach 5th level.
The demi-human races' main advantage was multi-classing, which doubled (or tripled) the XP they needed to advance, so the single-class paladin would be advancing faster than them.
And some of the sub-classes were capped with any race combination, even humans. Druids topped out at 14th. Assassins at 15th.

[Keltest]

Yep. High level 1st ed AD&D games were pretty rare. For one thing, just getting to 9th level represented years of weekly play. The published adventures reflect this, with very few going above 8th as their minimum level. Classic high-level modules Queen of the Demonweb Pits and Tomb of Horros both recommended 10th through 14th.

For another, nearly every demi-human class combination was capped well below 12th level. If you were a dwarf fighter you were capped at 9th level. Eleven mage? 11th. Gnome illusionist? 7th. For some strange reason most races only had unlimited progression as thieves. Pity the half-orc cleric, who can never reach 5th level.
The demi-human races' main advantage was multi-classing, which doubled (or tripled) the XP they needed to advance, so the single-class paladin would be advancing faster than them.
And some of the sub-classes were capped with any race combination, even humans. Druids topped out at 14th. Assassins at 15th.

And thats not even counting the classes that, in addition to an XP requirement, needed to locate and duel another member of the class to advance in levels. Druids in particular had a hard limit to the number of X level druids there could be in the world, though there were a couple other classes that operated similarly.

[Snails]

The demi-human races' main advantage was multi-classing, which doubled (or tripled) the XP they needed to advance, so the single-class paladin would be advancing faster than them.

A multi-class only goes slightly slower than a single class paladin. When the boundaries are doubling, you do not fall more than one level behind (as Keltest reminded me, above). In the case of the unusually slow progressing paladin, that different is going to average significantly less than 1 level.

It is the outlier campaign in which racial level maximums mattered much. After all, getting stuck in one of your classes at level 7 is not a perceptible detriment until the single class class character is level 9. Nor does being multiclassed as Something7/SomethingElse8 feel weaker than SingleClass9 -- quite the opposite. Most campaigns never made it to that point, especially if you did not insist on a race/class combination that was particularly inauspicious. And in 2e the maximums were substantially increased, so this level loss became much rarer.

[Keltest]

A multi-class only goes slightly slower than a single class paladin. When the boundaries are doubling, you do not fall more than one level behind (as Keltest reminded me, above). In the case of the unusually slow progressing paladin, that different is going to average significantly less than 1 level.

It is the outlier campaign in which racial level maximums mattered much. After all, getting stuck in one of your classes at level 7 is not a perceptible detriment until the single class class character is level 9. Nor does being multiclassed as Something7/SomethingElse8 feel weaker than SingleClass9 -- quite the opposite. Most campaigns never made it to that point, especially if you did not insist on a race/class combination that was particularly inauspicious. And in 2e the maximums were substantially increased, so this level loss became much rarer.

Its worth pointing out that multiclassing still is subject to the racial level restrictions, and so your half-elf fighter/cleric will be a fighter 8/cleric 5 while the single classed paladin is at level 9. For most races in 1st edition, Fighter/cleric is not a legal combination at all.

[Jason]

A multi-class only goes slightly slower than a single class paladin. When the boundaries are doubling, you do not fall more than one level behind (as Keltest reminded me, above). In the case of the unusually slow progressing paladin, that different is going to average significantly less than 1 level.

A 6th level paladin needs 45,0001 XP.
At 45,0001: the cleric, fighter, ranger, magic-user, illusionist, and assassin have all been 6th for varying amounts of time (some just 5,000 XP ago). The thief just reached 7th level 2,500 XP ago. The monk is still 5th level for another 2,500 XP.
Meanwhile the dwarf fighter/thief is 5th/6th level, the eleven fighter/mage is 5th/5th, and the half-elf cleric/fighter/magic-user is 5th/4th/4th.
Yep, the paladin's slower progression ends up being not that big a deal.

[Snails]

Its worth pointing out that multiclassing still is subject to the racial level restrictions, and so your half-elf fighter/cleric will be a fighter 8/cleric 5 while the single classed paladin is at level 9. For most races in 1st edition, Fighter/cleric is not a legal combination at all.

Fair points. Now that you mention it, my experience with 1e saw a lot of diversity in PC builds. But the trend was towards demi-human multiclassing, and that trend was strong and strengthening when transitioning to 2e. Making a reasonable match between race and multiclass choice was difficult to manage.

[Keltest]

Fair points. Now that you mention it, my experience with 1e saw a lot of diversity in PC builds. But the trend was towards demi-human multiclassing, and that trend was strong and strengthening when transitioning to 2e. Making a reasonable match between race and multiclass choice was difficult to manage.

I mean, thats not really surprising at all. By RAW, only humans can be paladins, so if you didnt want to be a human you were SOL on that department. Multiclassing was specifically intended to compensate for the lower level limits of demihuman characters. So if you liked elves... well, you werent going to be a paladin for sure.

[Edreyn]

I know how to explain paladins actions and can prove that they acted as Good!

Being holy warriors paladins must be well familiar with Planes lore. Among that, they surely know that when children, that are yet innocent, die they go to Mount Celestia. And we assume that all goblin children and not-evil by definition, so they too will go to Mount Celestia.
The majority of goblin adults, unfortunately, for whatever reasons often do evil things like raiding, enslaving etc. Also, goblins worship The Dark One, who is not a full-scale deity, and hence has no divine realm where they could find shelter upon death. Goblins who died after growing up will surely go to Acheron - and that's if they are lucky! If they are less lucky then might even end at Blood War as tanar'ri cannon (catapult?) fodder, what a horrid fate!

Will someone argue that killing goblin children that are yet innocent to to rescue them from torment in afterlife is an act of Good? Of course paladins were eager and happy to slay them, they rescued them from the eternity of torment!

Why kill adult goblins then? Well, the most obvious reason, that they tried to stop paladins from killing their children, they are not familiar with Planes enough and can't understand that it's for their own good. Paladins simply had no choice. Well, since adults died protecting their children, even if they were oblivious to the true reason behind it, this is still an act of Good. So maybe at least a few of them might get a better afterlife as well.


P.S. Of course this is irony! I don't understand why so many people treat a comic that seriously!

P.P.S. (Removed, it's in another thread)

[Vahnavoi]

You are wasting virtual blue ink. Killing them all and letting gods sort them out, in a setting where there are gods to sort them out, can be a legitimate option in D&D. In fact, in OotS, various good gods agree, at least in the limited context of the Snarl existentially threatening gods and mortals both.

Back in the day, Gygax specifically defended the idea of executing a repentant criminal in D&D, by noting that they'd possibly go to a good afterlife and that this could be better than allowing the possibility of backsliding. Before you go off a tangent decrying that as all kinds of horrible, consider how much of your opinion is informed by not believing real life is like D&D.

[Worldsong]

I know how to explain paladins actions and can prove that they acted as Good!

Being holy warriors paladins must be well familiar with Planes lore. Among that, they surely know that when children, that are yet innocent, die they go to Mount Celestia. And we assume that all goblin children and not-evil by definition, so they too will go to Mount Celestia.
The majority of goblin adults, unfortunately, for whatever reasons often do evil things like raiding, enslaving etc. Also, goblins worship The Dark One, who is not a full-scale deity, and hence has no divine realm where they could find shelter upon death. Goblins who died after growing up will surely go to Acheron - and that's if they are lucky! If they are less lucky then might even end at Blood War as tanar'ri cannon (catapult?) fodder, what a horrid fate!

Will someone argue that killing goblin children that are yet innocent to to rescue them from torment in afterlife is an act of Good? Of course paladins were eager and happy to slay them, they rescued them from the eternity of torment!

Why kill adult goblins then? Well, the most obvious reason, that they tried to stop paladins from killing their children, they are not familiar with Planes enough and can't understand that it's for their own good. Paladins simply had no choice. Well, since adults died protecting their children, even if they were oblivious to the true reason behind it, this is still an act of Good. So maybe at least a few of them might get a better afterlife as well.


P.S. Of course this is irony! I don't understand why so many people treat a comic that seriously!

P.P.S. (Removed, it's in another thread)

I know this was meant as a joke, but I'm pedantic enough to still respond to two errors.

The first is that so far as we know the Dark One is a full-fledged deity. Of note is that when Jirix talks about what he saw in the afterlife before he was called back (#0704) he describes it as an army of goblinoids, with the Dark One personally in charge. If goblinoids went to a normal alignment-based afterlife upon death it would be unlikely that they'd all tidily be gathered in the same place under the Dark One's control. More likely is that Jirix went to the Dark One's divine realm.

Also, Thor describes the Dark One as a fellow deity and not some kind of pseudo-godling, and his and Loki's plan kind of hinges on the idea that the Dark One (or more accurately, the Purple Pantheon) can take the place of the Green Pantheon in acting as the fourth quiddity.

The second is that there's a forum post from the author floating around somewhere that he follows the idea that children will go to the same afterlife as their mother until old enough to form their own alignment and potential devotion to a specific deity. So the young children of Evil mothers go to Evil afterlives unless both mother and child get pulled into a deity's divine realm instead.

EDIT:
And if you want to know why Rich would use such a ruling for the children, I honestly would not be surprised if he did it precisely to prevent someone arguing that killing children before they can do Evil would be a Good act. Which, again, I'm aware was meant as a joke here, but there's people who'd try to argue that in earnest.

[The MunchKING]

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.

They might not even Fall as a consequence of their own actions, if they keep pursuing Lawful Good until the end. Of course those guys would get murdered by Tarquin for political gain once they had served their purpose, but being a Paladin isn't easy.

[Dragonus45]

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

Yea I know right, people who go out to do good, help people, and destroy evil before it can cause harm to innocents are just the worst how could anyone ever see such people as anything but monsters!