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

[Keltest]

Again, apparently that's not the case in the Stickverse, because if it is, the gods are ether incredibly dumb (for creating a system that does nothing) or incredibly shady (for creating a cruel system they know to do nothing). That the system is in place is explicitly confirmed by Thor so I see little point in arguing whether it exists or not.

When somebody is arguing that all of humanity is directly responsible for the tiny handful of adventurers that it produces, i will absolutely push back against that, especially if they simultaneously try to claim that goblinoids are not all collectively responsible for the action of the raiders that Redcloak explicitly has said exist that are the reason for why people consider goblins to be "attack on sight" in the first place.

[Metastachydium]

When somebody is arguing that all of humanity is directly responsible for the tiny handful of adventurers that it produces, i will absolutely push back against that, especially if they simultaneously try to claim that goblinoids are not all collectively responsible for the action of the raiders that Redcloak explicitly has said exist that are the reason for why people consider goblins to be "attack on sight" in the first place.

That fails to address anything I said above.

[Ionathus]

Redcloak deliberately used his troops in the most inefficient way possible for most of the battle, and the hobgoblins suffered as much damage from "friendly" mismanagement as they did from enemy tactics. And you know what? The Azurites still lost, handily. That would indicate an incredibly overwhelming amount of force from the Hobgoblins.

Or, I dunno, it would indicate a sorcerer lich and a level 15-16 cleric, neither of whom gave a single hoot about the hobgoblins' lives?

You seem to be looking at Azure City's 10,000 soldiers and the hobgoblins' 30,000 and saying "oh, easy peasy, 30,000 - 10,000 = 20,000, the hobgoblins win comfortably." But war isn't subtractive. There are loads of different factors. The Azurites had defenses, walls, better quality armor & weapons, and more magic users. Heck, they would've even had more soldiers, if two high-powered magic users hadn't taken out all the early warning beacons. Without Redcloak's Titanium Elementals, the walls would've caused far more problems. Without Xykon in the throne room, paladins and clerics and maybe even multiclassed wizards are on the walls, healing and raising morale and taking out troublesome individuals.

War isn't simple. A well-trained and well-equipped force, holding a strong defensive position, does not count at a 1:1 ratio for an attacking horde without sophisticated tactics or siege capabilities. Just looking at the numbers gives an extremely incomplete picture, especially in a world where high-level casters are basically demigods, and can alter the field of battle as they see fit. The author of the comic has outright stated that kingdoms rise and fall based on the whims of high-level adventurers. You seem to be ignoring all of that in favor of "the hobgoblins, without RC & Big X, have more dudes and that's all that matters."


Look, people can have a not-great lot in life and still be content with it. I think you're missing the point of why other goblinoids don't share Redcloak's fervor for the plan: the point is not that the goblins are doing perfectly fine and don't need anything to get better. The point is that there are other routes to success, routes that the other goblinoids are trying to employ, and Redcloak keeps pulling them into TDO's outlandish scheme. That's an indictment of Redcloak, not a refutation of the "goblinoids got the short end of the stick" narrative.

[Vahnavoi]

Paladin A rules a land where it is taught that singing and dancing are evil and that people are required to work 12 hours each day and pray 4 hours. Anyone who tries to escape are hunted down and brought back because a good shepherd doesn't allow his lambs to get lost.

Paladin B lives next door and rescues those from Kingdom A who flee oppression and enslavement. That they will inevitably come into conflict is almost guaranteed.

Which one is evil?

Trick question. If they are both truly are AD&D Paladins, neither is evil. Neither needs to be evil, two lawful good characters can be in conflict and go to war with each other. It says so in the rules.

If you are talking about non-AD&D "paladins" that could be of any alignment, then you have not provided enough detail to make any real discernment.

[Metastachydium]

You seem to be looking at Azure City's 10,000 soldiers and the hobgoblins' 30,000 and saying "oh, easy peasy, 30,000 - 10,000 = 20,000, the hobgoblins win comfortably." But war isn't subtractive. There are loads of different factors. The Azurites had defenses, walls, better quality armor & weapons, and more magic users. Heck, they would've even had more soldiers, if two high-powered magic users hadn't taken out all the early warning beacons. Without Redcloak's Titanium Elementals, the walls would've caused far more problems. Without Xykon in the throne room, paladins and clerics and maybe even multiclassed wizards are on the walls, healing and raising morale and taking out troublesome individuals.

Heck, there was a bunch of spellcasters on the battlements that Xykon and Tsukiko wiped out and another in the courtyard that Redcloak and the chlorine elemental handled.

[Jason]

I'm pretty sure the Twelve Gods would consider killing an unarmed old man who's both your superior and not an immediate threat both Chaotic and Evil. Especially since Miko's basis for doing so was a completely unfounded accusation of Evilness so it probably counts as killing an innocent person as well since she didn't have evidence of him actually committing any crimes or wrongdoings.

It wasn't completely unfounded, and Shojo was no innocent.
Shojo had lied to the Sapphire Guard, was feigning a disability he didn't have, and had admitted to manipulating the courts to circumvent the law. Hinjo agreed that he was going to have to face charges. And Shojo was no harmless old man. He was the ruler of the city with loyal soldiers at his beck and call and a canny manipulator.
Miko's crime was arguably attempting to short-circuit the law and go straight to punishment, probably a more severe punishment than would have been handed over by the courts - it seems to me like more of a chaotic act rather than an evil one.

[Metastachydium]

It wasn't completely unfounded, and Shinjo was no innocent.
Shinjo had lied to the Sapphire Guard, was feigning a disability he didnt have, and had admitted to manipulating the courts to circumvent the law. Hinjo agreed that he was going to have to face charges. And Shinjo was no harmless old man. He was the ruler of the city with loyal soldiers at his beck and call and a canny manipulator.
Miko's crime was arguably attempting to short-circuit the law and go straight to punishment, probably a more severe punishment than would have been handed over by the courts - it seems to me like more of a chaotic act rather than an evil one.

At that point, Shojo was a defenseless old man whom Miko bisected with extreme prejudice. I can't see how that would be „merely Chaotic.”

[Worldsong]

It wasn't completely unfounded, and Shinjo was no innocent.
Shinjo had lied to the Sapphire Guard, was feigning a disability he didnt have, and had admitted to manipulating the courts to circumvent the law. Hinjo agreed that he was going to have to face charges. And Shinjo was no harmless old man. He was the ruler of the city with loyal soldiers at his beck and call and a canny manipulator.
Miko's crime was arguably attempting to short-circuit the law and go straight to punishment, probably a more severe punishment than would have been handed over by the courts - it seems to me like more of a chaotic act rather than an evil one.

That actually makes it sound more so like the problem was Miko committing an Evil act, since Shojo would face charges for crimes of a Chaotic nature rather than an Evil nature. Lying, deception and sidestepping the law are all Chaotic acts.

And even if Shojo was guilty of those things (admittedly, he was) that doesn't change the fact that Miko attacked an unarmed old man who was no immediate threat to her, and she did so not for the crimes Hinjo accused Shojo of but because of her own fantastical delusion that Shojo somehow was in league with Xykon

Sounds like a cut and dry Evil act to me.

[Keltest]

That fails to address anything I said above.

Allow me to explain my frustrations with many people on your side of the argument more directly then. This will be my last post on the topic, because every time it gets brought up, the posts seem to inexplicably turn invisible, and im pretty tired of that.


These two positions are being held simultaneously by many:

"Just because large swaths of goblin society do participate in raiding, we cant judge all goblins like that! Attacks against the goblinoids are unjustified! Systemic racism!"

"The PC races tacitly condone the existence of a tiny handful of aberrant adventurers going out and killing people! Clearly all the PC races are directly complicit in this! This is proof of systemic racism!"

[Ionathus]

It wasn't completely unfounded, and Shinjo was no innocent.
Shinjo had lied to the Sapphire Guard, was feigning a disability he didnt have, and had admitted to manipulating the courts to circumvent the law. Hinjo agreed that he was going to have to face charges. And Shinjo was no harmless old man. He was the ruler of the city with loyal soldiers at his beck and call and a canny manipulator.
Miko's crime was arguably attempting to short-circuit the law and go straight to punishment, probably a more severe punishment than would have been handed over by the courts - it seems to me like more of a chaotic act rather than an evil one.

None of Shojo's crimes are Evil, though. They're all very clearly acts that he (and most others) believed to be Good, but which fell outside of traditional lawful behavior. It's the equivalent of Roran disobeying a stupid order in Brisingr and saving his squadron, but getting court-martialed and whipped for it because you're not allowed to disobey your commanding officer. But nobody suggested that made him a bad person.

You can break the law and still be a good person, especially in Stickworld. Just ask Haley.

edit:

Allow me to explain my frustrations with many people on your side of the argument more directly then. This will be my last post on the topic, because every time it gets brought up, the posts seem to inexplicably turn invisible, and im pretty tired of that.

People are ignoring those posts because they're based on completely unprovable arguments. Show me proof in the comic that "large swaths" of goblinoids go out raiding. Show me proof that adventurers killing goblins is looked down on by the human/elf/dwarf population at large, rather than considered pest control or "oh that's just adventurers doing what they do."

Your arguments are based on multiple false assumptions and a lot of speculation, when four main characters (including a creator of the world) agree that goblins got a raw deal and the other races never really seemed to care. People are ignoring your argument because it's pretty solidly refuted by the comic itself.

[Jason]

You can break the law and still be a good person, especially in Stickworld. Just ask Haley.

But you can't break the law regularly and remain lawful, and Miko seems to have fallen primarily because she attacked a person who was still at that point her lawful commander and liege lord. She had attacked and killed creatures who were much less of a threat to her than the ruler of an entire city before without the slightest sign that the twelve gods were going to punish her for it.

[Keltest]

But you can't break the law regularly and remain lawful, and Miko seems to have fallen primarily because she attacked a person who was still at that point her lawful commander and liege lord. She had attacked and killed creatures who were much less of a threat to her than the ruler of an entire city before without the slightest sign that the twelve gods were going to punish her for it.

We've seen her attack and kill a pair of evil bandits who attacked her first, some ogres who violently kidnapped an old man, the Order of the Stick who she had good reason to believe at the time to be evil monsters, and Belkar who actually is an evil monster. Shojo is the first person she has actually killed who could be described as pretty clearly innocent.

[hamishspence]

The only creatures I recall Miko attacking prior to Shojo, are either armed, or the MiTD.

Bandits? Samatha was armed with magic, her father armed with swords.
The Order? Armed.
Ogres? Armed. In fact she insists on them arming themselves before she attacks them.
Redcloak? Armed with magic.
MiTD? Associated with Xykon.

Shojo is not adirect physical threat the way all the previous ones were.

[Worldsong]

But you can't break the law regularly and remain lawful, and Miko seems to have fallen primarily because she attacked a person who was still at that point her lawful commander and liege lord. She had attacked and killed creatures who were much less of a threat to her than the ruler of an entire city before without the slightest sign that the twelve gods were going to punish her for it.

Shojo was not shown to have any inclination to use his position as a ruler to harm Miko in any way (except maybe mentally by sending her away on lonely missions). And as a combatant? Every creature Miko has killed on-screen has been a more powerful combatant than Shojo, and also more willing to put up a fight.

Miko had no good reason to believe Shojo was in any way a threat to her since her accusations of him being Evil were entirely unfounded.

[Jason]

We've seen her attack and kill a pair of evil bandits who attacked her first, some ogres who violently kidnapped an old man, the Order of the Stick who she had good reason to believe at the time to be evil monsters, and Belkar who actually is an evil monster. Shojo is the first person she has actually killed who could be described as pretty clearly innocent.

My point was that the bandit leaders, in their weakened state, were less of a threat to her than Shojo was. She killed each of them in a single round. Shojo was more of a threat because he had guards and a city and Hinjo and some PCs backing him up.

[The MunchKING]

But you can't break the law regularly and remain lawful,

You can if you have a strong personal code that you uphold to an exacting degree which opposes the law.

For example, picture a Paladin in a land where the law says you have to be evil, and mandates doing several kinds of evil acts. The Paladin opposes this and breaks the law by not doing Evil, but Good. They are still Lawful Good despite breaking the law all day everyday, because they are upholding their Paladin Oaths possibly at great expense.

[Worldsong]

My point was that the bandit leaders, in their weakened state, were less of a threat to her than Shojo was. She killed each of them in a single round. Shojo was more of a threat because he had guards and a city and Hinjo and some PCs backing him up.

Shojo had the potential to be a greater threat but wasn't because he never used that potential and didn't give any indication of planning to use that potential in the future. At the time that Miko attacked Shojo only Hinjo, Roy and Belkar were in position to interfere, and Shojo didn't make a single move to have them intervene or attack Miko.

Miko walked up to an unarmed, defenceless old man who'd been like a father to her and who had given no indication that he had any plans of harming her, and nearly bisected him diagonally.

The fact that Shojo could in theory have the entire city guard swarm Miko and mob her to death is irrelevant because Shojo did not and would not realistically have done that.

[Jason]

Allow me to explain my frustrations with many people on your side of the argument more directly then. This will be my last post on the topic, because every time it gets brought up, the posts seem to inexplicably turn invisible, and im pretty tired of that.


These two positions are being held simultaneously by many:

"Just because large swaths of goblin society do participate in raiding, we cant judge all goblins like that! Attacks against the goblinoids are unjustified! Systemic racism!"

"The PC races tacitly condone the existence of a tiny handful of aberrant adventurers going out and killing people! Clearly all the PC races are directly complicit in this! This is proof of systemic racism!"

I don't buy the idea that there is systemic racism evident in all of the actions of the "PC races" against goblinoids. Sometimes they really are just defending themselves, like the Azurites. Sometimes the goblins really are a threat to the existence of the world, like Redcloak, or trying to feed the humans to their pets, like Oona. But since everyone that stops to think about it seems to agree in the comic that goblins really are being treated unfairly then there must be some amount of treatment that really is unfair.

The exact amount or degree of the unfairness are both still open for debate, because it has only really been talked about, not actively shown on-panel. We've certainly never seen a peaceful goblin try to enter a human settlement and then been mobbed and killed just for having green skin and tusks.

I would also daresay that most of the goblinoids that adventuring groups go out and kill are up to no good and the world is better off without them. We have seen adventuring groups ready to kill orcs that were just misunderstood, but most of the goblinoids killed on-panel in the main comic were (willingly or no) minions of Xykon or Redcloak and really were actively taking part in a plan that could result in the destruction of the world and has already resulted in the killing and enslavement of thousands. The Order is certainly not going to have to do penance for every goblinoid they have killed in pursuit of destroying Xykon and foiling The Plan.

[Keltest]

My point was that the bandit leaders, in their weakened state, were less of a threat to her than Shojo was. She killed each of them in a single round. Shojo was more of a threat because he had guards and a city and Hinjo and some PCs backing him up.

So? Killing him was an Evil act, and paladins automatically fall for committing one. Even if their ability to actually kill her was negligible, the bandits attacked her first and the ogres had demonstrated their malevolence when they kidnapped that dirt farmer. Shojo hadnt actually done anything to justify violence against him.

[hamishspence]

The exact amount or degree of the unfairness are both still open for debate, because it has only really been talked about, not actively shown on-panel. We've certainly never seen a peaceful goblin try to enter a human settlement and then been mobbed and killed just for having green skin and tusks.

We've seen a peaceful orc enter a settlement and be immediately "fled from and then have a bounty put on them, just for having green skin and tusks" in an Origin of PCs flashback scene.

[Worldsong]

We've seen a peaceful orc enter a settlement and be immediately "fled from and then have a bounty put on them, just for having green skin and tusks" in an Origin of PCs flashback scene.

Also arguably the reason why we haven't seen such examples with goblinoids might be because no goblinoid is suicidal enough to get close to a PC-race settlement without being prepared for combat.

According to Redcloak orcs are somewhat tolerated because half-orcs are a thing, so you can see the friction between orcs and other races because interaction still exists.

[Keltest]

Also arguably the reason why we haven't seen such examples with goblinoids might be because no goblinoid is suicidal enough to get close to a PC-race settlement without being prepared for combat.

According to Redcloak orcs are somewhat tolerated because half-orcs are a thing, so you can see the friction between orcs and other races because interaction still exists.

Right-eye and his family seemed to have no issues getting along with their human neighbors.

[Kish]

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.

Jason already pointed out the problem with adding the scare quotes, but I would add that this interpretation defeats the purpose of the whole "make a Good-aligned villain" exercise with Miko: Miko was never Good, merely "Good," in a world presumably full of "Good" villains.

I think there's a consistency issue here. Tarquin is certainly supposed to be wrong when he claims to be above the "limited and unrealistic" alignment system, but Rich also called the paladin class dysfunctional for being obligated to police its associates. Gin-Jun is the only paladin character who acts overtly Lawful Evil from the moment he's introduced and clearly doesn't Fall until he attacks O-Chul, and I suspect the answer, for him, is that Rich considers that speech isn't enough of an action to count as a Fall-worthy action, and for a very long time, Gin-Jun has been standing back, giving others horrible orders and nakedly fascist moral counseling, and never getting his own hands dirty.

[Worldsong]

Right-eye and his family seemed to have no issues getting along with their human neighbors.

I wonder if Right-Eye was prepared for a fight to break out the first time they came into contact with the humans and was very relieved when it turned out this small group of humans was better than what he was used to.

[Jason]

We've seen a peaceful orc enter a settlement and be immediately "fled from and then have a bounty put on them, just for having green skin and tusks" in an Origin of PCs flashback scene.

Spoiler

Show

Grank was also carrying a two-handed battle axe and wearing black, so it may not have been just his orcish appearance that caused the shop keeper to flee. Roy's party was also hired only after three other adventuring parties were killed by the orcs. There's no mention of the orcs facing any consequences for having killed those adventurers, which you might expect if the locals were motivated by anti-orc prejudice.

All-spoiler post kind of by necessity.

[Metastachydium]

Spoiler

Show

Grank was also carrying a two-handed battle axe and wearing black, so it may not have been just his orcish appearance that caused the shop keeper to flee. Roy's party was also hired only after three other adventuring parties were killed by the orcs. There's no mention of the orcs facing any consequences for having killed those adventurers, which you might expect if the locals were motivated by anti-orc prejudice.

All-spoiler post kind of by necessity.

„Yessir. They're armed to the teeth.”

[Jason]

Jason already pointed out the problem with adding the scare quotes, but I would add that this interpretation defeats the purpose of the whole "make a Good-aligned villain" exercise with Miko: Miko was never Good, merely "Good," in a world presumably full of "Good" villains.

Quoted for truth. In any game I was running, Miko would have fallen long before she did in-comic. Paladins in my games really have to intend to be good, not just follow the letter.

I think there's a consistency issue here. Tarquin is certainly supposed to be wrong when he claims to be above the "limited and unrealistic" alignment system, but Rich also called the paladin class dysfunctional for being obligated to police its associates.

And I maintain that any truly good character, not just paladins, should be concerned if his associates are off raping and pillaging as soon as he turns his back on them.

Spoiler

Show

Gin-Jun is the only paladin character who acts overtly Lawful Evil from the moment he's introduced and clearly doesn't Fall until he attacks O-Chul...

It's not even clear that he falls there. The only clear "this paladin just fell" moment that we have in the comic is Miko.

...and I suspect the answer, for him, is that Rich considers that speech isn't enough of an action to count as a Fall-worthy action, and for a very long time, Gin-Jun has been standing back, giving others horrible orders and nakedly fascist moral counseling, and never getting his own hands dirty.

Which he really shouldn't have been able to do. Giving evil orders or persuading others to do evil qualifies as a willful evil act in my book.

[Kish]

Spoiler

Show

Which he really shouldn't have been able to do. Giving evil orders or persuading others to do evil qualifies as a willful evil act in my book.

Sure, I agree, but I don't think Rich does.

Here, two members of the Order torture a helpless prisoner, and someone who Rich will later describe as "unimpeachably Lawful Good" looks nauseated but makes no efforts to intervene.

[hamishspence]

Durkon's guilty of inaction rather than "giving the order to do something evil".

Gin-Jun's not having Fallen already by the start of the story, I would put down to:

Spoiler

Show

never actually giving direct orders to do something evil - more open-ended advice, as with Miko, than orders.

When he suggests that the service the celestial can do is a massacre, it immediately turns him down, and he has to amend his suggestion to something else.

[Jasdoif]

Spoiler

Show

Which he really shouldn't have been able to do. Giving evil orders or persuading others to do evil qualifies as a willful evil act in my book.

Sure, I agree, but I don't think Rich does.

My current impression of the comic overall is it deliberately satirizes following the "definition" of "Good" to the letter while violating the spirit of it when it's convenient. Showing how a higher power proclaiming something is "good" does not make it so, whether that power is a deity or a deity's representative or even an abstract force of the universe; that if your own judgements don't mesh with the judgements that have been made for you, it isn't automatically you who's wrong.