Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

[Jason]

Oh? Redcloak's six-year-old-equivalent sister was a threat to the world?

As far as they knew, yes.

The Southern gods didn't do anything to tell them they were wrong, like cause them all to fall on the spot. Instead the Southern gods let them continue to believe they had done the right thing, except for leaving the Crimson Mantle on the ground, and continued to supply their clerics divinations as to where to go next to hunt the next High Priest.

[Peelee]

As far as they knew, yes.

The Southern gods didn't do anything to tell them they were wrong, like cause them all to fall on the spot. Instead the Southern gods let them continue to believe they had done the right thing, except for leaving the Crimson Mantle on the ground, and continued to supply their clerics divinations as to where to go next to hunt the next High Priest.

Funny, that's the entire motivation behind the primary antagonist in How the Paladin Got His Scar, and it's explicitly depicted as wrong and racist.

[dancrilis]

... at least some of that was killing goblins for being goblins.

That might be the case but I am not sure about it.

Spoiler: HTPGHS

Show

In O-Chul's backstory regarding his parents some did want him hanged for his part in their crimes - the people of Azure City might hold children of all races accountable for their connection to criminal actions of the parents.

If the divinations had brought the paladins to a human cult of this big demon prince guy who was trying to harnass the gates is it possible they might have killed the children in the cult also - I wouldn't know, but it seem plausible based on HTPGHS.

[Fyraltari]

That might be the case but I am not sure about it.

Spoiler: HTPGHS

Show

In O-Chul's backstory regarding his parents some did want him hanged for his part in their crimes - the people of Azure City might hold children of all races accountable for their connection to criminal actions of the parents.

If the divinations had brought the paladins to a human cult of this big demon prince guy who was trying to harnass the gates is it possible they might have killed the children in the cult also - I wouldn't know, but it seem plausible based on HTPGHS.

Oh for crying out loud!

Spoiler: Start of Darkness & How the Paladin Got His Scar

Show

O-Chul was twelve and had actually been an accomplice to his parents misdeeds and was trying to wield a weapon when they found him and still the Azurite soldiers captured him alive. The Sapphire Guards ran over six-year-olds on horseback while showcasing their Feats. They were having fun while, and that is the words of their commander exterminating goblins. This was wholesale slaughter.

Also, no, if the paladins had found a priest of the big evil demon guy living in a human village, I am pretty sure they wouldn't have killed everybody in the village. Because as these examples show, Azurite culture place value on human lives, not on goblin.

[hroþila]

"Slaughtering civilians (including little children) is not Evil if you really believe it's necessary" is certainly a thing someone might choose to say I guess

[brian 333]

The Sapphire Guard is not the Azurite Army. It has a different chain of command and a wholly different purpose.

This is not intended to defend the Sapphire Guard, but to point out that that they are as similar as potatoes and tomatoes.

Azurites collectively repudiate violence against human children and the Sapphire Guard commits acts of violence against goblin children are both true statements. That the Azurites therefore condone violence against goblin children does not follow, nor does the conclusion that the Sapphire Guard would not commit violence against a human village and human children if so commanded.

Because it is a theme of the story, racial bigotry is the most likely motivation for what happened. But what came after clearly demonstrated that racism was not actively encouraged by the Azurite populace or government.

[Fyraltari]

The Sapphire Guard is not the Azurite Army. It has a different chain of command and a wholly different purpose.

This is not intended to defend the Sapphire Guard, but to point out that that they are as similar as potatoes and tomatoes.

Azurites collectively repudiate violence against human children and the Sapphire Guard commits acts of violence against goblin children are both true statements. That the Azurites therefore condone violence against goblin children does not follow, nor does the conclusion that the Sapphire Guard would not commit violence against a human village and human children if so commanded.

Because it is a theme of the story, racial bigotry is the most likely motivation for what happened. But what came after clearly demonstrated that racism was not actively encouraged by the Azurite populace or government.

The Sapphire Guard is a product of Azurite society. Specifically, at the time of Azurite nobility, their beliefs are probbaly a reflection of those commonly accepted in their social group. We know that Therkla, who was tangentially involved with Azurite nobility also faced discrimination for being half-orc.

I am not sure what you mean by "what came after clearly demonstrated that racism was not actively encouraged by the Azurite populace or government" we know Shojo disaproved, but that's it.

[brian 333]

What happened was that the leadership of the Guard was changed.

[Jason]

Funny, that's the entire motivation behind the primary antagonist in How the Paladin Got His Scar, and it's explicitly depicted as wrong and racist.

Exactly.
In other words, the Southern gods were being wrong and racist. Sure, they will cause Miko to fall for killing her liege lord, but they won't do anything to paladins acting in their name while they massacre goblin children. For raid after raid and year after year.

[Fyraltari]

What happened was that the leadership of the Guard was changed.

Spoiler: HtPGHS

Show

Gin-Jun died and Shojo decided to stop delegating so much. I don't really see how that's evidence for the racist beliefs of the Sapphire Guard being an oddity.

[brian 333]

Spoiler: HtPGHS

Show

Gin-Jun died and Shojo decided to stop delegating so much. I don't really see how that's evidence for the racist beliefs of the Sapphire Guard being an oddity.

Fair enough. We also don't have evidence that Shojo restrained acts of racism, but I think it is implied.

[Mechalich]

Exactly.
In other words, the Southern gods were being wrong and racist. Sure, they will cause Miko to fall for killing her liege lord, but they won't do anything to paladins acting in their name while they massacre goblin children. For raid after raid and year after year.

That's the Watsonian explanation anyway: even the supposedly good gods are actually dark tinged and the world is a grimdark hellscape. From a more Dolyist perspective the author prioritizes a point about D&D gameplay over world building leading to an in-universe element - paladins who do evil and remain paladins - that makes no sense.

Ultimately, Rich made a mistake. He shouldn't have sent paladins out to massacre Redcloak's village or to conduct massacres against other goblins (as opposed to more formalized warfare). That created an un-squarable circle where he presented definitionally good beings performing an action clearly intended to code for the audience as evil but who remained definitionally good after doing so. This critically compromised the moral underpinnings of the entire story because it robs the term 'good' of any in-universe value.

[Liquor Box]

Oh for crying out loud!

Spoiler: Start of Darkness & How the Paladin Got His Scar

Show

O-Chul was twelve and had actually been an accomplice to his parents misdeeds and was trying to wield a weapon when they found him and still the Azurite soldiers captured him alive. The Sapphire Guards ran over six-year-olds on horseback while showcasing their Feats. They were having fun while, and that is the words of their commander exterminating goblins. This was wholesale slaughter.

Appearing to enjoying the killing of goblins, and using callous terms like "exterminating" seems pretty similar with the callous nature of Redcloak's comment that "If I don't get to kill a paladin today, i will be cross".

Also, no, if the paladins had found a priest of the big evil demon guy living in a human village, I am pretty sure they wouldn't have killed everybody in the village. Because as these examples show, Azurite culture place value on human lives, not on goblin.

I think it's also that they pinged as evil on the Paladin's detect evil. If the paladins came across a human village where the populous pinged as all or mostly being evil, and appeared to be worshipping an evil god who the paladins were instructed to oppose, led by the priest the paladins were after, they might act similarly. Lots of real world humans have wiped out villages of other humans. I don't think we can conclude they wouldn't have wiped out humans in the same way.

"Slaughtering civilians (including little children) is not Evil if you really believe it's necessary" is certainly a thing someone might choose to say I guess

It's not really a question of whether we choose to say it. It's more a question of whether it's the case in DnD, or more specifically in OotS.

If it's something the paladins did regularly, it would appear not to have been evil, because otherwise there would be no paladins left (they all would have fallen).

This could be because Rich does not intend the paladin's actions to be seen as evil (or evil enough for them to fall) or it could just be an unintentional hole in the story as mechalich says.

[Ionathus]

Appearing to enjoying the killing of goblins, and using callous terms like "exterminating" seems pretty similar with the callous nature of Redcloak's comment that "If I don't get to kill a paladin today, i will be cross".

"Paladin" is a profession. "Goblin" is something you're born as. Becoming a paladin - especially in the Sapphire Guard - means that you are choosing to make enemies, fight the forces of darkness, put your life on the line, do the gods' bidding, that sort of thing. Redcloak wanting to kill them is still bad, but they don't really deserve the same moral "protective status" as child noncombatants who were killed exclusively for their green skin and fangs.

I think it's also that they pinged as evil on the Paladin's detect evil. If the paladins came across a human village where the populous pinged as all or mostly being evil, and appeared to be worshipping an evil god who the paladins were instructed to oppose, led by the priest the paladins were after, they might act similarly. Lots of real world humans have wiped out villages of other humans. I don't think we can conclude they wouldn't have wiped out humans in the same way.

While it doesn't come right out and say so, I think the comic takes several moments to highlight how Detect Evil can be flawed. Cliffport mentions that divinations can be tampered with. Kubota makes a similar comment. Miko attacked Roy because he pinged Evil due to the crown, after all.

And Miko's use of "Detect Evil, they're Evil, I can kill them without remorse" always seemed like another example of the wrong way to play a paladin: seeing something Evil and deciding to kill it, rather than attempting to parley or redeem or even just talk to it. I can't back this up with a bunch of quotes, but I really don't think the comic agrees with the statement "if they Detect as Evil, it's morally okay to kill them."

[brian 333]

That's the Watsonian explanation anyway: even the supposedly good gods are actually dark tinged and the world is a grimdark hellscape. From a more Dolyist perspective the author prioritizes a point about D&D gameplay over world building leading to an in-universe element - paladins who do evil and remain paladins - that makes no sense.

Ultimately, Rich made a mistake. He shouldn't have sent paladins out to massacre Redcloak's village or to conduct massacres against other goblins (as opposed to more formalized warfare). That created an un-squarable circle where he presented definitionally good beings performing an action clearly intended to code for the audience as evil but who remained definitionally good after doing so. This critically compromised the moral underpinnings of the entire story because it robs the term 'good' of any in-universe value.

I think that was the reaction the author was going for. Real world gamers use absolutist rational to justify objectively Evil acts in the name of Good. It is impossible to reconcile, and your conclusion is correct. That contradiction exposes a type of gameplay that the author dislikes and wishes to discourage.

I made a point some time back about having participated in such games, and how the gamer culture has evolved since the early seventies. We weren't killing them because they were green, we were killing them because we were playing a wargame and the enemy existed to be killed. When AD&D came along it was the only game I had played that suggested we examine the moral implications of our actions. Fifty years later we've come a long way, but the author suggests we can go further.

For my part, I agree. I go back to the old saying, "... It's how you play the game."

[Jason]

That's the Watsonian explanation anyway: even the supposedly good gods are actually dark tinged and the world is a grimdark hellscape. From a more Dolyist perspective the author prioritizes a point about D&D gameplay over world building leading to an in-universe element - paladins who do evil and remain paladins - that makes no sense.

Yes. In depicting a flawed DM style - allowing paladins to break the rules and remain paladins - Rich had to himself become a flawed DM for that scene. And since it's for a story point vital to the backstory of a major antagonist it's not something can be easily ignored as a throw-away joke.

Ultimately, Rich made a mistake. He shouldn't have sent paladins out to massacre Redcloak's village or to conduct massacres against other goblins (as opposed to more formalized warfare). That created an un-squarable circle where he presented definitionally good beings performing an action clearly intended to code for the audience as evil but who remained definitionally good after doing so. This critically compromised the moral underpinnings of the entire story because it robs the term 'good' of any in-universe value.

I'm not sure if it's a mistake or not. It clearly means that Stickworld paladins do not follow the 3.5 rules. In other words, in Stickworld paladins are not definitionally good beings.
Apparently they can remain paladins while performing any number of awful actions so long as their gods choose not to revoke their paladin status. In the case of a pantheon like the 12 Southern gods the good gods as a group can always be out-voted 2 to 1 by the neutral and evil gods of the pantheon.

[Liquor Box]

"Paladin" is a profession. "Goblin" is something you're born as. Becoming a paladin - especially in the Sapphire Guard - means that you are choosing to make enemies, fight the forces of darkness, put your life on the line, do the gods' bidding, that sort of thing. Redcloak wanting to kill them is still bad, but they don't really deserve the same moral "protective status" as child noncombatants who were killed exclusively for their green skin and fangs.

True, but although the paladins often refer to 'goblins' the context makes it seem it is actually goblins who worship the Dark One they are attacking. Worshipper of the Dark One and membership in the Saphire Guard (which I think is an Order of paladins dedicated to the worship of one or a group of gods) is not so different.

There may be differences (such as your point that some of the goblins were children, which is a relevant distinction IMO), I don't think that it is as clear as you suggest.

While it doesn't come right out and say so, I think the comic takes several moments to highlight how Detect Evil can be flawed. Cliffport mentions that divinations can be tampered with. Kubota makes a similar comment. Miko attacked Roy because he pinged Evil due to the crown, after all.

And Miko's use of "Detect Evil, they're Evil, I can kill them without remorse" always seemed like another example of the wrong way to play a paladin: seeing something Evil and deciding to kill it, rather than attempting to parley or redeem or even just talk to it. I can't back this up with a bunch of quotes, but I really don't think the comic agrees with the statement "if they Detect as Evil, it's morally okay to kill them."

The question is not whether detect evil is flawless. We are discussing the paladin's intent, and motivations here, and in particular whether it would also be applied to humans. They obviously considered detect evil a reasonable way to find if someone was evil, whether it is flawed or not. I think they would still have regarded humans pinging as evil as good evidence they were evil too. In fact, your example supports this - Miko did conclude Roy was evil from detect evil.

As for the side discussion of whether it is the right way to be a paladin- perhaps not the ideal way, but apparently not enough for them to regularly fall from paladinhood. Indeed, if Miko had judged Shojo on a detect evil spell, instead of judging him based on the actions she thought he had taken, she might not have fallen.

[Peelee]

The Sapphire Guard is not the Azurite Army. It has a different chain of command and a wholly different purpose.

This is not intended to defend the Sapphire Guard, but to point out that that they are as similar as potatoes and tomatoes.

Azurites collectively repudiate violence against human children and the Sapphire Guard commits acts of violence against goblin children are both true statements. That the Azurites therefore condone violence against goblin children does not follow, nor does the conclusion that the Sapphire Guard would not commit violence against a human village and human children if so commanded.

Because it is a theme of the story, racial bigotry is the most likely motivation for what happened. But what came after clearly demonstrated that racism was not actively encouraged by the Azurite populace or government.

The Azurite government did not confer citizenship to beings without human blood. Pretty clear that racism was actively encouraged by the Azurite populace or government.

Exactly.
In other words, the Southern gods were being wrong and racist. Sure, they will cause Miko to fall for killing her liege lord, but they won't do anything to paladins acting in their name while they massacre goblin children. For raid after raid and year after year.

Nope. It's just that how being a paladin/falling works in OotS is not the way you're imagining it. See also: the paladin from OtOoPCs

[dancrilis]

Spoiler: Start of Darkness & How the Paladin Got His Scar

Show

O-Chul was twelve and had actually been an accomplice to his parents misdeeds and was trying to wield a weapon when they found him and still the Azurite soldiers captured him alive. The Sapphire Guards ran over six-year-olds on horseback while showcasing their Feats. They were having fun while, and that is the words of their commander exterminating goblins. This was wholesale slaughter.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

It was only four years between the slaughter and Right-Eye being an adult, the younger sister didn't seem that much younger then him (I would have thought effectively the same age - but she was younger) - it is possible she was a teenager (or close to it) by Goblin standards.

Also, no, if the paladins had found a priest of the big evil demon guy living in a human village, I am pretty sure they wouldn't have killed everybody in the village.

That is not the same scenario - the same scenario would be:
Paladin 1: Wretched cultists of these forsaken wastelands: The Twelve Gods have judged your hearts and found them to be Evil. Further, one among you threatens the very foundation of creation itself.
Paladin 2: Prepare yourselves for death with whatever dignity your kind can muster.

In that scenario the twelve gods have decreed the whole group to be evil and the Paladins are mentally prepared to strike down evil.

Because as these examples show, Azurite culture place value on human lives, not on goblin.

Hinjo disagrees in HTPGHS.

None of this excuses the paladins behaviour of anything the fact that they might also kill human children without a second thought might make them worse.

Finally:

Spoiler: HTPGHS

Show

I kindof agree with you - had O-Chul been a goblin child to goblin parents then chances are his mother would not have gotten a trail and he would more likely have been killed along with her, but that is an assumption of mine that is not supported by the text.

[hamishspence]

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

It was only four years between the slaughter and Right-Eye being an adult, the younger sister didn't seem that much younger then him (I would have thought effectively the same age - but she was younger) - it is possible she was a teenager (or close to it) by Goblin standards.

The Giant used the phrase "first grader"

Spoiler

Show

She had not committed an Evil act.

And it's ridiculous to think that any given six-year-old may have committed a horrible act worthy of being executed unless the text says otherwise, just because that six-year-old has green skin and her parents bring her to their church services. That right there is enough reason for the story to be the way it is. No author should have to take the time to say, "This little girl ISN'T evil, folks!" in order for the reader to understand that. It should be assumed that no first graders are irredeemably Evil unless the text tells you they are.

Goblins age faster than humans in OOTS, and normally die of old age around 50, so Right-Eye could easily have gone from "the equivalent of seven or so" to "the equivalent of 16 or so" (At 15, Haley was at full adult height, as demonstrated in strip 93) in four years. 16 is the minimum age for a human rogue adventurer - so a good starting point for "what age-equivalent are we supposed to think of Right-Eye as").

The noticably shorter than adults "goblin teens" in strip 93, are probably the equivalent of 13 or so. Teens Are Short may be true in OOTS - but only at the low end of the "teen age spectrum" - and Right-Eye and his sister were noticeably shorter than those teens.

[Jason]

Nope. It's just that how being a paladin/falling works in OotS is not the way you're imagining it. See also: the paladin from OtOoPCs

Right. Paladins in Stickworld are not "real" D&D 3.5-style paladins because they don't actually have to obey the paladin code. As long as their gods don't disapprove of them they can do all sorts of awful things that wouldn't fit the paladin code. Things like sending a party member on a suicide mission because they find him annoying and difficult to understand.

[hamishspence]

The point of that was to showcase the rules-lawyering way of handling the code that so many players and DMs have indulged in - they can't straight out murder a party member, because that would break the code - but they can send him on suicide missions because that bends the code rather than breaking it.

[Jason]

The point of that was to showcase the rules-lawyering way of handling the code that so many players and DMs have indulged in - they can't straight out murder a party member, because that would break the code - but they can send him on suicide missions because that bends the code rather than breaking it.

But, again, illustrating a bad DMing style meant that Rich had to effectively become a bad DM for that scene. Add enough of those scenes together, or make enough of them important, character-defining scenes, and you've not just provided an isolated example of something you were criticizing - you've now shown that your world actually operates by those rules.

[Fyraltari]

But, again, illustrating a bad DMing style meant that Rich had to effectively become a bad DM for that scene.

There is no DM.

Add enough of those scenes together, or make enough of them important, character-defining scenes, and you've not just provided an isolated example of something you were criticizing - you've now shown that your world actually operates by those rules.

So The Giant shouldn't have tried to to criticize it then? Because the only amount that no-one would have judged to be "too much" is "zero".

[Peelee]

Right. Paladins in Stickworld are not "real" D&D 3.5-style paladins because they don't actually have to obey the paladin code. As long as their gods don't disapprove of them they can do all sorts of awful things that wouldn't fit the paladin code. Things like sending a party member on a suicide mission because they find him annoying and difficult to understand.

No.

My theory, which has yet to have any inconsistency so far with the world as shown, is that the universe basically eyeballs moment-to-moment decisions and leaves the fine, specific arguing up to the celestial bean counters. This not only explains how some paladins can commit atrocities while still retaining their powers, if they think it can be justified in some sort of weird way, but also explains why Roy's review was even a thing in the first place - if the universe already conducted real-time morality reviews of all actions, then any sort of review for the Seven Heavens would be unnecessary as they would already know without a doubt his alignment and whether he would be qualified to enter.

And, something I didn't even think of until just this moment, my theory also nicely covers how spells like Detect Evil can be easily fooled - its still just the universe eyeballing things and spit balling decisions.

Because we do know for a fact that paladins are still subject tonfollow the paladin code, as characters mention this in comic and the author talks about it out of comic. So, again, paladins in the comic don't work the way you think they do.

[Jason]

There is no DM.

Correct. Neither are there players for any of the PCs. In most D&D games the DM isn't a character the other characters can meet either. From the PC's perspective "the DM" is just how the universe operates.

So The Giant shouldn't have tried to to criticize it then? Because the only amount that no-one would have judged to be "too much" is "zero".

I'm not sure. His criticism in this case amounts to "don't let paladins or the DMs of paladins break the rules," but in making that criticism he's shown that even if you don't follow his advice you can still tell a compelling story, because in his story the paladins and DM break the rules and he's still told a compelling story.

EDIT:

No.

My theory, which has yet to have any inconsistency so far with the world as shown, is that the universe basically eyeballs moment-to-moment decisions and leaves the fine, specific arguing up to the celestial bean counters. This not only explains how some paladins can commit atrocities while still retaining their powers, if they think it can be justified in some sort of weird way, but also explains why Roy's review was even a thing in the first place - if the universe already conducted real-time morality reviews of all actions, then any sort of review for the Seven Heavens would be unnecessary as they would already know without a doubt his alignment and whether he would be qualified to enter.

Basically you are agreeing with me that Stickworld doesn't operate according to D&D3.5 rules when it comes to alignment.
Because what you've just described is not how it works in the D&D3 rules (admittedly that's not necessarily how it works in a particular campaign world). In D&D3 paladins cannot commit atrocities and suffer no consequences because they think they're justified in some way. Atrocities have an immediate, objectively measurable effect on their alignment and will cause them to fall regardless of how they thought they were justified in committing them.

[Liquor Box]

My theory, which has yet to have any inconsistency so far with the world as shown, is that the universe basically eyeballs moment-to-moment decisions and leaves the fine, specific arguing up to the celestial bean counters. This not only explains how some paladins can commit atrocities while still retaining their powers, if they think it can be justified in some sort of weird way, but also explains why Roy's review was even a thing in the first place - if the universe already conducted real-time morality reviews of all actions, then any sort of review for the Seven Heavens would be unnecessary as they would already know without a doubt his alignment and whether he would be qualified to enter.

There may be no inconsistency in it, but I don't think it helps resolve the issue of paladins doing things that seem to fall short of being good, but not falling. The universe (or is it the paldin's god) eyeballing it might be less exacting than a full review by the deva, but it's still eyeballing what you call an atrocity and deciding that it's not on the face of it not evil. it might be an explanation if there was something on the borderline of an evil act such that a close analysis of the detail might lead to a better conclusion, but not if it was clearly evil act that it has been suggested to be.

[brian 333]

In the absence of a DM, who, in universe, decides where the line is drawn between being a paladin and being a fallen paladin?

As divinely ordained characters, paladins receive their powers from a god. It appears, in the case of Miko, that multiple deities are involved in granting paladin status for her order.

But assume a paladin with no patron deity. One whose belief in Good is strong enough to enable the paladin to draw power directly from the plane of Good. Such a character would have nothing more than belief that certain actions are Good, certain actions are Not Evil, and certain actions are Evil. Since there is no intelligent intermediary to dismiss rationalization, this character can honestly believe something that is simply wrong, and if the belief is that an Evil being is a fair target, what would cause such a paladin to fall?

(The author discusses this very point and asserts that such a paladin has a higher obligation to ruthlessly adhere to the code, and to self-punish for any violation.)

But in the absence of a DM, who decides that a paladin has fallen if the paladin truly believed the questionable acts were Not Evil?

Okay, but the Sapphire Guard has deities to supervise them. Cool. And what if these deities tolerated the questionable acts 'for a greater good'? Who tells the gods to stop powering up the paladins?

Now we have the author's assertion that while some of the paladins fell, many did not. Since their fall was not on display, as in the case of Miko, we do not know how many lost their powers and simply became fighters without class feats, who either retired or continued to work for the Guard. Okay, that works for those few who realized that they were performing Evil acts, but what about the many who believed their acts were divinely ordained and could not, therefore, be Evil?

The Twelve Gods have no one to tell them to stop granting power to creatures that are enforcing their will on the world. Two-thirds of those involved in making such decisions are Not Good anyway, so why should they care if a paladin does Evil?

In such a world, it requires that the paladin realize the actions taken were Evil, or that the god(s) granting the paladin's power revoke the paladin's license.

'The Universe' has no cognitive ability in the absence of an administrator. Beings within the universe learn to control it's forces, and there is nothing the universe can do about it because the universe has no awareness of it.

In a world without a DM or players, which operates like a game of D&D, it is the paladin or the deity, if any, who grants the paladin's powers, and it is only they who can revoke them. A paladin will only fall when the paladin or the patron deities believe the paladin should fall.

D&D3.x was intended to be administered by a DM, so the rules as written which require DM intervention cannot logically be applied. (Unless something in the setting can assume the DM's role.) The OotS paladins follow 3.x rules as closely as possible given the lack of an administrator to enforce the rules.

[Liquor Box]

In the absence of a DM, who, in universe, decides where the line is drawn between being a paladin and being a fallen paladin?

As divinely ordained characters, paladins receive their powers from a god. It appears, in the case of Miko, that multiple deities are involved in granting paladin status for her order.

But assume a paladin with no patron deity. One whose belief in Good is strong enough to enable the paladin to draw power directly from the plane of Good. Such a character would have nothing more than belief that certain actions are Good, certain actions are Not Evil, and certain actions are Evil. Since there is no intelligent intermediary to dismiss rationalization, this character can honestly believe something that is simply wrong, and if the belief is that an Evil being is a fair target, what would cause such a paladin to fall?

(The author discusses this very point and asserts that such a paladin has a higher obligation to ruthlessly adhere to the code, and to self-punish for any violation.)

But in the absence of a DM, who decides that a paladin has fallen if the paladin truly believed the questionable acts were Not Evil?

Okay, but the Sapphire Guard has deities to supervise them. Cool. And what if these deities tolerated the questionable acts 'for a greater good'? Who tells the gods to stop powering up the paladins?

Now we have the author's assertion that while some of the paladins fell, many did not. Since their fall was not on display, as in the case of Miko, we do not know how many lost their powers and simply became fighters without class feats, who either retired or continued to work for the Guard. Okay, that works for those few who realized that they were performing Evil acts, but what about the many who believed their acts were divinely ordained and could not, therefore, be Evil?

The Twelve Gods have no one to tell them to stop granting power to creatures that are enforcing their will on the world. Two-thirds of those involved in making such decisions are Not Good anyway, so why should they care if a paladin does Evil?

In such a world, it requires that the paladin realize the actions taken were Evil, or that the god(s) granting the paladin's power revoke the paladin's license.

'The Universe' has no cognitive ability in the absence of an administrator. Beings within the universe learn to control it's forces, and there is nothing the universe can do about it because the universe has no awareness of it.

In a world without a DM or players, which operates like a game of D&D, it is the paladin or the deity, if any, who grants the paladin's powers, and it is only they who can revoke them. A paladin will only fall when the paladin or the patron deities believe the paladin should fall.

D&D3.x was intended to be administered by a DM, so the rules as written which require DM intervention cannot logically be applied. (Unless something in the setting can assume the DM's role.) The OotS paladins follow 3.x rules as closely as possible given the lack of an administrator to enforce the rules.

It appears from 407 that Miko fell before she came to any realisation and that it was the animal gods that made the call.
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html

I don't think the role of the DM is to some sort of tangible force in-universe. I think his or her role is to act as a proxy for the natural laws of that universe (in addition to things like controlling the NPCs).

[Mechalich]

I don't think the role of the DM is to some sort of tangible force in-universe. I think his or her role is to act as a proxy for the natural laws of that universe (in addition to things like controlling the NPCs).

Indeed, D&D universes have natural moral laws. For example, druids do not worship any deity (usually), but they still lose their powers if they change to a prohibited alignment. The paladin's fall is a notorious example of morally-mediated power loss, but such systems are actually quite common in D&D.