Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

[Precure]

Paladin who killed Redcloak's mother, the paladin who wanted to kill his little sister and the paladin who was trying to kill his brother, they all have (still) Celestial steeds. So, something is definitely broke.

[hamishspence]

Paladins don't get Special Mounts till 5th level - it's entirely possible that some rode in on ordinary horses.

Spoiler

Show

We don't see what happened immediately after the killing of Little Sister - the few Special Mount horses could have refused to let now-ex-paladins back on to them, offscreen.

[Liquor Box]

Paladins don't get Special Mounts till 5th level - it's entirely possible that some rode in on ordinary horses.

Spoiler

Show

We don't see what happened immediately after the killing of Little Sister - the few Special Mount horses could have refused to let now-ex-paladins back on to them, offscreen.

I don't think there's any doubt that at least some paladins didn't fall. We see from Miko that the falling happens visibly and pretty much immediately (initiated next panel), and we don't see any paladins fall despite some remaining on screen for a panel or two after killing some goblins.

[Fyraltari]

I don't think there's any doubt that at least some paladins didn't fall. We see from Miko that the falling happens visibly and pretty much immediately (initiated next panel), and we don't see any paladins fall despite some remaining on screen for a panel or two after killing some goblins.

The Giant has been explicit that Miko's fall was much more flashy than usual.
Edit:

The events of Start of Darkness are not a narrative being told by Redcloak, except for the crayon pages (which totally are). You are right, your friend is wrong. Everything you see happened.

However, everything that happened is not necessarily seen.

Suffice to say that the Twelve Gods are not beholden to put on the same visual display they did for Miko for every paladin who transgresses, and that all transgressions are not created equal. It is possible that some of the paladins who participated in the attack crossed the line. It is also possible that most did not. A paladin who slips up in the execution of their god-given orders does not warrant the same level of personal attention by the gods as one who executes the legal ruler of their nation on a glorified hunch. Think of Miko's Fall as being the equivalent of the CEO of your multinational company showing up in your cubicle to fire you, because you screwed up THAT much.

Of course, while Redcloak is not narrating the scene, it is shown mostly from his perspective; we don't see how many Detect Evils were used before the attack started, and we don't see how many paladins afterwards try to heal their wounds and can't, because these things are not important to Redcloak's story. Whether or not some of the paladins Fell does not bring Redcloak's family back to life. Indeed, if we transplant the scene to real life, he would think it cold comfort that some of the police officers who gunned down his family had to turn in their badge afterward (but were otherwise given no punishment by their bosses at City Hall).

Dramatically, showing no-name paladins Falling at that point in the story would confuse the narrative by making it unclear whether or not Redcloak had already earned a form of retribution against them. To be clear, he had not: Whether or not some of them lost a few class abilities does not change the fact that Redcloak suffered an injustice at their hands, one that shaped his entire adult life. That was the point of the scene. Showing them Fall or not simply was not important to Redcloak's story, so it was omitted.

Further, it would have cheapened Miko's fall to show the same thing over and over--and Miko, as a major character in the series, deserved the emotional weight that her Fall carried (or at least that I hope it carried).

I hope that clears this issue up. I hope in vain, largely, but there you have it.

(Oh, and I leave it up to the readers to form their own opinions on which paladins may have Fallen and which didn't.)

[Liquor Box]

The Giant has been explicit that Miko's fall was much more flashy than usual. His wording on how some of the paladins might have fallen is that they would get back to camp and realize they couldn't lay on hands anymore.

Ah ok, I didn't know that.

You say the giant said that some got back to camp and realised they'd fallen. Did his post imply some fell and some didn't?

It seems to me that at least some must have not fallen because otherwise after a few such raids there would be no paladins anymore.


Edit:

Thanks for adding the quote. I see he says "It is possible that some of the paladins who participated in the attack crossed the line. It is also possible that most did not.". That implies that he didn't consider at the time whether any paladins fell, but on reflection he thinks some might have. Pretty clearly implies that not all did though.

[brian 333]

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).

Indeed, as I said, the gods which grant the powers can revoke them. The paladin, upon realization of acts which violate the code, can also revoke the powers. And yes, if a paladin is no longer LG the connection to the LG "battery" cannot be maintained.

But if a paladin has no realization of committing an Evil act, does not lose LG alignment, and the god(s) granting the paladin powers actively encourage such behaviors, what then?

(The druid example would work the same way: the character, mistakenly but honestly believing no violations have occurred, would continue to be a druid until alignment mismatch cuts off the source of druidical power.)

[Fyraltari]

Ah ok, I didn't know that.

You say the giant said that some got back to camp and realised they'd fallen. Did his post imply some fell and some didn't?

It seems to me that at least some must have not fallen because otherwise after a few such raids there would be no paladins anymore.


Edit:

Thanks for adding the quote. I see he says "It is possible that some of the paladins who participated in the attack crossed the line. It is also possible that most did not.". That implies that he didn't consider at the time whether any paladins fell, but on reflection he thinks some might have. Pretty clearly implies that not all did though.

Yes, I think The Giant considers that, within D&D at least, an evil act has to be an action, standing by while your colleagues kill children doesn't count if you don't kill children yourself.

We know for a fact that at least one paladin did not fall. And I think that if the majority of them had fallen the SG would have had to switch gears.

As it stands, it seems to me that only thr worst offenders fell that day and not in a flashy way, which allowed the rest to rationalize their actions and keep going.

[Jason]

Yes, I think The Giant considers that, within D&D at least, an evil act has to be an action, standing by while your colleagues kill children doesn't count if you don't kill children yourself.

Refusing to stop an evil action when you could at least try is itself a moral choice. Spider-Man leaned that the hard way.

As it stands, it seems to me that only thr worst offenders fell that day and not in a flashy way, which allowed the rest to rationalize their actions and keep going.

I think none of them fell. All this business of"well maybe some of them fell off panel and I'll let you readers decide who did" is after-the-fact rationalization. what was on - panel was a lot of paladins massacring children without any negative consequences (other than some of them being killed by adult goblins defending themselves).
The idea that none of them fell is reinforced when How the Paladin Got His Scar shows that they learned nothing from the incident except "next time don't leave the Crimson Mantel lying around for another goblin to pick up."

Paladins in Stickworld do not have to obey the paladin code to remain paladins. They merely have to avoid getting on the bad side of their gods by breaking the code too obviously. If your gods can rationalize your actions (something like "they're protecting the world from goblins who want to release the Snarl") you can even murder 1st graders with impunity.

The whole incident says nothing about D&D paladins because they don't obey the same rules. Stickworld paladins are really just a different variety of cleric. As long as their gods don't disapprove they can do whatever they want.

[hamishspence]

As it stands, it seems to me that only thr worst offenders fell that day and not in a flashy way, which allowed the rest to rationalize their actions and keep going.

Given how emphatic The Giant was about how Little Sister did not deserve to die, and how disgusted he was by people suggesting "maybe she did something evil" - I think it's fairly safe to say that her killer Fell.

[Liquor Box]

Yes, I think The Giant considers that, within D&D at least, an evil act has to be an action, standing by while your colleagues kill children doesn't count if you don't kill children yourself.

We know for a fact that at least one paladin did not fall. And I think that if the majority of them had fallen the SG would have had to switch gears.

As it stands, it seems to me that only thr worst offenders fell that day and not in a flashy way, which allowed the rest to rationalize their actions and keep going.

Given how emphatic The Giant was about how Little Sister did not deserve to die, and how disgusted he was by people suggesting "maybe she did something evil" - I think it's fairly safe to say that her killer Fell.

I agree with you both.

The only paladin we see actually killing a goblin child is the paladin who killed Redcloak's sister at the end (a couple of others looked like they intended to kill an immature goblin, but died first), so she might have been the only one who fell.

[Mechalich]

I think none of them fell. All this business of"well maybe some of them fell off panel and I'll let you readers decide who did" is after-the-fact rationalization. what was on - panel was a lot of paladins massacring children without any negative consequences (other than some of them being killed by adult goblins defending themselves).
The idea that none of them fell is reinforced when How the Paladin Got His Scar shows that they learned nothing from the incident except "next time don't leave the Crimson Mantel lying around for another goblin to pick up."

Paladins in Stickworld do not have to obey the paladin code to remain paladins. They merely have to avoid getting on the bad side of their gods by breaking the code too obviously. If your gods can rationalize your actions (something like "they're protecting the world from goblins who want to release the Snarl") you can even murder 1st graders with impunity.

The whole incident says nothing about D&D paladins because they don't obey the same rules. Stickworld paladins are really just a different variety of cleric. As long as their gods don't disapprove they can do whatever they want.

Yeah, and the reason I said The Giant made a mistake is that clearly was not the intent of the whole sequence. Morally-mediated abilities are tricky. Authors, including skilled authors, mess them up all the time. Unfortunately this particular error lies at the center of the motives for the character, Redcloak, who drives the overall plotline of the whole comic, and has the bizarre effect of making certain of his grievances: specifically that the gods are horribly corrupt jerks - materially correct. And the heroes have recently begun to acknowledge this in confirmation. This sort of issue, the 'oh, crap I accidently made the gods jerks' is also fairly common in fantasy, especially modern Anglophone fantasy, in large part because the mythologies commonly drawn upon reflect moral frameworks that are massively divorced from modern ones.

[brian 333]

The whole incident says nothing about D&D paladins because they don't obey the same rules. Stickworld paladins are really just a different variety of cleric. As long as their gods don't disapprove they can do whatever they want.

I have another perspective. Actually two.

First, you are right. In D&D there is a DM to give the universal laws of existence, (the rules,) a voice at the table. The DM decides when and why paladins fall in his world. Absent a DM, the gods and the paladins themselves decide what constitutes a 'fall from grace.' If a paladin decides that killing Baby Hitler is a Good act and his deities, if any, do not disagree, how is the universe supposed to know?

If the alignment chart is superimposed on graph paper we have a scale by which Good and Evil deeds can be measured. If Good and Evil are intrinsic forces of nature, like gravity or electricity, then doing Good deeds pushes the character toward the Good end of the scale while doing Evil deeds pulls the other way.
Assuming the grid is only 9 boxes, any Good deed will shift the Evil character directly to Neutral and any Evil deed will push the Good deed doer to Neutral. In such a system, your character's alignment would be determined by the last deed performed.
Expand the grid to 99 x 99 boxes and you have room to reward and penalize actions without changing alignment with every act. Thus, a character like Roy can abandon his companions without losing his Good alignment and later redeem himself. It is entirely possible, in such an unadjudicated system, to game the system. Commit an Evil act, perform five good ones, and everything balances out.

And that brings us to the second point: the author, in that scene, deliberately set out a scenario played out all too often in tabletop games, in which overtly evil deeds are 'justified' by the players and accepted by the DM. The idea that killing anything with the Evil tag is a Good act, or killing anything that is a 'monster' is at worst a Neutral act is what he is highlighting, and his conclusion is that it is wrong. Roy and Durkon recently discussed this. (Well, thought about it...)
But it is far too common to see games play out exactly as shown in the goblin village, with exactly the same consequences shown in that event. D&D has been and is played that way.
You are right that such gameplay is violating the rules, but if the DM, or lack of a DM, allows it, then... what?

Stick world paladins are D&D paladins. The author has used them to highlight a kind of gameplay he discourages. You are right that they don't follow the rules. That is the Author's point. But if you simply say, "They are not D&D paladins, they operate by different rules," it cheapens the message.

To be clear, the message is, "This is what happens when D&D paladins are played by players and DMs who casually accept the idea that if it is Evil it is fair game without examining the moral implications of their actions."

[LadyEowyn]

Yes! Excellent post!

[Jason]

Expand the grid to 99 x 99 boxes and you have room to reward and penalize actions without changing alignment with every act. Thus, a character like Roy can abandon his companions without losing his Good alignment and later redeem himself. It is entirely possible, in such an unadjudicated system, to game the system. Commit an Evil act, perform five good ones, and everything balances out.

It's possible to work the system with a DM in place too. In fact this is explicitly how the system worked in 1st edition AD&D, complete with a diagram for the DM to plot each player character's alignment and where their alignment ended up where their actions balanced out.

Paladins were the exception to the system, however - they explicitly can't game the system: knowingly perform a chaotic action and you lose your paladin abilities until you atone. Knowingly and willingly commit an evil act and your paladin status is gone forever (no atonement possible). Paladins were held to a higher standard than all of the other character classes.

But it is far too common to see games play out exactly as shown in the goblin village, with exactly the same consequences shown in that event. D&D has been and is played that way.

And I guess my viewpoint is that it wasn't ever that common. People in the gaming community often talked about groups that played this way, and the debate about whether orc babies were born evil and could be killed with impunity seemed to resurface in the letter columns in Dragon every other year, but the consensus of the role playing community seemed pretty clear to me from the beginning: that this style of gaming was wrong, and there was never any serious debate that it should be seen as a valid way to play.
Maybe I'm showing my age and the current RPG community (which is probably much larger now) doesn't feel this way and needs such a message.

[Peelee]

As divinely ordained characters, paladins receive their powers from a god.

Nope. Paladins did not require any deity whatsoever. Miko and the rest of the Sapphire Guard may have hitched their wagons to their deities, but Azurites were already largely depicted as hyper-religious anyway, so this isn't really surprising. But nothing has indicated any of the other paladins we have seen have had any sort of connection to a deity, and their powers do not come from deities any more than a druid's or a ranger's.

Paladins were the exception to the system, however - they explicitly can't game the system: knowingly perform a chaotic action and you lose your paladin abilities until you atone.

In addition to being incorrect on how paladins in OotS work, you are also incorrect on how paladins in standard 3.5 D&D work as well.

[Precure]

Maybe the Sapphire Order is nothing but a bunch of armed clerics pretending to be paladins.

[Mike Havran]

Maybe the Sapphire Order is nothing but a bunch of armed clerics pretending to be paladins.

Clerics don't get to Smite Evil.

[Fyraltari]

Azurites were already largely depicted as hyper-religious anyway

Are they, though?

[brian 333]

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.)

role.) The OotS paladins follow 3.x rules as closely as possible given the lack of an administrator to enforce the rules.

Nope. Paladins did not require any deity whatsoever. Miko and the rest of the Sapphire Guard may have hitched their wagons to their deities, but Azurites were already largely depicted as hyper-religious anyway, so this isn't really surprising. But nothing has indicated any of the other paladins we have seen have had any sort of connection to a deity, and their powers do not come from deities any more than a druid's or a ranger's.

That's the very point I made in the paragraph following the one you quoted, so I'm not sure why the paragraph was quoted. A paladin can have a patron deity, but can be a paladin without a patron as well. Either way the power of a paladin requires a link to the forces of Lawful Good.

It has been pointed out that a paladin who commits an Evil act loses paladinhood. The question here is, in the absence of a DM, who determines what an Evil act is? Sure, in a world where Evil is a natural force, there must be some sort of accounting system. But until the balance of Good/Evil dips below the Neutral line, nothing prevents the paladin from accessing the powers of Lawful/Good until the paladin realizes that she has committed an Evil act.

In Miko"s case, the gods intervened. But who would intervene if the paladin had no patron?

The only answer is, the paladin herself. And so long as the paladin believes her acts are not Evil, there is nobody to remove her paladin status.

[Peelee]

That's the very point I made in the paragraph following the one you quoted, so I'm not sure why the paragraph was quoted.

Because that paragraph said to assume what is the standard already, and you started as fact that the standard is to have a deity. It's like saying "of course all characters can fly at will, but assume a case where only winged creatures or magical flying spells allowed one to fly". Sure, you mentioned how things actually work, but it's still worth pointing out that this doesn't need to be an assumption as it's explicitly how things already work.

[brian 333]

Because that paragraph said to assume what is the standard already, and you started as fact that the standard is to have a deity. It's like saying "of course all characters can fly at will, but assume a case where only winged creatures or magical flying spells allowed one to fly". Sure, you mentioned how things actually work, but it's still worth pointing out that this doesn't need to be an assumption as it's explicitly how things already work.

I was positing two different things that are not necessarily exclusive, but which can be. Assume the first scenario, then assume the second. Both, in fact, abide by RAW 3.5; I was not saying to assume RAW is wrong or to ignore them.

[Liquor Box]

Expand the grid to 99 x 99 boxes and you have room to reward and penalize actions without changing alignment with every act. Thus, a character like Roy can abandon his companions without losing his Good alignment and later redeem himself. It is entirely possible, in such an unadjudicated system, to game the system. Commit an Evil act, perform five good ones, and everything balances out.

This makes sense to me, but I don't see it as a problem that you can negate an evil act with some good ones. If something was sufficiently evil, you could weight it, so it traverses several boxes in your grid.

And that brings us to the second point: the author, in that scene, deliberately set out a scenario played out all too often in tabletop games, in which overtly evil deeds are 'justified' by the players and accepted by the DM. The idea that killing anything with the Evil tag is a Good act, or killing anything that is a 'monster' is at worst a Neutral act is what he is highlighting, and his conclusion is that it is wrong. Roy and Durkon recently discussed this. (Well, thought about it...)
But it is far too common to see games play out exactly as shown in the goblin village, with exactly the same consequences shown in that event. D&D has been and is played that way.
You are right that such gameplay is violating the rules, but if the DM, or lack of a DM, allows it, then... what?

Stick world paladins are D&D paladins. The author has used them to highlight a kind of gameplay he discourages. You are right that they don't follow the rules. That is the Author's point. But if you simply say, "They are not D&D paladins, they operate by different rules," it cheapens the message.

To be clear, the message is, "This is what happens when D&D paladins are played by players and DMs who casually accept the idea that if it is Evil it is fair game without examining the moral implications of their actions."

I get the theory - you think he was parodying the way that urban legend tells us paladins are sometimes played. But he's given no indication that it was a parody, even when asked. And when asked about them falling, he implied some probably fell well others didn't, which is also not consistent with a parody.

I don't think it's very clear whether the Giant felt that the paladins attacking the goblins was evil at all- who they'd been told were an existential threat, who pinged as evil and who are implied to be traditional enemies with attacks going back and forth between the groups. But not evil enough to make otherwise good paladins fall.

But he does think that the actions of some paladins during the raid (in particular the ones who killed immature goblins) was evil, and thus some fell.

[Mechalich]

I get the theory - you think he was parodying the way that urban legend tells us paladins are sometimes played. But he's given no indication that it was a parody, even when asked. And when asked about them falling, he implied some probably fell well others didn't, which is also not consistent with a parody.

I don't think it's very clear whether the Giant felt that the paladins attacking the goblins was evil at all- who they'd been told were an existential threat, who pinged as evil and who are implied to be traditional enemies with attacks going back and forth between the groups. But not evil enough to make otherwise good paladins fall.

But he does think that the actions of some paladins during the raid (in particular the ones who killed immature goblins) was evil, and thus some fell.

I think the Giant made an error, he created a scenario where the textual evidence implied something he personally finds horrific.

Here's the rundown:
1. Stickworld nominally operates by D&D rules, including that paladins fall immediately upon willfully committing an evil act. The case of Miko provides direct textual evidence that this is the case.
2. A bunch of paladins willfully slaughtered a number of goblin small children but did not appear to fall. The text also implied that this event happened repeatedly, which is not possible if paladins were falling en masse as a result of said actions (because the Sapphire Guard would rapidly cease to exist as a result).
3. The implication of the text therefore is that slaughtering goblin children is not an evil action.
4. The most obvious way to reconcile this is to it be that goblin children are evil, probably from birth.
5. Alternatively, the other way to reconcile this is to say that Stickworld Paladins are different and that they can remain paladins while taking evil actions that are sanctioned by their divine patrons.

The thing is, whether you choose #4 or #5 you're left with a universe that has accepted a morally horrific outcome. Either you have humanoid species who can be born tainted by darkness for no good reason, or you have gods capable of bending the moral fabric of reality to suit their personal desires. Either way the fridge logic locks in a grimdark hellscape.

And this is particularly problematic because while a huge proportion of fantasy worlds are grimdark hellscapes once you let the fridge logic run loose (this includes every major superhero universe, so it's not like Stickworld is in bad company), OOTS has chosen to center its final struggle on society-scale moral quandaries, specifically, 'save the goblins,' something the world being a grimdark hellscape renders almost entirely meaningless. I mean, if the Order stops Xykon, makes peace with Redcloak, and the goblins suddenly make a massive turn towards good, the Evil and Neutral gods will just detonate the world.

I get that Rich has, throughout the course of OOTS' existence, decided to try to reach for something more impactful with the central conflict rather than 'guy spends his life trying to defeat random BBEG because of his daddy issues.' Especially as the story has revealed that Xykon's ability to shoulder any dramatic heft is functionally nil. Unfortunately, because he long ago allowed the good guys to do evil, the foundation of any moral drama is rotten.

[Liquor Box]

I think the Giant made an error, he created a scenario where the textual evidence implied something he personally finds horrific.

Here's the rundown:
1. Stickworld nominally operates by D&D rules, including that paladins fall immediately upon willfully committing an evil act. The case of Miko provides direct textual evidence that this is the case.
2. A bunch of paladins willfully slaughtered a number of goblin small children but did not appear to fall. The text also implied that this event happened repeatedly, which is not possible if paladins were falling en masse as a result of said actions (because the Sapphire Guard would rapidly cease to exist as a result).
3. The implication of the text therefore is that slaughtering goblin children is not an evil action.
4. The most obvious way to reconcile this is to it be that goblin children are evil, probably from birth.
5. Alternatively, the other way to reconcile this is to say that Stickworld Paladins are different and that they can remain paladins while taking evil actions that are sanctioned by their divine patrons.

The thing is, whether you choose #4 or #5 you're left with a universe that has accepted a morally horrific outcome. Either you have humanoid species who can be born tainted by darkness for no good reason, or you have gods capable of bending the moral fabric of reality to suit their personal desires. Either way the fridge logic locks in a grimdark hellscape.

And this is particularly problematic because while a huge proportion of fantasy worlds are grimdark hellscapes once you let the fridge logic run loose (this includes every major superhero universe, so it's not like Stickworld is in bad company), OOTS has chosen to center its final struggle on society-scale moral quandaries, specifically, 'save the goblins,' something the world being a grimdark hellscape renders almost entirely meaningless. I mean, if the Order stops Xykon, makes peace with Redcloak, and the goblins suddenly make a massive turn towards good, the Evil and Neutral gods will just detonate the world.

I get that Rich has, throughout the course of OOTS' existence, decided to try to reach for something more impactful with the central conflict rather than 'guy spends his life trying to defeat random BBEG because of his daddy issues.' Especially as the story has revealed that Xykon's ability to shoulder any dramatic heft is functionally nil. Unfortunately, because he long ago allowed the good guys to do evil, the foundation of any moral drama is rotten.

I'm not sure this is right. I think it may break down at your second premise.

From what we saw, only one paladin slaughtered an immature goblin, and the Giant's statement on the subject suggests that although she appeared to not fall, she may well have fallen later. It may be, that the paladins only infrequently kill immature goblins, and when they do they fall. If this happens infrequently, there wouldn't be mass fallings.

In those circumstances, it wouldn't create the intuitively wrong implication at #3, or require the reconciliation at #4 or #5.

[brian 333]

Here is the point of divergence:
A paladin who willfully commits an Evil act loses paladin status.

What if the paladin believes the act is not Evil?

In the unajudicated system I proposed, so long as the paladin remained LG, there would be no fall. Even if the killing moved the paladin 30 points toward Evil, if the paladin spent a lifetime doing Good deeds and went on to do more Good deeds, the system could be gamed: technically the paladin does not knowingly commit an Evil act because the paladin does not recognize the act as Evil. In the absence of a DM, who is to say that a single act is heinous enough to cause a fall?

The gods?

Okay, but if they want the particular deed accomplished, why would they punish mortals for doing it?

[Jason]

In addition to being incorrect on how paladins in OotS work, you are also incorrect on how paladins in standard 3.5 D&D work as well.

Sorry, I thought it was clear that I was speaking of how things worked in AD&D 1st edition. Brian333 brought up Alignment graphs so I ran with it.

You are correct, it's not how 3.5 paladins work. You might say it's their ancestry.

EDIT:

Here is the point of divergence:
A paladin who willfully commits an Evil act loses paladin status.

What if the paladin believes the act is not Evil?

In the unajudicated system I proposed, so long as the paladin remained LG, there would be no fall. Even if the killing moved the paladin 30 points toward Evil, if the paladin spent a lifetime doing Good deeds and went on to do more Good deeds, the system could be gamed: technically the paladin does not knowingly commit an Evil act because the paladin does not recognize the act as Evil. In the absence of a DM, who is to say that a single act is heinous enough to cause a fall?

And that is a fundamental change between 1st edition AD&D paladins and D&D 3rd edition (and 3.5) paladins. 1st edition had the "knowingly" qualifier in the rule about a paladin falling if he or she knowingly commits an evil action, but 3.0 and 3.5 says merely "willingly commits an evil act". So a 1st edition AD&D paladin might commit an act that he honestly believed was not evil and not fall, but for a 3.5 paladin, what they think they are doing is irrelevant. The only question for the 3.5 paladin is if the evil action was willingly committed. It it was, then paladin status is gone, regardless of whatever the paladin thought about what they were doing at the time.

You might argue that Stickworld paladins work more like 1st edition AD&D paladins in this regard, and can commit evil acts as long as they think they are doing good, except that Miko is the obvious counter-example. Miko seems to have fully believed that killing Shinjo was completely justified (in other words, she was not knowingly committing an evil or chaotic act), but the Southern gods removed her paladin status anyway.
It is an open question of whether they caused her to fall because that act was the final straw that changed her alignment away from LG or whether the Southern gods decided that killing your liege lord was too obviously against the paladin code for them to ignore, but it's obvious that Miko's opinion of her actions was not relevant.

If you're curious, 2nd edition AD&D had basically the same text for Paladins as the 1st edition did. It was 3rd edition that made the break from "knowingly" to merely "willingly".

[halfeye]

I'm not sure this is right. I think it may break down at your second premise.

From what we saw, only one paladin slaughtered an immature goblin, and the Giant's statement on the subject suggests that although she appeared to not fall, she may well have fallen later. It may be, that the paladins only infrequently kill immature goblins, and when they do they fall. If this happens infrequently, there wouldn't be mass fallings.

In those circumstances, it wouldn't create the intuitively wrong implication at #3, or require the reconciliation at #4 or #5.

There were many children in the goblin village, I don't see any survivors other than Redcloak and Righteye, so there were presumably several other fallen paladins.

[Jason]

1. Stickworld nominally operates by D&D rules, including that paladins fall immediately upon willfully committing an evil act. The case of Miko provides direct textual evidence that this is the case.
2. A bunch of paladins willfully slaughtered a number of goblin small children but did not appear to fall. The text also implied that this event happened repeatedly, which is not possible if paladins were falling en masse as a result of said actions (because the Sapphire Guard would rapidly cease to exist as a result).
3. The implication of the text therefore is that slaughtering goblin children is not an evil action.
4. The most obvious way to reconcile this is to it be that goblin children are evil, probably from birth.
5. Alternatively, the other way to reconcile this is to say that Stickworld Paladins are different and that they can remain paladins while taking evil actions that are sanctioned by their divine patrons.

I think you have it down. Since the Giant has made it pretty clear that #3 and #4 were and are not his intent, my answer is #5.

The thing is, whether you choose #4 or #5 you're left with a universe that has accepted a morally horrific outcome. Either you have humanoid species who can be born tainted by darkness for no good reason, or you have gods capable of bending the moral fabric of reality to suit their personal desires. Either way the fridge logic locks in a grimdark hellscape.

I would say that the moral structure of the Stickworld cosmos became problematic as soon as it became clear that the universe was governed by the majority vote of the gods, with each getting one vote, and that the good-aligned gods are outnumbered by the neutral and evil gods acting together. With flat majority rule there will regularly be morally horrific outcomes as long as the good-aligned gods are only one-third of the vote.

[hroþila]

There were many children in the goblin village, I don't see any survivors other than Redcloak and Righteye, so there were presumably several other fallen paladins.

Assuming it wasn't mostly the same few paladins committing the war crimes, other than those who were killed immediately after their deeds. I don't think there's much of a problem (narratively) if only a couple paladins fell - it'd be easy for the rest of the Sapphire Guard to rationalize as a few guys getting carried away in the execution of an otherwise just and worthy action. From what Gin-Jun said about the paladins patting themselves on the back for not taking the Crimson Mantle as a vainglorious war trophy, they were well aware of the danger of falling short of their standards while serving. Getting bloodthirsty would presumably fall within the same category.

[Jason]

Assuming it wasn't mostly the same few paladins committing the war crimes, other than those who were killed immediately after their deeds. I don't think there's much of a problem (narratively) if only a couple paladins fell - it'd be easy for the rest of the Sapphire Guard to rationalize as a few guys getting carried away in the execution of an otherwise just and worthy action. From what Gin-Jun said about the paladins patting themselves on the back for not taking the Crimson Mantle as a vainglorious war trophy, they were well aware of the danger of falling short of their standards while serving. Getting bloodthirsty would presumably fall within the same category.

The problem is that the Saphire Guard is said to have regularly carried out these kinds of raids over decades. If all the paladins who killed goblin children over the course of dozens of raids fell that would have been noticed. The Guard would have put in place some kind of "don't kill goblin kids" rule.