OotS 406

[Sound of Azure]

Nope. In general. Actual historical knights and priests who participated in the midaevil political and legal process could not adhere to the paladin code in the PHB as written. Trying to map historical practice on to the PHB version of paladinhood simply doesn't work; a review of historical sources easily demonstrates that they just cannot meet the standards. Especially those who dispensed summary judgment without inquiry into the actual facts of a situation.

Now, this is primarily because the PHB alignments and paladin restrictions are written based upon 20th century morality. So I guess you could change that morality if you wanted to, but then you wouldn't be playing D&D by the rules as written, and are instead playing something else entirely. Which makes the issue entirely moot for this discussion, since we are talking about OotS, which seems to adhere pretty closely to the "official" version of the game (much of the humor of the strip would be lost if it did not).

You do realise that the code in the PHB is an example code, right?

I was just pointing out that you seemed to be saying that Elf Witch was wrong to have Paladins play in that fashion, and that they weren't really paladins. In Elf Witch's game... they are, it would appear. And that's fine.

 

[Storm Raven]

You do realise that the code in the PHB is an example code, right?

I was just pointing out that you seemed to be saying that Elf Witch was wrong to have Paladins play in that fashion, and that they weren't really paladins. In Elf Witch's game... they are, it would appear. And that's fine.

No, I'm saying that paladins as presented in the PHB behave in the manner described in the PHB. And that is what we have to go on when evaluating paladins in things like OotS, since that is the baseline to measure from. I suppose a DM could change the paladin code in their home campaign to include a tenet that every paladin roasts a baby alive each day as part of their religious observances, but then you have diverged from the PHB model, and your assessments of the paladin code are of limited value in discussions like these.

And assessments of paladins that would fit 14th/15th century nobles in the real world who made summary judgments and executions also stray very far from the PHB, making assessments involving those types of examples not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[Storm Raven]

Just because most people agree on something does not make it right. Most polls showed that Americans thought OJ was gulity but a jury found him innocent.

And the jury in that case was probably wrong.

I think a lot of people are using knowledge that Miko does not have access to.

No. I'm basing my assessment upon the knowledge that Miko explicitly does have access to, and how she has filled in the gaps in that knowledge with deranged delusions, paranoid conspiracy theories and illogical leaps of assumptions.

As the readers we are aware of everything that has happened she is not. I also think that some people are judging her actions based on a dislike of stick in the rump paladins and the fact that the OOTS are the good guys and we have been following their adventures from the start.

No. I am basing my assessment upon her bizarre leaps of logic and disregard for the truth.

I have read that she should know more about Lichs because she has knowledge relgion so that would tell her that the OOTS was not lying when they said he was destroyed. But she is a multiclass paladin so how do we know that she has enough ranks if any in religion to know this.

Knowledge: Religion is a class skill for both paladins and monks. She has an entire order of paladins, monks, and clerics to consult. She did not do this to ascertain if her assumptions were correct. She has diregarded actually finding the truth in favor of leaps of logic.

If Miko does not know how lichs have to be destroyed then it is perfectly reasonable for her to form an opinion that the OOTS lied about destroyed him. And then wonder why did they lie what possible purpose could lying hold. Except as a cover to hide their allegience with the lich. And can Lich's be raised with spells?

Shojo, Roy, and Belkar were sitting in the throne room waiting for a cleric to raise the NPC wizard. A condition of Belkar's release was that his share of the treasure go to reaising the murdered guard. Belkar assumed that Durkon could return him from the dead if Miko had killed him. People returning from the dead is not an uncommon occurrence, so her surprise at seeing Xykon and huge leap of logic to this meaning that OotS is working with him is entirely unwarranted. Even if she knows nothing about liches (actually, especially if she knows nothing about liches), his return from the dead should not be surprising to her at all.

In point of fact, when she fought Redcloak, an individual clearly allied with Xykon, he used a spell higher level than raise dead against her (harm, if I remember correctly).

Miko was told to bring them back for trial if Shojo really wanted to talk to them why not send a messanger with an offer of a lot of gold for them to come instead of the ruse of a trial. So there was a trial that now Miko knows was rigged. Why is it such unreasonable thought that she might wonder why Shojo did this. He had other ways to get them to come to Azure City so is it possible that he wanted a cover becuase he is indeed working with evil.

But, of course, the fact that he rigged the trial does not lead in any way to the conclusion that he is in league with Xykon. That is simply the reasoning of a paranoid mind, deranged and delusional. She didn't try to find out if it was true. She just assumed it was, despite having plenty of resources at hand to do so.

The point I am trying to make is simply this while I think Miko acted rashly and this lead to her paladin powers being stripped I don't think her reasoning is totally out of whack based on what she saw and heard.

It was totally out of whack. Her conclusions don't follow in any way from what she knows.

 

[Elf Witch]

So he should have been prepared to sacrifice the world because of a poorly thought-out law that obviously failed to anticipate the situation at hand? Preposterous. Absolutely preposterous.

No he should be prepared to accept the responsibility that comes with what he did. I am not saying her should have chosen the world's destruction what I am saying is that he knew he was breaking the law to accomplish his acts and had to know if he got caught that their would be a penalty. But he chose to put the world's safety over his own life and possible freedom, that is a sign of a brave man.

Shojo needs to come to trial for his breaking of the law. Now I would think that saving the world would have some kind of mitigating circumstance when it came to a sentence.

His saving the world does not change the fact that he is guilty of breaking the law he swore to uphold.

 

[Elf Witch]

Because of a technical mistake by the police, which caused the damning evidence to be inadmissible in a court of law. I'm not saying that most people agreeing on something makes it right. I'm just saying that most people agreeing on something doesn't make it wrong, either, and that sometimes, it really is simple enough that most people can see it clearly.



Where she made her mistake was in acting solely out of anger and a need for vengeance.

So what you are saying is that the people who disagree and there are people who disagree both here and on several other forums just don'tt see it as clearly as the majority do. :\

For thousands of years people believed the world was flat and I am sure that it was simple enough for them that they could see clearly it was flat.

The funny thing is that most of the people in my gaming group feel the same way I do and that they can see how Miko made the leap of logic that she did due to everything she had seen and heard. But then most of us think that Belkar is an evil little halfling whose is going to come to a bad end one day.

It kind of irks me when people in debates use the argument that because more people agree with their view then it is the more logical right view.

I see quite clearly thank you very much how someone like Miko could come to the conclusions that she did as wrong as they are. I can easily follow her chain of thought from reading the comic. I can see how with the evidence she saw and heard and her emotionally unhealthy state of mind that she could put together the scenero that she did.

Vengence is the flipside of justice and most people who go out for vengence feel and think that they are getting justice for something wrong that happened to them or their loved ones. Vengence is not justice but to the person doing vengence is it justice. Miko in her twisted world view really believed she was getting justice on wrong doers and she paid the price for that.

 

[Elf Witch]

I had thought you were arguing that the act of executing Shojo was not an Evil act, instead of arguing the current state of Miko's alignment.

Oh, and something I had meant to write earlier; a paladin can commit Chaotic acts without reprocussion until their alignment shifts. It is only an Evil act which causes an immediate revocation of power.

Thus, her fall from grace would not have been due to the circumvention of the law in making herself judge/jury/executioner unless: that act shifted her alignment towards Chaotic or that act was also Evil.

I do not believe one act can shift alignment, nor do I think Miko the type to go around doing enough Chaotic deeds that this act would shift her.

I can see how the bestowal of authority on herself could be Evil, so we're back at Miko commiting an Evil act. Loss of Powers.

If we are talking about intent then no I don't think Miko was in her mind commiting an evil act. That is what I have been trying to argue. That if given what Miko believed and if it was true then no it was not an evil act it was an act of paladin justice.

The fact is that Miko was wrong and she killed a man and that is what made the act evil.

What I have been arguing is Miko POV. And from that POV she was a paladin bringing an evildoer to justice.

 

[PallidPatience]

My argument isn't that i's right because many people agree on it. My argument is that it is right, and that it's being right (as per D&D alignment) coincides with the majority's agreement on it.

And you are overlooking my point. Vengeance is not justice, you are correct. Vengeance is (arguably) the evil version of justice. Justice is about setting things right. Vengeance is about getting back at the people who hurt me. If you're saying that Miko acted for vengeance, but her act was not evil, then I think that you're wrong. She acted out of anger and wrath. She acted out of vengeance. She acted for HER, not for the greater good. Therefore, her act was EVIL, and she has been punished for it. Her emotional upset does not protect her. If you do evil, it doesn't matter if you do it because someone took away your ice cream cone when you were little, or because someone decided they didn't want a relationship with you. You're still doing evil.

Not that I think her alignment is Evil. I wouldn't be surprised if she was LN now, though.

 

[Elf Witch]

No, I'm saying that paladins as presented in the PHB behave in the manner described in the PHB. And that is what we have to go on when evaluating paladins in things like OotS, since that is the baseline to measure from. I suppose a DM could change the paladin code in their home campaign to include a tenet that every paladin roasts a baby alive each day as part of their religious observances, but then you have diverged from the PHB model, and your assessments of the paladin code are of limited value in discussions like these.

And assessments of paladins that would fit 14th/15th century nobles in the real world who made summary judgments and executions also stray very far from the PHB, making assessments involving those types of examples not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.

You do realize that paladins are based on a combo of knights from history and from literature?

I don't agree with everything that PHB says about paladins because I think it is poorly written and that is why we have so many multi page paladin threads.

You are saying that because I don't agree totally with the PHB that their is noway for us to evaulate paladins because there is no common ground. Why is it eating babies always comes up in these paladin threads? Sheesh just because you are not a slave to the PHB paladin code it means that you think paladins should be going around eating babies.

You get several gamers in a conversation on the PHB paladin code and you will not be able to come up with a conseus of just how that code should be applied.

Evaulating Miko using the pladin code in the PHB she did not break it until she killed Shojo. The only non paladin act she has commited was killing someone who was not gulity of the crimes she accused him off. If he had been guilty and she killed him she would not have lost her paladin ability. Not for one chaotic act. As another poster said and quite rightly that doing one chaotic act does not cost you your paladinhood but doing an evil act does.

Killing an evil person in DnD is not an evil act and so does not lead to lose of paladinhood.

 

[Elf Witch]

My argument isn't that i's right because many people agree on it. My argument is that it is right, and that it's being right (as per D&D alignment) coincides with the majority's agreement on it.

And you are overlooking my point. Vengeance is not justice, you are correct. Vengeance is (arguably) the evil version of justice. Justice is about setting things right. Vengeance is about getting back at the people who hurt me. If you're saying that Miko acted for vengeance, but her act was not evil, then I think that you're wrong. She acted out of anger and wrath. She acted out of vengeance. She acted for HER, not for the greater good. Therefore, her act was EVIL, and she has been punished for it. Her emotional upset does not protect her. If you do evil, it doesn't matter if you do it because someone took away your ice cream cone when you were little, or because someone decided they didn't want a relationship with you. You're still doing evil.

Not that I think her alignment is Evil. I wouldn't be surprised if she was LN now, though.

I am not saying vengence is not an evil act. What I am saying is that in Miko eyes she was not getting vengence she was delivering justice.

And because she can't see the difference she fell.

And what does DND alignment have to do with why I think she did the things she did? What is so hard to understand the point I am making which is simply I understand how with her mindset and the evidence she had she could come to the conclusions that she did.

What I have always said is that in Miko mind she is justified in what she did.

One of the things that some people have said is that even if she was right her choosing to execute him instead of bring him to trial was an evil act and caause for losing her powers. It is not an evil act it is a chaotic act. And one chaotic act does not make a paladin lose her power.

 

[Grog]

One of the things that some people have said is that even if she was right her choosing to execute him instead of bring him to trial was an evil act and caause for losing her powers. It is not an evil act it is a chaotic act. And one chaotic act does not make a paladin lose her power.

Unless Miko is specifically empowered under the law to dispense the death penalty to lawbreakers without a trial, then her killing Shojo wasn't an execution - it was a murder. And there's nothing in the PHB about paladins having that power, and there's nothing in the comic about it, either. (Indeed, we've seen evidence to the contrary - Miko wasn't allowed to kill Belkar on the spot, he was to be taken into custody and tried on charges of murder).

There's a big difference between an execution and a murder.