OotS 406

[Felix]

By point of contention is that one evil act does not make a person evil

Who, by name, disagrees with this? Anyone?

and that intent matters when it comes to matter of DnD alignment.

Agreed. But Good intentions will not make an Evil act not Evil.

It may make it understandable and forgivable, but that is something else altogether.

Miko has (at least) two intents in attacking Shojo. Killing him, and delivering justice.

She intends to kill him, for all the wrong reasons. Evil intent.

She wishes to deliver Justice by way of executing a traitor. Lawful intent.​

(We don't know if she had it within her powers to assume judge/jury/executioner status because that would require knowledge of the laws of Azure city. Anyone have a copy of their laws? No? Thought not. ) What she did is not necessarily Chaotic. Nor is it necessarily Lawful, but it's just as valid a proposal for what we know.

So you may try to worm Good intent out of her motives for killing Shojo, but the Evil and Lawful intent is fairly well demonstrable. Couple that with Evil action, and you've got a fallen paladin.

A town merchant lives in an evil society ruled over by clerics of an evil god he by law has to practice worship of this evil god. So he tithes to the church, goes to temple and helplessly watches the monthly blood letting. But he does not particpate in the actual killing he lives his life with as much honor that he can. He does not cheat his customers or lie to his wife. He gives aid to others when he can. Therefore even though he gives worship to and evil god this does not make him evil.

Worshipping an Evil god is an Evil act.

It may not make the character's alignment Evil, because after all, you can have clerics of Evil deities that are Neutral. But that does not mean that worshipping an Evil god isn't Evil.

Seperate "Evil acts" from "Evil alignment"; many places in this thread they have become confused, as in this quotation.

As for Belkar killing her I have been reading a lot of other threads both here and in the forums on Giant in the playground after awhile they tend to blur amd merge and I forget just which thread had what in it.

It's dangerous to accuse folks of things when you can't support it.

Besides, what Belkar does now is wholly seperate from Miko's paladin status. Frankly, I think he's gotten such jollies seeing Miko fall and Shojo die that he should be sated as far as schadenfreude goes.

 

[Grog]

(We don't know if she had it within her powers to assume judge/jury/executioner status because that would require knowledge of the laws of Azure city. Anyone have a copy of their laws? No? Thought not. )

Actually, we do know from a previous strip that Miko was specifically not allowed to assume judge/jury/executioner status with Belkar.

 

[Felix]

Actually, we do know from a previous strip that Miko was specifically not allowed to assume judge/jury/executioner status with Belkar.

Do you refer to when Shojo stopped her from killing Belkar? Or another strip?

 

[Grog]

Do you refer to when Shojo stopped her from killing Belkar? Or another strip?

The one where she was about to kill him in the throne room.

 

[Felix]

The one where she was about to kill him in the throne room.

In that strip, what stopped her was an order from her master. It does not mean that she would not have been within her rights to kill him, merely that her master forbade that particular line of action.

Is there some subtlety about the strip that I'm missing where the fact that she is not allowed to act as j/j/e is clearly spelled out?

 

[Grog]

In that strip, what stopped her was an order from her master. It does not mean that she would not have been within her rights to kill him, merely that her master forbade that particular line of action.

Is there some subtlety about the strip that I'm missing where the fact that she is not allowed to act as j/j/e is clearly spelled out?

If Miko is not allowed to act as judge, jury, and executioner, that doesn't need to be spelled out. That's the default condition in the PHB - paladins are not allowed to kill whomever they like, whenever they like.

If things are different in the OotS campaign world, then that is what needs to be clearly spelled out. But it isn't, and we have an example of Miko not being allowed to act as judge, jury, and executioner as further supporting evidence.

I'll say it again - if you think paladins in the OotS world are allowed to kill whoever they like, please show me the strip that tells us that. Otherwise, we can conclude that Miko's killing of Shojo was unlawful, and thus, a murder.

 

[Felix]

I'll say it again - if you think paladins in the OotS world are allowed to kill whoever they like, please show me the strip that tells us that.

Please show me where in my posts I have claimed such a stupid thing. If you're going to put words in my mouth, give me some credit.

Otherwise, we can conclude that Miko's killing of Shojo was unlawful, and thus, a murder.

If the head of the Sapphire Guard is not allowed special powers in the event of treason, you're quite right. It can still be a lawful killing as well as an evil killing; the two are not mutually exclusive.

That's the default condition in the PHB - paladins are not allowed to kill whomever they like, whenever they like.

Had Miko killed Belkar, would it have been unlawful? He was lawfully arrested, thrown in jail, escaped, murdered and desecrated, assualted an officer, resisted arrest, aggrivated assualt with a deadly weapon. I don't see that Belkar's killing and Shojo's killing are on equal ground. So I don't see that Miko would not have been within her lawful rights to kill him.

However, Shojo, whom she was bound to obey, ordered her not to. It is from that order that killing Belkar would certainly have become unlawful.

That strip, which you referenced to show that paladins:

"Actually, we do know from a previous strip that Miko was specifically not allowed to assume judge/jury/executioner status with Belkar."​

This strip shows that she was not allowed to assume j/j/e status because of Shojo's order. Not because she is unable to do so because of other standing laws.​

So my prior claim stands: We don't know if she had it within her powers to assume judge/jury/executioner status because that would require knowledge of the laws of Azure city.

If things are different in the OotS campaign world, then that is what needs to be clearly spelled out.

And it may very well be extraordinarily clearly spelled out in Article VII, Section 3, Addendum iv, Paragraph 2. Simply because we arn't shown it, does not mean that it can't be there. It's the child's logical fallacy: just because you can't see something does not mean it doesn't exist.

I'm not saying it does exist, merely that it may, and so her execution of Shojo could be Lawful as well as Evil.

 

[Grog]

So my prior claim stands: We don't know if she had it within her powers to assume judge/jury/executioner status because that would require knowledge of the laws of Azure city.

Well, that's true. We don't know that. And we also don't know if Miko has it within her powers to execute anyone who recites poetry or passes gas anywhere in her vicinity. And for that matter, we also don't know if Roy sneaks away from the group and eats a baby every week.

OotS is a work of fiction. We can only go by what we're explicitly shown, or can reasonably infer from what we're shown. Since we were never told that Miko has special powers under the law to execute people as she sees fit, we can reasonably infer that she does not (since a practice that unusual in Azure City would certainly merit a mention in the strip, especially because it impacts directly upon the main characters). Thus, the only logical and reasonable reading of recent events in the strip is that her killing of Shojo was a murder. You can say "Well we don't know that's true," if you like, but as I said, this is fiction, so we don't know anything for certain. The entire strip could be Durkon's fever-induced hallucination, for all we know. Arguing along those lines gets us nowhere.

 

[Felix]

We can only go by what we're explicitly shown, or can reasonably infer from what we're shown.

What I've seen is that Miko is more Lawful than she is Good; this is what leads to her fall. We also know that though we don't know squat about Azure City's laws, Miko sure will. She feels confident that it is within her lawful remit to execute Shojo.

Of course she also believes it to be a Good act, and she is wrong. But simply because it is an Evil act does not make it a non-Lawful one.

 

[Grog]

What I've seen is that Miko is more Lawful than she is Good; this is what leads to her fall. We also know that though we don't know squat about Azure City's laws, Miko sure will. She feels confident that it is within her lawful remit to execute Shojo.

Miko also feels confident that Shojo is in league with Xykon when that's not the case (and she has no evidence whatsoever that it is the case). Just because Miko thinks something doesn't make it so, as has been forcefully demonstrated in the last few strips.