Order of the Stick: How long will they put up with Miko?

[Psychic Warrior]

Start a new thread. Include a poll.

Please don't. I think 3 OotS threads is plenty.

And I always liked Shilsen's Cedric as the perfect example of a well rounded paladin.

 

[ForceUser]

Well, this paladin though is defined by someone else, our own definitions have little meaning here.

As others have noted, Miko is clearly meant to represent a stereotypical "bad paladin" that drives other players to the brink of murder. I think it's important to be clear on this--she in no way represents a well-played paladin.

 

[Crothian]

As others have noted, Miko is clearly meant to represent a stereotypical "bad paladin" that drives other players to the brink of murder. I think it's important to be clear on this--she in no way represents a well-played paladin.

Well, she's a comic character and not a character at someone's RPG table that I know of. I'm sure there are many characters that when taken from another format make lousy examples of an RPG character. OotS is like D&D and RPGs in many fasions, but different people controling each character and playing an RPG is not one of them.

But even if it was an RPG and someone is playing the character like this, there can easily be background info, world info, or other things we are not privy to that makes this Paladin played exactrly how she should be played.

 

[ForceUser]

But even if it was an RPG and someone is playing the character like this, there can easily be background info, world info, or other things we are not privy to that makes this Paladin played exactrly how she should be played.

Come on, man. I'm trying to keep this from devolving into another paladin-bashing thread.

 

[Crothian]

Come on, man. I'm trying to keep this from devolving into another paladin-bashing thread.

Bash if you want to, but that doesn't change anything. My points of her not actually being a RPG character and theat we don't know enough about her to call it bad role playing still exist.

 

[Parlan]

No, the inn got blown up because assassins were trying to kill them while they were posing as royalty. Their actions didn't lead to the inn being blown up (to be specific they were not the proximate cause). The assassin's actions led to the inn being blown up (transferred intent is still intent). The OotS gang could be said to be wrong for posing as royalty when they were not, but the destruction of the inn hangs on the assassins, not the OotS.

Someone's gone/going to law school!

I would apply the "but for" test.

Cn you say "But for the OotS passing as the king the inn got blown up"?

No.

Therefore no proximate cause and no liability.

[/legalese]
[common sense]
Saying it's the Order's fault for staying in the inn is like saying it's a victim's fault he got robbed b/c he shouldn't have been carrying money.

 

[Crothian]

Saying it's the Order's fault for staying in the inn is like saying it's a victim's fault he got robbed b/c he shouldn't have been carrying money.

Correct, and if that's all that happened then it would be clear cut. But the OotS also pretended to be royality. And if they hadn't done that, the Inn would not have been blown up.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Correct, and if that's all that happened then it would be clear cut. But the OotS also pretended to be royality. And if they hadn't done that, the Inn would not have been blown up.

Sure it would have--except it would have been blown up with the real king in it, possibly starting a war (though actually, you could claim that Belkar knocking into the explosives is what led to the blast, since the dwarf wasn't too ready to use the explosives, but that could have happened whether or not Roy pretended to be royalty)

 

[Crothian]

Sure it would have--except it would have been blown up with the real king in it, possibly starting a war (though actually, you could claim that Belkar knocking into the explosives is what led to the blast, since the dwarf wasn't too ready to use the explosives, but that could have happened whether or not Roy pretended to be royalty)

Or the Kings people who would be more alert to security problems could have caught the plotters before the place was blown. We don't know what would have happened if they had not pretended to be royalty.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Sure it would have--except it would have been blown up with the real king in it, possibly starting a war (though actually, you could claim that Belkar knocking into the explosives is what led to the blast, since the dwarf wasn't too ready to use the explosives, but that could have happened whether or not Roy pretended to be royalty)

Actually, depending on the King's stats, it's entirely possible the assassins would have killed him without resorting to blowing up the inn. But, I don't think Crothian's argueing that the Order is mostly responsible. I think the arguement is really about percentages. (Order is 20% responsible, Assassins 60%, King of Nowhere is 10% responsibile and the innkeeper not building a bomb proof inn makes him liable for 10%)

Also, I don't think Miko is saying they're responsible for blowing up the inn. She's saying that them leading a bad lifestyle has resulted in divine punishment. I can't say she's wrong.

For Roy's comments, I liked it because he basically told her he wasn't under thumb. The specific comments were just an insult, as they were intended.