Vigilantism and the Lawful Alignment in OotS

[Porthos]

having accepted that premise, Evil => Needs Smiting is a pretty trivial step. If you are not comfortable with those conclusions, then I would suggest not accepting the premise.

Here's the problem with accepting your premise:

Let me say that again.

Miko was the poster child of "If it's Evil, I get to Smite It." As she spiraled into her own madness it became "If it's Evil, I have to Smite It."

And when something broke in her brain? When something occurred that shattered part of her worldview?

It became: If I judge it to be wrong, whether or not it actually pings as evil it must be Smited"

After all, it's only a small step from "If something is Evil, it must be Smited" to "If someone is helping someone who is Evil, they must be Smited". And each and everyone of us saw what happened when THAT philosophy was brought to the stage.

That is, ultimately, the real danger of "If it is Evil, SMITE" without taking things into account. Without allowing for even the possibility of another solution.

See, Miko Miyazaki was a deconstruction of the SMITE SMITE SMITE paladin you are mentioning (as well as deconstructing several other Paladin tropes). That was one of the points of that entire arc. What would happen to such a Paladin if they were thrust into a situation where their philosophy just doesn't work anymore.

Of course, Shojo fared little better as his machinations proved to be his undoing.

It's almost as if Rich was pillorying both Miko and Shojo, showing their flaws for all to see.

After all, he also had a pair of reasonable authority figures in Roy and Hinjo. Hinjo in fact was the critical role of being the example of what a Paladin should do in the situation where they find their liege lord has been a little naughty.