SOD debate between me and my friend. (spoilers I guess)

[Kerrah]

I think the real question is, did this kind of thing happen often? Was it a really bad judgement call by a zealous paladin commander or something they'd been doing systematically before?

[hamishspence]

Going by War & XPs, the Sapphire Guard have been destroying the villages of "goblinoids and other humanoids" a lot.

For the precise wording:

Most damning, though, is a decades-long history of paladins exterminating entire villages of goblins and other humanoids at the behest of their gods (a point that is seen directly in the pages of Start of Darkness).

[salinan]

I think people claiming that no paladins fell during the raids are going by that wording of the gods' instructions (to 'exterminate entire villages'.) Given it's specifically requested by their gods, it wouldn't make sense for the gods to punish them for doing so.

Sounds like Rich is now saying that's not exactly what the gods instructed.

[factotum]

Going by War & XPs, the Sapphire Guard have been destroying the villages of "goblinoids and other humanoids" a lot.

For the precise wording:

We can assume the raid on Redcloak's village was the last one, because there's no evidence that the Sapphire Guard ever attacked Redcloak himself apart from that one occasion. That being the case, one wonders if it was also the most savage attack? Maybe the number of Paladins who Fell on that raid led the Guard to think that slaughtering goblin innocents wasn't the way to go--that, and they probably didn't know where Redcloak was, either.

[hamishspence]

What about when Redcloak meets Xykon? At this point (according to him) the Sapphire Guard have driven them into the swamps, and now they've come to drive them out of the swamps.

[factotum]

I assumed it was the sacking of their village that had driven them into the swamps.

[Ancalagon]

It did? I don't recall there being that much of a commentary in Origin of PCs- though maybe I missed it.

Ah, sorry. It's in War & XPs and is about Miko, but it applies as well to the Paladin in Origins: "Being a little to quick to pull the katana... being a lottle too suspicious of everyone's motives...being a little too willing to find the technialities of her alignment rather than living up to the spirit of it. She pushed the and pushed on the bounderies of what it meant to be Lawful Good and a paladin, until one day, she broke through."

Applies in the same way to the guy from Origin. Attempting to defeat the spirit of the class with technical loopholes.

[hamishspence]

Sounds about right, even if it doesn't specify him explicitly.

[Ancalagon]

I think the real question is, did this kind of thing happen often? Was it a really bad judgement call by a zealous paladin commander or something they'd been doing systematically before?

I think killing goblins in a systematic way has happened before. But it were more like warcamps, so it's ok. In this case, they went for a camp with children as well because they wanted to hit the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle and accepted the collateral damage (no parallel to RL here, please go on!) and were also too eager to "kill evil" and to "use their abilities".

So I think this is the difference: Killing warbands and warcamps or striking back invading goblins (it's not they are innocent in all this) made some Paladins so sure about killing goblins that they literally lost it when they attacked a place where more self-restriction would have been in order.

[hamishspence]

Seems like an interesting possibility.

Maybe we'll see another prequel, based on Shojo, the Sapphire Guard, and eventually Miko, that confirms this?

According to War & XPs, the hobgoblins have been "kept penned up in the mountains for 30 years"- could there be a connection?

[Ancalagon]

Maybe we'll see another prequel, based on Shojo, the Sapphire Guard, and eventually Miko, that confirms this?

That would be a good sequel, yes. But I still hope more for a collection of short-stories (sequels as well as side-stories of minor characters) in the OotS-world. So my vote does not go in that direction (that is, if I had one ;). But surely beats linear guild or other proposed sequel-options).

[Devils_Advocate]

Goblins are born evil. They have an innate tendency to do evil things. They were made that way specifically so it would be ok for low level paladins to massacre them without having to think about it to much.

Ah, so it's the gods who were cruel bastards, and the paladins are just dealing with the consequences of that (as intended). Yay.

Yes, but in his case the commentary explicitly stated he was there to show how paladins are not to be played/how people misconcept what a paladin is or by what rules they operate.

Given that the paladin in On the Origin of PCs tried to get his own Lawful Good ally killed on the grounds that he was annoying, it strains credulity that he still was a paladin at that point.

A summary of the two most common viewpoints on him

Those both sound quite accurate and not really mutually exclusive.

[factotum]

According to War & XPs, the hobgoblins have been "kept penned up in the mountains for 30 years"- could there be a connection?

Seems possible, considering the attack on Redcloak's village took place 34 years ago (if memory serves). Maybe that even marks a complete change of tactic from the Sapphire Guard--rather than going in and destroying goblinoid villages, they decided to just keep the goblinoids bottled up in a place they couldn't do any harm.

[Project_Mayhem]

Those both sound quite accurate and not really mutually exclusive.

My thoughts exactly

[derfenrirwolv]

well, word of God itself.

Guess this thread is over.

Hello, and welcome to the forums.

[Mystic Muse]

Hello, and welcome to the forums.

let me phrase that. "word of god itself. guess me and my friend's argument is over."

[LuisDantas]

These are very interesting. And do clear up the "why didn't they fall?" question, with "we can't actually be sure that they didn't"- answer.

Indeed. Very interesting indeed.

(About who among the Paladins might have fallen)

My current best guesses are- the ones that killed, or tried to kill, young goblins that were not a threat (Right Eye, and his sister) and possibly the leader of the force, after "Exterminate the rest and let us be done here."

Quite possibly so. I'd elaborate on that a bit and guess that it is mainly a function of how those Paladins feel about fulfilling their duties. While it is clear that the 12 Gods did order them to kill the Goblins, they are still Paladins and must use their better judgement at all times, even while following genocidal commands.

It is part of a Paladin's duties to kill in certain situations. It is completely anathema to the very concept of a Paladin to enjoy killing if there is a reasonable alternative available. Or so it seems to me.

[factotum]

While it is clear that the 12 Gods did order them to kill the Goblins

I don't think it IS clear. If the Twelve Gods ordered them to do it, then they wouldn't Fall for following those orders (this isn't some Celtic myth where a character is forced to break his geas and thus lose his power because of it). It seems far more likely that there is a general "Kill the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle" order, and this particular troupe of paladins simply took things way too far; they obviously had to kill the Bearer, and anybody in the village who tried to prevent them, but no more than that.

[LuisDantas]

I don't think it IS clear. If the Twelve Gods ordered them to do it, then they wouldn't Fall for following those orders (this isn't some Celtic myth where a character is forced to break his geas and thus lose his power because of it). It seems far more likely that there is a general "Kill the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle" order, and this particular troupe of paladins simply took things way too far; they obviously had to kill the Bearer, and anybody in the village who tried to prevent them, but no more than that.

I may have been mistaken in assuming that the orders did exist, but I maintain that following orders is no warranty against falling. Inteligent beings must use their capability for discernment, after all.

[Dilettante]

Oooo! Oooo! I know this one!

Thanks for taking the time to post this, Rich.

My wife and I are big fans of the strip, which is pretty impressive since my wife doesn't have a background in RPGs. But when we read Start of Darkness, it very nearly made both of us quit the strip. We soldiered on, but although we've both enjoyed the strip immensely, that one book was a sore point that took away from the rest of it, however slightly. Now I think we can both move on and go back to both enjoying and trusting OotS.

Thank you.

[Optimystik]

My wife and I are big fans of the strip, which is pretty impressive since my wife doesn't have a background in RPGs. But when we read Start of Darkness, it very nearly made both of us quit the strip. We soldiered on, but although we've both enjoyed the strip immensely, that one book was a sore point that took away from the rest of it, however slightly. Now I think we can both move on and go back to both enjoying and trusting OotS.

To be fair, he warned you both in the foreword that very bad things would happen to good people in that book, and also that the villains wouldn't be getting their comeuppance in that book either. So any loss of faith on your parts was entirely on you.

The obvious application of those words was to Redcloak and Xykon, but they can easily fit those paladins that murdered children, as well as their commander.

[Ancalagon]

@Dilettante
Some thought crossed my mind when I just read that post...

My first thought was "Well, d'uh, what do you expect? The foreword says it and it's also obvious this isn't as the online comic".
SoD is a simply awesome story detailing where the villians come from and why they do what they do.

But then it crossed my mind there are three basic groups OotS speaks to:
A) those who mostly come for the giggles (some plainly state the "story" is even annoying in parts and they probably find the character-development end deeper parts (morals etc) to be somewhat superflous,

B) those who come mostly for the story and who think that quite many good points and updates have been litterly ruined by a punchline that "just had to squeezed in",

C) those who enjoy both, to varying degrees between A) and B).

Note: Of course, the groups A) and B) are not set in stone and it's not said that A) cannot enjoy part of the story or a particular character developing or that B) cannot also giggle about the latest flat punchline...

But I have to admit that people from Group A) (or "mostly group A)") really do not get much from SoD, it actually is a lot of things they are NOT looking for.
They got a book from which they expect it to be filled with fun-time like the online strip and get a dark, gritty, and outright evil story.
It does have a few very good jokes but mostly it's... pure story about evil (and Evil). It might be awesome, but that's not why those people usually come to OotS. It's surely a good book... but simply not the Droids they were looking for.

---

My closing comment, after the general ramblings, would be a specific one: Dilettante, I would be very interested to know how you would see the book if you re-read if now AFTER you know what it is and what it is not.

[Dilettante]

To be fair, he warned you both in the foreword that very bad things would happen to good people in that book, and also that the villains wouldn't be getting their comeuppance in that book either. So any loss of faith on your parts was entirely on you.

That's true. I never blamed Rich for it, but I did feel uncomfortable with the series after reading it.

It's hard to explain exactly what bothered us so much, but I'll try. Warning: wall of text ahead.

The various deeds that Xykon got up to weren't exactly fun to read, but they were interesting and revealing. Xykon is evil, and I've never seen anything that suggests otherwise in the strips. That's cool.

Redcloak's story was harder to handle. By having paladins slaughtering helpless children, the book was implicitly suggesting that doing so was a Lawful Good act - yet at the same time, the story made it clear that these children were blameless individuals with personalities, and obviously the reader was supposed to sympathize with Redcloak as he saw his family cut down by the cold, uncaring paladins. Did we sympathize more with Redcloak? Sure. Did we see that the issue was more complex that we'd previously thought? Of course. Did we start to wonder if we cared about the Order of the Stick? Yes. Wait, what?

The slaughter threw the alignment system into jeopardy. Clearly, Xykon was evil. And clearly Roy and Durkon were good, with characters like Haley, Redcloak and the Oracle filling in various spots in-between. I have no problem having evil humans or dwarves - heck, it wouldn't be much fun without them. But if the gods of good themselves were tolerating or even demanding the slaughter of innocent children, it meant that their definitions of "good" and "evil" were senseless, or at least not based on anything I would be happy with...because it's the yardstick that the characters in the series use.

If a paladin's "detect evil" shows up positive for black dragons, skeletons, halfling psychopaths and little goblin children, then it's telling you that they're all evil...and the paladins that slaughter little goblin children are good. Once you make that leap of logic, you're faced with the realization that you can't trust anyone's idea of good and evil in the strip: are the Archons and Devas really good? Are the Devils and Demons really evil? If the gods themselves are "shades of grey", what hope is there for the rest of us? Is there anyone at all in the strips who is genuinely a decent person who I would like to meet? I've read books where the main character was an anti-hero, but I always lost interest; I've always needed to be able to sympathize with the protagonist, and after SoD it felt like we had to question that.

In the end, the quality of the writing and the wit and wonder of the series kept us going, and we're both glad we did. But hearing that some of the paladins went too far in SoD, that the gods felt some of their actions were not good, that helps restore a sense of right and wrong that is pivotal to any game that includes an alignment system.

[Kish]

I've read books where the main character was an anti-hero, but I always lost interest; I've always needed to be able to sympathize with the protagonist, and after SoD it felt like we had to question that.

I wonder, have you read On the Origins of PCs? If you haven't, then you should.

[Dilettante]

They got a book from which they expect it to be filled with fun-time like the online strip and get a dark, gritty, and outright evil story.

My wife and I both fit into "c". Actually, half the time she'd be in "b", because she just doesn't get many RPG-specific jokes (and has to turn to me for an explanation). I love the humor, but I also love the character building. I think my favorite storyline was Haley regaining her speech, and while I didn't enjoy seeing Varsuvius fall from grace, I loved seeing it (and kept thinking "this is far more believable than Anakin becoming Darth Vader").

The tl;dr to my last post is that I didn't like Start of Darkness because it made me feel that there was nobody in the strip who was truly good. Lots who were truly evil, but nobody who could really be called good without a few asterisks.

My closing comment, after the general ramblings, would be a specific one: Dilettante, I would be very interested to know how you would see the book if you re-read if now AFTER you know what it is and what it is not.

I'll let you know. I do plan on re-reading it, and I might be able to convince my wife to do so, too (she did try and convince me to throw it out after first reading it, though).

[Dilettante]

I wonder, have you read On the Origins of PCs? If you haven't, then you should.

Yep. It wasn't my favorite book, but it was worth full price. :) Roy and Durkon both showed a lot of goodness in them in it, if that's what you're getting at.

[Kish]

But the bit with the orcs wasn't enough to keep you confident Roy was still the hero (whether the gods were or not)?

[Dilettante]

But the bit with the orcs wasn't enough to keep you confident Roy was still the hero (whether the gods were or not)?

No, we were both pretty clear that Roy was good, which is why we kept reading. But we kept going back to "but who's defining good" and similar questions. Durkon? Sure, he's a loyal, honorable, trustworthy dwarf who I'd be proud to call friend. But he's also worshipping a god who sanctions the slaughter of babies. How do I get over the idea that mere mortals are "gooder" than the gods they worship?

It also made me doubt whether the Order of the Stick was doing the right thing. Redcloak's story is one of someone trying to do the right thing through evil acts - and I was starting to wonder whether the OotS was the story of someone (Roy) doing the wrong thing through good acts.

[Joerg]

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.

Fair enough, and good to know. I just want to note that you created a different impression in the commentary to War & XPs (before strip 474):

Most damning, though, is a decades-long history of paladins exterminating entire villages of goblins and other humanoids at the behest of their gods [...]. The Twelve Gods may have sanctioned the paladins' massacres, but even the gods can't stop Karma from kicking them in their divine asses once in a while.

It is not surprising if nearly everyone reading that assumes that no paladin has fallen because of the massacres.

[Dilettante]

I got my wife to give her opinion, which I've added verbatim:

"I think part of it for me was that I originally DID come for the giggles - I don't have the background in RPGs that a lot of everybody else seems to. I mostly came along because [my husband was] coming along, and because it introduced me to the facets of RPGs that [my husband] took for granted and amused me at the same time, without confusing me. I tried to play RPGs before and the rules just ended up leaving me cross-eyed.

In some ways I really like the way Rich has developed the story, in other ways I do feel the story has become WAY more massive than it used to be, and I kind of miss the early lightheartedness, but I don't say that to diss what's going on now.

As for Start of Darkness, I think maybe it just went a lot more into the real 'nature of evil' than I was expecting from what until now had been a COMIC story. I believe Start of Darkness came out somewhere in the general vicinity of the real introduction to the meat of the story - just where it was becoming a much bigger thing, and so, it just wasn't what I was expecting and as my husband said to you earlier, it left me in doubt that the good guys were really doing the right thing. Everybody knows Paladins are lawful stupid, though they don't have to be (see Hinjo), but wholesale slaughter of apparently innocent women and children was a brain- and story-breaker for me."

So apparently I was wrong about why she read the strip...ahem...but, er, I remembered her birthday...