Kickstarter Discussion Thread - How the Paladin Got His Scar (SPOILERS!)

[Kish]

I confess to being quite puzzled by how anyone would get to "the first step of preventing war would be to undermine/remove the new Supreme Leader, who is anti-war but got there by poisoning people and says mean things about the Azurites." Saying that removing him will restore the way things were under the previous (dead and eager to build up for a war as soon as he thought it was winnable) Supreme Leader strikes me as the kind of "hobgoblins are automata that react to stimuli rather than reasoning beings, right?" viewpoint that Gin-Jun would likely have endorsed.

If O-Chul had, somehow, communicated to all the hobgoblins, "Your current Supreme Leader poisoned your former Supreme Leader and his advisors, not us!":
1) They would have added "and the humans lied to us about it!" to their understanding of what happened.
2) Some of them might have, subconsciously, become less trusting of the Supreme Leader. This would have led them, not to somehow be friendlier to humans, but to be less inclined to go along with his policies. Of which the one policy we know he had was peace with Azure City.

If O-Chul had, somehow (and we're getting into "when did he become omnipotent, here?" territory), made all the hobgoblins believe that the Supreme Leader had poisoned the former Supreme Leader and his advisors, they would probably have killed the Supreme Leader. Then there would have been a new Supreme Leader. At best it would have been a crapshoot: if the new Supreme Leader was opposed to war (was like the Supreme Leader who had just been removed) there wouldn't have been war. If the new Supreme Leader was in favor of war (was like the hobgoblin general who sounded like Gin-Jun), there would be an immediate war. If the new Supreme Leader was like the poisoned Supreme Leader, there would have been a war at some point but not immediately.

Wait, did I say "a crapshoot"? I meant "a crapshoot which only happened because you weren't content with being handed an already-rolled 7 by someone with dirty hands and insisted on rerolling."

[hamishspence]

Probably, the idiot in charge just told them "don't be like those losers: remember to scan for evil before you strike" - which is why Miko was so concerned about not being able to do so. It also neatly fits with the "legalistic" approach to paladinhood where the adherence to the rules and ignoring the intent toes the line, but doesn't make you fall.

Is it likely that Gin-Jun was the "guy in charge"? The hairstyle certainly matches with the guy saying "exterminate the others and let us be done here" - but that's a common hairstyle. Did he specifically reference having been there and leading them?

[Kish]

He says "I was just a new recruit," so not leading, but he was definitely there. When he is telling Miko how the Crimson Mantle slipped through their fingers before, there's a flashback panel to the Sapphire Guard fighting the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle at Redcloak's village. The flashback panel centers on a paladin who looks exactly like Gin-Jun, only with no beard and no streaks of grey in his hair.

[hamishspence]

Fair enough - so we can't blame Gin-Jun for the Sapphire Guard's behaviour back then. It does suggest that something has been rotten in the organization for a long time - with O-Chul's enrolment, Gin-Jun's loss, and a bunch of resignations, being the first step in "cleaning it up".

[Doran]

The book does talk about the fact that all the Paladins being from Noble Houses might have made too big for their boots, or too eager for the ends to justify the means.

[Lacuna Caster]

The original contention wasn't so much that undermining the institution of Supreme Leadership would be a good idea, but that Gin Jun's policy of (effectively) provoking war with the hobgoblins might have nipped that problem in the bud, rather than allowing for AC's own conquest 12 years later. Going off what I hear, I think that's hard to either prove or disprove.

My own perspective is that Xykon and RC, by themselves, were perfectly capable of annihilating Azure City with the right tactics, and the hobgoblins were simply the icing on top when it came to RC's nation-building ambitions. So taking the actual conquest as specific evidence for O-Chul's failure doesn't make much sense to me.

Fair enough - so we can't blame Gin-Jun for the Sapphire Guard's behaviour back then. It does suggest that something has been rotten in the organization for a long time - with O-Chul's enrolment, Gin-Jun's loss, and a bunch of resignations, being the first step in "cleaning it up".

Gosh, it's almost as if there were some other long-reigning authority figure within the Guard who might have been instrumental in shaping policy while disavowing all knowledge of specific wrong-doing. *taps chin* Now who could that be?

[hamishspence]

I thought Shojo's "hands-off policy" was a contributing factor - but not that Shojo was the kind to gleefully gloat over the goblinoid massacres while disavowing responsibility.

Given what The Giant has previously said about Shojo, I can't see him as a direct analog to Glasses-Head.

[Gwynfrid]

I read the whole story again more slowly (I always go too fast on the first read...) and got a few things I had clearly missed. Like, O-Chul's big speech about what to do when a group you're a part of behaves badly is a clear rebuttal of the ettin's sophistry. And there are quite a few hints about current world events, as well as some call-backs (or forward) to the main comic which I had not initially caught.

The story is truly fantastic. It ties a bunch of loose threads in a very nice way: O-Chul's career as a fighter turned paladin, the Sapphire Guard's history, solving the apparent disconnect between SoD and the main comic, the long-lasting peace with the hobgoblins allowing them to build huge numbers, and of course the titular paladin's scar. It greatly deepens our understanding of O-Chul and Hinjo, and a little bit of Miko as well (although I didn't relate as much to that part, a mild disappointment; I feel this view into her formative years could have tried to explore the tragic side of the character a little bit). From the narrative perspective, it's got nice twists and turns, like the whale summoning, the gouda poisoning, the candle of invocation, and of course O-Chul's solution to the problem. And the characters, all of them, are really great. I love how Mrs Kapoor is used as a sounding board and counterpoint to O-Chul's high-minded travails, and how Zhou represents the civilian viewpoint, the one out of her depth who's trying to make it out alive but still steps in when the time comes to choose the path of good.

This book (it really is a book in itself) isn't quite as funny as the main comic, or the other prequels. It's got great jokes: My favorite is the planetar's aborted date ("who summons on a Friday?"). And there are a bunch of great one-liners, especially Mrs Kapoor's. There is even room for a couple of old-school D&D rules-based jokes (armor check penalties!) However, the overall tone is serious, as befits the main character. The very dark SoD allowed for incredible black humor, and here the subject matter isn't as favorable a terrain. Still, I think Rich managed to write a good helping of fun into it: It's very enjoyable, while not the most enjoyable of the OOTS books.

That said, there are a couple of jokes I still don't get, and hopefully the fine minds on this thread will be able to point them out to me:
- On page 29, Mrs Kapoor says that Hinjo's donkey told her of his "limitations" and declines to elaborate. I have no idea what she might be talking about.
- On page 51, we see Redcloak and another goblin playing cards somewhere (presumably hidden from divination in some way - I guess Xykon has the headband that's the focus for Cloister at that point). Redcloak says "eights?" to which the other guy answers "go fish". I don't know the game they're playing, but it feels like there must be a joke there that links this to the narrative.
- Page 56, "bad plate girl". I feel there must be a wordplay or a reference I'm missing here.

[hamishspence]

- On page 51, we see Redcloak and another goblin playing cards somewhere (presumably hidden from divination in some way - I guess Xykon has the headband that's the focus for Cloister at that point).

Xykon didn't gain the headband until he killed Dorukan:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0532.html

which according to SoD was only a short time before "the present" (3 years?)

This is over 10 years before - Redcloak was on Xykon's private island at this point, which may have its own anti-divination means.

Redcloak says "eights?" to which the other guy answers "go fish". I don't know the game they're playing, but it feels like there must be a joke there that links this to the narrative.

The game:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_Fish

[Lacuna Caster]

I thought Shojo's "hands-off policy" was a contributing factor - but not that Shojo was the kind to gleefully gloat over the goblinoid massacres while disavowing responsibility.

Given what The Giant has previously said about Shojo, I can't see him as a direct analog to Glasses-Head.

Unfortunately, in part it's what the author has previously said about Shojo that makes it hard for me to imagine he had no idea what was happening. The guy who 'kneecaps his own government to ensure it's entirely dependent on him to function' is unlikely to have been unaware of what his military commanders had been up to for three or four decades. He can't be both a machiavellian puppet-master and completely clueless about these things.

What I can imagine Shojo doing is ordering these attacks with a strong undertone of "failure is not an option", knowing perfectly well that collateral is likely, and turning a blind eye when half his underlings come back with a wardrobe change. He doesn't have to be gloating gleefully to believe in the greater good(tm).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

- On page 51, we see Redcloak and another goblin playing cards somewhere (presumably hidden from divination in some way - I guess Xykon has the headband that's the focus for Cloister at that point).

No. Remember, the whole point of that scene is that head paladin has "determined" (more like decided) that because the only place with scrying protections is the Hobgoblin fortress, that's where the Crimson Cloak must be. Instead, we are shown that RC is sitting somewhere, bored, without scrying protections, showing how the massive leap in logic of the head paladin is wrong.

Also, I don't think Xykon had the headband yet at that point. He gets it from Dorukan, and that happens later.

Redcloak says "eights?" to which the other guy answers "go fish". I don't know the game they're playing, but it feels like there must be a joke there that links this to the narrative.

Go fish is a fairly simple card game, the kind you play with 8 year olds. I've never played it myself, but it shows up in media a lot - it might even have shown up in OotS before- usually as a shorthand for "this ain't poker-level stakes, just a simple game to pass the time". The fact that you call out "go fish" means it is a good easy way to show what they're playing, I suppose, which might explain why it is so pervasive.

GW

[Keltest]

Unfortunately, in part it's what the author has previously said about Shojo that makes it hard for me to imagine he had no idea what was happening. The guy who 'kneecaps his own government to ensure it's entirely dependent on him to function' is unlikely to have been unaware of what his military commanders had been up to for three or four decades. He can't be both a machiavellian puppet-master and completely clueless about these things.

What I can imagine Shojo doing is ordering these attacks with a strong undertone of "failure is not an option", knowing perfectly well that collateral is likely, and turning a blind eye when half his underlings come back with a wardrobe change. He doesn't have to be gloating gleefully to believe in the greater good(tm).

That seems unlikely. For one thing, that would require that Shojo is consistently and knowingly sending them out to do evil acts (which is the only thing he can really order them to do that would cause a fall), which is inconsistent with his Good alignment. For another, he cant just ignore the fact that his paladins are falling, nor would the other paladins let him do so. that directly impacts the power of his standing forces, and the other paladins would be seriously concerned when the people he sends out on special missions keep returning without their paladin powers.

[hamishspence]

Unfortunately, in part it's what the author has previously said about Shojo that makes it hard for me to imagine he had no idea what was happening. The guy who 'kneecaps his own government to ensure it's entirely dependent on him to function' is unlikely to have been unaware of what his military commanders had been up to for three or four decades. He can't be both a machiavellian puppet-master and completely clueless about these things.

Shojo didn't start "playing senile" till quite a bit later, it must be said. No Mr Scruffy in these scenes (or precursor version).

That seems unlikely. For one thing, that would require that Shojo is consistently and knowingly sending them out to do evil acts (which is the only thing he can really order them to do that would cause a fall), which is inconsistent with his Good alignment. For another, he cant just ignore the fact that his paladins are falling, nor would the other paladins let him do so. that directly impacts the power of his standing forces, and the other paladins would be seriously concerned when the people he sends out on special missions keep returning without their paladin powers.

Presumably the "Commander of the Sapphire Guard forces" (Shojo's immediate subordinate, who handles the day to day business) said - like Hinjo:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html

"Some of you made bad judgement calls - it happens - that's what the Atonement spell is for"

and had the spell cast, and assigned penances for those who made "bad judgement calls" - but, unlike Hinjo, not much caring what those judgement calls were or why they had Fallen - only that they had.

[Lacuna Caster]

That seems unlikely. For one thing, that would require that Shojo is consistently and knowingly sending them out to do evil acts (which is the only thing he can really order them to do that would cause a fall), which is inconsistent with his Good alignment. For another, he cant just ignore the fact that his paladins are falling, nor would the other paladins let him do so. that directly impacts the power of his standing forces, and the other paladins would be seriously concerned when the people he sends out on special missions keep returning without their paladin powers.

I agree- they really should be seriously concerned, and ordering other people to commit heinous deeds probably counts as an evil act oneself, but none of this seemed to trip up the commander- so why would it trip up Shojo, who isn't even a paladin?

Good characters can do wrong and still maintain their alignment as long as they compensate or can plausibly justify the long-term repercussions. (The rules of D&D are infuriatingly vague on exactly on how many acts, of what type, the relative weighting of intent, consequence and principle, and a dozen other points that would be necessary to evaluate this behaviour in an actual game, but in theory it's possible.) It's not intuitively obvious why fifty years of prosperity can supposedly justify kidnapping, extortion and perversion of justice, but won't stretch to cover war crimes.

Shojo didn't start "playing senile" till quite a bit later, it must be said. No Mr Scruffy in these scenes (or precursor version).

EDIT: I'm not sure that feigning madness was the specific onset for his machiavellianism- just a defence mechanism against personal attack.

[Gwynfrid]

Xykon didn't gain the headband until he killed Dorukan:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0532.html

which according to SoD was only a short time before "the present" (3 years?)

This is over 10 years before - Redcloak was on Xykon's private island at this point, which may have its own anti-divination means.



The game:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_Fish

No. Remember, the whole point of that scene is that head paladin has "determined" (more like decided) that because the only place with scrying protections is the Hobgoblin fortress, that's where the Crimson Cloak must be. Instead, we are shown that RC is sitting somewhere, bored, without scrying protections, showing how the massive leap in logic of the head paladin is wrong.

Also, I don't think Xykon had the headband yet at that point. He gets it from Dorukan, and that happens later.



Go fish is a fairly simple card game, the kind you play with 8 year olds. I've never played it myself, but it shows up in media a lot - it might even have shown up in OotS before- usually as a shorthand for "this ain't poker-level stakes, just a simple game to pass the time". The fact that you call out "go fish" means it is a good easy way to show what they're playing, I suppose, which might explain why it is so pervasive.

GW

OK, got it. So they've looked at all goblin settlements with divinations, not cast a worldwide divination. Sato points out that the commander's conclusion is faulty in a very basic way. He simply wants the thing he's looking for to be there.

Then I guess the Go Fish is a straightforward metaphor for the situation - if the card isn't in the other goblin's hand then rather than accusing him of cheating one should look for it somewhere else. Makes sense. Thanks!

EDIT... And I just only now realized the blindingly obvious metaphor to a real-world situation here. Man, am I slow

[Sanctaphrax]

I confess to being quite puzzled by how anyone would get to "the first step of preventing war would be to undermine/remove the new Supreme Leader, who is anti-war but got there by poisoning people and says mean things about the Azurites." Saying that removing him will restore the way things were under the previous (dead and eager to build up for a war as soon as he thought it was winnable) Supreme Leader strikes me as the kind of "hobgoblins are automata that react to stimuli rather than reasoning beings, right?" viewpoint that Gin-Jun would likely have endorsed.

If O-Chul had, somehow, communicated to all the hobgoblins, "Your current Supreme Leader poisoned your former Supreme Leader and his advisors, not us!":
1) They would have added "and the humans lied to us about it!" to their understanding of what happened.
2) Some of them might have, subconsciously, become less trusting of the Supreme Leader. This would have led them, not to somehow be friendlier to humans, but to be less inclined to go along with his policies. Of which the one policy we know he had was peace with Azure City.

If O-Chul had, somehow (and we're getting into "when did he become omnipotent, here?" territory), made all the hobgoblins believe that the Supreme Leader had poisoned the former Supreme Leader and his advisors, they would probably have killed the Supreme Leader. Then there would have been a new Supreme Leader. At best it would have been a crapshoot: if the new Supreme Leader was opposed to war (was like the Supreme Leader who had just been removed) there wouldn't have been war. If the new Supreme Leader was in favor of war (was like the hobgoblin general who sounded like Gin-Jun), there would be an immediate war. If the new Supreme Leader was like the poisoned Supreme Leader, there would have been a war at some point but not immediately.

Wait, did I say "a crapshoot"? I meant "a crapshoot which only happened because you weren't content with being handed an already-rolled 7 by someone with dirty hands and insisted on rerolling."

I didn't suggest undermining the new leader to avoid war; I suggested it to avoid losing a war, when his effective population-growth policies combined with the lasting hostility of the hobgoblins to make them a genuine threat.

But I do think that the truth is worth spreading, both for philosophical reasons and for "avoiding a grassroots pro-war movement" reasons, and that a setting with lie-detection magic has a pretty good chance of unveiling a deception like that one if it's brought to their attention.

And I also think you're being a bit too quick to trust a character who we already know is a murderous liar.

But yeah, there's a possibility that the new leader would be worse. I just think it's worth rolling the dice, because despite his reasonable-sounding speech at the end I think this one is pretty awful. (And because, if you want to be a good neighbour to the hobgoblins, you shouldn't let anyone lie and murder their way into supreme power over them.)

[SaintRidley]

Would I be the only one thinking that there might be some kind of foreshadowing in the fact that it is noted at several points that O-Chul, unlike most of his other companions, makes it a point to learn the names of the goblins around him? On the one hand, it's a clever shorthand to show how conscientious O-Chul is. On the other hand... heh.

Whereas Saha, I noticed, refers to Hobgoblins as 'it' - see page 27 for examples.

[SavageWombat]

Hmm. Shojo didn't start playing senile until the noble houses started getting too big for their britches. The noble houses are also the ones supplying the Sapphire Guard.

What if it was O-Chul's / Shojo's attempts at reform that led to the rise of corruption in the noble houses? Politics is complicated.

[Cizak]

Whereas Saha, I noticed, refers to Hobgoblins as 'it' - see page 27 for examples.

In that particular instance, she's refering to the rope.

She does call Pangtok "Ditch-Digger Dude".

[Jasdoif]

Gosh, it's almost as if there were some other long-reigning authority figure within the Guard who might have been instrumental in shaping policy while disavowing all knowledge of specific wrong-doing. *taps chin* Now who could that be?

Gin-Jun's predecessor, maybe. Lacking a name for this figure, I'm going to go with....Dao-Ku.

- On page 29, Mrs Kapoor says that Hinjo's donkey told her of his "limitations" and declines to elaborate. I have no idea what she might be talking about.

Nor do I...neither does Hinjo. The "messing with him" part Zhou alluded to would be playing on his anxieties with the idea that Hinjo's doing something wrong and doesn't know about it; most likely Lustre didn't actually say anything at all.

- Page 56, "bad plate girl". I feel there must be a wordplay or a reference I'm missing here.

She goes from "my mom has a commemorative plate with you on it" to "I got you stabbed by a hobgoblin" and mentally combined the two ideas into an exaggerated "I'm going to be on a commemorative plate showing me getting you being stabbed by a hobgoblin!" (Imagine a commemorative item depicting the ninth panel on page 17). Hence a bad plate, hence seeing herself becoming a "bad plate girl".

Zhou's prone to over-exaggerating bad things throughout the book, her position (curling up on the floor) shows she's not in a rational state of mind (to put it mildly), and O-Chul's common that she'll be fine indicate these bouts of hyperbole aren't uncommon for her.

[Lissou]

Would I be the only one thinking that there might be some kind of foreshadowing in the fact that it is noted at several points that O-Chul, unlike most of his other companions, makes it a point to learn the names of the goblins around him? On the one hand, it's a clever shorthand to show how conscientious O-Chul is. On the other hand... heh.

Are you referring to the fact that named characters tend to survive better in OOTS? Because I'm not sure this has been proven true for goblinoids (including in this very story). Or are you referring to something else I'm missing?

If O-Chul had, somehow (and we're getting into "when did he become omnipotent, here?" territory), made all the hobgoblins believe that the Supreme Leader had poisoned the former Supreme Leader and his advisors, they would probably have killed the Supreme Leader. Then there would have been a new Supreme Leader.

Why? One way to become Supreme Leader is to kill the current one. We know that because that's how Redcloak became Supreme Leader (well, not exactly, since he killed the wrong guy, but you know what I mean). Why would it be different here? The cleric killed the Supreme Leader, he's the new Supreme Leader. Is it different because it's poison? I mean, once the hobgoblins are already following him, I'm not convinced they would kill him for what he did. I understand he wanted to pin the murder on the "enemy" because people follow the leader better in times of crisis, but I'm not sure that was because he'd be killed for what he did.

- On page 29, Mrs Kapoor says that Hinjo's donkey told her of his "limitations" and declines to elaborate. I have no idea what she might be talking about.

She's pulling his leg, trying to make him feel like he didn't treat his donkey right. The vague wording is so he can imagine the worst on his own. At least that's how I read it, I'm not aware of another joke there.

- On page 51, we see Redcloak and another goblin playing cards somewhere (presumably hidden from divination in some way - I guess Xykon has the headband that's the focus for Cloister at that point). Redcloak says "eights?" to which the other guy answers "go fish". I don't know the game they're playing, but it feels like there must be a joke there that links this to the narrative.

The joke is that they're definitely not in the hobgoblin city, and that they're bored. Rich has used this game (that I'm also not familiar with) in the comic before, Durkon and Hilgya play it at some point if I recall. It's a way to show "people are passing time because they're bored" in a single panel. May also count as a running gag at this point, I guess, but probably only to people like us who aren't familiar with the game and for whom it would stick out more.

[B. Dandelion]

Are you referring to the fact that named characters tend to survive better in OOTS? Because I'm not sure this has been proven true for goblinoids (including in this very story). Or are you referring to something else I'm missing?

In SoD, we're never told what Redcloak's actual name is. His brother considers the whole "Redcloak" pseudonym demeaning, and by the end of the story he's essentially lost that identity altogether. So that builds up the whole issue of what his name really is as being a plot point in the future if anyone actually does manage to learn it.

[Gwynfrid]

Nor do I...neither does Hinjo. The "messing with him" part Zhou alluded to would be playing on his anxieties with the idea that Hinjo's doing something wrong and doesn't know about it; most likely Lustre didn't actually say anything at all.

I don't see Mrs Kapoor as the type to play that kind of game. She's too much of a no-nonsense woman for that. Also, I don't think Rich would use up as much as 4 panels on something so random and unspecific.

She goes from "my mom has a commemorative plate with you on it" to "I got you stabbed by a hobgoblin" and mentally combined the two ideas into an exaggerated "I'm going to be on a commemorative plate showing me getting you being stabbed by a hobgoblin!" (Imagine a commemorative item depicting the ninth panel on page 17). Hence a bad plate, hence seeing herself becoming a "bad plate girl".

Zhou's prone to over-exaggerating bad things throughout the book, her position (curling up on the floor) shows she's not in a rational state of mind (to put it mildly), and O-Chul's common that she'll be fine indicate these bouts of hyperbole aren't uncommon for her.

Sure, I sort-of get that she thinks the events of her with Hinjo (getting him stabbed, or saving him?) might make it to a plate. That's a stretch, but like you said, she may well believe it. For some reason, I feel there might be more to "bad plate girl" than just that descriptive aspect.

[Aedilred]

And I also think you're being a bit too quick to trust a character who we already know is a murderous liar.

But yeah, there's a possibility that the new leader would be worse. I just think it's worth rolling the dice, because despite his reasonable-sounding speech at the end I think this one is pretty awful. (And because, if you want to be a good neighbour to the hobgoblins, you shouldn't let anyone lie and murder their way into supreme power over them.)

I think that, although there has been a clear attempt throughout the comic to make the goblinoid (and similar) characters relatable and not just cannon fodder, even in OotS-verse they're probably still almost all Evil. So when it comes to the best leader for the hobgoblins, it's not so much a question of whether he's a good guy - because he almost certainly won't be - but whether he's better than the alternatives, which in this case he probably is.

Not that there really are any alternatives. As he noted, his coup killed everyone else in a position to make a claim on the position of Supreme Leader. Toppling him would probably lead to chaos, and while in the short term that might be good for Azure City, as it keeps the hobgoblins occupied, it's likely that a warmonger would eventually emerge victorious, which would be bad. Not to mention that that whole business would be bad for the hobgoblins too.

[Lacuna Caster]

Not that there really are any alternatives. As he noted, his coup killed everyone else in a position to make a claim on the position of Supreme Leader. Toppling him would probably lead to chaos, and while in the short term that might be good for Azure City, as it keeps the hobgoblins occupied, it's likely that a warmonger would eventually emerge victorious, which would be bad. Not to mention that that whole business would be bad for the hobgoblins too.

Then again, from a strictly military azurite perspective, instigating a civil war and then invading at the precise moment when internal factions are exhausted from bickering would be a pretty effective method of cleaning up resistance. If one were so inclined.

[Keltest]

I agree- they really should be seriously concerned, and ordering other people to commit heinous deeds probably counts as an evil act oneself, but none of this seemed to trip up the commander- so why would it trip up Shojo, who isn't even a paladin?

Good characters can do wrong and still maintain their alignment as long as they compensate or can plausibly justify the long-term repercussions. (The rules of D&D are infuriatingly vague on exactly on how many acts, of what type, the relative weighting of intent, consequence and principle, and a dozen other points that would be necessary to evaluate this behaviour in an actual game, but in theory it's possible.) It's not intuitively obvious why fifty years of prosperity can supposedly justify kidnapping, extortion and perversion of justice, but won't stretch to cover war crimes.


EDIT: I'm not sure that feigning madness was the specific onset for his machiavellianism- just a defence mechanism against personal attack.

Even ignoring the issue of Shojo's alignment for a moment, at some point you have to realize that sending out your paladins on assignments that do not achieve their intended goals and cost them their paladin powers is not an effective strategy to accomplish, well, anything. On top of that, at some point the paladins will notice that Shojo keeps sending them on missions where the result is them falling, and decide that his leadership is illegitimate and remove him from power, over the Guard if not the city.

It strikes me as much more likely that the missions themselves were not so specific as to order the complete destruction of non-violent goblin communities, and that certain overzealous paladins already only LG through a technicality were simply attracted to a "search and destroy" mission, who then used it as an excuse to be violent.

[Lacuna Caster]

Even ignoring the issue of Shojo's alignment for a moment, at some point you have to realize that sending out your paladins on assignments that do not achieve their intended goals and cost them their paladin powers is not an effective strategy to accomplish, well, anything. On top of that, at some point the paladins will notice that Shojo keeps sending them on missions where the result is them falling...

You're not listening. All of these arguments apply with just as much force to the Guard's paladin commanders, who (apparently) nevertheless kept their alignments and without even strictly breaking their codes. There is no reason why Shojo, who has no code to break, would have more trouble with this.

(Also, the precise words given by the (apparent) commander at the massacre of RC's village, after the bearer had been slain, were 'exterminate the rest and let us be done here'. They weren't even using their primary objective as an excuse.)

[Keltest]

You're not listening. All of these arguments apply with just as much force to the Guard's paladin commanders, who (apparently) nevertheless kept their alignments and without even strictly breaking their codes. There is no reason why Shojo, who has no code to break, would have more trouble with this.

(Also, the precise words given by the (apparent) commander at the massacre of RC's village, after the bearer had been slain, were 'exterminate the rest and let us be done here'. They weren't even using their primary objective as an excuse.)

Unless your argument is "The paladins are completely incapable of holding Shojo accountable for any perceived wrongdoing" (which is demonstrably false), I don't understand your point. yes, the twelve gods are unlikely to smite Shojo for any manipulations of the paladins, but they aren't the only source of consequences for such a management style.

More likely the missions just attract the bloodthirsty paladins who are already only technically lawful good.

[Lacuna Caster]

Unless your argument is "The paladins are completely incapable of holding Shojo accountable for any perceived wrongdoing"...

Still not listening. They were apparently incapable of holding their own paladin commanders accountable for quite actual wrong-doing. So again, why would Shojo be held to a higher standard? Frankly, I find this attitude of "the buck stops anywhere but here" to be rather tiresome.

[Keltest]

Still not listening. They were apparently incapable of holding their own paladin commanders accountable for quite actual wrong-doing. So again, why would Shojo be held to a higher standard? Frankly, I find this attitude of "the buck stops anywhere but here" to be rather tiresome.

The further up the chain of command you go, the less responsible people become for the actions of individuals. Shojo is held to a different standard because he is in a different position. It isn't like he is taking the field and micromanaging the paladins, he has people to do that while he handles the other myriad tasks that keep a pseudosecret organization running and productive.

And again, I'm still not clear on what youre actually arguing for. Are you trying to say that Shojo is responsible every time a paladin falls, for sending them out on a mission where they take an action that causes them to fall?