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

[Joerg]

Miko can't fall, so the commmander knows she can kill the entire population without risking anything, unlike him and his paladins. Given we know he is a hypocrite, it should surprise no-one that he is willing to privately give Miko orders that he can't give to the paladins as a whole. Which come to think of it, nicely reflects the ettin theme too.

Would a paladin not also fall for commanding a subordinate to murder someone? (The commander himself may ignore that, as I wrote, but other paladins could see clearer.)

What exactly would having an angel cast a half-dozen divinations even accomplish? They can't divine the location of the Mantle (because it'd take a lot more spells than that), and the location they're at already can't be scryed.

I thought perhaps the angel had more powerful scrying available which could penetrate the defenses. Kind of like the 'epic inside' of the clouds can trump the epic cloister spell, only on a smaller scale.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Would a paladin not also fall for commanding a subordinate to murder someone? (The commander himself may ignore that, as I wrote, but other paladins could see clearer.)

No, that's not how falling works. Besides, he didn't order her to murder someone. He told her she is able to kill non-evil people, which falls under the heading of "telling the truth".

I thought perhaps the angel had more powerful scrying available which could penetrate the defenses. Kind of like the 'epic inside' of the clouds can trump the epic cloister spell, only on a smaller scale.

No, I don't think that angel is epic.

GW

[Keltest]

Would a paladin not also fall for commanding a subordinate to murder someone? (The commander himself may ignore that, as I wrote, but other paladins could see clearer.)

If they were doing so directly, sure, but telling someone "Don't worry about it, your class features don't care" is technically not against the paladin code.

[Kish]

Would a paladin not also fall for commanding a subordinate to murder someone?

In my game, absolutely, but what constitutes "evil" is up to the individual DM, and Rich seems in general very permissive of more passive rather than active forms of evil with regards to the paladin's code and alignments in general.

(To cross subthreads here: Like the ettin's right head, Gin-Jun didn't Fall as long as he kept his personal hand(s) clean, no matter how obvious his guilt for the acts he wasn't personally committing was. What do you mean the ettin's right head wasn't a paladin? PROVE IT.)

[Lukraak]

Apart from also wanting to say how much I enjoyed the story, my two cents on some of the discussion

I also did not find the Ettin jarring. While it used language similar to current internet debates, the arguments are older than time for any nation/group advocating violence while trying to deny doing so at the same time. To me it came across as a simile for Azure city itself, with Shojo claiming to work towards peace and prosperity while at the same time shielding a group of religious zealots willing to kill anyone they consider a threat to the 'greater good', including violating international agreements/law. (Like Miko arresting the OOTS in a country of a different ruler)

As for the hobgoblins, I've seen people say that paladins should fall for killing their children and that Shinjo should have more experience in negotiating with them.
However, imo, this ignores OOTS lore. In which (hob)goblins and other humanoids were created by the gods with the explicit purpose of being killed by humans so they could gain xp.
So wiping out goblin villages is not against the gods wishes, it is actually following the gods explicit plan.

In a similar vein, most of what we have seen is that most human nations consider humanoids more along the line of vermin, not actual equals. And Azure City has even more reasons to feel that way. Hence there is no real logical reason why Shinjo would have been trained in dealing with them, whereas someone like O-Chul, who is empathic with their plight and actually has some interaction with them might understand their psychology far better.

[Jasdoif]

What exactly would having an angel cast a half-dozen divinations even accomplish? They can't divine the location of the Mantle (because it'd take a lot more spells than that), and the location they're at already can't be scryed.

Gin-Jun identifed her as a planetar, she has access to 9th-level cleric spells. The brute force approach would be using miracle to duplicate the effect of vision, which wouldn't be affected by defenses against scrying. Casting divination several times could also narrow it down.

It's certainly not guaranteed to work, but a paladin suggesting it during a brainstorm isn't going to know in advance whether it'd work or not.

[Kish]

So wiping out goblin villages is not against the gods wishes, it is actually following the gods explicit plan.

Not actually relevant. A paladin falls for: 1) committing an evil act, 2) committing a gross violation of the paladin code, or 3) shifting alignment away from Lawful Good. If that particular paladin worships a Lawful Neutral deity who is all in favor of the evil act the paladin committed and would have been enraged had the paladin refused to commit it--it doesn't matter: committing the evil act still means "Fall like a rock," refusing to commit it still doesn't mean "Fall." Paladins aren't clerics.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Not actually relevant. A paladin falls for: 1) committing an evil act, 2) committing a gross violation of the paladin code, or 3) shifting alignment away from Lawful Good.

I'm guessing that telling Miko not to worry about killing non-evil goblinoids would fall under 3, where you the DM rather than Rich?

(I mean, presumably, not just saying the words, but them demonstrating that the paladin in question has more than merely dipped their toes into the lower alignment pools)

Edit:

The brute force approach would be using miracle to duplicate the effect of vision, which wouldn't be affected by defenses against scrying.

Ummm... they wouldn't? I don't see anything about exceptions in, say, Nondetection. What spell is usually the one meant when talking about "this area can't be scryed"?

GW

[Jasdoif]

Ummm... they wouldn't? I don't see anything about exceptions in, say, Nondetection.

That's just it, though: Vision, just like its little cousin legend lore and most abstract divinations of this nature, doesn't actually have the object/location in question as a target; normal magical defenses on said target don't have a chance to apply. (The tradeoff being that what information you get isn't going to be as useful, if at all useful, for locating said object/location).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That's just it, though: Vision, just like its little cousin legend lore and most abstract divinations of this nature, doesn't actually have the object/location in question as a target; normal magical defenses on said target don't have a chance to apply. (The tradeoff being that what information you get isn't going to be as useful, if at all useful, for locating said object/location).

But the comic implies that the whole fortress is protected against scrying. My point is that I'm not sure how vision can gather any information/lore from an area that has been protected against scrying. Now, a quick google check doesn't reveal how a cleric could protect an area (and we know there aren't arcane casters amongst the goblinoids), so I can't actually link to a better spell than private sanctum, which is sor/wiz 5. If we assume that in ootS there is a cleric equivalent (or that the hobgoblins bought the same scrying scramblers that are mounted in the Mechane), I don't see how Vision would be able to gather any information of what is going on within the area of the sanctum/scramblers.

Also, that method you suggest to get around scrying defences (convince an angel to use a miracle spell to duplicate a vision spell) would require significantly high knowledge of both high-level clerical and arcane magic, I'd say, which suggests that the paladins didn't bring it up because they didn't know it was even a possibility, regardless of any other consideration.

Yours,

Grey Wolf

[Kish]

I'm guessing that telling Miko not to worry about killing non-evil goblinoids would fall under 3, where you the DM rather than Rich?

(I mean, presumably, not just saying the words, but them demonstrating that the paladin in question has more than merely dipped their toes into the lower alignment pools)

Indeed it would. Of course, having paladins who can't cause significant evil to be done without very quickly Falling is both entirely workable in a D&D game and entirely unworkable in Rich's story; he needs Redcloak to have been genuinely wronged by genuine paladins.

[Red Bear]

More likely, it's the local equivalent of Mercury.


GW

Thank you for the clarification, I was trying to understand whose giant eye it was

[Jasdoif]

My point is that I'm not sure how vision can gather any information/lore from an area that has been protected against scrying.

Well, "an area protected against scrying" does not mean "an area which suppresses knowledge of everything within it from divination". Scrying is a specific form of divination (where you actively view an area without being there), and vision isn't a scrying effect at all; it produces a vision in response to a question, which is why it doesn't have an object or location as its target, and hence why general anti-divination effects like nondetection wouldn't affect it. (The means by which the referenced-by-vision legend lore can produce legends from "information that has never been generally known" is probably not something there's ever going to be a general answer to.)

Also, that method you suggest to get around scrying defences (convince an angel to use a miracle spell to duplicate a vision spell) would require significantly high knowledge of both high-level clerical and arcane magic, I'd say, which suggests that the paladins didn't bring it up because they didn't know it was even a possibility, regardless of any other consideration.

Since the brainstorming comment about tasking "the angel with some sort of divination" was made after learning of Gin-Jun's "the one place in the list we checked that we couldn't scry must be it!" theory, and while the planetar was still bound to serve the Sapphire Guard, and we didn't hear anything more about it; I can't even be sure if they actually tried it, nor if they tried it and failed, nor if they tried some other divination approach (whether it hypothetically failed or not).

There's still the possibility they could have gotten some useful information though, even if "no, that place doesn't look like anything like anywhere in this settlement" was the extent of it.

[JustIgnoreMe]

Also I've noticed from the cover that the Giant has apparently trademark the word O-Chul?
I can see why Order of the Stick, but why O-Chul? Trademarks are expensive and it's not even in the main title of the book.

Are we going to see O-chul/ MiTD plushies in the near future?

TM is not (R).

[Grey Watcher]

That's just it, though: Vision, just like its little cousin legend lore and most abstract divinations of this nature, doesn't actually have the object/location in question as a target; normal magical defenses on said target don't have a chance to apply. (The tradeoff being that what information you get isn't going to be as useful, if at all useful, for locating said object/location).

Actually, as a sidebar, that would neatly dovetail with Gin-Jun's unfounded assumption that the Crimons Mantle must be in a goblinoid settlement: it appears Legend Lore would yield better information if cast at a settlement than from the safety of Azure City (at least it would int hose places the Mantle had passed through). It would be easier to justify riding hither, thither, and yon to every goblinoid settlement they know of with the carrot of better information dangling before them. Of course, tossing off a few divinations before charging off might've put them on the correct trail of "the Mantle is not in a goblinoid settlement at all."

[Onyavar]

The ettin discussion really weirded me out. I could immediately recognize the Internet troll strategy of using two accounts that argue for the same end, but one of them is meant to look reasonable and relatable, while the other one is offended by anything, hurls insults theirselves and behaves totally irrational.
It's like good cop/bad cop, but to elicit reactions from those who follow such a discussion. Most will condemn the offensive poster but be tempted to agree with the moderate other one - not knowing that it's the same guy trolling them.

The longer I think about it, the more I'm convinced that this threads' ettin discussion was just a proof of that concept.

No-one can seriously claim that the depicted ettin and his demise hurt their religious / political / personal feelings. The b-word was rather strong, but also in character for him.

[Lacuna Caster]

Apart from also wanting to say how much I enjoyed the story, my two cents on some of the discussion

I also did not find the Ettin jarring. While it used language similar to current internet debates, the arguments are older than time for any nation/group advocating violence while trying to deny doing so at the same time. To me it came across as a simile for Azure city itself, with Shojo claiming to work towards peace and prosperity while at the same time shielding a group of religious zealots willing to kill anyone they consider a threat to the 'greater good', including violating international agreements/law. (Like Miko arresting the OOTS in a country of a different ruler)

Interestingly, the author explicitly rebutted this argument quite some time ago. (That said, he also characterises risking one's life to save total strangers from a burning building with no expectation of reward as being somehow Lawful, when I'm hard-pressed to imagine something less ambiguously Good.)

As for the hobgoblins, I've seen people say that paladins should fall for killing their children and that Shinjo should have more experience in negotiating with them.
However, imo, this ignores OOTS lore. In which (hob)goblins and other humanoids were created by the gods with the explicit purpose of being killed by humans so they could gain xp.
So wiping out goblin villages is not against the gods wishes, it is actually following the gods explicit plan.

Yes, but then these are effectively not LG deities, and their followers are not being held in accordance to the basic standards of the paladin code. In other words, they aren't actually paladins. It's not really productive to critique the ostensible flaws of the paladin code when paladins are not included in your example.

Who is this 'Shinjo' person?

Indeed it would. Of course, having paladins who can't cause significant evil to be done without very quickly Falling is both entirely workable in a D&D game and entirely unworkable in Rich's story; he needs Redcloak to have been genuinely wronged by genuine paladins.

The slant I got from Rich's explanation for the lack of visible Falls was that knowing the paladins were wrong would not have been of comfort to Redcloak. But I can similarly imagine that if the bulk of Redcloak's relatives were genuinely guilty of serious aggression against human civilians, it would not have eased his pain when they were executed. Failing that, you could always have the Guard as an elite command unit within a larger company of regular azurite soldiers. There are plenty of ways for Redcloak to have an entirely understandable grievance against the Guard without turning definitionally decent people into, well, cartoon villains.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

(That said, he also characterises risking one's life to save total strangers from a burning building with no expectation of reward as being somehow Lawful, when I'm hard-pressed to imagine something less ambiguously Good.)

That's not what he said at all. Like, literally, I don't even see where you got that idea. Rich says that saving the supreme ruler of a kingdom is good for one "get out of jail free card". What is lawful is the fact that all Miko did with her free pass was continue to obey her orders.

Generally, in an absolute monarchy, saving the king's life gives you a free pass to do whatever you want. The fact that the only thing Miko does with that freedom is enforce her Lord's will is about as Lawful as you can get.

(src)

For the record, saving a King from a burning building is not necessarily good, especially if you did so only because you intend to then press your advantage to do Evil (like, say, getting him to pass oppressive laws)

GW

[Cizak]

I'm wondering how much of a hand the Lawful Good gods had in the "let's create sentient creatures as XP fodder" scheme. We didn't see any gods have a problem with it in SoD. I presume the celestial summoned by the Saphhire Guard is LG, and I also presume celestials works directly for certain gods? This celestial had a problem with killing mortals even though they were hobgoblins. Does that mirror the beliefs of her god(s), or does she get to define her own moral code?

[ti'esar]

In a lot of D&D, the cosmic principles of Good and Evil exist independently of the gods, which appears to hold true for OOTS as well. Though this arguably makes the situation with the Sapphire Guard even more confusing.

[Emanick]

I'm wondering how much of a hand the Lawful Good gods had in the "let's create sentient creatures as XP fodder" scheme. We didn't see any gods have a problem with it in SoD. I presume the celestial summoned by the Saphhire Guard is LG, and I also presume celestials works directly for certain gods? This celestial had a problem with killing mortals even though they were hobgoblins. Does that mirror the beliefs of her god(s), or does she get to define her own moral code?

In a post I can't be bothered to look up, The Giant described the forces of Law, Good, Chaos as Evil as fundamental forces within the OOTSverse, akin to the laws of gravity and the like in our own universe. My guess is that celestials derive their particular brand of morality and ethics from that, rather than from any particular god.

My interpretation is that any Good being, godly or not, would be highly likely to dislike the idea of routine slaughter of sentient beings as a solution to a problem, or else they wouldn't be Good. They would be especially unlikely to be the original source for the idea. Since only a third or so of the gods appear to be Good, however, we don't necessarily have to assume that they proposed or liked the idea; all we have to assume is that they acquiesced with it, however reluctantly. The fact that any particularly harsh divine disagreement might create another Snarl makes this more plausible than it otherwise would be.

The fact that no Good gods are shown objecting to the "sentient creatures as XP fodder" plan is entirely unsurprising, since (1) the story is told from Redcloak's point of view, and he is clearly biased against Good deities; and (2) Rich has consistently shied away from portraying the gods, Good or not, as being sympathetic figures with any particularly praiseworthy characteristics. The Godsmoot is about as close as we've gotten to that, which frankly was... not that close.

[Lacuna Caster]

That's not what he said at all. Like, literally, I don't even see where you got that idea. Rich says that saving the supreme ruler of a kingdom is good for one "get out of jail free card". What is lawful is the fact that all Miko did with her free pass was continue to obey her orders.

Horse Puckey. That is a bull**** technicality and you know it perfectly well.

Out of all the adjectives that could be used to describe Miko's behaviour right after rescuing the king, why should 'Lawful' be the only tag that gets applied? The narrative makes a huge deal out of Roy's willingness to temporarily embarrass himself for what probably counts as an ally, but Gods forfend that any other person recognise Miko's willingness to chance permanent immolation on behalf of random schmucks. (Given, after all, that she had no way of knowing who was inside, and the Inn explodes seconds after she leaves.)

This is one of the few situations that can really kill a veteran D&D adventurer- good luck finding the indistinguishable patch of ashes to cast Resurrection on- and she never gets credit for it, even from her own creator. I find that quite revealing.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Horse Puckey. That is a bull**** technicality and you know it perfectly well.

No, I do not know "it" perfectly well, because I'm neither defending nor attacking Rich's point, just pointing out you seem to have failed to read it yourself, as the rest of your post demonstrate because you continue to attempt to attack a point Rich never makes. Rich does not characterize saving a king from a fire as good, evil, or something in between, so you are essentially beating at a strawman.

GW

[Kish]

Ironically, the quote Lacuna is complaining about was Rich defending Miko from charges that she clearly didn't care about the law or she could never have beaten the Order down and dragged them off in chains.

There is certainly a good case to be made that Miko running into the burning inn to rescue people shows Good beyond what any member of the Order was showing at the moment (including Haley, who, as was lampshaded, ran into the burning inn to rescue money). But not that Rich unfairly maligned her by failing to highlight her goodness in a post he made about something peripheral.

[Cizak]

In a lot of D&D, the cosmic principles of Good and Evil exist independently of the gods, which appears to hold true for OOTS as well. Though this arguably makes the situation with the Sapphire Guard even more confusing.

In a post I can't be bothered to look up, The Giant described the forces of Law, Good, Chaos as Evil as fundamental forces within the OOTSverse, akin to the laws of gravity and the like in our own universe. My guess is that celestials derive their particular brand of morality and ethics from that, rather than from any particular god.

Yeah, I remembered the Crayons of Time story as the Gods creating everything, planes and celestials included, but it does seem they came from Outer Planes and the threads of creation was just used to create the mortal world.

The fact that no Good gods are shown objecting to the "sentient creatures as XP fodder" plan is entirely unsurprising, since (1) the story is told from Redcloak's point of view, and he is clearly biased against Good deities;

A very good point. Plus Redcloak is only relaying the story he got from The Dark One through the cloak. Even if TDO did learn that some of the gods were against the idea, he would probably still be fairly pissed that they let it happen anyway. Arguably, he wouldn't even share that information with the mantle bearer.

[Sanctaphrax]

The ettin discussion really weirded me out. I could immediately recognize the Internet troll strategy of using two accounts that argue for the same end, but one of them is meant to look reasonable and relatable, while the other one is offended by anything, hurls insults theirselves and behaves totally irrational.
It's like good cop/bad cop, but to elicit reactions from those who follow such a discussion. Most will condemn the offensive poster but be tempted to agree with the moderate other one - not knowing that it's the same guy trolling them.

The longer I think about it, the more I'm convinced that this threads' ettin discussion was just a proof of that concept.

No-one can seriously claim that the depicted ettin and his demise hurt their religious / political / personal feelings. The b-word was rather strong, but also in character for him.

I guarantee you, some people were genuinely hurt by that scene. It's a big world, and pretty much every imaginable reaction will be honestly had by at least a few people.

Thanks for being exactly the terrible thing that I was talking about!

"This ruined the comic for me because I am a person people enjoy telling this lie about, and it reminded me how people telling this lie about me means I am to be excluded from calls for empathy."

"The only reason you could think it was about you is if the lie was true of you. You are a bad person. We should feel contempt for you. It is impossible that you notice a pattern. The only explanation of anything that counts is that you are a bad, contemptible person who hates women."

I will never, ever forget that when people talk about empathy and about seeing the good or fundamental humanity in others and about not believing lies about others that motivate hatred of them, they aren't talking about me. If I ever forget it for a picosecond, you'll be there to remind me.

For whatever it's worth, to me it seemed like the ettin was meant to skewer hypocritical sophist internet trolls in general. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that it was aimed at the people on any particular side.

That aside, you seem familiar. Are you brazenautomaton?

Great story, as always. Not as funny as the other kickstarter stories, but has enough funny scenes and much more impact on the main story. This is book -0.5.

Still, some questions remain for me:

- We know some paladins fell for their actions against Redcloaks village in SoD. But the paladins just repeat that mistake. Does no one but the commander remember, and he ignores it (perhaps subconciously)? Or did they misinterpret the reason for the falls?

- Why were the divinations of the paladins blocked regarding the hobgoblin village? Some kind of explanation would have been nice.

- At the end, are the paladins convinced that the Crimson Mantle is not in the village? If yes, why, just because two hobgoblins say so? Or do they actually think that peace is more important than searching for the Mantle, even though it may be in the village? I think I'd preferred that they insist that at least a neutral party (perhaps the angel or the ranger) searches the village.

It's been 22 years. Some of those paladins weren't even born then.

I'm not sure the rank-and-file paladins ever believed the mantle was there. And even if it was there originally, it was certainly gone after the goblins heard the Guard was there.

I'm wondering how much of a hand the Lawful Good gods had in the "let's create sentient creatures as XP fodder" scheme. We didn't see any gods have a problem with it in SoD. I presume the celestial summoned by the Saphhire Guard is LG, and I also presume celestials works directly for certain gods? This celestial had a problem with killing mortals even though they were hobgoblins. Does that mirror the beliefs of her god(s), or does she get to define her own moral code?

Are you sure the Twelve Gods are all LG?

Maybe some of 'em are evil. I wouldn't be surprised if their devil-equivalent created the goblins; not only is it fitting for evil races to be born from evil gods, creating sapient sword-fodder is pretty heinous.

Horse Puckey. That is a bull**** technicality and you know it perfectly well.

Out of all the adjectives that could be used to describe Miko's behaviour right after rescuing the king, why should 'Lawful' be the only tag that gets applied? The narrative makes a huge deal out of Roy's willingness to temporarily embarrass himself for what probably counts as an ally, but Gods forfend that any other person recognise Miko's willingness to chance permanent immolation on behalf of random schmucks. (Given, after all, that she had no way of knowing who was inside, and the Inn explodes seconds after she leaves.)

This is one of the few situations that can really kill a veteran D&D adventurer- good luck finding the indistinguishable patch of ashes to cast Resurrection on- and she never gets credit for it, even from her own creator. I find that quite revealing.

I don't think anyone denies that Miko was LG for most of her life. She's certainly done genuinely heroic and praiseworthy things. This included.

But the whole "not using the get-out-of-jail-free card" thing isn't particularly Good. It's not Evil or anything, but having obedience as your highest goal is Lawful rather than Good.

By contrast, when O-Chul earned a royal boon, he tried to use it for the good of the city and the world.

[Doran]

Are you sure the Twelve Gods are all LG?

Maybe some of 'em are evil. I wouldn't be surprised if their devil-equivalent created the goblins; not only is it fitting for evil races to be born from evil gods, creating sapient sword-fodder is pretty heinous.

Rat of the 12 Gods is, at least, evil - he was shown in Start of Darkness as one of the evil deities wanting to give The Dark One a trial period.

[SaintRidley]

Horse Puckey. That is a bull**** technicality and you know it perfectly well.

Out of all the adjectives that could be used to describe Miko's behaviour right after rescuing the king, why should 'Lawful' be the only tag that gets applied?

Because the topic of that conversation was whether Miko was Lawful or not. It's not a technicality. It's the point.

[Huitzil]

For whatever it's worth, to me it seemed like the ettin was meant to skewer hypocritical sophist internet trolls in general. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that it was aimed at the people on any particular side.

That aside, you seem familiar. Are you brazenautomaton?

Yes, I am. Who are you?

And it's very clear that the ettin isn't "hypocritical sophist trolls in general." The author has made it very clear that using the insult "bitch" is an action only done by evil misogynists who hate women.

"These people claim not to be associated with all this evil that (we assume) is done in their names but do nothing to stop it, actively enable it, and in fact are motivated by hatred of women, and are revealed to hate women as soon as you press them" is not a general observation about sophist trolls in general. It is a specific lie that is told about specific groups of people, in order to exclude them from empathy, because it is fashionable and popular to tell this lie about these groups of people. Empathy is never to apply to these groups of people, because of the lies that are told about them, because the lies are more important than the truth. Being reminded of this fact makes me very, very, very depressed.

"If you think it applies you you you need to really look at yourself" is just the same thing. Your reaction to us lying about you justifies us lying about you. We know not to listen to you asking us not to lie about you, because this lie we told about you proves you should not be listed to.

[Sanctaphrax]

I'm Philippe Saner.

Anyway, OotS has historically been fairly liberal with the "bitch"s (particularly when sneak attacks are involved) so I don't think the ettin using the word signifies much.

But of course I could be wrong. I can only tell you how it comes across to me, and I know you don't rate my opinion very highly.