Spoilers: HtPGhS: What's needed for "blue bolt of disapproval" from the Twelve Gods"?

[Kish]

You know what? I don't think there's any good reason for Miko to be treated as having screwed up more than Gin-Jun. Rich can (and did) talk about the context, and Miko having executed the ruler of her nation on a glorified hunch, but...either the context matters and Gin-Jun the fascist is the worst of the two and the one who really should have gotten the "personal firing by the CEO," or the context doesn't matter and both of them are guilty of murderously stabbing someone unarmed, defenseless, and good-aligned (with Miko just being a little more successful at the "murder" part).

Ironically, I think Miko ultimately got the light show because she was a more important character than Gin-Jun. The moment when Gin-Jun went from "fascist who's kept his personal hands clean enough to still have magic powers" to "fascist who hasn't kept his personal hands clean enough to still have magic powers" didn't make any difference to the fundamentally one-dimensional character he was written to be.

(hamishspence, could you change the thread to "spoilers for How the Paladin Got His Scar"? Just "spoilers" doesn't help anyone decide whether to click on it or not unless they're avoiding all print-only content.)

My theory was that, back when Soon found out about the gates, he was given a mandate from the whole pantheon to found the Sapphire Guard to protect them. The fact that (aside from the leader) they're almost all paladins, is him projecting his own ideas on it.

Thus, the whole pantheon, even the Evil ones, care about the Sapphire Guard and its actions, at least insofar as they protect the Gates.

And they care about the wellbeing of its leader.

Thus, for a Sapphire Guard member to destroy the leader of the Sapphire Guard is, from the pantheon's point of view, an offense against them all.

Okay, so Tsukiko actually should have lost her cleric powers when she turned to attack Azure City's defenders? That's the logical extension of any case that the Twelve Gods were specifically backing Azure City, Shojo, or the Sapphire Guard. My position has been that it's silly to say an entire mixed-alignment pantheon was invested in a Lawful Good city--and my position remains that, but if you're going to join in some of Lacuna's wackier premises, at least also join him in following them to their logical conclusion.

[hamishspence]

(hamishspence, could you change the thread to "spoilers for How the Paladin Got His Scar"? Just "spoilers" doesn't help anyone decide whether to click on it or not unless they're avoiding all print-only content.)

There's a limited amount of space in the title - but I've changed it - to the abbreviation.

You know what? I don't think there's any good reason for Miko to be treated as having screwed up more than Gin-Jun. Rich can (and did) talk about the context, and Miko having executed the ruler of her nation on a glorified hunch, but...either the context matters and Gin-Jun the fascist is the worst of the two and the one who really should have gotten the "personal firing by the CEO," or the context doesn't matter and both of them are guilty of murderously stabbing someone unarmed, defenseless, and good-aligned (with Miko just being a little more successful at the "murder" part).

My theory is that Miko's actions were far more offensive to the evil members of the Twelve, than Gin-Jun's were.

That Shojo became the "servant of all Twelve Gods" when he became the leader of the Guard - and thus, killing him offended them all.

Okay, so Tsukiko actually should have lost her cleric powers when she turned to attack Azure City's defenders? That's the logical extension of any case that the Twelve Gods were specifically backing Azure City, Shojo, or the Sapphire Guard.

She's not a member of the Guard though.

The Guard were created, not to defend the city, but to defend the planet, by protecting the gates (their gate, in particular).

IMO, to get "blue-bolted" Tsukiko would need to offend the Evil members of the Twelve, by endangering the whole Southern Continent, rather than Azure City specifically.

[woweedd]

You know what? I don't think there's any good reason for Miko to be treated as having screwed up more than Gin-Jun. Rich can (and did) talk about the context, and Miko having executed the ruler of her nation on a glorified hunch, but...either the context matters and Gin-Jun the fascist is the worst of the two and the one who really should have gotten the "personal firing by the CEO," or the context doesn't matter and both of them are guilty of murderously stabbing someone unarmed, defenseless, and good-aligned (with Miko just being a little more successful at the "murder" part).

Ironically, I think Miko ultimately got the light show because she was a more important character than Gin-Jun. The moment when Gin-Jun went from "fascist who's kept his personal hands clean enough to still have magic powers" to "fascist who hasn't kept his personal hands clean enough to still have magic powers" didn't make any difference to the fundamentally one-dimensional character he was written to be.

(hamishspence, could you change the thread to "spoilers for How the Paladin Got His Scar"? Just "spoilers" doesn't help anyone decide whether to click on it or not unless they're avoiding all print-only content.)

Okay, so Tsukiko actually should have lost her cleric powers when she turned to attack Azure City's defenders? That's the logical extension of any case that the Twelve Gods were specifically backing Azure City, Shojo, or the Sapphire Guard. My position has been that it's silly to say an entire mixed-alignment pantheon was invested in a Lawful Good city--and my position remains that, but if you're going to join in some of Lacuna's wackier premises, at least also join him in following them to their logical conclusion.

Agreed. In fact, in many ways, I think Gin-Jun was a re-do of Miko, how Rich, older and hypothetically wiser, would have written her, with how he's improved as a writer since then. That's why Miko has defenders, and Gin-Jun, mostly, doesn't. Gin-Jun is what Miko was meant to be, an authoritarian POS who uses his "mandate form the gods" as just an excuse to kill so long as he has the theoretically moral high ground. Indeed, Miko in the intro to SOD, and Miko in the bonus strips written after her death, acts a lot like Gin, and that's the point. He is how Rich would have written Miko, with the benefit of a decade more writing experience.

[The Aboleth]

IMO, to get "blue-bolted" Tsukiko would need to offend the Evil members of the Twelve, by endangering the whole Southern Continent, rather than Azure City specifically.

In one of the more recent strips, Thor does make it a point to mention how upset Rat--one of the Twelve's Evil gods--is at the Dark One for the conquest of Azure City. I don't think it's a big stretch to extrapolate that to "He was upset at Miko's murder of Shojo" because that act demonstrably weakened the defenses of Azure City against the invading goblins (remember some soldiers desert specifically because of the uncertainty around Shojo's death/Hinjo's ascension to the throne).

[hamishspence]

In one of the more recent strips, Thor does make it a point to mention how upset Rat--one of the Twelve's Evil gods--is at the Dark One for the conquest of Azure City. I don't think it's a big stretch to extrapolate that to "He was upset at Miko's murder of Shojo" because that act demonstrably weakened the defenses of Azure City against the invading goblins (remember some soldiers desert specifically because of the uncertainty around Shojo's death/Hinjo's ascension to the throne).

Yup. Even if Rat doesn't care about nonevil Azurite citizens, I think it's safe to say that he does care about the fall of the Azure City gate.

Miko's killing Shojo made a big different to events - even before she actually destroyed the Gate, she increased the probability that it would end up destroyed.

[Peelee]

You know what? I don't think there's any good reason for Miko to be treated as having screwed up more than Gin-Jun. Rich can (and did) talk about the context, and Miko having executed the ruler of her nation on a glorified hunch, but...either the context matters and Gin-Jun the fascist is the worst of the two and the one who really should have gotten the "personal firing by the CEO," or the context doesn't matter and both of them are guilty of murderously stabbing someone unarmed, defenseless, and good-aligned (with Miko just being a little more successful at the "murder" part).

Ironically, I think Miko ultimately got the light show because she was a more important character than Gin-Jun. The moment when Gin-Jun went from "fascist who's kept his personal hands clean enough to still have magic powers" to "fascist who hasn't kept his personal hands clean enough to still have magic powers" didn't make any difference to the fundamentally one-dimensional character he was written to be.

Put me on the "context matters and Gin-Jun the fascist is the worse of the two" side, but I'm gonna stop short of him getting the CEO visit, solely by happenstance of him not killing the head of the Guard and lord of the city. If two coworkers are both engaged in illegal activity, even if one has committed more crimes, they're both going to be fired, but the one who just up and shreds their biggest client's file is going to be getting the more personal attention.

[hamishspence]

Put me on the "context matters and Gin-Jun the fascist is the worse of the two" side

On a "how bad a person can a not-fallen Paladin be" scale, I'd agree that Gin-Jun and Origin of PCs Paladin were worse people than pre-fallen Miko was at her worst.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Evil gods of the pantheon approve of slaughtering goblin toddlers. On a "it's the only way to be sure that goblins won't come back and revenge themselves" principle.
This, IMO, is why those paladins weren't "Blue-bolted".
Only when all the pantheon's gods, Evil and Good alike, are angry, do they break out the blue bolts.

That makes sense. There is also a little bit of a world/setting/expectation variation OoTS. The bog standard assumption in most editions of D&D is that a paladin serves a god rather than a dozen gods of different alignments. (In 3.5e this seems to get the 'one step rule' treatment ...)

I like that the Azure Guard can be serving all of the Twelve; I hope that was Rich's intent. (Setting wise)

[hamishspence]

I like that the Azure Guard can be serving all of the Twelve; I hope that was Rich's intent. (Setting wise)

Shojo, as their leader, despite having no powers, is "a direct servant of one or more gods":

Interesting how you repeatedly assume that Shojo is a secular leader and that he is acting based on the legal procedures of a mortal nation. Instead of, you know, a direct servant of one or more gods granted a holy mandate that knows no borders.

Makes sense to me that he'd be serving all twelve, by protecting the Southern Continent Gate.

[KorvinStarmast]

And for all we know, the "magic items that only function for a paladin in good standing" are a fairly new invention.

Nope. That goes back to Original D&D, three books + Greyhawk, where Paladin arrived.
Greyhawk Page 8:

Paladins with any form of "Holy Sword" are virtually immune to all magic (see
MONSTERS & TREASURE, MAGIC & TREASURE, Swords).

Greyhawk page 46

Holy Sword +5. As a Holy Sword this weapon will display its true worth only in the hands of a Paladin. Wielded by a Paladin it negates all spells (including wands and staves and the like) in a radius of 1", thus making the Paladin virtually magic-proof.

Won't comment on the lore of Roland of Roncevalle's sword, Durandal, but Excalibur/Arthur seems to need the rightful king to own it ... (though whether Arthur is a paladin is beyond scope ...)

I don't think the blue bolt is anything more than "Rich wanted this to be dramatic," or if you prefer, "This is the first time in the history of the OotS world that a paladin has actually murdered the entirely defenseless head of their own order."

Makes sense.

[hamishspence]

Nope. That goes back to Original D&D, three books + Greyhawk, where Paladin arrived.

In 3.0-3.5, at least, magic items that permanently lose all their powers when worn by a non-paladin, aren't standard rules. While they might exist in OD&D, I got the impression from War & XPs commentary that The Giant homebrewed them up for OoTS 3.5.

[KorvinStarmast]

In 3.0-3.5, at least, magic items that permanently lose all their powers when worn by a non-paladin, aren't standard rules. While they might exist in OD&D, I got the impression from War & XPs commentary that The Giant homebrewed them up for OoTS 3.5.

OK, fair enough, OoTS is 3.5 centric.

Makes sense to me that he'd be serving all twelve, by protecting the Southern Continent Gate.

against a god eating abomination. Makes sense to me.

The Guard were created, not to defend the city, but to defend the planet, by protecting the gates (their gate, in particular). IMO, to get "blue-bolted" Tsukiko would need to offend the Evil members of the Twelve, by endangering the whole Southern Continent, rather than Azure City specifically.

Fits. And as Aboleth pointed out, Rat was upset ... but perhaps Tiamat not as upset?

[Jasdoif]

In 3.0-3.5, at least, magic items that permanently lose all their powers when worn by a non-paladin, aren't standard rules.

The closest I can think of offhand...is how a holy avenger has a lot more powers when wielded by a paladin, and how the DMG's custom magic item guidelines suggest a 30% price reduction if a magic item requires a specific class or alignment to use it.

[Synesthesy]

Agreed. In fact, in many ways, I think Gin-Jun was a re-do of Miko, how Rich, older and hypothetically wiser, would have written her, with how he's improved as a writer since then. That's why Miko has defenders, and Gin-Jun, mostly, doesn't. Gin-Jun is what Miko was meant to be, an authoritarian POS who uses his "mandate form the gods" as just an excuse to kill so long as he has the theoretically moral high ground. Indeed, Miko in the intro to SOD, and Miko in the bonus strips written after her death, acts a lot like Gin, and that's the point. He is how Rich would have written Miko, with the benefit of a decade more writing experience.

Yes and no, IMHO.

Miko and Gin-Jun represent the same thing - a person immune to the fear of being wrong - but they aren't at all the same person, and this is clear if you see how Gin-Jun story ended, and how Miko's did.

Gin-Jun was a leader, while Miko was a soldier, albeit a powerful one. Gin-Jun did make the decisions. Gin-Jun led the paladins into the crusade for the Crimson Mantle, he's the one who gave the order to kill every goblin in sight, even women and children.

Miko was only a gear of a machine that Gin-Jun moved for years. She was a orphane, raised as a Monk, then adopted by the guard. They raised her, they educated her, they made her this way. And while we can argue she wasn't a good person, she never did anything near what Gin-Jun did. Instead, Miko was always looking for the right things to do, and she tried until the very end.

This is not to open a debate about Miko vs Gin, but just to say that they are very different characters. I don't think that it's only a matter of experience, but that the Giant ment them to be different and to be both exactly the way they are.

This also because old Miko is more interesting than newer Gin. IMHO.

[Lacuna Caster]

In one of the more recent strips, Thor does make it a point to mention how upset Rat--one of the Twelve's Evil gods--is at the Dark One for the conquest of Azure City. I don't think it's a big stretch to extrapolate that to "He was upset at Miko's murder of Shojo" because that act demonstrably weakened the defenses of Azure City against the invading goblins (remember some soldiers desert specifically because of the uncertainty around Shojo's death/Hinjo's ascension to the throne).

Yes, if only there had been some method by which Shojo could have returned to serve his city in it's direst hour of need.

Agreed. In fact, in many ways, I think Gin-Jun was a re-do of Miko, how Rich, older and hypothetically wiser, would have written her, with how he's improved as a writer since then. That's why Miko has defenders, and Gin-Jun, mostly, doesn't. Gin-Jun is what Miko was meant to be, an authoritarian POS who uses his "mandate form the gods" as just an excuse to kill...

What makes you think Miko was 'meant to be' a monodimensional punching bag villain if she was originally written in ways that were demonstrably different from Gin-Jun? You think Rich had her run into a burning building and rescue the helpless by accident?

If you agree that he didn't just break the code, but "grossly broke the code" then that means you agree he Fell.

By this standard, I'd have considered plenty of other things he did prior to O-Chul's duel to be fall-worthy, and he can't both Fallen and in charge of the guard. So, no, unfortunately, I don't see any real connection between gross violations of the code and falling.

[Peelee]

Yes, if only there had been some method by which Shojo could have returned to serve his city in it's direst hour of need.

Nobody is accusing Shojo of being a saint. You saw the ending we get if Han Solo doesn't return to the the Death Star attack. That he didn't come back to stop the villains from winning the fight doesn't mean he couldn't have.

[Lacuna Caster]

I like that the Azure Guard can be serving all of the Twelve; I hope that was Rich's intent. (Setting wise)

Whereas I consider it to raise all manner of bafflement.

[hamishspence]

I don't see any real connection between gross violations of the code and falling.

Three things will cause a standard paladin to Fall. "Gross violation of Code" "Evil Act" "Changing alignment to something that is not LG".

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm

Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies).

[hroþila]

This apparently did not occur to them 20 or 30 paladins who assaulted Redcloak's village, so no, I don't think this is a particularly sound conclusion. We're not talking about incidental collateral damage from fireball-based carpet bombing either, we're looking at paladins going out of their way to slaughter an entire civilian population for no particularly clear reason. Why would they behave this way if they all know what the standard D&D paladin code entails?

We didn't see the 20 or 30 paladins who assaulted Redcloak's village do Fall-worthy things. If they had thought about it out of combat, I find it likely that even those members who eventually fell (if any) would have agreed that what they ended up doing would lead to their Fall.

At any rate, none of this changes the fact that literally no one said they get to vote on it.

Have we now? Because this entire argument started, IIRC, with Kish asserting that Miko being stripped of her powers was a sign of committing an evil act. I countered that the Twelve have tolerated plenty of evil acts by other azurite paladins, and, well here we are.

You took my quote, removed the bit that addressed the counterpoint you wanted to make, then made said counterpoint. Huh, OK then. I guess this is my exit cue.

[KorvinStarmast]

Whereas I consider it to raise all manner of bafflement.

Certainly. The basic (core) 3.5 alignment deal, and the basic Paladin (core rules) deal do not seem to fit with the OoTS variation that is "serve a pantheon" versus "serve one deity." But I personally find it appealing that Miko, an LG paladin, prays to and serves The Twelve gods (a pantheon).
I like it.
Yes, it creates some mechanical things that look wrong for the paladin class.


The only 3.5e book I have left is the Complete Divine which does not, alas, address paladins. It has a small blurb about serving a pantheon, but that's aimed at clerics.

[Kish]

As someone who has argued that Miko might have Fallen because she shifted alignment in the Chaotic direction or because she committed a gross violation of the paladin code against people insisting that she clearly committed an evil act for years before you showed up on this board, I'm pretty sure you don't RC. Though I could be wrong, I suppose.

[KorvinStarmast]

As someone who has argued that Miko might have Fallen because she shifted alignment in the Chaotic direction or because she committed a gross violation of the paladin code against people insisting that she clearly committed an evil act for years before you showed up on this board, I'm pretty sure you don't RC. Though I could be wrong, I suppose.

Was RC meant to be LC in that post? Not sure who it was a response to, but guessing LC.

[hamishspence]

Certainly. The basic (core) 3.5 alignment deal, and the basic Paladin (core rules) deal do not seem to fit with the OoTS variation that is "serve a pantheon" versus "serve one deity."

In Core, paladin spells, at least, are described as coming from "the forces of law and good" rather than any specific deity - at least, by default:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverv...vineSpells.htm

Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells. The divine forces of law and good power paladin spells.

[Lacuna Caster]

We didn't see the 20 or 30 paladins who assaulted Redcloak's village do Fall-worthy things.

The argument I was hearing was that the paladins judging Gin-Jun must be reliable in their judgement of what is and isn't fall-worthy, which is blatantly untrue when we see members of the same organisation cutting down a crowd that consisted in large part of unresisting goblin civilians. When their superior declared "exterminate the rest and let us be done here", that was their cue to say "sir, what are you doing?" and/or forcibly restrain any colleagues who seemed intent on cutting down 'lil green toddlers. I would consider that the bare minimum required to avoid the 'association with evil' clause from triggering.

If they had thought about it out of combat, I find it likely that even those members who eventually fell (if any) would have agreed that what they ended up doing would lead to their Fall... ...You took my quote, removed the bit that addressed the counterpoint you wanted to make, then made said counterpoint...

Why do you consider it likely when there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest it? If they knew it would trigger a fall, why do it in the first place?

You're asserting that paladins in OOTS are held accountable to an LG code distinct from the Gods' own views on morality. I see absolutely nothing in the text to suggest that any such code is actually enforced, and much to suggest that it isn't. It's basically not plausible that institutional behaviour like this would be sustained so long unless the Gods were turning a very blind eye.

Certainly. The basic (core) 3.5 alignment deal, and the basic Paladin (core rules) deal do not seem to fit with the OoTS variation that is "serve a pantheon" versus "serve one deity." But I personally find it appealing that Miko, an LG paladin, prays to and serves The Twelve gods (a pantheon).
I like it.
Yes, it creates some mechanical things that look wrong for the paladin class.

Oh, I have no problem with paladins serving a pantheon. I just have problems with paladins with an emphatically black-and-white-morality willingly serving a pantheon that holds it's clerics to such radically different ethical standards that they can fly around gleefully murdering their fellow citizens.

As someone who has argued that Miko might have Fallen because she shifted alignment in the Chaotic direction or because she committed a gross violation of the paladin code against people insisting that she clearly committed an evil act for years before you showed up...

I never said that Miko killing Shojo was non-evil. I'm just pointing out that using the Gods' disapproval to infer this is fallacious, given their tepid or nonexistent sanctions against other evil actions by their followers.

[woweedd]

The argument I was hearing was that the paladins judging Gin-Jun must be reliable in their judgement of what is and isn't fall-worthy, which is blatantly untrue when we see members of the same organisation cutting down a crowd that consisted in large part of unresisting goblin civilians. When their superior declared "exterminate the rest and let us be done here", that was their cue to say "sir, what are you doing?" and/or forcibly restrain any colleagues who seemed intent on cutting down 'lil green toddlers. I would consider that the bare minimum required to avoid the 'association with evil' clause from triggering.


Why do you consider it likely when there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest it? If they knew it would trigger a fall, why do it in the first place?

You're asserting that paladins in OOTS are held accountable to an LG code distinct from the Gods' own views on morality. I see absolutely nothing in the text to suggest that any such code is actually enforced, and much to suggest that it isn't. It's basically not plausible that institutional behaviour like this would be sustained so long unless the Gods were turning a very blind eye.


Oh, I have no problem with paladins serving a pantheon. I just have problems with paladins with an emphatically black-and-white-morality willingly serving a pantheon that holds it's clerics to such radically different ethical standards that they can fly around gleefully murdering their fellow citizens.

I never said that Miko killing Shojo was non-evil. I'm just pointing out that using the Gods' disapproval to infer this is fallacious, given their tepid or nonexistent sanctions against other evil actions by their followers.

Once again, by vanilla-D&D, Paladins don't serve the gods. They serve the CONCEPTS of Law and Good. I admit Rich is at fault for creating confusion, but there's no reason to think his Paladins don't work the same way. And, even if they did, Clerics are not Paladins, and "the gods" are not synonymous with "the Paladin code". Take it up with WOTC, if you want to talk about that.

[hamishspence]

I would consider that the bare minimum required to avoid the 'association with evil' clause from triggering.

The clause in question:

Associates
While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.

[Kish]

Y'know, Lacuna, quoting part of what I said and addressing something I didn't say at all is a bad approach to making me trust your IIRC.

...and in fact, I'm going to say that this habit of cutting quotes off in mid-sentence with "..." with actual content elided, is a lot like shouting, "I'm arguing dishonestly here!" Just a thought.

[hamishspence]

When their superior declared "exterminate the rest and let us be done here", that was their cue to say "sir, what are you doing?" and/or forcibly restrain any colleagues who seemed intent on cutting down 'lil green toddlers.

The code does demand that a paladin "punish those who harm (or threaten) innocents" but it doesn't actually demand that they protect innocents. Though, being under attack may qualify as a form of "in need".

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm

a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.


Being Good, however, does demand actual protective behaviour:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life.



It would appear that these particular paladins don't perceive goblin toddlers as innocent. They're wrong, of course, but their actions are influenced by their perceptions.

[Lacuna Caster]

Y'know, Lacuna, quoting part of what I said and addressing something I didn't say at all is a bad approach to making me trust your IIRC...

No, no, wait, you're right. The original remark was about Miko being non-lawful, which was followed up by Callista bringing up Miko's fall as an evil act, so I guess I confused the two.

Well. That could have saved me a lot of trouble.

Once again, by vanilla-D&D, Paladins don't serve the gods. They serve the CONCEPTS of Law and Good. I admit Rich is at fault for creating confusion, but there's no reason to think his Paladins don't work the same way. And, even if they did, Clerics are not Paladins, and "the gods" are not synonymous with "the Paladin code". Take it up with WOTC, if you want to talk about that.

I don't understand what point you're making? Are you saying the concepts of law and good would be more tolerant of what Gin-Jun & Co. get up to?

The clause in question...

I mean in the broader sense of 'evil by inaction', unless you think standing by and doing nothing when someone on your team is killing children in front of you is legit paladin behaviour.

[hamishspence]

I mean in the broader sense of 'evil by inaction', unless you think standing by and doing nothing when someone on your team is killing children in front of you is legit paladin behaviour.

It's possible that a certain amount of inaction is permissible.

Kish had some interesting things to say on this subject:

I suspect, based on his statements here that treating nonhumans as humanoid virii was certainly evil and yet his indication that the situation with the Sapphire Guard slaughtering proto-Redcloak's village wasn't as simple as, "They all fell like rocks," that Rich may define violations of the paladin code strictly in terms of actions rather than inactions (i.e., it's never a Fall-worthy offense to not prevent someone else from doing something, as long as you don't do it yourself, and those paladins who scrupulously attacked just combatants, or even just priests of the Dark One, and killed them quickly, despite ignoring the slaughter of innocents in front of them, were able to summon their mounts and ride back to Azure City double with their more bloodthirsty no-longer-able-to-summon-mounts ex-companions). That's not the way I'd treat it, but it's at least consistent and comprehensible.