THE OotS Thread, Part IV.

[Lord Revan]

in the end it depends on the DM I suppose, I've heard horror stories of DMs for who any act that isn't 100% total obsession with the law and total 100% obsession with doing "good" even if doing so would cause greater lawlessness or evil.

Type of Paladin for who a choice between evacuating a village (and thus forcing people from their homes) or letting an evil army destroy the village and kill everyone in it would be certain fall cause there's no "good" option just 2 "evil" ones (obviously evacuating the village is the lesser of two evils here but it's still evil just signifigantly smaller evil).

[Sinewmire]

Instead, the rules raise the possibility that a paladin can fall for committing an evil act... but still be Lawful Good.

Now, there might be a single action so heinous that committing it makes you automatically Evil (or at least non-Good) no matter why you did it. The question is, what is that action?

I figured there's an element of hubris.

Who is the paladin to say what will, in the end, result in the overall victory of good or evil?
Just as evil acts can result in the overall victory of good (murder of hostages etc), good actions can result in the victory of evil (refusing to torture the evil overlord's children or whatever).

We, as mortals cannot see the outcome of our deeds. We do not reward those who commit evil actions which result later in good, any more than we punish those whose good actions later result in evil. All we can do is the clear and obvious good, deal with the small picture, and entrust the bigger picture to the gods. remember, Paladins are religious orders!

Saying that murdering this baby here and now will stop the baby from becoming an evil overlord (tm)? Overweening hubris! Who are you to decide the future?

That's how I figure paladins see it anyway.

[Ralin]

Being Lawful Good does not have to mean fighting by Queensberry rules. It can actually be more good to fight dishonourably - to disable a warlord's guards with Drow sleeping poison rather than grinding your way through twenty men to get to the man whose evil needs to be stopped. If fighting dishonourably would cause a Paladin to fall, it would be because it is a chaotic act to discard a code of conduct you have sworn to abide by.

The Book of Exalted Deeds straight up says that using poison is inherently evil. Which is as far as I know the most canonical source on the subject as of 3.5 D&D.

This is, of course, direly retarded for a number of reasons. But I didn't write the source books.

[Sinewmire]

The Book of Exalted Deeds straight up says that using poison is inherently evil. Which is as far as I know the most canonical source on the subject as of 3.5 D&D.

I can't comment on this but I remember reading on one sourcebook that poison is illegal because there is no possible way to use it in self defence.
If it's a lethal poison you are literally equipping it with the full knowledge it's express purpose is killing, where a sword is for defending yourself with.

[Esquire]

I hate logic like that - how do you expect to defend yourself with a sword? Oh, that's right, by stabbing the other guy before he stabs you. It's really, really hard to inflict a reliably nonlethal wound with a three-foot piece of edged steel in any situation where you might plausibly need to.

[Sinewmire]

People who are out to steal your horse or purse won't fight to the death. As soon as they realise you've got the means to protect yourself they'll probably back off, and even if wounded, sword wounds are survivable.

Poison, on the other hand, people won't know about, so won't work as a deterrent, and even a deep scratch could result in fatality.

Probably. I don't know much about real life injury poison.

[Ahriman238]

It's also likely that, like the Oots forums, we're overthinking it. My understanding is that the rule for Lawful Good has always been: When Law conflicts with Good, Good wins. Paladins are not obliged to submit themselves to the authority of dictators and tyrants, no matter if they're the law of the land. Though they cannot set themselves above legitimate authority either. A paladin may Fall if they cease to be Lawful, or if they commit a single Evil act. A single act of evil will cause a paladin to fall, a single Chaotic act will not unless it's a helluva big one. Like, say, striking down your defenseless liege lord on the eve of battle. And even that wouldn't necessarily be a sure thing, Miko continued to act honorably and for good, as she saw it after she fell, she was still technically LG, even if not to the standard acceptable in a paladin.

Essentially, you're LG if things like honor, duty, truthfulness and keeping your word are central to your idea of being a good person. Single acts that can change your alignment exist, but are relatively rare. IIRC, summoning and bargaining with demons/devils is one, shifting you from Good to Neutral.

[Simon_Jester]

in the end it depends on the DM I suppose, I've heard horror stories of DMs for who any act that isn't 100% total obsession with the law and total 100% obsession with doing "good" even if doing so would cause greater lawlessness or evil.

Type of Paladin for who a choice between evacuating a village (and thus forcing people from their homes) or letting an evil army destroy the village and kill everyone in it would be certain fall cause there's no "good" option just 2 "evil" ones (obviously evacuating the village is the lesser of two evils here but it's still evil just signifigantly smaller evil).

Yes, but that's an obviously stupid DM.

I mean, paladins are supposed to be empowered by gods or supernatural forces, right? What god would deliberately create an agent who's supposed to go into the world and act on their behalf... but who is easily foiled, depowered, and crushed by a routine and normal situation?

It's the equivalent of building a robot so stupid it gets caught in an infinite loop because someone holds up a sign saying "Disobey This Sign."

So while I can see the pseudo-logic behind the evil moron DM's basic approach here... I don't buy it. And I don't think it represents the thing I'm looking for, which is a 'weighted average' approach to D&D alignment.

Instead, the rules raise the possibility that a paladin can fall for committing an evil act... but still be Lawful Good.

Now, there might be a single action so heinous that committing it makes you automatically Evil (or at least non-Good) no matter why you did it. The question is, what is that action?

I figured there's an element of hubris...

Saying that murdering this baby here and now will stop the baby from becoming an evil overlord (tm)? Overweening hubris! Who are you to decide the future?

That's how I figure paladins see it anyway.

That would explain why paladins fall for committing any evil act, although there are other explanations.

What I'm getting at is that there's a difference between "evil enough to cause a paladin to fall" and "evil enough that you cease to be Good-aligned." Otherwise there'd be no need to specify that even one Evil act causes a paladin to fall, you'd just say that they lose their class features if they lose their alignment, the same as, oh, barbarians.

The Book of Exalted Deeds straight up says that using poison is inherently evil. Which is as far as I know the most canonical source on the subject as of 3.5 D&D.

This is, of course, direly retarded for a number of reasons. But I didn't write the source books.

Yeah. Having it be evil for a ranger to use a tranquilizer dart on a bear is stupid.

BUT.

Suppose we resolve to be not-stupid, and ignore that festering lump of stupidity.

What do we conclude then?

Remember that "don't use poison" isn't the only thing in the paladin's code aside from alignment restrictions:

Additionally, 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.

So basically, if we DON'T differentiate between "is a breach of a paladin's code" and "is an evil act" we are forced to conclude...
1) Disrespecting lawful authority is chaotic. Well, OK, I'll give you that one.
2) Lying and cheating are both chaotic or evil. VERY debateable.
3) Failing to help those in need is, presumably, evil. Again very debateable; there are times when stopping to help a distressed bystander is a really bad idea.
4) Failing to punish those who harm or threaten innocents is, presumably, evil. Even MORE debateable for obvious reasons- make it an evil act to do less than you could do, and there won't be any good characters left in the world, which is clearly not the intent of the D&D rules.

So in general...

Paladins may promise to always obey their own code, even if it results in death or disaster. Oaths are like that. But that doesn't mean a Lawful Good fighter has to always make the same decisions a paladin would, in order to stay Lawful Good.

I can't comment on this but I remember reading on one sourcebook that poison is illegal because there is no possible way to use it in self defence.
If it's a lethal poison you are literally equipping it with the full knowledge it's express purpose is killing, where a sword is for defending yourself with.

I hate logic like that - how do you expect to defend yourself with a sword? Oh, that's right, by stabbing the other guy before he stabs you. It's really, really hard to inflict a reliably nonlethal wound with a three-foot piece of edged steel in any situation where you might plausibly need to.

Yeah, that's a really bad argument. Among other things because "Good-aligned D&D character" and "fights only in self defense" are not correlated at all.

The person who wrote that book utterly fails to understand the difference between a code of good action in the context of a world where there is a literal existential struggle between good and evil, and a code of good action in a calm, quiet suburban neighborhood.

If you're going to come up with a deontological rule for why poison use is Always Wrong, it should be for a better reason than that.

Moreover, the original source doesn't describe 'using poison' as 'wrong,' but as 'dishonorable.' It is specifically included with, for example, lying... and I'm pretty sure D&D doesn't even try to claim that lying is always an evil act.

There's a difference between 'honorable' and 'good-aligned;' evil characters can have a form of honor too.

People who are out to steal your horse or purse won't fight to the death. As soon as they realise you've got the means to protect yourself they'll probably back off, and even if wounded, sword wounds are survivable.

Poison, on the other hand, people won't know about, so won't work as a deterrent, and even a deep scratch could result in fatality.

Probably. I don't know much about real life injury poison.

What if the thing you're expecting to be attacked by is a man-eating tiger, or a man-eating (sentient) ogre that doesn't give a crap if you're armed or not? What if the poison in question induces sleep, paralysis or muscular weakness and can't kill you under any remotely normal conditions?

Essentially, you're LG if things like honor, duty, truthfulness and keeping your word are central to your idea of being a good person...

I like this. It also comes with the converse that you're chaotic good if you think things like anti-authoritarianism, personal freedom, and trickery-in-the-right-cause are central to your idea of being a good person.

[Sinewmire]

Sinewmire wrote:
People who are out to steal your horse or purse won't fight to the death. As soon as they realise you've got the means to protect yourself they'll probably back off, and even if wounded, sword wounds are survivable.

Poison, on the other hand, people won't know about, so won't work as a deterrent, and even a deep scratch could result in fatality.

Probably. I don't know much about real life injury poison.
What if the thing you're expecting to be attacked by is a man-eating tiger, or a man-eating (sentient) ogre that doesn't give a crap if you're armed or not? What if the poison in question induces sleep, paralysis or muscular weakness and can't kill you under any remotely normal conditions?

If you're in a place where man-eating tigers or man-eating ogres or giant man-eating crabs or whatever are likely to be an issue, then any civic authority with the desire and willingness to introduce rules like "poison is illegal" has foregone the right to impose them. In fantasy environments where dangers like this are fairly frequent, civilisation more or less ends at the city gates.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, but D&D morality doesn't. Evil-aligned acts are still evil when you do them in the middle of a howling wilderness among. Who you do them to MIGHT matter, but social context doesn't matter in and of itself.

Therefore, if poison is evil-aligned because it cannot be used as a deterrent, it is always evil-aligned, even when you're using it on a man-eating tiger. Which one of the less weird and wild threats a D&D character might confront.

[Irbis]

in the end it depends on the DM I suppose, I've heard horror stories of DMs for who any act that isn't 100% total obsession with the law and total 100% obsession with doing "good" even if doing so would cause greater lawlessness or evil.

Funny that, I heard far more stories of morons who say "you hacked apart bound helpless prisoner who could be safely taken to judge for trial just because he insulted you? good act, he was evil!".

The way I see it, with great powers come great responsibility, even more so than the Priests of said god have, as your express (and mostly only) purpose is being sword and shield of innocent and helpless. You failed to act as such? Tough luck, you're fallen. You tried your best? No, unless it was readily obvious your acts might make matters worse and you failed to consider it. Convenience, comfort, or even your life come second to your duty and taking them above it should be automatic breach.

I hate logic like that - how do you expect to defend yourself with a sword? Oh, that's right, by stabbing the other guy before he stabs you. It's really, really hard to inflict a reliably nonlethal wound with a three-foot piece of edged steel in any situation where you might plausibly need to.

Paladins have access to three different ways of healing people. It is literally impossible to die next to Paladin if he/she doesn't want it to happen, they can counter everything, bleeding, (situationally) poisons, stabilize with a touch, the works.

Even the sleeping poison argument doesn't really work, Paladins can immobilize by magic or nonlethal damage. They don't need poisons for anything, except introducing random, dangerous element that can kill someone before Paladin can react.

The person who wrote that book utterly fails to understand the difference between a code of good action in the context of a world where there is a literal existential struggle between good and evil, and a code of good action in a calm, quiet suburban neighborhood.

If you're going to come up with a deontological rule for why poison use is Always Wrong, it should be for a better reason than that.

Moreover, the original source doesn't describe 'using poison' as 'wrong,' but as 'dishonorable.' It is specifically included with, for example, lying... and I'm pretty sure D&D doesn't even try to claim that lying is always an evil act.

You guys are forgetting one thing. Paladin laws are not written by humans. They are written by the gods.

If your god tells you 'hell, no, poison is always evil, use the hold monster spell I gave you instead" then you're not supposed to dispute that. You act by religious code, that even in our world, where you don't have gods making things intentionally difficult are often colossally stupid.

Same with not lying, cheating, etc. You're agent of a god. A warrior-priest to a degree. If knights were supposed to act honourably, you're supposed to act doubly honourably, because you're living, walking religious icon and stains in your honour fall on your whole church. If your god says 'thou shalt not lie' then you shut up and don't lie, because to do so is peeing all over tenets of your faith. You have a problem with that? Sorry, until you're high level no one will listen to you. Trying to invent scenarios where just that one little white lie will solve everything is to think you're above divine laws and attract fall-bolt.

And even despite that, you have a lot of leeway. As long as you stay mostly lawful, you're still a Paladin, unlike doing evil acts. The gods recognize sometimes law or honour come second, just not every time.

[Ralin]

It's also likely that, like the Oots forums, we're overthinking it. My understanding is that the rule for Lawful Good has always been: When Law conflicts with Good, Good wins. Paladins are not obliged to submit themselves to the authority of dictators and tyrants, no matter if they're the law of the land. Though they cannot set themselves above legitimate authority either. A paladin may Fall if they cease to be Lawful, or if they commit a single Evil act. A single act of evil will cause a paladin to fall, a single Chaotic act will not unless it's a helluva big one. Like, say, striking down your defenseless liege lord on the eve of battle. And even that wouldn't necessarily be a sure thing, Miko continued to act honorably and for good, as she saw it after she fell, she was still technically LG, even if not to the standard acceptable in a paladin.

Essentially, you're LG if things like honor, duty, truthfulness and keeping your word are central to your idea of being a good person. Single acts that can change your alignment exist, but are relatively rare. IIRC, summoning and bargaining with demons/devils is one, shifting you from Good to Neutral.

In some ways I'd say Miko had a better claim to Good alignment than Lawful by the end. I mean, she wasn't recognizing any rules and authority other than her own, sorry THE GODS, whose will she was of course the ultimate arbitrator of. She tried to kill Hinjo, her lawful and probably sworn superior who even within the context of Miko's delusions was someone she had just said was not corrupted or part of the conspiracy. This despite her being substantially higher level than Hinjo and more than capable of putting him down non lethally.

Yeah. Having it be evil for a ranger to use a tranquilizer dart on a bear is stupid.

BUT.

Suppose we resolve to be not-stupid, and ignore that festering lump of stupidity. 

What do we conclude then?

The same book introduced ravages. Which are the Good-aligned equivalent of poison and functionally identical in all ways aside from being more painful and only affecting Evil creatures or something.

[Lord Revan]

in the end it depends on the DM I suppose, I've heard horror stories of DMs for who any act that isn't 100% total obsession with the law and total 100% obsession with doing "good" even if doing so would cause greater lawlessness or evil.

Funny that, I heard far more stories of morons who say "you hacked apart bound helpless prisoner who could be safely taken to judge for trial just because he insulted you? good act, he was evil!".

The way I see it, with great powers come great responsibility, even more so than the Priests of said god have, as your express (and mostly only) purpose is being sword and shield of innocent and helpless. You failed to act as such? Tough luck, you're fallen. You tried your best? No, unless it was readily obvious your acts might make matters worse and you failed to consider it. Convenience, comfort, or even your life come second to your duty and taking them above it should be automatic breach.

sure the cliche spiderman line is used alot for a reason, but by same token you shouldn't bind a paladin too much. There shouldn't be an quick and easy way to defang a paladin, that's was the point of my example, there wasn't a third option only 2 "evil" ones.

Basically a Paladin should be able to choose the lesser of 2 evils without falling, obviously this shouldn't be used justify obviously evil acts as good, but still there should be degree of flexibility there.

So for example being in a party with a thief wouldn't be an automatic fail for a paladin if the paladin didn't report him to the authorities at the first possibility to do so, in this example you could for example argue that the thief was needed for something that would result in a greater good later.

[Irbis]

sure the cliche spiderman line is used alot for a reason, but by same token you shouldn't bind a paladin too much. There shouldn't be an quick and easy way to defang a paladin, that's was the point of my example, there wasn't a third option only 2 "evil" ones.

Basically a Paladin should be able to choose the lesser of 2 evils without falling, obviously this shouldn't be used justify obviously evil acts as good, but still there should be degree of flexibility there.

So for example being in a party with a thief wouldn't be an automatic fail for a paladin if the paladin didn't report him to the authorities at the first possibility to do so, in this example you could for example argue that the thief was needed for something that would result in a greater good later.

Didn't I admit that Paladins have leeway in picking more chaotic than evil deed? Trying to uphold spirit of the laws, not every single letter in even dumb or imprecise law? In the Thief example, if there are more pressing matters at hand, of Thief is not that evil, sure, it can wait. If he is really evil and Paladin keeps him around for convenience/shortcut I don't think it would be seen favourably, as he is supposed to be better than others. If there is really lesser evil, the gods should take it into consideration, but...

But, sometimes, there are only two evil options, and in that case, Paladin should be able to do what the class was intended to do - just take a hit, clench his teeth, and go for atonement quest. That in itself would be nice occasion for great roleplay with non-dumb player and DM behind the wheel. If Paladin class has a problem, it's the fact it should really be getting more benefits in return for code limitation, but alas, there is nothing wrong with core concept as such IMHO.

[Lord Revan]

But, sometimes, there are only two evil options, and in that case, Paladin should be able to do what the class was intended to do - just take a hit, clench his teeth, and go for atonement quest. That in itself would be nice occasion for great roleplay with non-dumb player and DM behind the wheel. If Paladin class has a problem, it's the fact it should really be getting more benefits in return for code limitation, but alas, there is nothing wrong with core concept as such IMHO.

I agree, my main point is that a player shouldn't feel like he is punished for picking a Lawful good character especially a paladin. Yes there's limits to playing a lawful good character but there should be limits for playing a chaotic evil character too (after all the local authorities probably wouldn't want a person who is mindless destruction personified around).

[Simon_Jester]

in the end it depends on the DM I suppose, I've heard horror stories of DMs for who any act that isn't 100% total obsession with the law and total 100% obsession with doing "good" even if doing so would cause greater lawlessness or evil.

Funny that, I heard far more stories of morons who say "you hacked apart bound helpless prisoner who could be safely taken to judge for trial just because he insulted you? good act, he was evil!".

This is at least as stupid, but both being possible is sort of beside the point.

The way I see it, with great powers come great responsibility, even more so than the Priests of said god have, as your express (and mostly only) purpose is being sword and shield of innocent and helpless. You failed to act as such? Tough luck, you're fallen. You tried your best? No, unless it was readily obvious your acts might make matters worse and you failed to consider it. Convenience, comfort, or even your life come second to your duty and taking them above it should be automatic breach.

I would of course expect a paladin to rate duty over convenience, comfort, and naturally over their life. However, there's a difference that has to do with how we put this expectation in play.

We can expect the paladin to be like an incompetently programmed computer, incapable of using a full human's intelligence to examine a situation and devise a course of action appropriate to that situation.

Or we can expect a paladin to be an thinking and committed agent of their cause- who does NOT stop thinking, does NOT get into the stereotypical traps of Lawful Stupid alignment, who does NOT fall off ... so long as they never do an act that is aligned with or tending unto the forces of Evil.

As a thought experiment, put a D&D paladin in Nazi-occupied France, and have her lie to the Gestapo to misdirect them away from the whereabouts of a bunch of Gypsies.

Is she committing an evil act? Clearly not. Is she committing an unlawful act? Probably, but paladins don't actually fall the moment they commit an unlawful act. Is she acting dishonorably? Arguably. Should she fall for "being in gross violation of the paladin code?" I would say no.

Because, quite simply, that was NOT an action tending towards Evil. That was an action taken in direct defiance of Evil, in defense of the innocent. That was fully within the remit and operational parameters of what a paladin is for, so long as it doesn't become so habit-forming that the paladin ceases to be lawful, or starts lying for personal gain, or some such.

I hate logic like that - how do you expect to defend yourself with a sword? Oh, that's right, by stabbing the other guy before he stabs you. It's really, really hard to inflict a reliably nonlethal wound with a three-foot piece of edged steel in any situation where you might plausibly need to.

Paladins have access to three different ways of healing people. It is literally impossible to die next to Paladin if he/she doesn't want it to happen, they can counter everything, bleeding, (situationally) poisons, stabilize with a touch, the works.

Even the sleeping poison argument doesn't really work, Paladins can immobilize by magic or nonlethal damage. They don't need poisons for anything, except introducing random, dangerous element that can kill someone before Paladin can react.

Thing is, it isn't always wrong for paladins to kill people. If a paladin is fighting an army of ogres, it's not wrong for them to fail to stabilize mortally wounded ogres and leave them to bleed out while fighting the next batch of ogres. Or at least, this is practically never treated as wrong under any system of morality in real existence where "war" is even a recognized concept.

The person who wrote that book utterly fails to understand the difference between a code of good action in the context of a world where there is a literal existential struggle between good and evil, and a code of good action in a calm, quiet suburban neighborhood.

If you're going to come up with a deontological rule for why poison use is Always Wrong, it should be for a better reason than that.

Moreover, the original source doesn't describe 'using poison' as 'wrong,' but as 'dishonorable.' It is specifically included with, for example, lying... and I'm pretty sure D&D doesn't even try to claim that lying is always an evil act.

You guys are forgetting one thing. Paladin laws are not written by humans. They are written by the gods.

What of it?

Many of the gods are far more warlike than you or I. Do you really think a hypothetical deity like Heironeous, or an 'actual' deity like Thor or Hercules, would object to a warrior killing their enemies?

They might object to killings in a dishonorable fashion. And killing in a dishonorable fashion might well cause the fall of a supernatural paladin whose powers come from promising NOT to kill in a dishonorable fashion.

But that is not the same as claiming that such killings are intrinsic acts of objective Evil.

Which is the point I think you missed. I am arguing that acts like "using poison" and "lying" and "disrespecting authority" may, under certain conditions, cause a paladin to fall... but that doesn't mean they're Evil. Therefore, by similar logic, the act "killing an unarmed person" might well cause paladins to fall in principle- but that doesn't make it an Evil-aligned action. Nor does it mean a Chaotic Good character can't do it and remain Chaotic Good, necessarily.

If your god tells you 'hell, no, poison is always evil, use the hold monster spell I gave you instead" then you're not supposed to dispute that. You act by religious code...

Well yes. Paladins powers come from fulfilling a promise to God, and if they break the promise they are punished. Well and good.

But rather than repeatedly lecturing me about how this, how about you recognize my original point that we can't generalize from "paladins fall over things like this" to "things like this are Evil acts that any Good-aligned character may have an alignment change over?"

Yeah. Having it be evil for a ranger to use a tranquilizer dart on a bear is stupid.

BUT.

Suppose we resolve to be not-stupid, and ignore that festering lump of stupidity. 

What do we conclude then?

The same book introduced ravages. Which are the Good-aligned equivalent of poison and functionally identical in all ways aside from being more painful and only affecting Evil creatures or something.

And would thus not work on, for example, a bear.

Still stupid. But you knew that; my point is simply that we might as well ignore the stupid altogether because it's too stupid to be built into any coherent intellectual framework.

sure the cliche spiderman line is used alot for a reason, but by same token you shouldn't bind a paladin too much. There shouldn't be an quick and easy way to defang a paladin, that's was the point of my example, there wasn't a third option only 2 "evil" ones.

This is a key observation.

If paladins are made to fall easily, then the powers of Evil will use this to disable paladins. This is a foreseeable consequence of creating a class of holy warriors who fall the minute you present them with a predictable and easily constructed challenge such as the equivalent of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem]the trolley problem.[url]

If I were a being capable of creating paladins, I'd make them harder to neutralize than that. Of course, I'd tell them what to do in case a trolley problem ever arises, and expect them to stick to that- but I wouldn't just leave them to work it out themselves and then punish them as "wrong" no matter what they choose.

So for example being in a party with a thief wouldn't be an automatic fail for a paladin if the paladin didn't report him to the authorities at the first possibility to do so, in this example you could for example argue that the thief was needed for something that would result in a greater good later.

Failing to report a thief is, in itself, unlawful, not evil- it becomes at least mildly evil if the thief's actions are themselves evil, which depends on the situation.

That said, if I were empowering paladins, I'd say:

"In a situation like this, use Detect Evil regularly to determine whether you have fallen in with truly wicked companions. Consult with your religious hierarchy (it's a Lawful religion, of course there's a hierarchy) for theological advice and divinations on whether your travelling companion is necessary for the greater good."

Because that's also an option for paladins; they don't have to be permanently in over their heads.

The key term in the "paladins fall if they do this" paragraph for me is 'willful.' Paladins fall if they willfully do things they realistically would know are violations of their code in a serious way. Paladins presumably therefore have a list of 'due diligence' things they can do before deciding on a course of action, intended to make sure they aren't willingly committing an evil or making a mistake. If they perform this 'due diligence' and something bad happens anyway, their blame is reduced. Because they used the natural and unnatural means at their disposal to avert evil and failed, which is much less bad than if they didn't try at all.

[Lord Revan]

the whole "lawful stupid" or "stupid good" comes from overly strick and simplistic interpetation what "lawful" or "good" mean, the flip side of the coin is the "stupid evil" where you need to constantly be performing evil acts to stay "evil" even if those acts are counter to your goals.

Both are IMHO bad for both role-playing and for the narative as they needlessly limit the characters.

By same toke chaotic doesn't have to mean "random", it can mean unpredictable or simply someone not bound by rules.

EDIT: oh and Simon that wikipedia link is broken.

[Venator]

981: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0981.html

Very thorough, Starshine...

[Irbis]

Sooo... Any reason why it couldn't end like this the last time we saw Thieves Guild?

[Mr Bean]

Sooo... Any reason why it couldn't end like this the last time we saw Thieves Guild?

He had plans, those plans changed and now... it's time to end things rather than leave a lose thread. It's happened a few times in the past where the author of OOTS had a grand plan but changed his mind so the lose plot threads show up to be neatly snipped.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Normally I don't comment in this thread, usually The strip updates so infrequently, it's over all interest to me is brief. But...
THAT, That was an honest to god "Didn't see THAT coming" moment for me. And seeing them plan, and execute something so, flawlessly was both brilliant and somewhat chilling.

[FaxModem1]

Now, that should kill her, right? Or is there some way that she could survive that?

[Mr Bean]

Now, that should kill her, right? Or is there some way that she could survive that?

By RAW that's 20d6 per round in the lava plus drowning. Crystal is some sort of intelligent Zombie with Golem traits. By the numbers if she's taking an average of sixty damage a round and a max of 120 damage a round from the lava swim even if she can make it to the side in one turn she takes ongoing damage for a few rounds after which is enough to kill the average Rogue her level several times over. Considering the fall dealt damage, the instant face full of lava dealt a ton of damage and I assume the hand going under the lava indicates she can't swim... by the time she's walked out she could have take a few hundred points of damage by RAW.

So it's a great big "maybe" with a strong inclination of "yes she's defiantly dead" since we don't see X's for eyes.

[Simon_Jester]

You know, for a change, she is defiantly dead, not just definitely.

I'd bet on it since there's no evidence of her having any special immunity to massive fire damage and there's no evidence that she can escape in time to avoid the damage. Even if falling onto lava didn't do falling damage in its own right (it should; lava may be liquid but it's not very fluid), the lava itself does more than enough damage to put paid to Golem!Zombie!Crystal.

Under the circumstances I'd expect this to be a final death for Crystal. Earlier in the strip we might imagine her somehow surviving, and say, joining the Linear Guild... but that's pretty obviously a non-starter now.

[Venator]

Even more so than the rules arguments of damage, resistance, etc. I think we've probably seen the last of Crystal because it makes sense to the narrative.

First time Haley offed Crystal it was quick, emotional and almost casually brutal - see above for all the discussions of the moral implications - but it left the Thieves' Guild in one piece(...ish) as a motivated enemy. This time the conversation with HomebrewThing!Crystal and Haley tied everything up pretty nicely, reminding me of the last conversation between Tarquin and Nale.