Keldorn's alignment - Lawful Hypocrit

[galraen]

A fallen Paladin becomes a straight fighter, without benefit of gaining extra weapon specialisations. If the misdeed was minor then, at the DM's discretion, Paladinhood may be restored after atonement, usually involving a very difficult and dangerous quest.

Anything beyond minor, which would be anything evil in nature, and not very evil even, would result in total and irrevocable banishment.

In Baldur's Gate of course that doesn't really apply. If I recall correctly, the only way a Paladin can lose his status and revert to a straight fighter, and be designated evil, is to fail one of the tests in the Abyss.

I can see where COMSolaufin is coming from, and Keldorn certainly actgs in a way that supports his argument. The rational that some have put forward about obeying his god and not local laws is undermined by Keldorn too. Could anyone consider it even remotely plausible that a person claiming to be good could contemplate bringing about the murder of his wife for adultery?

[kiwidoc]

The rational that some have put forward about obeying his god and not local laws is undermined by Keldorn too. Could anyone consider it even remotely plausible that a person claiming to be good could contemplate bringing about the murder of his wife for adultery?

I was just clarifying the difference between what thw word "lawful" means when used as a specific D&D term vs its common menaing in everyday use. It does make for a lot of confusion, but it is clear it doesn't mean the same thing in both contexts. Medical terminology and RPG rules both have the bad habit of taking a bit of commonly used English and giving it a very specific and often quite different definition.

btw surely Keldorn is referring to the rules of his order when he says the punishment should be death? Is adultery really illegal in Athkatla, and worse, punishable by death. If it is the executioners must be incredibly busy! I've not heard or read any reference to this law in books and/or novels but I freely admit I haven't read everything thats out there.

[galraen]

surely Keldorn is referring to the rules of his order when he says the punishment should be death

If it is it really does support the argument that Paladins are really Lawful Evil!!!

I can't believe that Torm or Tyr demands the death penalty for such an act, it has to be a law of the land.

Another point against Keldorn IMO, is that whilst he attacks Viconnia, he doesn't attack Korgan or Edwin, and Korgan is actually of opposite alignment; if Keldorn really is Lawful Good that is. There's no doubt in my mind that if Keldorn came across Drizzt when he wasn't in the protagonist's company he'd attack him too. Anyone who would even think of countenancing the murder of his own wife, is capable of anything; especially considering it was his own abandonment of his duty to his family that brought about her consorting with another.

I'm afraid that when I say I consider Keldorn to be Lawful Neutral I'm actually being generous.

[alexjh]

I think the thing you have to realise is that within one religion, people do not hold precisely the same views. The abortionist killing catholics someone mentioned earlier believe they belong to the same religion as a little old lady who takes everything in the bible very seriously but doesn't try to impose it on others.

The way I see it Keldorn is lawful good in his way, in that he actively opposes evil and that he is someone who feels bound by laws he imposes on himself (in this case, the tenates of his faith) but that doesn't by any measure mean he's necessarily *right*. If anything I'd say he's an interesting character because he's not perfect - he puts law before good in the case of his wife because he doesn't seem to know how else to deal with it otherwise.

I think there is a problem that although the 9 alignments are all encompassing, they don't show up nuance. A true balanced lawful good Paladin would probably only fight in defence of innocents or against a proven evil (demons, undead etc) they probably wouldn't go adventuring per-say rather than they just got told to go and investigate something by the church. They'd also probably try to see both sides of the arguement and broach a peace if appropriate. However, if you work on the principle that most Paladins are going to be flawed human reflections of their deity, its probably going to work out that few of them are going to actually live up to that, and given the violent nature of the career, it probably ends up being a career that attract people who are good at following orders but aren't necessarily always good at making exceptions for circumstance.

What I would suggest is that there should probably be "paladins" for good, evil and neutral, but they should always be lawful. Even in the case of chaotic evil deities, the paladin obeys the will of their deity to the letter to remain a champion of theirs. If there was a chaotic evil god of cats, a paladin of theirs would probably wreak havok on people, but he might be contractually obliged to
never harm a cat, so even though he's chaotic in most regards, a certain degree of lawfulness has to take precedence to trust in the judgement of another other your own.

[galraen]

They'd also probably try to see both sides of the arguement and broach a peace if appropriate

No they wouldn't that would be more Neutral Good than Lawful.

There seems to be some confusion about what defines good in terms of alignment, there is only one truly good alignment, and that is Neutral Good, which puts goodness above anything else. As has you point out, Lawful Good people are constantly in a quandary about which to put first, and all too often (from a Good point of view) put the law first. Which is why I believe that Paladins should be Neutral Good.

[alexjh]

No they wouldn't that would be more Neutral Good than Lawful.

There seems to be some confusion about what defines good in terms of alignment, there is only one truly good alignment, and that is Neutral Good, which puts goodness above anything else. As has you point out, Lawful Good people are constantly in a quandary about which to put first, and all too often (from a Good point of view) put the law first. Which is why I believe that Paladins should be Neutral Good.

You have to remember that in most cases both the lawful and good aspects of their religion are going to frown on murder. If somebody tells a paladin (through an innocent proxy to avoid showing up as evil/lying) that Mr Smith the half-orc down the road eats children, a *true* lawful good paladin would try to verify that rather than just running in and running a broadsword through his gut.

If we think that a good policeman is probably an example of lawful good - in them they'll follow the law to the letter unless it conflicts with internal laws they've set themselves in which case they may allow it to be bent. If that is always their policy that any law may be bent if its for good then they become neutral good. A chaotic good policeman would likely engage in some kind of vigilante-esque behaviour or at least take in people who had done thigns wrogn that the law didn't cover.

As you are suggesting, a policeman that follows the law regardless fo what that law is because it is the law would be lawful neutral because the law has taken clear precedence over good. It's on this lawful good/lawful neutral boundry that I think Keldorn sits. As I said you cant assume that all people of the same alignment follow either side of that alignment as strogn as another person of the same alignment. I'd say I'm about neutral good but I'm not as neutral good as someone who take a proactive approach to it and goes out and does anti-war demonstrations and that sort of thing. Equally, there would be paladins who take law more seriously (within the limits of good), paladins who take good more seriously (while remaining within the limits of law) and paladins who balance both successfully.

[kiwidoc]

alexjh I really like what you had to say on both your posts . You have put your finger on why I love Keldorn so much - he is trying to do the best he can but the older he gets the less clear cut everything gets.

And thats the heart of the matter. To make the rules simple enough to be workable, and to keep players at least vaguely sane D&D is forced to seriously over simplify things in the way it describes the characters. It does this in two ways - using categories rather than continuums, and by using one scale to describe what is actually a whole group of things.

Categories vs continuums - In D&D everything is always artificially divided into set, neat categories. BUT these categories are a simplified way to describe things that are actually continuums. To make this clear let me give a simple example. Lets say for the purpose of a hypothetical simple, easy to follow set of rules that characters are divided into short, average and tall. Of course there is no nice, neat cut off between these groups, but making such clear divisions makes it a hell of a lot less complex to describe your characters.

Using one scale to describe groups of traits - The simplest example to show how this works is the IQ test. The concept of "Intelligence" being one single thing that can be accurately described by one number is very, very untrue - the various traits tested in an IQ test include education, the numerous kinds of memory, numeracy, literacy, pattern recognition, culture etc etc etc However we keep using the IQ because it is very useful to have a rough rule of thumb, simplified summary instead of a multipage booklet full of a lot of technical jargon.

So even though Good and Evil actually exist in Faerun, they are still way more complicated than the three divisions we use. Not only are there no clean edges between good, neutral and evil - there are probalby several ways in which you can be good. Judging by the novels each god has a slightly different slant on goodness. Poor Keldorn is finding this out, but he is strong enough that his faith and dedication aren't shaken. To me this is the strongest faith there is - when you acknowledge things aren't simple, and their are shades of grey and areas our small minds can't understand but you still keep on keeping on ... like Keldorn!

[Excalibur_2102]

I think one problem is that people expect way too much from Paladins/lawful good characters. I think some people expect them to be perfect, always right, and god help them if they put one foot wrong. Or at least this was my experience of RPing a Paladin in a PW on nwn. Other characters watched what he did, and would jump on him as soon as he did something questionable, but in the end he was still trying to serve the greater good.

I also have a soft spot for Keldorn (partly due to RPing a paladin, and of Torm no less), though I have a question. Can keldorn actually kill his wife? Every time ive had him in my party ive convinced him to do otherwise and calmed him down. I guess Keldorn might say something he didnt mean in anger, but if he did actually kill her it would be a mistake (big mistake) on his behalf I think

[galraen]

I think some people expect them to be perfect, always right, and god help them if they put one foot wrong.

Which is exactly how it's supposed to be, the slightest transgression requires an atonement accompanied by a challenging quest. Anything more than a slight, one off, transgression should, in most cases, meet wirth expulsion and complete loss of all Paladin abilities; the character effectively becoming a straight fighter. It is indeed a very difficult path to tread, and in all my years of playing AD&D I've only encountered (in real life PnP) one person who truly pulled it off, and he's a legend in my circle of AD&D friends.

[Excalibur_2102]

Which is exactly how it's supposed to be, the slightest transgression requires an atonement accompanied by a challenging quest. Anything more than a slight, one off, transgression should, in most cases, meet wirth expulsion and complete loss of all Paladin abilities; the character effectively becoming a straight fighter. It is indeed a very difficult path to tread, and in all my years of playing AD&D I've only encountered (in real life PnP) one person who truly pulled it off, and he's a legend in my circle of AD&D friends.

True, but then mortals are mortal, they will make mistakes at one point or another. Have you read the Avatar series when all the high priests in tantras are killing people who didnt worship Torm? Torm had to go and put things right, though in the end he still (sort of) decided to forgive these high priests by allowing them to aid in his fight against bane. Course they still paid with their lives, but so did everyone

[Stworca]

He doesn't mind too much working for thieves guild, but working for vampires is SO NOT ok and he leaves the party... So... theft is not that big problem for a supposedly LAWFUL character. I mean... really! He attacks Viconia merely for her being a drow, never for tangible reasons, while Korgan, who is much more evil imo and likes to express often how evil he is, is fine with him. I don't see the logic here.

Noone said that Keldorn is happy with siding with the thieves. But you have no other choice, and thievery is lesser evil than bloodsucking fiends If there was a third option Keldorn would leave if you sided with thieves for sure. If BI wanted to make him 100-in-character he would leave you the first time you lie, use stealing or lockpicking. What would be the point of such character in an cRPG?
Keep in mind that cRPG worlds are NOT unlimited. The game has only x megabytes of possible solutions, avaliable npc's and places.

If it was a pen and paper game, and someone would play Keldorn as he is in BG2, i'd surely rage. But it is not.

[galraen]

Keep in mind that cRPG worlds are NOT unlimited. The game has only x megabytes of possible solutions, avaliable npc's and places.

An excellent point, which is why despite its flaws, and there are quite a few, I could forgive Bioware (eventually) and still rate the BG series one of the best ever.

Fortunately I'm a 'Warts and all' type of person.:laugh:

PS The fact we can still debate the pros and cons so passionately a decade later speaks volumes about the game's overall quality.

[QuenGalad]

PS The fact we can still debate the pros and cons so passionately a decade later speaks volumes about the game's overall quality.

My thoughts exactly

I've often regretted there isn't a third choice in the game, apart from thieves/vampires, one that would appeal to strictly 'good' characters. I know Saerileth mod adds one, but unfortunately the mod does not appeal to me at all. As it is, some characters have to act in a way that doesn't fit them entirely, like Stworca said already.

As for the whole "A paladin should kill Korgan first, he is more evil than Viconia" argument, I really don't see why. He does speak of the bloodshed he's caused with enjoyment, true, but killing in general is an everyday occurence for our heroes, so I think this is more of a berserker thing. And at least twice (children slaves in the slums, the harrassed girl in Saradush) he acts the way a good character would.

[galraen]

"A paladin should kill Korgan first, he is more evil than Viconia"

If that was what was implied in my earlier posts it isn't exactly what I meant. My line is that if he's going to attack Viconia for her past misdeeds, then he should also attack Korgan.

I've never had Keldorn in my party when taking on Renal Bloodscalp's quest, if I am going to take Keldorn into the party and do that quest, I always do the quest first.

I've also never had Keldorn with me when rescuing Vici, so would be interested in knowing how he reacts to that scenario. Or the invasion of the 'Slaver Compound' in the Temple District. After all unless you have a mod installed that changes things, you are engaged in breaking and entering plus robbery with violence!

[QuenGalad]

Actually I was referring to the original post by Siouxie.
I agree that attacking them both would make more sense. Not attacking, but trying to reason with them would make even more sense, especially since he's supposed to be experienced and wise, not to mention charismatic.

As far as I know, nobody reacts to breaking into the slaver's compound, which is kind of a pity.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

My thoughts exactly

I've often regretted there isn't a third choice in the game, apart from thieves/vampires, one that would appeal to strictly 'good' characters. I know Saerileth mod adds one, but unfortunately the mod does not appeal to me at all. As it is, some characters have to act in a way that doesn't fit them entirely, like Stworca said already.

Oh yeah - I always thought a discrete approach by the Cowled Wizards - or even a few rogue members thereof - who were worried at the lack of contact from Spellhold after the new prisoner got taken there would have worked fine. Of course with the attitude towards magic in Amn it'd all have to be kept hush-hush, hence why they couldn't investigate themselves or offer a reward/acknowledgement, but if the PC could deal with the situation quietly the charges against your companion could perhaps be overlooked as payment for services rendered. Destroying the new guild could be covered by a concern at a new power group rising and threatening the status quo, especially as they aren't part of the system and cause excessive chaos.

[galraen]

Oh yeah - I always thought a discrete approach by the Cowled Wizards - or even a few rogue members thereof - who were worried at the lack of contact from Spellhold after the new prisoner got taken there would have worked fine. Of course with the attitude towards magic in Amn it'd all have to be kept hush-hush, hence why they couldn't investigate themselves or offer a reward/acknowledgement, but if the PC could deal with the situation quietly the charges against your companion could perhaps be overlooked as payment for services rendered. Destroying the new guild could be covered by a concern at a new power group rising and threatening the status quo, especially as they aren't part of the system and cause excessive chaos.

with a bit of luck COMSolaufein will read this thread and be inspired!

[Revan1993]

What I think D&D lacks, are the evil paladins. If a paladin is a knight in service of a god, then he is a paladin regardless of the god. Those who serve good deities would be good, those who serve evil ones should be evil.

Well, in NWN2 and the expansions of NWN1, there is a prestige class for evil characters called Blackguard, with sort of reversed Paladin abilities like protection from good and smite good and that sort of stuff. They should have added such a class in BG2. That would have been awesome.

[galraen]

They should have added such a class in BG2. That would have been awesome.

Already done, you can find it here