GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by Bloodstalker:
<STRONG>Yeah, Paladins are to stuffy to associate with any of the people you just mentioned.

although #2 is interesting....after the vamps are gone, would it be considered a betrayal to whack the trolls?</STRONG>

]

never, besides abstract matters paladin even more is bound by honor and his word.
And why do you think the killing evil creature is good deed by default?

[ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: Loredweller ]

Wow, his has turned into a really good role-playing forum discussion...(hint hint)

Surely a Paladin is folowing a certain code, god etc. as told to by his order. If the god wanted you to go and whack a temple of unbelievers is it LG to do it? I have always seen Paladins not as goodie-twoshoes but as enforcers of their beliefs, I play the strong-arm of my law and leave the moralising to the clerics of gods like Lathander. bringing it back to BG2 the three clerics in the Order of the Radiant Heart Represent Justice, Vigilence and War not the softest of deities.

Welcome - Blastaz - This probably should go into Role Play but had to say welcome somewhere. 'There are no angels amoung fishermen?' - Curdis cupholder of right.

Just to be quick (Simpsons is starting in 2 minutes ago), good and law should be in balance, or else it's Lawful Neutral with Good tendencies. Each paladin thinks differently, even despite his aligment (remember, tool, not restrictment), and thus, are somewhat allowed to make their own decisions.

You know come to think of it, a true lawful good probably would've never gotten out of Irenicus's Prison, because breaking out of jail is illegal.

About Paladins...

If a Paladin was caught in choosing between two evils, I'd say sh1t happens; get ready to atone. He doesn't get all those cool powers for free, and knew what he was signing up for. He shouldn't let himself get into such a predicament.

A "real" character with a conscience would still feel guilty even when he had no other (non-Evil) option, and would probably try to atone even though he was not really to blame.

About Alignments...

Basic D&D:
There are only three Alignments: Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic. Good and Evil aren't in there; that's up to individuals themselves. Alignments are a guideline.

AD&D:
There are nine very separate and limited Alignments. Most people do not directly fall under any of these nine, which is rather awkward since Alignments are now straightjackets. Have fun.

D&D3:
Alignments have finally been really split into Law/Chaos and Good/Evil combinations. Lawful is Lawful, whether you're Good, Neutral or Evil. Lawful Good is not more Lawful than Lawful Evil, and not more Good than Chaotic Good. Alignments go back to being guidelines again.

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper:
<STRONG>If they are Charmed into doing evil acts, then they are servants of evil, and should be treated as such.</STRONG>

Innocent peasant girl is charmed and given some Evil assignments. Paladin has to kill her?

Originally posted by Curdis:
<STRONG>The dilema for a Paladin can be simplified by the use of the detect evil power. If you aren't sure check, if the crystals turn black give it a whack! - Curdis</STRONG>

So, basically, this power is a license to kill?

DMs get very uneasy when Detect Evil is used this way.

The idea of alignment itself has always been a dodgy one (probably why the BG series relies on rep).

I mean, your alignment comes about through your actions, but in AD&D your actions are supposed to come about as a result of your alignment. Very backwards.

Alignment shouldn't exist. All that matters is how others would see you, and frankly, rep does a much better job of putting this across.

A Paladin doesn't need an alignment to guide them, the description of their class (and in PnP, their church) tells them what they can do, and after that it's up to the game/DM.

The use of Detect Evil should not worrry a DM it is the perfect ass saver. If it is OK with the god that grants the power to whack it then it IS a license to kill.

The comment about D.M.'s is hard to fathom. It is a feedback loop and the D.M. is the final arbitor. - Curdis

Originally posted by Yuusuke:
<STRONG>You know come to think of it, a true lawful good probably would've never gotten out of Irenicus's Prison, because breaking out of jail is illegal.</STRONG>

Just a note - he is never judged and sentenced sentenced, he is just kidnapped and being held imprisoned. So he has full right to seek freedom for himself and is obliged to do it for other prisoners.

Originally posted by Curdis:
<STRONG>The comment about D.M.'s is hard to fathom. It is a feedback loop and the D.M. is the final arbitor. - Curdis</STRONG>

Well, they're all human and I have yet to meet one that can handle heavy use of Detect Evil.

Some tried to weasle their way out of it by claiming it only detects either evil intentions or evil alignment. The cheesier ones switched between the two whenever they felt not doing so would be inconvenient.

A palidin should be Lawful neutral and can only kill Unlawful things with good intentions in mind exapmle 1
The mayor kils his evil, bring him to justice he did something unlawful and it is good for him to be taught a lesson not to kill it Evil isn't guiltiy
Example 2
well their is none a paladin shouldn't mess round where people isn't evil

@Craig, your concept of a paladin as lawful neutral sounds more like a bureaucrat, a paper-shuffler. A paladin, as traditionally conceived (both in fiction and in 14th century reality), was supposed to fight for the Right. The "lawful" part was only the stick part of the mace; the business end was the "good" part.

@fable - as your a moderator I will presume it is O.K. to continue this discussion in this forum. Players who use D.E. - heavily - should be made to think about it by a D.M. Your church orders you to Negotiate a settlement with a demihuman tribe. D.E. says they are all evil, but your church has forbidden you to slay them. The unsoluble dilema is a real favourite of mine as a D.M. especially when the player is a paladin or cleric. - Curdis