GameBanshee Forums

There are several, but this strikes me every time.

I usually play good characters, I prefer Chaotic Good, but Kensai must be lawful sadly.

Now, Saemon, that cretin, gives you something he has stolen and at some point Kruin the Gith comes to ask to get it back.

Now, a Good Character, especially a Lawfull Good should by all rights immediately hand it back. BUT, The Gith are an evil race and should be denied if possible. So my Alignment pulls me in two different directions.

But I want what he wants (for my dear brother in ToB), so I will deny the evil race (preference for chaotic good), though a Lawful Good being SHOULD give it back. Nor trade with the various fences (I can think of five, some of them with useful items).

The game are full of these little quandries, despite being made for the good way.

It's all a matter of opinion of course, but there are two factors I'd consider here.

1. What proof od ownership does the evil dude offer? The answer is none, so without the existence of a lost property office, I'd say posession is 90% of the law as the saying goes.

2. Should something as potentially lethal be allowed to fall into the hands of an evil being?

I'd say keep it, and I always do, even when it has no use to me.

Edar Macilrille wrote: Now, a Good Character, especially a Lawfull Good should by all rights immediately hand it back.

I don't necessarily agree with this. Why would a Lawful Good character give a powerful weapon to a decidedly evil character (Think Paladin)? Being Lawful Good, I would not only 'not' give him the sword, I would kill him on sight if imprisoning was not an option.

But what does attacking someone that has done nothing to you, but because of their belief, race or sexual preference make you? ...

And Galraen, he has no proof, except that my main character, having grown up in the center of lore of the world, knows that such silver vorpal swords are holy to the Gith.

But what does attacking someone that has done nothing to you, but because of their belief, race or sexual preference make you? ...

Good point, if you were doing the attacking, but you're not, they are the ones who attack.

And Galraen, he has no proof, except that my main character, having grown up in the center of lore of the world, knows that such silver vorpal swords are holy to the Gith.

What makes you think that? After all, although the protagonist grew up in Candlekeep, evidently he/she never knew anything about the prophecies of Aulondo, and seemed to be ignorant of even the most basic of lore in other respects.

If you were approached by a member of Al Qaeda and they demanded the AK47 you had found because it was necessary for their Jihad, would you give it to them?

galraen wrote:If you were approached by a member of Al Qaeda and they demanded the AK47 you had found because it was necessary for their Jihad, would you give it to them?

There are many possible ways to go here.

Is it loaded, and in hands reach?
Do They have AK47's of their own?
Did i have a decent breakfast?
Has MUnited won their last game?

It is also worth bearing in mind that the tenets of most Paladin's is to Destroy Evil at all cost, and usually without asking questions. I suppose BG is less clear when you are a paladin which deity you represent though commonly in forgotten realms they are Paladins of Torm, Tyr or Helm.

It may be best in this case ask yourself: What would Keldorn Do?

I am a member of the Danish Armed forces, so I would have to kill or capture an AQ member cause we are actually at war with them. That being said he could have it, I have much more effective weapons ;-)

The main protagonist is not at war with the Gith though, as they rarely visit the Prime, both Humans and Gith are both at war with the Illithids though, so going by the saying that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", he should have it. A bit as if a Chineese soldier asked me for the AK to kill AQ, I very much dislike the Chineese regime, but I dislike AQ more. And he is not attacking, he is actually asking nicely for it.

Yet, I still do not give the sword to the Gith, but should I? The Law must be upheld and fencing or ownership of stolen goods is illegal.

Keldorn is no help, he is an upright and good Paladin with not a stain on his honour, but he is also a raging Racist and wants to kill Vicky who I am trying to turn to good by the pleasures of the flesh.

Chaotic Good FTW.

BTW, and going OT, I actually succeeded in killing Saemon before he took off, I wonder what that will do to ToB.

Edar Macilrille wrote:But what does attacking someone that has done nothing to you, but because of their belief, race or sexual preference make you? ...

I would think this as the thought process of a Neutral Good Character... . But, I have to accept that it is difficult for me to think of Lawful Good as anything but a Paladin.

Edar Macilrille wrote:BTW, and going OT, I actually succeeded in killing Saemon before he took off, I wonder what that will do to ToB.

No effect whatsoever, I kill him every time on the ship when the Githyankee board (they board your ship and attack your crew unprovoked and you say you aren't at war with them?:mischief , and it never makes any difference.

Edar Macilrille wrote:
The main protagonist is not at war with the Gith though, as they rarely visit the Prime, both Humans and Gith are both at war with the Illithids though, so going by the saying that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", he should have it.

a fair point, but lawful good people dont usually think that way, and if you are a paladin or worship a deitiy, it woudlnt matter if or if they not visit the prime.

they are evil hence they should be put to justice.

but i guess it comes down to what means "good", as previously mentioned it always is depends from your standpoint.

so i understood it more like, are you an opportunist or do you try to help your society as a whole

galraen wrote:No effect whatsoever, I kill him every time on the ship when the Githyankee board (they board your ship and attack your crew unprovoked and you say you aren't at war with them?:mischief , and it never makes any difference.

Good.

Unprovoced? Saemon did steal one of their holy relics. You try stealing a relic from a Cathedral anno 1150...

Here's another: In order to have the sword Lilarcor, you need to kill the only thing a homeless guy has for a friend. How could I justify doing that with my Paladin?

Edar Macilrille wrote:A bit as if a Chineese soldier asked me for the AK to kill AQ, I very much dislike the Chineese regime, but I dislike AQ more. And he is not attacking, he is actually asking nicely for it.

I think the difference is, if you knew perfectly well that the Chinese soldier and his comrades would try to kill you and take the AK off your corpse, would you still feel like the morally correct thing was to help him out?

mrdeluxe wrote:Here's another: In order to have the sword Lilarcor, you need to kill the only thing a homeless guy has for a friend. How could I justify doing that with my Paladin?

Good point, I'm not sure it can be justified in that context.

There are many such conundrums in BG2, some have been discussed at length before. Such as what is a Paladin, or any other Lawful or Good character doing working with the thieves guild in order to spring a criminal (Imoen) from prison?

My solution to that one is to use the Saerileth mod, which creates an alternative route to Brynlaw to investigate what's going on in the Asylum.

How can any non-evil player justify making a living sacrifice to Demogorgon in order to get Crom Feyr is another dilemma.

The fact is Bioware gave no thought to alignment conflicts when creating BG2 apart from the farcical 'Hell Trials' at the end of the game, but no game is without flaws.

Of course we are assuming that our character, besides lawful and good, is also perfect. There's a meme around the internet that says something like "Lawful Good, not Lawful Nice". The character can make mistakes, or be misguided.

On the other hand, not all of our party members are Lawful, or even Good. Which may come in handy for locking chests and killing evil-looking pets in search of a treasure.

The character can make mistakes, or be misguided.

Unless they are a Paladin of course, at least in table top AD&D, even minor transgressions end up with some form of atonement. Aiding and abetting evil by surrendering a Vorpal blade would end up in a lively debate with the majority of DMs, possibly resulting in the Paladin becoming a mere, unkitted, fighter if the DM was strict enough.

galraen wrote:Unless they are a Paladin of course, at least in table top AD&D, even minor transgressions end up with some form of atonement. Aiding and abetting evil by surrendering a Vorpal blade would end up in a lively debate with the majority of DMs, possibly resulting in the Paladin becoming a mere, unkitted, fighter if the DM was strict enough.

and he/she looses 3 levels to boot...
well thats a whole other discussion, afaik you only stop beeing a paladin, if you desert/betray your god, or your allignment changes.

but you are correct paladins usually have to atone themselfs but the punishment is not as harsh if they are fooled.

i think balthasar is quite a good example for a "good" guys getting fooled, although he clearly is not lawfull good

So many good points by so many, sorry for the length!

Quote by mrdeluxe:

Here's another: In order to have the sword Lilarcor, you need to kill the only thing a homeless guy has for a friend. How could I justify doing that with my Paladin?

My take on this is that first of all for a human (assumed) to be "friends" with a Carrion Crawler that will eat anything on sight strikes me in the "Something is Wrong Here Category." I also believe my Paladin would pick up on that. It does turn out that the homeless man (forget his name, Quallo?) is under a spell. Once you retrieve the sword and go back to talk to him, he recovers his senses, bemoans the fact of how long he has been gone from his family and immediately leaves to go home. SO, I have served good by freeing him from the spell. His "friendship" with the CC was only because of the spell. Don't know the source of the spell, doubt it's the CC but still see this as a good act.

Quote by Ellesar:

I would think this as the thought process of a Neutral Good Character... . But, I have to accept that it is difficult for me to think of Lawful Good as anything but a Paladin.

I think Mazzy is a good subject to examine for a Lawful Good Character. She is not a Paladin (she might aspire to be one but certainly does not follow the full path).

I agree with mrdeluxe that Lawful Good doesn't equal Lawful Nice (or when I used to debate with my D&D group, it does not mean Lawful Stupid either). Paladins throughout literature have to deal with stopping evil in many ways and forms. Would a Paladin hand the "One Ring" back to Sauron, who was its creator? Don't think so. The silver blade falling into a Paladin's hand, even by someone of Saemon's character, might be considered by the Paladin as a divine opportunity to lessen the power of an evil race.

Quote by galraen:

How can any non-evil player justify making a living sacrifice to Demogorgon in order to get Crom Feyr is another dilemma.

So true, I sure couldn't. In the countless games of SOA I have played, I have never gotten the Crom Feyr for this very reason, even my neutral characters. It really is wrong that Bioware didn't at least tie this one to alignment. But as you say no game is perfect.