@Aosaw I'm surprised by your answer, though I have less experience than most on these forums in "true" D&D. If memory serves, Keldorn will turn on your party in BG2 if you attack Drizzt, though I suppose a more narrow-minded paladin might attack him. But the dragon answer is even more confusing to me. Isn't it widely known that a dragon's alignment is easily discernible by its scale color? I was under the impression that it was similar to surface elves vs. drow.
It depends on the DM, really, as to whether it would still be a "good" act.
Re: Keldorn-- Not every paladin is anti-dragon, anti-drow, et anti-cetera. If you belong to a particularly strict order, however, that seeks the destruction of the drow race (which would be a justifiable crusade if its patron deity wished it), then you're within your rights as a member of that order to kill any and all drow you encounter, regardless of their reputation. In specific cases, such as Drizzt, you might be justified in running away, but if one of the tenets of your faith is "All drow must be eradicated", that's really no different from "all demons must be eradicated".
The same holds true for dragons. If your paladin order seeks to eradicate dragons from the Realms because they are too powerful and dangerous, then as a paladin of that order it is perfectly reasonable to seek out and destroy as many dragons as possible. You might feel remorse at having killed a creature that was not immediately dangerous, especially if that dragon first helped you, but it would be seen as a necessary act, and one that should not be avoided based on sentiment.
I think Keldorn will eventually try to kill Viconia for pretty much no other reason than she's a drow.
I knew that. But she also happens to be evil. Drizzt isn't. Keldorn isn't blinded by race, the worst you can accuse him of is getting a little trigger-happy around evil folks.
Just thought of another point: Paladins can detect evil. So on top of blind racism, the theoretical silver dragon/Drizzt-slaying paladin in question needs to be too lazy to make use of one of their class's defining abilities before initiating combat with a non-hostile foe.
It depends on the DM, really, as to whether it would still be a "good" act.
Re: Keldorn-- Not every paladin is anti-dragon, anti-drow, et anti-cetera. If you belong to a particularly strict order, however, that seeks the destruction of the drow race (which would be a justifiable crusade if its patron deity wished it), then you're within your rights as a member of that order to kill any and all drow you encounter, regardless of their reputation. In specific cases, such as Drizzt, you might be justified in running away, but if one of the tenets of your faith is "All drow must be eradicated", that's really no different from "all demons must be eradicated".
The same holds true for dragons. If your paladin order seeks to eradicate dragons from the Realms because they are too powerful and dangerous, then as a paladin of that order it is perfectly reasonable to seek out and destroy as many dragons as possible. You might feel remorse at having killed a creature that was not immediately dangerous, especially if that dragon first helped you, but it would be seen as a necessary act, and one that should not be avoided based on sentiment.
As a D&D outsider, it's possible I might be getting too philosophical for this discussion. I'm judging good vs. evil in real-world terms, and I interpret blind racism as an evil quality. Since real-world religion is based on holy texts rather than direct and explicit communication with a deity, we're left to our own interpretations as to the definitions of good versus evil.
In Forgotton Realms, though, it sort of boils down to what the nearest high-level cleric is saying. If the literal embodiment of Lawful Good says "Kill all dragons, no exceptions!", who am I to argue? I just didn't realize that was the sort of command that a paladin's patron deity would actually give.
It wouldn't surprise me me to learn of an order of paladins dedicated to a "good" pursuit with evil consequences, such as the genocide of a mostly-evil race. It does surprise me that a paladin's deity might explicitly command such a crusade.
So at what level if any can this fight be won 'legitimately'?
Let's just remove the low level part, because I doubt anyone's going to find a way to do that.
Any level, let's say.
The easiest way would be to work downwards. For party with around.... 135k exp. I'll assume the bug for ranged attacks is fixed.
Baeloth (level 8) forms the first group (heretoforth to be called "Baitloth").
Non-bait characters are Shar-Teel (Fighter 7/Thief 8, with Grand Mastery in Daggers, or, if that's too cheesy, at least 4 pips), Yeslick (7/7), Coran (7/7) and Pantalion the Magnificent, Elven Fighter/Mage/Thief (6/6/7). They are all hasted for the extra 1 APR.
Baitloth will use Stone Skins and all slots, bar one, will likely be used for such. He also fields standard AC boosting buffs, a potion of defence, Mirror Image, Fireshield (scroll - just in case it works), Blur and Improved Invisibility in order to reduce the number of successful blows incoming. When he's not recasting stoneskin or mirror image, he's using a wand of summon monster.
All bait characters and their summons do, aside from recasting their defensive buffs/summons and switching off with one another when needed, is hug Drizzt at the closest possible range to ensure he has to deal with them first (in roleplaying terms, literally hugging the rampaging Drow swordmaster is probably the best tactic to ensure he targets them first as well).
Non bait:
Sherry will be using Throwing Knives the Gauntlets of Ogre strength. THAC0 of 9 hits the D-Man's -10 on a 19 or 20, 12-15 damage a hit, with 3.5 attacks a round before haste.
With D's 30% resistance, that's 9 damage per hit, and at 4.5 attacks per round, that's an average of 4 damage every round. I have no idea what a -10% bonus to a potion of heroism actually entails, but I'll assume a THAC0 of 7, doubling Sherry's chances of hitting, meaning she'll hit around once every round (0.9 hits a round), for an average DPR of 8.
Licks will be using the +3 Sling, +2 Bullets, Specialised and with the Belt of Fisting and Gauntlets of Dexterity. DUHM on top of that gives a neatoh 21 Strength, 20 Dexterity, meaning the Yes-man gets a 19 average damage, and a ranged THAC0 of 5, with 2 APR pre-haste. A THAC0 of 3 from a potion of heroism gives him 13-20 hit chance.
19 damage a hit after resistance is still 13 damage a hit, and at 1.95 successful hits per turn, Lick's DPR is a whopping 25.
Coran, with the +2 Heartseeker and +2 arrows (Arrows of Acid are subject to the famed Drow spell resistance) gets a ranged THAC0 of 4, 2 with a potion, for a 12-20 hit chance, 3 APR pre-haste, and a mere 8-13 damage per hit, or 7 per hit after resistance.
At 4 APR and 2.4 successful hits average per round, Coran's getting a healthy 16 DPR.
Finally we have Pantalion the Magnificent, whose base stats have been boosted by illegal steroids to 19/20/18. He's also using DUHM from his Bhaalspawn powers for 21/22/20, and is a secondary source of haste spells, just in case the ranged blender slows down. He'll be meleeing. For a laugh. Using dual wielded Flail +2/Scimitar +2, 2 pips in each, two pips in Two Weapon Style. With 21 Strength and level 6 Fighter, his primary attacks have a THAC0 of 8 (-2 for being blunt), and hit for 17 average damage, or 12 damage after resistance.
With a potion of heroism and a potion of power stacked, because he's worth it. I'll assume, because I still don't know what that -30% does, it's -4 or so so an effective THAC0 of 2 with 1.5 APR pre-haste. He'll be using the second scroll of Improved Invisibility, so you're looking at an effective THAC0 of -2/5.
His first attack will be a backstab attempt from invisibility, giving him a 60% chance of landing a tripled how-do-you-do of 36 damage. After that, you're looking at a more reasonable DPR of 21 with all his attacks combined.
Drizzt, if targetting Baitloth, is trying to hit -12 AC or better with a ring of protection and all those buffs, so he's got a 12-20 chance of hitting. 10 attacks means on average he hits 4 times a round. With four skins and four mirror images, Baitloth, if he does nothing but recast those two buffs alternately, is around four hits away from being defenceless at any particular time, and can maintain such defences for a good three to four rounds.
With 100 HP (he's actually what, 92 HP?), receiving on average 21+16+25+8 damage per round, ignoring all contributions of the Bait, you're looking at an almost mathematical certainty of having dead Drizzt within two rounds, and Gimpy Garrick the Bard is avenged.
This doesn't include Baldy's helm, gauntlets of weapon skill (which would do great on Shar-Teel), or Bait-specific gear like the Claw, Cloak of Balduran, or even a Potion of Dexterity which all drop the chances of being hit down even further, down to -17 or so, giving Drizzt about two hits a round.
The key part is Stoneskins, which ignore the fact that Drizzt hits for about fifty damage a pop entirely. Once you drop below that then it's a case of trying to spam enough summons with Baitloth to keep him away from the blender team, and Pantalion the comparatively less magnificent has to revert to archery, and a moderate damage reduction.
Given the numbers, assuming the same access to gear, you could probably do it at average party level 5 or 6 using a summon strategy (and two bait characters spamming those summons), and be looking at an average kill time of three or four rounds.
I think the point was, that "Lawful Good" can take a lot of different forms depending on that individuals specific code or values.
And just because this one Drow is good, doesn't mean his progeny will be. And generally speaking the entire Drow line is considered to be tainted. The ends justify the means.
I'd find that to be a bit harder of a justification with silver dragons, as I think all silver dragons are good, but this would work equally well with a type of dragon that is always evil.
The main point being, that alignments play out in more than just 9 ways. The alignment is a general guideline, and the personality of the character and the circumstances can have a large impact.
I understand that, especially now. Still, it would take a pretty poor paladin to attack either character in question, and killing either one might cause that paladin to fall.
Is the concept of Drow being "tainted" a prejudice or an actual reality? If Drizzt theoretically had a fully Drow kid, would that kid randomly grow up Evil just because it's a Drow? How does the nature vs. nurture argument factor in with dark elves?
Anyway, I understand how a (dumb, unwise, and about-to-fall) paladin could justify attacking either Drizzt or a silver dragon. Just playing devil's advocate, but I don't think the same paladin could justify attacking both. If silver dragons are a subrace of dragons just as drow are a subrace of elves, then the theoretical paladin's racial stereotyping should protect the silver dragon just as much as it would condemn Drizzt, right?
Edit: Hold on. I'm thinking of Falling in terms of the BG series, where it happens at a low reputation. It's different in PnP, right? Killing a major force of good like a silver dragon or Drizzt is an objectively evil act, but is a paladin protected from falling if they perform the act in service of the explicit orders of their good deity?
A paladin who kills a good dragon in the name of a (good) cause that requires killing all dragons will not fall, because he was acting on the command of his order and/or deity.
In the same way, a paladin who attacks Drizzt because his deity/order has commanded the deaths of all drow would be exonerated on the basis of the fact that his deity told him to do it.
The same paladin is not likely to be commanded to do both of these things, but doing either doesn't automatically mean that the paladin is no longer following his code, as long as it was his code that required him to do it.
There is no law or tenet that prohibits the killing of good-aligned creatures. A paladin who is fighting for a cause that opposes that of a ranger will eventually have to deal with the ranger, and that may mean fighting to the death.
Given the specific history between the elves and the drow, and how the drow became to be.
Right or wrong, there is a great argument for the entire race being tainted.
I don't think there is as good as an argument for a lawful good killing a metallic dragon.
A dragon isn't a dragon. That would be like saying an elf is an elf, whether it is dark or not. So since drow are evil, I'm going to kill all drow and elves. I don't think a DM would, or should, buy that.
I would buy killing all and any chromatic dragons even if one chromatic dragon happens to be good.
@Aosaw does that put Paladins on another perspective or what? Your definition makes them look a lot less like heroes and a lot more like zealots.
That's exactly why I never really liked Keldorn.
That's exactly it. A lot of paladins are zealots, more than they are proper champions of goodness. Most players play paladins as champions of goodness, which is still legitimate, since most paladin PCs are unaffiliated with any specific order. But if a player chooses to play a paladin that is a part of an order, and the DM chooses to make that order issue a kill-edict on all dragons (regardless of alignment), then the player can readily justify it within the tenets of his faith.
Of course, your DM may disagree, or your DM may have staged it as a plot device hoping that you would question your order's motives. Every campaign plays out differently.
Drizzt's Magic resistance is 50% in PnP. Drow that leave the underdark begin to lose 1% magic resistance every week to a minimum of 50%.
Also the BG Drizzt has 9 more Armor (-16 AC) then he should have (-7 up to -10 if he applies all of Twinkles bonus to his AC), 2 more thac0 then he should, and has 30% resistance to all physical damage, which shouldn't be there at all. He also has 1 more attack per round then he should. And he should summon Gwen if in real danger. And has 1 use of globe of darkness and faerie fire each.
So...actually in PnP you'd murder the hell out of Drizzt even easier then BG, except that he'd just say F it and run, since he has no reason to engage people out for blood, especially if there's a large group, for no reason, when escape would be ridiculously easy.
I'm now imagining a whole character plot involving a renegade Paladin who quits his order, ends up having to battle some of his former buddies and now lives on the run, as a plain Fighter, known as the Paladinslayer.
Thanks @Aosaw, you gave me some nice ideas for my next PnP campaign.
Are there any examples of a situation similar to this in Forgotton Realms books or other stories? I get that a paladin wouldn't fall if his god commanded him to do the deed... But if a paladin killed Drizzt, even if his god was okay with it, that paladin would become a social pariah. I'm not sure how big a political shitstorm can get in the Forgotton Realms (Again, I'm likely adding too much real-world thought into a fantasy setting), but it seems to me that if a good deity's orders resulted in Drizzt's death, it would have massive implications exacerbated by that deity's failure to punish the paladin.
The short-sighted orders of "kill all drow" or "kill all dragons" seems much more Lawful Neutral to me than LG. It reminds me of Vhailor from Planescape: Torment, serving a rigid definition of justice with no concern for due process or mercy.
Historically, religious zealots believe themselves to be, in D&D terms, lawful good. But does belief in one's alignment set one's alignment? I doubt it. A paladin might be able to justify murdering Drizzt Do'Urden based on what his god's edicts are, and his god might not take away his powers based on that act, but can that paladin still call himself Lawful Good?
I believe his dex is too low since characters in Baldur's gate can easily reach 19 and 20 dexterity. Being he is freakishly dexterous and agile I'd put his dex at the max 25. That would give him a better AC and make him a bit harder to hit at least. He also should have his magic panther to help him out.
I believe his dex is too low since characters in Baldur's gate can easily reach 19 and 20 dexterity. Being he is freakishly dexterous and agile I'd put his dex at the max 25. That would give him a better AC and make him a bit harder to hit at least. He also should have his magic panther to help him out.
19 and 20 dex already is freakishly dextrous and agile =P It's achievable in BG, but don't think that that means it's commonplace. It isn't, by a long shot.
@Madhax Again, it depends on the campaign and the story. Kore, from the Goblins Comic, is a lawful good Paladin who roots out evil by killing anyone who has ever associated with it. He doesn't lose his powers, he's still a standard paladin, but his actions are definitely questionable from a normal perspective.
@Aosaw That seems like an inconsistency in the system. I wholly understand the mindset of the paladin and how his actions are justifiable by his deity, but I don't get how a character who is willing to commit "necessary evils" can still be classified as Lawful Good.
Anyway, I hope I'm not annoying anyone with this line of discussion. I'm genuinely curious, and not trolling. It's hard to tell what people's reactions are through text alone.
I believe his dex is too low since characters in Baldur's gate can easily reach 19 and 20 dexterity. Being he is freakishly dexterous and agile I'd put his dex at the max 25. That would give him a better AC and make him a bit harder to hit at least. He also should have his magic panther to help him out.
19 and 20 dex already is freakishly dextrous and agile =P It's achievable in BG, but don't think that that means it's commonplace. It isn't, by a long shot.
I've thought about that, but seeing as your character can have far better stats overall it seems a little unfair to Drizzt. I am not a PnP, but I'd assume most characters don't have 18 in all their important attributes and then have additional tomes to increase this further. Some of the Races can even achieve 19 in important attributes to start with.
It depends on whether you're playing in a "gray morality" campaign or an "absolute morality" campaign.
In a "gray morality" campaign, not everything is strictly good or evil, and a lawful good paladin who commits "necessary evils" may still retain his alignment and abilities. "Gray morality" campaigns also tend to focus more on ethical decisions (i.e. "Lawful" versus "Chaotic"), which means that a paladin's Lawful aspect is more important than his Good aspect.
In an "absolute morality" campaign, an evil act is evil regardless of circumstances, so a lawful good paladin who commits what he believes to be a "necessary evil" has to atone for his actions. Strictly speaking, there is no "necessary evil"; there is always a better alternative, and compromising your morals for the sake of convenience is inexcusable. These campaigns focus more on the "Good" part of paladins than the "Lawful" part.
I tend to play an amalgam of the two; there are no strict rules about what is good or evil, but committing an evil act that you know is evil in order to achieve a "good" result would still present problems.
If you want to keep discussing it (which is cool, I love these kinds of debates), I recommend starting a new thread so that this one doesn't grow any more off-topic.
I believe his dex is too low since characters in Baldur's gate can easily reach 19 and 20 dexterity. Being he is freakishly dexterous and agile I'd put his dex at the max 25. That would give him a better AC and make him a bit harder to hit at least. He also should have his magic panther to help him out.
19 and 20 dex already is freakishly dextrous and agile =P It's achievable in BG, but don't think that that means it's commonplace. It isn't, by a long shot.
I've thought about that, but seeing as your character can have far better stats overall it seems a little unfair to Drizzt. I am not a PnP, but I'd assume most characters don't have 18 in all their important attributes and then have additional tomes to increase this further. Some of the Races can even achieve 19 in important attributes to start with.
Drizzt's stats are already pretty ridiculous, though. I don't know what his stats are in BG, but as evidenced by his books they must be extremely high. He has at least average strength (At one point he overpowers the combined strength of two kobolds simultaneously), extremely high dexterity, and somewhere near the maximum constitution for an elf as evidenced by the numerous times he's been beaten to a pulp but managed to keep on fighting. His interactions with others also indicates an unusually high intelligence, wisdom, and charisma.
I'd guess Drizzt is at something like...
STR 12 DEX 20 CON 16 INT 15 WIS 14 CHA 17
... which puts him at a total of 94 ability points, which is an extremely high stat total.
If you want Drizzt to be rebalanced in-game to reflect his actual power, I'd flesh him out with more of his noteworthy gear (perhaps made undroppable, so as to not unbalance the game). His leg-bracers gave him a massive combat advantage in the novels, as did summoning Gwen, and his innate Drow abilities also aren't implemented.
That's extremely helpful! So, if I understand you correctly, there isn't any one definite set of rules for how alignment shifts work in D&D, and it's more of a loose set of guidelines able to be interpreted by a DM. And, since we're our own DMs in Baldur's Gate, it's up to us to determine what is or isn't appropriate for a paladin to do.
I don't get the rationalization based on "drow are evil, so we should kill drizzt." Isn't that definitively an _evil_ thing to do, that is act with extreme prejudice against an individual (who is notably famous for _not_ being evil) because of the actions of the group?
similarly, with the rationalization of a paladin that kills a silver dragon - anyone in the world of D&D should know that metallic dragons are good. a paladin that recklessly kills a silver dragon isn't lawful good - that sounds more like lawful neutral.
And really, since everyone here is trying to find an RP-justification to do something heinous (murdering L/CG characters), you really all should be playing Lawful Evil characters.
Sometimes being good means you miss out on the fruits of being exploitive. That's why "Good" is not always the easiest choice.
It isn't a big stretch to think a good character might be under some time duress to help someone in need of more help than a godly fighter taking on a bunch of gnolls that a 5th level barbarian could decimate without batting an eye. For example, if one of your NPCs is down and needs raising then hurrying to the temple seems a higher priority than stopping to help Drizzt swat some flies that present absolutely zero risk to him. The fact that Drizzt goes hostile when you refuse means the good person is just defending herself.
The silver dragon in BG2 doesn't give you that kind of loophole. I further see the Paladin/dragon edict as something of a false dilemma. What good god would order the destruction of silver dragons? It isn't like they spawn hordes of evil dragons so that there is some RP reason that a good god would order this. It seems like a LG character could do this if you can get there from a way to justify the slaughter (for example, god: "This dragon must be killed in the next 10 minutes to save millions of lives and there isn't time to barter a peaceful solution because the dragon has been geased into guarding the nuclear plot device and we can't dispel the geas and the dragon won't give it up voluntarily. Sorry but go do my work, Paladin, and take out the dragon and disarm that plot device!").
It isn't a big stretch to think a good character might be under some time duress to help someone in need of more help than a godly fighter taking on a bunch of gnolls that a 5th level barbarian could decimate without batting an eye. For example, if one of your NPCs is down and needs raising then hurrying to the temple seems a higher priority than stopping to help Drizzt swat some flies that present absolutely zero risk to him. The fact that Drizzt goes hostile when you refuse means the good person is just defending herself.
The silver dragon in BG2 doesn't give you that kind of loophole. I further see the Paladin/dragon edict as something of a false dilemma. What good god would order the destruction of silver dragons? It isn't like they spawn hordes of evil dragons so that there is some RP reason that a good god would order this. It seems like a LG character could do this if you can get there from a way to justify the slaughter (for example, god: "This dragon must be killed in the next 10 minutes to save millions of lives and there isn't time to barter a peaceful solution because the dragon has been geased into guarding the nuclear plot device and we can't dispel the geas and the dragon won't give it up voluntarily. Sorry but go do my work, Paladin, and take out the dragon and disarm that plot device!").
Ah, geas. Whoever conceived of that spell deserves a medal for all the plotlines it made possible.
Regarding your first Drizzt example: Yes, that works. Of course, I personally think the Drizzt encounter in BG1 is terribly written. Why would Drizzt be randomly fighting gnolls all by himself, this far away from his friends? It's a poorly executed cameo appearance, and doesn't reflect Drizzt's character at all. I'd have an easier time believing a paladin would murder Drizzt than I would believing Drizzt would murder a random adventuring party on sight.
I don't get the rationalization based on "drow are evil, so we should kill drizzt." Isn't that definitively an _evil_ thing to do, that is act with extreme prejudice against an individual (who is notably famous for _not_ being evil) because of the actions of the group?
similarly, with the rationalization of a paladin that kills a silver dragon - anyone in the world of D&D should know that metallic dragons are good. a paladin that recklessly kills a silver dragon isn't lawful good - that sounds more like lawful neutral.
And really, since everyone here is trying to find an RP-justification to do something heinous (murdering L/CG characters), you really all should be playing Lawful Evil characters.
Sometimes being good means you miss out on the fruits of being exploitive. That's why "Good" is not always the easiest choice.
1: No more than assuming that every kobold you meet is a hostile little pest who set half the traps you've stepped on today. "Racism" in the realms is based on the very real and very tangible premise that 999/1000 of these creatures will in fact revel in the slaughter and feeding upon of your children, and have objective evil bred into their very bones.
2: Drizzt asks for help with no offer of reward. If told to fight his own battles, which he most definitely is capable of, he explicitly threatens you. And at no point does he ever introduce himself. Since there's a difference between "Good" and "Doormat", Drizzt, much like Shandalar, tends to learn first hand why you should say "please".
Killing someone in combat is not an evil act in D&D, and whilst murdering someone in cold blood, or intentionally causing a paladin to fall before decapitating them are pretty high on the evilmeter, fighting some highly capable upstart who didn't show you the proper respect isn't a far cry from neutral at worst.
Comments
Either way, semi-relevant link:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0207.html
Re: Keldorn--
Not every paladin is anti-dragon, anti-drow, et anti-cetera. If you belong to a particularly strict order, however, that seeks the destruction of the drow race (which would be a justifiable crusade if its patron deity wished it), then you're within your rights as a member of that order to kill any and all drow you encounter, regardless of their reputation. In specific cases, such as Drizzt, you might be justified in running away, but if one of the tenets of your faith is "All drow must be eradicated", that's really no different from "all demons must be eradicated".
The same holds true for dragons. If your paladin order seeks to eradicate dragons from the Realms because they are too powerful and dangerous, then as a paladin of that order it is perfectly reasonable to seek out and destroy as many dragons as possible. You might feel remorse at having killed a creature that was not immediately dangerous, especially if that dragon first helped you, but it would be seen as a necessary act, and one that should not be avoided based on sentiment.
Just thought of another point: Paladins can detect evil. So on top of blind racism, the theoretical silver dragon/Drizzt-slaying paladin in question needs to be too lazy to make use of one of their class's defining abilities before initiating combat with a non-hostile foe.
In Forgotton Realms, though, it sort of boils down to what the nearest high-level cleric is saying. If the literal embodiment of Lawful Good says "Kill all dragons, no exceptions!", who am I to argue? I just didn't realize that was the sort of command that a paladin's patron deity would actually give.
It wouldn't surprise me me to learn of an order of paladins dedicated to a "good" pursuit with evil consequences, such as the genocide of a mostly-evil race. It does surprise me that a paladin's deity might explicitly command such a crusade.
Baeloth (level 8) forms the first group (heretoforth to be called "Baitloth").
Non-bait characters are Shar-Teel (Fighter 7/Thief 8, with Grand Mastery in Daggers, or, if that's too cheesy, at least 4 pips), Yeslick (7/7), Coran (7/7) and Pantalion the Magnificent, Elven Fighter/Mage/Thief (6/6/7). They are all hasted for the extra 1 APR.
All bait characters and their summons do, aside from recasting their defensive buffs/summons and switching off with one another when needed, is hug Drizzt at the closest possible range to ensure he has to deal with them first (in roleplaying terms, literally hugging the rampaging Drow swordmaster is probably the best tactic to ensure he targets them first as well).
Non bait:
Sherry will be using Throwing Knives the Gauntlets of Ogre strength. THAC0 of 9 hits the D-Man's -10 on a 19 or 20, 12-15 damage a hit, with 3.5 attacks a round before haste.
With D's 30% resistance, that's 9 damage per hit, and at 4.5 attacks per round, that's an average of 4 damage every round. I have no idea what a -10% bonus to a potion of heroism actually entails, but I'll assume a THAC0 of 7, doubling Sherry's chances of hitting, meaning she'll hit around once every round (0.9 hits a round), for an average DPR of 8.
Licks will be using the +3 Sling, +2 Bullets, Specialised and with the Belt of Fisting and Gauntlets of Dexterity. DUHM on top of that gives a neatoh 21 Strength, 20 Dexterity, meaning the Yes-man gets a 19 average damage, and a ranged THAC0 of 5, with 2 APR pre-haste. A THAC0 of 3 from a potion of heroism gives him 13-20 hit chance.
19 damage a hit after resistance is still 13 damage a hit, and at 1.95 successful hits per turn, Lick's DPR is a whopping 25.
Coran, with the +2 Heartseeker and +2 arrows (Arrows of Acid are subject to the famed Drow spell resistance) gets a ranged THAC0 of 4, 2 with a potion, for a 12-20 hit chance, 3 APR pre-haste, and a mere 8-13 damage per hit, or 7 per hit after resistance.
At 4 APR and 2.4 successful hits average per round, Coran's getting a healthy 16 DPR.
Finally we have Pantalion the Magnificent, whose base stats have been boosted by illegal steroids to 19/20/18. He's also using DUHM from his Bhaalspawn powers for 21/22/20, and is a secondary source of haste spells, just in case the ranged blender slows down. He'll be meleeing. For a laugh. Using dual wielded Flail +2/Scimitar +2, 2 pips in each, two pips in Two Weapon Style. With 21 Strength and level 6 Fighter, his primary attacks have a THAC0 of 8 (-2 for being blunt), and hit for 17 average damage, or 12 damage after resistance.
With a potion of heroism and a potion of power stacked, because he's worth it. I'll assume, because I still don't know what that -30% does, it's -4 or so so an effective THAC0 of 2 with 1.5 APR pre-haste. He'll be using the second scroll of Improved Invisibility, so you're looking at an effective THAC0 of -2/5.
His first attack will be a backstab attempt from invisibility, giving him a 60% chance of landing a tripled how-do-you-do of 36 damage. After that, you're looking at a more reasonable DPR of 21 with all his attacks combined.
Drizzt, if targetting Baitloth, is trying to hit -12 AC or better with a ring of protection and all those buffs, so he's got a 12-20 chance of hitting. 10 attacks means on average he hits 4 times a round. With four skins and four mirror images, Baitloth, if he does nothing but recast those two buffs alternately, is around four hits away from being defenceless at any particular time, and can maintain such defences for a good three to four rounds.
With 100 HP (he's actually what, 92 HP?), receiving on average 21+16+25+8 damage per round, ignoring all contributions of the Bait, you're looking at an almost mathematical certainty of having dead Drizzt within two rounds, and
GimpyGarrick the Bard is avenged.This doesn't include Baldy's helm, gauntlets of weapon skill (which would do great on Shar-Teel), or Bait-specific gear like the Claw, Cloak of Balduran, or even a Potion of Dexterity which all drop the chances of being hit down even further, down to -17 or so, giving Drizzt about two hits a round.
The key part is Stoneskins, which ignore the fact that Drizzt hits for about fifty damage a pop entirely. Once you drop below that then it's a case of trying to spam enough summons with Baitloth to keep him away from the blender team, and Pantalion the comparatively less magnificent has to revert to archery, and a moderate damage reduction.
Given the numbers, assuming the same access to gear, you could probably do it at average party level 5 or 6 using a summon strategy (and two bait characters spamming those summons), and be looking at an average kill time of three or four rounds.
I think the point was, that "Lawful Good" can take a lot of different forms depending on that individuals specific code or values.
And just because this one Drow is good, doesn't mean his progeny will be. And generally speaking the entire Drow line is considered to be tainted. The ends justify the means.
I'd find that to be a bit harder of a justification with silver dragons, as I think all silver dragons are good, but this would work equally well with a type of dragon that is always evil.
The main point being, that alignments play out in more than just 9 ways. The alignment is a general guideline, and the personality of the character and the circumstances can have a large impact.
I understand that, especially now. Still, it would take a pretty poor paladin to attack either character in question, and killing either one might cause that paladin to fall.
Is the concept of Drow being "tainted" a prejudice or an actual reality? If Drizzt theoretically had a fully Drow kid, would that kid randomly grow up Evil just because it's a Drow? How does the nature vs. nurture argument factor in with dark elves?
Anyway, I understand how a (dumb, unwise, and about-to-fall) paladin could justify attacking either Drizzt or a silver dragon. Just playing devil's advocate, but I don't think the same paladin could justify attacking both. If silver dragons are a subrace of dragons just as drow are a subrace of elves, then the theoretical paladin's racial stereotyping should protect the silver dragon just as much as it would condemn Drizzt, right?
Edit: Hold on. I'm thinking of Falling in terms of the BG series, where it happens at a low reputation. It's different in PnP, right? Killing a major force of good like a silver dragon or Drizzt is an objectively evil act, but is a paladin protected from falling if they perform the act in service of the explicit orders of their good deity?
That's the real question.
A paladin who kills a good dragon in the name of a (good) cause that requires killing all dragons will not fall, because he was acting on the command of his order and/or deity.
In the same way, a paladin who attacks Drizzt because his deity/order has commanded the deaths of all drow would be exonerated on the basis of the fact that his deity told him to do it.
The same paladin is not likely to be commanded to do both of these things, but doing either doesn't automatically mean that the paladin is no longer following his code, as long as it was his code that required him to do it.
There is no law or tenet that prohibits the killing of good-aligned creatures. A paladin who is fighting for a cause that opposes that of a ranger will eventually have to deal with the ranger, and that may mean fighting to the death.
@Aosaw
Given the specific history between the elves and the drow, and how the drow became to be.
Right or wrong, there is a great argument for the entire race being tainted.
I don't think there is as good as an argument for a lawful good killing a metallic dragon.
A dragon isn't a dragon. That would be like saying an elf is an elf, whether it is dark or not. So since drow are evil, I'm going to kill all drow and elves. I don't think a DM would, or should, buy that.
I would buy killing all and any chromatic dragons even if one chromatic dragon happens to be good.
That's exactly why I never really liked Keldorn.
Of course, your DM may disagree, or your DM may have staged it as a plot device hoping that you would question your order's motives. Every campaign plays out differently.
Also the BG Drizzt has 9 more Armor (-16 AC) then he should have (-7 up to -10 if he applies all of Twinkles bonus to his AC), 2 more thac0 then he should, and has 30% resistance to all physical damage, which shouldn't be there at all. He also has 1 more attack per round then he should. And he should summon Gwen if in real danger. And has 1 use of globe of darkness and faerie fire each.
So...actually in PnP you'd murder the hell out of Drizzt even easier then BG, except that he'd just say F it and run, since he has no reason to engage people out for blood, especially if there's a large group, for no reason, when escape would be ridiculously easy.
Thanks @Aosaw, you gave me some nice ideas for my next PnP campaign.
Are there any examples of a situation similar to this in Forgotton Realms books or other stories? I get that a paladin wouldn't fall if his god commanded him to do the deed... But if a paladin killed Drizzt, even if his god was okay with it, that paladin would become a social pariah. I'm not sure how big a political shitstorm can get in the Forgotton Realms (Again, I'm likely adding too much real-world thought into a fantasy setting), but it seems to me that if a good deity's orders resulted in Drizzt's death, it would have massive implications exacerbated by that deity's failure to punish the paladin.
The short-sighted orders of "kill all drow" or "kill all dragons" seems much more Lawful Neutral to me than LG. It reminds me of Vhailor from Planescape: Torment, serving a rigid definition of justice with no concern for due process or mercy.
Historically, religious zealots believe themselves to be, in D&D terms, lawful good. But does belief in one's alignment set one's alignment? I doubt it. A paladin might be able to justify murdering Drizzt Do'Urden based on what his god's edicts are, and his god might not take away his powers based on that act, but can that paladin still call himself Lawful Good?
While I'm on a roll, @Moopy
Can chromatic dragons ever be good? I was under the impression that dragons never had any exceptions to alignment.
Again, it depends on the campaign and the story. Kore, from the Goblins Comic, is a lawful good Paladin who roots out evil by killing anyone who has ever associated with it. He doesn't lose his powers, he's still a standard paladin, but his actions are definitely questionable from a normal perspective.
That seems like an inconsistency in the system. I wholly understand the mindset of the paladin and how his actions are justifiable by his deity, but I don't get how a character who is willing to commit "necessary evils" can still be classified as Lawful Good.
Anyway, I hope I'm not annoying anyone with this line of discussion. I'm genuinely curious, and not trolling. It's hard to tell what people's reactions are through text alone.
In a "gray morality" campaign, not everything is strictly good or evil, and a lawful good paladin who commits "necessary evils" may still retain his alignment and abilities. "Gray morality" campaigns also tend to focus more on ethical decisions (i.e. "Lawful" versus "Chaotic"), which means that a paladin's Lawful aspect is more important than his Good aspect.
In an "absolute morality" campaign, an evil act is evil regardless of circumstances, so a lawful good paladin who commits what he believes to be a "necessary evil" has to atone for his actions. Strictly speaking, there is no "necessary evil"; there is always a better alternative, and compromising your morals for the sake of convenience is inexcusable. These campaigns focus more on the "Good" part of paladins than the "Lawful" part.
I tend to play an amalgam of the two; there are no strict rules about what is good or evil, but committing an evil act that you know is evil in order to achieve a "good" result would still present problems.
If you want to keep discussing it (which is cool, I love these kinds of debates), I recommend starting a new thread so that this one doesn't grow any more off-topic.
I'd guess Drizzt is at something like...
STR 12
DEX 20
CON 16
INT 15
WIS 14
CHA 17
... which puts him at a total of 94 ability points, which is an extremely high stat total.
If you want Drizzt to be rebalanced in-game to reflect his actual power, I'd flesh him out with more of his noteworthy gear (perhaps made undroppable, so as to not unbalance the game). His leg-bracers gave him a massive combat advantage in the novels, as did summoning Gwen, and his innate Drow abilities also aren't implemented.
That's extremely helpful! So, if I understand you correctly, there isn't any one definite set of rules for how alignment shifts work in D&D, and it's more of a loose set of guidelines able to be interpreted by a DM. And, since we're our own DMs in Baldur's Gate, it's up to us to determine what is or isn't appropriate for a paladin to do.
Exactly.
similarly, with the rationalization of a paladin that kills a silver dragon - anyone in the world of D&D should know that metallic dragons are good. a paladin that recklessly kills a silver dragon isn't lawful good - that sounds more like lawful neutral.
And really, since everyone here is trying to find an RP-justification to do something heinous (murdering L/CG characters), you really all should be playing Lawful Evil characters.
Sometimes being good means you miss out on the fruits of being exploitive. That's why "Good" is not always the easiest choice.
The silver dragon in BG2 doesn't give you that kind of loophole. I further see the Paladin/dragon edict as something of a false dilemma. What good god would order the destruction of silver dragons? It isn't like they spawn hordes of evil dragons so that there is some RP reason that a good god would order this. It seems like a LG character could do this if you can get there from a way to justify the slaughter (for example, god: "This dragon must be killed in the next 10 minutes to save millions of lives and there isn't time to barter a peaceful solution because the dragon has been geased into guarding the nuclear plot device and we can't dispel the geas and the dragon won't give it up voluntarily. Sorry but go do my work, Paladin, and take out the dragon and disarm that plot device!").
Solo Sorcerer Level 9. Insane.
- My sorcerer with 4 spells: Stoneskin+Mirror Image+Fireshield Blue+Fireshield Red
Drizzt dies while I am looking at sky. Maybe 7-8 seconds.
Regarding your first Drizzt example: Yes, that works. Of course, I personally think the Drizzt encounter in BG1 is terribly written. Why would Drizzt be randomly fighting gnolls all by himself, this far away from his friends? It's a poorly executed cameo appearance, and doesn't reflect Drizzt's character at all. I'd have an easier time believing a paladin would murder Drizzt than I would believing Drizzt would murder a random adventuring party on sight.
2: Drizzt asks for help with no offer of reward. If told to fight his own battles, which he most definitely is capable of, he explicitly threatens you. And at no point does he ever introduce himself. Since there's a difference between "Good" and "Doormat", Drizzt, much like Shandalar, tends to learn first hand why you should say "please".
Killing someone in combat is not an evil act in D&D, and whilst murdering someone in cold blood, or intentionally causing a paladin to fall before decapitating them are pretty high on the evilmeter, fighting some highly capable upstart who didn't show you the proper respect isn't a far cry from neutral at worst.