Here is a real world example of how I view lawful good vs say chaotic or neutral good. I get pulled over for speeding. A lawful good cop is going to give me a ticket every time. The others might give me a warning.
For role playing to me that means when I defeat Davaeorn and find his apprentice, if I am NG or CG I let him go. If I am lawful good I do not. For NG and CG just doing something good is all that matters, but for LG it's not up to the individual to decide what is good and I can't really take him back to face punishment.
If you are not concerned about the letter of the law and just worried about the greater good then you are playing Neutral Good. A lawful good person will punish someone if it is for the greater benefit of society, because the greater good is more important than that one person's needs.
This surprises me, too. It's been discussed a million times who can and can not kill Drizzt for RP reasons. It's quite obvious the OP doesn't care about the story or roleplay and simply wanted the best, most powerful gear. That's all there is to it.
And there's nothing wrong with that, if that's how you want to play and you enjoy the game, but it's not how many here (myself included) like to play the game.
Ya, sure everyone can play how they like. But it's a bit ridicolous to insist "I play for the story" with this opening statement and charname/plan for charname. If he'd just say "so I want the most overpowered charname possible, I don't care about story and roleplay", no problem, he'd certainly get just facts and advice how to do it, like it's in other "powergame advice" topics. People aren't saying his way to play is "wrong" or that powergaming is bad, just that he's a hypocrite.
Here is a real world example of how I view lawful good vs say chaotic or neutral good. I get pulled over for speeding. A lawful good cop is going to give me a ticket every time. The others might give me a warning.
For role playing to me that means when I defeat Davaeorn and find his apprentice, if I am NG or CG I let him go. If I am lawful good I do not. For NG and CG just doing something good is all that matters, but for LG it's not up to the individual to decide what is good and I can't really take him back to face punishment.
If you are not concerned about the letter of the law and just worried about the greater good then you are playing Neutral Good. A lawful good person will punish someone if it is for the greater benefit of society, because the greater good is more important than that one person's needs.
I see that as rigid.
That is NOT the 2E Player's Handbook description of Lawful-Good.
But the biggest problem with that, for a Paladin or Cleric, is it gives WAY too much power to secular authority. The principles for clerics (and Paladins) are defined by their church, not the state. Now I would concede partially that the Lawful-Good type is more likely to issue the speeding ticket; but speeding tickets aren't really the issue here. Even in a court of law such offenses are considered "mala en prohibitum", which means they're wrong because they're illegal. The killing of an innocent is what started this discussion; which in law is called "mala en se", or wrong in itself. Or in essence, evil. A Paladin is unlikely to confuse a minor matter of civic law for true evil. Unless his deity has a particularly harsh view on traffic offenses, I think the Paladin will be far more interested in thwarting the next Goblin invasion than in helping the crown collect traffic fines. But the main reason I would object to putting so much weight on the secular authority is that secular authorities may be wrong, or worse, evil themselves. A Paladin, Cleric, or even a secular Lawful-Good type would not willingly serve an evil king or government. I think could be awesome story telling or role playing potential in this; I can easily imagine a scenario where the Lawful-Good church is the criminal underground (the American Underground Railroad of the mid-19th century would be a great example).
And I'm sorry this is all one long tangent. But I think the bottom line is the standards and priorities of the Paladin's church are the determining factor in how justice is administered, not the state. I also don't accept that the distinction between justice and mercy is tied to law and chaos. It is a completely seperate matter of wisdom and discernment. The letter of the law is not what the "Lawful" alignment is really about, at least not according to the 2E core rules.
You could simply shadowkeep your charname to be a Blackguard. It's still a paladin kit, but it's evil and needs no excuses to kill everything and everyone for gear.
Ok, this thread is fun! So I commented earlier about Drizzt going hostile by refusing to help him. It doesn't happen with some dialogue choices but with others it does. I'm not taking sides here and I'm not trying to justify RP reasons for killing Drizzt for any specific alignment, I'm just presenting my observations. When I want to kill Drizzt I do it the REAL way with REAL PnP rules, not nerfed BG rules - I summon werebears. Anyway, here's what I've got. This dialogue starts when the party approached Drizzt under attack (well surrounded at least) by gnolls:
Drizzt: You there! Will you help a stranger in need? I am beset by gnolls!
PC of any alignment that has better things to do than help a drow that didn't introduce himself, like saving Dynaheir (oh and can't cast any detect evil or alignment spell in dialogue mode): This is not my concern and I would rather be elsewhere.
Drizzt's response, which really isn't helping the drow stereotype: I see you standing out of the field of battle! Choose your side quickly, for I will be done forthwith and need to know whether to extend you my hand or my blade!
PC: Our minds are made up, drow! We'll not help you!
Drizzt runs around now doing nothing while Gnolls swarm me, totally ignoring him... I'm starting to think this was a set up...
After the battle, I don't want to jump to conclusions (though some might be justified at this point) and talk to him again. He's suddenly oddly polite and introduces himself.
Well met, stranger, I am Drizzt Do'Urden, and I appreciate your assistance. It is a long enough trip to the Icewind Dale, even without these constant interruptions. I do not recall banditry being of such epidemic proportions in this area. How long has this been so?
Oh my hero... - The raids never cease, but with you here, we need worry no longer!
Drizzt has a wordy way of refusing to help... I guess he has priorities too - Would that it were my only battle to fight, but I doubt that, upon thinking carefully, you would truly want my help. Many a powerful creature view me as enemy. Would you truly wish to cross a balor's gaze? Your path is yours alone to follow. Just tread carefully, and remember that your sword is secondary to your mind. Your opponents may have a harder time matching your wit than your blade.
I try to call him on it - I would not have figured Drizzt Do'Urden to suggest I hide behind words. Perhaps you have lost some of your edge?
Insulted, Drizzts leaves, but not without some mean words - Those that question my "edge" usually need but look deep inside themselves for their query's end. If you are lucky, my meaning is all you will catch. I take my leave.
Take 2
Drizzt: You there! Will you help a stranger in need? I am beset by gnolls!
PC of any alignment that has better things to do than help a drow that didn't introduce himself, like saving Dynaheir (oh and can't cast any detect evil or alignment spell in dialogue mode): This is not my concern and I would rather be elsewhere.
Drizzt's response, which really isn't helping the drow stereotype: I see you standing out of the field of battle! Choose your side quickly, for I will be done forthwith and need to know whether to extend you my hand or my blade!
Ok, so PC is a bit hot headed, and throws a threat back.. not actually taking any hostile action, so far just words right - I'll not suffer threats from someone begging my help. Perhaps these gnolls have the right idea! Perhaps you will die here today!
Drizzt goes hostile and chunks my party, again not helping out the drow stereotype.
PC of any alignment that has better things to do than help a drow that didn't introduce himself, like saving Dynaheir (oh and can't cast any detect evil or alignment spell in dialogue mode): This is not my concern and I would rather be elsewhere.
Here is the flaw in your argument. How or why would a Paladin of Lawful Good alignment justify not helping a citizen of the Realm who is obviously in trouble (beset by a host of Gnolls), who is actively asking for help?
Remember, that Drizzts is a renowned 'Good' Drow who uses two scimitars. Even if you have never seen him before, can you really take the risk that this isn't that famed hero and simply abandon him to his fate on the assumption that he is evil when a simple wave of your had would tell you otherwise?
Also, see the Aerie argument above. The description of your first view of Aerie is that, not only is she an Ogre, but she is moving in a threatening manner. If you wouldn't help Drizzts when he "Looks" like a famous "Good" hero, how can you justify saving Aerie when she looks AND Acts like a monster (by the power of the illusion placed on her)?
@the_spyder - well I'm not really looking to justify things, but I'll bite. I grew up in Candlekeep and I may have heard of Drizzt, but I've also heard of drow, the chances of me running into a random drow I would think are much greater than running into the hero himself, so my assumption likely would not be that it is Drizzt. Yes, he's asking for help, but I'm not interested in saving a drow from gnolls. They can fight it out among themselves, I've got better things to do. Notice even in the dialogue, the option refers to him as just "drow" and not "Drizzt" indicating that I may not know who it is - "Our minds are made up, drow! We'll not help you!" Not to mention, that the first time I played BG I truely had no idea who he was, in fact it was BG that sparked my interest in D&D in general... sorry tangent.
Let's say I do assume that it's Drizzt. You argue that a LG paladin would not pass on helping a citizen of the realm who is actively asking for help, but others have argued that a paladin does not act blindly. I've got Minsc in my group and I know that Dynaheir has been captured by gnolls, who knows how long she will survive her captivity, and even if she does, each day, hour, minute could be a living hell... is she being tortured? I don't know but I have to assume the worst. So here is Drizzt being accosted by gnolls and asking for help. Well, I think he can handle himself, and the greater good part of me would say, leave him to this fight while I go rescue the damsel in distress - and even Drizzt agrees with this line of thinking when he tells me to shove off when I imply he should assist with the bandit problem in region. I have to make a decision on priorities regarding life and death and I'm going to bet on Drizzt surviving and Dynaheir possibly not if I don't get there soon. I'm not expressing an opinion on whether or not a LG Paladin is justified in *killing* Drizzt, I'm just saying I can see reasons for any alignment not getting involved in the fight cause they have better things to do, whether it be LG greater good, or NE nothing's in it for me, etc.
In the dialogue tree above I did not do anything overtly hostile. I simply refused to help, and in one branch I threw a similar threat back at him which caused him to go hostile and chunk the party.
As for Aerie, that's not relevant to my post.
Also to clarify, I'm not justifying anything I just posted my observations on two dialogue paths with Drizzt and added some commentary. If I'm going to kill Drizzt, I'll do it right (werebears) and I don't need any justification Usually, I just don't kill him.
SirK8 we've strayed quite a bit from the original comment, but the thing that started this was about a LG Paladin! I would call it poor role playing for a Paladin to refuse to help someone under attack. Especially when they are beset by Gnolls, some of whom you almost certainly have already fought yourself. So you have someone asking for help against a known force of evil in the area. I see no plausible scenario where a paladin refuses to help. If the paladin has any concerns about the intentions of the individual being attacked, that can be sorted out AFTER the Gnolls are dealt with (and for the record, Gnolls DO detect as evil). Paladins are warriors in the business of battling evil, and gee, we see one person being attacked by a pack of evil Gnolls. The paladin should be EAGER to help, no matter who the person might or might not be. As always in a CRPG, there is little to force anyone to role play their character well. But I think the not helpful response is very inappropriate for a paladin.
Here is the flaw in your argument. How or why would a Paladin of Lawful Good alignment justify not helping a citizen of the Realm who is obviously in trouble (beset by a host of Gnolls), who is actively asking for help?
Remember, that Drizzts is a renowned 'Good' Drow who uses two scimitars. Even if you have never seen him before, can you really take the risk that this isn't that famed hero and simply abandon him to his fate on the assumption that he is evil when a simple wave of your had would tell you otherwise?
Also, see the Aerie argument above. The description of your first view of Aerie is that, not only is she an Ogre, but she is moving in a threatening manner. If you wouldn't help Drizzts when he "Looks" like a famous "Good" hero, how can you justify saving Aerie when she looks AND Acts like a monster (by the power of the illusion placed on her)?
A Drow is not a citizen of the Realm. A Drow is a Drow. The same logic that would make an otherwise well-meaning Flaming Fist guard to attack Viconia on sight applies. The only thing that at all singles Drizzt out as the good guy in the situation is that there are a lot of gnolls, and only one Drizzt.
But if you kill Drizzt for that reason, yet rescue and recruit Viconia, then that would be truly difficult to reconcile. I'd be hard pressed not to roll my eyes at the explanation for that. Same with the Aerie situation. I totally agree that if you refuse to let a Drow introduce himself, you should definitely slice and dice that angry ogre.
"The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing" - Nice quote, and I agree, but doing nothing is different than doing something else that is good and more important.
He is in trouble. Also, "If" he is good (and you can determine that via Detect Evil), he "Might" be able to help find Dynaheir. - I can't determine that in dialogue mode, but say that I can, it only tells me he's not evil, not that he's good, he may or may not help me with my quest (and following one branch shows you that actually he has no interest in helping me), I'm not going to stake Dynaheir's life on the off chance that a non evil drow is going to help me save her.
@atcDave - I believe it was you who argued that Paladins serve the greater good, and that is the logic I applied to my example. I'm not taking sides really, just showing possibilities. If I were RPing a LG of any type or any Good alignment for that matter *I* would and always do help Drizzt. However, I can see a situation where even a Paladin would see that his quest is more important than helping a random drow under attack - and even assuming that I know the drow is Drizzt himself, I am most certain he can handle them without me, but Dynaheir needs me. If I were to fall in helping him, she would not be rescued. If Drizzt were to be defeated by them, then likely we would be too and she would not be rescued. In some cases or some Paladin's opinion, pressing on and leaving a drow to it's fate or capable Drizzt to his own fight may be the greater good.
Drizzt himself applies the same principle when he repsonds with:
"Would that it were my only battle to fight, but I doubt that, upon thinking carefully, you would truly want my help. Many a powerful creature view me as enemy. Would you truly wish to cross a balor's gaze? Your path is yours alone to follow. Just tread carefully, and remember that your sword is secondary to your mind. Your opponents may have a harder time matching your wit than your blade."
He is making a judgement that the problems on the sword coast, while significant are not his only priority and is perfectly willing to leave me and the sword coast to our fate while he goes and deals with something else.
SirK8 I would agree an urgent situation might force tough choices, but I still don't see it here. A lone individual under attack by a pack Gnolls strikes me as an urgent situation in need of attention, while a helpless captive is also very important to deal with; but, you're talking about an urgency that may require 15 minutes out of a two day journey to rescue the captive (and seriously, that time frame is guess, I don't need anyone saying "but it's only 28 hours..."). The most obvious answer to me is that the paladin MUST deal with both situations. He is in the business doing great, heroic things; one mission does not suddenly make others unimportant. If the PC were some other good aligned character I might accept just moving on, umm okay, probably not. But definitely not with a paladin, I think destroying the Gnolls is mandatory, unless they flee and pose no immediate threat.
I always thought that the position that a paladin will destroy evil no matter what was a curious one.
Let's suppose your Paladin and his adventuring companions enter an Inn and discover the Evil Necromancer(tm) who is raising an army to conquer the realm is in there playing with a child. After some questions, your group's bard discover the child is ACTUALLY the Necromancer's grandson, not an evil construct or a demon in human shape.
What would be the Lawful Good/Paladin Code thing to do:
1) Kill the Necromancer risking an innocent child's life and traumatizing this child for the rest of his life.
2) Do nothing. Let the evil old wizard have a family moment in peace. Let the child keep his innocence. You can deal with the danger to the Realm some other day.
SirK8 I would agree an urgent situation might force tough choices, but I still don't see it here. A lone individual under attack by a pack Gnolls strikes me as an urgent situation in need of attention, while a helpless captive is also very important to deal with; but, you're talking about an urgency that may require 15 minutes out of a two day journey to rescue the captive (and seriously, that time frame is guess, I don't need anyone saying "but it's only 28 hours..."). The most obvious answer to me is that the paladin MUST deal with both situations. He is in the business doing great, heroic things; one mission does not suddenly make others unimportant. If the PC were some other good aligned character I might accept just moving on, umm okay, probably not. But definitely not with a paladin, I think destroying the Gnolls is mandatory, unless they flee and pose no immediate threat.
Add to this the fact that the party knows Drizzts is alive. They can see him in very imminent danger. Dynaheir may or may not still be alive. Certainly Minsc is merely standing around in Nashkal looking for help, so he isn't in any huge hurry to save her. Well, here is yet more help (in addition to Charname's party) in the form of Hero of the Realm Drizzts himself. Who wouldn't want him along for the ride?
And, since the party doesn't even know where the Gnoll Stronghold is, and Drizzts is actually battling these same monsters, saving his life may at minimum yield a better direction to go to find the stronghold, and at maximum, very specific details on it's layout, defenses and even information on captives. I'd say that is a HUGE benefit and well worth the 10 minutes necessary to deal with the Gnolls.
I alway thought that the position that a paladin will destroy evil no matter what was a curious one.
This.
Upholding the principle of fighting evil is a far cry from attacking and killing every perceived evil being on the planet (and taking their loot besides, humph).
I alway thought that the position that a paladin will destroy evil no matter what was a curious one.
Upholding the principle of fighting evil is a far cry from attacking and killing every perceived evil being on the planet
Yeah I absolutely agree. In fact, I think killing every "evil" being you see is in fact an "evil" of the very sort you're supposed to be fighting against. In the example mlnevese gave above, it would be an evil act to destroy the family and the life of a young child. Now as Spyder previously mentioned, lawful-good can be (should be!) smart, and finding an evil necromancer who's up to nefarious schemes absolutely requires attention. But sometimes attention will just mean recon or intelligence gathering. It may even mean reporting the situation to someone else depending on the circumstance (although I think that should be rare, Paladins especially would want to deal with such evil themselves; but again, I never buy rigid to the point of stupid).
@atcDave - I don't disagree with you that that is one way to roleplay the Paladin, and the way I do so as well. I just think there is a lot of discussion about not boxing in a Paladin to acting a certain way all the time and not everything being black and white even for a Paladin. I would not go so far though as to call it "bad RP" or against the class/alignment if the decision was made to leave either a) an unknown possibly ill intentioned drow to his fate or b) Drizzt, a very cable hero to fight a lowly (to Drizzt) pack of gnolls due to the urgency that that Paladin may feel in rescuing Dynaheir. I agree that usually the Paladin would say, hey this will only take a minute and is the right thing to do, but others might make a different decision. If this pack of gnolls was truly as formidable as Drizzt is making them out to be, then there is real risk in the party perishing in the fight. Under most circumstances this is an acceptable fate, due to the nature of the Paladin. But this Paladin may feel that because he pledged to rescue Dynaheir, risking her life to save a drow (or Drizzt who likely doesn't need saving if he is Drizzt, or if he does, then most likely they will all die) is not serving the greater good as judged by him at that time.
In this scenario you cannot ignore the fact that the lone individual being attacked by gnolls is a drow, which will affect the Paladin's decision making. The way I see it you can make two assumptions about the initial situation. 1) The Paladin recognizes it is Drizzt, in which case refusing to help is a lot shadier, but not 100% out of bounds IMO or 2) They don't recognize Drizzt. If #2 is true, then asking for help could be a ploy, which by the way is substantiated when you refuse to help and then say that you've made up your mind about not helping, at which point Drizzt leaves you alone to fight the gnolls, none of which attack him and he does not attack them. Also if #2 is true, even if the drow is not an immediate threat or not evil (per detect evil), I would make no assumption that he was innocent or well intentioned after the fight was over. Of course, if I had no other quest that I have sworn myself to where somebody's life is in the balance, then I would still feel honor bound to fight the fight against the gnolls and work it out later with the drow. To those that say there is no way that #2 is true, hearing about someone and actually meeting them are very different things, as many stories as the Paladin has heard about Drizzt, they have likely heard about drow. In the dialogue there is no indication that it is assumed you know who he is, since you refer to him as "drow" in the dialogue choices and he does not introduce himself initially. I think both #1 and #2 could be true.
And, in no way am I saying this scenario would include an excuse for a Paladin to attack and kill Drizzt unprovoked for his lewts.
That is NOT the 2E Player's Handbook description of Lawful-Good.
I am going by the same rules as you, in fact this is from the 2E rules
Although man does not create orderly structures, it is his obligation to function within them, lest the fabric of everything crumble. For less philosophical types, lawfulness manifests itself in the belief that laws should be made and followed, if only to have understandable rules for society. People should not pursue personal vendettas, for example, but should present their claims to the proper authorities.
I do agree that clerics and paladins are going to follow the rules of their particular diety over any secular laws. But, if you are lawful good, following the lawful part is just as important as following the good part, and to me that's rigid. It doesn't matter if the belief system is secular or not. Lawful good doesn't mean you always do the right thing, the most good thing, it means you do the good that is within the rules that you follow. Lawful good is not more good then neutral or chaotic good.
@SirK8, Your #2 is largely predicated on prejudices (or seemingly).
Facts at hand.
#1. The Paladin can detect evil. Has or could have done on Drizzts and should be very easily able to understand if this is a Drow Trick or a real good guy in need.
#2. There are a host of gnolls out attacking what you now know to be a 'Good' drow. Regardless of the color of their skin, and any inherent prejudices that you have, the "Right" thing to do is to help the besieged Elf. It isn't going to materially slow you down to do so.
#3. Regardless of if you are on cordial terms with the individual, they are in trouble. Turning aside from that "Assuming" that they can handle themselves, just seems wrong. "Oh, there's an accident along the side of the road and it looks like someone is there bleeding to death all alone. I assume that they were able to call for an ambulance before they passed out. Besides, I am late for that party and you KNOW how Fred gets when he's drinking."
#4. You don't know if Dynahier is alive or not. You don't even know where the gnoll stronghold is. Any intel, say from someone who is in the area and Fighting Gnolls, would further your goal to save the damsel in distress. and you can't get information out of a dead Drow. Helping the drow might significantly speed up your rescue or help it in other ways.
At the end of the day, if it were me role playing a Paladin, i wouldn't judge if I were going to help someone being attacked based on if I knew them or if they were nice to me when asking for help while they fought for their lives. And If I did base my decision on those factors, i would strongly expect my DM to give me more than a stiff warning about alignment shift.
Drow are evil. Gnolls are evil. It is no more prejudiced to assume that the drow is the good guy than it is to assume that the gnolls are the bad guy. Your Paladin can only detect evil so many times a day. And since you clearly use that spell before you enter into battle with every creature you meet, what happens when you can't detect evil anymore? Do you have your party rest? And how do you handle neutral creatures?
@doppleganger95. Drizzts is NOT evil and the paladin has a ready and easy way to determine that.
You have been traveling all day so the paladin probably hasn't used their Detect Evil yet that day.
Also, I am thinking that if I saw a host of Evil monsters attacking a lone Evil creature and the lone evil creature asked for my help, even if I couldn't detect evil on something my spider sense would be tingling that something was amiss here. I'd be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who looks remarkably like that famous Hero Drizzts I have heard about. Even if he didn't, I wouldn't assume anything until I had more facts. And since I am tracking gnolls to their lair, I at least have a pretty good sense they are the bad guys. And the enemy of my enemy might be my friend.
Also, your comment above about Lawful alignments, you can tend towards society and not believe or be required to uphold every single unjust law in the land. If you played a Paladin in a land where slavery was legal, would you think it lawful good to have slaves? I wouldn't.
Finally, I say again. If you act on prejudices ("all drow are evil" is a prejudice) and not on reality, you are going to end up doing evil. You don't get a pass simply because you are prejudiced. And believing someone is evil doesn't make them evil.
Comments
Here is a real world example of how I view lawful good vs say chaotic or neutral good. I get pulled over for speeding. A lawful good cop is going to give me a ticket every time. The others might give me a warning.
For role playing to me that means when I defeat Davaeorn and find his apprentice, if I am NG or CG I let him go. If I am lawful good I do not. For NG and CG just doing something good is all that matters, but for LG it's not up to the individual to decide what is good and I can't really take him back to face punishment.
If you are not concerned about the letter of the law and just worried about the greater good then you are playing Neutral Good. A lawful good person will punish someone if it is for the greater benefit of society, because the greater good is more important than that one person's needs.
I see that as rigid.
But the biggest problem with that, for a Paladin or Cleric, is it gives WAY too much power to secular authority. The principles for clerics (and Paladins) are defined by their church, not the state. Now I would concede partially that the Lawful-Good type is more likely to issue the speeding ticket; but speeding tickets aren't really the issue here. Even in a court of law such offenses are considered "mala en prohibitum", which means they're wrong because they're illegal. The killing of an innocent is what started this discussion; which in law is called "mala en se", or wrong in itself. Or in essence, evil. A Paladin is unlikely to confuse a minor matter of civic law for true evil. Unless his deity has a particularly harsh view on traffic offenses, I think the Paladin will be far more interested in thwarting the next Goblin invasion than in helping the crown collect traffic fines.
But the main reason I would object to putting so much weight on the secular authority is that secular authorities may be wrong, or worse, evil themselves. A Paladin, Cleric, or even a secular Lawful-Good type would not willingly serve an evil king or government. I think could be awesome story telling or role playing potential in this; I can easily imagine a scenario where the Lawful-Good church is the criminal underground (the American Underground Railroad of the mid-19th century would be a great example).
And I'm sorry this is all one long tangent. But I think the bottom line is the standards and priorities of the Paladin's church are the determining factor in how justice is administered, not the state. I also don't accept that the distinction between justice and mercy is tied to law and chaos. It is a completely seperate matter of wisdom and discernment. The letter of the law is not what the "Lawful" alignment is really about, at least not according to the 2E core rules.
As always, you can play however is fun for you.
Drizzt: You there! Will you help a stranger in need? I am beset by gnolls!
PC of any alignment that has better things to do than help a drow that didn't introduce himself, like saving Dynaheir (oh and can't cast any detect evil or alignment spell in dialogue mode): This is not my concern and I would rather be elsewhere.
Drizzt's response, which really isn't helping the drow stereotype: I see you standing out of the field of battle! Choose your side quickly, for I will be done forthwith and need to know whether to extend you my hand or my blade!
PC: Our minds are made up, drow! We'll not help you!
Drizzt runs around now doing nothing while Gnolls swarm me, totally ignoring him... I'm starting to think this was a set up...
After the battle, I don't want to jump to conclusions (though some might be justified at this point) and talk to him again. He's suddenly oddly polite and introduces himself.
Well met, stranger, I am Drizzt Do'Urden, and I appreciate your assistance. It is a long enough trip to the Icewind Dale, even without these constant interruptions. I do not recall banditry being of such epidemic proportions in this area. How long has this been so?
Oh my hero... - The raids never cease, but with you here, we need worry no longer!
Drizzt has a wordy way of refusing to help... I guess he has priorities too - Would that it were my only battle to fight, but I doubt that, upon thinking carefully, you would truly want my help. Many a powerful creature view me as enemy. Would you truly wish to cross a balor's gaze? Your path is yours alone to follow. Just tread carefully, and remember that your sword is secondary to your mind. Your opponents may have a harder time matching your wit than your blade.
I try to call him on it - I would not have figured Drizzt Do'Urden to suggest I hide behind words. Perhaps you have lost some of your edge?
Insulted, Drizzts leaves, but not without some mean words - Those that question my "edge" usually need but look deep inside themselves for their query's end. If you are lucky, my meaning is all you will catch. I take my leave.
Take 2
Drizzt: You there! Will you help a stranger in need? I am beset by gnolls!
PC of any alignment that has better things to do than help a drow that didn't introduce himself, like saving Dynaheir (oh and can't cast any detect evil or alignment spell in dialogue mode): This is not my concern and I would rather be elsewhere.
Drizzt's response, which really isn't helping the drow stereotype: I see you standing out of the field of battle! Choose your side quickly, for I will be done forthwith and need to know whether to extend you my hand or my blade!
Ok, so PC is a bit hot headed, and throws a threat back.. not actually taking any hostile action, so far just words right - I'll not suffer threats from someone begging my help. Perhaps these gnolls have the right idea! Perhaps you will die here today!
Drizzt goes hostile and chunks my party, again not helping out the drow stereotype.
Remember, that Drizzts is a renowned 'Good' Drow who uses two scimitars. Even if you have never seen him before, can you really take the risk that this isn't that famed hero and simply abandon him to his fate on the assumption that he is evil when a simple wave of your had would tell you otherwise?
Also, see the Aerie argument above. The description of your first view of Aerie is that, not only is she an Ogre, but she is moving in a threatening manner. If you wouldn't help Drizzts when he "Looks" like a famous "Good" hero, how can you justify saving Aerie when she looks AND Acts like a monster (by the power of the illusion placed on her)?
Let's say I do assume that it's Drizzt. You argue that a LG paladin would not pass on helping a citizen of the realm who is actively asking for help, but others have argued that a paladin does not act blindly. I've got Minsc in my group and I know that Dynaheir has been captured by gnolls, who knows how long she will survive her captivity, and even if she does, each day, hour, minute could be a living hell... is she being tortured? I don't know but I have to assume the worst. So here is Drizzt being accosted by gnolls and asking for help. Well, I think he can handle himself, and the greater good part of me would say, leave him to this fight while I go rescue the damsel in distress - and even Drizzt agrees with this line of thinking when he tells me to shove off when I imply he should assist with the bandit problem in region. I have to make a decision on priorities regarding life and death and I'm going to bet on Drizzt surviving and Dynaheir possibly not if I don't get there soon. I'm not expressing an opinion on whether or not a LG Paladin is justified in *killing* Drizzt, I'm just saying I can see reasons for any alignment not getting involved in the fight cause they have better things to do, whether it be LG greater good, or NE nothing's in it for me, etc.
In the dialogue tree above I did not do anything overtly hostile. I simply refused to help, and in one branch I threw a similar threat back at him which caused him to go hostile and chunk the party.
As for Aerie, that's not relevant to my post.
Also to clarify, I'm not justifying anything I just posted my observations on two dialogue paths with Drizzt and added some commentary. If I'm going to kill Drizzt, I'll do it right (werebears) and I don't need any justification
He is in trouble. Also, "If" he is good (and you can determine that via Detect Evil), he "Might" be able to help find Dynaheir.
And you KNOW that Drizzts is alive. You don't know that Dynaheir is alive.
Paladins are warriors in the business of battling evil, and gee, we see one person being attacked by a pack of evil Gnolls. The paladin should be EAGER to help, no matter who the person might or might not be.
As always in a CRPG, there is little to force anyone to role play their character well. But I think the not helpful response is very inappropriate for a paladin.
But if you kill Drizzt for that reason, yet rescue and recruit Viconia, then that would be truly difficult to reconcile. I'd be hard pressed not to roll my eyes at the explanation for that. Same with the Aerie situation. I totally agree that if you refuse to let a Drow introduce himself, you should definitely slice and dice that angry ogre.
He is in trouble. Also, "If" he is good (and you can determine that via Detect Evil), he "Might" be able to help find Dynaheir. - I can't determine that in dialogue mode, but say that I can, it only tells me he's not evil, not that he's good, he may or may not help me with my quest (and following one branch shows you that actually he has no interest in helping me), I'm not going to stake Dynaheir's life on the off chance that a non evil drow is going to help me save her.
Drizzt himself applies the same principle when he repsonds with:
"Would that it were my only battle to fight, but I doubt that, upon thinking carefully, you would truly want my help. Many a powerful creature view me as enemy. Would you truly wish to cross a balor's gaze? Your path is yours alone to follow. Just tread carefully, and remember that your sword is secondary to your mind. Your opponents may have a harder time matching your wit than your blade."
He is making a judgement that the problems on the sword coast, while significant are not his only priority and is perfectly willing to leave me and the sword coast to our fate while he goes and deals with something else.
If the PC were some other good aligned character I might accept just moving on, umm okay, probably not. But definitely not with a paladin, I think destroying the Gnolls is mandatory, unless they flee and pose no immediate threat.
Let's suppose your Paladin and his adventuring companions enter an Inn and discover the Evil Necromancer(tm) who is raising an army to conquer the realm is in there playing with a child. After some questions, your group's bard discover the child is ACTUALLY the Necromancer's grandson, not an evil construct or a demon in human shape.
What would be the Lawful Good/Paladin Code thing to do:
1) Kill the Necromancer risking an innocent child's life and traumatizing this child for the rest of his life.
2) Do nothing. Let the evil old wizard have a family moment in peace. Let the child keep his innocence. You can deal with the danger to the Realm some other day.
And, since the party doesn't even know where the Gnoll Stronghold is, and Drizzts is actually battling these same monsters, saving his life may at minimum yield a better direction to go to find the stronghold, and at maximum, very specific details on it's layout, defenses and even information on captives. I'd say that is a HUGE benefit and well worth the 10 minutes necessary to deal with the Gnolls.
So, in other words "Smart Lawful Good".
Upholding the principle of fighting evil is a far cry from attacking and killing every perceived evil being on the planet (and taking their loot besides, humph).
In the example mlnevese gave above, it would be an evil act to destroy the family and the life of a young child. Now as Spyder previously mentioned, lawful-good can be (should be!) smart, and finding an evil necromancer who's up to nefarious schemes absolutely requires attention. But sometimes attention will just mean recon or intelligence gathering. It may even mean reporting the situation to someone else depending on the circumstance (although I think that should be rare, Paladins especially would want to deal with such evil themselves; but again, I never buy rigid to the point of stupid).
In this scenario you cannot ignore the fact that the lone individual being attacked by gnolls is a drow, which will affect the Paladin's decision making. The way I see it you can make two assumptions about the initial situation. 1) The Paladin recognizes it is Drizzt, in which case refusing to help is a lot shadier, but not 100% out of bounds IMO or 2) They don't recognize Drizzt. If #2 is true, then asking for help could be a ploy, which by the way is substantiated when you refuse to help and then say that you've made up your mind about not helping, at which point Drizzt leaves you alone to fight the gnolls, none of which attack him and he does not attack them. Also if #2 is true, even if the drow is not an immediate threat or not evil (per detect evil), I would make no assumption that he was innocent or well intentioned after the fight was over. Of course, if I had no other quest that I have sworn myself to where somebody's life is in the balance, then I would still feel honor bound to fight the fight against the gnolls and work it out later with the drow. To those that say there is no way that #2 is true, hearing about someone and actually meeting them are very different things, as many stories as the Paladin has heard about Drizzt, they have likely heard about drow. In the dialogue there is no indication that it is assumed you know who he is, since you refer to him as "drow" in the dialogue choices and he does not introduce himself initially. I think both #1 and #2 could be true.
And, in no way am I saying this scenario would include an excuse for a Paladin to attack and kill Drizzt unprovoked for his lewts.
Although man does not create orderly
structures, it is his obligation to function within them, lest the fabric of everything
crumble. For less philosophical types, lawfulness manifests itself in the belief that laws
should be made and followed, if only to have understandable rules for society. People
should not pursue personal vendettas, for example, but should present their claims to the
proper authorities.
I do agree that clerics and paladins are going to follow the rules of their particular diety over any secular laws. But, if you are lawful good, following the lawful part is just as important as following the good part, and to me that's rigid. It doesn't matter if the belief system is secular or not. Lawful good doesn't mean you always do the right thing, the most good thing, it means you do the good that is within the rules that you follow. Lawful good is not more good then neutral or chaotic good.
Facts at hand.
#1. The Paladin can detect evil. Has or could have done on Drizzts and should be very easily able to understand if this is a Drow Trick or a real good guy in need.
#2. There are a host of gnolls out attacking what you now know to be a 'Good' drow. Regardless of the color of their skin, and any inherent prejudices that you have, the "Right" thing to do is to help the besieged Elf. It isn't going to materially slow you down to do so.
#3. Regardless of if you are on cordial terms with the individual, they are in trouble. Turning aside from that "Assuming" that they can handle themselves, just seems wrong. "Oh, there's an accident along the side of the road and it looks like someone is there bleeding to death all alone. I assume that they were able to call for an ambulance before they passed out. Besides, I am late for that party and you KNOW how Fred gets when he's drinking."
#4. You don't know if Dynahier is alive or not. You don't even know where the gnoll stronghold is. Any intel, say from someone who is in the area and Fighting Gnolls, would further your goal to save the damsel in distress. and you can't get information out of a dead Drow. Helping the drow might significantly speed up your rescue or help it in other ways.
At the end of the day, if it were me role playing a Paladin, i wouldn't judge if I were going to help someone being attacked based on if I knew them or if they were nice to me when asking for help while they fought for their lives. And If I did base my decision on those factors, i would strongly expect my DM to give me more than a stiff warning about alignment shift.
Drow are evil. Gnolls are evil. It is no more prejudiced to assume that the drow is the good guy than it is to assume that the gnolls are the bad guy. Your Paladin can only detect evil so many times a day. And since you clearly use that spell before you enter into battle with every creature you meet, what happens when you can't detect evil anymore? Do you have your party rest? And how do you handle neutral creatures?
You have been traveling all day so the paladin probably hasn't used their Detect Evil yet that day.
Also, I am thinking that if I saw a host of Evil monsters attacking a lone Evil creature and the lone evil creature asked for my help, even if I couldn't detect evil on something my spider sense would be tingling that something was amiss here. I'd be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who looks remarkably like that famous Hero Drizzts I have heard about. Even if he didn't, I wouldn't assume anything until I had more facts. And since I am tracking gnolls to their lair, I at least have a pretty good sense they are the bad guys. And the enemy of my enemy might be my friend.
Also, your comment above about Lawful alignments, you can tend towards society and not believe or be required to uphold every single unjust law in the land. If you played a Paladin in a land where slavery was legal, would you think it lawful good to have slaves? I wouldn't.
Finally, I say again. If you act on prejudices ("all drow are evil" is a prejudice) and not on reality, you are going to end up doing evil. You don't get a pass simply because you are prejudiced. And believing someone is evil doesn't make them evil.