There's a big difference between a brainless predatory beast like Wyvern and a potentially dangerous tribe. If a being or people can be reasoned with I would not automatically resort to killing them! And to be fair, that issue may need clarification by a DM. If a creature like a Goblin is innately evil, will always be evil, and can't help but be evil; then they should probably be exterminated. But if they are merely foul tempered but CAN be reasoned with, then reason has to be the preferred approach. I have actually had this discussion a few times with different DMs and gotten different answers for their settings. I think of it as the "baby Goblin" discussion, because that is the issue; is there any such thing as an innocent Goblin?
In fantasy settings, we often have the idea of pure, or elemental evil, as opposed to mere human evil. Something like a Demon can be said to be pure evil, it absolutely must be destroyed. A man has free will; within reason, an attempt should be made to make peace, or let them repent, or convert, or something. Other beasties like Goblins and Drow may be somewhere in between these two extremes. You really need a DMs ruling for the particular world you're in to know for sure.
Which leads back to Baldur's Gate. In THIS setting, there are clearly examples of good Drow (Drizzt), harmless Goblins (Weenog, its in IWD, but both games are set in the Forgotten Realms), and Friendly Xvarts (Larry). In theory, that puts a lot of responsibility for discernment back on the Paladin or other Good hero. "Evil" races may have tendencies, but those do not seem to be set in stone, so wisdom and caution are called for. Now the game makes it easy. The vast majority of these questionable beings will show up with a nice red circle at their feet, so there's no doubt what the best response is. But I think its always better to make a friend than slay a beast, so I know I will try diplomacy wherever I can. Put that 17+ charisma to use...
Except Wyvern's aren't brainless predatory beasts. They have low intellegence, 6 I think, and are neutral evil. But, even still the slaughter of a brainless beast just because it's potentially dangerous seems worse to me than killing something you know to be evil.
And what about the spiders nest? When you are playing a lawful good party do you skip it? Or do you go in knowing that you will end up killing the creatures inside?
I really do get what you are trying to say and I would never play a good character as some mindless killing machine that simply attacks every thing that appears remotely evil. But, there is no way that I am willing to buy that you, or anyone else for that matter, hasn't attacked an evil creature without provocation simply because it's an evil creature. You've never been in a campaign where you have stumbled across a powerful evil creature and tried to gain the element of surprise in a fight?
What about evil characters / beings that aren't actively trying to hurt anyone, but are just selfishly minding their own business? Do they need to be killed?
Just because someone is evil, doesn't necessarily mean they are dangerous.
And there is also a question of proportion. What about the evil bureaucrat, who cheats on his paperwork to line his own pockets? Does he deserve to die?
If we are talking about a lawful good character, they would do whatever it took within the law to bring the evil doer to justice.
I'm not saying saying that a paladin should walk into a crowded inn, use his detect evil, and just behead everyone who is evil.
I really do get what you are trying to say and I would never play a good character as some mindless killing machine that simply attacks every thing that appears remotely evil. But, there is no way that I am willing to buy that you, or anyone else for that matter, hasn't attacked an evil creature without provocation simply because it's an evil creature. You've never been in a campaign where you have stumbled across a powerful evil creature and tried to gain the element of surprise in a fight?
Unless the context of the situation informs a sneak attack, I've never just blindsided a creature while playing a Good character. If there's a drow wandering the woods alone, I don't just start swinging. If that drow is armored in the dark full plate of elemental evil +1, standing guard in the Temple of Elemental, then I'd probably ambush him.
As I said, there can be a difference between something that is in essence pure evil, and something that has free will. I'm completely willing to call a low intelligence NE beast a brainless predator, I'm certainly not going to agonize over the issue. And there are also issues about the immediacy of the threat and the nature of the conflict. There's also a big difference between what may happen occasionally vs. what's policy. And I see a big difference between a sneak attack against an enemy who knows you're coming for them and one who is completely unaware (as in, they were warned to move away and they didn't; vs a completely unexpected attack).
But with all those qualifications I would say mostly no. I don't go for surprise attacks much, I would always rather make friends than kill (and historically sneak attacks tend form long lasting hatreds, while a clear display of strength and power is more likely to gain respect). I'm not stupid about it, and I won't hesitate to fight when the time comes, but I usually consider killing to be the last resort. And in most PNP games I've played; DMs will give an even bigger experience reward if you convince the local Gnoll tribe they're better off moving away than slaughtering them to the last. As I said though, the DM can influence how that plays out a lot based on the nature of Gnolls and evil in any particular setting. If its ruled there's something demonic and irredeemable about them I'm more likely to use violence than if I think they can be reasoned with.
What about evil characters / beings that aren't actively trying to hurt anyone, but are just selfishly minding their own business? Do they need to be killed?
Just because someone is evil, doesn't necessarily mean they are dangerous.
And there is also a question of proportion. What about the evil bureaucrat, who cheats on his paperwork to line his own pockets? Does he deserve to die?
If we are talking about a lawful good character, they would do whatever it took within the law to bring the evil doer to justice.
I'm not saying saying that a paladin should walk into a crowded inn, use his detect evil, and just behead everyone who is evil.
Actually, Paladins in Baldur's Gate do just that. There is a Paladin in a Tavern that attacks you if you have an evil member in your party, just for entering the bar.
What about evil characters / beings that aren't actively trying to hurt anyone, but are just selfishly minding their own business? Do they need to be killed?
Just because someone is evil, doesn't necessarily mean they are dangerous.
And there is also a question of proportion. What about the evil bureaucrat, who cheats on his paperwork to line his own pockets? Does he deserve to die?
If we are talking about a lawful good character, they would do whatever it took within the law to bring the evil doer to justice.
I'm not saying saying that a paladin should walk into a crowded inn, use his detect evil, and just behead everyone who is evil.
Actually, Paladins in Baldur's Gate do just that. There is a Paladin in a Tavern that attacks you if you have an evil member in your party, just for entering the bar.
You mean one paladin does that. That doesn't make the practice normal or even a good idea.
And keep in mind you're walking into the bar as a heavily armed group of adventurers, if you are of evil intent you could be a big problem indeed. I doubt very much the same paladin would bother to detect evil on every merchant and peasant in town.
I'm not killing anything that might be evil, I am killing things that are evil. We are not talking about killing a bear because it is potentially dangerous. We are talking about killing evil creatures created by evil gods who want to kill or enslave all that is good.
We are talking about a lawful good character, not a neutral character. They are not looking for a balance in the force. Part of being a paladin is protecting other good creatures from evil. You are the knight in shining armor looking to rid the land of evil.
I have read Minority Report. But, I like Man in a High Castle much better.
What proof do you have other than their race that Larry, Darryl and Darryl are evil?
Your claim is that all drow are evil, yet Drizzts isn't. Therefore not ALL drow are evil. Therefore killing all drow on sight = killing things that "Might" be evil. Same with Kobolds. The possibility exists that Larry, Darryl and Darryl got together because they weren't evil and wanted to hang out with other beings that didn't want to kill or harm other living things. You have no proof that they are evil, therefore they only "Might" be evil.
In the real world I agree with you completely. But, in fantasy land I couldn't disagree more. If my Paladin is living in Beregost and the mayor comes to tell me that a group of goblins has taken up residence near the town I don't wait for them to start killing and eating the townsfolk before I go out there and take care of the problem. That's not being evil, that's part of the job description.
When you go into Cloakwood do you kill off the Wyvern's? Why? They didn't attack you, you went into their den based off the word of some elf you just met. Do you go into the spider nest? If you do then you are invading the home of a creature that has done nothing to you. You can't use the excuse that you were attacked by these creatures in the forest and you are protecting others from potential harm. That would be striking to prevent evil and you just said that is evil itself. So do you avoid these areas?
In the game world, if my Paladin is living in Beregost and the mayor comes to tell me that a group of goblins has taken up residence near the town, I don't wait for them to start killing and eating townsfolk. I go and TALK to them to find out what their intentions are. If they claim that they are neutral and don't eat people anymore, I might be watchful, but I don't kill them out of hand. Your approach is that of an assassin. In my view, a Paladin would temper force with reason. S/He would strike with restraint and only when necessary. They would be vigilant by not a vigilante. Trust, but verify. And only kill as a last resort.
As far as the Wyvern are concerned, when you enter into that section of the woods, first off you have Coran telling you that the Mayor of Beregost has put a bounty on the Wyvern's heads because they have been attacking and killing the citizens. You also see a Wyvern flying over the forest carrying something that looks awfully like a citizen (If I remember that correctly. I could be wrong). Third, when you encounter any Wyvern, they attack you straight away. Finally, outside their lair there is an obvious killing ground and the inside of their cave is full of the remains of the people they have killed. I'd say that is plenty of evidence that they are evil and up to no good.
If we are talking about a lawful good character, they would do whatever it took within the law to bring the evil doer to justice.
Um, Wrong. A lawful good Ranger might not care one bit about 'Bringing Evil to justice'. he may be very interested in keeping the forests safe from harm and he might want stop those who hurt nature, but that may be the end of their crusade. A lawful good Cleric might only be interested in spreading the gospel according to their God. A lawful good wizard might be morally aligned with stamping out evil, but might not feel that taking action is appropriate. Etc....
Now, a Lawful Good Paladin, Maybe.... But even then, it is far from certain that they are going to spend every waking minute of every day hunting down evil. And if the law was evil or corrupt, a Paladin would break it. Remember, Lawful doesn't mean "Follows the law" it only means that they are disposed to believe that society is superior to anarchy.
But what about evil Non-doers? Alignment is the beginning. It is the seed. It is the motivation, not the action. You can be very evil indeed and never act on it. I don't think a Paladin would strike and kill someone who had never harmed anyone or done any actual Evil wrong. Yes, it is possible to be evil and not do evil.
The attitude you present is more analogous to a Blackguard than a Paladin. Adhere strictly to the code that you believe in. Strike down anyone who is of opposing belief system to yours. Don't wait on actions, merely the possibility is enough "Proof" for you. Absolute victory for your cause at any cost.
This is analogous to the Inquisition where the mere accusation was enough to have someone put to death and people were presumed guilty and had to prove their innocence. In short, the very definition of evil.
And besides, it's also cheating to use an editor. I'd feel more accomplished grinding it out myself.
Technically, this is also cheating. But whatever, it's your game, your time. No reason for people to get up in arms about it :P
I disagree. It is using the import function as it is designed. They could have easily not allowed it to function this way. Instead they let you start over with a character and all items, stats, and experience.
But a characters alignment is based on their actions. Otherwise, you are saying people are born innately evil. Someone could have horrible thoughts of grotesque depeavities but so long as they do not act on them they will remain Nuetral or Good aligned.
This is why a characters alignment will change as they play. Whether a turn towards good or evil. Saying alignment is based on thoughts is impossible for DM's to accurately decide whether an alignment change is in order.
I disagree. It is using the import function as it is designed. They could have easily not allowed it to function this way. Instead they let you start over with a character and all items, stats, and experience.
It functions as designed, not as intended. I am not saying you couldn't or shouldn't continuously re-import the same character, merely that the intent was to play the character through once, not over and over and over again merely to bring you your stats. But we are all free to play as we want rather than how the game developers designed. I credit the design team with allowing game play that was not strictly as intended. that is the mark of really good game design.
But a characters alignment is based on their actions. Otherwise, you are saying people are born innately evil. Someone could have horrible thoughts of grotesque depeavities but so long as they do not act on them they will remain Nuetral or Good aligned.
This is why a characters alignment will change as they play. Whether a turn towards good or evil. Saying alignment is based on thoughts is impossible for DM's to accurately decide whether an alignment change is in order.
It is kind of a chicken/egg thing. Almost. Since the 'DM' (in this case the computer game) really has no way to know what your intent is, it is a usual accepted convention to base your alignment (and any shifts) based on your actions. However, philosophically, your intents have to drive your actions. Therefore it is alignment that drives the actions, not the other way around.
But understand that you can still be Evil and not hurt people. It is possible to run a very Chaotic Evil person and never cause harm to another soul. You may very well covet what is not yours, you may very well ignore cries for help, you may be miserly and hoard gold, you may even lie, cheat and steal from people for whom the loss doesn't hurt them. It is possible, just not that easy to convince a DM that is what you are doing.
Note I said not easy, not impossible. I once played a Lawful Evil wizard in a group of basically goodie-goodies. I had to be very careful about the actions that I took and the consequences that happened because of it, but I was able to keep my alignment. Basically, I had a sidebar with the DM every so often to discuss and describe my motives. He was quite a stickler, but once he understood my intentions, he agreed that I played it quite well within alignment. So, possible, just difficult.
I do caveat the fact that if a good person performs enough evil acts, even with the greater good in mind, they will eventually become evil. And the same is true for Evil going towards good. So you really have to be careful on either side of the coin.
Now in a PC game, you more or less have to self regulate and that can sometimes be even tougher.
And besides, it's also cheating to use an editor. I'd feel more accomplished grinding it out myself.
Technically, this is also cheating. But whatever, it's your game, your time. No reason for people to get up in arms about it :P
I disagree. It is using the import function as it is designed. They could have easily not allowed it to function this way. Instead they let you start over with a character and all items, stats, and experience.
But a characters alignment is based on their actions. Otherwise, you are saying people are born innately evil. Someone could have horrible thoughts of grotesque depeavities but so long as they do not act on them they will remain Nuetral or Good aligned.
This is why a characters alignment will change as they play. Whether a turn towards good or evil. Saying alignment is based on thoughts is impossible for DM's to accurately decide whether an alignment change is in order.
I'll disagree on several levels. Re-importing a character, just like Shadowkeeper and cluaconsul IS a cheat. That's not a moral judgement or even a big deal, we've all played around with this stuff. It's a game and its there to have fun with. But we ARE cheating the game a little when we manipulate such details. The intent, and the story is balanced for a randomly rolled character on a single playthrough. The experience cap kind of proves that point, you will probably bump into it on a single playthrough. IWD is markedly different on this point, it's more like two complete playthroughs to hit the cap.
I would also disagree about alignment. I think the intents and motives of the individual DO matter, at least in the "spiritual" sense of the word; which is the domain of the deities, and therefore clerical magic. But detecting evil, is NOT a criminal conviction, it's just a measure of a troubled mind. It may be an indicator of someone to watch closely, but it's not permission to pass judgement. I even knew a DM once who said no matter alignment, we would almost never detect evil on a human unless they were very evil and very powerful. Human evil just wasn't evil enough, the power mostly worked for spiritual/demonic sorts of things. Now I may suspect that DM was trying to devalue my detect evil ability, and I'm not so restrictive in my own games, but I understand the point and agree those are two completely different dimensions of evil. But I think we've come to a fundamental aspect of our disagreement. You are wanting to label Evil only based on actions, I'm more interested in motives and intent. And while I would agree with saying everyone has wanted to do something "evil" at some point or another, but I think there are key differences between "good" and "evil". Mainly in if the individual knows they're having evil thought and cares enough to try to stop it. Or perhaps more to the point; I would say its possible for an evil minded person to live a "good" life and never be recognized as evil (unless divination magic is used); EXACTLY like its possible for a good person to get trapped into a life of evil and bad situations that they truly want no part of. So I would say when a paladin detects evil he has found someone to be suspicious of, a potential suspect or person of interest; but it is NOT a conviction.
There is also the Nuetral alignment. If someone has horrible urges but does not act on them, he is Nuetral.
Someone who is tormented in such a way is evil. If they are mentally ill, suffering PTSD from severe trauma or possessed. Your logic, they are evil even though they have committed no wrong.
Motive and intent are important. But they are only important because they dictate your actions.
There is also the Nuetral alignment. If someone has horrible urges but does not act on them, he is Nuetral.
Someone who is tormented in such a way is evil. If they are mentally ill, suffering PTSD from severe trauma or possessed. Your logic, they are evil even though they have committed no wrong.
Motive and intent are important. But they are only important because they dictate your actions.
Not really looking to get into a protracted philosophical debate on the topic, but no. You really don't have the concept I am explaining.
Someone who covets another persons life and things, someone who contemplates murder or robbery and is held back not by conscience, but by fear of consequences. Someone for whom they know what is right and what is wrong but they desire to do, or contemplate doing the wrong thing. That would be someone who is evil with no actions.
Motive and intent are paramount in the equation. They are the reasons why we do things. They are the driving force, the reasons we have ideas and set courses of action into motion. And while it is true that performing evil acts for the greater good to many times will ultimately make you evil, usually there comes a time in the thought process where you realize that what you are doing is evil and simply accept it. So again it is the motives, not the actions themselves.
Mentally Ill people are mentally Ill. They don't understand the difference between right and wrong. I wouldn't judge someone Ill as either good or evil.
as for Neutrality, they don't (as some people would have you believe) do a little good and a little evil to balance it out. Neutrality is knowing right and wrong but simply opting to do something else entirely.
And besides, it's also cheating to use an editor. I'd feel more accomplished grinding it out myself.
Technically, this is also cheating. But whatever, it's your game, your time. No reason for people to get up in arms about it :P
I disagree. It is using the import function as it is designed. They could have easily not allowed it to function this way. Instead they let you start over with a character and all items, stats, and experience.
riiiiight cuz starting a new game with max level, top tier gear, and more stats than you can possibly roll for isn't cheating :P silly goose. If it floats your boat though, by all means...do what you will
Because games that allow you to play through a game with most or all of the stuff you had after beating it once don't exist.
Games with New Game+ are balanced towards that. They're rarely CRPGs but instead are almost always an action or FPS game. The reason is because those types of games don't have the dramatic increase in power levels as you level as opposed to those of the RPG genre. The new weapon or skill you unlock does increase your power, but not to the exponential levels of most RPGs.
On top of that, these games generally include difficulty modes to counter-balance said power upgrades. The action RPG genre (Diablo, IWD, etc.) and action adventure games (Batman Arkham series) are all prime examples of this.
Yes, technically it's "legit" to constantly re-import your characters, but the net result is the same as cheating. You're grossly overpowered, you have access to levels, stats, and items that makes absolutely no sense in context of the story, and you're trivializing the game content. The game allows you to import characters, but it doesn't actively support the balance of it - unlike the IWD series. It's like enabling a 2-3x damage mod, 10x HP mod, a near perfect To Hit mod, a near impossible to hit AC/Saving Throw mod, with literal God-mode stats (you're surpassing DRAGONS in stats), etc. the moment you reenter Candlekeep. Totally different from cheating.
From an RP perspective, how does it make sense that you're a fledgling from Candlekeep when you have the power levels of legendary characters like Drizzt, blessed with innate attributes that surpass some of the most powerful beings (i.e. Dragons) on the mortal plane, in possession of the equipment of the most famous person in Faerun, running from an antagonist that you're as powerful as, etc.
On that note, how does a Paladin rationalize killing Drizzt was just when after you Identify said equipment, it's obviously the gear of the legendary Drizzt. Then you don said gear and continue parading as a force of righteousness with no redemption or remorse?
Like most of the others said, you're entitled to play as you wish (it's your game), but don't try to masquerade it as "for the story" or for RP reasons when it's obvious power-gaming is the true incentive - especially since you're planning to import it to BG2... Even a cheater who uses 18 all stats with all end-game gear via CLUAConsole would be significantly less powerful than you...
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.
I hate to dredge up this old argument again, but I did just discover I was wrong about something in this argument. I will still hold my position; but I must admit the description I was thinking of was from the 1E AD&D rules.
On page 23 of the 1E DMG under "Law and Chaos" it says: "The opposition is between organized groups and individuals. That is, law dictates that order and organization is necessary and desirable, while chaos holds the opposite view. Law generally supports the group as more important than the individual, while chaos promotes the individual over the group."
So I must start by admitting this is slightly different from the 2E description. In my own defense, my "formative years" were all spent on 1E, so I still form many of my opinions based on that experience. To be completely honest, there are probably many sections of the 2E rules (like alignment descriptions!) I never read until now.
But I see nothing in the 2E description that negates the 1E description, even if I can imagine anyone reading it first without the 1E experience might interpret it rather differently than I did. A key issue being that 1E pointedly says "generally" supports group over individual, which to me indicates flexibility based on other dimensions of the situation (especially based on how the good/evil issues might impact a situation). It also pointedly does not mention "laws" as a dimension of lawfulness. 2E does, but I still maintain the good/evil dimension may be equally important; especially for a LG type who may need to make a moral choice as opposed to an ethical one (human laws may evil).
I whole heartedly agree. First in that I have made most of my post based on 1E rules (and the Michael Moorcock books). Second in that a "Tendency towards" laws being necessary and followed is hugely predicated on those laws being Just and beneficial to society as a whole. Without the latter half, it is meaningless. I can be generally disposed towards the laws of the land due to my lawfulness, but when faced with a law that makes no sense, doesn't contribute towards society (and there are PLENTY of those) or is wholly unjust (such as slavery), I would have no compulsion to follow them.
What is not generally realized is that society today tends towards making laws more or less as situations arise. Some of these laws merely seemed to be a good idea at the time and don't on the whole support society, but merely address a gap in a bandaid sort of way. These laws will often times be challenged or re-written over time as situations arise. It is in fact quite chaotic in nature. And there are always those in power who will make laws that benefit themselves over society. I can quite easily see a Paladin being a strong opponent of such.
In the end, blindly following the law is not the intent or the intention of Lawfulness relating to alignment. A tendency is nothing more than a general principal leaning in a given direction. But it takes a whole lot more than blind obedience to the letter of the law to be lawful.
Wait... did you just suggest that legally regulating the size soda pop I can buy might not be based on a moral absolute? Dang, here I was getting my Paladins ready to storm the local 7-Eleven...
Actually I was thinking that installing a traffic light at the intersection of two suburban streets just down the road from where a local councilman lives with his family is probably not predicated on any need to uphold society (such as actually dealing with traffic issues or anything). But yeah, if the soda thing floats your kidneys, then sure.
Comments
And that wouldn't be evil. It would be Nuetral.
In fantasy settings, we often have the idea of pure, or elemental evil, as opposed to mere human evil. Something like a Demon can be said to be pure evil, it absolutely must be destroyed. A man has free will; within reason, an attempt should be made to make peace, or let them repent, or convert, or something. Other beasties like Goblins and Drow may be somewhere in between these two extremes. You really need a DMs ruling for the particular world you're in to know for sure.
Which leads back to Baldur's Gate. In THIS setting, there are clearly examples of good Drow (Drizzt), harmless Goblins (Weenog, its in IWD, but both games are set in the Forgotten Realms), and Friendly Xvarts (Larry). In theory, that puts a lot of responsibility for discernment back on the Paladin or other Good hero. "Evil" races may have tendencies, but those do not seem to be set in stone, so wisdom and caution are called for. Now the game makes it easy. The vast majority of these questionable beings will show up with a nice red circle at their feet, so there's no doubt what the best response is. But I think its always better to make a friend than slay a beast, so I know I will try diplomacy wherever I can. Put that 17+ charisma to use...
And what about the spiders nest? When you are playing a lawful good party do you skip it? Or do you go in knowing that you will end up killing the creatures inside?
I really do get what you are trying to say and I would never play a good character as some mindless killing machine that simply attacks every thing that appears remotely evil. But, there is no way that I am willing to buy that you, or anyone else for that matter, hasn't attacked an evil creature without provocation simply because it's an evil creature. You've never been in a campaign where you have stumbled across a powerful evil creature and tried to gain the element of surprise in a fight?
I'm not saying saying that a paladin should walk into a crowded inn, use his detect evil, and just behead everyone who is evil.
- THIS POST WAS ABOUT AS USEFUL AS ALL THE OTHER POSTS IN THIS THREAD -
But with all those qualifications I would say mostly no. I don't go for surprise attacks much, I would always rather make friends than kill (and historically sneak attacks tend form long lasting hatreds, while a clear display of strength and power is more likely to gain respect). I'm not stupid about it, and I won't hesitate to fight when the time comes, but I usually consider killing to be the last resort. And in most PNP games I've played; DMs will give an even bigger experience reward if you convince the local Gnoll tribe they're better off moving away than slaughtering them to the last. As I said though, the DM can influence how that plays out a lot based on the nature of Gnolls and evil in any particular setting. If its ruled there's something demonic and irredeemable about them I'm more likely to use violence than if I think they can be reasoned with.
And keep in mind you're walking into the bar as a heavily armed group of adventurers, if you are of evil intent you could be a big problem indeed. I doubt very much the same paladin would bother to detect evil on every merchant and peasant in town.
Your claim is that all drow are evil, yet Drizzts isn't. Therefore not ALL drow are evil. Therefore killing all drow on sight = killing things that "Might" be evil. Same with Kobolds. The possibility exists that Larry, Darryl and Darryl got together because they weren't evil and wanted to hang out with other beings that didn't want to kill or harm other living things. You have no proof that they are evil, therefore they only "Might" be evil. In the game world, if my Paladin is living in Beregost and the mayor comes to tell me that a group of goblins has taken up residence near the town, I don't wait for them to start killing and eating townsfolk. I go and TALK to them to find out what their intentions are. If they claim that they are neutral and don't eat people anymore, I might be watchful, but I don't kill them out of hand. Your approach is that of an assassin. In my view, a Paladin would temper force with reason. S/He would strike with restraint and only when necessary. They would be vigilant by not a vigilante. Trust, but verify. And only kill as a last resort.
As far as the Wyvern are concerned, when you enter into that section of the woods, first off you have Coran telling you that the Mayor of Beregost has put a bounty on the Wyvern's heads because they have been attacking and killing the citizens. You also see a Wyvern flying over the forest carrying something that looks awfully like a citizen (If I remember that correctly. I could be wrong). Third, when you encounter any Wyvern, they attack you straight away. Finally, outside their lair there is an obvious killing ground and the inside of their cave is full of the remains of the people they have killed. I'd say that is plenty of evidence that they are evil and up to no good.
If it's so terribly dull and useless, why add to it? Just want to spew?
Now, a Lawful Good Paladin, Maybe.... But even then, it is far from certain that they are going to spend every waking minute of every day hunting down evil. And if the law was evil or corrupt, a Paladin would break it. Remember, Lawful doesn't mean "Follows the law" it only means that they are disposed to believe that society is superior to anarchy.
But what about evil Non-doers? Alignment is the beginning. It is the seed. It is the motivation, not the action. You can be very evil indeed and never act on it. I don't think a Paladin would strike and kill someone who had never harmed anyone or done any actual Evil wrong. Yes, it is possible to be evil and not do evil.
The attitude you present is more analogous to a Blackguard than a Paladin. Adhere strictly to the code that you believe in. Strike down anyone who is of opposing belief system to yours. Don't wait on actions, merely the possibility is enough "Proof" for you. Absolute victory for your cause at any cost.
This is analogous to the Inquisition where the mere accusation was enough to have someone put to death and people were presumed guilty and had to prove their innocence. In short, the very definition of evil.
But a characters alignment is based on their actions. Otherwise, you are saying people are born innately evil. Someone could have horrible thoughts of grotesque depeavities but so long as they do not act on them they will remain Nuetral or Good aligned.
This is why a characters alignment will change as they play. Whether a turn towards good or evil. Saying alignment is based on thoughts is impossible for DM's to accurately decide whether an alignment change is in order.
But understand that you can still be Evil and not hurt people. It is possible to run a very Chaotic Evil person and never cause harm to another soul. You may very well covet what is not yours, you may very well ignore cries for help, you may be miserly and hoard gold, you may even lie, cheat and steal from people for whom the loss doesn't hurt them. It is possible, just not that easy to convince a DM that is what you are doing.
Note I said not easy, not impossible. I once played a Lawful Evil wizard in a group of basically goodie-goodies. I had to be very careful about the actions that I took and the consequences that happened because of it, but I was able to keep my alignment. Basically, I had a sidebar with the DM every so often to discuss and describe my motives. He was quite a stickler, but once he understood my intentions, he agreed that I played it quite well within alignment. So, possible, just difficult.
I do caveat the fact that if a good person performs enough evil acts, even with the greater good in mind, they will eventually become evil. And the same is true for Evil going towards good. So you really have to be careful on either side of the coin.
Now in a PC game, you more or less have to self regulate and that can sometimes be even tougher.
I would also disagree about alignment. I think the intents and motives of the individual DO matter, at least in the "spiritual" sense of the word; which is the domain of the deities, and therefore clerical magic. But detecting evil, is NOT a criminal conviction, it's just a measure of a troubled mind. It may be an indicator of someone to watch closely, but it's not permission to pass judgement. I even knew a DM once who said no matter alignment, we would almost never detect evil on a human unless they were very evil and very powerful. Human evil just wasn't evil enough, the power mostly worked for spiritual/demonic sorts of things. Now I may suspect that DM was trying to devalue my detect evil ability, and I'm not so restrictive in my own games, but I understand the point and agree those are two completely different dimensions of evil.
But I think we've come to a fundamental aspect of our disagreement. You are wanting to label Evil only based on actions, I'm more interested in motives and intent. And while I would agree with saying everyone has wanted to do something "evil" at some point or another, but I think there are key differences between "good" and "evil". Mainly in if the individual knows they're having evil thought and cares enough to try to stop it. Or perhaps more to the point; I would say its possible for an evil minded person to live a "good" life and never be recognized as evil (unless divination magic is used); EXACTLY like its possible for a good person to get trapped into a life of evil and bad situations that they truly want no part of. So I would say when a paladin detects evil he has found someone to be suspicious of, a potential suspect or person of interest; but it is NOT a conviction.
Someone who is tormented in such a way is evil. If they are mentally ill, suffering PTSD from severe trauma or possessed. Your logic, they are evil even though they have committed no wrong.
Motive and intent are important. But they are only important because they dictate your actions.
Someone who covets another persons life and things, someone who contemplates murder or robbery and is held back not by conscience, but by fear of consequences. Someone for whom they know what is right and what is wrong but they desire to do, or contemplate doing the wrong thing. That would be someone who is evil with no actions.
Motive and intent are paramount in the equation. They are the reasons why we do things. They are the driving force, the reasons we have ideas and set courses of action into motion. And while it is true that performing evil acts for the greater good to many times will ultimately make you evil, usually there comes a time in the thought process where you realize that what you are doing is evil and simply accept it. So again it is the motives, not the actions themselves.
Mentally Ill people are mentally Ill. They don't understand the difference between right and wrong. I wouldn't judge someone Ill as either good or evil.
as for Neutrality, they don't (as some people would have you believe) do a little good and a little evil to balance it out. Neutrality is knowing right and wrong but simply opting to do something else entirely.
No, I just wanted to take the mickey out of you.
http://cdn2.sbnation.com/arguing.jpg
On top of that, these games generally include difficulty modes to counter-balance said power upgrades. The action RPG genre (Diablo, IWD, etc.) and action adventure games (Batman Arkham series) are all prime examples of this.
Yes, technically it's "legit" to constantly re-import your characters, but the net result is the same as cheating. You're grossly overpowered, you have access to levels, stats, and items that makes absolutely no sense in context of the story, and you're trivializing the game content. The game allows you to import characters, but it doesn't actively support the balance of it - unlike the IWD series. It's like enabling a 2-3x damage mod, 10x HP mod, a near perfect To Hit mod, a near impossible to hit AC/Saving Throw mod, with literal God-mode stats (you're surpassing DRAGONS in stats), etc. the moment you reenter Candlekeep. Totally different from cheating.
From an RP perspective, how does it make sense that you're a fledgling from Candlekeep when you have the power levels of legendary characters like Drizzt, blessed with innate attributes that surpass some of the most powerful beings (i.e. Dragons) on the mortal plane, in possession of the equipment of the most famous person in Faerun, running from an antagonist that you're as powerful as, etc.
On that note, how does a Paladin rationalize killing Drizzt was just when after you Identify said equipment, it's obviously the gear of the legendary Drizzt. Then you don said gear and continue parading as a force of righteousness with no redemption or remorse?
Like most of the others said, you're entitled to play as you wish (it's your game), but don't try to masquerade it as "for the story" or for RP reasons when it's obvious power-gaming is the true incentive - especially since you're planning to import it to BG2... Even a cheater who uses 18 all stats with all end-game gear via CLUAConsole would be significantly less powerful than you...
On page 23 of the 1E DMG under "Law and Chaos" it says: "The opposition is between organized groups and individuals. That is, law dictates that order and organization is necessary and desirable, while chaos holds the opposite view. Law generally supports the group as more important than the individual, while chaos promotes the individual over the group."
So I must start by admitting this is slightly different from the 2E description. In my own defense, my "formative years" were all spent on 1E, so I still form many of my opinions based on that experience. To be completely honest, there are probably many sections of the 2E rules (like alignment descriptions!) I never read until now.
But I see nothing in the 2E description that negates the 1E description, even if I can imagine anyone reading it first without the 1E experience might interpret it rather differently than I did. A key issue being that 1E pointedly says "generally" supports group over individual, which to me indicates flexibility based on other dimensions of the situation (especially based on how the good/evil issues might impact a situation). It also pointedly does not mention "laws" as a dimension of lawfulness. 2E does, but I still maintain the good/evil dimension may be equally important; especially for a LG type who may need to make a moral choice as opposed to an ethical one (human laws may evil).
What is not generally realized is that society today tends towards making laws more or less as situations arise. Some of these laws merely seemed to be a good idea at the time and don't on the whole support society, but merely address a gap in a bandaid sort of way. These laws will often times be challenged or re-written over time as situations arise. It is in fact quite chaotic in nature. And there are always those in power who will make laws that benefit themselves over society. I can quite easily see a Paladin being a strong opponent of such.
In the end, blindly following the law is not the intent or the intention of Lawfulness relating to alignment. A tendency is nothing more than a general principal leaning in a given direction. But it takes a whole lot more than blind obedience to the letter of the law to be lawful.