Should a Paladin only be able to recruit good / neutral aligned characters?

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

atcDave

I've played a lot of different Paladins in the BG series, easily my single favorite class. I've also played many Paladins over the years in PNP, and I've always been able to follow the requirement to not adventure with evil types.

But I remember the first time I played BG, having no idea who these NPCs were and what I would need. I recruited Monty and Xzar first thing. I was actually pretty shocked when I looked at their sheets! I decided to keep them for a bit and see what happened. I remember laughing at what losers they were until I got to FAI, where one of them was killed by the bounty hunter and the other went screaming off in terror (I don't recall who did which). I dumped them both immediately. And that was the last time I had an evil character in party longer than it took to look at their character sheet.

I think the existing system works fine. It's fun on those early play throughs to not know who's what and have to play trial and error. And I think if you're playing a Paladin well, you should have a 20 reputation soon enough and those evil types won't stick around anyway! And that's exactly as it should be.

Stickan

I say yes. But as with most things in this world it's hard to draw lines suitable for game mechanics. Obvious unrepentant evil: no way. I just don't see a way a paladin could cooperate with the likes of Montaron and Tiax and be true to his cause. (Which is why Ajantis will attack nearly half the available NPCs in BG if you let him) But for example:

Would a paladin try to redeem his/her brother in ToB? I say yes (depending on level of fanaticism and patron diety), but it is also painfully obvious that Sarevok is an evil, murderous train wreck. (Actually that is just my interpretation. Do "real" paladins give people second chances?)

edit: actually as @atcDave says: Repuatation should sort that out. Why does that guy have to be so reasonable anyway hmm?

atcDave

Stickan said:

I say yes. But as with most things in this world it's hard to draw lines suitable for game mechanics. Obvious unrepentant evil: no way. I just don't see a way a paladin could cooperate with the likes of Montaron and Tiax and be true to his cause. (Which is why Ajantis will attack nearly half the available NPCs in BG if you let him) But for example:

Would a paladin try to redeem his/her brother in ToB? I say yes (depending on level of fanaticism and patron diety), but it is also painfully obvious that Sarevok is an evil, murderous train wreck. (Actually that is just my interpretation. Do "real" paladins give people second chances?)

edit: actually as @atcDave says: Repuatation should sort that out. Why does that guy have to be so reasonable anyway hmm?

I do really like the idea of the Paladin trying to convert or save (or whatever terminology is correct in the Realms!) those souls he can reach. But except when the game allows for philosophical debates most evil characters won't stick around anyway.

And hey, thanks for calling me reasonable, I don't think everyone agrees!

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Kithrixx

Paladins can have varying reasons for partying with evil people. Sometimes evil people are not the "slaughter everyone" kind, and are only the "thinking only of themselves" variety. Sometimes the Paladin in question wants to redeem evil people and potentially turn them good.

Of course, the classical extremes are never going to mix well - but those are the classical extremes, and there are many different shades of good and evil. I don't see why a knight would turn away a skilled fighter simply because said fighter is maybe a little crazy and self-centered.

OzzyBotkins

YES I like the idea of bringing more RP concepts into the game
but how to do it requires more discussion
also what about Blackguards
they are evil Pqaladins

redline

I'm fine with the current lack of restrictions. If people want to observe the PnP restrictions, they're perfectly free to do so, and if not, it gives them the flexibility to RP a redeem-y paladin rather than a smite-y one.

Personally, I plan to make my next paladin runthrough use a strictly NG/LG party (except maybe Sarevok). New party combinations are always fun, but since it might not be for everyone, no need to force that play style on the masses.

SCARY_WIZARD

Yes.
In PnP games, I allow a little more flexibility, in that they're allowed to travel with evil people, so long as they keep them on a very tight leash and try their hardest to rehabilitate them; neutral people are just sort of tolerated. Cohorts, henchmen, hirelings, or retainers, totally have to fit the "good guy" bill, unless the player wants some sort of undercover evil in their midst (I've been the player to ask for things detrimental to my character's mental health for some development, before...so have people I've played with) or in the case of randomly generated retainers, I roll an undercover assassin.

KidCarnival

There are roleplay reasons why a paladin would have an evil party member - the attempt to redeem, show low wisdom NPCs the light, such things. I also don't think a paladin would sacrifice the success of a higher cause to a theoretical construct, as long as certain principles are not violated. For example, Kagain's only "sin" is his greed. He isn't an axe crazy killer who slaughters innocents, as there is no profit in it. His business is also a service to the commoners; he's not working for an evil organization. Everyone can hire him to find lost caravans or whatever. Why would a paladin (who gets paid for his help on every corner in the game) take that as a reason to not work with Kagain?

All in all, this would be solved by narrowing the NPC breaking points. If evil NPCs would leave at 16 rep and start complaining at 14, you'd hardly be in the situation of having a paladin parade around with evil NPCs long term. They could be recruited to do what is neccessary, but part ways after a short while. 18 is simply too close to 20; there isn't SUCH a great benefit from going the 2 points higher. Usually, the benefit of keeping the NPC outweights the benefit of 20 rep. If the difference was bigger, it would reflect the different goals of the paladin and the evil NPCs better.

Stickan

KidCarnival said:

All in all, this would be solved by narrowing the NPC breaking points.

Agree, wrote about that as well in another thread.

KidCarnival

I always found the breaking/complaining thresholds weird. Neutral NPCs act like they give a complete shit about everything - walking around with adored heroes? Fine. Walking around with bloodthirsty killers? Also fine. Neutral NPCs should ALSO have narrower breaking points; they want to be neutral and keep a balance. That is, in my eyes, an opinion. Giving a damn is not.

Iecerint

Not all neutral characters want to keep a "balance;" many would like nice things to happen, but aren't as big on the self-sacrifice thing.

I think you can headcanon your Paladin recruiting evil people in some circumstances, and all the RPing is headcanon, anyway, so keeping it as-is or handling this delicately would be better.

Xar105

die you evil Edwin, die by Tempus hands !!!, 2 sec later, wtf why i kill him i haven any good mage now, omg load new game ; /.

KidCarnival

Well, Edwin is quite a stretch for a paladin. Unlike Kagain, he does belong to an evil organization, as do Xzar and Monty, though more covertly.

Also, druids are pretty big on self sacrifice - they dedicate their life to protect nature instead of other people, but it's still altruistic. Yet they must be neutral, though the protection of nature is a good thing (you get + rep from protecting the tree). They are definitely interested in keeping the balance.
The description of the neutral alignments also includes the interest in not taking a side, or switching sides in the middle of a conflict to restore/keep balance. On the other hand, evil characters also like having "nice things happen", they just define "nice things" differently ("nice for me" instead of "nice for everyone").

Self sacrifice doesn't make "good" by default.

Sniiiimon

I think it all depends, in the end, on how one chooses to roleplay their character. While all paladins in-game must be lawful good, that alone doesn't define what kind of strengths and weaknesses they may or may not have as characters They can be knights in sour armor that wants absolutely nothing to do with evil characters - or lawful stupid fools who kills them outright.

But they may also see things that others do not, for whatever reason. They might see a way to turn Viconia from her "evil" ways, for an example. Or give greedy Kagain a chance to come around. But I agree that some, like Edwin, would be a bigger stretch.

But anyway, no, I think that the choice should remain in the player's hands on how to deal with them, in all anspects. Including the option to recruit them should we fancy to do so.

SCARY_WIZARD

KidCarnival said:

Self sacrifice doesn't make "good" by default.

Thank you! All my Likes!

Schneidend

I'm a strong believer in storylines where heroes are trying redeeming villains, or are at least willing to work with them to serve a greater good. Besides, people who are evil because they are extremely violent and greedy aren't necessarily in opposition to a Paladin, nor is the Paladin really required to deal with them. Paladins protect people, and seek out villains who are actively harming innocents. NPCs like Kagain, Korgan, Shar-Teel, or Viconia aren't bandits, or vampires, or anything similarly obvious that the Paladin should be killing. A Paladin that just decides to kill Kagain in his shop for being so dagnasty evil is going to be put in jail for murder, and is on a slippery slope that will lead to losing his powers in due time.

Darksheer

I don't know if there is anything like Code of Conduct in 2nd edition, but in the 3rd edition Paladin's code of conduct states that "While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."

atcDave

Darksheer said:

I don't know if there is anything like Code of Conduct in 2nd edition, but in the 3rd edition Paladin's code of conduct states that "While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."

2E is similar. But there's so many variables, both the nature of the "evil" (greedy vs bloodthirsty) and the tenets of the specific faith. I think it's reasonable that many Paladins would try to make converts as opposed to killing all opposition. And making converts typically involves befriending and helping such people. Sometimes, you can bring out the best in them, at least I can imagine a Paladin wanting to try.
As I indicated above, I don't knowingly adventure with evil characters when running a paladin, but I think the BG reputation system is a good enough mechanic for encouraging that behavior. It would be awesome if more of the shady/evil sorts could be won over, I know in PNP I've often seen such stories. But with only one exception I can think of (or is it one and a half?) the BG series is too simple for that.

I think there's a great historical example; compare the Knights Templar with the Knights Hospitaller. Both groups could be considered Holy Warriors, even the same religion (Roman Catholic, and no I'm not looking to debate any theology here); yet both behaved quite differently. Templars were pretty aggressive Crusaders, looking to stamp out infidels. While Hospitallers were more concerned with protecting pilgrims by providing safe passage, mobile security and medical care. At times, both groups behaved very similarly (many battles had both Templar and Hospitaller contingents in the order of battle); but their mission statements were different and they often behaved in very different ways.
Again, I'm not trying to make any value judgements, I'm only pointing out two groups of the same religion with similar values could be similar and different at the same time. I can easily imagine groups of Paladins taking very different philosophies; ESPECIALLY if there are multiple lawful-good religions as a starting point. And ultimately, I think the tenets of the lawful-good faith should determine behavior.

shout27

Can we please ignore the 3rd edition pieces of junk when referring to 2nd ed rules? It's like people can't stand to use the old rules and want the over-munchkinable 3rd edition stuff in place of what works. Also, if the game designer's were to implement a 'no evil NPC can join' programming thread. . . Well, they should also include a "Ritual Suicide" power for the paladin. Afterall, some of those of us playing them, are evil by definition and will commit any evil act they can get away with for as long as they can get away with it.

Silverstar

Not a fan of BG:EE becoming BG:Changed Edition. Improving and adding stuff is nice, but vastly changing core parts of the game is not.

Nifft

Prohibiting a Paladin from redeeming Viconia would be just plain dumb.

FinneousPJ

A definite no.

the_spyder

I personally believe that there are enough rules in the game designed for no other reason than to force the player along a certain path. Why add more mechanics. Wouldn't it be better to educate those that want to Role play and leave those that want to power-game to their own devices?

Lemernis

I'm not for changing the game in this way, but if I play a paladin I don't recruit evil party members.

Alkalurops

This is stupid. If you need game mechanics to enforce this type of behaviour, you're not roleplaying a Paladin. If you're not actually roleplaying in a roleplaying game, you're playing the wrong game. Besides, who are you to dictate how I should play my game?

Don't introduce layers upon layers of unnecessary mechanics, especially when they will only cause brain damage to the developers who end up having to program exceptions for NPC's like Sarevok who *could* - but don't have to - be turned into a Good NPC.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Pecca

I see no reason whatsoever to implement this. Not even as a mod. Putting more restrictions to an existing game is meaningless (if not plain wrong) imho, because (almost) everyone already plays it the way they like. This would only hurt a lot of people, while benefit practically no one.

Pecca

Bhaaldog said:

Pecca said:

I see no reason whatsoever to implement this. Not even as a mod. Putting more restrictions to an existing game is meaningless (if not plain wrong) imho, because (almost) everyone already plays it the way they like. This would only hurt a lot of people, while benefit practically no one.

Egocentrism at its finest.

Then tell me, who would benefit from it?

KidCarnival

atcDave said:

It would be awesome if more of the shady/evil sorts could be won over, I know in PNP I've often seen such stories. But with only one exception I can think of (or is it one and a half?) the BG series is too simple for that.

I'm all for that - alignment shift via interaction - but I would also want the option to corrupt a good-aligned NPC. Emphasis on "a NPC", not plural - if everyone and their familiar was up for potential alignment changes, alignment would become meaningless.