Dorn left my party because reputation was too high.....
Irish437
Member Posts: 16
Problem is, I had loaded him up with a bunch of magic items and stuff and he bolted with them. Is there any way to get the stuff back? I know I could reload, but I played for some time after he left. Now I might have the worst party ever. My Paladin, Branwen, Garrick, Imoen, Neera, and and Elf Fighter/Thief. When he took off, I lost alot of items he was carrying.
0
Comments
But then it really does explain why Dorn left with all of the best stuff. Serves them right, the "goodie-goodies"! let em all rot.
As for jumping to the conclusion that any stolen items are being used expressly for the purpose of hurting others, without any proof, seems like quite a stretch. I could see a Paladin tracking Dorn down and demanding the return of the items, but not blanketly just up and killing him outright without finding out what he was up too, particularly in light of the level of trust said paladin would have had to have in him to fight along side him in the first place.
It's kind of like leaving a Kender in a magic shop and then later confiscating any "Found" items from the kender and not returning them but using them instead, simply because you don't want to pay for them. You are setting up a situation such that you can benefit from it and then using logic to justify your actions. Without proof or evidence, I can't see a Paladin doing that.
I've never quite gotten it why some people want to mix Ajantis, Kivan, and/or Minsc and Dynaheir, with the likes of Dorn, Edwin, Xzar and Montaron, (I guess for powergaming, because all those toons are super powerful), and yet they always seem to complain and want a do-over when it doesn't end well.
Also, the rp explanation has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Dorn ran off with the items. He's a threat to innocent life, and must be dealt with. Dorn's not gonna come back into the party, and only the most irresponsible paladin in the Realms would let him wander freely after everything he's openly admitted to doing. Will the paladin loot the items afterwards? I don't see why not. It's not like he wasn't gonna loot all the other evil badguys he killed.
I'm roleplaying alone, by myself on the computer. That's so fun. ;-)
I see your point and agree with your words but...
This is a fuc*ing computer RPG, no one's around. Nothing should prevent him to either :
- reload and remove the stuff from Dorn's inventory before he leaves.
- go to the FAI and smack down Dorn without suffering your non-existants RPG friends blame you for this (hey that's not Paladin-like and such).
- he can even summon the stuff again with the console (oh in fact he can't since it's buged thanks to update 8 lol).
- he can even lower his reputation if he wants by killing innocent people so that Dorn joins again.
Don't talk about RPG and so on. This is a computer game. Playing a role for ourself is not right
I got my LongBow +2 back along with 2 sets of Bracers some Magic armor, etc. I really needed that Bow back now that I have Coran in the party.
@Aasimar069 - LOL. It's all good. My comments were not meant seriously and I apologize if I offended. As you say, it's a single person video game and you can/should play any way that you enjoy. And shouldn't need to get the approval of others who may play differently than yourself. it's all good.
"To ME", I reject your premise that Paladins "does totally moronic and borderline suicidal things for the good of others." But this is merely my point of view.
Where I find logic flaws is as follows. The paladin in question either trusts Dorn enough to fight side by side (and back to back) against some pretty tough foes instead of merely turning him over to the Flaming Fist or some other organization capable of preventing him from doing evil or he doesn't and he won't travel/fight along side him. The Paladin in question must have reason to believe that he (Dorn) is trustworthy in some degree and there is some chance of redeeming Dorn in the paladin's eyes. The degree to which said paladin must trust Dorn must be quite significant as there are (RP) MUCH easier ways to redeem Dorn or at least make sure he doesn't do Evil that are smarter, safer and more reasonable than charging into combat after combat with the guy who keeps on talking about torching villages.
to take that to the next level, a simple betrayal of 'Leaving he party in the lurch' should not be enough to change the Paladin's view so completely that he deserves DEATH. If Dorn had Killed members of the party on his way out that might be different, but merely being a coward and opting out would not "TO ME" be enough to make the Paladin do a complete 180 and think that death is the ONLY solution to someone who has stood by the party and quite probably saved most of their lives multiple times.
Either the Paladin thinks that Dorn is unredemptively evil and deserves DEATH, in which case there is no way he would travel with him at all for any length of time, or he deserves some level of trust and at minimum the opportunity to explain himself. To play it otherwise is to play situational ethics such that "I want Dorn's power in the party up to a point and then when I am done with him, Kill him. Because he is EVIL."
This is all in my humble opinion and how I would play it. I do NOT say anyone else should see it this way or that their viewpoint is invalid in any way, merely that it is at variance from mine. Play and have fun. No offense intended to anyone.
As for paladins doing stupid things for the good of others, understand that I don't think this means paladins are stupid. Rather, I think it means they're noble, willing to put themselves at risk if it would help other people. There's a wonderful exchange from the webcomic Goblins that comes to mind. It's something along the lines of "That sounds terrible, why would anyone want to be a paladin?" "So others don't have to."
Here's how I see this going. The paladin knows that if he turns Dorn over to the Fist, they'll kill him. The Flaming Fist is not exactly known for their mercy. The paladin, however, wants to do the best for everyone. No exceptions. Because that's what being a paladin is about (some people think it's about mindless killing everything that's evil, but they don't get what it means to be a paragon of goodness). So when Dorn becomes interested in joining the group, the paladin sees a way to keep Dorn from doing evil, and he takes it. Understand, while the paladin does not trust Dorn to be a good person, he has no reason to suspect that Dorn means to hurt the paladin personally, and therefore has no reason not to trust the Dorn with his back. It's perhaps not the safest decision he could make, and the paladin knows that, but he's willing to risk it for Dorn's sake and for the sake of the rest of the Realms.
As time goes on, two things happen. Dorn continues to be trustworthy in practice, and he starts talking about burning down villages. Dorn is being completely open and forthright, with no signs of deception or betrayal, so the paladin has no reason to actually distrust him. At the same time, it's also increasingly obvious to the paladin that Dorn is too dangerous to let roam unsupervised. Understand, by this time the paladin has a very good understanding of who Dorn is as a person. Not the sort of guy who'd put a sword in his ally's back (he's not exactly okay with the concept of betrayal), but definitely a bad person nonetheless. And then Dorn decides the party is too goody-goody and leaves, and the paladin is faced with a choice.
He can let Dorn go free, knowing that without the paladin's supervision Dorn will start killing innocent people again, or he can try to reign Dorn in. The paladin is definitionally not okay with the first choice, so he goes with the second. He goes to the Friendly Arm to try and convince Dorn to rejoin. Dorn refuses in no uncertain terms. Again, the paladin has a choice. He can let Dorn go, he can arrest Dorn and turn him over to the Flaming Fist (where Dorn will almost certainly be killed), or he can kill Dorn. In fact, given that Dorn is a dangerous combatant and unlikely to go quietly, the second choice is likely to turn into the third whether the paladin wants it to or not. Again, the paladin finds the first choice unacceptable, and is willing (however unhappily) to trade the life of one evil man for the safety of so many innocents. So the paladin tries to arrest Dorn, but in the ensuing fight is forced to kill the half-orc. It's unfortunate, but no moreso than the deaths of all those bandits he's killed up to this point.
I guess at the Friendly Arm in, the motto should be "Snitches get Stitches" because noone was talking about the death of Dorn.
I love the quote, but still do not believe that a Paladin "does totally moronic and borderline suicidal things for the good of others." I agree that they may do heroic and self sacrificing things, but I do not agree that the two are analogous in any way. Fighting a dragon to a stand-still knowing that you are going to die but equally knowing that the time you buy will allow innocents to escape is not moronic or suicidal at all. Fighting the same dragon and dying without saving anyone would be moronic and suicidal but I wouldn't play that type of paladin.
I mentioned giving Dorn over to the Flaming fist "Or other such organization" as an RP alternative. There are/would be several organizations including the Harpers and whatever church the Paladin patrons who would be better able to deal with Dorn without killing him, potentially that the Paladin could (RP) make use of. It doesn't need to be as black and white as is being portrayed in the game. The only reason I can see a Paladin actually taking Dorn into a party for longer than it would take to get him to this type of organization would be if the paladin trusted that Dorn was redeemable in some manner.
As for learning about him over time, Dorn is pretty straightforward about who he is right from the get go. I can't see any reasonably intelligent Paladin thinking he is anything other than a stone cold killer. and being Lawful good does not mean fatally gullibly stupid in my book. Particularly when it isn't just the Paladin's life at stake, but the entire party. "If" (and this is a HUGE stretch) it were only the paladin and Dorn, I might see the paladin giving it a try, but to put his companions at risk because of Dorn's questionable nature would be an unacceptable risk in my book. And unacceptable would mean either (a) Dorn gets sequestered in some organizations facility that was capable of handling him, (b) Dorn gets given over to the Fist for trial and justice or (c) Dorn gets dealt with and Ended by the paladin.
And that is why I say that "IF" said paladin by some strange stretch of reality did trust Dorn with not only his life but that of his companions, he wouldn't summarily reverse logic and decide to kill him just for leaving "Because you yobs are too Goodie-goodie". There is a disconnect in my mind with that logic. Particularly considering both Dorns means of exit and his stated reason for leaving. Again, if he traveled with the Paladin's party for any length of time, he would have been instrumental in saving their lives at least once. And being in danger tends to bond a group such that they would at least want to understand before jumping to summary judgement in my book.
All personal opinion.