Yes, people are complex and have many motivations, but I would argue that Lawful Good alignment is always good before lawful - to the point of breaking the law if the law is evil. Someone who upholds the law no matter what would be more likely Lawful Neutral, no matter what they call themselves. Paladins in 4e can be any alignment, but they had to follow strict codes in previous editions (when BG was written) and if they truly harmed others or allowed evil to gain power due to strict adherence to the law, they would likely fall from grace.
This goes back to the point that I have made before on these forums. People like to power-game as paladins but then play them as neutral evil fighters out for themselves and robbing people's homes. Game mechanics allow you to do this to some extent, but I would argue you aren't really role-playing as a paladin in that case.
The following class description is right out of the game manual:
A Paladin is a warrior bold and pure, the exemplar of everything good and true. Like the Fighter, the Paladin is a person of action and combat. However, the Paladin lives for the ideals of righteousness, justice, honesty, piety, and chivalry. He strives to be a living example of these virtues so that others may learn from him as well as gain by his actions.
The most important issue is just that the 2E Paladin is a Holy Warrior. They serve a good God, NOT a state entity. They will follow the dictates of their faith, well, faithfully. They will likely follow the laws of state in a good and just state; but actively make war against an evil one. In an evil state, they will protect the oppressed and downtrodden. They will protect those unjustly accused. They will destroy the corrupt powers that be. A good state they will likely protect and defend. Possibly with great enthusiasm to expand its influence and protect its interest.
A truly Neutral state could be a very exciting role playing challenge! Imagine supporting the state in one arena while actively opposing it in another. Now THAT could get interesting... (almost gaming in the real world!)
I can make any character interesting, including the paladin. In fact, the pally is a palette cleanser of sorts. My usual characters are greedy and sniffing around for every gold piece they can scrounge. My paladins NEVER break into houses, loot barrels and crates, or do anything inappropriate. That in itself, is an interesting challenge.
I play the exact same when I'm doing a paladin. It is a nice change from combing through every container in the game.
I recently played an inquisitor that was always casting detect evil wherever he went. Whenever he found it he killed it without delay, that was actually quite fun.
Funny story, my 98 point inquisitor got killed by Carbos on my first run! LOL Difficulty at +50% damage, he hit me for 12! Which just blew my mind that he could even score that much damage, and then finished me off the next round. Sad truth is that I was just trying to knock him unconscious, didn't want to kill him because he aint evil.
A little off topic but I find is a little annoying that the inquisitors don't get any divine spells or turning ability, and I got those greyed out buttons staring at me.
EDIT: A rather dark, silver lining is that I decided to get even with Carbos and create a Blackgaurd. I rolled a 90 point 18/00.
Meet Lord Sauron.
Icing Death in one hand. Stupifier in the other. Poisoned throwing daggers at the ready.
@Time4Tiddy The point of Lawful Good is more that they try and make changes for good within the law. So rather than breaking someone out of jail they would investigate the case and prove beyond doubt that the person was innocent, getting them lawfully freed.
I always think of Ned Stark from Game of Thrones as an example of Lawful Good. He tries to do his best, and is sometimes torn between personal duty and what he knows is right. He tries to prove treachery is occurring and bring it to light rather than starting a private war, and tries to moderate the excesses of the king through friendship and reason.
A modern example might be organisations like Liberty which campaign for human rights. They are seeking to do good through organised action, to change unfair laws and see that laws providing rights are defended and upheld.
Again, Corvino, way too much emphasis on "laws of man" stuff. The Paladin is a Holy Warrior. The standards of right/wrong/justice etc will come from their church or deity, not the local government. Of course they will support a good government. But they will make war against an evil one.
Honestly it depends on your own playstyle..for example- if you don't like playing as a paladin maybe you should try out the Fighter/thief. It all depends on which side you usually like. I perfer the curious playstyle of the Fighter/mage or full mage ( all will bow to my power) but you can always try out different classes of paladin kits. I like the inqusitor... kind like a paladin of helm (true sight) but he should be more lawful neutral then lawful good (dogmas of Tyr and Torm). Expand your understanding and see what works for you. Sate that appetite with what is best for you.
My first character in BG1 was a paladin, and I found it pretty uninteresting. I only played the character because of the concept, which I really like. But looking back, I like the ranger and even the vanilla fighter better, and you can essentially roleplay the same or a similar character regardless.
Without the expansion (and maybe with) in BG1, I don't think you get a single priest spell for the whole game, apart from Protection from Evil and Detect Evil, which I think are sort of boring (maybe you get one priest spell at level 8). I mean, they have their uses, and PfE could cheaply be stacked for ridiculous AC, but I like being able to heal, and while Lay on Hands is alright, at 2 HP per level it's basically the equivalent of one to two heals. I found the "story-based abilities" to be much more handy for heals, and effectively made any character a sort of backup cleric if they played a pretty standard game where you don't kill any innocents, etc.
When I moved on to BG2, I started out with a Fighter/Mage, and then, at nearly the very end of the game, I found Carsomyr, but long before that, I'd left Keldorn behind for another character because I didn't see him as being all that useful in the first place. Hard to believe that I didn't find his dispel and true sight useful...but anyways lol. Then again, when you first get him, you're in a quest with a lot of beholders, and he sort of feels useless in that environment. I think my first time through, I finished the game with Minsc, Jaheira, Aerie, and Imoen, which sort of feels like the default party in that game.
That being said, I think the kits from BG2 made the paladin a lot more interesting, not to mention that the fighter and ranger sort of got some nerfs from the first game, apart from the kits. Fighter weapon mastery became a lot less impressive, and favored enemy didn't do +4 dmg anymore (but still gave +4 thaco)
The first time I finished the Baldur's Gate series I played a paladin, which was great fun and I've had a couple reruns. I've also played many paladins and paladin-like characters in other games and in PnP. One of the main reasons I like the class so much is the fact that it's far more flexible than many make it out to be.
Sure, the paladin has to follow a code of conduct and have a certain respect for law and order while serving his deity, but that's it. He still has a personality with as much potential as any other character (which is demonstrated on a couple occasions by NPCs in BG2, actually) . Stereotypes like "Lawful Stupid" usually fit but are still filled with misconceptions.
"Lawful Stupid" dictates that a character is so lawful that he follows the reigning laws no matter what they are, which is stupid. It's too easy and shortsighted to say that a paladin is lawful stupid though, as his actual laws are the laws and rulings of his deity. Now, most paladinian deities focus on simple things, like Justice, Honour, Battle, Resilience or just the eradication of evil. Apart from that the paladin is still quite free to choose what to do with his life.
As paladins themselves are harbingers of the good of their deities, and are supposed to endeavour to be an inspiring example, this easily comes with some arrogance. While their code of conduct requires them to be respectful of the set laws where they at, I don't think it's unusual for a paladin to override a current law if he deigns them unfit for a certain situation.
A good example of this is Brage's quest in BG1, where you can choose to bring him with you or kill him. I think a paladin should be able to choose either, depending on his priorities regarding "good" and "law".
The paladin I used to play through the Baldur's Gate series definitely had some issues. In BG2 I chose the Undead Hunter kit which made him capable of taking out any Vampire Squad almost all by himself. In my mind his increasing power made him more and more arrogant, and suddenly he was romancing a drow. When reaching ToB his alignment had changed to Neutral Evil and I tried playing as if he had become a Fallen Paladin (but without actually going around killing people).
I remember that a friend of mine tried to draw a picture of my BG Paladin, and he made it look like a jaded desert warrior, which I felt fit incredibly well for ToB. I also remember that I declared Toreador II by Apocalyptica his soundtrack, but I digress. :P
Comments
This goes back to the point that I have made before on these forums. People like to power-game as paladins but then play them as neutral evil fighters out for themselves and robbing people's homes. Game mechanics allow you to do this to some extent, but I would argue you aren't really role-playing as a paladin in that case.
The following class description is right out of the game manual:
A Paladin is a warrior bold and pure, the exemplar of everything good and true. Like the
Fighter, the Paladin is a person of action and combat. However, the Paladin lives for the ideals of
righteousness, justice, honesty, piety, and chivalry. He strives to be a living example of these
virtues so that others may learn from him as well as gain by his actions.
In an evil state, they will protect the oppressed and downtrodden. They will protect those unjustly accused. They will destroy the corrupt powers that be.
A good state they will likely protect and defend. Possibly with great enthusiasm to expand its influence and protect its interest.
A truly Neutral state could be a very exciting role playing challenge! Imagine supporting the state in one arena while actively opposing it in another. Now THAT could get interesting... (almost gaming in the real world!)
A little off topic but I find is a little annoying that the inquisitors don't get any divine spells or turning ability, and I got those greyed out buttons staring at me.
EDIT: A rather dark, silver lining is that I decided to get even with Carbos and create a Blackgaurd. I rolled a 90 point 18/00.
Meet Lord Sauron.
Icing Death in one hand. Stupifier in the other. Poisoned throwing daggers at the ready.
I always think of Ned Stark from Game of Thrones as an example of Lawful Good. He tries to do his best, and is sometimes torn between personal duty and what he knows is right. He tries to prove treachery is occurring and bring it to light rather than starting a private war, and tries to moderate the excesses of the king through friendship and reason.
A modern example might be organisations like Liberty which campaign for human rights. They are seeking to do good through organised action, to change unfair laws and see that laws providing rights are defended and upheld.
My first character in BG1 was a paladin, and I found it pretty uninteresting. I only played the character because of the concept, which I really like. But looking back, I like the ranger and even the vanilla fighter better, and you can essentially roleplay the same or a similar character regardless.
Without the expansion (and maybe with) in BG1, I don't think you get a single priest spell for the whole game, apart from Protection from Evil and Detect Evil, which I think are sort of boring (maybe you get one priest spell at level 8). I mean, they have their uses, and PfE could cheaply be stacked for ridiculous AC, but I like being able to heal, and while Lay on Hands is alright, at 2 HP per level it's basically the equivalent of one to two heals. I found the "story-based abilities" to be much more handy for heals, and effectively made any character a sort of backup cleric if they played a pretty standard game where you don't kill any innocents, etc.
When I moved on to BG2, I started out with a Fighter/Mage, and then, at nearly the very end of the game, I found Carsomyr, but long before that, I'd left Keldorn behind for another character because I didn't see him as being all that useful in the first place. Hard to believe that I didn't find his dispel and true sight useful...but anyways lol. Then again, when you first get him, you're in a quest with a lot of beholders, and he sort of feels useless in that environment. I think my first time through, I finished the game with Minsc, Jaheira, Aerie, and Imoen, which sort of feels like the default party in that game.
That being said, I think the kits from BG2 made the paladin a lot more interesting, not to mention that the fighter and ranger sort of got some nerfs from the first game, apart from the kits. Fighter weapon mastery became a lot less impressive, and favored enemy didn't do +4 dmg anymore (but still gave +4 thaco)
Sure, the paladin has to follow a code of conduct and have a certain respect for law and order while serving his deity, but that's it. He still has a personality with as much potential as any other character (which is demonstrated on a couple occasions by NPCs in BG2, actually) . Stereotypes like "Lawful Stupid" usually fit but are still filled with misconceptions.
"Lawful Stupid" dictates that a character is so lawful that he follows the reigning laws no matter what they are, which is stupid. It's too easy and shortsighted to say that a paladin is lawful stupid though, as his actual laws are the laws and rulings of his deity. Now, most paladinian deities focus on simple things, like Justice, Honour, Battle, Resilience or just the eradication of evil. Apart from that the paladin is still quite free to choose what to do with his life.
As paladins themselves are harbingers of the good of their deities, and are supposed to endeavour to be an inspiring example, this easily comes with some arrogance. While their code of conduct requires them to be respectful of the set laws where they at, I don't think it's unusual for a paladin to override a current law if he deigns them unfit for a certain situation.
A good example of this is Brage's quest in BG1, where you can choose to bring him with you or kill him. I think a paladin should be able to choose either, depending on his priorities regarding "good" and "law".
The paladin I used to play through the Baldur's Gate series definitely had some issues. In BG2 I chose the Undead Hunter kit which made him capable of taking out any Vampire Squad almost all by himself. In my mind his increasing power made him more and more arrogant, and suddenly he was romancing a drow. When reaching ToB his alignment had changed to Neutral Evil and I tried playing as if he had become a Fallen Paladin (but without actually going around killing people).
I remember that a friend of mine tried to draw a picture of my BG Paladin, and he made it look like a jaded desert warrior, which I felt fit incredibly well for ToB. I also remember that I declared Toreador II by Apocalyptica his soundtrack, but I digress. :P