Ur confused with the real world and the non-amoral world of D+D .... So like if you is a Paladin of Torm - he is enemy with say the goddess shar - if Torm could kill shar and disperse her god dust to the sewers of the plain of monkeys forever he would - so yeah Paladins therefore kill as they can a Shar girl - or try to change her - but like if you are a Paladin of the Elf god who poked out the Grumish orc god's eye then you will by rights want to kill most every orc you can since by default they are Grummish servants/children... so it is kind of like a Crusader in 1099
was very pleased to kill any and every mahomet guy, girl, and kid he could.... they are just like inherently evil and on the dark side so they just slaughtered everyone when they took Jerusalem... Now of course in the new kinder world I and other Marines were very nice and did not just get off the ship in the Arab States and start shooting every guy with a turban - so your problem condemning paladins is that you are missing the Black and White aspect of the complete Fantasy Not Real world - where orcs are in the black hats and paladins lop off their heads with pure white goody hats... so yeah Paladins are great and I of course was a kinder gentler Crusader who did not go ahead and shoot everyone who severed some silly tribal sun god for getting lots of chicks....... that is reality..... D+D Paladins are not- well ok ok maybe one in 1099 would have been ok snicking off inherently evil dammed pagan heads first and praying later...
That's the philosophy of an Assassin, not a paragon of virtue and righteousness.
If you substitute 'God' for 'Helm', it's the philosophy of Arnaud Amalric, one of the leaders of a papal crusade that took place in southern France in the 13th century. One of his soldiers was worried that they might be killing orthodox Catholics along with the heretics. Amalric advised him not to worry because God would know his own (and so take them to Heaven rather than banish them to Hell).
If you substitute the name "Arnaud Amalric" with "Adolph Hitler", who also thought that he was on a Holy crusade and acting under divine edict, what do you get?
Except that this statement is false and Adolf Hitler in fact was a Darwinist atheist who rejected mysticism in his doctrine.
That statement is false. Hitler was a Roman Catholic. All Nazi soldiers wore belt buckles that said "Gott Mit Unst" (God On Our Side). The Nazi party had open support from the Catholic Church.
No he was not, he merely needed support from the Roman Catholic church to sustain his political power. In this sense religion and also the belt buckles were used as a means to an end.
His whole doctrine was based on Social Darwinism and he formed a racial concept out of Nietzsche's Ubermensch, who had in the decades before declared God death.
You can posit whatever you want, but the evidence shows that he was religious and believed that he was doing god's work. Of course, it's possible that he publicly showed this to receive support of the church and privately believed otherwise, but there's no hard evidence to support that.
Darwin's teachings were not taught in Germany. They were derided along with all other forms of atheism. In Mein Kampf he states that he is "fighting for the work of the Lord". The Catholic Church made it mandatory to celebrate his birthday every year until his regime ended.
If you want to show otherwise, you'd have to provide some hard evidence clearly stating that Hitler himself, by his own words, admitted that he was atheist and based his regime on Social Darwinism. Otherwise you're just providing speculation, and my evidence is stronger than yours. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm right, but you'd need better evidence than just how some people happen to interpret his doctrine.
I never liked the way people dealed with gods in D&D, until i read Drizzt novels and saw Salvatore giving the relation between good and follower a new perspective.
Gods are much their portfolios, so when i speak about a god i have partially an ego and a set of principles that make the portfolio. If a person follow naturally that protfolio, without worring too much in follow what the ego would want, will that person be breaking her devote duties?
When Obould decided to stop the war and start diplomacy, many understad that act as a betrayal to the will of Grummnish, still after death Obould became Grummnish exarch.
Torm portfolios at Baldur's Gate date are "Good, Healing, Law, Protection, Strength", "justice" belongs to Tyr at this moment and would be granted to Torm only later and "Civilization" probally was taken from Bane during the time of troubles.
So based in all the portfolios presented and Keldorn personality, and old warrior with an decent knowledge of life, i don't see justified the murderer of Viconia just for being near him. He's not bothered with her being an evil loose, but with her being near, and that simply doesn't fit in any part of Torm's portfolio.
The strange thing is that a Paladin must be good, but the deity he/she worships doesn't have to be. So the deity can have doctrines that are not good, but a Paladin who has to be Lawful Good still must follow those doctrines.
Even Keldorn doesn't attack Viconia on sight, even though Viconia is openly a worshiper of Shar. He travels with her for a while before finally deciding she is a vile person and attacking her. And truth be told, Viconia is quite an evil person.
No Paladin would just kill people just because they are evil. We have prisons for a reason. Paladins are not Judge Dredd, judge, jury, and executioner. If someone is commuting a crime then the Paladin will be honor bound to stop it. This does not mean a Paladin roams around a city casting detect evil and murdering anyone who fails the test. Paladins have goals, whether individual or by their order, and will follow those goals. Just as Keldorn follows the dictates of his orders.
I think a Paladin would side with the Thieves Guild over the Vampires in order to rescue Imoen and doing so would not cause them to fall. Being Lawful Good does not mean you follow your alignment blindly. Paladins can make neutral good or even Lawful Neutral Choices on occasion. Blindly following your LG aliment is what makes Paladins lawful stupid. Paladins don't blindly follow the law nor will the immediately attack and try to kill thieves just because they are thieves. They follow their own personal code and that of their deity. And if the god is of good nature then said god will understand that the Paladin is simply trying to rescue his friend. As long as the Paladin isn't breaking his vows by working with the the Thieves Guild then its acceptable if necessary. The Paladin will of course break off relations with the Thieves Guild once Imoen has been rescued.
Anyone who wants to roleplay a Paladin should read this:
Its a great explanation of what being Lawful means. Alignment determines more how a person typically acts. A Paladin who believes that justice involves a fair trail will not let bounty hunters simply kill people, not even murders. As long as they are consistently following this code then they are being lawful.
Good Alignment means you actively seek to help others as oppose to most people who are Neutral and tend to only look after themselves and those close to themselves.
The funny thing about this whole thread is that Paladin tends to be my favored class in BG (Duh, duh IRONY! IWD/NWN I tend to lean towards Rangers and/or sorcerers). I like the Paladin in BG though because its one of the few games where the class has depth. As soon as you find out your the child of a Murder-God and you are force-transformed into a slayer it opens up an entirely new dimension to this one Paladin. TBH, in vanilla being a "True Paladin" would be almost if not entirely impossible simply because of the multitude of questionable forced decisions you have to make.
Break the Law? Check. Consort with Evil? Check. Wade into the moral grey ocean? Check Unintentionally created a demonic pocket plane of existence? Check Unwillingly killed average people to survive? Double check
The way I tend to play Paladins is this, in BG1 he's a totally naive/arrogant hollier-than-thou type, and without any divinity to speak of he isn't really a sanctioned Paladin, hence how I explain being able to get away with about 1/4 of his more "questionable" actions. Being humbled by the concept he's a dark god's son, he spends BG2 trying to piece together what doing the "Right" thing really is and tones back the arrogance, grows as a person, blah blah blah. Suddenly he realizes he isn't "always" right and authority isn't "always" good. Encountering Sarevok in ToB as well as all the other Bhaalspawn makes him realize no matter what, thanks to his 20-22 WIS by this point, someone is ascending regardless of his action. In the end he ascends, not because he wants to, but because he views it as the only way to atone for all his mistakes and all the destruction he either directly or indirectly caused. A Paladin choosing godhood actually can make sense if he ascends and becomes the God of Redemption.
Outside of this, Paladins are so frustrating because they tend to either not think for themselves or shift from good to evil in way that only a Jedi becomes a sith could explain. They're supposed to have this unwavering loyalty to their patron...but I've always seen good as being an adaptive force not something which is restricted to being X tenants 24/7/365. (Hence my love of Rangers)
"Good, Healing, Law, Strength, Justice" - I can come up with a plethora of ways in which all these would easily conflict. Believing your "Good" just because you follow a deity with a bunch of virtuous sounding titles doesn't make you a good person. It just means you live on a rainbow of unrealism.
@Awong124, I wanted to play that once in NWN2, but it turned out that Oghma doesn't take paladins, at least not in 3rd edition. Apparently, only certain deities in the Forgotten Realms sponsor paladin orders, if you stick to the source materials. I suppose you could "house rule" in any paladin order of any deity you wanted, though.
I don't for a second believe that a Paladin, regardless of whom they worship, would attack on site someone that wasn't actively engaged in attacking/harming innocents. In as much as they are a fighter class, combat should be the last resort and only when all other options have been exhausted. Even Viconia in the first encounter proclaims her innocence. I think it is well with a Paladin's code to restrain the obviously overzealous Flaming Fist at least until the facts of the matter can be determined. And when he attacks because you don't immediately 'Burn the Drow at the stake', he stepped over the line, not the Paladin.
@Battlehampster - The character that you describe would not be a Paladin in my world. He would easily be a warrior, but not a Paladin. if the Paladin doesn't have a patron, they have no abilities. It's as simple as that. You can't play a Ronin Paladin. And the way you justify actions which aren't necessary would be absolutely the path to your falling in any game I DM'd. But then it is a game and you are free to play as you see fit.
Also, I think that you are confusing actions with intents. Charname and party may be accused of breaking the law, but they aren't actually required to do anything EVIL. it is possible to navigate the straight and narrow and play BG. Sure there are some questionable choices, but if the player keeps his eye on the Good for everyone concerned, he can just about keep his Paladinhood. And what 'Evil' are you required to consort with? The Thieves guild? Nothing says a Paladin can't talk too and deal with less than lilly white souls. They just can't let them lead him/her astray.
Oghma seems to be like too much of a homebody for CHARNAME to want to be his Paladin imo, even if there is a house rule exception.
There's no reason why Charname can't also be a homebody. He only started adventuring because he was forced to. He might have developed a taste for it afterwards I guess.
The character that you describe would not be a Paladin in my world. He would easily be a warrior, but not a Paladin. if the Paladin doesn't have a patron, they have no abilities. It's as simple as that. You can't play a Ronin Paladin. And the way you justify actions which aren't necessary would be absolutely the path to your falling in any game I DM'd. But then it is a game and you are free to play as you see fit.
@the_spyder - Normally I'd agree with you...but also consider that you ARE a demi-god in BG. I'm pretty sure that alone gives some flexibility to the rules. If you think about it, it could be argued that your blood is the raw fuel for most of the divine abilities and its your righteous will that converts it to a divine form. So CHARNAME is the one individual who actually *might* be able to get away with being a Ronin Paladin later in the trilogy when his divine blood is "awakened" by Irenicus. I ascribe BG1 as him being fallen since he doesn't gain access to any divine abilities other than lay on hands. As for the forced code breaks..
The Law - You break into spellhold (vanilla)
Consort With Evil - 1.) Cespnar, a demonic imp, magically enhances a holy sword. 2.) At some point you are forcibly transformed into the slayer though this example is borderline 3.) The whole Shadow Thieves thing is borderline 4.) YOU MAKE A DEMONIC POCKET PLANE - I know this is indirect and subconsciously created, but still...
Wade into moral gray - The plot of BG Death to innocents - Your mere existence causes a massive war resulting in a massive deathtoll. While not at blame, you are indirectly responsible.
I might be mistaken (and I very much wish to be corrected if I am), but during the 2nd and 3rd edition of DnD, paladins could only follow deities whose alignments were of or next to the lawful good alignment - that is to say, lawful good, neutral good or lawful neutral (and chaotic good Sune for some strange, strange reason).
Thus Oghma shouldn't have any paladins in his service.
However, Oghma is the leader the Deities of Knowledge and Invention, who also includes neutral good Milil and Deneir. The former, at least according to Forgotten Realms wikia, DO have a paladin order in his service. That is why my current CHARNAME, Ladrian, is a paladin of Milil, Lord of All Songs.
I don't see any problem with being a Paladin in BG1. Openly opposing a corrupt conspiracy in Baldurs Gate is exactly what a Paladin would do. Being a Paladin is a calling, your PC might latter join a Paladin order in BG 2 but its not necessary for them to be a Paladin. You don't have to be a Holier than Thou jerk to be a Paladin. You simply have to be someone who actively tries to make the world a better place and thats exactly what you end up doing in BG1. You may not have intended to go on such a quest at the start but a Paladin PC would quickly find purpose and focus in opposing the Iron Throne conspiracy. As you play the game it quickly becomes clear that the Iron Throne is a threat to more than just your self but the whole region. Its the perfect quest for a Paladin.
That said, I personally like how Paladins are described in Pathfinder. They must be Lawful Good, they have a personal Code they must follow but they are not lawful stupid. Plus, I feel like the gods in the setting are a bit more flexible in their dictates and a Paladin is open to not worshiping any sole god. They could just ask for divine assistance from the "gods" and largely act on their own, outside of any Paladin Order. A solo questing knight.
I personally like playing Cavaliers in BG. Their resistance to poison and innate ability to remove fear is a huge help in BG1 and their naturally high charisma makes them the prefect leader for the party.
I have always seen Paladins as having good intentions, but lack the critical thinking skills and objective observations to make truly moral decisions. They are closed minded, self righteous pricks. Chaotic Good characters tend to make the *true* moral choice more often than not.
I have always seen Paladins as having good intentions, but lack the critical thinking skills and objective observations to make truly moral decisions. They are closed minded, self righteous pricks. Chaotic Good characters tend to make the *true* moral choice more often than not.
Of all the good alignments they (CG characters) are also most likely to follow the gold-paved road to hell. I've always liked Neutral good because http://easydamus.com/neutralgood.html
Edit: The link also has a for fun alignment test which is surprisingly detailed!
I have always seen Paladins as having good intentions, but lack the critical thinking skills and objective observations to make truly moral decisions. They are closed minded, self righteous pricks. Chaotic Good characters tend to make the *true* moral choice more often than not.
On the other hand, Chaotic good characters can be viewed as basically good but tend to be selfish and maybe a bit greedy. While they avoid harming others and promote freedom they are not as likely to go on a quest to stop a great evil like a Paladin. Someone like Han Solo would be Chaotic Good, someone who values their own personal freedom over any law but avoids harming innocent and might actually help others but only if motivated for personal reasons. Han Solo only helps the rebels because his friends are invoked in the rebellion.
Thats a far cry from tending to make the true moral choice over say a Jedi, who would fit a Paladins mind set better. The key difference between a Chaotic Good character and Lawful Good Paladin is that the Paladin has dedicated his life to making the world a better place.
Batman in the Dark Knight series would actually be a good example of a lawful good Paladin. Gotham City is corrupt to its core so he does not follow its corrupt laws. However, he has a very strong moral code which he strictly follows which includes never killing. He only kills when a villain forces him to in order to save another life and even then he still tries his utmost not to kill if he can help it. He doesn't automatically condemn catwoman for being a thief and actively tries to help her redeem herself.
Law is a set of rules that define a code of conduct. Being lawful good, even lawful neutral doesn't meant respect every single rule outside without good sense. If that was to be taken then a paladin should respect the right of a drow to kill and sacrifice to Lolth in drow society or the laws of slavery in Thay.
So, an unjust law enforced by a group with no relation with his/her god shouldn't be a problem for a paladin, a law not recognized as fair, necessary or legit by a paladin simply doesn't have value.
About evil, i have to say that evil ONLY EXIST with intent. Be in hell isn't automatic be evil, Mystra entered the nine hells once to save Elminster (the amount of shit that event generated make her think twice and send representatives in her place to free him). Char Name isn't guilt by his legacy or it's consequences, it's what he with intent do with it that will define his alignment.
Therefore an Paladin Char Name for me is something very possible. Say that a char name can't be a paladin is say that a char name can't be good, and that's one of the big schemes of the game, no? the possibility of be good and supress the evil influence!
@the_spyder - Normally I'd agree with you...but also consider that you ARE a demi-god in BG. I'm pretty sure that alone gives some flexibility to the rules. If you think about it, it could be argued that your blood is the raw fuel for most of the divine abilities and its your righteous will that converts it to a divine form. So CHARNAME is the one individual who actually *might* be able to get away with being a Ronin Paladin later in the trilogy when his divine blood is "awakened" by Irenicus. I ascribe BG1 as him being fallen since he doesn't gain access to any divine abilities other than lay on hands. As for the forced code breaks..
That's fine for your game, but I think you are reaching here. The Paladin abilities aren't about 'Divine' power per say. They are about the faith that you hold for your Patron Deity and them rewarding you for that faith. At the beginning, you don't know you are a Bhaalspawn, so you can't have faith in that. Nor would Bhaal's abilities manifest as a paladin's would, nor would they manifest when you say 'By the power of Helm, I smite you.' Gods don't tend to be that charitable about worshiping antithetical Deities. And in my games and my world, a Ronin Paladin simply can not exist at all, ever. No exceptions. But you aren't required to play in my world.
Consort With Evil - 1.) Cespnar, a demonic imp, magically enhances a holy sword. 2.) At some point you are forcibly transformed into the slayer though this example is borderline 3.) The whole Shadow Thieves thing is borderline 4.) YOU MAKE A DEMONIC POCKET PLANE - I know this is indirect and subconsciously created, but still...
Wade into moral gray - The plot of BG Death to innocents - Your mere existence causes a massive war resulting in a massive deathtoll. While not at blame, you are indirectly responsible.
Yes, you are breaking into the stronghold of someone that is actively doing evil and harming an innocent. You are there to stop him from doing more evil and hurting more innocents. If it were anything other than that, i'd agree with you, but in this instance I think Charname is acting in the right and with the best interests of innocents and the greater good firmly in hand.
I see no evidence the Cespnar is evil. He seems quite genial to me. And given that he can't leave the pocket plane, he is unlikely to be doing any harm to anyone. My paladins don't smite people for 'Walking around while evil'.
The change to slayer is not a choice (at least not the first time). You might as well make a paladin fall because they contracted a disease.
Again the Shadow thieves thing is borderline, but no one says you can't treat with and deal with non good aligned people. And no one says you have to be a bull in a china shop and HAVE to smite morally ambiguous beings on sight. You deal with the Shadow thieves because you must. But you don't have to break your moral code in any of the missions that you are given for them. So I don't see the problem here.
You don't make the demonic pocket plane of any conscious accord. It is the same as the Slayer transformation and a part of your nature and one you have little or no control over. Again it is like saying someone is evil because of a disease that they have contracted.
Yes, you are breaking into the stronghold of someone that is actively doing evil and harming an innocent. You are there to stop him from doing more evil and hurting more innocents. If it were anything other than that, i'd agree with you, but in this instance I think Charname is acting in the right and with the best interests of innocents and the greater good firmly in hand.
I see no evidence the Cespnar is evil. He seems quite genial to me. And given that he can't leave the pocket plane, he is unlikely to be doing any harm to anyone. My paladins don't smite people for 'Walking around while evil'.
The change to slayer is not a choice (at least not the first time). You might as well make a paladin fall because they contracted a disease.
Again the Shadow thieves thing is borderline, but no one says you can't treat with and deal with non good aligned people. And no one says you have to be a bull in a china shop and HAVE to smite morally ambiguous beings on sight. You deal with the Shadow thieves because you must. But you don't have to break your moral code in any of the missions that you are given for them. So I don't see the problem here.
You don't make the demonic pocket plane of any conscious accord. It is the same as the Slayer transformation and a part of your nature and one you have little or no control over. Again it is like saying someone is evil because of a disease that they have contracted.
The examples of the "evil" acts are me simply trying to play the point of devils advocate (which I probably should have said >_<). I think some would say the slayer manifestation itself is inherently evil. I don't see any intent and would disagree...but overall its an untenable argument since its the classic act vs. intent debate.
That's fine for your game, but I think you are reaching here. The Paladin abilities aren't about 'Divine' power per say. They are about the faith that you hold for your Patron Deity and them rewarding you for that faith. At the beginning, you don't know you are a Bhaalspawn, so you can't have faith in that. Nor would Bhaal's abilities manifest as a paladin's would, nor would they manifest when you say 'By the power of Helm, I smite you.' Gods don't tend to be that charitable about worshiping antithetical Deities. And in my games and my world, a Ronin Paladin simply can not exist at all, ever. No exceptions. But you aren't required to play in my world.
At he beginning, the Paladin isn't really anything other than a glorified fighter with some slightly better saves, as far as I'm aware, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Even in BG1 you gain access to some minor divine "special abilities". I've always attributed lay on hands to this and rarely ever use the two "Evil-prevention" abilities until BG2 for that RP purpose. Once Irenicus "Taps into your power" I've used that as the justification to unlock the Paladin abilities. The powers of a cleric, for example come from the faith of their deity. The power is FUELLED by a deity. Being a demi-god you don't have to request such power; you already have (some of) it naturally. Also I always like to role play a spiritual-but-not-religious Paladin. I've always percieved him more of a half-paladin who has access to the same abilities through different means. Same morality, different spiritual twist really. The Gods are merely ascended beings, not the creators of the universe in his perspective. In any case I'm pretty sure being part-god would in itself drastically alter your perspective on deities. And lets be honest, would you allow a PC to be a demi-god in your world in the first place?
Paladin can't contract diseases though (disease immunity is a basic feature of all paladin)? They don't even suffer tooth decay from not brushing (but counts as minor violation if it becomes a habit of shirking their duty to keep themselves healthy and fit to serve their god).
I personally find paladin in the same boat as clerics, as to why a Bhaalspawn would never be a paladin.
Sins of the father has nothing to do with it though, as it's made clear a lot of times, that while there's definitely a temptation element there, it's totally up to you, if you give in to it or struggle against it through righteous and good acts, or ignore it completely. I mean you take a divine power that exists to murder and somehow turns it into a force of goodness if you choose to become a Good Divine power..somehow...(though more then likely, you'd get $%#^@-slapped by AO shortly after the end of ToB and turned more Neutral or even flat out evil (like what happened with Kelemvor, when he let his good alignment get in the way of his job, and turned LN)).
That's a Divine Champion. Warrior who through faith gains a few small little perks from a divine power (basically improved saves, and the ability to channel their faith into a single attack to damage those who are opposed to their god's ideals), but no where near to the degree a paladin does...but on the other hand, has no code of conduct. As long as they keep the faith of the power they're allied to, they retain their abilities.
I've actually been working on a Divine Champion fighter kit concept (maybe replace the Wizard slayer with it, since that kit is likely going to be too difficult to ever properly implement) since I've found some 2nd ed sources that are thematically similar to 3rd's Divine Champion.
@Battlehamster - absolutely play your paladin and your game any way you feel is appropriate. Sounds like you have comfort in your rationalizations and who am I to say they are wrong? It's always good to hear other perspectives on these types of things.
Paladins are a very iffy subject, and as always I end up pointing to the Gray Guard prestige class.
"The gray guard has seen the terrible realities of the world: orphaned children starving in gutters while the rich and powerful feast on the other side of a wall, tyrants abusing the law to expand their own power, and the supposedly devout using and abusing those they see as at best, beneath their notice, and at worst, heretics. The worst evil acts outwardly good and righteous, using honeyed words to seduce the unsuspecting masses. The code of a paladin can only go so far, because it forces them to act in the open, placing them at a disadvantage that can get them killed, and an inflexible code often not only allows evil to remain, but aids its spread. The gray guard has earned the right and freedom to do whatever it takes to take out the trash, even if it means committing a lesser evil to uphold the greater good.
Though he works toward the same goals as other members of his faith, he may find himself ostracized by his fellows. At best, he flirts with corruption, and at worst, embraces it. Paladins may see him as weak, for he has not (in their view) the courage to fight for justice with honor.
The gray guard is not proud of what he does, but rather sees it as a necessity forced upon him by the realities of the world. The freedom is not a boon but a loss, a tarnish of darkness on a once-pure soul. He resolves to do what is necessary, to do battle as valiantly as the greatest paladin, but as brutally as the most vile blackguard."
Outtake from the wiki at Forgottenrealms.com
What does this tell us? Well first of all, it tells us that Paladins are in fact very much bound to Lawful Stupid. While they aren't stupid themselves, they are forced to act as such. Take for example Keldorn and Anomen's personal struggles in BG2. They know what is sensibly right, but they can't do anything about it. They have to take the long hard road to justice. (Unless Keldorn shows mercy)
Second, it tells me that Charname can't actually be a proper Paladin. Half the game's "optional" content would be out of reach for you, if you choose to be a proper Paladin. Shadow thieves quest? Nope! Help the cowled wizards? Nope! Help Haer'Dalis? Nope! List goes on. Also a "proper" Paladin can't even align himself with the shadowthieves, even if it leads to the destruction of a nest of vampires. They Gray Guard however, can do exactly that.
However.. let's say you play your Paladin as a Gray Guard? Then go forth and smite evil at your leisure!
@Khyron, this is the view of a class from an forgotten realms wiki source, while i don't put it down as legit it would at best only reflect the views of members of this gray guard class. This class go a step foward not being nice, it enforce actions of blatant evil if that achieve a greater good.
Work with the shadow thiefs to save an innocent is one thing, torture, extort and kill for the shadow thiefs to raise in their ranks so we could know and participate of the chain of command to eventually destroy them from inside is more or less what this kit brings. Paladin isn't lawful stupid, they just don't bite the end justify the means as it's the sole proposal of this kit.
nothing against of in favor of a gray guard but their existance doesn't make paladins stupid.
By the way, this kit is too incorporated on 3.5Ed to be put in BG, it's an evolution kit, what means that only after some experience in the paladin patch a character would be entitled to pursue it, what can make it hard to justify as a begin caeer.
You guys are way over thinking things. A paladin doesn't need to know where his powers come from. A good deity seeing the PC in BG1 struggling against his evil nature and striving to be a paragon of good could be moved to impart divine power to said Paladin. The PC can consider his new powers as proof that the gods have heard his prayers or the God can just give the PC a dream informing them that they have a new divine patron.
A Paladin isn't a Paladin just because he worships a good god, that would make him more of a Cleric. A Paladin actively strives to make the world a better place through martial talent (physical fighting). He holds a strict code of conduct not just because his god commands it because he wishes to be a paragon of virtue. In order words, to inspire others to great deeds through his example. A paladin falls when he can no longer be upheld as a Paragon of virtue.
This means that a Paladin actually falling would be extremely rare. Instead, a Paladin who believed he has done morally ambiguous acts for the greater good such as siding with the thieves guild would seek atonement to reaffirm his vows but he wouldn't auto fall just because he accepted the help of the thieves guild.
Paladin can't contract diseases though (disease immunity is a basic feature of all paladin)? They don't even suffer tooth decay from not brushing (but counts as minor violation if it becomes a habit of shirking their duty to keep themselves healthy and fit to serve their god).
I'm pretty sure I've seen either my Charname Paladin or Ajantis get hit with disease by a ghast before. Maybe this feature wasn't implemented into BG.
Comments
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/crusades.htmwho
was very pleased to kill any and every mahomet guy, girl, and kid he could.... they are just like inherently evil and on the dark side so they just slaughtered everyone when they took Jerusalem... Now of course in the new kinder world I and other Marines were very nice and did not just get off the ship in the Arab States and start shooting every guy with a turban - so your problem condemning paladins is that you are missing the Black and White aspect of the complete Fantasy Not Real world - where orcs are in the black hats and paladins lop off their heads with pure white goody hats... so yeah Paladins are great and I of course was a kinder gentler Crusader who did not go ahead and shoot everyone who severed some silly tribal sun god for getting lots of chicks....... that is reality..... D+D Paladins are not- well ok ok maybe one in 1099 would have been ok snicking off inherently evil dammed pagan heads first and praying later...
Darwin's teachings were not taught in Germany. They were derided along with all other forms of atheism. In Mein Kampf he states that he is "fighting for the work of the Lord". The Catholic Church made it mandatory to celebrate his birthday every year until his regime ended.
If you want to show otherwise, you'd have to provide some hard evidence clearly stating that Hitler himself, by his own words, admitted that he was atheist and based his regime on Social Darwinism. Otherwise you're just providing speculation, and my evidence is stronger than yours. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm right, but you'd need better evidence than just how some people happen to interpret his doctrine.
Gods are much their portfolios, so when i speak about a god i have partially an ego and a set of principles that make the portfolio. If a person follow naturally that protfolio, without worring too much in follow what the ego would want, will that person be breaking her devote duties?
When Obould decided to stop the war and start diplomacy, many understad that act as a betrayal to the will of Grummnish, still after death Obould became Grummnish exarch.
Torm portfolios at Baldur's Gate date are "Good, Healing, Law, Protection, Strength", "justice" belongs to Tyr at this moment and would be granted to Torm only later and "Civilization" probally was taken from Bane during the time of troubles.
So based in all the portfolios presented and Keldorn personality, and old warrior with an decent knowledge of life, i don't see justified the murderer of Viconia just for being near him. He's not bothered with her being an evil loose, but with her being near, and that simply doesn't fit in any part of Torm's portfolio.
Hitler was a Paladin in his own way.
No Paladin would just kill people just because they are evil. We have prisons for a reason. Paladins are not Judge Dredd, judge, jury, and executioner. If someone is commuting a crime then the Paladin will be honor bound to stop it. This does not mean a Paladin roams around a city casting detect evil and murdering anyone who fails the test. Paladins have goals, whether individual or by their order, and will follow those goals. Just as Keldorn follows the dictates of his orders.
I think a Paladin would side with the Thieves Guild over the Vampires in order to rescue Imoen and doing so would not cause them to fall. Being Lawful Good does not mean you follow your alignment blindly. Paladins can make neutral good or even Lawful Neutral Choices on occasion. Blindly following your LG aliment is what makes Paladins lawful stupid. Paladins don't blindly follow the law nor will the immediately attack and try to kill thieves just because they are thieves. They follow their own personal code and that of their deity. And if the god is of good nature then said god will understand that the Paladin is simply trying to rescue his friend. As long as the Paladin isn't breaking his vows by working with the the Thieves Guild then its acceptable if necessary. The Paladin will of course break off relations with the Thieves Guild once Imoen has been rescued.
Anyone who wants to roleplay a Paladin should read this:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a
Its a great explanation of what being Lawful means. Alignment determines more how a person typically acts. A Paladin who believes that justice involves a fair trail will not let bounty hunters simply kill people, not even murders. As long as they are consistently following this code then they are being lawful.
Good Alignment means you actively seek to help others as oppose to most people who are Neutral and tend to only look after themselves and those close to themselves.
Break the Law? Check.
Consort with Evil? Check.
Wade into the moral grey ocean? Check
Unintentionally created a demonic pocket plane of existence? Check
Unwillingly killed average people to survive? Double check
The way I tend to play Paladins is this, in BG1 he's a totally naive/arrogant hollier-than-thou type, and without any divinity to speak of he isn't really a sanctioned Paladin, hence how I explain being able to get away with about 1/4 of his more "questionable" actions. Being humbled by the concept he's a dark god's son, he spends BG2 trying to piece together what doing the "Right" thing really is and tones back the arrogance, grows as a person, blah blah blah. Suddenly he realizes he isn't "always" right and authority isn't "always" good. Encountering Sarevok in ToB as well as all the other Bhaalspawn makes him realize no matter what, thanks to his 20-22 WIS by this point, someone is ascending regardless of his action. In the end he ascends, not because he wants to, but because he views it as the only way to atone for all his mistakes and all the destruction he either directly or indirectly caused. A Paladin choosing godhood actually can make sense if he ascends and becomes the God of Redemption.
Outside of this, Paladins are so frustrating because they tend to either not think for themselves or shift from good to evil in way that only a Jedi becomes a sith could explain. They're supposed to have this unwavering loyalty to their patron...but I've always seen good as being an adaptive force not something which is restricted to being X tenants 24/7/365. (Hence my love of Rangers)
"Good, Healing, Law, Strength, Justice" - I can come up with a plethora of ways in which all these would easily conflict. Believing your "Good" just because you follow a deity with a bunch of virtuous sounding titles doesn't make you a good person. It just means you live on a rainbow of unrealism. If more people I knew personally treated Paladins like this, I wouldn't have the major gripes with them I previously mentioned.
@Battlehampster - The character that you describe would not be a Paladin in my world. He would easily be a warrior, but not a Paladin. if the Paladin doesn't have a patron, they have no abilities. It's as simple as that. You can't play a Ronin Paladin. And the way you justify actions which aren't necessary would be absolutely the path to your falling in any game I DM'd. But then it is a game and you are free to play as you see fit.
Also, I think that you are confusing actions with intents. Charname and party may be accused of breaking the law, but they aren't actually required to do anything EVIL. it is possible to navigate the straight and narrow and play BG. Sure there are some questionable choices, but if the player keeps his eye on the Good for everyone concerned, he can just about keep his Paladinhood. And what 'Evil' are you required to consort with? The Thieves guild? Nothing says a Paladin can't talk too and deal with less than lilly white souls. They just can't let them lead him/her astray.
@the_spyder - Normally I'd agree with you...but also consider that you ARE a demi-god in BG. I'm pretty sure that alone gives some flexibility to the rules. If you think about it, it could be argued that your blood is the raw fuel for most of the divine abilities and its your righteous will that converts it to a divine form. So CHARNAME is the one individual who actually *might* be able to get away with being a Ronin Paladin later in the trilogy when his divine blood is "awakened" by Irenicus. I ascribe BG1 as him being fallen since he doesn't gain access to any divine abilities other than lay on hands. As for the forced code breaks..
The Law - You break into spellhold (vanilla)
Consort With Evil -
1.) Cespnar, a demonic imp, magically enhances a holy sword.
2.) At some point you are forcibly transformed into the slayer though this example is borderline
3.) The whole Shadow Thieves thing is borderline
4.) YOU MAKE A DEMONIC POCKET PLANE - I know this is indirect and subconsciously created, but still...
Wade into moral gray - The plot of BG
Death to innocents - Your mere existence causes a massive war resulting in a massive deathtoll. While not at blame, you are indirectly responsible.
I might be mistaken (and I very much wish to be corrected if I am), but during the 2nd and 3rd edition of DnD, paladins could only follow deities whose alignments were of or next to the lawful good alignment - that is to say, lawful good, neutral good or lawful neutral (and chaotic good Sune for some strange, strange reason).
Thus Oghma shouldn't have any paladins in his service.
However, Oghma is the leader the Deities of Knowledge and Invention, who also includes neutral good Milil and Deneir. The former, at least according to Forgotten Realms wikia, DO have a paladin order in his service. That is why my current CHARNAME, Ladrian, is a paladin of Milil, Lord of All Songs.
That said, I personally like how Paladins are described in Pathfinder. They must be Lawful Good, they have a personal Code they must follow but they are not lawful stupid. Plus, I feel like the gods in the setting are a bit more flexible in their dictates and a Paladin is open to not worshiping any sole god. They could just ask for divine assistance from the "gods" and largely act on their own, outside of any Paladin Order. A solo questing knight.
I personally like playing Cavaliers in BG. Their resistance to poison and innate ability to remove fear is a huge help in BG1 and their naturally high charisma makes them the prefect leader for the party.
Edit: The link also has a for fun alignment test which is surprisingly detailed!
Thats a far cry from tending to make the true moral choice over say a Jedi, who would fit a Paladins mind set better. The key difference between a Chaotic Good character and Lawful Good Paladin is that the Paladin has dedicated his life to making the world a better place.
Batman in the Dark Knight series would actually be a good example of a lawful good Paladin. Gotham City is corrupt to its core so he does not follow its corrupt laws. However, he has a very strong moral code which he strictly follows which includes never killing. He only kills when a villain forces him to in order to save another life and even then he still tries his utmost not to kill if he can help it. He doesn't automatically condemn catwoman for being a thief and actively tries to help her redeem herself.
You're probably right.
Law is a set of rules that define a code of conduct. Being lawful good, even lawful neutral doesn't meant respect every single rule outside without good sense. If that was to be taken then a paladin should respect the right of a drow to kill and sacrifice to Lolth in drow society or the laws of slavery in Thay.
So, an unjust law enforced by a group with no relation with his/her god shouldn't be a problem for a paladin, a law not recognized as fair, necessary or legit by a paladin simply doesn't have value.
About evil, i have to say that evil ONLY EXIST with intent. Be in hell isn't automatic be evil, Mystra entered the nine hells once to save Elminster (the amount of shit that event generated make her think twice and send representatives in her place to free him). Char Name isn't guilt by his legacy or it's consequences, it's what he with intent do with it that will define his alignment.
Therefore an Paladin Char Name for me is something very possible. Say that a char name can't be a paladin is say that a char name can't be good, and that's one of the big schemes of the game, no? the possibility of be good and supress the evil influence!
I see no evidence the Cespnar is evil. He seems quite genial to me. And given that he can't leave the pocket plane, he is unlikely to be doing any harm to anyone. My paladins don't smite people for 'Walking around while evil'.
The change to slayer is not a choice (at least not the first time). You might as well make a paladin fall because they contracted a disease.
Again the Shadow thieves thing is borderline, but no one says you can't treat with and deal with non good aligned people. And no one says you have to be a bull in a china shop and HAVE to smite morally ambiguous beings on sight. You deal with the Shadow thieves because you must. But you don't have to break your moral code in any of the missions that you are given for them. So I don't see the problem here.
You don't make the demonic pocket plane of any conscious accord. It is the same as the Slayer transformation and a part of your nature and one you have little or no control over. Again it is like saying someone is evil because of a disease that they have contracted.
<blockquote class="UserQuote">
That's fine for your game, but I think you are reaching here. The Paladin abilities aren't about 'Divine' power per say. They are about the faith that you hold for your Patron Deity and them rewarding you for that faith. At the beginning, you don't know you are a Bhaalspawn, so you can't have faith in that. Nor would Bhaal's abilities manifest as a paladin's would, nor would they manifest when you say 'By the power of Helm, I smite you.' Gods don't tend to be that charitable about worshiping antithetical Deities. And in my games and my world, a Ronin Paladin simply can not exist at all, ever. No exceptions. But you aren't required to play in my world.
At he beginning, the Paladin isn't really anything other than a glorified fighter with some slightly better saves, as far as I'm aware, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Even in BG1 you gain access to some minor divine "special abilities". I've always attributed lay on hands to this and rarely ever use the two "Evil-prevention" abilities until BG2 for that RP purpose. Once Irenicus "Taps into your power" I've used that as the justification to unlock the Paladin abilities. The powers of a cleric, for example come from the faith of their deity. The power is FUELLED by a deity. Being a demi-god you don't have to request such power; you already have (some of) it naturally. Also I always like to role play a spiritual-but-not-religious Paladin. I've always percieved him more of a half-paladin who has access to the same abilities through different means. Same morality, different spiritual twist really. The Gods are merely ascended beings, not the creators of the universe in his perspective. In any case I'm pretty sure being part-god would in itself drastically alter your perspective on deities. And lets be honest, would you allow a PC to be a demi-god in your world in the first place?
I personally find paladin in the same boat as clerics, as to why a Bhaalspawn would never be a paladin.
Sins of the father has nothing to do with it though, as it's made clear a lot of times, that while there's definitely a temptation element there, it's totally up to you, if you give in to it or struggle against it through righteous and good acts, or ignore it completely. I mean you take a divine power that exists to murder and somehow turns it into a force of goodness if you choose to become a Good Divine power..somehow...(though more then likely, you'd get $%#^@-slapped by AO shortly after the end of ToB and turned more Neutral or even flat out evil (like what happened with Kelemvor, when he let his good alignment get in the way of his job, and turned LN)).
@Battlehamster
That's a Divine Champion. Warrior who through faith gains a few small little perks from a divine power (basically improved saves, and the ability to channel their faith into a single attack to damage those who are opposed to their god's ideals), but no where near to the degree a paladin does...but on the other hand, has no code of conduct. As long as they keep the faith of the power they're allied to, they retain their abilities.
I've actually been working on a Divine Champion fighter kit concept (maybe replace the Wizard slayer with it, since that kit is likely going to be too difficult to ever properly implement) since I've found some 2nd ed sources that are thematically similar to 3rd's Divine Champion.
"The gray guard has seen the terrible realities of the world: orphaned children starving in gutters while the rich and powerful feast on the other side of a wall, tyrants abusing the law to expand their own power, and the supposedly devout using and abusing those they see as at best, beneath their notice, and at worst, heretics. The worst evil acts outwardly good and righteous, using honeyed words to seduce the unsuspecting masses. The code of a paladin can only go so far, because it forces them to act in the open, placing them at a disadvantage that can get them killed, and an inflexible code often not only allows evil to remain, but aids its spread. The gray guard has earned the right and freedom to do whatever it takes to take out the trash, even if it means committing a lesser evil to uphold the greater good.
Though he works toward the same goals as other members of his faith, he may find himself ostracized by his fellows. At best, he flirts with corruption, and at worst, embraces it. Paladins may see him as weak, for he has not (in their view) the courage to fight for justice with honor.
The gray guard is not proud of what he does, but rather sees it as a necessity forced upon him by the realities of the world. The freedom is not a boon but a loss, a tarnish of darkness on a once-pure soul. He resolves to do what is necessary, to do battle as valiantly as the greatest paladin, but as brutally as the most vile blackguard."
Outtake from the wiki at Forgottenrealms.com
What does this tell us?
Well first of all, it tells us that Paladins are in fact very much bound to Lawful Stupid.
While they aren't stupid themselves, they are forced to act as such.
Take for example Keldorn and Anomen's personal struggles in BG2. They know what is sensibly right, but they can't do anything about it. They have to take the long hard road to justice. (Unless Keldorn shows mercy)
Second, it tells me that Charname can't actually be a proper Paladin. Half the game's "optional" content would be out of reach for you, if you choose to be a proper Paladin.
Shadow thieves quest? Nope! Help the cowled wizards? Nope! Help Haer'Dalis? Nope! List goes on.
Also a "proper" Paladin can't even align himself with the shadowthieves, even if it leads to the destruction of a nest of vampires. They Gray Guard however, can do exactly that.
However.. let's say you play your Paladin as a Gray Guard? Then go forth and smite evil at your leisure!
In conclusion, WE NEED GRAY GUARD KIT!
Work with the shadow thiefs to save an innocent is one thing, torture, extort and kill for the shadow thiefs to raise in their ranks so we could know and participate of the chain of command to eventually destroy them from inside is more or less what this kit brings. Paladin isn't lawful stupid, they just don't bite the end justify the means as it's the sole proposal of this kit.
nothing against of in favor of a gray guard but their existance doesn't make paladins stupid.
By the way, this kit is too incorporated on 3.5Ed to be put in BG, it's an evolution kit, what means that only after some experience in the paladin patch a character would be entitled to pursue it, what can make it hard to justify as a begin caeer.
A Paladin isn't a Paladin just because he worships a good god, that would make him more of a Cleric. A Paladin actively strives to make the world a better place through martial talent (physical fighting). He holds a strict code of conduct not just because his god commands it because he wishes to be a paragon of virtue. In order words, to inspire others to great deeds through his example. A paladin falls when he can no longer be upheld as a Paragon of virtue.
This means that a Paladin actually falling would be extremely rare. Instead, a Paladin who believed he has done morally ambiguous acts for the greater good such as siding with the thieves guild would seek atonement to reaffirm his vows but he wouldn't auto fall just because he accepted the help of the thieves guild.